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."
Its not a success of anarchy. Its just what should of been done with Africa from long long ago. Get out, let them fix their own problems instead of inserting dictators and throwing aid at them.
It's not anarchy, it's oligarchy. The telecommunications industry is thriving because they have money and guns. Just like anyone else there is thriving because they have money and guns.
Thriving small arms industry with rock bottom prices? Sounds great. Remember, guns are the great equalizer, which make a granny knitting club no less a pushover than a band of grunts. Where there is equality in power, there is peace. As such, these conditions are part of the reason for Peace in somalia. While the foreign opressors - UN, Ethiopia, US, are the reason for violence.
to tucker@mises.org date Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:31 PM subject Interesting BBC article on Somalia's economy mailed-by gmail.com
hide details Jun 13
Hi Mr. Tucker, I've been a reader of the Mises Institute, and your pieces, for a couple years now. While reading through the BBC today, I came across a rather interesting article about Somalia's economy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12278628 To summarize the article, Somalia's economy is not in a deep depression, as one might expect given the 20 years of conflict, but is booming, in a sense. I think it is a good piece because it shows how the free market simply works, no matter what the situation. As per usual for an article put out by an organization like the BBC, it heavily cautions against getting your hopes up, since no economy can survive with out the security and stability of a government! Although I suspect that the security concerns of the businesses mentioned center around the fact that the country is still in the midst of a civil war, not because of anarchy. I hope you enjoy the article, and find the BBC's consternation about Somalia's economy as funny as I found it.
Thanks for all the work you & The Mises Insitute have done so far,
(Jeffrey Tucker is the Vice President of the Mises Institute)
Anarchists are foolish idealists. The founders of USA understood the need to balance freedom and order. And, they established a framework for people to freely succeed according to their ambition that also restricted government power. Granted, after a few hundred years it is swamped by general laziness and nearly overcome by a demand for endless 'rights' without compensatory sacrifices by its citizens, but it's so robust that it's still succeeding for the most part.
Africa has been plagued by corrupt governments for years. You remove said corrupt governments and i'm sure 90% of the time the country will see an improvement. However, Anarchy anywhere else in the world? No. I really hope anarchists aren't naive enough to truly use this an example for their belief. But then again, in my opinion, naivety and Anarchism basically go hand and hand.
Thriving small arms industry with rock bottom prices? Sounds great. Remember, guns are the great equalizer, which make a granny knitting club no less a pushover than a band of grunts. Where there is equality in power, there is peace. As such, these conditions are part of the reason for Peace in somalia. While the foreign opressors - UN, Ethiopia, US, are the reason for violence.
Guns aren't the great equalizer. Death is the great equalizer. Oppressors are just whoever has the most guns.
Thriving small arms industry with rock bottom prices? Sounds great. Remember, guns are the great equalizer, which make a granny knitting club no less a pushover than a band of grunts. Where there is equality in power, there is peace. As such, these conditions are part of the reason for Peace in somalia. While the foreign opressors - UN, Ethiopia, US, are the reason for violence.
Guns aren't the great equalizer. Death is the great equalizer. Oppressors are just whoever has the most guns.
And who would that be? With 80% of the population owning firearms :p
Thriving small arms industry with rock bottom prices? Sounds great. Remember, guns are the great equalizer, which make a granny knitting club no less a pushover than a band of grunts. Where there is equality in power, there is peace. As such, these conditions are part of the reason for Peace in somalia. While the foreign opressors - UN, Ethiopia, US, are the reason for violence.
Guns aren't the great equalizer. Death is the great equalizer. Oppressors are just whoever has the most guns.
And who would that be? With 80% of the population owning firearms :p
Whichever group has the most money.
Groups form out of anarchy. No matter how much you think anarchy is self-persisting, all it will take is time before there are 1-3 groups who run everything
This is a joke right? Surely there is not a single sane person that looks at Somalia as a success story. Yea, 20 years of endless violence where its citizens have to turn to piracy to make money.
But apparently the US is at fault again, which is great because I was beginning to miss that dead horse.
Thriving small arms industry with rock bottom prices? Sounds great. Remember, guns are the great equalizer, which make a granny knitting club no less a pushover than a band of grunts. Where there is equality in power, there is peace. As such, these conditions are part of the reason for Peace in somalia. While the foreign opressors - UN, Ethiopia, US, are the reason for violence.
Guns aren't the great equalizer. Death is the great equalizer. Oppressors are just whoever has the most guns.
And who would that be? With 80% of the population owning firearms :p
Whichever group has the most money.
Groups form out of anarchy. No matter how much you think anarchy is self-persisting, all it will take is time before there are 1-3 groups who run everything
I almost think the thread title is arrogant in itself. Should be changed to "Somalia - Success of Anarchy?"
Awesome to see this, I'm glad that of all the wealthy, prosperous, and well-to-do nations in the world such as Sweden, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United States, there is a single example where a failed state has a thriving telecoms market.
Can we make a thread and list dozens of nations where a mixture of state capitalism has produced a standard of living that far exceeds anything ever seen in Somalia (which has had 20 years of anarchy, pretty good amount of time!) or would that detract from the awesomeness that is anarchy in action?
Thriving small arms industry with rock bottom prices? Sounds great. Remember, guns are the great equalizer, which make a granny knitting club no less a pushover than a band of grunts. Where there is equality in power, there is peace. As such, these conditions are part of the reason for Peace in somalia. While the foreign opressors - UN, Ethiopia, US, are the reason for violence.
Guns aren't the great equalizer. Death is the great equalizer. Oppressors are just whoever has the most guns.
Indeed.
It's bad enough that in a true democracy, the majority can still dictate the minority even if the majority is just barely over 50% and are completely ignorant. The same works with guns. Whoever has the most guns will be able to impose their will on others. To disagree is to be violent. I'll take democracy.
The piracy is a display of free market enterprising - while one may not morally agree with it, it shows the fast adapting cheap operating cost efficient nature of free market solution as they battle against the lumbering slow western multi billion dollar army warships that struggle to do anything of note to protect the commerce payloads, while operating at insane costs several magnitudes above the pirates.Truly a david vs goliath story.
Lol what a counclusion to draw out of their "evolution".
Anarchy is an inexistant system saying their gov isn't strong is very far from them beeing in an anarchy. If anything it's the success of a crapy democracy compared to other similar countries where the dictators bleed the people out of their money to make superexpensive boats.
On July 01 2011 13:04 xarthaz wrote: The piracy is a display of free market enterprising - while one may not morally agree with it, it shows the fast adapting cheap operating cost efficient nature of free market solution as they battle against the lumbering slow western multi billion dollar army warships that struggle to do anything of note to protect the commerce payloads, while operating at insane costs several magnitudes above the pirates.Truly a david vs goliath story.
Somalia's indeed the poster child for a successful state.
Ranking #182 out of #194 nations in life expectancy (Right above Nigeria, Rwanda, and Afghanistan), where over a quarter children die in their first five years of life, where over a third of the population lacks access to safe drinking water, and 17% are starving... Truly, a libertarian paradise.
Seriously, as another poster suggested, why can't we round up all the libertarians, and ship them there?
But wait. Are they so well to do after all? It can be looked at from a radically different angle:
On July 01 2011 13:01 Elegy wrote: Awesome to see this, I'm glad that of all the wealthy, prosperous, and well-to-do nations in the world such as Sweden, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United States, there is a single example where a failed state has a thriving telecoms market.
Can we make a thread and list dozens of nations where a mixture of state capitalism has produced a standard of living that far exceeds anything ever seen in Somalia (which has had 20 years of anarchy, pretty good amount of time!) or would that detract from the awesomeness that is anarchy in action?
On July 01 2011 13:04 xarthaz wrote: The piracy is a display of free market enterprising - while one may not morally agree with it, it shows the fast adapting cheap operating cost efficient nature of free market solution as they battle against the lumbering slow western multi billion dollar army warships that struggle to do anything of note to protect the commerce payloads, while operating at insane costs several magnitudes above the pirates.Truly a david vs goliath story.
Something tells me that you might also believe that the government was behind 9/11, or that Osama Bin Laden was actually killed many years ago.
On July 01 2011 13:10 Nightfall.589 wrote: Somalia's indeed the poster child for a successful state.
Ranking #182 out of #194 nations in life expectancy (Right above Nigeria, Rwanda, and Afghanistan), where over a quarter children die in their first five years of life, where over a third of the population lacks access to safe drinking water, and 17% are starving... Truly, a libertarian paradise.
Please the read the OP before posting.
How dare you ignore the thriving...telecommunications market...in your list of dastardly statistics!
On July 01 2011 13:01 Elegy wrote: Awesome to see this, I'm glad that of all the wealthy, prosperous, and well-to-do nations in the world such as Sweden, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United States, there is a single example where a failed state has a thriving telecoms market.
Can we make a thread and list dozens of nations where a mixture of state capitalism has produced a standard of living that far exceeds anything ever seen in Somalia (which has had 20 years of anarchy, pretty good amount of time!) or would that detract from the awesomeness that is anarchy in action?
But wait. Are they so well to do after all? It can be looked at from a radically different angle:
I'm sitting in an air conditioned room watching a funny movie with a full stomach and a reasonably healthy bank account that allows me to buy a good amount of the stuff I don't need but buy anyway, only to admittedly occasionally regret it later. I have extensive civil liberties (because I actually know my rights!) and don't have to fear for my freedoms, rights, property, or life. Yeah, it's pretty decent
On July 01 2011 12:57 partisan wrote: This is a joke right? Surely there is not a single sane person that looks at Somalia as a success story. Yea, 20 years of endless violence where its citizens have to turn to piracy to make money.
But apparently the US is at fault again, which is great because I was beginning to miss that dead horse.
^ This. I can't believe I just read an argument of progress due to a lack of an able instated government via a country more responsible for murder and terror annually than the ones the United States are currently at war with.
On July 01 2011 13:10 Nightfall.589 wrote: Somalia's indeed the poster child for a successful state.
Ranking #182 out of #194 nations in life expectancy (Right above Nigeria, Rwanda, and Afghanistan), where over a quarter children die in their first five years of life, where over a third of the population lacks access to safe drinking water, and 17% are starving... Truly, a libertarian paradise.
Please the read the OP before posting.
How dare you ignore the thriving...telecommunications market...in your list of dastardly statistics!
-_______-
Congo is thriving with silicon and so many other resources but I doubt we want to live there.
Not 100 percent relevant to Somalia, but rather relevant to Africa in general.
On July 01 2011 13:10 Nightfall.589 wrote: Somalia's indeed the poster child for a successful state.
Ranking #182 out of #194 nations in life expectancy (Right above Nigeria, Rwanda, and Afghanistan), where over a quarter children die in their first five years of life, where over a third of the population lacks access to safe drinking water, and 17% are starving... Truly, a libertarian paradise.
Please the read the OP before posting.
I did. I'm glad that their thriving telecom industry makes up for the fact that only 13% of boy children (And 7% of girl children) receive a primary education in that country!
And the gift of a state would ruin the country's free market utopia. We can't allow that!
On July 01 2011 13:10 Nightfall.589 wrote: Somalia's indeed the poster child for a successful state.
Ranking #182 out of #194 nations in life expectancy (Right above Nigeria, Rwanda, and Afghanistan), where over a quarter children die in their first five years of life, where over a third of the population lacks access to safe drinking water, and 17% are starving... Truly, a libertarian paradise.
Please the read the OP before posting.
I did. I'm glad that their thriving telecom industry makes up for the fact that only 13% of boy children (And 7% of girl children) receive a primary education in that country!
And the gift of a state would ruin the country's free market utopia. We can't allow that!
It's absurd dogma at work here. At some point people pointed out Somalia as an example of the empirical refutation of free market dogma.
Their solution is to use Somalia as an example that free markets work? Amazing if people buy it.
I am a libertarian socialist which you can call an anarchist. Somalia is a failed state in chaos and civil war. It has nothing to do with actual forms of anarchy because a real anarchy can only function with a strong civil society. War will instantly destroy an anarchist society.
Interesting study and it raises interesting questions. Somalia refused their own government and no other has been able to set itself up across the entire country despite backing from various foreign interests, since they seem to be functioning very well by themselves, than'youver'much. I'm still a bit sceptical about the idea that anarchy is basically a good thing here.
The study talks about the seperation between the north and the south - Somaliland in the north is a proto-state. It tries to operate with a cenralised currency, it has infrastructure and investment while not interfering with the things that work - obviously agriculture and law has worked for centuries in this area without a central authority, they are doing well enough leaving it alone. But in the south, piracy is on the increase. These networks and developed communites are preying on the weak and raiding what they can from other sources, if not themselves. Southern Somalia has realised that without an authority to limit them, they are free to take it upon themselves to do what they wish. With a legal system that relies on the strong social ties they have, attacking each other has penalties they aren't prepared to face. But raiding neighbours, raiding passing shipping lanes with no real legal consequences to themselves? Sure. Prop up an anarchistic society with the proceeds from other nations and it seems to keep going.
I also question this idea of doing well. Somalia isn't doing well, it's doing better. Sure, it has improved since the awful days of civil warfare and corrupt governments. It's doing generally better than neighbouring countries with repressive governments of their own. But these are relative ideas - there is little scope to improve the country of the lot of the people there. Their lives are functioning, their society keeps going, but there is no real chance to develop the country. Are taxes being collected and spent on public works like hospitals, roads, schools? Only in the north, Somaliland. Basically the entire study can boil down to this:
Repressive regimes suck for you. No government can work better than a terrible government.
There is nothing to say that this system is better than good government. I would also dispute the presence of foreign investment being a sign of progress. It merely means foreign investors see a sign of profit. To sue the example of Coca Cola, never a company to baulk at shirking local laws, maybe they realised that without a central authority trying to impose such silly ideals as 'basic wage' or 'safe practices' they could make and sell Cola to other countries using impoverished labourers in an unsafe environment. This is, of course, not necessarily what is happening here. Maybe Cola is going in with the intention of creating a safe work environment and good wages for the workers there. I'm merely trying to say it's not necessarily a sign of something good.
Unfortunately anarchy will always lead to collectivism. Without a government groups will always emerge and take power. A constitutionally limited government, along with a police force and military is needed to prevent collectivism.
On July 01 2011 13:04 xarthaz wrote: The piracy is a display of free market enterprising - while one may not morally agree with it, it shows the fast adapting cheap operating cost efficient nature of free market solution as they battle against the lumbering slow western multi billion dollar army warships that struggle to do anything of note to protect the commerce payloads, while operating at insane costs several magnitudes above the pirates.Truly a david vs goliath story.
Something tells me that you might also believe that the government was behind 9/11, or that Osama Bin Laden was actually killed many years ago.
On July 01 2011 13:10 Nightfall.589 wrote: Somalia's indeed the poster child for a successful state.
Ranking #182 out of #194 nations in life expectancy (Right above Nigeria, Rwanda, and Afghanistan), where over a quarter children die in their first five years of life, where over a third of the population lacks access to safe drinking water, and 17% are starving... Truly, a libertarian paradise.
Please the read the OP before posting.
How dare you ignore the thriving...telecommunications market...in your list of dastardly statistics!
On July 01 2011 13:01 Elegy wrote: Awesome to see this, I'm glad that of all the wealthy, prosperous, and well-to-do nations in the world such as Sweden, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United States, there is a single example where a failed state has a thriving telecoms market.
Can we make a thread and list dozens of nations where a mixture of state capitalism has produced a standard of living that far exceeds anything ever seen in Somalia (which has had 20 years of anarchy, pretty good amount of time!) or would that detract from the awesomeness that is anarchy in action?
But wait. Are they so well to do after all? It can be looked at from a radically different angle:
I'm sitting in an air conditioned room watching a funny movie with a full stomach and a reasonably healthy bank account that allows me to buy a good amount of the stuff I don't need but buy anyway, only to admittedly occasionally regret it later. I have extensive civil liberties (because I actually know my rights!) and don't have to fear for my freedoms, rights, property, or life. Yeah, it's pretty decent
On July 01 2011 13:10 Nightfall.589 wrote: Somalia's indeed the poster child for a successful state.
Ranking #182 out of #194 nations in life expectancy (Right above Nigeria, Rwanda, and Afghanistan), where over a quarter children die in their first five years of life, where over a third of the population lacks access to safe drinking water, and 17% are starving... Truly, a libertarian paradise.
Seriously, as another poster suggested, why can't we round up all the libertarians, and ship them there?
Non Sequiturs. While these posts make arguments - it doesnt address the argument of the article. In fact the article assumed this type of answer and hence preemptively touched on the subject and presented its claim in a different form. In a time differential analysis rather than static value analysis.
When you compare it to the giant shit hole that is the rest of Africa, sure, its nice.
You guys act like there is something unnatural that happens to make anarchy not work, as if aliens come down and force us into governments. There is nothing external or unnatural about how the world currently is. We are all humans, and no higher beings have changed our development.
"state of nature" is bunch of crap because it assumes only certain parts of humanity are natural -_-
That's an awfully nice way to simplify a political situation and reduce its s "progress" to basic economic freedom.
Of course that would ignore the fact that the Somalis set up a fairly rigid but useful government of their own that brought stability to the country, until the US started equipping and training warlords and then sent Ethiopia in to break it up. Those warlords would later become many of the pirates we've had so much fun sniping.
Either way, this article is like looking at the box score of a football game and trying to describe how the game went. The man has obviously never set foot in Somalia and I very much doubt he's devoted much of his research to the area, besides the time spent looking at a few numbers for that article. The warlords might've coexisted peacefully on their own? Is he fucking mad?
It's also a bit hilarious that he makes it through the entire article without once mentioning culture or religion, when those two factors are pillars of Somalia's uniqueness when looking at those various metrics. 95%+ Sufism with a strict Muslim code (which was also the basis for their government which was ousted in 2006) is the primary reason why things like literacy and life expectancy went up, and why certain diseases like AIDS stayed so low.
This article is complete shit. You've got two extremely insulated faux-economists living on the opposite side of the world, pretending to understand how a country works based on unreliable metrics and ignoring everything else about their society besides some tax reports.
There are already mergers between companies and also stake in the companies given to the most powerful of the warring factions. It's only a matter of time before it's whittled down to a monopoly. And to further press into the matter, these phones aren't just appearing out of thin air. They're being made somewhere by someone. And that someone is profiting big time from this.
On July 01 2011 13:26 Jibba wrote: That's an awfully nice way to simplify a political situation and reduce its s "progress" to basic economic freedom.
Of course that would ignore the fact that the Somalis set up a fairly rigid but useful government of their own that brought stability to the country, until the US started equipping and training warlords and then sent Ethiopia in to break it up. Those warlords would later become many of the pirates we've had so much fun sniping.
Either way, this article is like looking at the box score of a football game and trying to describe how the game went. The man has obviously never set foot in Somalia and I very much doubt he's devoted much of his research to the area, besides the time spent looking at a few numbers for that article. The warlords might've coexisted peacefully on their own? Is he fucking mad?
It's also a bit hilarious that he makes it through the entire article without once mentioning culture or religion, when those two factors are pillars of Somalia's uniqueness when looking at those various metrics. 95%+ Sufism with a strict Muslim code (which was also the basis for their government which was ousted in 2006) is the primary reason why things like literacy and life expectancy went up, and why certain diseases like AIDS stayed so low.
This article is complete shit. You've got two extremely insulated faux-economists living on the opposite side of the world, pretending to understand how a country works based on unreliable metrics and ignoring everything else about their society besides some tax reports.
Quite a few unsubstantiated claims - the US training warlords especially is something ive never heard. When the UN financed government activity would claim the complete opposite. It seems you are unfamiliar with the theory of private production of security - with a long tradition since the works of Molinari in 19th century, hence some misjudged conclusions regarding the opinions of the Author of the article.
On July 01 2011 13:26 Jibba wrote: That's an awfully nice way to simplify a political situation and reduce its s "progress" to basic economic freedom.
Of course that would ignore the fact that the Somalis set up a fairly rigid but useful government of their own that brought stability to the country, until the US started equipping and training warlords and then sent Ethiopia in to break it up. Those warlords would later become many of the pirates we've had so much fun sniping.
Either way, this article is like looking at the box score of a football game and trying to describe how the game went. The man has obviously never set foot in Somalia and I very much doubt he's devoted much of his research to the area, besides the time spent looking at a few numbers for that article. The warlords might've coexisted peacefully on their own? Is he fucking mad?
It's also a bit hilarious that he makes it through the entire article without once mentioning culture or religion, when those two factors are pillars of Somalia's uniqueness when looking at those various metrics. 95%+ Sufism with a strict Muslim code (which was also the basis for their government which was ousted in 2006) is the primary reason why things like literacy and life expectancy went up, and why certain diseases like AIDS stayed so low.
This article is complete shit. You've got two extremely insulated faux-economists living on the opposite side of the world, pretending to understand how a country works based on unreliable metrics and ignoring everything else about their society besides some tax reports.
Quite a few unsubstantiated claims - the US training warlords especially is something ive never heard. When the UN financed government activity would claim the complete opposite. It seems you are unfamiliar with the theory of private production of security - with a long tradition since the works of Molinari in 19th century, hence some misjudged conclusions regarding the opinions of the Author of the article.
The video you posted on page two is rather humorous in the context of this thread. Your ends in the thread seem not to be about Somalia, but rather to push your belief in anarchism.
Have you watched the video that you posted? Just compare what the speaker in that video to what is happening in Somalia, which is composed of many warring factions. Are you trying to suggest that the Somali people are happier because they are not 'livestock', as your video suggests that citizens of developed nations are? Are you trying to suggest that they are more free, and because of that freedom most people in the country have a gun to defend themselves? You definitely need to start clarifying your point of view.
Anarchy might be good for somalia, but bad for a lot of countries around it. There are huge amount of pirates in critical trade routes and noone from the somali side to reign them in, the navy seems to take out 3-4 ships every week,and there has been a huge increase in the number of sailors taken as hostages by pirates, and almost all the pirates are from somalia.
On July 01 2011 12:57 partisan wrote: This is a joke right? Surely there is not a single sane person that looks at Somalia as a success story. Yea, 20 years of endless violence where its citizens have to turn to piracy to make money.
.
This. Its it still ranked as the worst place in the world to live next to Zimbabwe and Iraq. Half the country is controlled by islamic militants, and corruption/ violence is common place. Women have no rights, there is no system of healthcare or education. Half of the country is starving and are some of the poorest people on earth.
Google - "worst place in the world to live" more than a 100 lists come up from fairly reputable sources (Forbes, Mcleans, ect). Somalia is in the top 4 of every single one.
Somalia is not anarchy. You think the people there aren't controlled by forms of government? Just because it is not official or centralized doesn't mean it doesn't exist. They are just as controlled by laws and customs as anyone in a dictatorship, the only difference is in somalia is the controllers are the religious, tribal and factional leaders rather than the government. It is a group of small dictatorships rather than a single country in anarchy. It is human nature to seek power and control by whatever means. True anarchy is impossible as every human is selfish at heart, and puts the needs of the self and their family above the needs of others.
On July 01 2011 13:26 Jibba wrote: That's an awfully nice way to simplify a political situation and reduce its s "progress" to basic economic freedom.
Of course that would ignore the fact that the Somalis set up a fairly rigid but useful government of their own that brought stability to the country, until the US started equipping and training warlords and then sent Ethiopia in to break it up. Those warlords would later become many of the pirates we've had so much fun sniping.
Either way, this article is like looking at the box score of a football game and trying to describe how the game went. The man has obviously never set foot in Somalia and I very much doubt he's devoted much of his research to the area, besides the time spent looking at a few numbers for that article. The warlords might've coexisted peacefully on their own? Is he fucking mad?
It's also a bit hilarious that he makes it through the entire article without once mentioning culture or religion, when those two factors are pillars of Somalia's uniqueness when looking at those various metrics. 95%+ Sufism with a strict Muslim code (which was also the basis for their government which was ousted in 2006) is the primary reason why things like literacy and life expectancy went up, and why certain diseases like AIDS stayed so low.
This article is complete shit. You've got two extremely insulated faux-economists living on the opposite side of the world, pretending to understand how a country works based on unreliable metrics and ignoring everything else about their society besides some tax reports.
Quite a few unsubstantiated claims - the US training warlords especially is something ive never heard. When the UN financed government activity would claim the complete opposite. It seems you are unfamiliar with the theory of private production of security - with a long tradition since the works of Molinari in 19th century, hence some misjudged conclusions regarding the opinions of the Author of the article.
There was a better article on one of the camps before, but I can't find it now.
They received the weapons and training from the US in an effort to "counteract" al-Qaeda, which didn't even have a very strong presence in the country at the time. :/ It was basically just another blow back effect, same as Afghanistan was.
On July 01 2011 13:22 Mohdoo wrote: When you compare it to the giant shit hole that is the rest of Africa, sure, its nice.
You guys act like there is something unnatural that happens to make anarchy not work, as if aliens come down and force us into governments. There is nothing external or unnatural about how the world currently is. We are all humans, and no higher beings have changed our development.
"state of nature" is bunch of crap because it assumes only certain parts of humanity are natural -_-
No, the problem with anarchy is that it is fundamentally not a stable situation. Humans tend to clump up, and the whole anarchy breaks down as soon as there is a large enough clump of people with enough strength, for example, in form of weaponry, to impose their will onto others, which also has an interest in doing so. Since in anarchy nothing is stopping such a clump from forming, because you would need a mechanism to combat it, which in itself means that you don't have an anarchy anymore, it is reasonable to assume that such a group would form at some time, and probably sooner rather than later. It is like balancing a ball on top of a sphere. Not stable.
So anarchy is only a fragile passing state until another government emerges. Given the fact that that government is probably based on force of arms foremost, and acceptance from the populace second, while there is no absolute certainty about it one can also assume that that government would probably not have the best interests of the populace in its interest, and instead cater to the wants of that ruling clique. So unless you are in that emerging new ruling clique, that whole thing is probably not a good thing for you.
Edit: As one can see, there is absolutely no supernatural force needed to reason that anarchy is not a working type of government. There is a reason that as far as i know, there has never been an anarchic "government" anywhere for a prolonged period of time. It is that you only need a minority of people who are egoistic enough to break that anarchy.
On July 01 2011 14:03 tree.hugger wrote: This is the thing about libertarian viewpoints. I always think I'm being trolled, but no, libertarians actually are that ridiculous.
-_- From what I hear...it seems like it is either free market or Ron Paul is almost a religion.
The reality of modern slavery is not a result of emotions related to suggestions regarding conditions in different areas. It is in fact a definitional issue. And clear at that- what is defined as ownership, property, law, must necessarily imply the condiitions necessary for concluding the reality of slavery. No, it never left, though the prospect of it happening can be somewhat disturbing, none less for myself, hence the cautious approach to a subject grasped at by the more capable members of the Institute.
Now note that the freedom concept as perceived through experience is not subject of the universal definitions that result in conclusions on the subject - it is instead the conditioning. Note how the video touches on this in its assessment of public education, and claims of its real purpose. It is no secret, and a thinking man staying within the boxes of definitional strictness - though it throws himself outside the box of social acceptability. As a result, brave men take that path, and great respect, and fortitude is to be commended. To them - salut, but for the rest of us, the material to ponder about remains in existance - all because of definitional universality.
It is something of a dichotomy between reason from conditions to assessment, and emotions to assessment. While the choice of end assessment always remains subject of emotions, it is the intermediate phase, assessment, which is hijacked by propagandist concepts employed in enslaving the populus.
While reality of conclusions of definitional strictness is sparsely touched upon, as the reactions to article show, it reaffirms the emotion to assessment mechanic - due to fallacy of positivist condition replacing reason. It is the traged of modern mind that Mises has touched upon. The collective delusion exists as such, and its disappearance can only be necessitated by a total paradigm shift in what the epistemological foundations of knowledge in popular mind are considered. Perhaps unlikely given the edicational premise the video touched upon.
On July 01 2011 12:57 partisan wrote: This is a joke right? Surely there is not a single sane person that looks at Somalia as a success story. Yea, 20 years of endless violence where its citizens have to turn to piracy to make money.
But apparently the US is at fault again, which is great because I was beginning to miss that dead horse.
Read the article, look at the statistics.
On July 01 2011 12:58 askTeivospy wrote: doesnt change the fact I would never ever want to go to somalia or any other country that lacks any sort of government
Because you're comparing apples to oranges. I'd rather be in the United States than Somalia, but I'd probably rather be in Somalia than in any of its neighbors.
Good society with limited government > bad society with either anarchy or government, always. But that is the nirvana fallacy, because:
Good society with government > bad society without government Good society without government > good society with government > bad society without government > bad society with government
People need to be open-minded enough to realize that the things government "produces" - law, justice, etc - are products like anything else. And like any products, the free market is the most efficient and free way to handle them, and brings the lowest prices and highest quality to consumers.
All government has to offer is coercion and force - in no sector can government hope to compete with the free market good-for-good. It relies on its monopoly of force to exclude others from competing. It is ironic that people object to anarchy because "some warlord will just take over" - government is exactly what you get when that happens. So the worst case outcome of anarchy is... government.
On July 01 2011 13:10 Nightfall.589 wrote: Somalia's indeed the poster child for a successful state.
Ranking #182 out of #194 nations in life expectancy (Right above Nigeria, Rwanda, and Afghanistan), where over a quarter children die in their first five years of life, where over a third of the population lacks access to safe drinking water, and 17% are starving... Truly, a libertarian paradise.
Please the read the OP before posting.
I did. I'm glad that their thriving telecom industry makes up for the fact that only 13% of boy children (And 7% of girl children) receive a primary education in that country!
And the gift of a state would ruin the country's free market utopia. We can't allow that!
Yes but...they can make phone calls.
From anywhere.
I lauged so hard from this post.
But on a serious note: If I'm reading correctly the OP wrote that Somalia has a weak central government and anarchy is spread throughout the whole country. Is there a way this can last without having a lot more bloodshed and fights for power? Or will we see chaos and the NATO have to step in like always?
I have attempted to move the discussion close to the teleological premises of the debate. To avoid emotional distress. This is of highest relevance to the topic, and as such, the careful analysis of conditions that define the subject of discussion allows for cleear insight into reality. In fact this is the Misesian paradigm, strictness to rules, the a priori system of rigorous logic. As the a posteriori school bombards its dogmatic arguments, and i dare say predictable, the answer must be given. No less than full compliance to the conditions necessary for the acceptance of the analytic system.
On July 01 2011 12:58 askTeivospy wrote: doesnt change the fact I would never ever want to go to somalia or any other country that lacks any sort of government
Because you're comparing apples to oranges. I'd rather be in the United States than Somalia, but I'd probably rather be in Somalia than in any of its neighbors.
Somehow,I doubt it. By the way, without checking a map, can you name Somalia's immediate neighbors?
On July 01 2011 13:10 Nightfall.589 wrote: Somalia's indeed the poster child for a successful state.
Ranking #182 out of #194 nations in life expectancy (Right above Nigeria, Rwanda, and Afghanistan), where over a quarter children die in their first five years of life, where over a third of the population lacks access to safe drinking water, and 17% are starving... Truly, a libertarian paradise.
Please the read the OP before posting.
I did. I'm glad that their thriving telecom industry makes up for the fact that only 13% of boy children (And 7% of girl children) receive a primary education in that country!
And the gift of a state would ruin the country's free market utopia. We can't allow that!
Yes but...they can make phone calls.
From anywhere.
I lauged so hard from this post.
But on a serious note: If I'm reading correctly the OP wrote that Somalia has a weak central government and anarchy is spread throughout the whole country. Is there a way this can last without having a lot more bloodshed and fights for power? Or will we see chaos and the NATO have to step in like always?
It has lasted for 20 years, with the result of improvements outpacing comparable nations. As for "weak central government" that doesn't even come close to describing it- the "government" doesn't even have complete control over the capital.
On July 01 2011 14:03 tree.hugger wrote: This is the thing about libertarian viewpoints. I always think I'm being trolled, but no, libertarians actually are that ridiculous.
Posting to agree with this.
Then again, it takes a certain types of crazies which is why you have to deal with them all the fucking time ;_;
Somalia looks like a post Apocalypse environment where the survival of the fittest applies, and gun sellings shops like a fish market, just kinda like that game Killing Floor, or Fallout.
The page is in norwegian, but the image has english text. It states that Somalia is the country moust affected by hunger in africa (the world)... so yea, a few rich pirates makes it a success.
On July 01 2011 12:57 partisan wrote: This is a joke right? Surely there is not a single sane person that looks at Somalia as a success story. Yea, 20 years of endless violence where its citizens have to turn to piracy to make money.
But apparently the US is at fault again, which is great because I was beginning to miss that dead horse.
On July 01 2011 12:58 askTeivospy wrote: doesnt change the fact I would never ever want to go to somalia or any other country that lacks any sort of government
Because you're comparing apples to oranges. I'd rather be in the United States than Somalia, but I'd probably rather be in Somalia than in any of its neighbors.
Good society with limited government > bad society with either anarchy or government, always. But that is the nirvana fallacy, because:
Good society with government > bad society without government Good society without government > good society with government > bad society without government > bad society with government
People need to be open-minded enough to realize that the things government "produces" - law, justice, etc - are products like anything else. And like any products, the free market is the most efficient and free way to handle them, and brings the lowest prices and highest quality to consumers.
All government has to offer is coercion and force - in no sector can government hope to compete with the free market good-for-good. It relies on its monopoly of force to exclude others from competing. It is ironic that people object to anarchy because "some warlord will just take over" - government is exactly what you get when that happens. So the worst case outcome of anarchy is... government.
The worst case outcome of anarchy is a strongarm government that has no method of replacing it or limitations regards to private property and self. Regardless of how you view your own government it doesn't mean that a government is necessarily a bad thing. Personally I feel, and the vast majority of people seem to agree with me, that a government is a necessity to help protect us and our property from outside threats.
Now a limitation in the reach of government, that is something I think can be discussed. But to do away with it altogether? I think there is too much scope for those with bad agendas to basically do what they wish.
On July 01 2011 12:58 askTeivospy wrote: doesnt change the fact I would never ever want to go to somalia or any other country that lacks any sort of government
Because you're comparing apples to oranges. I'd rather be in the United States than Somalia, but I'd probably rather be in Somalia than in any of its neighbors.
Somehow,I doubt it. By the way, without checking a map, can you name Somalia's immediate neighbors?
Nice little ad hominem. To be fair I could only name Ethiopia and Kenya, Eritrea slipped my mind (gee I wonder why, such a normal sounding name).
As for its neighbors... Look at the rates of change. Somalia's infant mortality rating is dropping faster than 2/3 of its neighbors, fresh water access improvement rate also beats 2/3 of its neighbors, life expectancy is increasing faster than 2/3 of its neighbors, etc. In all of these cases Ethiopia beats Somalia (though Somalia's statistics are better than Ethiopia's in some categories, especially telecommunications) but look at their histories: Somalia suffered under a brutal, economically crippling military dictatorship for years and suffered far more damage than Ethiopia.
Also, as for where you'd want to live... Compare murder rates (per 100,000) according to the UN: Somalia: 3.2 Eritrea: 16 Ethiopia: 21
(2004 data is the only dataset available for all countries)
As for hunger, Somalia isn't ranked in the Global Hunger Index. But seeing as how Eritrea and Ethiopia are ranked #3 and #5 worst in the world for starvation, respectively, it can't be much worse.
On July 01 2011 14:03 tree.hugger wrote: This is the thing about libertarian viewpoints. I always think I'm being trolled, but no, libertarians actually are that ridiculous.
Posting to agree with this.
Then again, it takes a certain types of crazies which is why you have to deal with them all the fucking time ;_;
Libertarianism follows naturally from the assumption of basic human rights: that individuals have the right to their life and their property. If you opened your mind and looked to facts and morals, instead of allowing yourself to be spoonfed political opinion (including what is "crazy" and what isn't) you might see that.
Okay...libertarians can free themselves from government and can control their life and property without them getting in the way at all. But I could barely call myself individualistic if nature is fucking me up.
As someone once said, government is like a cage that oppresses you and violates your freedoms but it also protects your from the sharks outside the cage. Let's find a balance bro.
Too much government=Dictatorship Too little government=Survival of the fittest. But hell, I would argue that too much government is basically lawlessness but that is a different argument for a different thread.
On July 01 2011 15:21 Shiragaku wrote: Okay...libertarians can free themselves from government and can control their life and property without them getting in the way at all. But I could barely call myself individualistic if nature is fucking me up.
As someone once said, government is like a cage that oppresses you and violates your freedoms but it also protects your from the sharks outside the cage. Let's find a balance bro.
Too much government=Dictatorship Too little government=Survival of the fittest.
There is no proof that an absence of government results in state-of-nature-esque survival of the fittest. Chaos and bloodshed that is deemed "anarchy" is always caused by the collapse of government and existing power structures, not the fact that they never existed. "Civilized" people have always been subjugated in one way or another, yet situations in which more freedom exists have consistently resulted in favorable outcomes.
It is entirely possible to continue moving along that sliding scale of personal liberty until you have total freedom, without a lapse in security or "order". And in the process you'd see huge economic and quality of life gains.
On July 01 2011 12:26 Jerubaal wrote: It's not anarchy, it's oligarchy. The telecommunications industry is thriving because they have money and guns. Just like anyone else there is thriving because they have money and guns.
On July 01 2011 12:57 partisan wrote: This is a joke right? Surely there is not a single sane person that looks at Somalia as a success story. Yea, 20 years of endless violence where its citizens have to turn to piracy to make money.
But apparently the US is at fault again, which is great because I was beginning to miss that dead horse.
On July 01 2011 12:58 askTeivospy wrote: doesnt change the fact I would never ever want to go to somalia or any other country that lacks any sort of government
Because you're comparing apples to oranges. I'd rather be in the United States than Somalia, but I'd probably rather be in Somalia than in any of its neighbors.
Good society with limited government > bad society with either anarchy or government, always. But that is the nirvana fallacy, because:
Good society with government > bad society without government Good society without government > good society with government > bad society without government > bad society with government
People need to be open-minded enough to realize that the things government "produces" - law, justice, etc - are products like anything else. And like any products, the free market is the most efficient and free way to handle them, and brings the lowest prices and highest quality to consumers.
All government has to offer is coercion and force - in no sector can government hope to compete with the free market good-for-good. It relies on its monopoly of force to exclude others from competing. It is ironic that people object to anarchy because "some warlord will just take over" - government is exactly what you get when that happens. So the worst case outcome of anarchy is... government.
The worst case outcome of anarchy is a strongarm government that has no method of replacing it or limitations regards to private property and self. Regardless of how you view your own government it doesn't mean that a government is necessarily a bad thing. Personally I feel, and the vast majority of people seem to agree with me, that a government is a necessity to help protect us and our property from outside threats.
Now a limitation in the reach of government, that is something I think can be discussed. But to do away with it altogether? I think there is too much scope for those with bad agendas to basically do what they wish.
You say that the worst result of anarchy is a strong-arm government... But which is easier, starting from scratch in anarchy and developing a system of unstoppable oppression, or simply taking over the reigns of a "limited" government in which the means of oppression are already in place?
If less government is good, no government is better. People simply can't fathom that because they have been told their entire lives that we need government. I've yet to see the proof.
On July 01 2011 12:26 Jerubaal wrote: It's not anarchy, it's oligarchy. The telecommunications industry is thriving because they have money and guns. Just like anyone else there is thriving because they have money and guns.
Quality is up, prices are down. That sounds to me like the consumer is thriving, not just "telecommunications". If they used their "money and guns" against the people, prices would be up and quality would be down. Use your head.
On July 01 2011 15:21 Shiragaku wrote: Okay...libertarians can free themselves from government and can control their life and property without them getting in the way at all. But I could barely call myself individualistic if nature is fucking me up.
As someone once said, government is like a cage that oppresses you and violates your freedoms but it also protects your from the sharks outside the cage. Let's find a balance bro.
Too much government=Dictatorship Too little government=Survival of the fittest.
There is no proof that an absence of government results in state-of-nature-esque survival of the fittest. Chaos and bloodshed that is deemed "anarchy" is always caused by the collapse of government and existing power structures, not the fact that they never existed. "Civilized" people have always been subjugated in one way or another, yet situations in which more freedom exists have consistently resulted in favorable outcomes.
It is entirely possible to continue moving along that sliding scale of personal liberty until you have total freedom, without a lapse in security or "order". And in the process you'd see huge economic and quality of life gains.
I honestly feel like there is something to be said for true libertarian/anarchistic political views, but I feel it simply fails in the face of reality. Plus this quote always comes to mind: "I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it." -- Jack Handey
In an anarchistic or libertarian society, what would stop a neighbouring government deciding to invade with its military machine built on democratic ideals and a strong tax base?
On July 01 2011 15:21 Shiragaku wrote: Okay...libertarians can free themselves from government and can control their life and property without them getting in the way at all. But I could barely call myself individualistic if nature is fucking me up.
As someone once said, government is like a cage that oppresses you and violates your freedoms but it also protects your from the sharks outside the cage. Let's find a balance bro.
Too much government=Dictatorship Too little government=Survival of the fittest.
There is no proof that an absence of government results in state-of-nature-esque survival of the fittest. Chaos and bloodshed that is deemed "anarchy" is always caused by the collapse of government and existing power structures, not the fact that they never existed. "Civilized" people have always been subjugated in one way or another, yet situations in which more freedom exists have consistently resulted in favorable outcomes.
It is entirely possible to continue moving along that sliding scale of personal liberty until you have total freedom, without a lapse in security or "order". And in the process you'd see huge economic and quality of life gains.
But I would argue that freedom does not happen until quality of life has improved. I doubt that anyone in Somalia would give a damn about democracy and stability until they can get a consistent supply of food. To add evidence, people in Egypt, Libya, and Algeria did not bother to start a revolution not because life was getting worse, but rather the quality of life was getting better. This is according to UN statistics, I do not know what that means to you.
And as for Somalia improving, I would argue that it is basically rich people with power finally creating some stability they have not seen in the past. And you really cannot fall any lower so of course you are going to have economy growth, thought it may simply be 2.6 percent.
You say that the worst result of anarchy is a strong-arm government... But which is easier, starting from scratch in anarchy and developing a system of unstoppable oppression, or simply taking over the reigns of a "limited" government in which the means of oppression are already in place?
If less government is good, no government is better. People simply can't fathom that because they have been told their entire lives that we need government. I've yet to see the proof.
You're right in that its easier to create a strong government when one is already in place, but that doesn't mean government is bad. Looking at history, a country is easier to conquer when it has a central authority - win one big battle and you take the country. If power is split in little communities, you have to fight each and every one. But in this scenario, played out many times in the past, the split power model never stood a chance against a bigger aggressor, but the country, with a centralised government, did. See the wars between Greece and Rome as compared to the Gallic Campaigns, or the Viking invasion of England compared to similar campaigns elsewhere.
A limited government simply limits the damage it can do, while also limiting the good it can do. This is only a good thing if you inherently think government and central authority is a bad thing, which I assume you do But if a government works well, in a local area, then why would you want to limit that? A strong, well run government is a good thing, surely? The fact it could be taken over by, for example, a dictatorial coup, doesn't mean its a bad thing inherently.
On July 01 2011 15:21 Shiragaku wrote: Okay...libertarians can free themselves from government and can control their life and property without them getting in the way at all. But I could barely call myself individualistic if nature is fucking me up.
As someone once said, government is like a cage that oppresses you and violates your freedoms but it also protects your from the sharks outside the cage. Let's find a balance bro.
Too much government=Dictatorship Too little government=Survival of the fittest.
There is no proof that an absence of government results in state-of-nature-esque survival of the fittest. Chaos and bloodshed that is deemed "anarchy" is always caused by the collapse of government and existing power structures, not the fact that they never existed. "Civilized" people have always been subjugated in one way or another, yet situations in which more freedom exists have consistently resulted in favorable outcomes.
It is entirely possible to continue moving along that sliding scale of personal liberty until you have total freedom, without a lapse in security or "order". And in the process you'd see huge economic and quality of life gains.
But I would argue that freedom does not happen until quality of life has improved. I doubt that anyone in Somalia would give a damn about democracy and stability until they can get a consistent supply of food. To add evidence, people in Egypt, Libya, and Algeria did not bother to start a revolution not because life was getting worse, but rather the quality of life was getting better. This is according to UN statistics, I do not know what that means to you.
And as for Somalia improving, I would argue that it is basically rich people with power finally creating some stability they have not seen in the past. And you really cannot fall any lower so of course you are going to have economy growth, thought it may simply be 2.6 percent.
To start off, I never once advocated "democracy". Democracy is a form of government, and is therefore flawed (especially given the track record of African voters...). I'm not sure your point is cohesive here.
How can you expect to improve quality of life without freedom? Government can't wave a magic wand and make everyone's lives better - in fact, attempts to do so (by foreign governments) have only resulted in disaster (foreign aid).
As for the progress being only by "the rich"... First of all, back it up with statistics. Second of all, how are infant mortality rates, life expectancy, access to healthcare, etc, restricted to the rich?
On July 01 2011 15:21 Shiragaku wrote: Okay...libertarians can free themselves from government and can control their life and property without them getting in the way at all. But I could barely call myself individualistic if nature is fucking me up.
As someone once said, government is like a cage that oppresses you and violates your freedoms but it also protects your from the sharks outside the cage. Let's find a balance bro.
Too much government=Dictatorship Too little government=Survival of the fittest.
There is no proof that an absence of government results in state-of-nature-esque survival of the fittest. Chaos and bloodshed that is deemed "anarchy" is always caused by the collapse of government and existing power structures, not the fact that they never existed. "Civilized" people have always been subjugated in one way or another, yet situations in which more freedom exists have consistently resulted in favorable outcomes.
It is entirely possible to continue moving along that sliding scale of personal liberty until you have total freedom, without a lapse in security or "order". And in the process you'd see huge economic and quality of life gains.
But I would argue that freedom does not happen until quality of life has improved. I doubt that anyone in Somalia would give a damn about democracy and stability until they can get a consistent supply of food. To add evidence, people in Egypt, Libya, and Algeria did not bother to start a revolution not because life was getting worse, but rather the quality of life was getting better. This is according to UN statistics, I do not know what that means to you.
And as for Somalia improving, I would argue that it is basically rich people with power finally creating some stability they have not seen in the past. And you really cannot fall any lower so of course you are going to have economy growth, thought it may simply be 2.6 percent.
To start off, I never once advocated "democracy". Democracy is a form of government, and is therefore flawed (especially given the track record of African voters...). I'm not sure your point is cohesive here.
How can you expect to improve quality of life without freedom? Government can't wave a magic wand and make everyone's lives better - in fact, attempts to do so (by foreign governments) have only resulted in disaster (foreign aid).
As for the progress being only by "the rich"... First of all, back it up with statistics. Second of all, how are infant mortality rates, life expectancy, access to healthcare, etc, restricted to the rich?
I never said that they are all restricted to the rich or else the statistics would be very very different. It is just simple economic growth.
brain_ is never going to BELIEVE that he's wrong, any failing real world example will just not have been "true anarchy/lib"
and FYI, Somalia is p 'run' by a group called the Islamic Council or something like that, who enforce their rules on people so i dont get why we're even discussing this
You say that the worst result of anarchy is a strong-arm government... But which is easier, starting from scratch in anarchy and developing a system of unstoppable oppression, or simply taking over the reigns of a "limited" government in which the means of oppression are already in place?
If less government is good, no government is better. People simply can't fathom that because they have been told their entire lives that we need government. I've yet to see the proof.
You're right in that its easier to create a strong government when one is already in place, but that doesn't mean government is bad. Looking at history, a country is easier to conquer when it has a central authority - win one big battle and you take the country. If power is split in little communities, you have to fight each and every one. But in this scenario, played out many times in the past, the split power model never stood a chance against a bigger aggressor, but the country, with a centralised government, did. See the wars between Greece and Rome as compared to the Gallic Campaigns, or the Viking invasion of England compared to similar campaigns elsewhere.
A limited government simply limits the damage it can do, while also limiting the good it can do. This is only a good thing if you inherently think government and central authority is a bad thing, which I assume you do But if a government works well, in a local area, then why would you want to limit that? A strong, well run government is a good thing, surely? The fact it could be taken over by, for example, a dictatorial coup, doesn't mean its a bad thing inherently.
Ugh, sometimes I think references to history should be outlawed in this forum.
The Greco-Persian wars come to mind when reading your post.
on topic: Somalia is now 4th lowest in GDP per capita, and managed to scrape out a 4 year increase in life expectancy in 20 years...
I know that they have a thriving telecommunications and private security (rofl) industry but cmon, this is just a dysfunctional state.
@brain_ less government is not always good, no government is bad; you need a government, otherwise people like me would take your stuff because I would have no reason to care about your property rights, simple as that.
Enough said. If you genuinely think somalia is prospering or fast improving. You're actually mentally retarded. Literally, IQ<50. If you think children crawling out of their homes and making their own trek to kenyan refugee camps is a good thing. 6 weeks, no support, very little food or water, sores and wounds all over their body.
On July 01 2011 12:58 askTeivospy wrote: doesnt change the fact I would never ever want to go to somalia or any other country that lacks any sort of government
Because you're comparing apples to oranges. I'd rather be in the United States than Somalia, but I'd probably rather be in Somalia than in any of its neighbors.
Somehow,I doubt it. By the way, without checking a map, can you name Somalia's immediate neighbors?
Nice little ad hominem. To be fair I could only name Ethiopia and Kenya, Eritrea slipped my mind (gee I wonder why, such a normal sounding name).
...
Eritrea? No, try the much more formal-sounding Djibouti.
Market anarchy debate, eh? Anyone who argues for anarchy on the basis of rights should be dismissed instantly. Anyone who tries from consequentialism is probably a student of some silly economist (Mises.org, unironically citing Stefan Molyneux).
You say that the worst result of anarchy is a strong-arm government... But which is easier, starting from scratch in anarchy and developing a system of unstoppable oppression, or simply taking over the reigns of a "limited" government in which the means of oppression are already in place?
If less government is good, no government is better. People simply can't fathom that because they have been told their entire lives that we need government. I've yet to see the proof.
You're right in that its easier to create a strong government when one is already in place, but that doesn't mean government is bad. Looking at history, a country is easier to conquer when it has a central authority - win one big battle and you take the country. If power is split in little communities, you have to fight each and every one. But in this scenario, played out many times in the past, the split power model never stood a chance against a bigger aggressor, but the country, with a centralised government, did. See the wars between Greece and Rome as compared to the Gallic Campaigns, or the Viking invasion of England compared to similar campaigns elsewhere.
A limited government simply limits the damage it can do, while also limiting the good it can do. This is only a good thing if you inherently think government and central authority is a bad thing, which I assume you do But if a government works well, in a local area, then why would you want to limit that? A strong, well run government is a good thing, surely? The fact it could be taken over by, for example, a dictatorial coup, doesn't mean its a bad thing inherently.
No. Government in all forms is bad. All it does it introduce coercion and strip away individual liberties, and offers only oppression and illusions.
The subject of defense in a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society is a difficult one, as it would have to address the "freeloader" dilemma, likely through large-scale insurance organizations or voluntary funding. However, you must understand that security, like anything else, is a good that the free market is capable of providing far better than any government. I encourage you to research these things on your own (Mises is a good place to start, also check out the Anarcho-Capitalism subreddit), if just for curiosity's sake, and you may find yourself seeing the truth of them!
Also keep in mind that the incentive for violence will decrease drastically when there is economic prosperity and interdependence.
You say that the worst result of anarchy is a strong-arm government... But which is easier, starting from scratch in anarchy and developing a system of unstoppable oppression, or simply taking over the reigns of a "limited" government in which the means of oppression are already in place?
If less government is good, no government is better. People simply can't fathom that because they have been told their entire lives that we need government. I've yet to see the proof.
You're right in that its easier to create a strong government when one is already in place, but that doesn't mean government is bad. Looking at history, a country is easier to conquer when it has a central authority - win one big battle and you take the country. If power is split in little communities, you have to fight each and every one. But in this scenario, played out many times in the past, the split power model never stood a chance against a bigger aggressor, but the country, with a centralised government, did. See the wars between Greece and Rome as compared to the Gallic Campaigns, or the Viking invasion of England compared to similar campaigns elsewhere.
A limited government simply limits the damage it can do, while also limiting the good it can do. This is only a good thing if you inherently think government and central authority is a bad thing, which I assume you do But if a government works well, in a local area, then why would you want to limit that? A strong, well run government is a good thing, surely? The fact it could be taken over by, for example, a dictatorial coup, doesn't mean its a bad thing inherently.
Ugh, sometimes I think references to history should be outlawed in this forum.
The Greco-Persian wars come to mind when reading your post.
on topic: Somalia is now 4th lowest in GDP per capita, and managed to scrape out a 4 year increase in life expectancy in 20 years...
I know that they have a thriving telecommunications and private security (rofl) industry but cmon, this is just a dysfunctional state.
@brain_ less government is not always good, no government is bad; you need a government, otherwise people like me would take your stuff because I would have no reason to care about your property rights, simple as that.
The Greco-Persian wars are a good example of my point. A collection of city-states with no central authority were seen as an easy target by a much stronger power. The bigger power attacked and won some victories, but because the city-states were seperate they continued to fight and won victories because of inherently better military technologies such as the phalanx and a reliance on foot-soldiers instead of cavalry.
Enough said. If you genuinely think somalia is prospering or fast improving. You're actually mentally retarded. Literally, IQ<50. If you think children crawling out of their homes and making their own trek to kenyan refugee camps is a good thing. 6 weeks, no support, very little food or water, sores and wounds all over their body.
Fuck you sir =)
To add more salt to the wound, Somalia had almost 2 million people displaced in their last civil war...and almost 1.5 million displaced in their current civil war. Prosperous nation indeed, and the most they can enjoy is is a GDP growth less than a 1st world nation
On July 01 2011 12:58 askTeivospy wrote: doesnt change the fact I would never ever want to go to somalia or any other country that lacks any sort of government
Because you're comparing apples to oranges. I'd rather be in the United States than Somalia, but I'd probably rather be in Somalia than in any of its neighbors.
Somehow,I doubt it. By the way, without checking a map, can you name Somalia's immediate neighbors?
Nice little ad hominem. To be fair I could only name Ethiopia and Kenya, Eritrea slipped my mind (gee I wonder why, such a normal sounding name).
As for its neighbors... Look at the rates of change. Somalia's infant mortality rating is dropping faster than 2/3 of its neighbors, fresh water access improvement rate also beats 2/3 of its neighbors, life expectancy is increasing faster than 2/3 of its neighbors, etc. In all of these cases Ethiopia beats Somalia (though Somalia's statistics are better than Ethiopia's in some categories, especially telecommunications) but look at their histories: Somalia suffered under a brutal, economically crippling military dictatorship for years and suffered far more damage than Ethiopia.
Also, as for where you'd want to live... Compare murder rates (per 100,000) according to the UN: Somalia: 3.2 Eritrea: 16 Ethiopia: 21
(2004 data is the only dataset available for all countries)
As for hunger, Somalia isn't ranked in the Global Hunger Index. But seeing as how Eritrea and Ethiopia are ranked #3 and #5 worst in the world for starvation, respectively, it can't be much worse.
On July 01 2011 14:03 tree.hugger wrote: This is the thing about libertarian viewpoints. I always think I'm being trolled, but no, libertarians actually are that ridiculous.
Posting to agree with this.
Then again, it takes a certain types of crazies which is why you have to deal with them all the fucking time ;_;
Libertarianism follows naturally from the assumption of basic human rights: that individuals have the right to their life and their property. If you opened your mind and looked to facts and morals, instead of allowing yourself to be spoonfed political opinion (including what is "crazy" and what isn't) you might see that.
I didn't ask you what Somalia's neighbors were just because I wanted to make you look silly. I had my doubts on how much you actually knew about what you were talking about. Also, Djibouti.
You missed a pretty important "neighbor". One of two places in Somalia with a central government, and thus enjoys stability and opportunity that is unheard of in the South. Meanwhile, Somalia receives one of the highest amounts of food aid of any country in the world. The free market isn't feeding these people. In fact, it's leading to the theft, hording, and commercialization of aid, which is causing more starving people.
You can't just look at cherrypicked statistics that ignore geographic reality. You can't just take what you learned from reading Atlas Shrugged, and apply it to impoverished African Countries you don't know much about.
Extreme views like libertarianism don't follow naturally from the real world. They follow from bogus assumptions, and are propagated by wealthy idiots like the man who wrote that article.
On July 01 2011 15:40 Sanctimonius wrote: But in this scenario, played out many times in the past, the split power model never stood a chance against a bigger aggressor, but the country, with a centralised government, did.
On July 01 2011 16:00 Sanctimonius wrote: The Greco-Persian wars are a good example of my point. A collection of city-states with no central authority were seen as an easy target by a much stronger power. The bigger power attacked and won some victories, but because the city-states were seperate they continued to fight and won victories because of inherently better military technologies such as the phalanx and a reliance on foot-soldiers instead of cavalry.
Guess I don't understand your point, since I though i had provided an example in which the exact opposite occurs but you said it was a good example. The city-states continuing to fight because they "were separate" is a strange statement I don't understand, its not like Athens or Sparta was sacked by the Persians. I would say that the technological advantage of the Greeks doesn't seem relate to your previous point at all.
Edit: Also, typically in a war, each side will win at least some victories, even in a proper "splendid little war."
Brain_ makes a good point, the chaos that is associated with anarchy comes not from the lack of leadership, but from the vacuum of power. if such a vacuum had never been created, by a lack of government having been formed to begin with would there still be that bloodshed? what i mean by that is, if the positions of power which created the vacuum had never been concieved of or implemented, would there be bloodshed and violence to create a position of power?
@Thefrankone, no we don't need a government. what is stopping you from taking his stuff is that in a true anarchy, which i will quote from v for vendetta (the book not the movie) means without leaders, not without order, is everyone else in the community. anarchy is communism in the truest sense of the word.
You say that the worst result of anarchy is a strong-arm government... But which is easier, starting from scratch in anarchy and developing a system of unstoppable oppression, or simply taking over the reigns of a "limited" government in which the means of oppression are already in place?
If less government is good, no government is better. People simply can't fathom that because they have been told their entire lives that we need government. I've yet to see the proof.
You're right in that its easier to create a strong government when one is already in place, but that doesn't mean government is bad. Looking at history, a country is easier to conquer when it has a central authority - win one big battle and you take the country. If power is split in little communities, you have to fight each and every one. But in this scenario, played out many times in the past, the split power model never stood a chance against a bigger aggressor, but the country, with a centralised government, did. See the wars between Greece and Rome as compared to the Gallic Campaigns, or the Viking invasion of England compared to similar campaigns elsewhere.
A limited government simply limits the damage it can do, while also limiting the good it can do. This is only a good thing if you inherently think government and central authority is a bad thing, which I assume you do But if a government works well, in a local area, then why would you want to limit that? A strong, well run government is a good thing, surely? The fact it could be taken over by, for example, a dictatorial coup, doesn't mean its a bad thing inherently.
No. Government in all forms is bad. All it does it introduce coercion and strip away individual liberties, and offers only oppression and illusions.
The subject of defense in a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society is a difficult one, as it would have to address the "freeloader" dilemma, likely through large-scale insurance organizations or voluntary funding. However, you must understand that security, like anything else, is a good that the free market is capable of providing far better than any government. I encourage you to research these things on your own (Mises is a good place to start, also check out the Anarcho-Capitalism subreddit), if just for curiosity's sake, and you may find yourself seeing the truth of them!
Also keep in mind that the incentive for violence will decrease drastically when there is economic prosperity and interdependence.
Can I ask why government in all forms is inherently bad? That's a pretty strong claim, I would like to see some reasons why
On July 01 2011 16:23 polysciguy wrote: Brain_ makes a good point, the chaos that is associated with anarchy comes not from the lack of leadership, but from the vacuum of power. if such a vacuum had never been created, by a lack of government having been formed to begin with would there still be that bloodshed? what i mean by that is, if the positions of power which created the vacuum had never been concieved of or implemented, would there be bloodshed and violence to create a position of power?
@Thefrankone, no we don't need a government. what is stopping you from taking his stuff is that in a true anarchy, which i will quote from v for vendetta (the book not the movie) means without leaders, not without order, is everyone else in the community. anarchy is communism in the truest sense of the word.
A pointless question because from the start of humanity we have always have a power structure in place.
It's like asking what the world would be like if air was toxic. I am sure you could try and find an answer but what value does that answer have?
On July 01 2011 12:58 askTeivospy wrote: doesnt change the fact I would never ever want to go to somalia or any other country that lacks any sort of government
Because you're comparing apples to oranges. I'd rather be in the United States than Somalia, but I'd probably rather be in Somalia than in any of its neighbors.
Somehow,I doubt it. By the way, without checking a map, can you name Somalia's immediate neighbors?
Nice little ad hominem. To be fair I could only name Ethiopia and Kenya, Eritrea slipped my mind (gee I wonder why, such a normal sounding name).
As for its neighbors... Look at the rates of change. Somalia's infant mortality rating is dropping faster than 2/3 of its neighbors, fresh water access improvement rate also beats 2/3 of its neighbors, life expectancy is increasing faster than 2/3 of its neighbors, etc. In all of these cases Ethiopia beats Somalia (though Somalia's statistics are better than Ethiopia's in some categories, especially telecommunications) but look at their histories: Somalia suffered under a brutal, economically crippling military dictatorship for years and suffered far more damage than Ethiopia.
Also, as for where you'd want to live... Compare murder rates (per 100,000) according to the UN: Somalia: 3.2 Eritrea: 16 Ethiopia: 21
(2004 data is the only dataset available for all countries)
As for hunger, Somalia isn't ranked in the Global Hunger Index. But seeing as how Eritrea and Ethiopia are ranked #3 and #5 worst in the world for starvation, respectively, it can't be much worse.
On July 01 2011 15:00 Milkis wrote:
On July 01 2011 14:03 tree.hugger wrote: This is the thing about libertarian viewpoints. I always think I'm being trolled, but no, libertarians actually are that ridiculous.
Posting to agree with this.
Then again, it takes a certain types of crazies which is why you have to deal with them all the fucking time ;_;
Libertarianism follows naturally from the assumption of basic human rights: that individuals have the right to their life and their property. If you opened your mind and looked to facts and morals, instead of allowing yourself to be spoonfed political opinion (including what is "crazy" and what isn't) you might see that.
I didn't ask you what Somalia's neighbors were just because I wanted to make you look silly. I had my doubts on how much you actually knew about what you were talking about. Also, Djibouti.
You missed a pretty important "neighbor". One of two places in Somalia with a central government, and thus enjoys stability and opportunity that is unheard of in the South. Meanwhile, Somalia receives one of the highest amounts of food aid of any country in the world. The free market isn't feeding these people. In fact, it's leading to the theft, hording, and commercialization of aid, which is causing more starving people.
You can't just look at cherrypicked statistics that ignore geographic reality. You can't just take what you learned from reading Atlas Shrugged, and apply it to impoverished African Countries you don't know much about.
Extreme views like libertarianism don't follow naturally from the real world. They follow from bogus assumptions, and are propagated by wealthy idiots like the man who wrote that article.
In the same breath you say that foreign aid is not the free market, and then tell me that foreign aid is destructive. Draw the natural conclusion: hunger problems are largely a result of foreign interference.
On July 01 2011 15:40 Sanctimonius wrote: But in this scenario, played out many times in the past, the split power model never stood a chance against a bigger aggressor, but the country, with a centralised government, did.
On July 01 2011 16:00 Sanctimonius wrote: The Greco-Persian wars are a good example of my point. A collection of city-states with no central authority were seen as an easy target by a much stronger power. The bigger power attacked and won some victories, but because the city-states were seperate they continued to fight and won victories because of inherently better military technologies such as the phalanx and a reliance on foot-soldiers instead of cavalry.
Guess I don't understand your point, since I though i had provided an example in which the exact opposite occurs but you said it was a good example. The city-states continuing to fight because they "were separate" is a strange statement I don't understand, its not like Athens or Sparta was sacked by the Persians. I would say that the technological advantage of the Greeks doesn't seem relate to your previous point at all.
Edit: Also, typically in a war, each side will win at least some victories, even in a proper "splendid little war."
Athens was sacked, in the second war. Xerxes broke through the Spartan phalanxes at Thermopylae (300 wasn't far wrong) and burned Athens down. Other city-states had the coice to continue fighting because they had their own standing armies - in a centralised state, generally you have a single army. it falls, and you lose. That doesn't mean a centralised state is worse than a federalised state, or a collection of city-states.
You say that the worst result of anarchy is a strong-arm government... But which is easier, starting from scratch in anarchy and developing a system of unstoppable oppression, or simply taking over the reigns of a "limited" government in which the means of oppression are already in place?
If less government is good, no government is better. People simply can't fathom that because they have been told their entire lives that we need government. I've yet to see the proof.
You're right in that its easier to create a strong government when one is already in place, but that doesn't mean government is bad. Looking at history, a country is easier to conquer when it has a central authority - win one big battle and you take the country. If power is split in little communities, you have to fight each and every one. But in this scenario, played out many times in the past, the split power model never stood a chance against a bigger aggressor, but the country, with a centralised government, did. See the wars between Greece and Rome as compared to the Gallic Campaigns, or the Viking invasion of England compared to similar campaigns elsewhere.
A limited government simply limits the damage it can do, while also limiting the good it can do. This is only a good thing if you inherently think government and central authority is a bad thing, which I assume you do But if a government works well, in a local area, then why would you want to limit that? A strong, well run government is a good thing, surely? The fact it could be taken over by, for example, a dictatorial coup, doesn't mean its a bad thing inherently.
No. Government in all forms is bad. All it does it introduce coercion and strip away individual liberties, and offers only oppression and illusions.
The subject of defense in a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society is a difficult one, as it would have to address the "freeloader" dilemma, likely through large-scale insurance organizations or voluntary funding. However, you must understand that security, like anything else, is a good that the free market is capable of providing far better than any government. I encourage you to research these things on your own (Mises is a good place to start, also check out the Anarcho-Capitalism subreddit), if just for curiosity's sake, and you may find yourself seeing the truth of them!
Also keep in mind that the incentive for violence will decrease drastically when there is economic prosperity and interdependence.
So you think an "anarchistic" society would need large-scale corporate militia. And you actually think that is a good idea? Either you end up with one monopolistic organisation that basically IS a government, or you end up with multiple different well-armed forces which are either geographically seperated resulting in several smaller states, or they are not seperated and have different goals, which to me seems to like to invite conflicts. So you end up with some strange cyberpunk setting of corporate wars. Especially important is that those militas would not serve the interest of the general populace, but of a small subset of it, which to me sounds like a lot worse then having a government
On July 01 2011 15:40 Sanctimonius wrote: But in this scenario, played out many times in the past, the split power model never stood a chance against a bigger aggressor, but the country, with a centralised government, did.
On July 01 2011 16:00 Sanctimonius wrote: The Greco-Persian wars are a good example of my point. A collection of city-states with no central authority were seen as an easy target by a much stronger power. The bigger power attacked and won some victories, but because the city-states were seperate they continued to fight and won victories because of inherently better military technologies such as the phalanx and a reliance on foot-soldiers instead of cavalry.
Guess I don't understand your point, since I though i had provided an example in which the exact opposite occurs but you said it was a good example. The city-states continuing to fight because they "were separate" is a strange statement I don't understand, its not like Athens or Sparta was sacked by the Persians. I would say that the technological advantage of the Greeks doesn't seem relate to your previous point at all.
Edit: Also, typically in a war, each side will win at least some victories, even in a proper "splendid little war."
Athens was sacked, in the second war. Xerxes broke through the Spartan phalanxes at Thermopylae (300 wasn't far wrong) and burned Athens down. Other city-states had the coice to continue fighting because they had their own standing armies - in a centralised state, generally you have a single army. it falls, and you lose. That doesn't mean a centralised state is worse than a federalised state, or a collection of city-states.
actually it was quite wrong. xerxes faced the combined greek forces of 7000 men at thermopylae, after 2 days of fighting xerxes was informed of a path around the army at the pass, the greeks found out before he could complete the envelopement and withdrew leaving only the 300 spartans and about 1400 other greek volunteers to act as a rear guard to cover the withdrawal as they fell back. The persians weren't fully driven back until the next year at the battle of platea.
on topic: i wouldn't go by any economic statistics either because after WWII the soviet economy improved at a much greater rater than the west, leading to kruschev's statement about crushing the west, he most likely meant economically. as well as statistics showing the amazing increase of china's economy after becoming communist. those factors weren't because it was a better system, but because the economy's were so bad that the increases looked amazing.
You say that the worst result of anarchy is a strong-arm government... But which is easier, starting from scratch in anarchy and developing a system of unstoppable oppression, or simply taking over the reigns of a "limited" government in which the means of oppression are already in place?
If less government is good, no government is better. People simply can't fathom that because they have been told their entire lives that we need government. I've yet to see the proof.
You're right in that its easier to create a strong government when one is already in place, but that doesn't mean government is bad. Looking at history, a country is easier to conquer when it has a central authority - win one big battle and you take the country. If power is split in little communities, you have to fight each and every one. But in this scenario, played out many times in the past, the split power model never stood a chance against a bigger aggressor, but the country, with a centralised government, did. See the wars between Greece and Rome as compared to the Gallic Campaigns, or the Viking invasion of England compared to similar campaigns elsewhere.
A limited government simply limits the damage it can do, while also limiting the good it can do. This is only a good thing if you inherently think government and central authority is a bad thing, which I assume you do But if a government works well, in a local area, then why would you want to limit that? A strong, well run government is a good thing, surely? The fact it could be taken over by, for example, a dictatorial coup, doesn't mean its a bad thing inherently.
No. Government in all forms is bad. All it does it introduce coercion and strip away individual liberties, and offers only oppression and illusions.
The subject of defense in a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society is a difficult one, as it would have to address the "freeloader" dilemma, likely through large-scale insurance organizations or voluntary funding. However, you must understand that security, like anything else, is a good that the free market is capable of providing far better than any government. I encourage you to research these things on your own (Mises is a good place to start, also check out the Anarcho-Capitalism subreddit), if just for curiosity's sake, and you may find yourself seeing the truth of them!
Also keep in mind that the incentive for violence will decrease drastically when there is economic prosperity and interdependence.
So you think an "anarchistic" society would need large-scale corporate militia. And you actually think that is a good idea? Either you end up with one monopolistic organisation that basically IS a government, or you end up with multiple different well-armed forces which are either geographically seperated resulting in several smaller states, or they are not seperated and have different goals, which to me seems to like to invite conflicts. So you end up with some strange cyberpunk setting of corporate wars. Especially important is that those militas would not serve the interest of the general populace, but of a small subset of it, which to me sounds like a lot worse then having a government
No more "dangerous" than current governments; also, keep in mind that such security measures would only be necessary if there is a clear threat (such as when one region is in market anarchy and another retains government and threatens to invade).
As for everything else, as I said, this is one of the more complex aspects of Anarcho-Capitalism because it deals with anarchism interacting with a statist world. Rather than making me explain everything (which would take a while, not to mention the fact that there are people far more qualified than myself to do that), please research it yourself. If I'm crazy, you should find proof in my rationales, right?
Few quick points: 1) Worst case scenario is still government - what we've got now! 2) History's only examples of consistent monopolies were a result of government intervention. Look at utilities, for example. 3) In a world where all interactions are voluntary, the plug could be pulled on militias immediately if they ceased to offer a satisfactory service (IE they started abusing their power). The flow of funds would go something like this: individual people -> insurance companies -> private defense. If the "militia" abused their power, funding could be cut at any point in the chain and that money would go towards funding a new defense firm for the purposes of shutting down the old one. 4) Voluntary participation in defense (by non-paramilitary citizens) would probably help. 5) The contract for defense would be open for competition. Since a primary concern in hiring a defense contractor would be the risk of that power being turned against you, the firms would compete to find the best way to provide assurance that they wouldn't abuse their power. I can't even imagine what that would look like: another example of the market spurring innovation that solves problems in ways we can't predict.
Just posting to point out that like most arguments involving libertarians, this one has quickly moved from recognizing the facts on the ground in Somalia to a rather pointless hypothetical argument.
Viewing the case of Somalia and somehow extracting a lesson in free market anarcho-capitalist principles is probably the most hilarious case of confirmation bias i've ever seen.
Somalia is not flourishing. The situation in somalia is so bad that we dont even have reliable statistics regarding it (hence its omission from so many national rankings). If a market has sprung up (which isnt surprising, since market activity seems to be a natural impulse in humans), its not the type of market that anyone would want to use as a model for effeciency.
Thomas Hobbes explained the problem of anarchy better than anyone 360 years ago (long before game theory and evolutionary biology came along to confirm his suspicions). The logic of anarchy -- the competition for scarce resources and the fear of violence/theft, in the absence of an impartial arbiter, leads to dangerous standoff where, unfortunately, pre-emptive strikes against rivals (real or imagined) become common place, thus inducing a vicious spiral of vendetta and distrust. A perpetual war of all against all.
I hope Somalia recovers someday, but if it does, it wont be because it eschewed the rule of law.
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.
Need to see a proof for that. Until then I would have to categorize that as pure made up bullshit.
There are plenty of examples of areas where profit margins are not equalling value creation.
On July 01 2011 15:40 Sanctimonius wrote: But in this scenario, played out many times in the past, the split power model never stood a chance against a bigger aggressor, but the country, with a centralised government, did.
On July 01 2011 16:00 Sanctimonius wrote: The Greco-Persian wars are a good example of my point. A collection of city-states with no central authority were seen as an easy target by a much stronger power. The bigger power attacked and won some victories, but because the city-states were seperate they continued to fight and won victories because of inherently better military technologies such as the phalanx and a reliance on foot-soldiers instead of cavalry.
Guess I don't understand your point, since I though i had provided an example in which the exact opposite occurs but you said it was a good example. The city-states continuing to fight because they "were separate" is a strange statement I don't understand, its not like Athens or Sparta was sacked by the Persians. I would say that the technological advantage of the Greeks doesn't seem relate to your previous point at all.
Edit: Also, typically in a war, each side will win at least some victories, even in a proper "splendid little war."
Athens was sacked, in the second war. Xerxes broke through the Spartan phalanxes at Thermopylae (300 wasn't far wrong) and burned Athens down. Other city-states had the coice to continue fighting because they had their own standing armies - in a centralised state, generally you have a single army. it falls, and you lose. That doesn't mean a centralised state is worse than a federalised state, or a collection of city-states.
Oh yeah, I forgot about Athens being sacked, its late here. I still don't really understand the point you were trying to make, other than that more centralized states have more centralized militarys, that I would agree with. I mean read the first quote of yours in this discussion, you seem to be putting forth a historical axiom of split power models never standing up to centralized aggressive powers.
I would still say your exaggerating what can be taken from history though, the defeat of the Athenian fleet would of meant the end of the war in favor of the Persians, Athens was sacked but was evacuated first so an Athenian army still existed.
@polysciguy: In our real society the community stops and disincentives theft through institutions developed for that purpose, we don't expect other people who are around (the community) to prevent crimes because they are not always around and are for the most part, terribly unreliable. If everyone in the community preventing crime was reasonable, it would happen already; no need for anarchy for that wonderful system of criminal justice.
In fact, I say we implement it right now, suggestions on how we do it?
Brain would you pull a boat with your family on it into a port in somalia? Would you pull a boat with your family on it into any port in the entirety of Canada or the USA? You can sit there and try to rationalize how amazing Somalias system is, and hhow it would be great for us. The increase in prosperity only looks good, because there was no prosperity prior. Anything is better for the people than a dictatorship. You dont do anything to prove that life here is worse than life in Somalia, because we have a government. All you can offer are hypothetical situations, and idealistic world views, that ignore the basic human desire for success and power.
You seem to think that contracting people to do things in a free market, means that you have the power to stop the big guys from getting too big. Newsflash, thats not how it works. If they wanna stay big, theyll get people on their side, until theyre too big for you to take down. Its the nature of the beast.
You also seem to think the government offers nothing. Life is simpler with everything the government does for us. I dont want to be responsible for hiring people for every little thing that needs to be done. I want people to do that for me. I have no interest in wasting my time with interdependance, communism, etc... I want to wake up, put in my 8 hours, spend time with my fiancee, my family, and my friends, and enjoy the fruits of my labour on my spare time. Rules, regulations, social services, schools, etc... are all conveniences that allow me to not have to worry about shit 24/7. I can live a comfortable life, not worry about kidnappers, murderers, pillagers, or anything of the sort. I cant count on a steady paycheck, and I can just enjoy my life. I would rather kill myself than live in Somalia.
On July 01 2011 15:40 Sanctimonius wrote: But in this scenario, played out many times in the past, the split power model never stood a chance against a bigger aggressor, but the country, with a centralised government, did.
On July 01 2011 16:00 Sanctimonius wrote: The Greco-Persian wars are a good example of my point. A collection of city-states with no central authority were seen as an easy target by a much stronger power. The bigger power attacked and won some victories, but because the city-states were seperate they continued to fight and won victories because of inherently better military technologies such as the phalanx and a reliance on foot-soldiers instead of cavalry.
Guess I don't understand your point, since I though i had provided an example in which the exact opposite occurs but you said it was a good example. The city-states continuing to fight because they "were separate" is a strange statement I don't understand, its not like Athens or Sparta was sacked by the Persians. I would say that the technological advantage of the Greeks doesn't seem relate to your previous point at all.
Edit: Also, typically in a war, each side will win at least some victories, even in a proper "splendid little war."
Athens was sacked, in the second war. Xerxes broke through the Spartan phalanxes at Thermopylae (300 wasn't far wrong) and burned Athens down. Other city-states had the coice to continue fighting because they had their own standing armies - in a centralised state, generally you have a single army. it falls, and you lose. That doesn't mean a centralised state is worse than a federalised state, or a collection of city-states.
Oh yeah, I forgot about Athens being sacked, its late here. I still don't really understand the point you were trying to make, other than that more centralized states have more centralized militarys, that I would agree with. I mean read the first quote of yours in this discussion, you seem to be putting forth a historical axiom of split power models never standing up to centralized aggressive powers.
I would still say your exaggerating what can be taken from history though, the defeat of the Athenian fleet would of meant the end of the war in favor of the Persians, Athens was sacked but was evacuated first so an Athenian army still existed.
@polysciguy: In our real society the community stops and disincentives theft through institutions developed for that purpose, we don't expect other people who are around (the community) to prevent crimes because they are not always around and are for the most part, terribly unreliable. If everyone in the community preventing crime was reasonable, it would happen already; no need for anarchy for that wonderful system of criminal justice.
In fact, I say we implement it right now, suggestions on how we do it?
sure how about first we get people to realize that crime left alone soon becomes everyone's problem. the fact that most people are apathetic about crime happening to other people is because of that mentality of its not happening to me it isn't my problem, it may soon be. it also has to do with the fact that we do currently have systems in place to deal with crime, ie a police force, however if such a force did not exist people would take its place, i mean surely you've heard of a neighborhood watch, its the exact same concept
Success of anarchy, lulz. I hope all of this is irony, seeing the actual living conditions in Somalia. It's quite ridiculous to just say "oh they got mobile network, they must be a great society".
Security firms boom? It's more like Mafia if you look at it. You pay or you get robbed because you are not safe without paying. Not so cool for everyone without a buttload of money.
On July 01 2011 17:04 Focuspants wrote: Brain would you pull a boat with your family on it into a port in somalia? Would you pull a boat with your family on it into any port in the entirety of Canada or the USA? You can sit there and try to rationalize how amazing Somalias system is, and hhow it would be great for us. The increase in prosperity only looks good, because there was no prosperity prior. Anything is better for the people than a dictatorship. You dont do anything to prove that life here is worse than life in Somalia, because we have a government. All you can offer are hypothetical situations, and idealistic world views, that ignore the basic human desire for success and power.
You're offering a laughable apples and oranges comparison. Refer to my previous posts.
You seem to think that contracting people to do things in a free market, means that you have the power to stop the big guys from getting too big. Newsflash, thats not how it works. If they wanna stay big, theyll get people on their side, until theyre too big for you to take down. Its the nature of the beast.
There are a lot of viable counterarguments here, so I'll let you google them instead of staying up to type them myself.
You also seem to think the government offers nothing. Life is simpler with everything the government does for us. I dont want to be responsible for hiring people for every little thing that needs to be done. I want people to do that for me. I have no interest in wasting my time with interdependance, communism, etc... I want to wake up, put in my 8 hours, spend time with my fiancee, my family, and my friends, and enjoy the fruits of my labour on my spare time. Rules, regulations, social services, schools, etc... are all conveniences that allow me to not have to worry about shit 24/7. I can live a comfortable life, not worry about kidnappers, murderers, pillagers, or anything of the sort. I cant count on a steady paycheck, and I can just enjoy my life. I would rather kill myself than live in Somalia.
You're right that government does provide some things: what you're speaking of is a collection of services. Services that government has a monopoly on. If there was an entire market full of people who stand to make money by finding the most efficient and effect way to take care of all those other things for you, for a fee, don't you think the end product would be better than what we get by granting the government a monopoly on those services? Break this down into individual parts and it becomes common sense: people simply have trouble seeing it because they've been brainwashed into thinking that government is good (in many cases by [i]government education... imagine that!]/i]).
You don't need rules, regulations, and intrusive government to enjoy the things you mention. In fact, I guarantee you that government intrusion is cutting into your ability to enjoy them by creating an economically inefficient system that ends up wasting huge amounts of our labor.
On July 01 2011 17:11 teekesselchen wrote: Success of anarchy, lulz. I hope all of this is irony, seeing the actual living conditions in Somalia. It's quite ridiculous to just say "oh they got mobile network, they must be a great society".
Security firms boom? It's more like Mafia if you look at it. You pay or you get robbed because you are not safe without paying. Not so cool for everyone without a buttload of money.
Please explain to me how that is different from government. If I stop paying my taxes, say, because I don't support America's occupations overseas, I will be arrested (kidnapped) and thrown in jail (held against my will) until I pay, and then I'll probably be charged for their trouble.
You're paying for security right now. Cops don't work for free. The difference between government monopoly and market anarchy is that if I had a choice of security providers, I doubt I'd choose one that uses my money to extort me in the form of traffic tickets for driving a few miles over the speed limit. I doubt such a firm would last long on the open market.
You say that the worst result of anarchy is a strong-arm government... But which is easier, starting from scratch in anarchy and developing a system of unstoppable oppression, or simply taking over the reigns of a "limited" government in which the means of oppression are already in place?
If less government is good, no government is better. People simply can't fathom that because they have been told their entire lives that we need government. I've yet to see the proof.
You're right in that its easier to create a strong government when one is already in place, but that doesn't mean government is bad. Looking at history, a country is easier to conquer when it has a central authority - win one big battle and you take the country. If power is split in little communities, you have to fight each and every one. But in this scenario, played out many times in the past, the split power model never stood a chance against a bigger aggressor, but the country, with a centralised government, did. See the wars between Greece and Rome as compared to the Gallic Campaigns, or the Viking invasion of England compared to similar campaigns elsewhere.
A limited government simply limits the damage it can do, while also limiting the good it can do. This is only a good thing if you inherently think government and central authority is a bad thing, which I assume you do But if a government works well, in a local area, then why would you want to limit that? A strong, well run government is a good thing, surely? The fact it could be taken over by, for example, a dictatorial coup, doesn't mean its a bad thing inherently.
No. Government in all forms is bad. All it does it introduce coercion and strip away individual liberties, and offers only oppression and illusions.
The subject of defense in a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society is a difficult one, as it would have to address the "freeloader" dilemma, likely through large-scale insurance organizations or voluntary funding. However, you must understand that security, like anything else, is a good that the free market is capable of providing far better than any government. I encourage you to research these things on your own (Mises is a good place to start, also check out the Anarcho-Capitalism subreddit), if just for curiosity's sake, and you may find yourself seeing the truth of them!
Also keep in mind that the incentive for violence will decrease drastically when there is economic prosperity and interdependence.
So you think an "anarchistic" society would need large-scale corporate militia. And you actually think that is a good idea? Either you end up with one monopolistic organisation that basically IS a government, or you end up with multiple different well-armed forces which are either geographically seperated resulting in several smaller states, or they are not seperated and have different goals, which to me seems to like to invite conflicts. So you end up with some strange cyberpunk setting of corporate wars. Especially important is that those militas would not serve the interest of the general populace, but of a small subset of it, which to me sounds like a lot worse then having a government
No more "dangerous" than current governments; also, keep in mind that such security measures would only be necessary if there is a clear threat (such as when one region is in market anarchy and another retains government and threatens to invade).
As for everything else, as I said, this is one of the more complex aspects of Anarcho-Capitalism because it deals with anarchism interacting with a statist world. Rather than making me explain everything (which would take a while, not to mention the fact that there are people far more qualified than myself to do that), please research it yourself. If I'm crazy, you should find proof in my rationales, right?
Few quick points: 1) Worst case scenario is still government - what we've got now! 2) History's only examples of consistent monopolies were a result of government intervention. Look at utilities, for example. 3) In a world where all interactions are voluntary, the plug could be pulled on militias immediately if they ceased to offer a satisfactory service (IE they started abusing their power). The flow of funds would go something like this: individual people -> insurance companies -> private defense. If the "militia" abused their power, funding could be cut at any point in the chain and that money would go towards funding a new defense firm for the purposes of shutting down the old one. 4) Voluntary participation in defense (by non-paramilitary citizens) would probably help. 5) The contract for defense would be open for competition. Since a primary concern in hiring a defense contractor would be the risk of that power being turn against you, the firms would compete to find the best way to provide assurance that they wouldn't abuse their power. I can't even imagine what that would look like: another example of the market spurring innovation that solves problems in ways we can't predict.
I don't think that what you are saying is correct. For one, not every government is the same. There are very different types of government, and some of them are objevtively better then others. You would probably like the phrasing "less bad" more, but that is exactly the same thing, so i am ok with that, too. I think that the follow-up government an anarchy produces will usually sway towards the "bad" side, by which i mean corrupt, oppressive, and the likes.
Also, do you seriously think that "pulling the plug" on the only armed force in your country would be easy? What if they decide that they don't want to go away, and would rather continue to be paid, if you like it or not? It't not like they can't take everything you own at any time they want. They have the guns, you don't. Also, you can't simply spawn trained and equipped military when you like to. You can't just start building it when you fear being invaded. And you can't just start a new military organisation for defending against your old organisation gone rogue, because that old organsiation is already in your country, with guns, and can easily stop the training of any potentially oposing force. So you would need to juggle those firms all the time, and keep them at about the same power at all times. This is first and foremost not easy, and i really would not feel very safe if there are multiple conflicting military units in your land. It is probably also pretty expensive and bureaucratic.
However you organize it, you either end up with a totally ineffective military, or with a very small amount of people in power of it. Someone needs to collect the money, and then decide what to spend it on.
Seeing the general dislike of people to pay taxes, a volutary defense expense is probably not something most people would put a the top of their priorities, since they could theoretically leech of their neighbors defense expenses. So you need to make it obligatory for them, or basically deny any service without the proof of having paid for it. While this might work for a police force, it does not work for a military. You can not defend one guy, but not his neighbor against an invasion. This does not only apply to defense forces, but also to simple stuff like road maintenance.
It also gets pretty near to some mob-like extortion when you apply that principle to stuff like police or the firefighters. I somehow expect that the houses of people who refuse to pay the firefighters suddenly have a much larger chance to burst into flames. Or maybe some goons appear at your door and "defend" you against people beating you up in the streets. And people who don't pay them have a tendency to get beaten up in dark alleys.
Also, do you notice how much your anarchy starts to sound more and more like a government with a different name? You need a system to collect money from everyone, have it go through some kind of apparatus, and then be distributed to different organisations like a military, road maintenance, and so on.
You say that the worst result of anarchy is a strong-arm government... But which is easier, starting from scratch in anarchy and developing a system of unstoppable oppression, or simply taking over the reigns of a "limited" government in which the means of oppression are already in place?
If less government is good, no government is better. People simply can't fathom that because they have been told their entire lives that we need government. I've yet to see the proof.
You're right in that its easier to create a strong government when one is already in place, but that doesn't mean government is bad. Looking at history, a country is easier to conquer when it has a central authority - win one big battle and you take the country. If power is split in little communities, you have to fight each and every one. But in this scenario, played out many times in the past, the split power model never stood a chance against a bigger aggressor, but the country, with a centralised government, did. See the wars between Greece and Rome as compared to the Gallic Campaigns, or the Viking invasion of England compared to similar campaigns elsewhere.
A limited government simply limits the damage it can do, while also limiting the good it can do. This is only a good thing if you inherently think government and central authority is a bad thing, which I assume you do But if a government works well, in a local area, then why would you want to limit that? A strong, well run government is a good thing, surely? The fact it could be taken over by, for example, a dictatorial coup, doesn't mean its a bad thing inherently.
No. Government in all forms is bad. All it does it introduce coercion and strip away individual liberties, and offers only oppression and illusions.
The subject of defense in a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society is a difficult one, as it would have to address the "freeloader" dilemma, likely through large-scale insurance organizations or voluntary funding. However, you must understand that security, like anything else, is a good that the free market is capable of providing far better than any government. I encourage you to research these things on your own (Mises is a good place to start, also check out the Anarcho-Capitalism subreddit), if just for curiosity's sake, and you may find yourself seeing the truth of them!
Also keep in mind that the incentive for violence will decrease drastically when there is economic prosperity and interdependence.
So you think an "anarchistic" society would need large-scale corporate militia. And you actually think that is a good idea? Either you end up with one monopolistic organisation that basically IS a government, or you end up with multiple different well-armed forces which are either geographically seperated resulting in several smaller states, or they are not seperated and have different goals, which to me seems to like to invite conflicts. So you end up with some strange cyberpunk setting of corporate wars. Especially important is that those militas would not serve the interest of the general populace, but of a small subset of it, which to me sounds like a lot worse then having a government
No more "dangerous" than current governments; also, keep in mind that such security measures would only be necessary if there is a clear threat (such as when one region is in market anarchy and another retains government and threatens to invade).
As for everything else, as I said, this is one of the more complex aspects of Anarcho-Capitalism because it deals with anarchism interacting with a statist world. Rather than making me explain everything (which would take a while, not to mention the fact that there are people far more qualified than myself to do that), please research it yourself. If I'm crazy, you should find proof in my rationales, right?
Few quick points: 1) Worst case scenario is still government - what we've got now! 2) History's only examples of consistent monopolies were a result of government intervention. Look at utilities, for example. 3) In a world where all interactions are voluntary, the plug could be pulled on militias immediately if they ceased to offer a satisfactory service (IE they started abusing their power). The flow of funds would go something like this: individual people -> insurance companies -> private defense. If the "militia" abused their power, funding could be cut at any point in the chain and that money would go towards funding a new defense firm for the purposes of shutting down the old one. 4) Voluntary participation in defense (by non-paramilitary citizens) would probably help. 5) The contract for defense would be open for competition. Since a primary concern in hiring a defense contractor would be the risk of that power being turn against you, the firms would compete to find the best way to provide assurance that they wouldn't abuse their power. I can't even imagine what that would look like: another example of the market spurring innovation that solves problems in ways we can't predict.
I don't think that what you are saying is correct. For one, not every government is the same. There are very different types of government, and some of them are objevtively better then others. You would probably like the phrasing "less bad" more, but that is exactly the same thing, so i am ok with that, too. I think that the follow-up government an anarchy produces will usually sway towards the "bad" side, by which i mean corrupt, oppressive, and the likes.
Also, do you seriously think that "pulling the plug" on the only armed force in your country would be easy? What if they decide that they don't want to go away, and would rather continue to be paid, if you like it or not? It't not like they can't take everything you own at any time they want. They have the guns, you don't. Also, you can't simply spawn trained and equipped military when you like to. You can't just start building it when you fear being invaded. And you can't just start a new military organisation for defending against your old organisation gone rogue, because that old organsiation is already in your country, with guns, and can easily stop the training of any potentially oposing force. So you would need to juggle those firms all the time, and keep them at about the same power at all times. This is first and foremost not easy, and i really would not feel very safe if there are multiple conflicting military units in your land. It is probably also pretty expensive and bureaucratic.
However you organize it, you either end up with a totally ineffective military, or with a very small amount of people in power of it. Someone needs to collect the money, and then decide what to spend it on.
Seeing the general dislike of people to pay taxes, a volutary defense expense is probably not something most people would put a the top of their priorities, since they could theoretically leech of their neighbors defense expenses. So you need to make it obligatory for them, or basically deny any service without the proof of having paid for it. While this might work for a police force, it does not work for a military. You can not defend one guy, but not his neighbor against an invasion. This does not only apply to defense forces, but also to simple stuff like road maintenance.
It also gets pretty near to some mob-like extortion when you apply that principle to stuff like police or the firefighters. I somehow expect that the houses of people who refuse to pay the firefighters suddenly have a much larger chance to burst into flames. Or maybe some goons appear at your door and "defend" you against people beating you up in the streets. And people who don't pay them have a tendency to get beaten up in dark alleys.
Also, do you notice how much your anarchy starts to sound more and more like a government with a different name? You need a system to collect money from everyone, have it go through some kind of apparatus, and then be distributed to different organisations like a military, road maintenance, and so on.
You're making several important incorrect assumptions. Like I said, market systems have an answer for this that I am unable to succinctly explain before I go to bed. Go read about it. If I remember this in the morning, I'll round up some decent sources to make it easier for people.
Just remember that competition always results in a better product at a lower price. Once you understand that everything is a product or service, including everything government offers, it makes sense to open it up to competition rather than allow one entity a monopoly backed by violence.
Market anarchy is the natural result of two assumptions: 1) Coercion/violence is bad. 2) People have a right to property.
On July 01 2011 13:22 windsupernova wrote: Well, you guys are free to move there any time you want. Make sure to give us a call
Oh God, this has to be the best comment I've read in years. Priceless!
Ah, and by the way: Bro-fist all the way from Belgium to Somalia. Keepin' it real without a government.
No, but seriously: I am sure that there is no anarchy in Somalia. Maybe anarchy in terms of 'all hell breaks lose'. But I'm sure there's some oligarchic hierachy.
On July 01 2011 17:02 TheFrankOne wrote: @polysciguy: In our real society the community stops and disincentives theft through institutions developed for that purpose, we don't expect other people who are around (the community) to prevent crimes because they are not always around and are for the most part, terribly unreliable. If everyone in the community preventing crime was reasonable, it would happen already; no need for anarchy for that wonderful system of criminal justice.
In fact, I say we implement it right now, suggestions on how we do it?
sure how about first we get people to realize that crime left alone soon becomes everyone's problem. the fact that most people are apathetic about crime happening to other people is because of that mentality of its not happening to me it isn't my problem, it may soon be. it also has to do with the fact that we do currently have systems in place to deal with crime, ie a police force, however if such a force did not exist people would take its place, i mean surely you've heard of a neighborhood watch, its the exact same concept
That apathy thing is a puzzler, when someone is getting robbed at gun/knife point I certainly do not want to become robbery victim #2, I would rather get someone better equipped to deal with the problem, like member of this neighborhood watch-like thing which I think should be discussed a little more.
I agree though, we should all just care more, and get along while we're at it.
Ok so something like a neighborhood watch, ya know without police so they should have some weapons.. and we don't want people using weapons without training. Think of the children around the neighborhood. Of course weapons and training costs money so we will need to get some monies from the community, someone should also probably organize the watch and someone should collect the money. Also we will need to determine what would be appropriate punishments for crimes and what are crimes and we need some sort of system to make sure that, beyond a reasonable doubt, we have found our criminal, who might not have been caught in the act after all...
Wait, dammit! We have all that because the neighborhood watch relies on all the other institutions in our society related to law enforcement and criminal justice. Also a police force is made up of "people" not "robots" or "cats."
Though I have heard rumors of strange man/pig hybrids that make up police forces, I have personally only met people.
@Brain Coercion and violence are bad, unfortunately they can also be super effective.
On July 01 2011 13:22 windsupernova wrote: Well, you guys are free to move there any time you want. Make sure to give us a call
Oh God, this has to be the best comment I've read in years. Priceless!
Ah, and by the way: Bro-fist all the way from Belgium to Somalia. Keepin' it real without a government.
No, but seriously: I am sure that there is no anarchy in Somalia. Maybe anarchy in terms of 'all hell breaks lose'. But I'm sure there's some oligarchic hierachy.
all hells breaks loose isn't anarchy its chaos, there is a difference. true anarchy like true communism, will most likely never exist because the ideals they embody run contrary to human nature.
You say that the worst result of anarchy is a strong-arm government... But which is easier, starting from scratch in anarchy and developing a system of unstoppable oppression, or simply taking over the reigns of a "limited" government in which the means of oppression are already in place?
If less government is good, no government is better. People simply can't fathom that because they have been told their entire lives that we need government. I've yet to see the proof.
You're right in that its easier to create a strong government when one is already in place, but that doesn't mean government is bad. Looking at history, a country is easier to conquer when it has a central authority - win one big battle and you take the country. If power is split in little communities, you have to fight each and every one. But in this scenario, played out many times in the past, the split power model never stood a chance against a bigger aggressor, but the country, with a centralised government, did. See the wars between Greece and Rome as compared to the Gallic Campaigns, or the Viking invasion of England compared to similar campaigns elsewhere.
A limited government simply limits the damage it can do, while also limiting the good it can do. This is only a good thing if you inherently think government and central authority is a bad thing, which I assume you do But if a government works well, in a local area, then why would you want to limit that? A strong, well run government is a good thing, surely? The fact it could be taken over by, for example, a dictatorial coup, doesn't mean its a bad thing inherently.
No. Government in all forms is bad. All it does it introduce coercion and strip away individual liberties, and offers only oppression and illusions.
The subject of defense in a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society is a difficult one, as it would have to address the "freeloader" dilemma, likely through large-scale insurance organizations or voluntary funding. However, you must understand that security, like anything else, is a good that the free market is capable of providing far better than any government. I encourage you to research these things on your own (Mises is a good place to start, also check out the Anarcho-Capitalism subreddit), if just for curiosity's sake, and you may find yourself seeing the truth of them!
Also keep in mind that the incentive for violence will decrease drastically when there is economic prosperity and interdependence.
So you think an "anarchistic" society would need large-scale corporate militia. And you actually think that is a good idea? Either you end up with one monopolistic organisation that basically IS a government, or you end up with multiple different well-armed forces which are either geographically seperated resulting in several smaller states, or they are not seperated and have different goals, which to me seems to like to invite conflicts. So you end up with some strange cyberpunk setting of corporate wars. Especially important is that those militas would not serve the interest of the general populace, but of a small subset of it, which to me sounds like a lot worse then having a government
No more "dangerous" than current governments; also, keep in mind that such security measures would only be necessary if there is a clear threat (such as when one region is in market anarchy and another retains government and threatens to invade).
As for everything else, as I said, this is one of the more complex aspects of Anarcho-Capitalism because it deals with anarchism interacting with a statist world. Rather than making me explain everything (which would take a while, not to mention the fact that there are people far more qualified than myself to do that), please research it yourself. If I'm crazy, you should find proof in my rationales, right?
Few quick points: 1) Worst case scenario is still government - what we've got now! 2) History's only examples of consistent monopolies were a result of government intervention. Look at utilities, for example. 3) In a world where all interactions are voluntary, the plug could be pulled on militias immediately if they ceased to offer a satisfactory service (IE they started abusing their power). The flow of funds would go something like this: individual people -> insurance companies -> private defense. If the "militia" abused their power, funding could be cut at any point in the chain and that money would go towards funding a new defense firm for the purposes of shutting down the old one. 4) Voluntary participation in defense (by non-paramilitary citizens) would probably help. 5) The contract for defense would be open for competition. Since a primary concern in hiring a defense contractor would be the risk of that power being turn against you, the firms would compete to find the best way to provide assurance that they wouldn't abuse their power. I can't even imagine what that would look like: another example of the market spurring innovation that solves problems in ways we can't predict.
I don't think that what you are saying is correct. For one, not every government is the same. There are very different types of government, and some of them are objevtively better then others. You would probably like the phrasing "less bad" more, but that is exactly the same thing, so i am ok with that, too. I think that the follow-up government an anarchy produces will usually sway towards the "bad" side, by which i mean corrupt, oppressive, and the likes.
Also, do you seriously think that "pulling the plug" on the only armed force in your country would be easy? What if they decide that they don't want to go away, and would rather continue to be paid, if you like it or not? It't not like they can't take everything you own at any time they want. They have the guns, you don't. Also, you can't simply spawn trained and equipped military when you like to. You can't just start building it when you fear being invaded. And you can't just start a new military organisation for defending against your old organisation gone rogue, because that old organsiation is already in your country, with guns, and can easily stop the training of any potentially oposing force. So you would need to juggle those firms all the time, and keep them at about the same power at all times. This is first and foremost not easy, and i really would not feel very safe if there are multiple conflicting military units in your land. It is probably also pretty expensive and bureaucratic.
However you organize it, you either end up with a totally ineffective military, or with a very small amount of people in power of it. Someone needs to collect the money, and then decide what to spend it on.
Seeing the general dislike of people to pay taxes, a volutary defense expense is probably not something most people would put a the top of their priorities, since they could theoretically leech of their neighbors defense expenses. So you need to make it obligatory for them, or basically deny any service without the proof of having paid for it. While this might work for a police force, it does not work for a military. You can not defend one guy, but not his neighbor against an invasion. This does not only apply to defense forces, but also to simple stuff like road maintenance.
It also gets pretty near to some mob-like extortion when you apply that principle to stuff like police or the firefighters. I somehow expect that the houses of people who refuse to pay the firefighters suddenly have a much larger chance to burst into flames. Or maybe some goons appear at your door and "defend" you against people beating you up in the streets. And people who don't pay them have a tendency to get beaten up in dark alleys.
Also, do you notice how much your anarchy starts to sound more and more like a government with a different name? You need a system to collect money from everyone, have it go through some kind of apparatus, and then be distributed to different organisations like a military, road maintenance, and so on.
You're making several important incorrect assumptions. Like I said, market systems have an answer for this that I am unable to succinctly explain before I go to bed. Go read about it. If I remember this in the morning, I'll round up some decent sources to make it easier for people.
Just remember that competition always results in a better product at a lower price. Once you understand that everything is a product or service, including everything government offers, it makes sense to open it up to competition rather than allow one entity a monopoly backed by violence.
Market anarchy is the natural result of two assumptions: 1) Coercion/violence is bad. 2) People have a right to property.
It would be very nice if you stopped saying "read it up" without providing any actual sources as to where i could do that. I am not really in the mood to do complete research when probably about 80% of the stuff i would find would be some unrealistic ramblings. I mean, i could reply with "read up why it won't work", and then we could stop talking, but that feels pretty unsatisfactory. Those sources would be nice.
I totally understand that a government is basically providing services which are mostly common interests of a lot of people, but also which a lot of people would probably be to short-sighted to realize that they are the ones that should be paying for them.
The problem in my opinion is not that you would not maybe get better services, but that it would be pretty hard to prevent an abusive monopoly without any safeguarding mechanism. That is the thing i like most about modern states, sure, they technically are a monopoly based on power to provide services, but they at least have pretty good safeguards both against turning into a worse situation and against individual corruption. That is not to say that corruption does not exist, but it is held in reasonable borders.
Also, i will also go to bed now, so i hope to find those links when i wake up tomorrow and am bored.
What you dont realize, is that countries with stricter regulations are actually doing better than countries with less regulated economies. You dont even need to look far. Look at Canada and the United States. The Canadian government is strict on business (yes including the banks), and has extremely high standards of operation, unlike the good old Republican way in the US. You guys hit a horrible recession, your hoousing market collapsed, millions of jobs were lost, unemployment is at very high levels, and why? Because people, when left to their own devices, without constant oversight and regulation, find any way possible to abuse people in the interest of personal gain.
What happened in Canada? A small hit to our economy, mostly because you guys are our biggest trading partner, and you fucked up.
Free market systems dont inspire fair and friendly competition, to put out the best possible product for the best price. Not without taking advantage of everything they possibly can to squeeze out that product for minimal cost, and sell it for maximum value. Youre approaching business as if its trying its best to make sure youre getting all the goods. It operates quite the opposite. Its "how do we put out the most competitive product that will make people happy to buy it, but as cheap as possible for us to make, and give us the highest possible profit margin?" Theyll do this by paying dick all for labour, abusing whatever system is in place in any way they can, or trying to snuff out the competition in any way possible. The difference between a business in Canada, and a business in your system, is that here there is such a close eye on them, with direct oversight, and an obvious level of accountability, with outlined punishments, that there are minimal ways to effectively do what you can easily do in your system, and have nobody to answer to.
Now if you argue that you set up people for them to answer to, youre assuming the role of a government and calling it something else, to make yourself feel better about it. Which is the same scenario that appears in basically all of your other ideas.
We dont even need to get in depth about any of these issues. You can call it apples and oranges if you like, but the article in the op is saying that because Somalias economy has picked up (now that there isnt a dictatorship), and that because they have 9 cell phone companies, theyre an example to the world, of how we should all live. I simply ask, would you be willing to move to Somalia then? If you answer no, you look like an idiot because youre praising a system you fear, and if you answer yes, you still look like an idiot because who in their right mind would leave North America to live in Somalia? There really doesnt need to be debate beyond that.
Market anarchy is a stupid idea based on the fantasy that people will choose voluntary exchange over involuntary exchange when no enforcement mechanism of the law other than their own conscience exists. Doesn't happen that way but they will talk to you until they are blue in the face and your ears fall off about how correct their reasoning is. Too bad the premises the logic follows from are faulty (I hope saying this doesn't provoke a long-winded reply about "action" or some such other Austrian School hobby horse from brain_ or someone else).
Somalia has a thriving telecommunications business because all sides in the civil war are awash with cash, the Islamists have it coming in from Saudi Arabia and through protection money, the warlords and "government" from Ethiopia and the West. This is also why guns are so cheap. These are external factors with nothing whatsoever to do with Somalia's own ability to create wealth. Wealth is pouring into the country, not from it. And why? Because there are political considerations - who will rule Somalia?
Any economic improvements are artificial, created by an influx of cash that would not exist if there were not considerations of power to be made. If Siad Barre still ran Somalia there would be no "telecom" "market anarchy" success stories, it would be just another totally horrible starvation center like Zimbabwe.
And the only reason it is not, is that rich foreigners and the Somalis connected to them have a political interest in who rules Somalia, whether they be Islamists in Saudi Arabia or diplomats in Washington.
Just as a little postscript, what happens when private militias or security companies "lose" their contract is they stick a gun in your face and it becomes a protection racket. They don't wither away. They have the guns, the men, and the organization. Nearly every household in Somalia has a gun, that doesn't stop the Islamist and secular warlords (and the two sides aren't diametrically opposed, factions switch sides all the time) from ruling through the sword over the territories they control.
Cool shit, you and everyone in your house has a gun and you aren't giving me your son to be a soldier in my militia or whatever it is I want. I'm a warlord with hundreds of dedicated fighters and thousands of auxiliaries, I'll roll up with three pick-up trucks full of guys with RPGs and light machine guns, we'll see how long you and your family hold out. The principle of anarchy at work, the strongest wins.
What you dont realize, is that countries with stricter regulations are actually doing better than countries with less regulated economies. You dont even need to look far. Look at Canada and the United States. The Canadian government is strict on business (yes including the banks), and has extremely high standards of operation, unlike the good old Republican way in the US. You guys hit a horrible recession, your hoousing market collapsed, millions of jobs were lost, unemployment is at very high levels, and why? Because people, when left to their own devices, without constant oversight and regulation, find any way possible to abuse people in the interest of personal gain.
What happened in Canada? A small hit to our economy, mostly because you guys are our biggest trading partner, and you fucked up.
What does this have to do with Somalia.
Also, your superior oversight needed a nice big bailout from our Fed too. Your contention of Canada's superior understanding of how to run an economy as opposed to those 'low-standard' Republicans doesn't quite hold up to the facts. Your bailout was around 10% of your annual GDP, same as ours was.
On July 01 2011 13:22 windsupernova wrote: Well, you guys are free to move there any time you want. Make sure to give us a call
Oh God, this has to be the best comment I've read in years. Priceless!
Ah, and by the way: Bro-fist all the way from Belgium to Somalia. Keepin' it real without a government.
No, but seriously: I am sure that there is no anarchy in Somalia. Maybe anarchy in terms of 'all hell breaks lose'. But I'm sure there's some oligarchic hierachy.
all hells breaks loose isn't anarchy its chaos, there is a difference. true anarchy like true communism, will most likely never exist because the ideals they embody run contrary to human nature.
And that's exactly why I stated that there is no anarchy. And that's exactly why I said "...maybe anarchy in terms of 'all hell breaks lose'".
Anarcho-libertarian claims are always ludicrous. By the second year of an economics degree these days you'll know half a dozen reasons that some government or universal coverage is necessary in fields like insurance or liability or information. Universal coverage would imply monopoly status and thus you have a pseudo-government situation, even if you're in the freest market ever.
There's little point arguing with such claims. No matter what, libertarians will mewl about being misunderstood or misrepresented. Give them object counter-evidence and they will reduce it to a single point of contention, to be discarded after a thorough treatment with a strawman argument.
The rest of us normal human beings don't arbitrarily select two philosophical principles and a handful of mostly-discredited economic theories and build a worldview upon them.
On July 01 2011 12:50 0neder wrote: Anarchists are foolish idealists. The founders of USA understood the need to balance freedom and order. And, they established a framework for people to freely succeed according to their ambition that also restricted government power. Granted, after a few hundred years it is swamped by general laziness and nearly overcome by a demand for endless 'rights' without compensatory sacrifices by its citizens, but it's so robust that it's still succeeding for the most part.
It's people like you that ruin movies by having a waving American flag at the end of all of them -_-'
On July 01 2011 12:13 xarthaz wrote: 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.
Except that, it's "fastest improving" because it's an absolute hellhole, one of the worst places on earth to live.
The whole economy is living on refugees sending money back home to support people stuck in that insane country. Just google remittance and Somalia, and you'll have plenty of proof.
To point to Somalia as an example to be followed, is either showing off completely ignorance of the reality of the nation, or just insanity.
It's people like you that ruin movies by having a waving American flag at the end of all of them -_-'
"Sir! It's the Americans! They've come up with the plan we've been waiting for!"
But really, it's people like you that ruin movies by complaining at the end about the waving American flag in movies made by American companies whose main target is Americans.
I'd love if a admin came in here (since they represent the kind of "power" that is all important in a lawless country like this) and closed this thread "because they can".
This is basically what people are defining as "successful" here. You know what happens when one group ends up with the most guns and power and crushes everyone else? A dictatorship...
On July 01 2011 12:13 xarthaz wrote: 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.
You said this, but the following quotes are from the article you reference?
Earlier in the year, the BBC featured a series of articles commemorating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the state in Somalia. Although the articles expressed the typical revulsion at "anarchy," the series was surprisingly balanced for such a mainstream outlet.
As I said initially, the BBC's treatment is remarkably balanced.
Cool they' ve gone from riding pirate boats around shooting Kalashnikovs to riding pirate boats around shooting Kalashnikovs while talking on the phone.
Sounds like the epitome of civilized progress. Where do I sign up?
On July 01 2011 18:10 Kickboxer wrote: Cool they' ve gone from riding pirate boats around shooting Kalashnikovs to riding pirate boats around shooting Kalashnikovs while talking on the phone.
Sounds like the epitome of civilized progress. Where do I sign up?
The way you describe it actually makes it sound pretty awesome :-(
On July 01 2011 18:10 Kickboxer wrote: Cool they' ve gone from riding pirate boats around shooting Kalashnikovs to riding pirate boats around shooting Kalashnikovs while talking on the phone.
Sounds like the epitome of civilized progress. Where do I sign up?
On July 01 2011 17:24 brain_ wrote: Just remember that competition always results in a better product at a lower price. Once you understand that everything is a product or service, including everything government offers, it makes sense to open it up to competition rather than allow one entity a monopoly backed by violence.
Oh, so thats why US citizens are on average paying double the amount for an inferior product, compared to other western communities with centralized governmentrun singlepayer healthcare?
Competition is the right choice in a lot situations - but it does NOT always guaranteee a better product from societys perspective. Not guarantee that it is cheaper.
It is simply naive to expect market forces to align with societys goals. Market forces would never have caused the moon landing, Market forces will never cure cancer(Happy to provide you with treatment for it though). Market forces will never teach every kid to read. Market forces will never prevent producers from putting nasty stuff in your paint, food or water. Raw competition is just as much about cutting corners as it is about improving your product.
Government and regulation is needed to keep the competition honest.
Anarchy can't work when there are people who's human nature is to get more rich and more powerful, ie: pirates. This is also the case when there are people who struggle for money and power and are literally dying of starvation on a day to day basis. How can that be a strong model of a governing...
On July 01 2011 12:57 partisan wrote: This is a joke right? Surely there is not a single sane person that looks at Somalia as a success story. Yea, 20 years of endless violence where its citizens have to turn to piracy to make money.
But apparently the US is at fault again, which is great because I was beginning to miss that dead horse.
This. How can you even begin to think Somalia is a success? It's absurd.
Maybe if any of us on the forum here lived im Somalia for the past 10-20 years and have a chance to see it as it is now... don't you think it might actually be an improvement to the state it was at back then? Who are we to judge, we don't have first hand experience. It just might be possible that it is, currently, a LOT better than it was 10 years ago. People there might be happy with their existence (however weird it might look to us westerners).
On July 01 2011 12:13 xarthaz wrote: 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.
You said this, but the following quotes are from the article you reference?
Earlier in the year, the BBC featured a series of articles commemorating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the state in Somalia. Although the articles expressed the typical revulsion at "anarchy," the series was surprisingly balanced for such a mainstream outlet.
As I said initially, the BBC's treatment is remarkably balanced.
Yes, the OP is rather inconsistent and seems to just be regurgitating things. It's probably best to just disregard most of what he is saying and focus on the topic of whether or not anarchy is actually helping somalia.
The fact that the two autonomous states in Somalia are doing much better than Somalia proper suggests that decently run governments can quickly bring prosperity to a region. Puntland even managed to hold legitimate elections, which is pretty exceptional for Africa. It seems like they really have their act together.
On July 01 2011 18:54 Dooba wrote: Maybe if any of us on the forum here lived im Somalia for the past 10-20 years and have a chance to see it as it is now... don't you think it might actually be an improvement to the state it was at back then? Who are we to judge, we don't have first hand experience. It just might be possible that it is, currently, a LOT better than it was 10 years ago. People there might be happy with their existence (however weird it might look to us westerners).
With the state Somalia was in 10 years ago, it pretty much had nowhere to go but up.
People die left and right, if someone hits your car you probably kill them or be killed and you think that's the right way?
Then go there with you anarchist friends setup a big clan (with a month work in the west you can probably buy like 5 AK's so guns won't be the trouble) and do what the others do!
Exploit, rape, murder, extorsion, racketiring, maybe some pirating and hostage taking!
On July 01 2011 14:33 xarthaz wrote: The reality of modern slavery is not a result of emotions related to suggestions regarding conditions in different areas. It is in fact a definitional issue. And clear at that- what is defined as ownership, property, law, must necessarily imply the condiitions necessary for concluding the reality of slavery. No, it never left, though the prospect of it happening can be somewhat disturbing, none less for myself, hence the cautious approach to a subject grasped at by the more capable members of the Institute.
Now note that the freedom concept as perceived through experience is not subject of the universal definitions that result in conclusions on the subject - it is instead the conditioning. Note how the video touches on this in its assessment of public education, and claims of its real purpose. It is no secret, and a thinking man staying within the boxes of definitional strictness - though it throws himself outside the box of social acceptability. As a result, brave men take that path, and great respect, and fortitude is to be commended. To them - salut, but for the rest of us, the material to ponder about remains in existance - all because of definitional universality.
It is something of a dichotomy between reason from conditions to assessment, and emotions to assessment. While the choice of end assessment always remains subject of emotions, it is the intermediate phase, assessment, which is hijacked by propagandist concepts employed in enslaving the populus.
While reality of conclusions of definitional strictness is sparsely touched upon, as the reactions to article show, it reaffirms the emotion to assessment mechanic - due to fallacy of positivist condition replacing reason. It is the traged of modern mind that Mises has touched upon. The collective delusion exists as such, and its disappearance can only be necessitated by a total paradigm shift in what the epistemological foundations of knowledge in popular mind are considered. Perhaps unlikely given the edicational premise the video touched upon.
I'm not often spurred to argue with strangers on the internet, but this post is utter hand-wavery in the worst way (to borrow a Science Fiction expression).
There is no slavery in a free-thinking democracy. I'm not bound by the state to do anything I don't want to do, besides follow their laws--laws that other free-thinking men created to preserve my rights. The most obvious comparison in the video is the caged pig to modern man: unlike the pig, I can do what I please, go where I want--oh yeah, and I'm sentient to the point of recognizing my own mortality (do you really think pigs would calmly get stuck in cages if they could conceptualize death?) I'm not sent into a field everyday to farm wheat. I'm not worked to the bone turning wheels in a mill to turn that wheat into flour. Long story short: I'm not forced by the state to do anything--unless I choose to work for the state.
The metaphor is absurd and sensationalist. I'm free to create things and make a living without fear of persecution or imprisonment. That is not a "collective delusion." That is fact. Never before in the history of our world has society created parameters in which individuals can thrive as individuals. I don't have to follow tradition or worry about castes; don't have to please anyone but myself nor meet any standards but my own (which should be high). For the most part we are free of censorship.
Now, if you want to get into whether the mass media is turning everyone into a flock of sheep, I'm down. But the video was nonsense.
It's all in the eye of the beholder, If Somalia seems like paradise then OP should move there imo. If you end up high tailing it back to where ever you are from, if you survive, then at least you can see what all the rage is about you are reading or bullshit for that matter.
Thriving small arms industry with rock bottom prices? Sounds great. Remember, guns are the great equalizer, which make a granny knitting club no less a pushover than a band of grunts. Where there is equality in power, there is peace. As such, these conditions are part of the reason for Peace in somalia. While the foreign opressors - UN, Ethiopia, US, are the reason for violence.
On July 01 2011 17:15 brain_ wrote:if I had a choice of security providers, I doubt I'd choose one that uses my money to extort me in the form of traffic tickets for driving a few miles over the speed limit. I doubt such a firm would last long on the open market.
And when you get someone else killed by speeding you're safe because your security provider has more guns than that of the person you killed?
No fucking way that people would be safe in the world that you describe.
whaaaaa it makes me mad to see that people think this is what anarchy and anarchism looks like. anarchism is anti-capitalism per se. this is just radical capitalism without a government, this has NOTHING to do with anarchism.
I have attempted to move the discussion close to the teleological premises of the debate. To avoid emotional distress. This is of highest relevance to the topic, and as such, the careful analysis of conditions that define the subject of discussion allows for cleear insight into reality. In fact this is the Misesian paradigm, strictness to rules, the a priori system of rigorous logic. As the a posteriori school bombards its dogmatic arguments, and i dare say predictable, the answer must be given. No less than full compliance to the conditions necessary for the acceptance of the analytic system.
Please.
I tore the initial argument to shreds (that Somalia is a good example of your 'teleological premises') so you abandoned reality and have instead attempted to make it an economic theory debate, which is one of the exact same mistakes that those two authors made. You've ignored politics. You've ignored culture. All you want to talk about is numbers, so you're obfuscating your own reality and are completely missing the influences behind the data.
The closest you've come to examining my post is that you don't believe my claims about the US arming and training various warlord factions. Then I post several news articles (hint: not from a blog) about the Pentagon and CIA's secret operations in Somalia (I believe one is titled, 'US secretly backs Somalian warlords' - you can't get much more explicit than that) and you've yet to respond.
Good society without government > good society with government > bad society without government > bad society with government
Couldn't be more wrong. There is none good society without government. Fail. Btw Alien government > Good society without government.
If less government is good, no government is better.
Well ... that doesn't work exactly like that. Btw less government isn't good. Look at the actual crisis.
Democracy is a form of government, and is therefore flawed (especially given the track record of African voters...).
Maybe because it's not a democracy ? REALLY ? :o
How can you expect to improve quality of life without freedom? Government can't wave a magic wand and make everyone's lives better - in fact, attempts to do so (by foreign governments) have only resulted in disaster (foreign aid).
Ok. I would be happy if my government wouldn't have to help somalia's freeeeedoom because they're starving and sick. It's totally our fault.
No. Government in all forms is bad. All it does it introduce coercion and strip away individual liberties, and offers only oppression and illusions.
Yeah ... government should'nt give you security, the right to own something ... You want to be free ? Go live in the woods.
On July 01 2011 17:11 teekesselchen wrote: Success of anarchy, lulz. I hope all of this is irony, seeing the actual living conditions in Somalia. It's quite ridiculous to just say "oh they got mobile network, they must be a great society".
Security firms boom? It's more like Mafia if you look at it. You pay or you get robbed because you are not safe without paying. Not so cool for everyone without a buttload of money.
Please explain to me how that is different from government. If I stop paying my taxes, say, because I don't support America's occupations overseas, I will be arrested (kidnapped) and thrown in jail (held against my will) until I pay, and then I'll probably be charged for their trouble.
You're paying for security right now. Cops don't work for free. The difference between government monopoly and market anarchy is that if I had a choice of security providers, I doubt I'd choose one that uses my money to extort me in the form of traffic tickets for driving a few miles over the speed limit. I doubt such a firm would last long on the open market.
1) Taxes are not arbitrary but made by your democratic (well, more or less... see bush vs kerry, wtf) government. They are dependend on income, so that people who earn less money have to pay less. You are getting a lot back from it: Infrastructure, security, education - all things that lack in Somalia. 2) Yeah people should really be allowed to drive 200 km/h in cities. That would free up a lot of jobs and really benefit the pension offices. I'm sure you get what I'm heading at here. 3) Taxes are also a mean of redistribution to avoid severe poverty, though U.S. citizens don't seem to like that.
I highly doubt a country's telecoms industry is a suitable example of its success nor its need for private security. I would say its public health care and education would be a better benchmark of which neither I would imagine are that great in somalia at the moment.... I could be wrong though
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."
Good article, thx for the link. It proves all people wrong which believe hell on earth breaks out in the absence of a central government.
On July 01 2011 19:40 BlackFlag wrote: whaaaaa it makes me mad to see that people think this is what anarchy and anarchism looks like. anarchism is anti-capitalism per se. this is just radical capitalism without a government, this has NOTHING to do with anarchism.
How could you have anarchism without it developing to radical capitalism? If somebody can repair something then he will want something in exchange for doing that, if somebody can craft then he will want something in exchange for that as well, if somebody would grow food...
On July 01 2011 19:40 BlackFlag wrote: whaaaaa it makes me mad to see that people think this is what anarchy and anarchism looks like. anarchism is anti-capitalism per se. this is just radical capitalism without a government, this has NOTHING to do with anarchism.
How could you have anarchism without it developing to radical capitalism? If somebody can repair something then he will want something in exchange for doing that, if somebody can craft then he will want something in exchange for that as well, if somebody would grow food...
No, true Anarchists are all totally selfless and stuff you know? They just work and do stuff for "fun"... Just look at Somalia, they have telephone companies and cheap weapons!
This is all ridiculous Somalia has atleast 2 governments. The notion that there is no government in Somalia is a myth. The most successful Somali government is the Islamic government. The west dont like them one bit and even encouraged Ethiopia to invade Somalia in 2008 to destroy the successful unified Islamic government that they had. There are several warlord groups each of these has a heirarchy sets laws and in some cases collects taxes. In other words Somalia has governments. Not one government but many.
This thread is in line with one of the main problems the US has that is a completely utopian and delusional understanding amongst a noisy minority of the public who adovate destroying the state in the name of saving it. The answer is to form a functional successful government. Many people think destroying the government will help. All they will do is destroy civilisation as we know it. Not a good thing!
Anarchy is a myth. Humans are not an individual species but a pack species. The second you form a clan tribe or pack you have formed a government. There has never been a civilisation on this planet who didnt have a government.
On July 01 2011 19:40 BlackFlag wrote: whaaaaa it makes me mad to see that people think this is what anarchy and anarchism looks like. anarchism is anti-capitalism per se. this is just radical capitalism without a government, this has NOTHING to do with anarchism.
How could you have anarchism without it developing to radical capitalism? If somebody can repair something then he will want something in exchange for doing that, if somebody can craft then he will want something in exchange for that as well, if somebody would grow food...
On July 01 2011 17:04 Focuspants wrote: Brain would you pull a boat with your family on it into a port in somalia? Would you pull a boat with your family on it into any port in the entirety of Canada or the USA? You can sit there and try to rationalize how amazing Somalias system is, and hhow it would be great for us. The increase in prosperity only looks good, because there was no prosperity prior. Anything is better for the people than a dictatorship. You dont do anything to prove that life here is worse than life in Somalia, because we have a government. All you can offer are hypothetical situations, and idealistic world views, that ignore the basic human desire for success and power.
You're offering a laughable apples and oranges comparison. Refer to my previous posts.
You seem to think that contracting people to do things in a free market, means that you have the power to stop the big guys from getting too big. Newsflash, thats not how it works. If they wanna stay big, theyll get people on their side, until theyre too big for you to take down. Its the nature of the beast.
There are a lot of viable counterarguments here, so I'll let you google them instead of staying up to type them myself.
You also seem to think the government offers nothing. Life is simpler with everything the government does for us. I dont want to be responsible for hiring people for every little thing that needs to be done. I want people to do that for me. I have no interest in wasting my time with interdependance, communism, etc... I want to wake up, put in my 8 hours, spend time with my fiancee, my family, and my friends, and enjoy the fruits of my labour on my spare time. Rules, regulations, social services, schools, etc... are all conveniences that allow me to not have to worry about shit 24/7. I can live a comfortable life, not worry about kidnappers, murderers, pillagers, or anything of the sort. I cant count on a steady paycheck, and I can just enjoy my life. I would rather kill myself than live in Somalia.
You're right that government does provide some things: what you're speaking of is a collection of services. Services that government has a monopoly on. If there was an entire market full of people who stand to make money by finding the most efficient and effect way to take care of all those other things for you, for a fee, don't you think the end product would be better than what we get by granting the government a monopoly on those services? Break this down into individual parts and it becomes common sense: people simply have trouble seeing it because they've been brainwashed into thinking that government is good (in many cases by [i]government education... imagine that!]/i]).
You don't need rules, regulations, and intrusive government to enjoy the things you mention. In fact, I guarantee you that government intrusion is cutting into your ability to enjoy them by creating an economically inefficient system that ends up wasting huge amounts of our labor.
On July 01 2011 17:11 teekesselchen wrote: Success of anarchy, lulz. I hope all of this is irony, seeing the actual living conditions in Somalia. It's quite ridiculous to just say "oh they got mobile network, they must be a great society".
Security firms boom? It's more like Mafia if you look at it. You pay or you get robbed because you are not safe without paying. Not so cool for everyone without a buttload of money.
Please explain to me how that is different from government. If I stop paying my taxes, say, because I don't support America's occupations overseas, I will be arrested (kidnapped) and thrown in jail (held against my will) until I pay, and then I'll probably be charged for their trouble.
You're paying for security right now. Cops don't work for free. The difference between government monopoly and market anarchy is that if I had a choice of security providers, I doubt I'd choose one that uses my money to extort me in the form of traffic tickets for driving a few miles over the speed limit. I doubt such a firm would last long on the open market.
I'm wondering if you believe that the system your suggesting can actually work in the real world or can work in a ideal world? To me there is very little difference between a government and a firm beyond scale of control. If i work for a firm, they tell me what i can and cannot do and what i have to do, if i obey i get paid if i don't i get fired. If i belong to country as a citizen, the government tells me what i can and cannot do, and what i have to do, if i obey i get to reap the benefits a government provides if i don't i go to jail. If i belong to a family, the family decides what i can and cannot due and what i have to do, if i obey i get to reap the benefits of being in a family and if not i get kicked out, if i belong to a village, the village decides what i can and cannot do and what i have to do, if i obey i get the benefits of being in a village if not i get kicked out. In all of these cases the greater majority decides the rules and i must follow them. This is fine because belonging to a society provides greater certainty of survival, i also always have the personal option of not participating and leaving on my own. Does this mean i must give up personal liberties, of course, but in exchange for something. I Mean the reason humanity rose to dominate the planet was because we are social in nature.
From what i can tell your problem is with the benefits of a government being out weighed by the cost as well as the essentially forced participation( you could just pack up and move into the wild but good luck with that) and that you would like there to not be a government and instead have everything be run by firms as you believe that it would be more efficient.
If i am correct than i have a few problems. The first is money, exactly where does money come from without a centralized government since all money is currently fiat and has absolutely no inherit value and with no central body who will regulate its creation and its use. Currently we all trust in money really simply because everybody trusts it and accepts it. This is a huge problem if there is no governing body since why should i trust it now?
next is law, who enforces and creates the laws? Id would be nice if we didn't need em but as long as resources are limited and the future uncertain people will always take from others in order to increase their own certainty of survival. Really as long as survival is uncertain in anyway for pretty much anyone within the general populace people will not over come their selfishness because survival comes before society which means a governing body will always be needed to ensure that the least moral members of our society are least selfish thereby placing society before individual.
(As a side note there is something to altruism, if you want to try and use that against my statement, but i think its only when the person being altruistic is in some way increasing the chance of survival of an individual with some sort of genetic connection, whether actual or perceived, thereby increasing the survival of his genetic mater, kinda like why its considered normal to want to have kids even though it decreases our own chances of survival in the process)
And then lastly why is it that a government must be worse than firms? would it not be better and more realistic to fight to improve the government such that it becomes as good or better than the firms and still get all of the positives of having a central government without the downsides of not having a central government? i mean the only reason a monopoly is bad is because the power is central to only one entity. the difference between a firm having a monopoly and the government having a monopoly is that the government is designed initially for the general populace such that the monopolistic entity is all people, while the firm is design initially for those few people that run the firm (mostly anyway, obviously the firms want to keep the investors happy and what not but those are only the people that have, the people that don't have, work for the firm and get fucked over so that those that have, can have more). If the power is central to the government which serves all people than all people share all power. hard to do in real life, as in failure of communism, but i believe easier than having firms either fight each other not in the desire to take all power from all people and horde it within the few but instead just to work really hard to benefit society (yah right,), or to have all the firms essentially cancel each other out such that power is still spread relatively equally, also not really realistic as in life there is always a winner and always a loser in competition.
On July 01 2011 12:58 askTeivospy wrote: doesnt change the fact I would never ever want to go to somalia or any other country that lacks any sort of government
Because you're comparing apples to oranges. I'd rather be in the United States than Somalia, but I'd probably rather be in Somalia than in any of its neighbors.
Somehow,I doubt it. By the way, without checking a map, can you name Somalia's immediate neighbors?
Nice little ad hominem. To be fair I could only name Ethiopia and Kenya, Eritrea slipped my mind (gee I wonder why, such a normal sounding name).
As for its neighbors... Look at the rates of change. Somalia's infant mortality rating is dropping faster than 2/3 of its neighbors, fresh water access improvement rate also beats 2/3 of its neighbors, life expectancy is increasing faster than 2/3 of its neighbors, etc. In all of these cases Ethiopia beats Somalia (though Somalia's statistics are better than Ethiopia's in some categories, especially telecommunications) but look at their histories: Somalia suffered under a brutal, economically crippling military dictatorship for years and suffered far more damage than Ethiopia.
Also, as for where you'd want to live... Compare murder rates (per 100,000) according to the UN: Somalia: 3.2 Eritrea: 16 Ethiopia: 21
(2004 data is the only dataset available for all countries)
As for hunger, Somalia isn't ranked in the Global Hunger Index. But seeing as how Eritrea and Ethiopia are ranked #3 and #5 worst in the world for starvation, respectively, it can't be much worse.
On July 01 2011 15:00 Milkis wrote:
On July 01 2011 14:03 tree.hugger wrote: This is the thing about libertarian viewpoints. I always think I'm being trolled, but no, libertarians actually are that ridiculous.
Posting to agree with this.
Then again, it takes a certain types of crazies which is why you have to deal with them all the fucking time ;_;
Libertarianism follows naturally from the assumption of basic human rights: that individuals have the right to their life and their property. If you opened your mind and looked to facts and morals, instead of allowing yourself to be spoonfed political opinion (including what is "crazy" and what isn't) you might see that.
I didn't ask you what Somalia's neighbors were just because I wanted to make you look silly. I had my doubts on how much you actually knew about what you were talking about. Also, Djibouti.
You missed a pretty important "neighbor". One of two places in Somalia with a central government, and thus enjoys stability and opportunity that is unheard of in the South. Meanwhile, Somalia receives one of the highest amounts of food aid of any country in the world. The free market isn't feeding these people. In fact, it's leading to the theft, hording, and commercialization of aid, which is causing more starving people.
You can't just look at cherrypicked statistics that ignore geographic reality. You can't just take what you learned from reading Atlas Shrugged, and apply it to impoverished African Countries you don't know much about.
Extreme views like libertarianism don't follow naturally from the real world. They follow from bogus assumptions, and are propagated by wealthy idiots like the man who wrote that article.
In the same breath you say that foreign aid is not the free market, and then tell me that foreign aid is destructive. Draw the natural conclusion: hunger problems are largely a result of foreign interference.
A deliberate mis-reading of my point and the facts would lead to that opinion, yes.
I have attempted to move the discussion close to the teleological premises of the debate. To avoid emotional distress. This is of highest relevance to the topic, and as such, the careful analysis of conditions that define the subject of discussion allows for cleear insight into reality. In fact this is the Misesian paradigm, strictness to rules, the a priori system of rigorous logic. As the a posteriori school bombards its dogmatic arguments, and i dare say predictable, the answer must be given. No less than full compliance to the conditions necessary for the acceptance of the analytic system.
Please.
I tore the initial argument to shreds (that Somalia is a good example of your 'teleological premises') so you abandoned reality and have instead attempted to make it an economic theory debate, which is one of the exact same mistakes that those two authors made. You've ignored politics. You've ignored culture. All you want to talk about is numbers, so you're obfuscating your own reality and are completely missing the influences behind the data.
And geography! Somalia has three parts; Somaliland of which is functioning and stable, Puntland of which is functioning and a base for pirates, and the South and Mogadishu region where the Shabaab and the Provisional Government and countless other factions are fighting a civil war.
These statistics from "Somalia" sound very likely to have included the two relatively successful breakaway regions of Somalia, where a central government has provided the stability to let people live their life without getting shot. Meanwhile, in Mogadishu, the "transitional government" can't protect it's own ministers. To add to it, Somalia is now undergoing a severe drought, and with significant parts of food aid getting stolen, and with aid workers being occasionally kidnapped and killed, it's clear that people are going to starve. The part of Somalia without a government will be the hardest hit. Surprise, surprise.
And meanwhile, these assholes in Austria have the temerity to celebrate Somalia's telecommunications sector. I should know better than to feed the trolls, but reading libertarian arguments is like being repetitively kicked in the balls.
This is just funny, thriving telecom sector when people are starving and getting killed and pirates rule a lot of places is an example we should all follow ? But even discounting it, the argument rests on the premise that there is no government in Somalia. Well there is not one that governs the whole country as it kind of stopped being one country a long time ago. There are on the other hand few governments that govern parts of Somalia. And the parts that have none are worst off and in time some kind of government will form there anyways. The problem with the whole anarchists movement (left or right) is that anarchy is unstable state that transitions into statist one naturally. That is just how human societies work.
On July 01 2011 13:10 Nightfall.589 wrote: Somalia's indeed the poster child for a successful state.
Ranking #182 out of #194 nations in life expectancy (Right above Nigeria, Rwanda, and Afghanistan), where over a quarter children die in their first five years of life, where over a third of the population lacks access to safe drinking water, and 17% are starving... Truly, a libertarian paradise.
Please the read the OP before posting.
I did. I'm glad that their thriving telecom industry makes up for the fact that only 13% of boy children (And 7% of girl children) receive a primary education in that country!
And the gift of a state would ruin the country's free market utopia. We can't allow that!
Yes but...they can make phone calls.
From anywhere.
This is literally the funniest post I've ever read on TL.
Wow, I really can't believe people are actually arguing for this here. Mind blowing. And sad. Hopefully they'll grow out of it.
Libertarianism follows naturally from the assumption of basic human rights: that individuals have the right to their life and their property. If you opened your mind and looked to facts and morals, instead of allowing yourself to be spoonfed political opinion (including what is "crazy" and what isn't) you might see that.
The problem with libertarianism is that it only look at the world only through the lens of basic human rights. Essentially it claims that these "basic" human rights can be protected through the free market and the free market will always reign supreme. Both of these are fallacies.
Libertarianism is probably most spoon fed political opinion. You can claim to be open minded in reality you're just talking about subject fields you have no clue what you are talking about except what you may read on mises.org or whatever people read now. You have no idea how the free market works other than this idealistic super duper long run point of view that in the end humans aren't stupid enough to kill themselves cause they will correct themselves. Which is true but it is absolutely shitty and worthless for doing anything policy wise and you celebrating the shortrun chaos in Somalia just based on a few cherry picked statistics literally tell me you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to this entire ideology.
Let's put it this way. Libertarianism is a nice trap for younger kids because it sounds so nice and "it makes sense" because it's based on basic economic principles. The issue with most people following this ideology is that they never get past the basic economic principles and they don't understand the issues free market runs into (or conveniently ignored it using the "well in the long long long run" garbage).
So please do us all a favor and step out into the real world because then you will realize how big the world actually is and how your ideals only capture one distorted side of it that isn't even close to reality. Or maybe you should read up a bit more on the subject and listen to someone outside of mises.org so you can have a picture closer to reality since there are plenty of healthy libertarians that aren't as zealous as you to some ideology you are ignorant on.
op quotes a guy who talks about fallacies then says that government monopolies are by definition more expensive than private work :D
saying somalia is a fast improving country because people who cant afford food can text the world.
yep, sure is useful having no government.
the whole linked article is full of stupid statements and expects to be taken seriously when its less than 1 page long. pretty hard to sum up a countries problems in 500 words or less.
I really want to make a point that the anarcho-capitalism (or this free market libertarianism) of somalia and anarchism in a leftist way (like what it meant for the past 150 years) are completely contrary and are a total opposite. The theorethical foundation for both are totally different, and the society drawn is also something completely different. People shall stop throwing this in the same bucket, these ideologies have NOTHING in common. thank you.
edit: to make my motives clear, it's really hurting me to see this stuff lumped together. I can't stand that a legitimate thought gets lumped together with free-market capitalism without rules. And before someone laughs, there are more examples of a working anarchist society than "libertarianism".
On July 01 2011 23:50 DeepElemBlues wrote: BlackFlag,
They are two sides of the same coin.
In one, private property still exists, in the other, it doesn't. Only practical difference between the two.
no. is the way the ecomic system is structured a difference? because it's massively different structured. there are a million differences. i won't list them, but at least read something on wikipedia about it to see for yourself. if you still think it's "the same" i can't help you.
On July 01 2011 23:16 Andross wrote: Don't worry guys, everyone goes through this stage. They'll grow out of it.
Actually I thought that also, but now I am no so sure. In the past such notions were mostly crushed by contact with harsh reality. But today it is possible to go through life protected on every step by (ironically) the modern first-world state that allows you to live in a bubble where you can never confront the reality with your ideology.
You're using Somalia as justification on why anarchy is beneficial? For real?
Okay, so the country is less shitty than it was 10 years ago. Life expectancy from 46 to 50. Whoop-de-doo. How do you know this is because of anarchy and not despite of it? Just about every country in the world has had improved standards of living in recent decades due to improvements in technology.
Besides (according to wikipedia, anyways), Somalians do have laws, they are just local laws based on customs and traditions, with village elders having the ultimate say in things.
Thriving small arms industry with rock bottom prices? Sounds great. Remember, guns are the great equalizer, which make a granny knitting club no less a pushover than a band of grunts. Where there is equality in power, there is peace. As such, these conditions are part of the reason for Peace in somalia. While the foreign opressors - UN, Ethiopia, US, are the reason for violence.
That's the most delusional thing I've read on this forum. Are you serious? Cheap guns everywhere is the great equalizer and bringer of stability?
On July 01 2011 23:44 BlackFlag wrote: I really want to make a point that the anarcho-capitalism (or this free market libertarianism) of somalia and anarchism in a leftist way (like what it meant for the past 150 years) are completely contrary and are a total opposite. The theorethical foundation for both are totally different, and the society drawn is also something completely different. People shall stop throwing this in the same bucket, these ideologies have NOTHING in common. thank you.
edit: to make my motives clear, it's really hurting me to see this stuff lumped together. I can't stand that a legitimate thought gets lumped together with free-market capitalism without rules. And before someone laughs, there are more examples of a working anarchist society than "libertarianism".
Problem is they actually are similar in what they want, they just differ in what they think will happen in that stateless society. Both want to eliminate the state. And after that they think the utopia they envision will come.
On July 01 2011 15:52 Catch]22 wrote: brain_ is never going to BELIEVE that he's wrong, any failing real world example will just not have been "true anarchy/lib"
and FYI, Somalia is p 'run' by a group called the Islamic Council or something like that, who enforce their rules on people so i dont get why we're even discussing this
It is you, who thus far has not understood the true nature of the state. I recommend you watch the video again, and think about the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
On July 01 2011 15:52 Catch]22 wrote: brain_ is never going to BELIEVE that he's wrong, any failing real world example will just not have been "true anarchy/lib"
and FYI, Somalia is p 'run' by a group called the Islamic Council or something like that, who enforce their rules on people so i dont get why we're even discussing this
It is you, who thus far has not understood the true nature of the state. I recommend you watch the video again, and think about the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
Aren't you the one who is enslaved by your own blind idea of how the world should be? :p
On July 01 2011 13:04 xarthaz wrote: The piracy is a display of free market enterprising - while one may not morally agree with it, it shows the fast adapting cheap operating cost efficient nature of free market solution as they battle against the lumbering slow western multi billion dollar army warships that struggle to do anything of note to protect the commerce payloads, while operating at insane costs several magnitudes above the pirates.Truly a david vs goliath story.
thing is, it's easier to do piracy than to capture a pirate. It's like I can go rob someone's house and unless the cops are next door I am long gone before they come. Plus if those warships were allowed to open fire on any boats they suspected of being pirates you would see a lot less pirates, trust me.
Oh wow, are you seriously saying that cheap guns "equalize" things? It's obvious you have never lived in a country where guns are cheap and people try to "defend" themselves. Protip: It doesn't work.
On July 02 2011 00:17 xarthaz wrote: It is you, who thus far has not understood the true nature of the state. I recommend you watch the video again, and think about the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
That's the kind of stuff that plays on your fears and makes you feel enlightened (unlike everyone else, those ignorant fools!)
I'm sorry this article is too funny. I tend to hold a lot of liberatarian tendencies. I quetion a lot of what the government does. I mean the coffee shop I used to work at could serve food - but only certain types of food and we had to wear gloves because of the specific license to serve food that w had. Whats the point? As long as they meet health code - why do they need to have a arbitrarily more includive license?
The success of Anarchy can be seen in Somalia? Give me the most socialist controlling government ever then. Sorry government does have a purpose and it is laughable that anyone calls Somalia a success
The irony is that this anarchist (even in his very language "in his fantastic work") is just as ideologically indoctrinated as he like to purports the 'statist' to be.
On July 01 2011 23:44 BlackFlag wrote: I really want to make a point that the anarcho-capitalism (or this free market libertarianism) of somalia and anarchism in a leftist way (like what it meant for the past 150 years) are completely contrary and are a total opposite. The theorethical foundation for both are totally different, and the society drawn is also something completely different. People shall stop throwing this in the same bucket, these ideologies have NOTHING in common. thank you.
edit: to make my motives clear, it's really hurting me to see this stuff lumped together. I can't stand that a legitimate thought gets lumped together with free-market capitalism without rules. And before someone laughs, there are more examples of a working anarchist society than "libertarianism".
Problem is they actually are similar in what they want, they just differ in what they think will happen in that stateless society. Both want to eliminate the state. And after that they think the utopia they envision will come.
no it isn't. because an anarchist society is not one without rules but without hierarchy, while a libertiarian one is a society without rules but with hierarchy.
but i will stop takling about it, because people don't want to acknowledge the difference anyway.
On July 01 2011 15:52 Catch]22 wrote: brain_ is never going to BELIEVE that he's wrong, any failing real world example will just not have been "true anarchy/lib"
and FYI, Somalia is p 'run' by a group called the Islamic Council or something like that, who enforce their rules on people so i dont get why we're even discussing this
It is you, who thus far has not understood the true nature of the state. I recommend you watch the video again, and think about the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
Aren't you the one who is enslaved by your own blind idea of how the world should be? :p
On July 02 2011 00:17 xarthaz wrote: It is you, who thus far has not understood the true nature of the state. I recommend you watch the video again, and think about the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
That's the kind of stuff that plays on your fears and makes you feel enlightened (unlike everyone else, those ignorant fools!)
Sorry but it's just a load of bullshit.
Where is the blindness - for as i noted in my deep philosophical ramblings beforehand - the idea Molyneux talks about is true. It is strictly, and definitionally true, because redefining the terms that lead to its conclusions in a different way, is absurd and counter to the perception of those ideas that the mind assumes as a synthetic a priori.
Do not feel bad BlackFlag, know that the libertarians feel sympathetic to left libertarianism/anarchosyndicalism. It is merely that it is a death wish.
On July 01 2011 17:55 Expurgate wrote: Anarcho-libertarian claims are always ludicrous. By the second year of an economics degree these days you'll know half a dozen reasons that some government or universal coverage is necessary in fields like insurance or liability or information. Universal coverage would imply monopoly status and thus you have a pseudo-government situation, even if you're in the freest market ever.
There's little point arguing with such claims. No matter what, libertarians will mewl about being misunderstood or misrepresented. Give them object counter-evidence and they will reduce it to a single point of contention, to be discarded after a thorough treatment with a strawman argument.
The rest of us normal human beings don't arbitrarily select two philosophical principles and a handful of mostly-discredited economic theories and build a worldview upon them.
Libertarianism follows naturally from the assumption of basic human rights: that individuals have the right to their life and their property. If you opened your mind and looked to facts and morals, instead of allowing yourself to be spoonfed political opinion (including what is "crazy" and what isn't) you might see that.
The problem with libertarianism is that it only look at the world only through the lens of basic human rights. Essentially it claims that these "basic" human rights can be protected through the free market and the free market will always reign supreme. Both of these are fallacies.
Libertarianism is probably most spoon fed political opinion. You can claim to be open minded in reality you're just talking about subject fields you have no clue what you are talking about except what you may read on mises.org or whatever people read now. You have no idea how the free market works other than this idealistic super duper long run point of view that in the end humans aren't stupid enough to kill themselves cause they will correct themselves. Which is true but it is absolutely shitty and worthless for doing anything policy wise and you celebrating the shortrun chaos in Somalia just based on a few cherry picked statistics literally tell me you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to this entire ideology.
Let's put it this way. Libertarianism is a nice trap for younger kids because it sounds so nice and "it makes sense" because it's based on basic economic principles. The issue with most people following this ideology is that they never get past the basic economic principles and they don't understand the issues free market runs into (or conveniently ignored it using the "well in the long long long run" garbage).
So please do us all a favor and step out into the real world because then you will realize how big the world actually is and how your ideals only capture one distorted side of it that isn't even close to reality. Or maybe you should read up a bit more on the subject and listen to someone outside of mises.org so you can have a picture closer to reality since there are plenty of healthy libertarians that aren't as zealous as you to some ideology you are ignorant on.
Naughty naughty arent we? You should know of the refutation of the bulk of mainstream economics as a self respecting person . Look no further than "Human Action" and "Man Economy & State". Though ignoring it is convinient, one must say. Not unlike the reality of social comfort by the pseudointellectual class.
On July 01 2011 14:33 xarthaz wrote: The reality of modern slavery is not a result of emotions related to suggestions regarding conditions in different areas. It is in fact a definitional issue. And clear at that- what is defined as ownership, property, law, must necessarily imply the condiitions necessary for concluding the reality of slavery. No, it never left, though the prospect of it happening can be somewhat disturbing, none less for myself, hence the cautious approach to a subject grasped at by the more capable members of the Institute.
Now note that the freedom concept as perceived through experience is not subject of the universal definitions that result in conclusions on the subject - it is instead the conditioning. Note how the video touches on this in its assessment of public education, and claims of its real purpose. It is no secret, and a thinking man staying within the boxes of definitional strictness - though it throws himself outside the box of social acceptability. As a result, brave men take that path, and great respect, and fortitude is to be commended. To them - salut, but for the rest of us, the material to ponder about remains in existance - all because of definitional universality.
It is something of a dichotomy between reason from conditions to assessment, and emotions to assessment. While the choice of end assessment always remains subject of emotions, it is the intermediate phase, assessment, which is hijacked by propagandist concepts employed in enslaving the populus.
While reality of conclusions of definitional strictness is sparsely touched upon, as the reactions to article show, it reaffirms the emotion to assessment mechanic - due to fallacy of positivist condition replacing reason. It is the traged of modern mind that Mises has touched upon. The collective delusion exists as such, and its disappearance can only be necessitated by a total paradigm shift in what the epistemological foundations of knowledge in popular mind are considered. Perhaps unlikely given the edicational premise the video touched upon.
I'm not often spurred to argue with strangers on the internet, but this post is utter hand-wavery in the worst way (to borrow a Science Fiction expression).
There is no slavery in a free-thinking democracy. I'm not bound by the state to do anything I don't want to do, besides follow their laws--laws that other free-thinking men created to preserve my rights. The most obvious comparison in the video is the caged pig to modern man: unlike the pig, I can do what I please, go where I want--oh yeah, and I'm sentient to the point of recognizing my own mortality (do you really think pigs would calmly get stuck in cages if they could conceptualize death?) I'm not sent into a field everyday to farm wheat. I'm not worked to the bone turning wheels in a mill to turn that wheat into flour. Long story short: I'm not forced by the state to do anything--unless I choose to work for the state.
The metaphor is absurd and sensationalist. I'm free to create things and make a living without fear of persecution or imprisonment. That is not a "collective delusion." That is fact. Never before in the history of our world has society created parameters in which individuals can thrive as individuals. I don't have to follow tradition or worry about castes; don't have to please anyone but myself nor meet any standards but my own (which should be high). For the most part we are free of censorship.
Now, if you want to get into whether the mass media is turning everyone into a flock of sheep, I'm down. But the video was nonsense.
The video touches on this- the best working slave is he who thinks he is free. Thus the runaway success of tax revenue of modern states (55%+ of personal income) compared to serfdom and low efficiency ancient slavery. Think about it from the perspective of coercive revenue maximization. From that point of view, what the modern democratic states do is the most efficient form of slavery conceived by man.
On July 01 2011 17:11 teekesselchen wrote: Success of anarchy, lulz. I hope all of this is irony, seeing the actual living conditions in Somalia. It's quite ridiculous to just say "oh they got mobile network, they must be a great society".
Security firms boom? It's more like Mafia if you look at it. You pay or you get robbed because you are not safe without paying. Not so cool for everyone without a buttload of money.
Please explain to me how that is different from government. If I stop paying my taxes, say, because I don't support America's occupations overseas, I will be arrested (kidnapped) and thrown in jail (held against my will) until I pay, and then I'll probably be charged for their trouble.
You're paying for security right now. Cops don't work for free. The difference between government monopoly and market anarchy is that if I had a choice of security providers, I doubt I'd choose one that uses my money to extort me in the form of traffic tickets for driving a few miles over the speed limit. I doubt such a firm would last long on the open market.
1) Taxes are not arbitrary but made by your democratic (well, more or less... see bush vs kerry, wtf) government. They are dependend on income, so that people who earn less money have to pay less. You are getting a lot back from it: Infrastructure, security, education - all things that lack in Somalia. 2) Yeah people should really be allowed to drive 200 km/h in cities. That would free up a lot of jobs and really benefit the pension offices. I'm sure you get what I'm heading at here. 3) Taxes are also a mean of redistribution to avoid severe poverty, though U.S. citizens don't seem to like that.
On July 01 2011 19:59 phanto wrote: They need education and personal development first and foremost. The average IQ in Somalia isn't very high.
But they got a phone company so it's all good.
Haha I laughed :D
Yes yes.. the distributionalist policies, and state payrolls, a key part in dividing the populus and abstracting the definitional nature of state action. The video touches on this.
The Somalian struggle is an example of this. They know the state is their oppressor. So they struggle in their battles against it. The foreigners do not like it, not one bit, so they inject funds to the transitional government and ethiopian imperialists. But in the minds of Somali the dream cannot be extinguished. They have seen anarchy, touched it with their own hands. After the socialist tyranny ended, they had a blissful experience of self government, self responsibility. And now that it is being attempted to take away, they will not put up with it. What ever it takes - plundering the cargo ships of the oppressors, advancing tax-free gun trade marketing, distributing the imperialist food aid system(developed to delude people to support government) through anarcho-commerce. They wont give up. And know that while we in the west have been aching under our 55%+ slave payments, these men in Africa fight for their freedom, to mold their own destiny.
On July 01 2011 14:47 brain_ wrote: "Good society without government > good society with government [...]
People need to be open-minded enough to realize that the things government "produces" - law, justice, etc - are products like anything else. And like any products, the free market is the most efficient and free way to handle them, and brings the lowest prices and highest quality to consumers.
No No No No No No!! I cant feel any worse after reading the OP .... Somalia, A Success??
You might want to read through some of these reports from amnesty international
Somalia: International military and policing assistance should be reviewed (AFR 52/001/2010)
No end in sight: The ongoing suffering of Somalia's civilians (AFR 52//003/2010)
Hard news: Journalists' lives in danger in Somalia (AFR 52//009/2010)
Amnesty International's human rights concerns in southern and central Somalia (AFR 52//013/2010)
From life without peace to peace without life: The treatment of Somali refugees and asylum-seekers in Kenya (AFR 32//015/2010)
I´ve been 3 months in Ghana last year and they also have perfect cell phone network (got lost in the jungel for one day and even in between mountains and trees i could use my phone) in the whole country, i dont get why every single one of the people there needs a cell phone, though ....
And yes, from i´ve learned most of the "democratic" countries in Africa are still in some form of slavery and supressed by the western countries. The EU finances the exports of it´s members countries to africa so those goods become cheaper than those produced in Ghana - for example:
Clothes (saw a whole lot of old german t-shirts down there) Cars (also saw hundreds of cars with german company stickers on it) and more important food (espacially meat)
I talked to alot of people down there and Ghana is heavily dependent on its resources for exports. Those are Gold, some other ores & diamonds, pineapple and cacao .... ALL of these sectors are beeing ruled by foreign companys that are corrupting the government to keep all the licenses and stuff.
The people there need to and will start to stand up against there government sooner than later so the western countries NEED to rethink they´re politics towards african states so we dont get fucking 2nd Somalia ... or a 2nd Zimbabwe (dictator)
and btw. china is buying or "renting" massive parts of Eastern African countries to produce agricultural products for China itsself, wtf,srsly!
On July 01 2011 12:59 furymonkey wrote: If Anarchists thinks Somalia is their ideal state, maybe we could ship them off there?
On July 01 2011 23:01 Milkis wrote: Let's put it this way. Libertarianism is a nice trap for younger kids because it sounds so nice and "it makes sense" because it's based on basic economic principles. The issue with most people following this ideology is that they never get past the basic economic principles and they don't understand the issues free market runs into (or conveniently ignored it using the "well in the long long long run" garbage).
I really don't know what world you are living in but here in germany the hippest ideology for younger people is socialism. That is the reason why a lot of them wear Che Guevara T-Shirts and stuff instead of, lets say, F.A.Hayek T-Shirts.
Usually Libertarianism is something you come across when you escaped the public school system where you get "educated" all the time how evil capitalism is and you finally get in contact with "real world" and the market, so it was in my case. Your argument doesn't make any sense.
On July 01 2011 23:01 Milkis wrote: Let's put it this way. Libertarianism is a nice trap for younger kids because it sounds so nice and "it makes sense" because it's based on basic economic principles. The issue with most people following this ideology is that they never get past the basic economic principles and they don't understand the issues free market runs into (or conveniently ignored it using the "well in the long long long run" garbage).
I really don't know what world you are living in but here in germany the hippest ideology for younger people is socialism. That is the reason why a lot of them wear Che Guevara T-Shirts and stuff instead of, lets say, F.A.Hayek T-Shirts.
Usually Libertarianism is something you come across when you escaped the public school system where you get "educated" all the time how evil capitalism is and you finally get in contact with "real world" and the market, so it was in my case. Your argument doesn't make any sense.
at least for germany i can verify this. libertarianism is only represented by a few intellectuals here, the young population tends to be "green" or in favor of socialism, because it is on the first look more fair for everyone. If they read about the concept's - which few people do - they may change their minds. When i was younger and didn't care about politics particularly, i was one of the aforementioned youngsters.
On July 01 2011 23:01 Milkis wrote: Let's put it this way. Libertarianism is a nice trap for younger kids because it sounds so nice and "it makes sense" because it's based on basic economic principles. The issue with most people following this ideology is that they never get past the basic economic principles and they don't understand the issues free market runs into (or conveniently ignored it using the "well in the long long long run" garbage).
I really don't know what world you are living in but here in germany the hippest ideology for younger people is socialism. That is the reason why a lot of them wear Che Guevara T-Shirts and stuff instead of, lets say, F.A.Hayek T-Shirts.
Usually Libertarianism is something you come across when you escaped the public school system where you get "educated" all the time how evil capitalism is and you finally get in contact with "real world" and the market, so it was in my case. Your argument doesn't make any sense.
Well I'm from America and I talk as someone living in the US :p
Usually, a combination of Ayn Rand books and middle/upper middle class teenagers stuck in the suburban bubble causes this :p
On July 01 2011 14:47 brain_ wrote: "Good society without government > good society with government [...]
People need to be open-minded enough to realize that the things government "produces" - law, justice, etc - are products like anything else. And like any products, the free market is the most efficient and free way to handle them, and brings the lowest prices and highest quality to consumers.
No.
Brain_ is choosing to ignore half of what history has clearly shown us. He sees what can go wrong when a government is too big or oversteps its boundaries, but he clearly chooses not to see all the problems caused when the government does not do enough for the sake of his own overly simplistic ideology. Look at what happened in history when a company was allowed to have a complete monopoly.
As for law and justice and other things being products - Say, in a completely free market sans government, corporations formed huge conglomerates, where one conglomerate controlled the justice and law 'products' as well as many others. Do you really think a profit-seeking conglomerate like that is going to be fair against itself at the sake of its own profits? Of course to that you would say "well, then another company would create a better justice and law product that the people would like better." Alright, well the huge conglomerate probably already has huge power (both by influence and force of arms due to it's law product) and could literally just destroy the new company before it gets off the ground. The people would scream unfairness, but what power would they have at this point? This conglomerate could be a combination of corporations that has force of arms, produces, processes, and sells food, electricity, whatever it is that he people cannot really live without. You need a government in place to prevent things like this from happening.
I believe in the power of free markets, but to say that complete free markets are optimal is horrendously oversimplifying the matter. I hope you can be open-minded enough to see that things may be more complicated to understand than what you yourself perceive. Any intelligent unbiased individual has probably realized that almost nothing in its extreme is ideal. It's almost always a combination of the two sides of a spectrum that works best. This is no exception.
TLDR: Brain_'s idea's are no more valid than communism. Great on paper, not even close to realistically working in practice.
But in the minds of Somali the dream cannot be extinguished. They have seen anarchy, touched it with their own hands. After the socialist tyranny ended, they had a blissful experience of self government, self responsibility. And now that it is being attempted to take away, they will not put up with it. What ever it takes - plundering the cargo ships of the oppressors, advancing tax-free gun trade marketing, distributing the imperialist food aid system(developed to delude people to support government) through anarcho-commerce. They wont give up. And know that while we in the west have been aching under our 55%+ slave payments, these men in Africa fight for their freedom, to mold their own destiny.
That's what she said. I think they just fight to eat.
this shows exactly why i don't want this shit in "my anarchism". i didn't read everything, because after half of it, it was just too stupid for me. this makes me puke. you're no allies and you will never be looked at in such a way.
and for your talk a few posts below, libertarians in the german speaking world are middle/ upper class kids, who think the government is sooo unfair and that everything they ever achieved is only their own achievment and no one else had anything to do with it. this gets coupled with a sense of intellectual superiority. I am extremly glad that no one here takes this shit serious, i hope this will go away soon. it's even worse than fascism, because it comes in the disguise of "freedom".
ps: some spelling mistakes because this makes me angry.
But in the minds of Somali the dream cannot be extinguished. They have seen anarchy, touched it with their own hands. After the socialist tyranny ended, they had a blissful experience of self government, self responsibility. And now that it is being attempted to take away, they will not put up with it. What ever it takes - plundering the cargo ships of the oppressors, advancing tax-free gun trade marketing, distributing the imperialist food aid system(developed to delude people to support government) through anarcho-commerce. They wont give up. And know that while we in the west have been aching under our 55%+ slave payments, these men in Africa fight for their freedom, to mold their own destiny.
That's what she said. I think they just fight to eat.
I bet every somali would be happy if he could have a job where he earns enough and doesn't have to threaten people he has never seen before with deadly weapons.
But in the minds of Somali the dream cannot be extinguished. They have seen anarchy, touched it with their own hands. After the socialist tyranny ended, they had a blissful experience of self government, self responsibility. And now that it is being attempted to take away, they will not put up with it. What ever it takes - plundering the cargo ships of the oppressors, advancing tax-free gun trade marketing, distributing the imperialist food aid system(developed to delude people to support government) through anarcho-commerce. They wont give up. And know that while we in the west have been aching under our 55%+ slave payments, these men in Africa fight for their freedom, to mold their own destiny.
hahaha
Well, I for one am glad that the Somali people, blessed with their experiment into anarchism and chaos, are some of the few people in the world attempting to fight against the evils of government.
However, as usual, xarthaz wouldn't dare to live in that "country", even though it has had a "blissful experience of self government".
Why not, buddy? It's just a plane ticket away! Taxes, wage slavery, all that would go away so you can live your life in the bliss and freedom of Somalia!
Those praise of somalia reminds me of the southpark episode where cartman goes to somalia and becomes a pirate because there he's free and doesn't need to do homework hahaha I think some people here have the same imaginations about the place.
But in the minds of Somali the dream cannot be extinguished. They have seen anarchy, touched it with their own hands. After the socialist tyranny ended, they had a blissful experience of self government, self responsibility. And now that it is being attempted to take away, they will not put up with it. What ever it takes - plundering the cargo ships of the oppressors, advancing tax-free gun trade marketing, distributing the imperialist food aid system(developed to delude people to support government) through anarcho-commerce. They wont give up. And know that while we in the west have been aching under our 55%+ slave payments, these men in Africa fight for their freedom, to mold their own destiny.
That's what she said. I think they just fight to eat.
They are fighting for Warlords about who´s the next boss of the country - and women
But in the minds of Somali the dream cannot be extinguished. They have seen anarchy, touched it with their own hands. After the socialist tyranny ended, they had a blissful experience of self government, self responsibility. And now that it is being attempted to take away, they will not put up with it. What ever it takes - plundering the cargo ships of the oppressors, advancing tax-free gun trade marketing, distributing the imperialist food aid system(developed to delude people to support government) through anarcho-commerce. They wont give up. And know that while we in the west have been aching under our 55%+ slave payments, these men in Africa fight for their freedom, to mold their own destiny.
That's what she said. I think they just fight to eat.
They are fighting for Warlords about who´s the next boss of the country - and women
Don't be foolish.
Obviously the Somalis have reached a stage of enlightenment about self-government, and have chosen to throw off the shackles of the state in favor of complete freedom from any non-voluntary authority and now engage in piracy and other actions to showcase their moral superiority over the wage slavery that exists in the West.
Just remember, history is full of examples of where this political and economic ideology has led to prosperous and developed nations with high standards of living.
..............
I only hope xarthaz will send us a postcard (if the free market has supplied an efficient Somali postal service, no idea about that, if not, he can call us on Skype with the telecommunications there!) when he has spent a few years in Somalia and see how well life there compares to the evils of enslavement by the state in the West!
On July 01 2011 19:59 phanto wrote: They need education and personal development first and foremost. The average IQ in Somalia isn't very high.
Pretty sure IQ has absolutely nothing to do with Education, quite the contrary.
IQ is governed by both the genetic factor and the education factor. So even though a person born with a great genetic make up, if that person doesn't receive proper education he/she will not be able to reach his maximum potential.
I just feel like that many people are deluded by an ideal. Ideal is called ideal because it is normally unreachable and go against human's natures. Letting people roam without any control would only lead to self-destruction of that group because people would fight for their needs first.
I find it extremly cynical to call a fight for survival, where you don't know if you and your family have tommorow enough to eat, "freedom". well it is freedom, freedom for those with enough money, and for those on the bottom, they can be happy if they can scrap by. if this is your utopia, good night.....
Where is the blindness - for as i noted in my deep philosophical ramblings beforehand - the idea Molyneux talks about is true. It is strictly, and definitionally true, because redefining the terms that lead to its conclusions in a different way, is absurd and counter to the perception of those ideas that the mind assumes as a synthetic a priori.
Naughty naughty arent we? You should know of the refutation of the bulk of mainstream economics as a self respecting person . Look no further than "Human Action" and "Man Economy & State". Though ignoring it is convinient, one must say. Not unlike the reality of social comfort by the pseudointellectual class.
The video touches on this- the best working slave is he who thinks he is free. Thus the runaway success of tax revenue of modern states (55%+ of personal income) compared to serfdom and low efficiency ancient slavery. Think about it from the perspective of coercive revenue maximization. From that point of view, what the modern democratic states do is the most efficient form of slavery conceived by man. Yes yes.. the distributionalist policies, and state payrolls, a key part in dividing the populus and abstracting the definitional nature of state action. The video touches on this.
The Somalian struggle is an example of this. They know the state is their oppressor. So they struggle in their battles against it. The foreigners do not like it, not one bit, so they inject funds to the transitional government and ethiopian imperialists. But in the minds of Somali the dream cannot be extinguished. They have seen anarchy, touched it with their own hands. After the socialist tyranny ended, they had a blissful experience of self government, self responsibility. And now that it is being attempted to take away, they will not put up with it. What ever it takes - plundering the cargo ships of the oppressors, advancing tax-free gun trade marketing, distributing the imperialist food aid system(developed to delude people to support government) through anarcho-commerce. They wont give up. And know that while we in the west have been aching under our 55%+ slave payments, these men in Africa fight for their freedom, to mold their own destiny.
You think that the world is full of bad guys; mobsters with rank everywhere. The man is putting you down, that the people are being crushed by the powerful elite.
And you see EVIDENCE of this everywhere. Of course the government of Somalia is putting down the people! Of course the people want self government and self responsiblity. They think about FREEDOM and LIBERTY everynight before they go to sleep right? That's why they're pirating ships; not because they can loot supplies and possible ransom money, but because they know that they have to fight for FREEDOM AND LIBERTY.
hahahahaha. The truth is much more awkward than that. The world isn't black and white. It isn't just "they oppress" and "they struggle". It's grey and it always has been and always will be.
You think that you've broken the veil and seen the light, but in reality you're just filtering so many important details out of your perspective.
On July 01 2011 15:52 Catch]22 wrote: brain_ is never going to BELIEVE that he's wrong, any failing real world example will just not have been "true anarchy/lib"
and FYI, Somalia is p 'run' by a group called the Islamic Council or something like that, who enforce their rules on people so i dont get why we're even discussing this
It is you, who thus far has not understood the true nature of the state. I recommend you watch the video again, and think about the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
That video would make George Orwell cry. Xarthaz, most of your posts would make Orwell cry.
I am not enslaved, I am a citizen of a democratic republic. That video makes no valid points, it makes no sense, and is just bad. The "mafia model" is a ridiculous way to characterize democracy.
That bit about education being "inflicted" on me was great to. I really wish I had gotten education through... expensive private schools, unfortunately, that is not an option for me, the truth is without government education I would simply be uneducated, not really a great alternative. I know I've been indoctrinated with thoughts of authors like Fitzgerald, Hemingway. Orwell, Steinbeck, Plato and Aristotle and... umm... the state or something like that but I think its ok.
Now that I think about it, I did graduate from a private college, I didn't feel liberated from the public, government sponsored education, I was angry at my $12k a semester tuition bills. Yeah, that was the only difference, but thank God the state was there providing me with loans I would never qualify for in a free market.
As I said before, a society without political institutions is left to thugs, those with guns or those that are just big enough to throw their weight around. Edit: I figured I should mention I say this as someone who has spent a few years with drug dealing as my main source of income. There are no societal institutions to rely upon in that world, and it is an ugly terrible place I warn people to stay away from constantly. That is why I reject radical libertarianism. If someone can explain to me the difference between today's drug markets and a society without government it would be greatly appreciated.
Xarthaz, read this: Politics and the English Language written by George Orwell.
Please, please keep that article in mind when you make posts, that way it might be apparent what in your posts is worth responding to and what is not really worth responding to, like that video. I know, Orwell was a socialist, but he made some good points, your video even referenced 1984. (ingsoc posters)
It makes me cry that free-market fundamentalists are raping george orwell. He was as much anti-capitalism as against stalinism. "Homage to Catalonia" should be an essential read, as much as 1984 and animal farm. I love you George <3
Consider this. There is a huge amount of Somalians that illegally enter Israel daily. Stuff there must really be going well enough that they were willing to trade that booming economy for a chance at the security which Israel offers.
True freedom comes with the ability to choose, not from the lack of a government rule. In all societies, unless it is some sort of yet unachieved ideal communism, we require an entity that will bennefit as a result of overarching societal well being. Things like education or healthcare do not bennefit individual firms directly but do help society. This is the arguement for government since a government will operate things at a loss since they can actually percieve positive externalities elsewhere.
The point here isn't that Somalia is a paradise. The point is that Somalia is improving at an impressive rate despite the absence of a state - something that "conventional wisdom" would tell you is impossible.
On July 01 2011 15:52 Catch]22 wrote: brain_ is never going to BELIEVE that he's wrong, any failing real world example will just not have been "true anarchy/lib"
and FYI, Somalia is p 'run' by a group called the Islamic Council or something like that, who enforce their rules on people so i dont get why we're even discussing this
It is you, who thus far has not understood the true nature of the state. I recommend you watch the video again, and think about the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
That video would make George Orwell cry. Xarthaz, most of your posts would make Orwell cry.
I am not enslaved, I am a citizen of a democratic republic. That video makes no valid points, it makes no sense, and is just bad. The "mafia model" is a ridiculous way to characterize democracy.
That bit about education being "inflicted" on me was great to. I really wish I had gotten education through... expensive private schools, unfortunately, that is not an option for me, the truth is without government education I would simply be uneducated, not really a great alternative. I know I've been indoctrinated with thoughts of authors like Fitzgerald, Hemingway. Orwell, Steinbeck, Plato and Aristotle and... umm... the state or something like that but I think its ok.
Now that I think about it, I did graduate from a private college, I didn't feel liberated from the public, government sponsored education, I was angry at my $12k a semester tuition bills. Yeah, that was the only difference, but thank God the state was there providing me with loans I would never qualify for in a free market.
As I said before, a society without political institutions is left to thugs, those with guns or those that are just big enough to throw their weight around. Edit: I figured I should mention I say this as someone who has spent a few years with drug dealing as my main source of income. There are no societal institutions to rely upon in that world, and it is an ugly terrible place I warn people to stay away from constantly. That is why I reject radical libertarianism. If someone can explain to me the difference between today's drug markets and a society without government it would be greatly appreciated.
Xarthaz, read this: Politics and the English Language written by George Orwell.
Please, please keep that article in mind when you make posts, that way it might be apparent what in your posts is worth responding to and what is not really worth responding to, like that video. I know, Orwell was a socialist, but he made some good points, your video even referenced 1984. (ingsoc posters)
I hope you realize: the argument youre presenting is the same argument used to justify slavery: that the slave would be inable to take care of himself in absence of his master assigning duties, feeding him and giving him a roof to live under. After all, that is what democracy is on a collective level, though the ideological prisms through which this is looked at differ.
Readers may object that at least some existing governments do have the people's consent, but where's the evidence? Show me the properly signed and witnessed contracts. Unless all of the responsible adults subject to a government's claimed authority have voluntarily and explicitly accepted its governance on specific terms, the presumption must be that the rulers have simply imposed their rule. Propaganda statements, civics texts, opinion surveys, barroom allegations, political elections, and so forth are beside the point in this regard. No one would think of proffering such forms of evidence to show that I have a valid contract with Virgin Mobile, which supplies me with telelphone service. When will the governments of the United States, the state of Louisiana, and St. Tammany Parish send me the contracts wherein I may agree (or not) to purchase their "services" on mutually acceptable terms?
what's so great about somalia now? its like "hey the shittiest country in the world improved by 10% in 20 years, 90% to go before they equal the grandeur of bangladesh!"
They can only improve because anarchy has made it impossibly hard for them to deteriorate further
It must be sad walking around the world deluded to think you are a slave and that everyone is out to get you. If you run out of foil just let me know so i can make you a new hat.
Somalia is not an anarchy, if anything it´s mostly a truly libertarian nation where the state has been abolished and warmongers and other people with power has taken over the seat.
An Anarchy demands the abolishment of hierarchies, anyone can look at Somalia and see that is not the case there.
Anarchy also demands the equality among humans (oh well, modern Anarchy anyways) which also is not the case in Somalia.
The interesting thing is, the world is governed by anarchy already in its natural state. The reason we have established governments today is because it is human nature to seek safety and create societies, but it was all born of anarchy. If you were to leave Somalia in isolated anarchy for another hundred years, the people would eventually make a government on their own, just like every other civilization in the history of the world. You can't point to this and say "Yes, anarchy is working, let's burn all world governments to the ground" because that is lunacy. Any loss of a governing body in a society will eventually be replaced by a new one as people struggle to find safety and purpose.
I am an anarchist myself, but I think this is the wrong forum if we consider that the majority of TL is not anarchistic.
This is pretty bad because discussions like this happens to go nowhere, no matter how rational the arguments are; the other part will always refuse that they are wrong (this goes either way)
Try posting this on anarchistblackcat.org or some other forum
danson It must be sad walking around the world deluded to think you are a slave and that everyone is out to get you. If you run out of foil just let me know so i can make you a new hat.
On July 02 2011 05:01 Slakter wrote: Somalia is not an anarchy, if anything it´s mostly a truly libertarian nation where the state has been abolished and warmongers and other people with power has taken over the seat.
An Anarchy demands the abolishment of hierarchies, anyone can look at Somalia and see that is not the case there.
Anarchy also demands the equality among humans (oh well, modern Anarchy anyways) which also is not the case in Somalia.
This. Again, libertarianism and true anarchy are not the same thing, so stop treating them as such. You don't have to agree with the ideology, but at least educate yourself.
I hope you realize: the argument youre presenting is the same argument used to justify slavery: that the slave would be inable to take care of himself in absence of his master assigning duties, feeding him and giving him a roof to live under
This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
To be blunt, using cheap argumentation like that looks even worse when you're defending something as fringe as anarchy.
When will the governments of the United States, the state of Louisiana, and St. Tammany Parish send me the contracts wherein I may agree (or not) to purchase their "services" on mutually acceptable terms?
The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
On July 01 2011 23:44 BlackFlag wrote: I really want to make a point that the anarcho-capitalism (or this free market libertarianism) of somalia and anarchism in a leftist way (like what it meant for the past 150 years) are completely contrary and are a total opposite. The theorethical foundation for both are totally different, and the society drawn is also something completely different. People shall stop throwing this in the same bucket, these ideologies have NOTHING in common. thank you.
edit: to make my motives clear, it's really hurting me to see this stuff lumped together. I can't stand that a legitimate thought gets lumped together with free-market capitalism without rules. And before someone laughs, there are more examples of a working anarchist society than "libertarianism".
Problem is they actually are similar in what they want, they just differ in what they think will happen in that stateless society. Both want to eliminate the state. And after that they think the utopia they envision will come.
no it isn't. because an anarchist society is not one without rules but without hierarchy, while a libertiarian one is a society without rules but with hierarchy.
but i will stop takling about it, because people don't want to acknowledge the difference anyway.
I did not say the same, I said similar. And both suffer from the same wishful thinking.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Fundamentally you have no choice, participating in the political system does not give you a choice - especially leaving the country does not give you choice. It is not possible to (safely and legally) leave the country without raising money to do so and at the same time paying taxes for that (unless someone just gives you the money, and they they will then pay the taxes). So even if you theoretically are born here and leave as soon as possible, you either do it illegally and at great risk to your own safety or you are forced to participate. Even in leaving you must ask the government for a permission slip and pay for it, there is no consent. At all. You can debate the benefits of government all you wish, but to say it is based on consent is completely incorrect.
On July 01 2011 15:52 Catch]22 wrote: brain_ is never going to BELIEVE that he's wrong, any failing real world example will just not have been "true anarchy/lib"
and FYI, Somalia is p 'run' by a group called the Islamic Council or something like that, who enforce their rules on people so i dont get why we're even discussing this
It is you, who thus far has not understood the true nature of the state. I recommend you watch the video again, and think about the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
Aren't you the one who is enslaved by your own blind idea of how the world should be? :p
On July 02 2011 00:17 xarthaz wrote: It is you, who thus far has not understood the true nature of the state. I recommend you watch the video again, and think about the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
That's the kind of stuff that plays on your fears and makes you feel enlightened (unlike everyone else, those ignorant fools!)
Sorry but it's just a load of bullshit.
Where is the blindness - for as i noted in my deep philosophical ramblings beforehand - the idea Molyneux talks about is true. It is strictly, and definitionally true, because redefining the terms that lead to its conclusions in a different way, is absurd and counter to the perception of those ideas that the mind assumes as a synthetic a priori.
Frankly libertarianism of your kind (based somewhat on Mises and Rothbard) looks exactly like a religion. You profess to be enlightened, you hold the only truth and those who do not see it are servants/slaves of evil. You also have a dogma although you call it a priori synthetic truth and claim that it is irrefutable. Just for your information existence of synthetic a priori truths is far from clear. And your specific version of it , the axiom of human action, is also far from evident even more.
I was under the impression that Somalia is one of the most dangerous places on earth. Anarchy is better than a corrupt government I suppose, but only just. Africa needs strong governments to truly develope, and they just dont have that im affraid to say.
On July 02 2011 04:23 brain_ wrote: The point here isn't that Somalia is a paradise. The point is that Somalia is improving at an impressive rate despite the absence of a state - something that "conventional wisdom" would tell you is impossible.
But they have state, just not one. It is like saying US in the midst of civil war had no state.
On July 01 2011 12:22 T0fuuu wrote: Its not a success of anarchy. Its just what should of been done with Africa from long long ago. Get out, let them fix their own problems instead of inserting dictators and throwing aid at them.
Trading a corrupt government for warlords and gangs is not an improvement.
On July 02 2011 05:39 Cain0 wrote: I was under the impression that Somalia is one of the most dangerous places on earth. Anarchy is better than a corrupt government I suppose, but only just. Africa needs strong governments to truly develope, and they just dont have that im affraid to say.
And all governments are corrupt. They only vary in degree.
On July 01 2011 12:22 T0fuuu wrote: Its not a success of anarchy. Its just what should of been done with Africa from long long ago. Get out, let them fix their own problems instead of inserting dictators and throwing aid at them.
Trading a corrupt government for warlords and gangs is not an improvement.
This is non-sense, basically Somalia has improved in every possible way since the collapse of their government. What on earth is your basis to say it is not an improvement? Just because you said so?
On July 01 2011 15:52 Catch]22 wrote: brain_ is never going to BELIEVE that he's wrong, any failing real world example will just not have been "true anarchy/lib"
and FYI, Somalia is p 'run' by a group called the Islamic Council or something like that, who enforce their rules on people so i dont get why we're even discussing this
It is you, who thus far has not understood the true nature of the state. I recommend you watch the video again, and think about the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
Aren't you the one who is enslaved by your own blind idea of how the world should be? :p
On July 02 2011 01:02 Gamegene wrote:
On July 02 2011 00:17 xarthaz wrote: It is you, who thus far has not understood the true nature of the state. I recommend you watch the video again, and think about the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
That's the kind of stuff that plays on your fears and makes you feel enlightened (unlike everyone else, those ignorant fools!)
Sorry but it's just a load of bullshit.
Where is the blindness - for as i noted in my deep philosophical ramblings beforehand - the idea Molyneux talks about is true. It is strictly, and definitionally true, because redefining the terms that lead to its conclusions in a different way, is absurd and counter to the perception of those ideas that the mind assumes as a synthetic a priori.
Frankly libertarianism of your kind (based somewhat on Mises and Rothbard) looks exactly like a religion. You profess to be enlightened, you hold the only truth and those who do not see it are servants/slaves of evil. You also have a dogma although you call it a priori synthetic truth and claim that it is irrefutable. Just for your information existence of synthetic a priori truths is far from clear. And your specific version of it , the axiom of human action, is also far from evident even more.
It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
On July 02 2011 05:50 Treemonkeys wrote:It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Fundamentally you have no choice, participating in the political system does not give you a choice - especially leaving the country does not give you choice. It is not possible to (safely and legally) leave the country without raising money to do so and at the same time paying taxes for that (unless someone just gives you the money, and they they will then pay the taxes). So even if you theoretically are born here and leave as soon as possible, you either do it illegally and at great risk to your own safety or you are forced to participate. Even in leaving you must ask the government for a permission slip and pay for it, there is no consent. At all. You can debate the benefits of government all you wish, but to say it is based on consent is completely incorrect.
It is based on consent, just not on the consent of everyone, such are human societies. It has nothing to do with the state even, it is much broader phenomenon.
On July 02 2011 05:39 Cain0 wrote: I was under the impression that Somalia is one of the most dangerous places on earth. Anarchy is better than a corrupt government I suppose, but only just. Africa needs strong governments to truly develope, and they just dont have that im affraid to say.
And all governments are corrupt. They only vary in degree.
On July 01 2011 15:52 Catch]22 wrote: brain_ is never going to BELIEVE that he's wrong, any failing real world example will just not have been "true anarchy/lib"
and FYI, Somalia is p 'run' by a group called the Islamic Council or something like that, who enforce their rules on people so i dont get why we're even discussing this
It is you, who thus far has not understood the true nature of the state. I recommend you watch the video again, and think about the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
Aren't you the one who is enslaved by your own blind idea of how the world should be? :p
On July 02 2011 01:02 Gamegene wrote:
On July 02 2011 00:17 xarthaz wrote: It is you, who thus far has not understood the true nature of the state. I recommend you watch the video again, and think about the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
That's the kind of stuff that plays on your fears and makes you feel enlightened (unlike everyone else, those ignorant fools!)
Sorry but it's just a load of bullshit.
Where is the blindness - for as i noted in my deep philosophical ramblings beforehand - the idea Molyneux talks about is true. It is strictly, and definitionally true, because redefining the terms that lead to its conclusions in a different way, is absurd and counter to the perception of those ideas that the mind assumes as a synthetic a priori.
Frankly libertarianism of your kind (based somewhat on Mises and Rothbard) looks exactly like a religion. You profess to be enlightened, you hold the only truth and those who do not see it are servants/slaves of evil. You also have a dogma although you call it a priori synthetic truth and claim that it is irrefutable. Just for your information existence of synthetic a priori truths is far from clear. And your specific version of it , the axiom of human action, is also far from evident even more.
It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
Not really, that is kind of different "branch" of that ideology. And mostly it is not that simple. They have to assume million and one thing apart from the non-initiation of aggression to even get anywhere. Big problem is also the actual definition of aggression as it is highly subjective and all definitions that try to make it objective suffer from a lot of other problems.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
How do you want to define slavery? I define it as being forceful deprived of your labor which is exactly what taxes are. But there is no reason to debate if we should call it slavery or not, you can call it whatever you want. What is clear that you have no choice to have a portion of your labor taken from you.
You completely ignored my post on consent, so there is no reason to respond to that again - but I will try to add to it. You are just wrong. The arguments for the utility of government may have some merit, the arguments for the non-existent voluntary nature of it do not. Even to say "you could work for an amendment" - you could work withing the rails and limitations government imposed on your life and try to make it more desirable, akin to a slave trying to negotiate for a bigger living area. That is not, at all, consent. It is simply a little breathing room within the rules imposed on you.
You're god damn right that government obtaining a contractual agreement is unreasonable, so stop saying it is what it clearly is not. Not being reasonable is not an excuse to call it something completely incorrect. It is sad that you are so unable to defend the merits of government without resorting to blatant falsehoods to pretend as if it something else.
On July 01 2011 15:52 Catch]22 wrote: brain_ is never going to BELIEVE that he's wrong, any failing real world example will just not have been "true anarchy/lib"
and FYI, Somalia is p 'run' by a group called the Islamic Council or something like that, who enforce their rules on people so i dont get why we're even discussing this
It is you, who thus far has not understood the true nature of the state. I recommend you watch the video again, and think about the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
Aren't you the one who is enslaved by your own blind idea of how the world should be? :p
On July 02 2011 01:02 Gamegene wrote:
On July 02 2011 00:17 xarthaz wrote: It is you, who thus far has not understood the true nature of the state. I recommend you watch the video again, and think about the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
That's the kind of stuff that plays on your fears and makes you feel enlightened (unlike everyone else, those ignorant fools!)
Sorry but it's just a load of bullshit.
Where is the blindness - for as i noted in my deep philosophical ramblings beforehand - the idea Molyneux talks about is true. It is strictly, and definitionally true, because redefining the terms that lead to its conclusions in a different way, is absurd and counter to the perception of those ideas that the mind assumes as a synthetic a priori.
Frankly libertarianism of your kind (based somewhat on Mises and Rothbard) looks exactly like a religion. You profess to be enlightened, you hold the only truth and those who do not see it are servants/slaves of evil. You also have a dogma although you call it a priori synthetic truth and claim that it is irrefutable. Just for your information existence of synthetic a priori truths is far from clear. And your specific version of it , the axiom of human action, is also far from evident even more.
It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
Not really, that is kind of different "branch" of that ideology. And mostly it is not that simple. They have to assume million and one thing apart from the non-initiation of aggression to even get anywhere. Big problem is also the actual definition of aggression as it is highly subjective and all definitions that try to make it objective suffer from a lot of other problems.
Oh please, enough with the assumptions. Rothbard's work is in fact based on non-aggression. That's not to see he is right or anything, that that is the basis of it.
The 'succes of anarchy in somalia' is pretty much an endless civil war, endless famine, the total collapse of foreign aid to the country and insane crime rates. Arguing that somalia is 'a model for the rest of the world' is like arguing that WWI was awesome because it finally allowed for a renovation of the landscape in northern france.
Take the mobile cellphone 'example': Mobile cellphone serives are booming in all of africa, but aren't actually in somalian hands (all arab/south african operators), but the difference is that the cellphone explosion happened in the rest of africa about 5 years ago. And if you're lagging behind that much, it's easy to show comparatively high growth percentages.
This is a horrible thread. Somalia isn't some anarchistic paradise. It's a failed state. Playing pirate out on the high seas is not the equivalent of economical enterpreneurs, it's the outcome of a country where food and other resources are so scarce and the government is so weak that people have no actual choice but to obtain their food violently. Not to even mention the violence between groups inside the country over scarce resources.
Somalia is pretty much the worst place you could possibly live in the world, and the fact that it is (slightly) improving is only a testament to how absolutely horrific is was before.
I hope you realize: the argument youre presenting is the same argument used to justify slavery: that the slave would be inable to take care of himself in absence of his master assigning duties, feeding him and giving him a roof to live under
This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
To be blunt, using cheap argumentation like that looks even worse when you're defending something as fringe as anarchy.
When will the governments of the United States, the state of Louisiana, and St. Tammany Parish send me the contracts wherein I may agree (or not) to purchase their "services" on mutually acceptable terms?
The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Fundamentally you have no choice, participating in the political system does not give you a choice - especially leaving the country does not give you choice. It is not possible to (safely and legally) leave the country without raising money to do so and at the same time paying taxes for that (unless someone just gives you the money, and they they will then pay the taxes). So even if you theoretically are born here and leave as soon as possible, you either do it illegally and at great risk to your own safety or you are forced to participate. Even in leaving you must ask the government for a permission slip and pay for it, there is no consent. At all. You can debate the benefits of government all you wish, but to say it is based on consent is completely incorrect.
It is based on consent, just not on the consent of everyone, such are human societies. It has nothing to do with the state even, it is much broader phenomenon.
On July 02 2011 05:39 Cain0 wrote: I was under the impression that Somalia is one of the most dangerous places on earth. Anarchy is better than a corrupt government I suppose, but only just. Africa needs strong governments to truly develope, and they just dont have that im affraid to say.
And all governments are corrupt. They only vary in degree.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
On July 02 2011 05:50 Treemonkeys wrote:It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
So it is simply hopelessly naive?
There are 2 options:
Either your case: you are free to move, you only consent to governments conditions by living there etc. But this also implies a disturbing thing you do NOT want to admit. Namely that Government owns everything. This must necessarily be the case, as if government did not own everything, you could operate in the country's area within the confines of the property that government did not own, and not be liable for taxation. This is of course wrong, so it follows that government does indeed own everything. This goes against the premise of any freedoms that westerners tend to assume to have(other than the freedoms of the slave: those of a full belly and master who protects them). Furthermore, any property at all in such a scenario belongs to government. As all the property rules in the area are decided by government, it must mean that by default, government owns all production, and only by its compassion is the citizen allowed to have some of it. In essence this implies 100% taxation, surely not a concept most here would welcome.
Or the other case: that government does not own everything in its area. If this is correct, then the collection of taxes from citizens operating within the confines of areas government doesnt own is robbery straight up. In which case the slavery argument remains correct.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote: All human organizations are corrupt.
What, so you know all? Who are you to say that the organizations you have no knowledge of are corrupt? That is ridiculous. That is like the Bible just saying all humans are evil.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
On July 02 2011 05:50 Treemonkeys wrote:It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
So it is simply hopelessly naive?
There are 2 options:
Either your case: you are free to move, you only consent to governments conditions by living there etc. But this also implies a disturbing thing you do NOT want to admit. Namely that Government owns everything. This must necessarily be the case, as if government did not own everything, you could operate in the country's area within the confines of the property that government did not own, and not be liable for taxation. This is of course wrong, so it follows that government does indeed own everything. This goes against the premise of any freedoms that westerners tend to assume to have(other than the freedoms of the slave: those of a full belly and master who protects them)
Or the other case: that government does not own everything in its area. If this is correct, then the collection of taxes from citizens operating within the confines of areas government doesnt own is robbery straight up. In which case the slavery argument remains correct.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
Do you think humanity will every reach a point of enlightenment to realize they don't need government?
With government running almost everything especially education, I highly doubt it.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
On July 02 2011 05:50 Treemonkeys wrote:It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
So it is simply hopelessly naive?
There are 2 options:
Either your case: you are free to move, you only consent to governments conditions by living there etc. But this also implies a disturbing thing you do NOT want to admit. Namely that Government owns everything. This must necessarily be the case, as if government did not own everything, you could operate in the country's area within the confines of the property that government did not own, and not be liable for taxation. This is of course wrong, so it follows that government does indeed own everything. This goes against the premise of any freedoms that westerners tend to assume to have(other than the freedoms of the slave: those of a full belly and master who protects them)
Or the other case: that government does not own everything in its area. If this is correct, then the collection of taxes from citizens operating within the confines of areas government doesnt own is robbery straight up. In which case the slavery argument remains correct.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
Do you think humanity will every reach a point of enlightenment to realize they don't need government?
With government running almost everything especially education, I highly doubt it.
The Somali struggle shows that there is hope, but it does not come easy. The oppressors relentlessly try to regain control. Maybe if Ron Paul wins the election.
On July 01 2011 15:52 Catch]22 wrote: brain_ is never going to BELIEVE that he's wrong, any failing real world example will just not have been "true anarchy/lib"
and FYI, Somalia is p 'run' by a group called the Islamic Council or something like that, who enforce their rules on people so i dont get why we're even discussing this
It is you, who thus far has not understood the true nature of the state. I recommend you watch the video again, and think about the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
Aren't you the one who is enslaved by your own blind idea of how the world should be? :p
On July 02 2011 01:02 Gamegene wrote:
On July 02 2011 00:17 xarthaz wrote: It is you, who thus far has not understood the true nature of the state. I recommend you watch the video again, and think about the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
That's the kind of stuff that plays on your fears and makes you feel enlightened (unlike everyone else, those ignorant fools!)
Sorry but it's just a load of bullshit.
Where is the blindness - for as i noted in my deep philosophical ramblings beforehand - the idea Molyneux talks about is true. It is strictly, and definitionally true, because redefining the terms that lead to its conclusions in a different way, is absurd and counter to the perception of those ideas that the mind assumes as a synthetic a priori.
Frankly libertarianism of your kind (based somewhat on Mises and Rothbard) looks exactly like a religion. You profess to be enlightened, you hold the only truth and those who do not see it are servants/slaves of evil. You also have a dogma although you call it a priori synthetic truth and claim that it is irrefutable. Just for your information existence of synthetic a priori truths is far from clear. And your specific version of it , the axiom of human action, is also far from evident even more.
It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
Not really, that is kind of different "branch" of that ideology. And mostly it is not that simple. They have to assume million and one thing apart from the non-initiation of aggression to even get anywhere. Big problem is also the actual definition of aggression as it is highly subjective and all definitions that try to make it objective suffer from a lot of other problems.
Oh please, enough with the assumptions. Rothbard's work is in fact based on non-aggression. That's not to see he is right or anything, that that is the basis of it.
I think we both are kind of talking about something slightly different as I was thinking about the human action axiom when I said it is a different "branch"(for the lack of better work in my head right now), which is a slightly different beast. But which guy did what is not really that important. My main point is that they do no simply logically infer things from just one axiom or assumption.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
On July 02 2011 05:50 Treemonkeys wrote:It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
So it is simply hopelessly naive?
There are 2 options:
Either your case: you are free to move, you only consent to governments conditions by living there etc. But this also implies a disturbing thing you do NOT want to admit. Namely that Government owns everything. This must necessarily be the case, as if government did not own everything, you could operate in the country's area within the confines of the property that government did not own, and not be liable for taxation. This is of course wrong, so it follows that government does indeed own everything. This goes against the premise of any freedoms that westerners tend to assume to have(other than the freedoms of the slave: those of a full belly and master who protects them)
Or the other case: that government does not own everything in its area. If this is correct, then the collection of taxes from citizens operating within the confines of areas government doesnt own is robbery straight up. In which case the slavery argument remains correct.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
Do you think humanity will every reach a point of enlightenment to realize they don't need government?
With government running almost everything especially education, I highly doubt it.
The Somali struggle shows that there is hope, but it does not come easy. The oppressors relentlessly try to regain control. Maybe if Ron Paul wins the election.
I would bet almost anything that Somalia becoming successful will only result in one government or another stepping in and setting up shop. That was basically the case of pre-Israel Palestine - one of the best examples of peaceful anarchy in modern times - which only invited the rest of the world to say "hey these guys can't defend themselves, lets make a country". Now it is one of the worst places to live on earth. Then you have the ignorant masses who fund these governments thinking that is all just fine.
Sorry to sound so pessimistic! I mean we don't want government, that's some form of progress right?
I hope you realize: the argument youre presenting is the same argument used to justify slavery: that the slave would be inable to take care of himself in absence of his master assigning duties, feeding him and giving him a roof to live under
This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
To be blunt, using cheap argumentation like that looks even worse when you're defending something as fringe as anarchy.
When will the governments of the United States, the state of Louisiana, and St. Tammany Parish send me the contracts wherein I may agree (or not) to purchase their "services" on mutually acceptable terms?
The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Fundamentally you have no choice, participating in the political system does not give you a choice - especially leaving the country does not give you choice. It is not possible to (safely and legally) leave the country without raising money to do so and at the same time paying taxes for that (unless someone just gives you the money, and they they will then pay the taxes). So even if you theoretically are born here and leave as soon as possible, you either do it illegally and at great risk to your own safety or you are forced to participate. Even in leaving you must ask the government for a permission slip and pay for it, there is no consent. At all. You can debate the benefits of government all you wish, but to say it is based on consent is completely incorrect.
It is based on consent, just not on the consent of everyone, such are human societies. It has nothing to do with the state even, it is much broader phenomenon.
On July 02 2011 05:44 Treemonkeys wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:39 Cain0 wrote: I was under the impression that Somalia is one of the most dangerous places on earth. Anarchy is better than a corrupt government I suppose, but only just. Africa needs strong governments to truly develope, and they just dont have that im affraid to say.
And all governments are corrupt. They only vary in degree.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
On July 02 2011 05:50 Treemonkeys wrote:It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
So it is simply hopelessly naive?
There are 2 options:
Either your case: you are free to move, you only consent to governments conditions by living there etc. But this also implies a disturbing thing you do NOT want to admit. Namely that Government owns everything. This must necessarily be the case, as if government did not own everything, you could operate in the country's area within the confines of the property that government did not own, and not be liable for taxation. This is of course wrong, so it follows that government does indeed own everything. This goes against the premise of any freedoms that westerners tend to assume to have(other than the freedoms of the slave: those of a full belly and master who protects them). Furthermore, any property at all in such a scenario belongs to government. As all the property rules in the area are decided by government, it must mean that by default, government owns all production, and only by its compassion is the citizen allowed to have some of it. In essence this implies 100% taxation, surely not a concept most here would welcome.
Or the other case: that government does not own everything in its area. If this is correct, then the collection of taxes from citizens operating within the confines of areas government doesnt own is robbery straight up. In which case the slavery argument remains correct.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
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.
On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote: All human organizations are corrupt.
What, so you know all? Who are you to say that the organizations you have no knowledge of are corrupt? That is ridiculous. That is like the Bible just saying all humans are evil.
That was statistical statement based on observation and experience. The same as your statement that all governments are corrupt. I can use the same objections on it that you used.
EDIT: just to avoid misunderstanding I will quantify it more : All big organizations are corrupt. We can quantify big if necessary, but I don't think it will serve any purpose.
On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote: All human organizations are corrupt.
What, so you know all? Who are you to say that the organizations you have no knowledge of are corrupt? That is ridiculous. That is like the Bible just saying all humans are evil.
That was statistical statement based on observation and experience. The same as your statement that all governments are corrupt. I can use the same objections on it that you used.
No, all governments initiate violence to fund themselves, that is why they are all corrupt. It is based on how they factually collect funds.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
That's your flawed conclusion... I don't know where you live, but I come from Canada, I pay mad taxes but I'm born in a first world country which gave me the tools to educate myself and get a good job.
If I were born in a country without a good frame for people to live their life, then I may not have had such an opportunity. I mean, statistically speaking, being born in Somalia gives me pretty poor odds of uh... being literate...
Sure taxes are handled poorly everywhere in the world. Robbery though? Well that's just your way to get shock value or because you have a poor understanding of how the world works. Here, while a large portion of the taxes is wasted because of some corruption and sheer incompetence of many politicians, much of it comes right back to create a great infrastructure to live in.
I live a comfortable life. It would be better if we had some competent people up there, but it's decent. So no, not robbery.
There is the action axiom - and then the conditions in which it is applied. The additional conditions - scarcity of time and space for proving relation of real world observations to demonstrated preference; actions involving identical object for proving law of diminishing marginal utility, law of diminsihing marginal utility for proving supply and demand, supply and demand for proving firm theory.
All of these conclusions from the more abstract to the more practical come from the main premise the action axiom, and the additional condition that the application of the axiom assumes to be true. That is, the additional condition is already assumed to be true by the inquiry on the subject, so it does not dispute claims following from action axiom.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
That's your flawed conclusion... I don't know where you live, but I come from Canada, I pay mad taxes but I'm born in a first world country which gave me the tools to educate myself and get a good job.
If I were born in a country without a good frame for people to live their life, then I may not have had such an opportunity.
Sure taxes are handled poorly everywhere in the world. Robbery though? Well that's just your way to get shock value or because you have a poor understanding of how the world works. Here, while a large portion of the taxes is wasted because of some corruption and sheer incompetence of many politicians, much of it comes right back to create a great infrastructure to live in.
I live a comfortable life. It would be better if we had some competent people up there, but it's decent. So no, not robbery.
So if someone points a gun at your head, demands money, and then uses your money in a way that is supposed to benefit you, it's not robbery?
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
That's your flawed conclusion... I don't know where you live, but I come from Canada, I pay mad taxes but I'm born in a first world country which gave me the tools to educate myself and get a good job.
If I were born in a country without a good frame for people to live their life, then I may not have had such an opportunity.
Sure taxes are handled poorly everywhere in the world. Robbery though? Well that's just your way to get shock value or because you have a poor understanding of how the world works. Here, while a large portion of the taxes is wasted because of some corruption and sheer incompetence of many politicians, much of it comes right back to create a great infrastructure to live in.
I live a comfortable life. It would be better if we had some competent people up there, but it's decent. So no, not robbery.
So if someone points a gun at your head, demands money, and then uses your money in a way that is supposed to benefit you, it's not robbery?
The guy demands money because I've been living in the house he built, but lets me leave if I want to. No gun.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
That's your flawed conclusion... I don't know where you live, but I come from Canada, I pay mad taxes but I'm born in a first world country which gave me the tools to educate myself and get a good job.
If I were born in a country without a good frame for people to live their life, then I may not have had such an opportunity.
Sure taxes are handled poorly everywhere in the world. Robbery though? Well that's just your way to get shock value or because you have a poor understanding of how the world works. Here, while a large portion of the taxes is wasted because of some corruption and sheer incompetence of many politicians, much of it comes right back to create a great infrastructure to live in.
I live a comfortable life. It would be better if we had some competent people up there, but it's decent. So no, not robbery.
So if someone points a gun at your head, demands money, and then uses your money in a way that is supposed to benefit you, it's not robbery?
The guy demands money because I've been living in the house he built, but lets me leave if I want to. No gun.
What if you were born in his house and he demands you pay him before you are allowed to leave? That's robbery, slavery really. Trust me you will have guns pointed at you if you refuse to pay.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
That's your flawed conclusion... I don't know where you live, but I come from Canada, I pay mad taxes but I'm born in a first world country which gave me the tools to educate myself and get a good job.
If I were born in a country without a good frame for people to live their life, then I may not have had such an opportunity.
Sure taxes are handled poorly everywhere in the world. Robbery though? Well that's just your way to get shock value or because you have a poor understanding of how the world works. Here, while a large portion of the taxes is wasted because of some corruption and sheer incompetence of many politicians, much of it comes right back to create a great infrastructure to live in.
I live a comfortable life. It would be better if we had some competent people up there, but it's decent. So no, not robbery.
So if someone points a gun at your head, demands money, and then uses your money in a way that is supposed to benefit you, it's not robbery?
The guy demands money because I've been living in the house he built, but lets me leave if I want to. No gun.
What if you were born in his house and he demands you pay him before you are allowed to leave? That's robbery, slavery really.
You've been taking his services. Can't leave the restaurant before paying. He fed you, protected you and kept you warm. You got there using his roads too.
And born there? No way, you can leave np. You've been doing stuff if you're stuck there.
On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote: All human organizations are corrupt.
What, so you know all? Who are you to say that the organizations you have no knowledge of are corrupt? That is ridiculous. That is like the Bible just saying all humans are evil.
That was statistical statement based on observation and experience. The same as your statement that all governments are corrupt. I can use the same objections on it that you used.
No, all governments initiate violence to fund themselves, that is why they are all corrupt. It is based on how they factually collect funds.
You can't say this for ALL human organization.
Ah, so as all good libertarians you change definitions of words to suit your argument. Initiating violence to fund itself is not a definition of corruption, it does not even imply corruption. In that case whatever.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
On July 02 2011 05:50 Treemonkeys wrote:It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
So it is simply hopelessly naive?
There are 2 options:
Either your case: you are free to move, you only consent to governments conditions by living there etc. But this also implies a disturbing thing you do NOT want to admit. Namely that Government owns everything. This must necessarily be the case, as if government did not own everything, you could operate in the country's area within the confines of the property that government did not own, and not be liable for taxation. This is of course wrong, so it follows that government does indeed own everything. This goes against the premise of any freedoms that westerners tend to assume to have(other than the freedoms of the slave: those of a full belly and master who protects them)
Or the other case: that government does not own everything in its area. If this is correct, then the collection of taxes from citizens operating within the confines of areas government doesnt own is robbery straight up. In which case the slavery argument remains correct.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
Do you think humanity will every reach a point of enlightenment to realize they don't need government?
With government running almost everything especially education, I highly doubt it.
The Somali struggle shows that there is hope, but it does not come easy. The oppressors relentlessly try to regain control. Maybe if Ron Paul wins the election.
Ron Paul 2011 slogan: Vote to help make America better, vote to make America more like Somalia. After he's elected we all bring our guns from our houses and knock over the nearest wallmart, because that's how shit's done in Somalia and it will create a major economic boom in the security industry.
Seriously tho, what is this obsession with showing off how awesome Somalia is? The Somali aren't actually struggling for 'anarchy', they're struggling just to live and eat. Somalia is the absolute bottom of the barrel when it comes to the world, and the only reason there have been (minor) gains in Somalia over the last few years is because of how disconnected they are from the rest of the world economically and how far they are behind in the first place.
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.
On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote: All human organizations are corrupt.
What, so you know all? Who are you to say that the organizations you have no knowledge of are corrupt? That is ridiculous. That is like the Bible just saying all humans are evil.
That was statistical statement based on observation and experience. The same as your statement that all governments are corrupt. I can use the same objections on it that you used.
No, all governments initiate violence to fund themselves, that is why they are all corrupt. It is based on how they factually collect funds.
You can't say this for ALL human organization.
Ah, so as all good libertarians you change definitions of words to suit your argument. Initiating violence to fund itself is not a definition of corruption, it does not even imply corruption. In that case whatever.
Corruption - "moral perversion; depravity."
Completely fair use of the word, no definition change needed. Also, I'm not a libertarian.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
How do you want to define slavery? I define it as being forceful deprived of your labor which is exactly what taxes are. But there is no reason to debate if we should call it slavery or not, you can call it whatever you want. What is clear that you have no choice to have a portion of your labor taken from you.
You completely ignored my post on consent, so there is no reason to respond to that again - but I will try to add to it. You are just wrong. The arguments for the utility of government may have some merit, the arguments for the non-existent voluntary nature of it do not. Even to say "you could work for an amendment" - you could work withing the rails and limitations government imposed on your life and try to make it more desirable, akin to a slave trying to negotiate for a bigger living area. That is not, at all, consent. It is simply a little breathing room within the rules imposed on you.
You're god damn right that government obtaining a contractual agreement is unreasonable, so stop saying it is what it clearly is not. Not being reasonable is not an excuse to call it something completely incorrect. It is sad that you are so unable to defend the merits of government without resorting to blatant falsehoods to pretend as if it something else.
It is difficult to reply to a post in detail that was a single sentence when I saw it so don't get your panties in a bunch and don't edit in 90% of your post if you don't want people ignoring some of what you say.
Slavery is ownership of another person, forceful deprivation of labor is theft. Let's not make slavery into something less than it is so you can whine about being a slave.
The ability to fundamentally change the way the government functions through the amendment process is a bit more important and significant than you make it out to be. The amendment could say "The executive, congress and judicial are hereby disbanded." Would that give you enough "living area" my poor enslaved friend?
Contractual agreement is unreasonable because of the logistics involved, and the lack of an alternative, there doesn't seem to be one that works except free deportation. Unless you think you should be able to op out and become the "Glorious People's Republic of TreeMonkeys."
Consent of things such as taxation have been established by the majority at various points through our society and I'm sorry if your are bitter about it. Tyranny of the majority is a shame. You have to pay taxes to afford to leave the country, tough shit, you can still leave.
That last bit about "blatant falsehoods" and "calling it something completely incorrect" really needed more quotes and less angry rambling, don't know what you are talking about there.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
That's your flawed conclusion... I don't know where you live, but I come from Canada, I pay mad taxes but I'm born in a first world country which gave me the tools to educate myself and get a good job.
If I were born in a country without a good frame for people to live their life, then I may not have had such an opportunity.
Sure taxes are handled poorly everywhere in the world. Robbery though? Well that's just your way to get shock value or because you have a poor understanding of how the world works. Here, while a large portion of the taxes is wasted because of some corruption and sheer incompetence of many politicians, much of it comes right back to create a great infrastructure to live in.
I live a comfortable life. It would be better if we had some competent people up there, but it's decent. So no, not robbery.
So if someone points a gun at your head, demands money, and then uses your money in a way that is supposed to benefit you, it's not robbery?
The guy demands money because I've been living in the house he built, but lets me leave if I want to. No gun.
What if you were born in his house and he demands you pay him before you are allowed to leave? That's robbery, slavery really.
You've been taking his services. Can't leave the restaurant before paying. He fed you, protected you and kept you warm. You got there using his roads too.
And born there? No way, you can leave np. You've been doing stuff if you're stuck there.
This fits my first case analysis which necessarily implies that state owns everything. as such your claim of making money is incorrect. it is only your master, the state that gives you some from its compassion. but make no mistake, the master owns all your belongings, and can confiscate everything you have without committing a crime. He can even slaughter you, and it will not be a crime.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
How do you want to define slavery? I define it as being forceful deprived of your labor which is exactly what taxes are. But there is no reason to debate if we should call it slavery or not, you can call it whatever you want. What is clear that you have no choice to have a portion of your labor taken from you.
You completely ignored my post on consent, so there is no reason to respond to that again - but I will try to add to it. You are just wrong. The arguments for the utility of government may have some merit, the arguments for the non-existent voluntary nature of it do not. Even to say "you could work for an amendment" - you could work withing the rails and limitations government imposed on your life and try to make it more desirable, akin to a slave trying to negotiate for a bigger living area. That is not, at all, consent. It is simply a little breathing room within the rules imposed on you.
You're god damn right that government obtaining a contractual agreement is unreasonable, so stop saying it is what it clearly is not. Not being reasonable is not an excuse to call it something completely incorrect. It is sad that you are so unable to defend the merits of government without resorting to blatant falsehoods to pretend as if it something else.
It is difficult to reply to a post in detail that was a single sentence when I saw it so don't get your panties in a bunch and don't edit in 90% of your post if you don't want people ignoring some of what you say.
Slavery is ownership of another person, forceful deprivation of labor is theft. Let's not make slavery into something less than it is so you can whine about being a slave.
The ability to fundamentally change the way the government functions through the amendment process is a bit more important and significant than you make it out to be. The amendment could say "The executive, congress and judicial are hereby disbanded." Would that give you enough "living area" my poor enslaved friend?
Contractual agreement is unreasonable because of the logistics involved, and the lack of an alternative, there doesn't seem to be one that works except free deportation. Unless you think you should be able to op out and become the "Glorious People's Republic of TreeMonkeys."
Consent of things such as taxation have been established by the majority at various points through our society and I'm sorry if your are bitter about it. Tyranny of the majority is a shame. You have to pay taxes to afford to leave the country, tough shit, you can still leave.
That last bit about "blatant falsehoods" and "calling it something completely incorrect" really needed more quotes and less angry rambling, don't know what you are talking about there.
You agree that your life and all your belongings are at the whim of the government, he can take it all and slaugther you whenever he wishes. And thats not slavery?
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
How do you want to define slavery? I define it as being forceful deprived of your labor which is exactly what taxes are. But there is no reason to debate if we should call it slavery or not, you can call it whatever you want. What is clear that you have no choice to have a portion of your labor taken from you.
You completely ignored my post on consent, so there is no reason to respond to that again - but I will try to add to it. You are just wrong. The arguments for the utility of government may have some merit, the arguments for the non-existent voluntary nature of it do not. Even to say "you could work for an amendment" - you could work withing the rails and limitations government imposed on your life and try to make it more desirable, akin to a slave trying to negotiate for a bigger living area. That is not, at all, consent. It is simply a little breathing room within the rules imposed on you.
You're god damn right that government obtaining a contractual agreement is unreasonable, so stop saying it is what it clearly is not. Not being reasonable is not an excuse to call it something completely incorrect. It is sad that you are so unable to defend the merits of government without resorting to blatant falsehoods to pretend as if it something else.
It is difficult to reply to a post in detail that was a single sentence when I saw it so don't get your panties in a bunch and don't edit in 90% of your post if you don't want people ignoring some of what you say.
Slavery is ownership of another person, forceful deprivation of labor is theft. Let's not make slavery into something less than it is so you can whine about being a slave.
The ability to fundamentally change the way the government functions through the amendment process is a bit more important and significant than you make it out to be. The amendment could say "The executive, congress and judicial are hereby disbanded." Would that give you enough "living area" my poor enslaved friend?
Contractual agreement is unreasonable because of the logistics involved, and the lack of an alternative, there doesn't seem to be one that works except free deportation. Unless you think you should be able to op out and become the "Glorious People's Republic of TreeMonkeys."
Consent of things such as taxation have been established by the majority at various points through our society and I'm sorry if your are bitter about it. Tyranny of the majority is a shame. You have to pay taxes to afford to leave the country, tough shit, you can still leave.
That last bit about "blatant falsehoods" and "calling it something completely incorrect" really needed more quotes and less angry rambling, don't know what you are talking about there.
That fact that I am bitter about it proves it is not consensual, no reason to respond to the rest of your non-sense. Tyranny of the majority is also not consensual. I also agree - having to pay taxes to afford to be allowed to leave the country is tough shit, it's also non-consensual shit.
You basically said "consent of things such as taxation has been established" and then gave reasons why all the reasons it is NOT consensual are okay. Such bullshit.
On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote: You agree that your life and all your belongings are at the whim of the government, he can take it all and slaugther you whenever he wishes. And thats not slavery?
The lack of thought and ability to debate is laughable.
On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote: All human organizations are corrupt.
What, so you know all? Who are you to say that the organizations you have no knowledge of are corrupt? That is ridiculous. That is like the Bible just saying all humans are evil.
That was statistical statement based on observation and experience. The same as your statement that all governments are corrupt. I can use the same objections on it that you used.
No, all governments initiate violence to fund themselves, that is why they are all corrupt. It is based on how they factually collect funds.
You can't say this for ALL human organization.
Ah, so as all good libertarians you change definitions of words to suit your argument. Initiating violence to fund itself is not a definition of corruption, it does not even imply corruption. In that case whatever.
Corruption - "moral perversion; depravity."
Completely fair use of the word, no definition change needed. Also, I'm not a libertarian.
In that case sorry, but the confusion is caused by both of us. I was thinking of course about different meaning of corruption that made more sense in the context. That said, using your definition my conclusion is different. No, not all governments are corrupt.
On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote: All human organizations are corrupt.
What, so you know all? Who are you to say that the organizations you have no knowledge of are corrupt? That is ridiculous. That is like the Bible just saying all humans are evil.
That was statistical statement based on observation and experience. The same as your statement that all governments are corrupt. I can use the same objections on it that you used.
No, all governments initiate violence to fund themselves, that is why they are all corrupt. It is based on how they factually collect funds.
You can't say this for ALL human organization.
Ah, so as all good libertarians you change definitions of words to suit your argument. Initiating violence to fund itself is not a definition of corruption, it does not even imply corruption. In that case whatever.
Corruption - "moral perversion; depravity."
Completely fair use of the word, no definition change needed. Also, I'm not a libertarian.
In that case sorry, but the confusion is caused by both of us. I was thinking of course about different meaning of corruption that made more sense in the context. That said, using your definition my conclusion is different. No, not all governments are corrupt.
Maybe you should check into what the fuck you're talking about before accusing someone else of twisting words.
And now here you are as the one staking a claim to "my definition".
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?
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 see no problem with that in general as I do not think wars necessarily follow from that. Wars are a separate issue that I have problem with, but they belong to the specific details that we can change as I noted at the bottom of my post.
On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote: You agree that your life and all your belongings are at the whim of the government, he can take it all and slaugther you whenever he wishes. And thats not slavery?
The lack of thought and ability to debate is laughable.
What is the factual error being commited? Frank agreed to the condition that "Staying on that land mass is consent". And consent to the discretion of government means exactly that: that everything in that area belongs to government. Stepping over the border into a country means consenting to giving away everything you have to the benevolence of the government.
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 see no problem with that in general as I do not think wars necessarily follow from that. Wars are a separate issue that I have problem with, but they belong to the specific details that we can change as I noted at the bottom of my post.
The specific details are simply whatever lies the government feeds you when it decides it wants to go to war for profit.
I hope you realize: the argument youre presenting is the same argument used to justify slavery: that the slave would be inable to take care of himself in absence of his master assigning duties, feeding him and giving him a roof to live under
This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
To be blunt, using cheap argumentation like that looks even worse when you're defending something as fringe as anarchy.
When will the governments of the United States, the state of Louisiana, and St. Tammany Parish send me the contracts wherein I may agree (or not) to purchase their "services" on mutually acceptable terms?
The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Fundamentally you have no choice, participating in the political system does not give you a choice - especially leaving the country does not give you choice. It is not possible to (safely and legally) leave the country without raising money to do so and at the same time paying taxes for that (unless someone just gives you the money, and they they will then pay the taxes). So even if you theoretically are born here and leave as soon as possible, you either do it illegally and at great risk to your own safety or you are forced to participate. Even in leaving you must ask the government for a permission slip and pay for it, there is no consent. At all. You can debate the benefits of government all you wish, but to say it is based on consent is completely incorrect.
It is based on consent, just not on the consent of everyone, such are human societies. It has nothing to do with the state even, it is much broader phenomenon.
On July 02 2011 05:44 Treemonkeys wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:39 Cain0 wrote: I was under the impression that Somalia is one of the most dangerous places on earth. Anarchy is better than a corrupt government I suppose, but only just. Africa needs strong governments to truly develope, and they just dont have that im affraid to say.
And all governments are corrupt. They only vary in degree.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
On July 02 2011 05:50 Treemonkeys wrote:It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
So it is simply hopelessly naive?
There are 2 options:
Either your case: you are free to move, you only consent to governments conditions by living there etc. But this also implies a disturbing thing you do NOT want to admit. Namely that Government owns everything. This must necessarily be the case, as if government did not own everything, you could operate in the country's area within the confines of the property that government did not own, and not be liable for taxation. This is of course wrong, so it follows that government does indeed own everything. This goes against the premise of any freedoms that westerners tend to assume to have(other than the freedoms of the slave: those of a full belly and master who protects them). Furthermore, any property at all in such a scenario belongs to government. As all the property rules in the area are decided by government, it must mean that by default, government owns all production, and only by its compassion is the citizen allowed to have some of it. In essence this implies 100% taxation, surely not a concept most here would welcome.
Or the other case: that government does not own everything in its area. If this is correct, then the collection of taxes from citizens operating within the confines of areas government doesnt own is robbery straight up. In which case the slavery argument remains correct.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
I think you are forgetting the part where taxation comes back to benefit the people paying the taxes. Not only that, they come back to benefit the people who cannot pay taxes for whatever reason.
You seem to believe that without a government, people's every need would be catered to as well as if a government existed. In this case, why would for-profit companies, which you claim to be the ultimate solution to everything, help out those in need? Those people who are unlucky, get sick, or have other disabilities and cannot care for themselves. As there is not profit in keeping these people alive, I suppose you say they would just die, right?
I think that you are purposefully ignoring the fact that a lot of money in Somalia comes from displaced Somali's abroad, who are funding and investing in Somali companies. The telecom industries you are tauting certainly didn't spring up by themselves.
On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote: You agree that your life and all your belongings are at the whim of the government, he can take it all and slaugther you whenever he wishes. And thats not slavery?
The lack of thought and ability to debate is laughable.
What is the factual error being commited? Frank agreed to the condition that "Staying on that land mass is consent". And consent to the discretion of government means exactly that: that everything in that area belongs to government. Stepping over the border into a country means consenting to giving away everything you have to the benevolence of the government.
And what is the huge difference between willingly paying a government your money and willingly paying a company your money? In the case that government completely disappears, what in the world would stop a large company from gaining enough capital for their own standing army with which to protect themselves and control you?
The nice thing about living in one nation or the other is that I know I will be treated a certain way by the government, even if I commit a crime. If there is no government, there is absolutely nothing stopping someone from having you killed if they desire it. After all, the free market will provide assassination services much more cheaply than the government. In this free market, who will administer justice?
If someone steals my car, and I catch them, who will punish them? I don't want to have to punish them myself, so I will pay the xarthaz company to beat them senseless and hold them in a cell for a year to teach them a lesson. However, I changed my mind and I don't want to have to pay for them to be held in a cell for a year, so why don't you just kill them for me instead. It's a much easier and cheaper solution.
On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote: You agree that your life and all your belongings are at the whim of the government, he can take it all and slaugther you whenever he wishes. And thats not slavery?
The lack of thought and ability to debate is laughable.
What is the factual error being commited? Frank agreed to the condition that "Staying on that land mass is consent". And consent to the discretion of government means exactly that: that everything in that area belongs to government. Stepping over the border into a country means consenting to giving away everything you have to the benevolence of the government.
So you basically you own yourself but the earth belongs to government. Nice.
On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote: This fits my first case analysis which necessarily implies that state owns everything. as such your claim of making money is incorrect. it is only your master, the state that gives you some from its compassion. but make no mistake, the master owns all your belongings, and can confiscate everything you have without committing a crime. He can even slaughter you, and it will not be a crime.
Your last conclusion does not follow and is only rhetorical trick. Society and government define crime and in first world countries they are bound by laws, therefore slaughtering you would be a crime as would in most cases be total confiscation of your property.
I hope you realize: the argument youre presenting is the same argument used to justify slavery: that the slave would be inable to take care of himself in absence of his master assigning duties, feeding him and giving him a roof to live under
This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
To be blunt, using cheap argumentation like that looks even worse when you're defending something as fringe as anarchy.
When will the governments of the United States, the state of Louisiana, and St. Tammany Parish send me the contracts wherein I may agree (or not) to purchase their "services" on mutually acceptable terms?
The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:36 Treemonkeys wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Fundamentally you have no choice, participating in the political system does not give you a choice - especially leaving the country does not give you choice. It is not possible to (safely and legally) leave the country without raising money to do so and at the same time paying taxes for that (unless someone just gives you the money, and they they will then pay the taxes). So even if you theoretically are born here and leave as soon as possible, you either do it illegally and at great risk to your own safety or you are forced to participate. Even in leaving you must ask the government for a permission slip and pay for it, there is no consent. At all. You can debate the benefits of government all you wish, but to say it is based on consent is completely incorrect.
It is based on consent, just not on the consent of everyone, such are human societies. It has nothing to do with the state even, it is much broader phenomenon.
On July 02 2011 05:44 Treemonkeys wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:39 Cain0 wrote: I was under the impression that Somalia is one of the most dangerous places on earth. Anarchy is better than a corrupt government I suppose, but only just. Africa needs strong governments to truly develope, and they just dont have that im affraid to say.
And all governments are corrupt. They only vary in degree.
All human organizations are corrupt.
On July 02 2011 05:50 TheFrankOne wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:36 Treemonkeys wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
On July 02 2011 05:50 Treemonkeys wrote:It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
So it is simply hopelessly naive?
There are 2 options:
Either your case: you are free to move, you only consent to governments conditions by living there etc. But this also implies a disturbing thing you do NOT want to admit. Namely that Government owns everything. This must necessarily be the case, as if government did not own everything, you could operate in the country's area within the confines of the property that government did not own, and not be liable for taxation. This is of course wrong, so it follows that government does indeed own everything. This goes against the premise of any freedoms that westerners tend to assume to have(other than the freedoms of the slave: those of a full belly and master who protects them). Furthermore, any property at all in such a scenario belongs to government. As all the property rules in the area are decided by government, it must mean that by default, government owns all production, and only by its compassion is the citizen allowed to have some of it. In essence this implies 100% taxation, surely not a concept most here would welcome.
Or the other case: that government does not own everything in its area. If this is correct, then the collection of taxes from citizens operating within the confines of areas government doesnt own is robbery straight up. In which case the slavery argument remains correct.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
I think you are forgetting the part where taxation comes back to benefit the people paying the taxes. Not only that, they come back to benefit the people who cannot pay taxes for whatever reason.
You seem to believe that without a government, people's every need would be catered to as well as if a government existed. In this case, why would for-profit companies, which you claim to be the ultimate solution to everything, help out those in need? Those people who are unlucky, get sick, or have other disabilities and cannot care for themselves. As there is not profit in keeping these people alive, I suppose you say they would just die, right?
I think that you are purposefully ignoring the fact that a lot of money in Somalia comes from displaced Somali's abroad, who are funding and investing in Somali companies. The telecom industries you are tauting certainly didn't spring up by themselves.
Being beneficial is not a condition for robbery, it is simply why you think the robbery is okay. Robbery only requires a lack of consent or false consent in the presence of violence and intimidation.
On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote: This fits my first case analysis which necessarily implies that state owns everything. as such your claim of making money is incorrect. it is only your master, the state that gives you some from its compassion. but make no mistake, the master owns all your belongings, and can confiscate everything you have without committing a crime. He can even slaughter you, and it will not be a crime.
Your last conclusion does not follow and is only rhetorical trick. Society and government define crime and in first world countries they are bound by laws, therefore slaughtering you would be a crime as would in most cases be total confiscation of your property.
Just to add what the Frank One said...treemonkey you say that
The arguments for the utility of government may have some merit, the arguments for the non-existent voluntary nature of it do not. Even to say "you could work for an amendment" - you could work withing the rails and limitations government imposed on your life and try to make it more desirable, akin to a slave trying to negotiate for a bigger living area. That is not, at all, consent. It is simply a little breathing room within the rules imposed on you.
I mean you're kind of holding a double standard here. If the whole world or the country you were born in were privatized, the owners would have their own right to demand things of you, that you work for them for as long as you live on their land. That's not fair either is it? I mean there are rational limits to your freedom, regardless of the society you live in. There is always going to be *some kind* of organizational structure, whether its voluntary or not, and you will be born under it, and because of its success you will be forced to submit to certain "laws".
Sure you could move to a different area, thats owned by another private company...but thats identical to moving to a different country with its own government. The only problem is, these companies are solely devoted to profits. What kind of society would you prefer to live in, one in which the rulers are elected by the people and have limitations on their power, or one in which corporations are free to grow and expand and create whatever rules they want?
Secondly, you're also assuming that everything will occur in a completely voluntary way in your free market society, which is obviously just idealistic. You could easily end up with another tyranny by some dictator, because voluntary militia will never stand up against an organized "command" structure. You're basically reducing society back to a "might makes right" world, where those with the most money, power and guns will be in power. There is *nothing* that an anarchy can do to stop this. You're just resetting the clock. People have fought for years to extract liberties from their governments, to fight for democratic representation as a way to control their rulers. What you're proposing is to erase all the progress humanity has made, believing that all the geniuses of the past, that all of humanity for centuries had it wrong, and that the solution was so obvious...
Just stop being violent against each other guys! Lets have an anarchy where we all get along and have voluntary interactions with each other. Lets ignore human nature and hope that no one will try to take over.
Just look how well thats working out in Somalia. As one of the first posters mentioned...20 years of endless war, the region cut up by warlords. One of the worst places to live in the world.
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.
I hope you realize: the argument youre presenting is the same argument used to justify slavery: that the slave would be inable to take care of himself in absence of his master assigning duties, feeding him and giving him a roof to live under
This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
To be blunt, using cheap argumentation like that looks even worse when you're defending something as fringe as anarchy.
When will the governments of the United States, the state of Louisiana, and St. Tammany Parish send me the contracts wherein I may agree (or not) to purchase their "services" on mutually acceptable terms?
The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:36 Treemonkeys wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Fundamentally you have no choice, participating in the political system does not give you a choice - especially leaving the country does not give you choice. It is not possible to (safely and legally) leave the country without raising money to do so and at the same time paying taxes for that (unless someone just gives you the money, and they they will then pay the taxes). So even if you theoretically are born here and leave as soon as possible, you either do it illegally and at great risk to your own safety or you are forced to participate. Even in leaving you must ask the government for a permission slip and pay for it, there is no consent. At all. You can debate the benefits of government all you wish, but to say it is based on consent is completely incorrect.
It is based on consent, just not on the consent of everyone, such are human societies. It has nothing to do with the state even, it is much broader phenomenon.
On July 02 2011 05:44 Treemonkeys wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:39 Cain0 wrote: I was under the impression that Somalia is one of the most dangerous places on earth. Anarchy is better than a corrupt government I suppose, but only just. Africa needs strong governments to truly develope, and they just dont have that im affraid to say.
And all governments are corrupt. They only vary in degree.
All human organizations are corrupt.
On July 02 2011 05:50 TheFrankOne wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:36 Treemonkeys wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
On July 02 2011 05:50 Treemonkeys wrote:It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
So it is simply hopelessly naive?
There are 2 options:
Either your case: you are free to move, you only consent to governments conditions by living there etc. But this also implies a disturbing thing you do NOT want to admit. Namely that Government owns everything. This must necessarily be the case, as if government did not own everything, you could operate in the country's area within the confines of the property that government did not own, and not be liable for taxation. This is of course wrong, so it follows that government does indeed own everything. This goes against the premise of any freedoms that westerners tend to assume to have(other than the freedoms of the slave: those of a full belly and master who protects them). Furthermore, any property at all in such a scenario belongs to government. As all the property rules in the area are decided by government, it must mean that by default, government owns all production, and only by its compassion is the citizen allowed to have some of it. In essence this implies 100% taxation, surely not a concept most here would welcome.
Or the other case: that government does not own everything in its area. If this is correct, then the collection of taxes from citizens operating within the confines of areas government doesnt own is robbery straight up. In which case the slavery argument remains correct.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
I think you are forgetting the part where taxation comes back to benefit the people paying the taxes. Not only that, they come back to benefit the people who cannot pay taxes for whatever reason.
You seem to believe that without a government, people's every need would be catered to as well as if a government existed. In this case, why would for-profit companies, which you claim to be the ultimate solution to everything, help out those in need? Those people who are unlucky, get sick, or have other disabilities and cannot care for themselves. As there is not profit in keeping these people alive, I suppose you say they would just die, right?
I think that you are purposefully ignoring the fact that a lot of money in Somalia comes from displaced Somali's abroad, who are funding and investing in Somali companies. The telecom industries you are tauting certainly didn't spring up by themselves.
Being beneficial is not a condition for robbery, it is simply why you think the robbery is okay. Robbery only requires a lack of consent or false consent in the presence of violence and intimidation.
But I do consent to the government taking my money, and I consent enough that I continue to live in this country. However, I don't really like the way that things are turning out in the United States at the moment, so I am considering moving to someplace like Canada. If I didn't like it in Canada I could move somewhere in Europe if I desired, or even move to Somalia if it fit my wishes.
If you do not consent to whatever country you are in taxing you, why do you not move somewhere where you will not be taxed. Like Somalia, for example.
This fits my first case analysis which necessarily implies that state owns everything. as such your claim of making money is incorrect. it is only your master, the state that gives you some from its compassion. but make no mistake, the master owns all your belongings, and can confiscate everything you have without committing a crime. He can even slaughter you, and it will not be a crime
Doesn't matter if it's a crime or not for the State to do something it won't do. Sure it could kill me but hypothetical scenarios don't bother me as long as they remain hypothetical.
Is the State my master? No. The second I dislike it I'll move somewhere else and there's not a thing it can do. I act according to the laws it put in place, some of them suck, some of them are good, but overall it's acceptable and profitable to me.
And how's my claim about making money incorrect? That confuses me. I make money and nobody's going to touch it... Well, they're taking a cut but that's the law. Again, if I don't like it, I can leave.
On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote: All human organizations are corrupt.
What, so you know all? Who are you to say that the organizations you have no knowledge of are corrupt? That is ridiculous. That is like the Bible just saying all humans are evil.
That was statistical statement based on observation and experience. The same as your statement that all governments are corrupt. I can use the same objections on it that you used.
No, all governments initiate violence to fund themselves, that is why they are all corrupt. It is based on how they factually collect funds.
You can't say this for ALL human organization.
Ah, so as all good libertarians you change definitions of words to suit your argument. Initiating violence to fund itself is not a definition of corruption, it does not even imply corruption. In that case whatever.
Corruption - "moral perversion; depravity."
Completely fair use of the word, no definition change needed. Also, I'm not a libertarian.
In that case sorry, but the confusion is caused by both of us. I was thinking of course about different meaning of corruption that made more sense in the context. That said, using your definition my conclusion is different. No, not all governments are corrupt.
Maybe you should check into what the fuck you're talking about before accusing someone else of twisting words.
And now here you are as the one staking a claim to "my definition".
lol
What ? I just told you using your definition not all governments are corrupt, and using my definition (misuse of power and/or funds, which makes in my opinion more sense in this discussion about governments, that is why I assumed it) all big organizations are corrupt, does it make it clearer for you ?
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 see no problem with that in general as I do not think wars necessarily follow from that. Wars are a separate issue that I have problem with, but they belong to the specific details that we can change as I noted at the bottom of my post.
The specific details are simply whatever lies the government feeds you when it decides it wants to go to war for profit.
No the specific details are what is the structure of the government, how is it elected, how is it controlled. How exactly works justice system. What are the laws and how can they be changed. And so on.... Well chosen specifics can prevent a war that was decided in small circle against wishes of the rest of the society. There is no way in any society to prevent the wars it really wishes.
Small note, maybe the nuclear weapons you mentioned are actually a good thing as war is then suicide and no society wishes that. But of course a risk of accident makes this hypothesis/policy kind of problematic.
There are actually much better arguments against anarchy, or anarcho capitalism rather (or any "ideal" vision of anarchy), than you guys are showing. I have been playing devils advocate in this thread - debating with true facts but not revealing my own true beliefs or desires. I am not a believer in anarchy because the world is a result of anarchy and we are effectively living in anarchy but only as pawns of those who live in true freedom and anarchy - government organizations.
I decided to spill the beans because radscorpion was on to something. He is right to say privateers would rise up and take control of everything by any means necessary as we can already see the highly evolved result of that process - government.
Anarchy is bullshit (sorry I lack a better word) simply because humans, before language and before bondage, were already born into it. Humanity had it's chance back then IMO, and the world today is a result of the path some chose and the path that was forced upon others too weak to resist (the native americans for example). The world today is the result of that, a controlled anarchy where the strongest and most skilled at deception dominate the rest.
I enjoyed the debate and I hope I didn't offend anyone too much. But perhaps there is still hope for humanity to evolve to something better, but we should be realistic about what both government and anarchy really are. Both are pretty fucking nasty, and ultimately the same thing or at least one is the direct result of the other.
On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote: This fits my first case analysis which necessarily implies that state owns everything. as such your claim of making money is incorrect. it is only your master, the state that gives you some from its compassion. but make no mistake, the master owns all your belongings, and can confiscate everything you have without committing a crime. He can even slaughter you, and it will not be a crime.
Your last conclusion does not follow and is only rhetorical trick. Society and government define crime and in first world countries they are bound by laws, therefore slaughtering you would be a crime as would in most cases be total confiscation of your property.
Not if you're just collateral damage.
Care to provide some example situation otherwise it will end as our exchange about corruption because of vagueness.
On July 02 2011 07:04 Treemonkeys wrote: There are actually much better arguments against anarchy, or anarcho capitalism rather (or any "ideal" vision of anarchy), than you guys are showing. I have been playing devils advocate in this thread - debating with true facts but not revealing my own true beliefs or desires. I am not a believer in anarchy because the world is a result of anarchy and we are effectively living in anarchy but only as pawns of those who live in true freedom and anarchy - government organizations.
I decided to spill the beans because radscorpion was on to something. He is right to say privateers would rise up and take control of everything by any means necessary as we can already see the highly evolved result of that process - government.
Anarchy is bullshit (sorry I lack a better word) simply because humans, before language and before bondage, were already born into it. Humanity had it's chance back then IMO, and the world today is a result of the path some chose and the path that was forced upon others too weak to resist (the native americans for example). The world today is the result of that, a controlled anarchy where the strongest and most skilled at deception dominate the rest.
I enjoyed the debate and I hope I didn't offend anyone too much. But perhaps there is still hope for humanity to evolve to something better, but we should be realistic about what both government and anarchy really are. Both are pretty fucking nasty, and ultimately the same thing or at least one is the direct result of the other.
Ah, well in that case my disagreement with you would be that it was not a path chosen but path biologically predetermined.
On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote: This fits my first case analysis which necessarily implies that state owns everything. as such your claim of making money is incorrect. it is only your master, the state that gives you some from its compassion. but make no mistake, the master owns all your belongings, and can confiscate everything you have without committing a crime. He can even slaughter you, and it will not be a crime.
Your last conclusion does not follow and is only rhetorical trick. Society and government define crime and in first world countries they are bound by laws, therefore slaughtering you would be a crime as would in most cases be total confiscation of your property.
Not if you're just collateral damage.
Care to provide some example situation otherwise it will end as our exchange about corruption because of vagueness.
Simply that it is common for government to admit they killed completely innocent people and it is acceptable when labeled as collateral damage.
On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote: This fits my first case analysis which necessarily implies that state owns everything. as such your claim of making money is incorrect. it is only your master, the state that gives you some from its compassion. but make no mistake, the master owns all your belongings, and can confiscate everything you have without committing a crime. He can even slaughter you, and it will not be a crime.
Your last conclusion does not follow and is only rhetorical trick. Society and government define crime and in first world countries they are bound by laws, therefore slaughtering you would be a crime as would in most cases be total confiscation of your property.
Not if you're just collateral damage.
Care to provide some example situation otherwise it will end as our exchange about corruption because of vagueness.
Simply that it is common for government to admit they killed completely innocent people and it is acceptable when labeled as collateral damage.
That is still kind of too vague as I can imagine such situations only in some rather bad governments out there, not necessarily those we live in.
On July 02 2011 07:04 Treemonkeys wrote: There are actually much better arguments against anarchy, or anarcho capitalism rather (or any "ideal" vision of anarchy), than you guys are showing. I have been playing devils advocate in this thread - debating with true facts but not revealing my own true beliefs or desires. I am not a believer in anarchy because the world is a result of anarchy and we are effectively living in anarchy but only as pawns of those who live in true freedom and anarchy - government organizations.
I decided to spill the beans because radscorpion was on to something. He is right to say privateers would rise up and take control of everything by any means necessary as we can already see the highly evolved result of that process - government.
Anarchy is bullshit (sorry I lack a better word) simply because humans, before language and before bondage, were already born into it. Humanity had it's chance back then IMO, and the world today is a result of the path some chose and the path that was forced upon others too weak to resist (the native americans for example). The world today is the result of that, a controlled anarchy where the strongest and most skilled at deception dominate the rest.
I enjoyed the debate and I hope I didn't offend anyone too much. But perhaps there is still hope for humanity to evolve to something better, but we should be realistic about what both government and anarchy really are. Both are pretty fucking nasty, and ultimately the same thing or at least one is the direct result of the other.
Ah, well in that case my disagreement with you would be that it was not a path chosen but path biologically predetermined.
Well that's the issue of what makes consciousness and all that jazz, a whole different topic for sure. I'm not even sure if I would agree or disagree with you. It's kind of like saying "did I choose to eat this for breakfast, or was I biologically predetermined to want to eat it?".
On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote: This fits my first case analysis which necessarily implies that state owns everything. as such your claim of making money is incorrect. it is only your master, the state that gives you some from its compassion. but make no mistake, the master owns all your belongings, and can confiscate everything you have without committing a crime. He can even slaughter you, and it will not be a crime.
Your last conclusion does not follow and is only rhetorical trick. Society and government define crime and in first world countries they are bound by laws, therefore slaughtering you would be a crime as would in most cases be total confiscation of your property.
Not if you're just collateral damage.
Care to provide some example situation otherwise it will end as our exchange about corruption because of vagueness.
Simply that it is common for government to admit they killed completely innocent people and it is acceptable when labeled as collateral damage.
That is still kind of too vague as I can imagine such situations only in some rather bad governments out there, not necessarily those we live in.
The US does it on a regular basis, not sure if you consider them bad or not.
On July 02 2011 07:04 Treemonkeys wrote: There are actually much better arguments against anarchy, or anarcho capitalism rather (or any "ideal" vision of anarchy), than you guys are showing. I have been playing devils advocate in this thread - debating with true facts but not revealing my own true beliefs or desires. I am not a believer in anarchy because the world is a result of anarchy and we are effectively living in anarchy but only as pawns of those who live in true freedom and anarchy - government organizations.
I decided to spill the beans because radscorpion was on to something. He is right to say privateers would rise up and take control of everything by any means necessary as we can already see the highly evolved result of that process - government.
Anarchy is bullshit (sorry I lack a better word) simply because humans, before language and before bondage, were already born into it. Humanity had it's chance back then IMO, and the world today is a result of the path some chose and the path that was forced upon others too weak to resist (the native americans for example). The world today is the result of that, a controlled anarchy where the strongest and most skilled at deception dominate the rest.
I enjoyed the debate and I hope I didn't offend anyone too much. But perhaps there is still hope for humanity to evolve to something better, but we should be realistic about what both government and anarchy really are. Both are pretty fucking nasty, and ultimately the same thing or at least one is the direct result of the other.
Ah, well in that case my disagreement with you would be that it was not a path chosen but path biologically predetermined.
Well that's the issue of what makes consciousness and all that jazz, a whole different topic for sure. I'm not even sure if I would agree or disagree with you. It's kind of like saying "did I choose to eat this for breakfast, or was I biologically predetermined to want to eat it?".
Actually you don't have to go so far to think it is biologically predetermined. We are talking about societies, they are statistical "averages" of individuals. So being predetermined biologically in that sense does not say anything about existence of free will. It just means that preferences of groups of people are statistically such and such and the cause of those averages is evolutionary.
On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote: This fits my first case analysis which necessarily implies that state owns everything. as such your claim of making money is incorrect. it is only your master, the state that gives you some from its compassion. but make no mistake, the master owns all your belongings, and can confiscate everything you have without committing a crime. He can even slaughter you, and it will not be a crime.
Your last conclusion does not follow and is only rhetorical trick. Society and government define crime and in first world countries they are bound by laws, therefore slaughtering you would be a crime as would in most cases be total confiscation of your property.
Not if you're just collateral damage.
Care to provide some example situation otherwise it will end as our exchange about corruption because of vagueness.
Simply that it is common for government to admit they killed completely innocent people and it is acceptable when labeled as collateral damage.
That is still kind of too vague as I can imagine such situations only in some rather bad governments out there, not necessarily those we live in.
The US does it on a regular basis, not sure if you consider them bad or not.
Please an example Although I think I get what are you thinking, you mean that US is killing innocent people outside US, because as far as I know your government is not yet killing its own citizens unless they are criminals. If your objection was to the fact that government can kill criminals and it is not a crime, then true, but I think in the original post it was implied that he meant that government can kill anyone it chooses without it being a crime.
From a moral point of view, I agree that anarchism is the ideal format for a society. Of course, the true ideal would be a society which fulfills the functions of government on a purely voluntary basis. I know I would have no problem voluntarily contributing to finance roads and other public goods, but most people probably wouldn't...
I don't know much about the specifics or history of Somalia, so I am reluctant to point toward it as a model of an anarchist society. In my mind, anarchism is a value-set, like pacifism or Christian love or Buddhist empathy. It doesn't describe the world, and it doesn't claim to be the most pragmatic. It is about morality, about having a criteria for judging situations within the world.
Anarchists do not believe that an anarchist society would be free of violence. They acknowledge that EVERY society will have violence, including the ideal statist society. The difference is, they do not believe in violent action being condoned and accepted by society as a whole, nor do they believe in establishing a system which is designed to coerce and harm the citizens. I can't stop a man from choosing to be a thief, but I can withdraw my support and consent from the state that commits crimes.
Most of mankind has forgotten the ideals of liberty and non-aggression. The ideals of the modern statists are safety, comfort, equality, peace of mind; all the ideals you would expect from a herd of cattle. Now our states have invested so many of our resources into developing and building bombs and jets and tanks that the individual has no hope of defending himself. We need the states now, to protect us from the states, and the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.
On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote: You agree that your life and all your belongings are at the whim of the government, he can take it all and slaugther you whenever he wishes. And thats not slavery?
Well, I mean, sort of. "The government" is not some guy who's got got me trapped in a cage with a gun to my head. The government is an organization established through a process of negotiation and societal change since it was formed based off of values held by those who created it. It is composed in the higher levels of people elected or appointed by elected officials. The decisions it makes are done through policies established by vote or by elected officials. Unfortunately some of the values held by those who created it were imperialistic and racist. They allowed real slavery to continue after all. We have given it a pervasive power in the society.
After all I think that ultimately property rights and contract enforcement only come from our legal system and therefore our government in a large way. Would you agree?
Edit: @ treemonkeys: I'm still not really sure why you don't think (were arguing?) that consent of the majority is not an acceptable societal standard. You just sounded like a narcissistic egoist
Also, I remember a country that was half fine with a total lack of gobernment, does anyone remember Haiti? as soon as something bad happened the country had no way to get itself together, because there was no gobernment to put the shit together.
the consent of the majority is not an acceptable standard, because the rights of the minority carry more weight. If the majority were to vote to steal or kill or enact slavery, that would not make it moral or acceptable. We have higher standards to adhere to than the will of a majority.
somalia... a success story? Um.. wow. Compared to what other country? sierre leone maybe? congo?
How about Rwanda which is the real success story... going from civil war and a mass genocide to one of the most peaceful and prosperous african countries...
The reality of modern slavery is not a result of emotions related to suggestions regarding conditions in different areas. It is in fact a definitional issue. And clear at that- what is defined as ownership, property, law, must necessarily imply the condiitions necessary for concluding the reality of slavery. No, it never left, though the prospect of it happening can be somewhat disturbing, none less for myself, hence the cautious approach to a subject grasped at by the more capable members of the Institute.
Now note that the freedom concept as perceived through experience is not subject of the universal definitions that result in conclusions on the subject - it is instead the conditioning. Note how the video touches on this in its assessment of public education, and claims of its real purpose. It is no secret, and a thinking man staying within the boxes of definitional strictness - though it throws himself outside the box of social acceptability. As a result, brave men take that path, and great respect, and fortitude is to be commended. To them - salut, but for the rest of us, the material to ponder about remains in existance - all because of definitional universality.
It is something of a dichotomy between reason from conditions to assessment, and emotions to assessment. While the choice of end assessment always remains subject of emotions, it is the intermediate phase, assessment, which is hijacked by propagandist concepts employed in enslaving the populus.
While reality of conclusions of definitional strictness is sparsely touched upon, as the reactions to article show, it reaffirms the emotion to assessment mechanic - due to fallacy of positivist condition replacing reason. It is the traged of modern mind that Mises has touched upon. The collective delusion exists as such, and its disappearance can only be necessitated by a total paradigm shift in what the epistemological foundations of knowledge in popular mind are considered. Perhaps unlikely given the edicational premise the video touched upon.
Not going to touch on the actual subject in this thread, because it's just pure ideological abstract drivel. But reading the above post is REALLY REALLY ANNOYING.
I know you designed it to make it appear like you exist in a world of thought that is levels above everyone else, but the fact is, it is terribly composed and articulated, leans heavily on buzzwords, and the lazy grammar just destroys any semblance of coherence. The only people who write like that are people who are attempting to appear smarter than they are.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
That's your flawed conclusion... I don't know where you live, but I come from Canada, I pay mad taxes but I'm born in a first world country which gave me the tools to educate myself and get a good job.
If I were born in a country without a good frame for people to live their life, then I may not have had such an opportunity.
Sure taxes are handled poorly everywhere in the world. Robbery though? Well that's just your way to get shock value or because you have a poor understanding of how the world works. Here, while a large portion of the taxes is wasted because of some corruption and sheer incompetence of many politicians, much of it comes right back to create a great infrastructure to live in.
I live a comfortable life. It would be better if we had some competent people up there, but it's decent. So no, not robbery.
So if someone points a gun at your head, demands money, and then uses your money in a way that is supposed to benefit you, it's not robbery?
The guy demands money because I've been living in the house he built, but lets me leave if I want to. No gun.
What if you were born in his house and he demands you pay him before you are allowed to leave? That's robbery, slavery really.
You've been taking his services. Can't leave the restaurant before paying. He fed you, protected you and kept you warm. You got there using his roads too.
And born there? No way, you can leave np. You've been doing stuff if you're stuck there.
This fits my first case analysis which necessarily implies that state owns everything. as such your claim of making money is incorrect. it is only your master, the state that gives you some from its compassion. but make no mistake, the master owns all your belongings, and can confiscate everything you have without committing a crime. He can even slaughter you, and it will not be a crime.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
How do you want to define slavery? I define it as being forceful deprived of your labor which is exactly what taxes are. But there is no reason to debate if we should call it slavery or not, you can call it whatever you want. What is clear that you have no choice to have a portion of your labor taken from you.
You completely ignored my post on consent, so there is no reason to respond to that again - but I will try to add to it. You are just wrong. The arguments for the utility of government may have some merit, the arguments for the non-existent voluntary nature of it do not. Even to say "you could work for an amendment" - you could work withing the rails and limitations government imposed on your life and try to make it more desirable, akin to a slave trying to negotiate for a bigger living area. That is not, at all, consent. It is simply a little breathing room within the rules imposed on you.
You're god damn right that government obtaining a contractual agreement is unreasonable, so stop saying it is what it clearly is not. Not being reasonable is not an excuse to call it something completely incorrect. It is sad that you are so unable to defend the merits of government without resorting to blatant falsehoods to pretend as if it something else.
It is difficult to reply to a post in detail that was a single sentence when I saw it so don't get your panties in a bunch and don't edit in 90% of your post if you don't want people ignoring some of what you say.
Slavery is ownership of another person, forceful deprivation of labor is theft. Let's not make slavery into something less than it is so you can whine about being a slave.
The ability to fundamentally change the way the government functions through the amendment process is a bit more important and significant than you make it out to be. The amendment could say "The executive, congress and judicial are hereby disbanded." Would that give you enough "living area" my poor enslaved friend?
Contractual agreement is unreasonable because of the logistics involved, and the lack of an alternative, there doesn't seem to be one that works except free deportation. Unless you think you should be able to op out and become the "Glorious People's Republic of TreeMonkeys."
Consent of things such as taxation have been established by the majority at various points through our society and I'm sorry if your are bitter about it. Tyranny of the majority is a shame. You have to pay taxes to afford to leave the country, tough shit, you can still leave.
That last bit about "blatant falsehoods" and "calling it something completely incorrect" really needed more quotes and less angry rambling, don't know what you are talking about there.
You agree that your life and all your belongings are at the whim of the government, he can take it all and slaugther you whenever he wishes. And thats not slavery?
This is just a dumb statement.
Democratic countries have something called "CONSTITUTION" that protects your basic rights, such as the right to own land or the right to life. If the government tries to take your land for absolutely no reason and without compensation, that would be violation of the constitution and would cause an outrage among the general public.
Have you EVER heard of such thing happening in a free country? Sure it happens in China, but China is also a "communist" country.
Also we pay taxes because we make use of public goods everyday. Who do you think built the road and traffic lights? Are you going to pay the power company to build power cables and water companies to build water pipes to your house?
Also, I remember a country that was half fine with a total lack of gobernment, does anyone remember Haiti? as soon as something bad happened the country had no way to get itself together, because there was no gobernment to put the shit together.
Indeed. There was a lengthy (and utterly boring) anarchism thread while back, and is there really a need to redo that? To imply that somalia is some kind of learning model is horrifying, and anyone advocating to do so shouldn't do so based on theory but on actual situations.
All the high-minded theory is nice and all, but hardly comes into play in a situation where people don't struggle against a democratic government, but instead pretty much have to fight for survival.
You know, it would be really refreshing to hear an anarchist or libertarian who took a stand and said "I believe that [insert country] best fits my beliefs, and as such I would like to move there once I have the opportunity."
On July 02 2011 06:19 mcc wrote: I have no problem admitting something slightly different. Society of the area owns everything in that area. Government as an emergent organizations governs everything in that area. And both of those entities choose to grant some private ownership of property on the level deemed appropriate by them. So basically your case 1. But unlike you I see no problem with it and even if I did I would not have illusions that this can actually be changed. The only thing that can be changed are specific details of that society and government.
I can relate to the mindset of thinking it is just the best option, but to say you see no problems with it seems quite delusional IMO. Millions killed in government run wars, massing enough weapons to destroy the entire planet, etc.
I really can't tell if your posts in this thread are serious or not.
Tell me what you think our country, (the US) would be like were it an anarchy. I'm seriously curious, how would it improve?
Inside the US, it would probably be hell for a while. You can't expect generations of people born and bred of the government tit to act calm and rational if that tit was suddenly pulled away from the. Eventually though things would become much better. Outside of the US some places would improve almost overnight.
Elaborate, please. How would things become better?
All I can see are immediate problems. I live on the east coast. The vast majority of the food that I buy at the supermarket is trucked from the midwest. Are you assuming that the federal government somehow ceases to exist, but our national infrastructure keeps on working magically? There's over 300 *million* people in this country. What happens when the supermarkets out here stop getting food? Do we start our own farms and live off the land? There's not enough fertile farmland in the eastern US to support the current population. Millions would starve, but not before killing each other over the last bits of food. What happens in Japan, a country which imports much of its food and has a population density wayyy higher than the states?
It's estimated that in the event of a worldwide disaster, the most important public service to maintain social order is sewage treatment. What happens when your water faucets stop magically pumping out pure healthy, government regulated drinking water? Again, in our imaginary world where the government's vanished, what happens when shit literally starts flowing out of your sink? What happens when the local water treatment plant backs up and becomes little more than a giant lake of festering sewage, spawning all sorts of horrible diseases? What happens when people all of a sudden can't drink? Do we all start bringing buckets of water out of the Potomac?
I'm a 24 year old woman. I take for granted being able to walk around outside by myself without getting assaulted. Hell, all of you do. How do I protect myself? Do I buy a gun and keep myself armed 24/7? Is that an improvement on quality of life for you? Do I join up with a local gang or group for protection, or maybe find the biggest toughest bunch of brutes and cling to them for defense? Do I submit myself to whatever rules and law-systems they've come up with? How is this new world of yours going to treat women? Because I can only see us slipping backwards hundreds of years in equality.
Do we still use currency? Do banks still operate? What happens to the Dollar without a government to back it up? What's the alternative? Do we go to a barter system? Because I don't have any livestock. I grow my own vegetables, but not enough to subsist off throughout the year. Do we still have modern technology? How do I pay my doctor? Does the free market magically provide ethical doctors who take care of me fairly for a reasonable price? Are there still education systems which pump out these qualified physicians? How do I buy goods on a daily basis?
Forget my situation. What happens to you? Where do you live? What do you do for a living? How does that change in this new anarchy? Do you still have all the necessities for a comfortable life? What if the neighbors don't? What do you do when they show up, presumably armed, and want what you have? People *will* resort to acts we currently consider abhorrent when they can't get enough to eat. Do you arm yourself, maybe get some friends or a group together, and defend yourselves? Do you shoot the intruders? If they outnumber you? Ever killed someone before? Cleaned their corpses off your lawn?
I know what it's like to romanticize an imagined world. I have a soft spot for the past, and often imagine a life in another time. If it's the medieval era, I'm a noblewoman. If it's the ancient era, I live in a peaceful village. If it's the 1800's, I'm a wealthy aristocrat who wants for nothing. If I was a peasant or something, I like to imagine I'd live in a peaceful village with a loving husband I chose for myself, farm my crops, raise healthy children, all the good stuff with none of the bad. Ask yourself honestly, where do you see yourself in this new world you're promoting? How do you know you wouldn't end up just barely scraping by a living, giving half your crop to the local warlord, having your wife, maybe sister or friend taken by said local warlord, and living in fear for your life on a daily basis? Do you picture your self in some nice big house and that everything's the same as it is today, except you don't have to pay taxes and can own as many assault rifles as you want?
Seriously I just don't understand your thought process. Please fill me in.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Fundamentally you have no choice, participating in the political system does not give you a choice - especially leaving the country does not give you choice. It is not possible to (safely and legally) leave the country without raising money to do so and at the same time paying taxes for that (unless someone just gives you the money, and they they will then pay the taxes). So even if you theoretically are born here and leave as soon as possible, you either do it illegally and at great risk to your own safety or you are forced to participate. Even in leaving you must ask the government for a permission slip and pay for it, there is no consent. At all. You can debate the benefits of government all you wish, but to say it is based on consent is completely incorrect.
I didn't say it was based on consent in the way that you're characterizing it, at all. Tacit consent is an imperfect system that doesn't give you anything close to full autonomy in choosing where you would want to live. But look, life isn't fair, and plane tickets aren't free. However, most people think that this imperfect system is preferable to anarchy. The point of a democracy is to get outcomes as close to what the majority wants as possible, within constraints, and you are in the extreme minority.
Anarchism is one of those concepts that appeals to people, mostly because it's basic idea is pretty nice: No Government, No Taxation, No Laws. The problem with this is it's insane to look at simplistic concept and then think you can actually implement it in the real world without huge concesions.
A true anarchy would be the single worst "state" to live under as a human being. There's many reasons for this, too many to list, but there's a few that most people will see the logic in.
First and foremost, as humans we tend to desire certain basic things. These things, like food, physical security, shelter, etc are things that we can gain through many different methods. Within an anarchy, you would have no guaranteed way in which to acquire something. This will (guaranteed) lead to starvation, sickness/disease and death.
When we think about anarchy, we think well take our developed nations and remove government. The reason our nations are developed, and why we don't have every state using a different currency/etc, is that we have government. To think that the better part of a continnent would agree upon a singular currency, agree to exchange goods freely, etc is insane.
This leads directly into my second point, even in anarchy government would appear. This sounds oxymoronic, but it's not. Think of how human civilization has developed over our time on this earth, we started out in anarchy and developed into government as our collective societal "groups" grew. This lead tribes to become states and states to become nations, and even within an anarchy groups which control significant portions of land/resources/etc would arise, setting their own rules/laws by which you can interact with them.
The issue of consent is also moot. If there's one guy who controls most of the food in an area, whether he wants your first born son or is just a really nice guy and gives food to anyone, you're gonna consent to his rules unless you willingly want to starve. You can't make the ideal choice every time, because anarchy allows people to setup lose-lose scenarios.
To look at a state like Somalia, and seriously believe it's a true representation of anarchy and a shining success is insanity. You're ignoring reality in doing so, and ignoring human nature.
This thread is interesting for the comments, and also for the insanity of the OP.
Not sure why you Americans are so happy that everyone has guns, whatever that "equalizes". It's just like a pissing contest, or a game of chicken, just waiting for someone to fire the first shot before everyone is dead.
If you don't like getting taxed, move to Hong Kong, tax rate is 16% for highest income bracket, AND you get free healthcare. (well mostly free, you still pay a small amount even at government run hospitals)
Lets look at how their countrymen run around in ships on the sea raiding and looting passing ships? How is that a good thing.
Anarchy is basically where the man with the biggest gun owns all. Or even the biggest gang. It wouldn't work. Just because Anarchy works in somilia, does not mean it will work anywhere else. Afterall. Somilia was a pretty crappy place before anarchy. So really it could only get better.
I personally am a Democratic socialist. Which is everything is for the people and government is elected by all and there is no single party ruling. Agreement by consensus or a large majority.
So for example. One would need %75 of the votes in a parliment or congress to get something passed. Not just the %50 right now.
On July 02 2011 08:00 Fontong wrote: You know, it would be really refreshing to hear an anarchist or libertarian who took a stand and said "I believe that [insert country] best fits my beliefs, and as such I would like to move there once I have the opportunity."
Classical liberalist here. "I believe that Hong Kong/New Hampshire best fits my beliefs, and as such I would like to move there once I have the opportunity."
On July 02 2011 08:03 Haemonculus wrote: 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.
This is a really nicely done attack on the practical application of anarchist philosophy. Kudos, Haemonculus.
Seriously though, the 'logical derivation' of anarcho-libertarianism is the result of the arbitrary selection of moral precepts and relies on economic theories that economists have largely disproven or dismissed due to impracticality.
It is absolutely laughable that by way of refutation, I was told to go read two books by the Mises Institute, which is the very definition of an entity with a vested interest. Arguing in defense of anarcho-libertarianism is possible, but the way it's being conducted in this thread would have you laughed out of any professional arena.
Let me break this down for you, the benighted few who want to defend your pet philosophy. You have two options: You can argue for anarcho-libertarianism by moral and philosophical truth, in which case you need to be prepared to argue - Why your choice of moral precepts is to be accepted as the basis of the socio-economic system. (In what ways is the right to private property and/or the moral imperative to "do no violence" conducive to a functional society and human existence, above and beyond such values as they are already incorporated into society?) - Why your choice produces a system which is both objectively better and to be desired over the current system including reasonable explanation of options for those who disagree. (Everyone who doesn't want anarchy is a blind slave is not, repeat not a valuable or viable argument.)
Alternatively, you can argue for anarcho-libertarianism on the basis of scientific and economic fact, which is hard mode. Be prepared to argue - How the existence of public goods, the tragedy of the commons, natural monopoly and monopsony, externalities, etc. will be managed in an anarchist society. - How anarchist societies outperform, outbuild, outbuy, or in general out-anything by any objective, accepted standard of measurement governed societies. (Trick question, because libertarians will always cry that it just wasn't anarchist enough)
The primary posters in defense of libertarianism here are dancing around the issues by attempting to link the scientific and economic attacks on their discipline to philosophical defenses. This is, to be frank, bullshit, and you are all being called on it. Respond to the claims as they exist, please.
Postscript: regarding the relatively "quick" growth rate of Somalia, any economist worth their salt, including the crackpots at Mises, can tell you that societies that start from a relatively low technological base vis-a-vis their neighbors tend to grow quickly as they pick off "low-hanging fruit," see the "economic miracle" of Japan and Germany post-WWII. TL;DR: Economies with terrible fundamentals can experience high growth by virtue of having terrible fundamentals.
On July 02 2011 07:36 jdseemoreglass wrote: FrankOne,
the consent of the majority is not an acceptable standard, because the rights of the minority carry more weight. If the majority were to vote to steal or kill or enact slavery, that would not make it moral or acceptable. We have higher standards to adhere to than the will of a majority.
I agree that the will of the majority does not make something moral or acceptable. We were not discussing what makes actions moral we were talking about things such as taxation and the makeup of government which can be decided by the majority or agreed upon by the majority on an acceptable level, better than by one man anyways. Hopefully from its creation a democratic country would respect minority rights but they don't always and the whole problems of democracy thing is not something I want to go into, I have argued enough about government for the next several days.
On July 02 2011 08:00 Fontong wrote: You know, it would be really refreshing to hear an anarchist or libertarian who took a stand and said "I believe that [insert country] best fits my beliefs, and as such I would like to move there once I have the opportunity."
Classical liberalist here. "I believe that Hong Kong/New Hampshire best fits my beliefs, and as such I would like to move there once I have the opportunity."
Agreed. I would give my left nut to get a solid living & job in either of those places. Perhaps New Hampshire moreso due to the community vibe.
I hope you realize: the argument youre presenting is the same argument used to justify slavery: that the slave would be inable to take care of himself in absence of his master assigning duties, feeding him and giving him a roof to live under
This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
To be blunt, using cheap argumentation like that looks even worse when you're defending something as fringe as anarchy.
When will the governments of the United States, the state of Louisiana, and St. Tammany Parish send me the contracts wherein I may agree (or not) to purchase their "services" on mutually acceptable terms?
The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:36 Treemonkeys wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Fundamentally you have no choice, participating in the political system does not give you a choice - especially leaving the country does not give you choice. It is not possible to (safely and legally) leave the country without raising money to do so and at the same time paying taxes for that (unless someone just gives you the money, and they they will then pay the taxes). So even if you theoretically are born here and leave as soon as possible, you either do it illegally and at great risk to your own safety or you are forced to participate. Even in leaving you must ask the government for a permission slip and pay for it, there is no consent. At all. You can debate the benefits of government all you wish, but to say it is based on consent is completely incorrect.
It is based on consent, just not on the consent of everyone, such are human societies. It has nothing to do with the state even, it is much broader phenomenon.
On July 02 2011 05:44 Treemonkeys wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:39 Cain0 wrote: I was under the impression that Somalia is one of the most dangerous places on earth. Anarchy is better than a corrupt government I suppose, but only just. Africa needs strong governments to truly develope, and they just dont have that im affraid to say.
And all governments are corrupt. They only vary in degree.
All human organizations are corrupt.
On July 02 2011 05:50 TheFrankOne wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:36 Treemonkeys wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
On July 02 2011 05:50 Treemonkeys wrote:It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
So it is simply hopelessly naive?
There are 2 options:
Either your case: you are free to move, you only consent to governments conditions by living there etc. But this also implies a disturbing thing you do NOT want to admit. Namely that Government owns everything. This must necessarily be the case, as if government did not own everything, you could operate in the country's area within the confines of the property that government did not own, and not be liable for taxation. This is of course wrong, so it follows that government does indeed own everything. This goes against the premise of any freedoms that westerners tend to assume to have(other than the freedoms of the slave: those of a full belly and master who protects them). Furthermore, any property at all in such a scenario belongs to government. As all the property rules in the area are decided by government, it must mean that by default, government owns all production, and only by its compassion is the citizen allowed to have some of it. In essence this implies 100% taxation, surely not a concept most here would welcome.
Or the other case: that government does not own everything in its area. If this is correct, then the collection of taxes from citizens operating within the confines of areas government doesnt own is robbery straight up. In which case the slavery argument remains correct.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
I think you are forgetting the part where taxation comes back to benefit the people paying the taxes. Not only that, they come back to benefit the people who cannot pay taxes for whatever reason.
You seem to believe that without a government, people's every need would be catered to as well as if a government existed. In this case, why would for-profit companies, which you claim to be the ultimate solution to everything, help out those in need? Those people who are unlucky, get sick, or have other disabilities and cannot care for themselves. As there is not profit in keeping these people alive, I suppose you say they would just die, right?
I think that you are purposefully ignoring the fact that a lot of money in Somalia comes from displaced Somali's abroad, who are funding and investing in Somali companies. The telecom industries you are tauting certainly didn't spring up by themselves.
On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote: You agree that your life and all your belongings are at the whim of the government, he can take it all and slaugther you whenever he wishes. And thats not slavery?
The lack of thought and ability to debate is laughable.
What is the factual error being commited? Frank agreed to the condition that "Staying on that land mass is consent". And consent to the discretion of government means exactly that: that everything in that area belongs to government. Stepping over the border into a country means consenting to giving away everything you have to the benevolence of the government.
And what is the huge difference between willingly paying a government your money and willingly paying a company your money? In the case that government completely disappears, what in the world would stop a large company from gaining enough capital for their own standing army with which to protect themselves and control you?
The nice thing about living in one nation or the other is that I know I will be treated a certain way by the government, even if I commit a crime. If there is no government, there is absolutely nothing stopping someone from having you killed if they desire it. After all, the free market will provide assassination services much more cheaply than the government. In this free market, who will administer justice?
If someone steals my car, and I catch them, who will punish them? I don't want to have to punish them myself, so I will pay the xarthaz company to beat them senseless and hold them in a cell for a year to teach them a lesson. However, I changed my mind and I don't want to have to pay for them to be held in a cell for a year, so why don't you just kill them for me instead. It's a much easier and cheaper solution.
the difference between government and company is exchange. in the government payment method, there is no exchange. this is also the fundamental reason why govermnent cannot efficiently produce goods, but that is another topic.
the exhaustion method - to employ every loosely related tangent to exhaust opponent. you yourself will only sparsely need to touch on all of the arguments of course. the would be defender of anarchy ill however need to do deep research to refute all of them. well im not giving up, and will keep addressing the original premise.
On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote: This fits my first case analysis which necessarily implies that state owns everything. as such your claim of making money is incorrect. it is only your master, the state that gives you some from its compassion. but make no mistake, the master owns all your belongings, and can confiscate everything you have without committing a crime. He can even slaughter you, and it will not be a crime.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
That's your flawed conclusion... I don't know where you live, but I come from Canada, I pay mad taxes but I'm born in a first world country which gave me the tools to educate myself and get a good job.
If I were born in a country without a good frame for people to live their life, then I may not have had such an opportunity.
Sure taxes are handled poorly everywhere in the world. Robbery though? Well that's just your way to get shock value or because you have a poor understanding of how the world works. Here, while a large portion of the taxes is wasted because of some corruption and sheer incompetence of many politicians, much of it comes right back to create a great infrastructure to live in.
I live a comfortable life. It would be better if we had some competent people up there, but it's decent. So no, not robbery.
So if someone points a gun at your head, demands money, and then uses your money in a way that is supposed to benefit you, it's not robbery?
The guy demands money because I've been living in the house he built, but lets me leave if I want to. No gun.
What if you were born in his house and he demands you pay him before you are allowed to leave? That's robbery, slavery really.
You've been taking his services. Can't leave the restaurant before paying. He fed you, protected you and kept you warm. You got there using his roads too.
And born there? No way, you can leave np. You've been doing stuff if you're stuck there.
This fits my first case analysis which necessarily implies that state owns everything. as such your claim of making money is incorrect. it is only your master, the state that gives you some from its compassion. but make no mistake, the master owns all your belongings, and can confiscate everything you have without committing a crime. He can even slaughter you, and it will not be a crime.
On July 02 2011 06:35 TheFrankOne wrote:
On July 02 2011 06:01 Treemonkeys wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:50 TheFrankOne wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:36 Treemonkeys wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
How do you want to define slavery? I define it as being forceful deprived of your labor which is exactly what taxes are. But there is no reason to debate if we should call it slavery or not, you can call it whatever you want. What is clear that you have no choice to have a portion of your labor taken from you.
You completely ignored my post on consent, so there is no reason to respond to that again - but I will try to add to it. You are just wrong. The arguments for the utility of government may have some merit, the arguments for the non-existent voluntary nature of it do not. Even to say "you could work for an amendment" - you could work withing the rails and limitations government imposed on your life and try to make it more desirable, akin to a slave trying to negotiate for a bigger living area. That is not, at all, consent. It is simply a little breathing room within the rules imposed on you.
You're god damn right that government obtaining a contractual agreement is unreasonable, so stop saying it is what it clearly is not. Not being reasonable is not an excuse to call it something completely incorrect. It is sad that you are so unable to defend the merits of government without resorting to blatant falsehoods to pretend as if it something else.
It is difficult to reply to a post in detail that was a single sentence when I saw it so don't get your panties in a bunch and don't edit in 90% of your post if you don't want people ignoring some of what you say.
Slavery is ownership of another person, forceful deprivation of labor is theft. Let's not make slavery into something less than it is so you can whine about being a slave.
The ability to fundamentally change the way the government functions through the amendment process is a bit more important and significant than you make it out to be. The amendment could say "The executive, congress and judicial are hereby disbanded." Would that give you enough "living area" my poor enslaved friend?
Contractual agreement is unreasonable because of the logistics involved, and the lack of an alternative, there doesn't seem to be one that works except free deportation. Unless you think you should be able to op out and become the "Glorious People's Republic of TreeMonkeys."
Consent of things such as taxation have been established by the majority at various points through our society and I'm sorry if your are bitter about it. Tyranny of the majority is a shame. You have to pay taxes to afford to leave the country, tough shit, you can still leave.
That last bit about "blatant falsehoods" and "calling it something completely incorrect" really needed more quotes and less angry rambling, don't know what you are talking about there.
You agree that your life and all your belongings are at the whim of the government, he can take it all and slaugther you whenever he wishes. And thats not slavery?
This is just a dumb statement.
Democratic countries have something called "CONSTITUTION" that protects your basic rights, such as the right to own land or the right to life. If the government tries to take your land for absolutely no reason and without compensation, that would be violation of the constitution and would cause an outrage among the general public.
Have you EVER heard of such thing happening in a free country? Sure it happens in China, but China is also a "communist" country.
Also we pay taxes because we make use of public goods everyday. Who do you think built the road and traffic lights? Are you going to pay the power company to build power cables and water companies to build water pipes to your house?
Both of you gentlemen, Your last conclusion does not follow and is only rhetorical trick. Society and government define crime and in first world countries they are bound by laws, therefore slaughtering you would be a crime as would in most cases be total confiscation of your property.Who is this law that prevents people from doing things? As they say, the constiution is a piece of paper. Remember, in fundamental definitional level, my argument does follow, it is your concept of law that is a delusional abstraction unrelated to the topic, a mysticis ideal from which peace of mind can be gathered. And the concept of law even in its own terms doesnt exist in a society with government - if law isnt universal, it isnt law but arbitrary action. And no statist "law" is ever universal, and hence is not a law. A libertarian property system is the only political order that can be described as a lawful society, see "Ethics of Liberty" introduction.
I hope you realize: the argument youre presenting is the same argument used to justify slavery: that the slave would be inable to take care of himself in absence of his master assigning duties, feeding him and giving him a roof to live under
This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
To be blunt, using cheap argumentation like that looks even worse when you're defending something as fringe as anarchy.
When will the governments of the United States, the state of Louisiana, and St. Tammany Parish send me the contracts wherein I may agree (or not) to purchase their "services" on mutually acceptable terms?
The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
On July 02 2011 05:55 mcc wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:36 Treemonkeys wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent. Fundamentally you have no choice, participating in the political system does not give you a choice - especially leaving the country does not give you choice. It is not possible to (safely and legally) leave the country without raising money to do so and at the same time paying taxes for that (unless someone just gives you the money, and they they will then pay the taxes). So even if you theoretically are born here and leave as soon as possible, you either do it illegally and at great risk to your own safety or you are forced to participate. Even in leaving you must ask the government for a permission slip and pay for it, there is no consent. At all. You can debate the benefits of government all you wish, but to say it is based on consent is completely incorrect.
It is based on consent, just not on the consent of everyone, such are human societies. It has nothing to do with the state even, it is much broader phenomenon.
On July 02 2011 05:44 Treemonkeys wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:39 Cain0 wrote: I was under the impression that Somalia is one of the most dangerous places on earth. Anarchy is better than a corrupt government I suppose, but only just. Africa needs strong governments to truly develope, and they just dont have that im affraid to say.
And all governments are corrupt. They only vary in degree.
All human organizations are corrupt.
On July 02 2011 05:50 TheFrankOne wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:36 Treemonkeys wrote:
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: This is a straw man fallacy at its worst. People that live in democracies obviously do not live the life of slaves as a direct result of their government being democratic.
More a direct result of that government taxing them.
On July 02 2011 05:15 Vul wrote: The Constitution of the U.S. is based on social contract philosophy. You give tacit consent by living in the U.S. and using its services. If you don't consent any longer, then you can participate in the political system and try to change the things that you don't like (political movements) or simply move somewhere else.
Being born on a certain land mass is not consent.
Vul summer up my opinion on Xathaz's comments pretty well.
So we live the lives of slaves because the government taxes us? I don't really even know how to respond to that non sequiter.
Staying on that land mass is consent, if you don't consent you can move, to Somalia as a matter of fact. You could work to add an amendment to the constitution endorsing your views. Government obtaining a contractual agreement from each of its citizens is unreasonable.
Also, Somalia has by no means improved in every possible way since the governmental collapse, read the rest of the thread where the article's premises have been shown to be full of falsehoods.
On July 02 2011 05:50 Treemonkeys wrote:It is simply based on a morality of not initiating aggression towards other humans and following through with the logical implications of that.
So it is simply hopelessly naive?
There are 2 options:
Either your case: you are free to move, you only consent to governments conditions by living there etc. But this also implies a disturbing thing you do NOT want to admit. Namely that Government owns everything. This must necessarily be the case, as if government did not own everything, you could operate in the country's area within the confines of the property that government did not own, and not be liable for taxation. This is of course wrong, so it follows that government does indeed own everything. This goes against the premise of any freedoms that westerners tend to assume to have(other than the freedoms of the slave: those of a full belly and master who protects them). Furthermore, any property at all in such a scenario belongs to government. As all the property rules in the area are decided by government, it must mean that by default, government owns all production, and only by its compassion is the citizen allowed to have some of it. In essence this implies 100% taxation, surely not a concept most here would welcome.
Or the other case: that government does not own everything in its area. If this is correct, then the collection of taxes from citizens operating within the confines of areas government doesnt own is robbery straight up. In which case the slavery argument remains correct.
So conclusively: taxation is robbery, no matter how you twist it, you end up in the same scenario.
I think you are forgetting the part where taxation comes back to benefit the people paying the taxes. Not only that, they come back to benefit the people who cannot pay taxes for whatever reason.
You seem to believe that without a government, people's every need would be catered to as well as if a government existed. In this case, why would for-profit companies, which you claim to be the ultimate solution to everything, help out those in need? Those people who are unlucky, get sick, or have other disabilities and cannot care for themselves. As there is not profit in keeping these people alive, I suppose you say they would just die, right?
I think that you are purposefully ignoring the fact that a lot of money in Somalia comes from displaced Somali's abroad, who are funding and investing in Somali companies. The telecom industries you are tauting certainly didn't spring up by themselves.
Being beneficial is not a condition for robbery, it is simply why you think the robbery is okay. Robbery only requires a lack of consent or false consent in the presence of violence and intimidation.
But I do consent to the government taking my money, and I consent enough that I continue to live in this country. However, I don't really like the way that things are turning out in the United States at the moment, so I am considering moving to someplace like Canada. If I didn't like it in Canada I could move somewhere in Europe if I desired, or even move to Somalia if it fit my wishes.
If you do not consent to whatever country you are in taxing you, why do you not move somewhere where you will not be taxed. Like Somalia, for example.
Fills my first criterion. You acknowledge being a subject of state administered slavery.
On July 02 2011 06:37 xarthaz wrote: You agree that your life and all your belongings are at the whim of the government, he can take it all and slaugther you whenever he wishes. And thats not slavery?
Well, I mean, sort of. "The government" is not some guy who's got got me trapped in a cage with a gun to my head. The government is an organization established through a process of negotiation and societal change since it was formed based off of values held by those who created it. It is composed in the higher levels of people elected or appointed by elected officials. The decisions it makes are done through policies established by vote or by elected officials. Unfortunately some of the values held by those who created it were imperialistic and racist. They allowed real slavery to continue after all. We have given it a pervasive power in the society.
After all I think that ultimately property rights and contract enforcement only come from our legal system and therefore our government in a large way. Would you agree?
Edit: @ treemonkeys: I'm still not really sure why you don't think (were arguing?) that consent of the majority is not an acceptable societal standard. You just sounded like a narcissistic egoist
You agree with my first model then - acknowledging state as source of consent and rights, meaning the state owns you - and you are its subject which to tool with. Not a pleasant reality if i may say.
On July 02 2011 09:43 _PI wrote: Anarchism is one of those concepts that appeals to people, mostly because it's basic idea is pretty nice: No Government, No Taxation, No Laws. The problem with this is it's insane to look at simplistic concept and then think you can actually implement it in the real world without huge concesions.
A true anarchy would be the single worst "state" to live under as a human being. There's many reasons for this, too many to list, but there's a few that most people will see the logic in.
First and foremost, as humans we tend to desire certain basic things. These things, like food, physical security, shelter, etc are things that we can gain through many different methods. Within an anarchy, you would have no guaranteed way in which to acquire something. This will (guaranteed) lead to starvation, sickness/disease and death.
When we think about anarchy, we think well take our developed nations and remove government. The reason our nations are developed, and why we don't have every state using a different currency/etc, is that we have government. To think that the better part of a continnent would agree upon a singular currency, agree to exchange goods freely, etc is insane.
This leads directly into my second point, even in anarchy government would appear. This sounds oxymoronic, but it's not. Think of how human civilization has developed over our time on this earth, we started out in anarchy and developed into government as our collective societal "groups" grew. This lead tribes to become states and states to become nations, and even within an anarchy groups which control significant portions of land/resources/etc would arise, setting their own rules/laws by which you can interact with them.
The issue of consent is also moot. If there's one guy who controls most of the food in an area, whether he wants your first born son or is just a really nice guy and gives food to anyone, you're gonna consent to his rules unless you willingly want to starve. You can't make the ideal choice every time, because anarchy allows people to setup lose-lose scenarios.
To look at a state like Somalia, and seriously believe it's a true representation of anarchy and a shining success is insanity. You're ignoring reality in doing so, and ignoring human nature.
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.
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.
The reality of modern slavery is not a result of emotions related to suggestions regarding conditions in different areas. It is in fact a definitional issue. And clear at that- what is defined as ownership, property, law, must necessarily imply the condiitions necessary for concluding the reality of slavery. No, it never left, though the prospect of it happening can be somewhat disturbing, none less for myself, hence the cautious approach to a subject grasped at by the more capable members of the Institute.
Now note that the freedom concept as perceived through experience is not subject of the universal definitions that result in conclusions on the subject - it is instead the conditioning. Note how the video touches on this in its assessment of public education, and claims of its real purpose. It is no secret, and a thinking man staying within the boxes of definitional strictness - though it throws himself outside the box of social acceptability. As a result, brave men take that path, and great respect, and fortitude is to be commended. To them - salut, but for the rest of us, the material to ponder about remains in existance - all because of definitional universality.
It is something of a dichotomy between reason from conditions to assessment, and emotions to assessment. While the choice of end assessment always remains subject of emotions, it is the intermediate phase, assessment, which is hijacked by propagandist concepts employed in enslaving the populus.
While reality of conclusions of definitional strictness is sparsely touched upon, as the reactions to article show, it reaffirms the emotion to assessment mechanic - due to fallacy of positivist condition replacing reason. It is the traged of modern mind that Mises has touched upon. The collective delusion exists as such, and its disappearance can only be necessitated by a total paradigm shift in what the epistemological foundations of knowledge in popular mind are considered. Perhaps unlikely given the edicational premise the video touched upon.
Not going to touch on the actual subject in this thread, because it's just pure ideological abstract drivel. But reading the above post is REALLY REALLY ANNOYING.
I know you designed it to make it appear like you exist in a world of thought that is levels above everyone else, but the fact is, it is terribly composed and articulated, leans heavily on buzzwords, and the lazy grammar just destroys any semblance of coherence. The only people who write like that are people who are attempting to appear smarter than they are.
It is deep research my friend. It is uncomposed, raw brain barfing on paper. My apologies for incoherence- but the reasoning remains correct, and hence the conclusions i made nonetheless make sense.
On July 02 2011 08:00 Fontong wrote: You know, it would be really refreshing to hear an anarchist or libertarian who took a stand and said "I believe that [insert country] best fits my beliefs, and as such I would like to move there once I have the opportunity."
Classical liberalist here. "I believe that Hong Kong/New Hampshire best fits my beliefs, and as such I would like to move there once I have the opportunity."
Agreed. I would give my left nut to get a solid living & job in either of those places. Perhaps New Hampshire moreso due to the community vibe.
Ah....but not Somalia?
Why not? I thought the people there live in the blissful experience of self-government?
I can't imagine a man of your convictions not wanting to try to be part of one of the only free societies on earth without seeming...well, full of air.
On July 02 2011 11:44 xarthaz wrote: Who is this law that prevents people from doing things? As they say, the constiution is a piece of paper. Remember, in fundamental definitional level, my argument does follow, it is your concept of law that is a delusional abstraction unrelated to the topic, a mysticis ideal from which peace of mind can be gathered. And the concept of law even in its own terms doesnt exist in a society with government - if law isnt universal, it isnt law but arbitrary action. And no statist "law" is ever universal, and hence is not a law. A libertarian property system is the only political order that can be described as a lawful society, see "Ethics of Liberty" introduction.
Your quotes were messed up, so only your response is quoted.
Ah, but we were not discussing what government can do and what it cannot and what prevents it from doing so. You claimed that government slaughtering someone would not be a crime. I say it would be a crime as it would fit a definition of crime by being against the law by which even government is bound. That government might ignore that fact and/or noone might be punished for it is totally separate matter.The rest of your post is therefore not an argument against what I said, but against something else. Also the rest of your post is meaningless bunch of words without proper clarification. What is law according to you, and what is your definition of universal and lawful. As the conclusion you draw makes me pretty sure that they are useless.
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.
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 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.
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.
This whole article is bs for the most part about anarchy being the reason why the country has grown, the whole of Somalia isn't an anarchy. There is an established government in the north and the Islamic courts run the south. The problem arises is that the north who is fastly growing does not want to split from the south because they are under control of the radicals/terrorist groups. My dad and my tribe are not as bad off as people say they are and the north actually has elections for presidents and a running military, the only problem being is that our president lacks the sufficient power to do anything and we as Somalians don't trust foreign powers to help us (remember when uganda tried?) because we got effed by the U.S. when we had a power shift away from the nationalists and they tried to install a puppet dictator.
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.
Umm of course the State can, the anarcho-capitalist argument is that the free market would provide the kinds of mutually beneficial activity the state does with less cost and less intrusion.
You don't even have your own theory right, unless you are someone who is at the fringes of the Austrian school of thought.
No argument for a societal system should rest solely or even mostly on a priori logic; defensible and empirical statements regarding human behavior and nature are what is needed.
For example, tens of millions died and hundreds of millions suffered needlessly in the USSR and Communist China. Their standard of living was quite low and advanced slowly. These are empirical statements. They really happened. This suggests that Communism is perhaps not so great in practice.
Somalia is broken down into factionalism and rule by the sword. The necessities of life and public order mostly do not exist or are provided through brutal repression of 'undesirable' activities by the 'authorities.' Life expectancy and quality of life are quite low. This suggests that rule by "whom can get the most men and guns to fight effectively for him?" is not such a great idea to live under.
The United States, Canada, Australia, Europe, all have long life expectancies, excellent quality of living, enjoying public order and safety and having the necessities of life fulfilled is 95 times out of 100 not a problem. This would suggest that these countries have hit upon a good, if not ideal, balance between individual freedom and public authority.
Wow, pretty hilarious OP holds up Somalia as a shining beacon of anarchism.
Do you even realise there's currently a civil war and major humanitarian crisis going on right now?
See recent UN reports, e.g., Somalia Funding Analysis, March 2011;
By early 2011, the number of people in need of humanitarian assistance in Somalia reached 2.4 million, an increase of 20% from 2 million in mid- 2010...
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.
On July 02 2011 11:44 xarthaz wrote: You agree with my first model then - acknowledging state as source of consent and rights, meaning the state owns you - and you are its subject which to tool with. Not a pleasant reality if i may say.
Stop personifying "the state" its really just not an effective argument.
"Rights" like copyrights and title to land, not other more abstract rights like life and liberty. Your reality is very unpleasant I might say. The state does not own me, it does control the military and is far more powerful than me so "it" or "a couple asshole police officers" could "tool with" me and I would get pissed and sue them. I am in America and I am white male citizen, I am doing just fine, I am a participating member of democracy, go vote or join real political organizations, it might make you feel less enslaved. Enfranchisement is pretty cool.
I am done with this discussion though, sorry about your whole "languishing in slavery" issue.
On July 02 2011 11:44 xarthaz wrote: You agree with my first model then - acknowledging state as source of consent and rights, meaning the state owns you - and you are its subject which to tool with. Not a pleasant reality if i may say.
Stop personifying "the state" its really just not an effective argument.
"Rights" like copyrights and title to land, not other more abstract rights like life and liberty. Your reality is very unpleasant I might say. The state does not own me, it does control the military and is far more powerful than me so "it" or "a couple asshole police officers" could "tool with" me and I would get pissed and sue them. I am in America and I am white male citizen, I am doing just fine, I am a participating member of democracy, go vote or join real political organizations, it might make you feel less enslaved. Enfranchisement is pretty cool.
I am done with this discussion though, sorry about your whole "languishing in slavery" issue.
You have identified yourself with state - that is the only other option to dichotomising between state and self. and that is fallacious. Rothbard, for one, layed a crushing critique to this claim:
The State is almost universally considered an institution of social service. Some theorists venerate the State as the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though often inefficient, organization for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the "private sector" and often winning in this competition of resources. With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, "we are the government." The useful collective term "we" has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If "we are the government," then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we owe it to ourselves"; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree. http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp
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.
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.
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.
Bet Lenin didn't think communism should be in the stalin-way either. That's just what faulty systems (and communism was alot better thought out then anarchy) end up creating.
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.
Okay... but are you going to just disregard the rest of his post?
I'm not interested in arguing, as long as people confuse two completly different ideologies. As long as people think that anarchism (I don't like the word anarchy because it has such a negative connotation) is just capitalism without rules discussing makes no sense. Read up on the wikipedia article, it gives at least a basic understanding of the difference.
Is this meant to be serious? It's almost impossible for capital enterprise to flourish without security of a police force. I don't care about "costing less" or something like that. It's far too risky for businesses to have successful companies there. When I see a Somali restaurant chain or an independent gaming industry and things like that, then we can talk.
His paper talks about how things are getting better, but only because things are becoming more organized and drifting into a more governmented style. If the coordination was actually there, it would most likely be improving much quicker.
Also why are all the costs in dollars? Of course things are cheaper over there...
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.
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.
Bet Lenin didn't think communism should be in the stalin-way either. That's just what faulty systems (and communism was alot better thought out then anarchy) end up creating.
I don't understand what you're trying to say with "faulty systems". And Lenin wasn't a saint, he thought systematic terror was ok, as long as the communist party profited over it. Also the thought that the social revolution can be achieved trough a vanguard party is what led to the totalitarian society the soviet union was. The difference between Stalin and Lenin was, that Lenin believed in a better world, while Stalin already was just a power-hungry warmonger. The methods both found ok, are unacceptable.
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.
[QUOTE]On July 03 2011 00:09 Haemonculus wrote: [QUOTE]On July 02 2011 21:46 Slakter wrote: [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]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? [/QUOTE] Yeah, I want to see this, lol.
Haemonculus invests a shitload of money into a clinic and recognizes that he gets no "costumers" because no one is that dumb to go to a surgeon without any reputation.
You should think first instead bombard us with so many questions.
On July 02 2011 21:44 Daray wrote: I guess this thread is over since apparently no one wants to answer Haemonculus' questions. Bullshit jargon only goes so far
Maybe he should stop writing whole novels no one reads. I would prefer short and crisp questions.
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.
Bet Lenin didn't think communism should be in the stalin-way either. That's just what faulty systems (and communism was alot better thought out then anarchy) end up creating.
Yes, Lenin. The man who started the original communist personality cult, created the CHEKA, unleashed the Red Terror, and was responsible for saying gems such as "We must... put down all resistance with such brutality that they will not forget it for several decades... The greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeoisie we succeed in executing... the better." And I'm not even counting his atrocities during the civil war.
I'll give the man some credit for NEP, but he's responsible for far more share of death, pain, and misery, then most people in the West give him credit for.
He is not much different from Stalin (Minus the paranoia, and the internal party purges). Stalin also felt that the horrible shit he was doing was a necessary sacrifice to keep the country strong.
The main difference is the times they ruled in... And one was denounced in a pretty famous speech by Khrushchev. If you're looking for a communist to pin a medal on, look for him. Right after Gorbachev.
actually, searching for haemonculus and reading only her posts and no other posts is the best way to go about this thread. anarchy, be it socialist anarchy or anarcho-capitalism or whatever, is really, really stupid - she has already done a great job explaining why. (although the socialist anarchy hybrid is at least sympathetic and people who argue in favour of that are generally nice people!) furthermore, that someone can consider somalia a success story is so ridiculous it essentially invalidates everything that person says about history or society - much like how being a creationist invalidates any opinion you may have on evolution. you can't just pick and choose snippets of history that somehow validate your opinion.. bringing up the example of ukraine or spain during periods lasting a couple years (why are these areas no longer anarchistic?) in certain fairly small regions with fairly small numbers of people involved to prove that turning our society into an anarchist society would lead to an improvement of life for most people is just mind-numbingly dumb. I don't have a nicer way of putting it.. the foundation of this thread - that the policial development of somalia is positive and something other states should choose to mimic, is outrageously stupid. how about instead looking at say, the development of norway between 1945 and 1965? (to invalidate any argument that norway became wealthy because of oil/natural resources.) THAT is a story of great political success - and it absolutely did not involve dismantling the state.
On July 03 2011 01:21 Sumsi wrote: Yeah, I want to see this, lol.
Haemonculus invests a shitload of money into a clinic and recognizes that he gets no "costumers" because no one is that dumb to go to a surgeon without any reputation.
You should think first instead bombard us with so many questions.
Reputation given to you by who?
How does a new practicioner start out? Apprenticeship?
How is the knowledge retained? Books? The ones which will stop getting published? The academic world as a whole will collapse.
On July 03 2011 01:58 Liquid`Drone wrote: actually, searching for haemonculus and reading only her posts and no other posts is the best way to go about this thread. anarchy, be it socialist anarchy or anarcho-capitalism or whatever, is really, really stupid - she has already done a great job explaining why. (although the socialist anarchy hybrid is at least sympathetic and people who argue in favour of that are generally nice people!) furthermore, that someone can consider somalia a success story is so ridiculous it essentially invalidates everything that person says about history or society - much like how being a creationist invalidates any opinion you may have on evolution. you can't just pick and choose snippets of history that somehow validate your opinion.. bringing up the example of ukraine or spain during periods lasting a couple years (why are these areas no longer anarchistic?) in certain fairly small regions with fairly small numbers of people involved to prove that turning our society into an anarchist society would lead to an improvement of life for most people is just mind-numbingly dumb. I don't have a nicer way of putting it.. the foundation of this thread - that the policial development of somalia is positive and something other states should choose to mimic, is outrageously stupid. how about instead looking at say, the development of norway between 1945 and 1965? (to invalidate any argument that norway became wealthy because of oil/natural resources.) THAT is a story of great political success - and it absolutely did not involve dismantling the state.
I woudn't call half of spain, about 8 million people, or ukraine (i don't know how many people, but probalby about the same) small regions. It didn't succed because in spain it got crushed by internal and external factors. Sovietunion was the only supporter who sent weapons, but on their terms which meant, that spain had to give them their whole gold-reserves. This "support" also strengenthed the communists who were loyal to stalin. Nationalist spain under franco got massive support by italy and germany. "Free Ukraine" got crushed in the middle of the fight between white and red troops. Fought of the Imperialist army and got backstabbed by the Soviet Union. In argentina during the crisis anarchist worker selfmanagement in factories worked pretty well, until the got forced out when the economic situation got better.
You seem like an intelligent guy, you should that not always the best win. Most of the time just the most ruthless win. This stuff is also not something you force on people, but you should at least keep in mind that there are different ways possible and that the way our society is structured is not some kind of god-given natural state, but just the way WE created it.
also stuff you can learn from studying this are interesting if you don't believe in it. Decentralised decision making or self-management also wouldn't hurt in these days.
edit: I don't feel like i have the only truth, but i don't like when people ridicule something just because it is based on something completley different, than what we experienced in society our whole life.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
On July 03 2011 03:23 Greentellon wrote: 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.
Are you sure you want that?
I would argue the opposite. People aren't evil, the system is. The big oil companies CEOs are often personally pretty sympathetic to the goals of let's say Green Peace. But in their function they just don't have any room for their personal opinion or vision to have any effect. The system demands from them to make profit.
Governments aren't very different, except you at least get to vote for something. Good example are former US presidents. Many of them have done more good without power then when they were the most powerful person on the planet. When they are freed from their office, they can and will passionately pursue goals like fighting AIDS, getting more vaccines for the poor children of the world, etc.
US presidents are just as much slaves of the system as anyone else. They decided they wanted to have that function. So they do what is expected from them by the system.
Everyone gets orders handed down to them and carries them out. This includes presidents and CEOs They are all held accountable for their actions by the system. But an accountability that staunchly contradicts the way how the people would hold them accountable if they were properly accountable as would be the case in a proper democracy.
Right now the US president is the most powerful person in the world. The US election is becoming more of a farce every four years. But I wonder that if the top 10 corporations of the wold all fuse and they have an all powerful CEO. Then that person is clearly the most powerful person on the world. I wonder how the people on the planet who rightly recognize democracy as the best system will respond when the most powerful person on the world has absolutely zero democratic accountability. How will people accept a world where somewhat democratic institutions like governments basically have no power anymore.
That's what anarcho-capitalists want. They want to remove as much power from the government and move it to private power. Then we have a guy we can vote on that basically serves the private industry and whose only function is to protect the borders. Every other segment of society will be owned and ruled by private power.
On July 01 2011 12:26 Jerubaal wrote: It's not anarchy, it's oligarchy. The telecommunications industry is thriving because they have money and guns. Just like anyone else there is thriving because they have money and guns.
Thanks man, defending anarchy's true meaning is a difficult task.
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.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now.
Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this".
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote: Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun.
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.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
Mob rule never really works what you doing is creating sub communities that will end up fighting each-other for control which would create Anarchy but it would also be the end of modern society till one group normal a Religious one surpass the rest and enforce their morality on others like what happen in Iran
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.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now.
Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this".
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote: Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun.
I do not believe people were better before society, however I believe that we have to evolve past todays society, and in my opinion the natural evolution of society is to a more compassionate way of living. Also, what you´re saying is only true for people now, and even now people misstrust people way too much in my opinion. The human being is not naturally evil, we´ve just not evolved the shitty part yet you might say.
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.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
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.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
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.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
Why do we have to keep old nations borders?
So the world is going to unite unanimously? How are we going to decide who were alligned with? Everyone is going to agree with your new arbitrary state lines? Who gets to decide who is in and who is out? Whats going to happen when some groups get left out by others, or some groups get better land than others? If I was living on shit land, while a neighbouring group had rich fertile land, why wouldnt I find a way to take it from them? Why is it fair that they get that and I get the shaft? Whos going to protect you from my invasion? Do you not see, that every proposal you guys make, lead to thousands of problems, problems you cant offer effective solutions to?
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.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
Why do we have to keep old nations borders?
Because people are very Territorial by nature.
Israel / Palestine they both exist within the same borders and they will never get along.
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.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
Why do we have to keep old nations borders?
So the world is going to unite unanimously? How are we going to decide who were alligned with? Everyone is going to agree with your new arbitrary state lines? Who gets to decide who is in and who is out? Whats going to happen when some groups get left out by others, or some groups get better land than others? If I was living on shit land, while a neighbouring group had rich fertile land, why wouldnt I find a way to take it from them? Why is it fair that they get that and I get the shaft? Whos going to protect you from my invasion? Do you not see, that every proposal you guys make, lead to thousands of problems, problems you cant offer effective solutions to?
No, they don't. They genuinly believe that the state is holding themselves and everyone else back and are blinded by this belief.
Edit: The opposite is true, you have the freedom you have now, and the livingstandard you have now, due to living in a successful and well-run state.
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.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now.
Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this".
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote: Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun.
I do not believe people were better before society, however I believe that we have to evolve past todays society, and in my opinion the natural evolution of society is to a more compassionate way of living. Also, what you´re saying is only true for people now, and even now people misstrust people way too much in my opinion. The human being is not naturally evil, we´ve just not evolved the shitty part yet you might say.
I never said anything about humans being evil. They're oppurtunistic and egotistical. This will lead to major problems in the anarchy fantasy. It's funny that you say people should evolve when it should be perfectly clear to you that people don't "evolve" unless millions of years pass. We have to work with what we have right now.
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.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
Why do we have to keep old nations borders?
So the world is going to unite unanimously? How are we going to decide who were alligned with? Everyone is going to agree with your new arbitrary state lines? Who gets to decide who is in and who is out? Whats going to happen when some groups get left out by others, or some groups get better land than others? If I was living on shit land, while a neighbouring group had rich fertile land, why wouldnt I find a way to take it from them? Why is it fair that they get that and I get the shaft? Whos going to protect you from my invasion? Do you not see, that every proposal you guys make, lead to thousands of problems, problems you cant offer effective solutions to?
No, they don't. They genuinly believe that the state is holding themselves and everyone else back and are blinded by this belief.
Edit: The opposite is true, you have the freedom you have now, and the livingstandard you have now, due to living in a successful and well-run state.
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.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now.
Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this".
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote: Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun.
I do not believe people were better before society, however I believe that we have to evolve past todays society, and in my opinion the natural evolution of society is to a more compassionate way of living. Also, what you´re saying is only true for people now, and even now people misstrust people way too much in my opinion. The human being is not naturally evil, we´ve just not evolved the shitty part yet you might say.
I never said anything about humans being evil. They're oppurtunistic and egotistical. This will lead to major problems in the anarchy fantasy. It's funny that you say people should evolve when it should be perfectly clear to you that people don't "evolve" unless millions of years pass. We have to work with what we have right now.
Im not talking about some Evolution of species man with a Darwinistic way of looking at it man, I´m talking about simply evolving as human beings and a people. For instance we dont rape women and pull them by the hair into caves anymore, we have evolved from that and it is my belief and hope that we will some day evolve from the nowadays way of looking at society and ourselves. Evolution is not a word that comes from a darwinistic perspective, it does mean other things aswell.
Also, for your own good and for the good of the discussion, dont put words in my mouth.
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.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
Why do we have to keep old nations borders?
So the world is going to unite unanimously? How are we going to decide who were alligned with? Everyone is going to agree with your new arbitrary state lines? Who gets to decide who is in and who is out? Whats going to happen when some groups get left out by others, or some groups get better land than others? If I was living on shit land, while a neighbouring group had rich fertile land, why wouldnt I find a way to take it from them? Why is it fair that they get that and I get the shaft? Whos going to protect you from my invasion? Do you not see, that every proposal you guys make, lead to thousands of problems, problems you cant offer effective solutions to?
No, they don't. They genuinly believe that the state is holding themselves and everyone else back and are blinded by this belief.
Edit: The opposite is true, you have the freedom you have now, and the livingstandard you have now, due to living in a successful and well-run state.
On July 03 2011 08:40 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 08:28 HellRoxYa wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:31 Harrow wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:21 Slakter wrote:
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.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now.
Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this".
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote: Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun.
I do not believe people were better before society, however I believe that we have to evolve past todays society, and in my opinion the natural evolution of society is to a more compassionate way of living. Also, what you´re saying is only true for people now, and even now people misstrust people way too much in my opinion. The human being is not naturally evil, we´ve just not evolved the shitty part yet you might say.
I never said anything about humans being evil. They're oppurtunistic and egotistical. This will lead to major problems in the anarchy fantasy. It's funny that you say people should evolve when it should be perfectly clear to you that people don't "evolve" unless millions of years pass. We have to work with what we have right now.
For instance we dont rape women and pull them by the hair into caves anymore, we have evolved from that
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.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
Do you, then, believe that there was some point in time when people were not assholes? Maybe just an example of a time and decently large region would be nice. I'm not sure if I can think of a place that didn't have people killing each other, for whatever reason.
You know, I totally agree with you that some sort of nice communal society without a real government could exist if people were really nice. I just think that such a thing isn't possible unless something in humans fundamentally changes..
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.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
Do you, then, believe that there was some point in time when people were not assholes? Maybe just an example of a time and decently large region would be nice. I'm not sure if I can think of a place that didn't have people killing each other, for whatever reason.
You know, I totally agree with you that some sort of nice communal society without a real government could exist if people were really nice. I just think that such a thing isn't possible unless something in humans fundamentally changes..
First of all this is fairly irrelevant since this "niceness" is something we strive for. That does not necessarily mean that this "niceness" has ever happened before.
However, look at the Spanish Revolution. (1936) Some truly amazing and inspiring things happened there.
Also, there is (or rather was a few years ago) a small part of Copenhagen called Christiania that was a lot like this.
Both of these two examples have faults but that should not matter, all that matters is that it is something to strive for and the only way to ever get there is to do like Gandhi said. "Be the change that you want to see in this world."
(And with that I think I´m out since I believe I´m about to fall asleep! Peace out!)
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.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
Why do we have to keep old nations borders?
So the world is going to unite unanimously? How are we going to decide who were alligned with? Everyone is going to agree with your new arbitrary state lines? Who gets to decide who is in and who is out? Whats going to happen when some groups get left out by others, or some groups get better land than others? If I was living on shit land, while a neighbouring group had rich fertile land, why wouldnt I find a way to take it from them? Why is it fair that they get that and I get the shaft? Whos going to protect you from my invasion? Do you not see, that every proposal you guys make, lead to thousands of problems, problems you cant offer effective solutions to?
No, they don't. They genuinly believe that the state is holding themselves and everyone else back and are blinded by this belief.
Edit: The opposite is true, you have the freedom you have now, and the livingstandard you have now, due to living in a successful and well-run state.
On July 03 2011 08:40 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 08:28 HellRoxYa wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:31 Harrow wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:21 Slakter wrote:
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.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now.
Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this".
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote: Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun.
I do not believe people were better before society, however I believe that we have to evolve past todays society, and in my opinion the natural evolution of society is to a more compassionate way of living. Also, what you´re saying is only true for people now, and even now people misstrust people way too much in my opinion. The human being is not naturally evil, we´ve just not evolved the shitty part yet you might say.
I never said anything about humans being evil. They're oppurtunistic and egotistical. This will lead to major problems in the anarchy fantasy. It's funny that you say people should evolve when it should be perfectly clear to you that people don't "evolve" unless millions of years pass. We have to work with what we have right now.
Im not talking about some Evolution of species man with a Darwinistic way of looking at it man, I´m talking about simply evolving as human beings and a people. For instance we dont rape women and pull them by the hair into caves anymore, we have evolved from that and it is my belief and hope that we will some day evolve from the nowadays way of looking at society and ourselves. Evolution is not a word that comes from a darwinistic perspective, it does mean other things aswell.
Also, for your own good and for the good of the discussion, dont put words in my mouth.
I've put no words in your mouth. What you just said is even stupider. Do you realize where this evolution has taken place? And why it's even been possible? It's not due to your anarchic fantasy society.
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.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
Why do we have to keep old nations borders?
So the world is going to unite unanimously? How are we going to decide who were alligned with? Everyone is going to agree with your new arbitrary state lines? Who gets to decide who is in and who is out? Whats going to happen when some groups get left out by others, or some groups get better land than others? If I was living on shit land, while a neighbouring group had rich fertile land, why wouldnt I find a way to take it from them? Why is it fair that they get that and I get the shaft? Whos going to protect you from my invasion? Do you not see, that every proposal you guys make, lead to thousands of problems, problems you cant offer effective solutions to?
No, they don't. They genuinly believe that the state is holding themselves and everyone else back and are blinded by this belief.
Edit: The opposite is true, you have the freedom you have now, and the livingstandard you have now, due to living in a successful and well-run state.
On July 03 2011 08:40 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 08:28 HellRoxYa wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:31 Harrow wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:21 Slakter wrote:
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.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now.
Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this".
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote: Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun.
I do not believe people were better before society, however I believe that we have to evolve past todays society, and in my opinion the natural evolution of society is to a more compassionate way of living. Also, what you´re saying is only true for people now, and even now people misstrust people way too much in my opinion. The human being is not naturally evil, we´ve just not evolved the shitty part yet you might say.
I never said anything about humans being evil. They're oppurtunistic and egotistical. This will lead to major problems in the anarchy fantasy. It's funny that you say people should evolve when it should be perfectly clear to you that people don't "evolve" unless millions of years pass. We have to work with what we have right now.
Im not talking about some Evolution of species man with a Darwinistic way of looking at it man, I´m talking about simply evolving as human beings and a people. For instance we dont rape women and pull them by the hair into caves anymore, we have evolved from that and it is my belief and hope that we will some day evolve from the nowadays way of looking at society and ourselves. Evolution is not a word that comes from a darwinistic perspective, it does mean other things aswell.
Also, for your own good and for the good of the discussion, dont put words in my mouth.
I've put no words in your mouth. What you just said is even stupider. Do you realize where this evolution has taken place? And why it's even been possible? It's not due to your anarchic fantasy society.
On July 03 2011 03:23 Greentellon wrote: 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.
Are you sure you want that?
I would argue the opposite. People aren't evil, the system is. The big oil companies CEOs are often personally pretty sympathetic to the goals of let's say Green Peace. But in their function they just don't have any room for their personal opinion or vision to have any effect. The system demands from them to make profit.
Governments aren't very different, except you at least get to vote for something. Good example are former US presidents. Many of them have done more good without power then when they were the most powerful person on the planet. When they are freed from their office, they can and will passionately pursue goals like fighting AIDS, getting more vaccines for the poor children of the world, etc.
US presidents are just as much slaves of the system as anyone else. They decided they wanted to have that function. So they do what is expected from them by the system.
Everyone gets orders handed down to them and carries them out. This includes presidents and CEOs They are all held accountable for their actions by the system. But an accountability that staunchly contradicts the way how the people would hold them accountable if they were properly accountable as would be the case in a proper democracy.
Right now the US president is the most powerful person in the world. The US election is becoming more of a farce every four years. But I wonder that if the top 10 corporations of the wold all fuse and they have an all powerful CEO. Then that person is clearly the most powerful person on the world. I wonder how the people on the planet who rightly recognize democracy as the best system will respond when the most powerful person on the world has absolutely zero democratic accountability. How will people accept a world where somewhat democratic institutions like governments basically have no power anymore.
That's what anarcho-capitalists want. They want to remove as much power from the government and move it to private power. Then we have a guy we can vote on that basically serves the private industry and whose only function is to protect the borders. Every other segment of society will be owned and ruled by private power.
You're basically just listing off the plot line of Metal Gear Solid 4 with governments losing powers to corporations, and also I think you over estimate the hatred between the "top corporations," they all rip each others throats out to increase profits. I don't think you need to worry about them colluding anytime soon.
No. You missed the point completely. People are pretty obsessed with individuals. With stars and celebrities. With people who have a lot of power and are symbols of this power.
Corporations won't all merge. But if they merge and it becomes obvious to many people that rather than Obama someone who has no democratic justification behind him at all is actually the most powerful person on the planet, how the system works becomes a lot more obvious.
So it's just a hypothetical example that if it would happen people won't accept it. But they accept it now.
Anarcho capitalism would just take private tyrannies much much further by reducing democratic power to a minimum.
States were created so the elite could be the elite and exploit the poor. Taxes were created so the elite could fund armies and become more powerful. States were never created to tax so we could have schools and roads.
When states stopped being ruled by monarchs the idea of the corporation started to emerge. They would form a balance against the tyranny of the state and people would own what normally was always owned by the state.
Right now the elite decided democracy isn't so great and is very annoying. So they are moving power away from the government towards corporations. Corporations can rule free from any democratic constraints.
As for states, people never voted to have a state. Until you have a referendum about if a certain people actually want to have a state and a government, it is an illegitimate power structure. All states we have now are what is left. Democracy in the western world is still very much a work in progress. What we have in the west are compromises where the people didn't get all their demands. A good example are the voting systems in the US, France, UK, the Netherlands. They are all still a bit rigged in favour of what used to be the elite. People need to understand that the struggles of their ancestors, from which they benefited so much, didn't succeed in achieving all it's goals. You can make good analogies of Tunesia and Egpyt. But we in the west actually struggle to retain the freedoms we have.
In Egypt and Tunesia the revolutions were youth led. The problem Europe has is they have too many old people. They support the status quo.
Dramatic improvement is easy to achieve if the old situation is piss and piss poor to begin with. This was the case in Somalia.
And I don+t know if I should laugh or cry when it´s being mentioned that the private security and telecom industries are booming. Since when is a phone a primary need for a human being. And since when do private security companies provide any kind of protection to Jo Somali and kids.
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.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
Why do we have to keep old nations borders?
So the world is going to unite unanimously? How are we going to decide who were alligned with? Everyone is going to agree with your new arbitrary state lines? Who gets to decide who is in and who is out? Whats going to happen when some groups get left out by others, or some groups get better land than others? If I was living on shit land, while a neighbouring group had rich fertile land, why wouldnt I find a way to take it from them? Why is it fair that they get that and I get the shaft? Whos going to protect you from my invasion? Do you not see, that every proposal you guys make, lead to thousands of problems, problems you cant offer effective solutions to?
No, they don't. They genuinly believe that the state is holding themselves and everyone else back and are blinded by this belief.
Edit: The opposite is true, you have the freedom you have now, and the livingstandard you have now, due to living in a successful and well-run state.
On July 03 2011 08:40 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 08:28 HellRoxYa wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:31 Harrow wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:21 Slakter wrote:
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.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now.
Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this".
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote: Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun.
I do not believe people were better before society, however I believe that we have to evolve past todays society, and in my opinion the natural evolution of society is to a more compassionate way of living. Also, what you´re saying is only true for people now, and even now people misstrust people way too much in my opinion. The human being is not naturally evil, we´ve just not evolved the shitty part yet you might say.
I never said anything about humans being evil. They're oppurtunistic and egotistical. This will lead to major problems in the anarchy fantasy. It's funny that you say people should evolve when it should be perfectly clear to you that people don't "evolve" unless millions of years pass. We have to work with what we have right now.
Im not talking about some Evolution of species man with a Darwinistic way of looking at it man, I´m talking about simply evolving as human beings and a people. For instance we dont rape women and pull them by the hair into caves anymore, we have evolved from that and it is my belief and hope that we will some day evolve from the nowadays way of looking at society and ourselves. Evolution is not a word that comes from a darwinistic perspective, it does mean other things aswell.
Also, for your own good and for the good of the discussion, dont put words in my mouth.
I've put no words in your mouth. What you just said is even stupider. Do you realize where this evolution has taken place? And why it's even been possible? It's not due to your anarchic fantasy society.
I never said it was.
You just did. You were talking about evolving passed rape. It's right there. I have no idea how you can even deny it in the slightest. Incase you didn't actually understand what I wrote, though, I was telling you that such evolution came about through statehood (or the state-like entities which formed a long, long time ago).
On July 03 2011 01:21 Sumsi wrote: Yeah, I want to see this, lol.
Haemonculus invests a shitload of money into a clinic and recognizes that he gets no "costumers" because no one is that dumb to go to a surgeon without any reputation.
You should think first instead bombard us with so many questions.
Reputation given to you by who?
How does a new practicioner start out? Apprenticeship?
How is the knowledge retained? Books? The ones which will stop getting published? The academic world as a whole will collapse.
You should really ask yourself if we really need tax-driven institutions to "produce" able surgeons or to find out if somebody is an able surgeon. It doesn't make any sense.
By the way getting rid of lot of state driven academic "knowledge" wouldn't be such a bad idea if you think about it.
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: 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.
It's not so that government is evil. It's more the fact that cooperation between individuals, free enterprise and non-aggression is considered as the way to go. Government pretty much represents the opposite of these things.
Sure you can think that we need it, it's legitimate, but you should never ever be confused about it's nature whatever cloak government wears.
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: 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.
To be fair the article linked in the op doesn't use the word "success". It's just a clinical giving of evidence that the overall situation got slidly better in somalia even with the lack of a central government.
So the article is more a slap in the face of the statists ( who argue hell on earth breaks out in the abscense of a central government ) than a celebration of anarchy in somalia.
The author even admits that this place is "no paradise".
On July 03 2011 01:21 Sumsi wrote: Yeah, I want to see this, lol.
Haemonculus invests a shitload of money into a clinic and recognizes that he gets no "costumers" because no one is that dumb to go to a surgeon without any reputation.
You should think first instead bombard us with so many questions.
Reputation given to you by who?
How does a new practicioner start out? Apprenticeship?
How is the knowledge retained? Books? The ones which will stop getting published? The academic world as a whole will collapse.
You should really ask yourself if we really need tax-driven institutions to "produce" able surgeons or to find out if somebody is an able surgeon. It doesn't make any sense.
By the way getting rid of lot of state driven academic "knowledge" wouldn't be such a bad idea if you think about it.
That's pretty much what I asked you to do. We would not be better of with unregulated doctors (or pharmacists, etc). But rather than ask if we really need it, I want you to ask yourself what would happen should we not have it. Describe a realistic, desireable scenario for me. Preferably one that I can't refute in one sentence.
And I'm not sure what this "state driven academic knowledge" you're talking about is. Not only is that completely unclear, you're actually missing the point. The academic world as a whole would be shattered without the structure of a state to support it. Are you trying to tell me that all academia is just forced state dogma? Or what? What are you even trying to argue?
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.
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.
Yes, Rome was a monarchy too (there's very little known about that time, pretty sad), before they became a Republic, and then again became a de facto monarchy haha. I once heard that the Tyrants in greece couldn't keep their power because they needed mercenaries, because if they'd armed their own people they would revolt, that's one of the reasons that in the long run they were "outgunned" by the democracies. The way I always seen and learnt about how states/ monarchies came into being after the fall of the Roman Empire happened is pretty similiar to the "wild parts" of Africa today. Powerful Warlords fighting each other, and the most powerful "united" them with the help and under the banner of Christendom.
There is so much ignorance in the world, and it's on full display on the internet, and in this thread in particular.
Any individual or group of individuals which initiates the use of force (coercion) on another individual or group of individuals is by definition not operating in an state of anarchy.
Governments, tribal warlords, bullies, mafia dons, parents, I don't care who or why, are not adhering to anarchism.
I don't care if you think somalia is in a state of anarchy, the fact is that for any given relationship, you can easily evaluate in terms of whether or not it is coercive and to what extent, and to that same extent it is not an anarchic relationship. And somalia is chock full of non-voluntary relationships, if any of the evidence on hand is to be believed.
I have a girlfriend. We did not coerce each other into the relationship - it is a voluntary relationship of equals, and therefore it is anarchic. Neither party rules the other
I have a bank account. I did not force the bank to accept my money, and my bank did not force me to deposit it. It is a voluntary, contractual agreement. It is an anarchic relationship. Neither party rules the other.
I have a job. I did not force my boss to hire me, and he did not force me to work. We agreed on terms, and voila! Anarchy got me a job.
If there were no government, and the person or group with the most guns made the rules, or might makes right, this would still not be anarchy. So much fail in this thread, especially from those making the argument from effect (the effect of anarchy would be.... something that is not anarchy? FACEPALM)
So, if you think it is OK to initiate the use of force against others to get them to do what you want, well, you are in the majority. Remember this though, that violence is not any solution to complex social problems. If there aren't enough hats to go around, the solution is not to start lopping off heads. Don't complain when you get forced to do what other people want though.
But if you think that it is not OK to initiate the use of force against others to get what you want, and if you are not an anarchist, then you are a hypocrite. Just my opinion and I could be wrong, but it makes sense.
A caveat to the above, it is important to be aware that you can hold coercion to be wrong, but that it can be trumped by necessity. I'm going to use coercion on a child that wants to run into a busy street, because it is less wrong then letting the child have it's own way. A simple example, to be sure, but enough to make the point.
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.
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.
Yes, Rome was a monarchy too (there's very little known about that time, pretty sad), before they became a Republic, and then again became a de facto monarchy haha. I once heard that the Tyrants in greece couldn't keep their power because they needed mercenaries, because if they'd armed their own people they would revolt, that's one of the reasons that in the long run they were "outgunned" by the democracies. The way I always seen and learnt about how states/ monarchies came into being after the fall of the Roman Empire happened is pretty similiar to the "wild parts" of Africa today. Powerful Warlords fighting each other, and the most powerful "united" them with the help and under the banner of Christendom.
Roman occupied Europe had cities, public bathhouses, marketplaces, public offices, etc. It would probably have been pretty nice had it not been a foreign occupation. When the Roman empire fell apart, much of Europe went back to their pre-Roman lifestyle. That of nomadic tribes, usually lead by a single male, (the strongest). They were quite literally barbarians. Cities were abandoned, and everyone went back into the woods to survive via hunting, killing each other, etc.
A man in post-Roman Britain is recorded to have come across the ruins of a Roman city and claimed that it must have been built by giants, for no man could move stones of that size.
The first European "states" were simply one clan leader who got really powerful and declared himself king. He'd lead battles from the front lines. His friends, perhaps siblings would collect taxes from unwilling subjects. He'd show up to villages in person to enforce his laws, which could be anything. Again, this system may have worked nicely with less than a million people living on the entirety of the British isles. And I'm sure that for a while, these people living as nomadic tribes were indeed very free. But they also treated their women terribly. Such a system doesn't work with today's population.
=================
Medical standards are absolutely necessary. Doctors in the past practiced horrific things. Gynecological exams after handling dead tissue from the mortuary used to kill roughly 10% of female patients. That number dropped to less than 2% when doctors were *required* to thoroughly wash their hands before treating patients. We used to lobotomize anyone considered mentally unwell. We used to forcefully commit women considered "hysterical" to electroshock therapy, (essentially forcing a hemorrhage in the brain to "calm them down" )
On July 04 2011 00:23 TheWestWind wrote: Any individual or group of individuals which initiates the use of force (coercion) on another individual or group of individuals is by definition not operating in an state of anarchy.
Governments, tribal warlords, bullies, mafia dons, parents, I don't care who or why, are not adhering to anarchism.
Ok, what is your definition of anarchy then? Everyone is an equal? Everyone has consented to every aspect of an agreement? Sounds wonderful, honestly. I'm all for consent.
Do you think such a system on a large scale is compatible with human nature?
I have a bank account. I did not force the bank to accept my money, and my bank did not force me to deposit it. It is a voluntary, contractual agreement. It is an anarchic relationship. Neither party rules the other.
Yes. And there are government regulations in place that enforce what your bank can, and cannot do with your money. Your bank account is even federally ensured so that in the event that the bank loses your money, you as an individual are not screwed over. There is also a structured legal system where if the bank refuses to give you your money for whatever reason, you have legal options.
I have a job. I did not force my boss to hire me, and he did not force me to work. We agreed on terms, and voila! Anarchy got me a job.
What. Do I also need to explain the role of government regulation in hiring and employment practices? That you're guaranteed a fair wage, standardized work hours, and benefits, and legal options if your employer ever violates that contract?
If there were no government, and the person or group with the most guns made the rules, or might makes right, this would still not be anarchy. So much fail in this thread, especially from those making the argument from effect (the effect of anarchy would be.... something that is not anarchy? FACEPALM)
Again, do you think humanity is capable of your happy system where we all just consent to everything and never hurt each other? I just find your definition of anarchy impossible to achieve.
^^ What you wrote is a misunderstanding. All of what you write in this thread is of a similar misunderstanding.
The only claim I am making is that it is possible to evaluate any given relationship and determine whether it is anarchic.
Whether or not coercion is exercised on one or more parties in a relationship by a third party does not impact whether or not the relationship is anarchic in principle or not.
(My girlfriend pays taxes - she is being coerced by the state; it doesn't mean our relationship isn't voluntary.)
The reason the bank doesn't steal my money and the reason my boss doesn't exploit me is not to do with being coerced by the state.
In the same vein, the reason I (and hopefully most others) don't go around raping and murdering and stealing is not because of my being coerced by the state.
Human nature impacts this not at all. There is either coercion, or not. Human nature has nothing to do with it. You seem to want to use it as an excuse for bad behavior and failure of problem solving.
Besides which the entire concept of 'human nature' is pretty collectivist thinking, not to mention vague and metaphysical at best.
So you start by asking me what my definition of anarchy is, and then you end your post with saying my definition (whatever it may be) is found to be impossible to achieve? Well played....
Of course, it's Libertarians and not Anarchists, but it sounds pretty much like the things people here are proposing.
In the end, the reporter notes, that what we need the government for primarily is trust. Either we trust the government to enforce the rules on every individual or we have to trust every individual we meet to enforce the rules. And that's costly.
Come on TheWestWind, you're arguing semantics and it's a complete non-sequitor from the thread. By your definition, nothing is anarchy, so what's the point of the definition if it doesn't describe anything?
On July 03 2011 01:21 Sumsi wrote: Yeah, I want to see this, lol.
Haemonculus invests a shitload of money into a clinic and recognizes that he gets no "costumers" because no one is that dumb to go to a surgeon without any reputation.
You should think first instead bombard us with so many questions.
Reputation given to you by who?
How does a new practicioner start out? Apprenticeship?
How is the knowledge retained? Books? The ones which will stop getting published? The academic world as a whole will collapse.
You should really ask yourself if we really need tax-driven institutions to "produce" able surgeons or to find out if somebody is an able surgeon. It doesn't make any sense.
By the way getting rid of lot of state driven academic "knowledge" wouldn't be such a bad idea if you think about it.
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: 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.
It's not so that government is evil. It's more the fact that cooperation between individuals, free enterprise and non-aggression is considered as the way to go. Government pretty much represents the opposite of these things.
Sure you can think that we need it, it's legitimate, but you should never ever be confused about it's nature whatever cloak government wears.
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: 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.
To be fair the article linked in the op doesn't use the word "success". It's just a clinical giving of evidence that the overall situation got slidly better in somalia even with the lack of a central government.
So the article is more a slap in the face of the statists ( who argue hell on earth breaks out in the abscense of a central government ) than a celebration of anarchy in somalia.
The author even admits that this place is "no paradise".
Uhm. What? Do you think anyone who calls themselves a doctor should be able to charge people to cut them up? And "Tax Driven" institutions? You do realize there are privately run colleges in the US. In fact, most of the top schools in the US are privately run unlike a lot of other countries. Just because we have standards and practices does not mean all education is "Tax Driven."
Do you know what surgeons have to do in order to be able to cut people up and mess around in their innards? I'm sorry, I don't really want any fellow with a hacksaw doing amputations. I want somebody who actually knows what the hell they are doing.
What the hell is "state driven knowledge"? Are you suggesting that Biology and Medicine is propaganda? Do you have any idea the amount of technology goes on in the medical world right now? There's a lot to learn.
---
One of Government's main purposes is non-aggression. You are not allowed to assault, blackmail, or threaten people (even for business reasons). Government and Law tries to do everything in a clean and tidy court if possible with clean and tidy laws. And "free enterprise" has tons of problems with zero government interference. Government is often trying to protect free enterprise.
DoubleReed? Why don't you go practice the oboe or whatever it is you do when you aren't misreading other peoples writings on the internet? Where exactly is the logical fallacy in my writing? Please provide an example using quotes, so that I can learn from my mistake.
I didn't define anarchy in my post. You can go look up the word anarchy in any major dictionary and find a definition which you can then apply to my post. I always encourage any person who doesn't understand a word to look it up.
One thing I certainly did not do is argue any semantics (unless you have some proof of this claim?). And even if I did argue semantics, it would still be valid because the meanings of words are important, they are one of the major ways that we communicate with each other. We don't just get to make up definitions that we like to suit our needs, otherwise nothing would ever mean anything.
And as to your baseless assertion that "One of Government's main purposes is non-aggression." To that I say "hah!". The relevant statistic from the article reads "After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century." And this from a statist no less.
The simple fact of the matter is that the available evidence is very clear that the main purpose of the government, the stated purpose of the government by government, even the semantic content of the very word 'govern' is the initiation of aggression. Gotta point out now for all you frothing at the mouth tryhards, I'm not saying anything here about right or wrong. I'm not saying anything about how things 'ought' to be. I'm simply pointing out the evidence of what was and is.
IMHO: A democratic goverment is a (somewhat) democratic organisation that has monopoly on violence.
Personally I think the corruption of democratic countries in the West probably started with the news services and then continued with other parts of the goverment (yes I actually consider news part of the goverments even if this might not be a commonly held opinion internationaly, it _is_ often called the forth power of the goverment (in Sweden at least))
But hey, I dont have any solution to the problem, even if I desperatly hope that new news organisations (such as young turks etc) will be able to make people better informed. Btw in EU we have rules on how you must stamp food items, list of ingridients, best before date etc. Maybe we ought to do the same with news, any news service should have their list of owners on display etc, so that people watching the news can clearly see lines of ownership?
TL;DR Main problem in democrazy: News services tell people what people want to hear instead of what they need to hear. But, I dont see anarchy solving this problem either
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."
it's not exactly hard to improve when you're at the bottom
Then why don't other countries in Africa, which are as bad as Somalia, also improve so quickly? Of course Somalia isn't as nice as the first world - that doesn't mean we can't learn from their successes. The Somali system of law, the xeer, is quite interesting as well.
On July 05 2011 07:09 DoubleReed wrote:Uhm. What? Do you think anyone who calls themselves a doctor should be able to charge people to cut them up? ... Do you know what surgeons have to do in order to be able to cut people up and mess around in their innards? I'm sorry, I don't really want any fellow with a hacksaw doing amputations. I want somebody who actually knows what the hell they are doing.
1. If you don't know if your "surgeon" knows what he's doing then do some research about this person 2. Certificates that prove you are a doctor can easily be provided by non-government institutions. 3. Don't you think that everyone who cuts up other people without the proper knowledge would risk his reputation or whatever or take the risk to go to jail because he could kill someone? I don't know dude, it doesn't make sense to me. 4. Opening your own clinic, hiring nurses and so on is a huge investment. I don`t know why anyone would do such a thing without any competence as a doctor. Failure would be preprogrammed. Which leads us to point ... 5. No clinic directorate with a brain would hire such a person.
thats a bit of brainstorming by me, you can surely find more points which could relativize your argument
On July 05 2011 07:09 DoubleReed wrote:What the hell is "state driven knowledge"?
When I think about it "research" would be the better term here. What I mean is research that is only done because the state enforces it.
The "knowledge" it produces is either useless or could be provided by the free market at a later point in time.
A good example for useless knowlege is "gender mainstreaming" . It's an idelogy which plagues germany at the moment and is enforced by left politicians and the EU mostly and the research on this matter is mostly financed by the state. I guess in a free market system it would simply disappear because no one would "buy" it or spent any money on it and it would remain in the heads of hardcore feminists.
A good example of research which could be provided by the free market at a later point in time would be Space Travel IMO and all the research to make it possible. If you consider the fact that england became the most industrialized country in the world during the 19th century with basically no state-research funds it shouldn't sound that utopian.
The good thing about the market is it makes things possible when they are producable in a cost-effective way and when there is real demand for it and not politicians which think something has to happen for overpowered costs.
I think anyone who calls himself a doctor should be able to cut open anyone who agrees to be cut open by him.
If I want to go to some guy that was a doctor in India but isn't certified to practice medicine here, because he wants to charge $20 and the hostital wants to charge $2000, why is that a problem for you?
On July 02 2011 07:25 mcc wrote: Please an example Although I think I get what are you thinking, you mean that US is killing innocent people outside US, because as far as I know your government is not yet killing its own citizens unless they are criminals. If your objection was to the fact that government can kill criminals and it is not a crime, then true, but I think in the original post it was implied that he meant that government can kill anyone it chooses without it being a crime.
Are you really unaware of this? First of all, I wouldn't have a problem with them being able to kill "criminals" as long as I agree with why they are saying someone is a criminal, which of course I won't every single time.
Next to that, and much more importantly, lets assume every single criminal they kill is a scumbag that deserve today. Great. Well too bad it is common practice for them to just bomb the fuckers house or residence, killing his wife, kids, as well as any other poor fool who happens to be in the blast radius. I mean go back to WWII, where the US freaking fire bombed Tokyo and later dropped two atomic bombs on the country. You think no innocents were killed there? Please spare me whatever justifications you may or may not throw my way about how it saved more lives than it killed, etc. Innocents were killed, and it was not an accident - it was the intentional bombing of cities. The same applies to the bombs falling in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Pakistan, in every single country the US sends it's military. All of them.
The same mentality applies to nearly every war, it is only a question of degree. Blow this shit up because we really, really want to, and we have this or that justification as to why we think this is the "best" route. Let god sort 'em out.
This isn't exactly to single out the US, as it most definitely applies to almost every single government that has every existed - but the US has definitely been the word offender in the past 50-60 years. You ever stop to realize how much the US has been at war? I was talking to my dad, saying the US has been at war pretty much every single year I have been alive. Then he said the same applied to him - kind of puts it into perspective. We are fucking war mongers.
It is always this or that excuse that the government feeds people about why this or that war is justified and usually they buy into it. But when you look at the big picture, you have to realize that the US just likes being at war, it's what we do. We don't have military in 170+ countries around the world because we were forced into by chance and circumstance, they're building a damn empire while calling it something else. It's that simple.
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.
Hey you seem interested? I guess I will try to indulge your questions.
First of all, I said it would probably be hell at first. I might be wrong, but that is how I see it. Just because of how dependent people are on the structures of society, combined with how helpless and disarmed most people are. Plenty of room for plenty of suffering while the strong take advantage of the weak. Now it's not necessary to assume that EVERYTHING would stop working, but either way it is okay. It's also worth mentioning that the US makes life complete hell in other areas of the world, but I don't want to get into that too much right now outside of just mentioning it.
Why? Well value is subjective, so this is of course based on my own values. They don't have to be yours obviously. Let say you take every zoo in the entire world and release all the animals into the wilderness, each one in an area where they reasonably "should" be able to survive. Of course most of them wouldn't, they've been caged too long, they don't know how, and they lack the will required to endure and learn. Some would survive though, some would even reproduce. It might be a tiny fraction of all of them, but some most certainly would.
So some people would say it would be cruelty to release them like that, but I say it is cruel to keep them in the cage. That is just where I place my values. At some point I think people should realize that it's not a question of safety and a long life. We are all going to die. What should be more important is what we want out of the time we have. After all, without all of that horrible shit you described ever happening, everyone will die just the same.
Do we still use currencetly, etc? Yeah, human invention and ingenuity does not come from government, how accessible would it be for people who can't understand it and have almost nothing to offer? You can't really predict that. If you want to hear the good side of the idea though, check out some books by Murry Rothbard, he was good at making it sound stable and appealing.
What about me? My body is actually pretty weak and fucked up, like I wouldn't even be able to hold or pull the trigger on a gun, so no point in owning any of them. So if the shit hits the fan, how I would be able to survive would depending entirely on the people around me and how well we are able and willing to work together. Pretty much the same as it is for me right now, I was born in a successful part of the world with people around me who like to cooperate. There is definitely no way to predict what would happen to me if government disappeared overnight, but it is clear that I would be pretty helpless and would have to just roll with whatever opportunities or misfortunes that came my way. Fine with me. I am at the point were I would rather suffer than involuntarily cause suffering.
I'm not romanticizing about anything and I'm certainly not here trying to sell a new world. I am definitely not an anarchist, I am just a slave who doesn't enjoy being a slave. The reason I was debating in this thread, is because it bothers me when people throw around reckless arguments in support of government that are blatantly false. I actually don't see a big difference between government and anarchy. All of the horrible things from anarchy exist in this world. All of the horrible things from government exist in this world. Historically we think anarchy came first, but government is not externally imposed on us, collectively at some point in history we made it this way.
So if you want to look for the success or failure that will flow from an anarchist state, you only have to look at the current situation of the world. Success or failure simply based on your values and views of civilization. So as much as I hate government, if it disappeared overnight we would likely just end up in the same situation eventually - without some transcendence of human thought occurring in a critical mass of humans, enough to really change how we live and interact with each other. As long as government is here, schooling everyone, I don't see that happening. Even if it was possible to teach humans to live peacefully without the need for a violent authority, would they do it? No of course not, they have no incentive to - they have every incentive not to, it would destroy them. Everyone looks out for number one.
So it's totally not worth it to go through all of the suffering that may be brought by sudden removal of government if we would go through all that only to eventually end up in the same shit situation we are in now, which is why I am not an anarchist.
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.
Hey you seem interested? I guess I will try to indulge your questions.
First of all, I said it would probably be hell at first. I might be wrong, but that is how I see it. Just because of how dependent people are on the structures of society, combined with how helpless and disarmed most people are. Plenty of room for plenty of suffering while the strong take advantage of the weak. Now it's not necessary to assume that EVERYTHING would stop working, but either way it is okay. It's also worth mentioning that the US makes life complete hell in other areas of the world, but I don't want to get into that too much right now outside of just mentioning it.
Why? Well value is subjective, so this is of course based on my own values. They don't have to be yours obviously. Let say you take every zoo in the entire world and release all the animals into the wilderness, each one in an area where they reasonably "should" be able to survive. Of course most of them wouldn't, they've been caged too long, they don't know how, and they lack the will required to endure and learn. Some would survive though, some would even reproduce. It might be a tiny fraction of all of them, but some most certainly would.
So some people would say it would be cruelty to release them like that, but I say it is cruel to keep them in the cage. That is just where I place my values. At some point I think people should realize that it's not a question of safety and a long life. We are all going to die. What should be more important is what we want out of the time we have. After all, without all of that horrible shit you described ever happening, everyone will die just the same.
Do we still use currencetly, etc? Yeah, human invention and ingenuity does not come from government, how accessible would it be for people who can't understand it and have almost nothing to offer? You can't really predict that. If you want to hear the good side of the idea though, check out some books by Murry Rothbard, he was good at making it sound stable and appealing.
What about me? My body is actually pretty weak and fucked up, like I wouldn't even be able to hold or pull the trigger on a gun, so no point in owning any of them. So if the shit hits the fan, how I would be able to survive would depending entirely on the people around me and how well we are able and willing to work together. Pretty much the same as it is for me right now, I was born in a successful part of the world with people around me who like to cooperate. There is definitely no way to predict what would happen to me if government disappeared overnight, but it is clear that I would be pretty helpless and would have to just roll with whatever opportunities or misfortunes that came my way. Fine with me. I am at the point were I would rather suffer than involuntarily cause suffering.
I'm not romanticizing about anything and I'm certainly not here trying to sell a new world. I am definitely not an anarchist, I am just a slave who doesn't enjoy being a slave. The reason I was debating in this thread, is because it bothers me when people throw around reckless arguments in support of government that are blatantly false. I actually don't see a big difference between government and anarchy. All of the horrible things from anarchy exist in this world. All of the horrible things from government exist in this world. Historically we think anarchy came first, but government is not externally imposed on us, collectively at some point in history we made it this way.
So if you want to look for the success or failure that will flow from an anarchist state, you only have to look at the current situation of the world. Success or failure simply based on your values and views of civilization. So as much as I hate government, if it disappeared overnight we would likely just end up in the same situation eventually - without some transcendence of human thought occurring in a critical mass of humans, enough to really change how we live and interact with each other. As long as government is here, schooling everyone, I don't see that happening. Even if it was possible to teach humans to live peacefully without the need for a violent authority, would they do it? No of course not, they have no incentive to - they have every incentive not to, it would destroy them. Everyone looks out for number one.
So it's totally not worth it to go through all of the suffering that may be brought by sudden removal of government if we would go through all that only to eventually end up in the same shit situation we are in now, which is why I am not an anarchist.
Thanks for getting back to me actually. I thought you'd abandoned the thread or something.
But it sounds like we're in agreement. There would be a *lot* of suffering for a lonnggg time. And as I've said before, I'm sure people living in lawless hunter-gatherer tribes thousands of years ago were indeed "Freer" than we are today. But the standard of living and equality that I enjoy in a modern structured society is not worth giving up to feel "free" in that sense.
Here is the latest article from the BBC about the effects of Somalia's drought. If this is the "success of anarchy," I'll stick with a functioning government.
"What is the most tragic for us to witness, is that there are children who do arrive in such a weakened state that despite our emergency care and therapeutic feeding, they're dying within 24 hours," UNHCR spokeswoman Melissa Fleming told a press briefing in Geneva.
"We estimate that one quarter of Somalia's 7.5 million people are now either internally displaced or are living outside the country as refugees," she said.
...
"The relentless violence that's compounded by a terrible drought has forced more than 135,000 Somalis to flee Somalia so far this year," she said.
"In June alone, 54,000 people fled across the two borders, and that is three times the number [of people who fled] in May. So this is a huge spike."
On July 06 2011 06:42 Treemonkeys wrote: Modern standard of living fucked me over pretty hard personally, I wonder what I would think if it was not for that?
Could you care to elaborate on that? No pressure of course.
I had horrible asthma as a child. I was rushed to the emergency room numerous times before my first birthday. Had I been born 70-80 years earlier, I likely would have died an infant. I'm perfectly healthy today, but without modern medicine it's very unlikely I'd even be alive.
I know nothing of your condition, but would being born in a non-modern world have helped you live a better life?
As far as roads are concerned - well, I don't think we need to get rid of roads just because we get rid of governmnt. If there is a demand for transportation (which obviously there is and will be) there will be a supply for it. ECON 101. It's really no different than any other industry. How are we going to get food to 300 million people? We don't have to solve that problem. The market does. Same with water and sewage. Customers would pay companies to provide these services - and due to market competition it would be much cheaper. As far as being safe - first of all, there's nothing the government does right now that will prevent you from getting assaulted. Maybe they will catch the guy after the fact, but even that is pretty unlikely. If you even bother to report the crime. But yes, I think carrying a gun is a good idea. And there is no need to complely abandon the idea of security simply because we abolish the state - their could be private companies you can hire for protection / redress. Yes, we would have a currency - a gold standard, most likely, although that would depend on the market. The current fiat money supply is inherently inflationary; this need not be the case. Indeed, it wouldn't if we abolish central banking. Central banks cause business cycles - depressions, recessions, if we had sound mone this wouldn't happen. There would be no depressions, except in extreme circumstances (being invaded, for example). Banks would be free to operate, certainly, but they would be treated like any other business. That is they would not have the government priviledge that is fractional reserve banking. The process of investment would be separated from the process of saving or warehousing of money.
The free market does keep the cost of health care down - something which government seems incapable of doing. Actually, doctors themselves aren't the problem - it's all the extra waste, bureaucries and market incentives... everything has to cost the maximum. Back before the government take over of health care everything cost the minimum, it was no big deal, you would go and pay what you could; the doctors would take care of you. That's the way it should be. There's no one to be afraid of. People are, for the most part, good, caring and sincere. We have just been taught our whole lives to fear each other... to put ourselves in adversarily situations where we need not. I think in an anarcho-capitalist society I would probably start business. A society without government would be incredibly prosperous. If you look at examples throughout history, you will find the less government involvement in an economy the more prosperous the country. The middle evil times were terrible... like was short, bruttish and nasty, but we're not talking about going back in time. We are talking about how there is a criminal organization named the state and how the world would be a better place if we recognized that violence and coercion are immoral and that there is no problem so massive it cannot be conquered by the voluntary actions of a free society.
I've heard a lot of absurd theories, but by far one of the most absurd is this notion of "left anarchism." I can't even make sense of what they are proposing, or how they will answer the most basic functions of any economy: how to allocate scarce resources, how to produce, what to produce, etc.
Aside from this, the idea that you can somehow centralize all property and ownership and somehow create a society that is MORE free... it boggles the mind. Someone else is in control of everything you have and you are considered free? Another person can decide what and when and how you eat and you are free?
Who is going to determine who is in "need" of what? What exactly is going to compel people to work if not their own self interest? How can you have freedom of speech when printing presses are unowned or externally allocated?
It is simple, common sense that if you want to increase freedom for the individual, you want to decentralize power, not centralize it. That is the whole purpose of having legislatures and competing branches of government and checks and balances... when you limit the power that each entity has, you effectively limit their control of the people.
The same exact logic applies to the market or economy of a nation. Do you want all resources being controlled and allocated by a single entity, or do you want literally thousands of corporations all competing with each other for you voluntarily exchanged money? The true power of corporations is not in any market power, but in their ability to bribe the government officials who have been granted a monopoly on the force that can be used in the marketplace.
As far as roads are concerned - well, I don't think we need to get rid of roads just because we get rid of governmnt. If there is a demand for transportation (which obviously there is and will be) there will be a supply for it. ECON 101. It's really no different than any other industry. How are we going to get food to 300 million people? We don't have to solve that problem. The market does. Same with water and sewage. Customers would pay companies to provide these services - and due to market competition it would be much cheaper. As far as being safe - first of all, there's nothing the government does right now that will prevent you from getting assaulted. Maybe they will catch the guy after the fact, but even that is pretty unlikely. If you even bother to report the crime. But yes, I think carrying a gun is a good idea. And there is no need to complely abandon the idea of security simply because we abolish the state - their could be private companies you can hire for protection / redress. Yes, we would have a currency - a gold standard, most likely, although that would depend on the market. The current fiat money supply is inherently inflationary; this need not be the case. Indeed, it wouldn't if we abolish central banking. Central banks cause business cycles - depressions, recessions, if we had sound mone this wouldn't happen. There would be no depressions, except in extreme circumstances (being invaded, for example). Banks would be free to operate, certainly, but they would be treated like any other business. That is they would not have the government priviledge that is fractional reserve banking. The process of investment would be separated from the process of saving or warehousing of money.
The free market does keep the cost of health care down - something which government seems incapable of doing. Actually, doctors themselves aren't the problem - it's all the extra waste, bureaucries and market incentives... everything has to cost the maximum. Back before the government take over of health care everything cost the minimum, it was no big deal, you would go and pay what you could; the doctors would take care of you. That's the way it should be. There's no one to be afraid of. People are, for the most part, good, caring and sincere. We have just been taught our whole lives to fear each other... to put ourselves in adversarily situations where we need not. I think in an anarcho-capitalist society I would probably start business. A society without government would be incredibly prosperous. If you look at examples throughout history, you will find the less government involvement in an economy the more prosperous the country. The middle evil times were terrible... like was short, bruttish and nasty, but we're not talking about going back in time. We are talking about how there is a criminal organization named the state and how the world would be a better place if we recognized that violence and coercion are immoral and that there is no problem so massive it cannot be conquered by the voluntary actions of a free society.
Company A builds a road from City 1 to City 2. They charge 10,000 dollars to access this road once.
Company B says "Hey, why the heck don't we build a road and charge $5,000 dollars?" so they build a road between City 1 and City 2.
Assuming there are only TWO companies we now have TWO different road systems, taking up double the space it should. It's safe to assume some routes would have up to three different suppliers.
Another thing. Store A tries to sell a pineapple for $5 to Customer 1. Customer 1 decides a bullet in the face is cheaper.
it all sounds good to not have a government of some sort, and then you realize that there are always going to be people who just don't care and will screw you over in any way possible. without authority who's going to protect you and your belongings?
either you pay someone to do it, they extort you, or they just kill you and take it.
i like the first option, where as many bad points as all this government and authority has, it's the least of all the evils. I believe the quote was: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
On July 06 2011 10:26 Shai wrote: Another thing. Store A tries to sell a pineapple for $5 to Customer 1. Customer 1 decides a bullet in the face is cheaper.
Sorry, but this is really a terrible argument against anarchism. At least, most anarchists I know don't advocate a society where people can shoot each other in the face and nothing happens...
And second, there is nothing stopping a person from making that decision in ANY society. Government doesn't prevent someone from committing theft or murder.
Here's how it works. Customer 1 decides he wants that fucking pineapple and his $5, so he shoots the owner in the head. Customers 2-10 stand there helplessly with their mouths open, and pray they aren't next, because they are completely dependent on the government for their imagined safety and order. Eventually someone gets on a telephone and calls up the local police, and the police eventually arrive, and they fill out a report and maybe try to track the guy down. The story ends there.
Those customers 2-10, they ARE the society that needs to be protected, and they are incapable of protecting themselves. We have a very small group in some different location who are tasked with protecting the vast majority who haven't been granted the right or duty to protect each other. Kind of defies common sense.
On July 06 2011 06:42 Treemonkeys wrote: Modern standard of living fucked me over pretty hard personally, I wonder what I would think if it was not for that?
Could you care to elaborate on that? No pressure of course.
I had horrible asthma as a child. I was rushed to the emergency room numerous times before my first birthday. Had I been born 70-80 years earlier, I likely would have died an infant. I'm perfectly healthy today, but without modern medicine it's very unlikely I'd even be alive.
I know nothing of your condition, but would being born in a non-modern world have helped you live a better life?
But as bad as the consequence may or may not be, what about the consequences of massive government? Never mind the millions or billions that have been killed in government run wars, lets just say they were all worth our nice standard of living. What about the future and survivability of the human species and planet as a whole? Is government really taking us in a good direction? Now that they have amassed enough weapons to kill nearly the entire planet? Now as they continue to search for more ways of bigger and bigger destruction?
Have you ever looked into how many nuclear explosions the US government has set of for the sole purpose of "testing". That shit doesn't just float into the atmosphere and disappear. They have set off over 1000 of them, for no good reason at all, just the US alone. Add in all the other countries and I think it easily goes over 3000. All of this with only about 60 years of nuclear technology. What will the earth be like 100 years from now? 1000? They are basically psychopathic kids with an obsession for burning ants with a magnifying glass only instead of a magnifying glass they have nukes. It's not like we are immune to going extinct, and it's not like we as individuals have any control over the direction we live towards either.
Long term I don't think there is anything about our standard of living that is sustainable. Yeah maybe technology will be discovered to take recycling to a whole new level and things like that, but in my lifetime it definitely seems like problems are growing much faster than solutions are. We have entire billion dollar industries designed around motivating people to buy new shit and then throw it away for an upgrade a few years later.
On July 06 2011 10:26 Shai wrote: Company A builds a road from City 1 to City 2. They charge 10,000 dollars to access this road once.
Company B says "Hey, why the heck don't we build a road and charge $5,000 dollars?" so they build a road between City 1 and City 2.
Assuming there are only TWO companies we now have TWO different road systems, taking up double the space it should. It's safe to assume some routes would have up to three different suppliers.
Another thing. Store A tries to sell a pineapple for $5 to Customer 1. Customer 1 decides a bullet in the face is cheaper.
Because inefficient roads and armed robbery don't exist under government?
On July 06 2011 10:32 Kaneh wrote: it all sounds good to not have a government of some sort, and then you realize that there are always going to be people who just don't care and will screw you over in any way possible. without authority who's going to protect you and your belongings?
either you pay someone to do it, they extort you, or they just kill you and take it.
i like the first option, where as many bad points as all this government and authority has, it's the least of all the evils. I believe the quote was: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Authority is simply the guy screwing you over. They protect us like a farmer protecting his animals from wolves. Doesn't mean we won't get slaughtered when the time comes.
Actually the American government and it's agents kill many innocent American citizens, most notably in encounters with the police.
Actually about a thousand people a year are killed by the police and 50-100 police by citizens. We're talking intent for both sides not car crashes or anything... "many" sounds a bit hyperbolic.
Actually the American government and it's agents kill many innocent American citizens, most notably in encounters with the police.
Actually about a thousand people a year are killed by the police and 50-100 police by citizens. We're talking intent for both sides not car crashes or anything... "many" sounds a bit hyperbolic.
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.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
Why do we have to keep old nations borders?
So the world is going to unite unanimously? How are we going to decide who were alligned with? Everyone is going to agree with your new arbitrary state lines? Who gets to decide who is in and who is out? Whats going to happen when some groups get left out by others, or some groups get better land than others? If I was living on shit land, while a neighbouring group had rich fertile land, why wouldnt I find a way to take it from them? Why is it fair that they get that and I get the shaft? Whos going to protect you from my invasion? Do you not see, that every proposal you guys make, lead to thousands of problems, problems you cant offer effective solutions to?
No, they don't. They genuinly believe that the state is holding themselves and everyone else back and are blinded by this belief.
Edit: The opposite is true, you have the freedom you have now, and the livingstandard you have now, due to living in a successful and well-run state.
On July 03 2011 08:40 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 08:28 HellRoxYa wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:31 Harrow wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:21 Slakter wrote:
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.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now.
Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this".
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote: Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun.
I do not believe people were better before society, however I believe that we have to evolve past todays society, and in my opinion the natural evolution of society is to a more compassionate way of living. Also, what you´re saying is only true for people now, and even now people misstrust people way too much in my opinion. The human being is not naturally evil, we´ve just not evolved the shitty part yet you might say.
I never said anything about humans being evil. They're oppurtunistic and egotistical. This will lead to major problems in the anarchy fantasy. It's funny that you say people should evolve when it should be perfectly clear to you that people don't "evolve" unless millions of years pass. We have to work with what we have right now.
For instance we dont rape women and pull them by the hair into caves anymore, we have evolved from that
I guess we evolved past the cave part.
People haven't evolved, they are just better conditioned.
Sorry, but this is really a terrible argument against anarchism. At least, most anarchists I know don't advocate a society where people can shoot each other in the face and nothing happens...
And communists in the Soviet Union didn't advocate a society where everything was tightly rationed, and the nation lived in poverty. And, much like anarchists, they haven't figured out how to prevent that from happening, under their proposed system.
Good on you for pointing out the problems of centralised government... And then turning a blind eye to their counterparts in an anarchy.
What exactly would prevent the storeowner from getting shot over 5$, in your utopia, again?
Hired protection? So, if you don't hire Guys With Guns, you're on your own? And those Guys With Guns will never make mistakes? Kill innocent people? Ever?
You should really hold your proposed utopia up to the same level of criticism you apply to others.
Actually the American government and it's agents kill many innocent American citizens, most notably in encounters with the police.
Actually about a thousand people a year are killed by the police and 50-100 police by citizens. We're talking intent for both sides not car crashes or anything... "many" sounds a bit hyperbolic.
lol, where do these statistics come from?
83% of all statistics are made up on the spot, did you not know ?
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.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
Why do we have to keep old nations borders?
So the world is going to unite unanimously? How are we going to decide who were alligned with? Everyone is going to agree with your new arbitrary state lines? Who gets to decide who is in and who is out? Whats going to happen when some groups get left out by others, or some groups get better land than others? If I was living on shit land, while a neighbouring group had rich fertile land, why wouldnt I find a way to take it from them? Why is it fair that they get that and I get the shaft? Whos going to protect you from my invasion? Do you not see, that every proposal you guys make, lead to thousands of problems, problems you cant offer effective solutions to?
No, they don't. They genuinly believe that the state is holding themselves and everyone else back and are blinded by this belief.
Edit: The opposite is true, you have the freedom you have now, and the livingstandard you have now, due to living in a successful and well-run state.
On July 03 2011 08:40 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 08:28 HellRoxYa wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:31 Harrow wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:21 Slakter wrote:
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.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now.
Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this".
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote: Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun.
I do not believe people were better before society, however I believe that we have to evolve past todays society, and in my opinion the natural evolution of society is to a more compassionate way of living. Also, what you´re saying is only true for people now, and even now people misstrust people way too much in my opinion. The human being is not naturally evil, we´ve just not evolved the shitty part yet you might say.
I never said anything about humans being evil. They're oppurtunistic and egotistical. This will lead to major problems in the anarchy fantasy. It's funny that you say people should evolve when it should be perfectly clear to you that people don't "evolve" unless millions of years pass. We have to work with what we have right now.
For instance we dont rape women and pull them by the hair into caves anymore, we have evolved from that
I guess we evolved past the cave part.
People haven't evolved, they are just better conditioned.
Sorry, but this is really a terrible argument against anarchism. At least, most anarchists I know don't advocate a society where people can shoot each other in the face and nothing happens...
And communists in the Soviet Union didn't advocate a society where everything was tightly rationed, and the nation lived in poverty. And, much like anarchists, they haven't figured out how to prevent that from happening, under their proposed system.
Good on you for pointing out the problems of centralised government... And then turning a blind eye to their counterparts in an anarchy.
What exactly would prevent the storeowner from getting shot over 5$, in your utopia, again?
Hired protection? So, if you don't hire Guys With Guns, you're on your own? And those Guys With Guns will never make mistakes? Kill innocent people? Ever?
You should really hold your proposed utopia up to the same level of criticism you apply to others.
You make it seem like anarchists must find the secret to all encompassing peace and love among mankind before it's a viable ethic. That's a little unfair. What anarchists (market anarchists/"Anarcho-Capitalists") do have is a consistent ethical framework of liberty, which allows for the maximum individual liberty for everyone. Anarchy won't necessarily eliminate every bad person, chances are there will always be bad people; what it does allow, as far as your example is concerned, is for an individual to protect his or herself, his or her property, and the people they care about from those bad people.
So for instance, what's preventing the store owner from getting shot over $5 in an anarchic society? I can think of a number of things. Perhaps the store owner is armed, heavily, and isn't afraid to advertise it? Or perhaps he or she has hired Guys With Guns, who may very well make mistakes. Do Guys With Guns make very few mistakes? Very many mistakes? Is it time to hire Chicks With Guns? If there's a market for protection services then that competition will, like usual, drive prices down and quality up.
What an anarchist society undoubtedly would be, is far safer, happier and freer than anything we have now.
PS: Wish I had the time to go back to the Libertarian Americans thread, there's great unfinished stuff in there...
Actually the 1,000 is a guesstimate based off numbers for Ohio I found I semi-baselessly extrapolated for the nation, and that was just for people killed during an attempt at an arrest or other encounter, not while back at the station or lock-up. It was probably a few hundred off and if you add people who die at the station it's for sure more.
As for police, 117 total federal and local LEOs were dying in the line of duty in 2010, 124 in 2009, 140 in 2008, 130 in 2007. The total murdered seems to be about 35%, with the rest dying in accidents. I don't know if the accidents includes ones caused by chases whether in car or on foot. "Line of duty" means they were officially doing police work.
The source is the FBI for the number of LEOs dying
Just for a comparison, during the "Great Terror" in the USSR (about five years of the 1930s) about 1,900,000 million people were arrested and about 650,000 sentenced of those to execution with most of the rest off to the gulag.
The USSR then had about 130,000.000 people, the USA today has about 310,000,000. I think saying that "many" Americans are killed by the government is a gross and unfair exaggeration so I objected to it.
Not saying the USSR had more so the USA is great, but in terms of the numbers, the United States government does not kill "many" of its own citizens.
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.
Hey you seem interested? I guess I will try to indulge your questions.
First of all, I said it would probably be hell at first. I might be wrong, but that is how I see it. Just because of how dependent people are on the structures of society, combined with how helpless and disarmed most people are. Plenty of room for plenty of suffering while the strong take advantage of the weak. Now it's not necessary to assume that EVERYTHING would stop working, but either way it is okay. It's also worth mentioning that the US makes life complete hell in other areas of the world, but I don't want to get into that too much right now outside of just mentioning it.
Why? Well value is subjective, so this is of course based on my own values. They don't have to be yours obviously. Let say you take every zoo in the entire world and release all the animals into the wilderness, each one in an area where they reasonably "should" be able to survive. Of course most of them wouldn't, they've been caged too long, they don't know how, and they lack the will required to endure and learn. Some would survive though, some would even reproduce. It might be a tiny fraction of all of them, but some most certainly would.
So some people would say it would be cruelty to release them like that, but I say it is cruel to keep them in the cage. That is just where I place my values. At some point I think people should realize that it's not a question of safety and a long life. We are all going to die. What should be more important is what we want out of the time we have. After all, without all of that horrible shit you described ever happening, everyone will die just the same.
Do we still use currencetly, etc? Yeah, human invention and ingenuity does not come from government, how accessible would it be for people who can't understand it and have almost nothing to offer? You can't really predict that. If you want to hear the good side of the idea though, check out some books by Murry Rothbard, he was good at making it sound stable and appealing.
What about me? My body is actually pretty weak and fucked up, like I wouldn't even be able to hold or pull the trigger on a gun, so no point in owning any of them. So if the shit hits the fan, how I would be able to survive would depending entirely on the people around me and how well we are able and willing to work together. Pretty much the same as it is for me right now, I was born in a successful part of the world with people around me who like to cooperate. There is definitely no way to predict what would happen to me if government disappeared overnight, but it is clear that I would be pretty helpless and would have to just roll with whatever opportunities or misfortunes that came my way. Fine with me. I am at the point were I would rather suffer than involuntarily cause suffering.
I'm not romanticizing about anything and I'm certainly not here trying to sell a new world. I am definitely not an anarchist, I am just a slave who doesn't enjoy being a slave. The reason I was debating in this thread, is because it bothers me when people throw around reckless arguments in support of government that are blatantly false. I actually don't see a big difference between government and anarchy. All of the horrible things from anarchy exist in this world. All of the horrible things from government exist in this world. Historically we think anarchy came first, but government is not externally imposed on us, collectively at some point in history we made it this way.
So if you want to look for the success or failure that will flow from an anarchist state, you only have to look at the current situation of the world. Success or failure simply based on your values and views of civilization. So as much as I hate government, if it disappeared overnight we would likely just end up in the same situation eventually - without some transcendence of human thought occurring in a critical mass of humans, enough to really change how we live and interact with each other. As long as government is here, schooling everyone, I don't see that happening. Even if it was possible to teach humans to live peacefully without the need for a violent authority, would they do it? No of course not, they have no incentive to - they have every incentive not to, it would destroy them. Everyone looks out for number one.
So it's totally not worth it to go through all of the suffering that may be brought by sudden removal of government if we would go through all that only to eventually end up in the same shit situation we are in now, which is why I am not an anarchist.
Thanks for getting back to me actually. I thought you'd abandoned the thread or something.
But it sounds like we're in agreement. There would be a *lot* of suffering for a lonnggg time. And as I've said before, I'm sure people living in lawless hunter-gatherer tribes thousands of years ago were indeed "Freer" than we are today. But the standard of living and equality that I enjoy in a modern structured society is not worth giving up to feel "free" in that sense.
Here's a potentially interesting question to ask at this point. Let's assume you do in fact truly enjoy your standard of living and what you feel is equality under the current system, to use Treemonkeys's example, you enjoy your cage and have no desire to leave it. What about the fact that the enjoyment of your cage implicitly requires that I remain in mine, regardless of how I feel about it? Is this right? Is the system justified by your enjoyment, despite my suffering?
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.
Hey you seem interested? I guess I will try to indulge your questions.
First of all, I said it would probably be hell at first. I might be wrong, but that is how I see it. Just because of how dependent people are on the structures of society, combined with how helpless and disarmed most people are. Plenty of room for plenty of suffering while the strong take advantage of the weak. Now it's not necessary to assume that EVERYTHING would stop working, but either way it is okay. It's also worth mentioning that the US makes life complete hell in other areas of the world, but I don't want to get into that too much right now outside of just mentioning it.
Why? Well value is subjective, so this is of course based on my own values. They don't have to be yours obviously. Let say you take every zoo in the entire world and release all the animals into the wilderness, each one in an area where they reasonably "should" be able to survive. Of course most of them wouldn't, they've been caged too long, they don't know how, and they lack the will required to endure and learn. Some would survive though, some would even reproduce. It might be a tiny fraction of all of them, but some most certainly would.
So some people would say it would be cruelty to release them like that, but I say it is cruel to keep them in the cage. That is just where I place my values. At some point I think people should realize that it's not a question of safety and a long life. We are all going to die. What should be more important is what we want out of the time we have. After all, without all of that horrible shit you described ever happening, everyone will die just the same.
Do we still use currencetly, etc? Yeah, human invention and ingenuity does not come from government, how accessible would it be for people who can't understand it and have almost nothing to offer? You can't really predict that. If you want to hear the good side of the idea though, check out some books by Murry Rothbard, he was good at making it sound stable and appealing.
What about me? My body is actually pretty weak and fucked up, like I wouldn't even be able to hold or pull the trigger on a gun, so no point in owning any of them. So if the shit hits the fan, how I would be able to survive would depending entirely on the people around me and how well we are able and willing to work together. Pretty much the same as it is for me right now, I was born in a successful part of the world with people around me who like to cooperate. There is definitely no way to predict what would happen to me if government disappeared overnight, but it is clear that I would be pretty helpless and would have to just roll with whatever opportunities or misfortunes that came my way. Fine with me. I am at the point were I would rather suffer than involuntarily cause suffering.
I'm not romanticizing about anything and I'm certainly not here trying to sell a new world. I am definitely not an anarchist, I am just a slave who doesn't enjoy being a slave. The reason I was debating in this thread, is because it bothers me when people throw around reckless arguments in support of government that are blatantly false. I actually don't see a big difference between government and anarchy. All of the horrible things from anarchy exist in this world. All of the horrible things from government exist in this world. Historically we think anarchy came first, but government is not externally imposed on us, collectively at some point in history we made it this way.
So if you want to look for the success or failure that will flow from an anarchist state, you only have to look at the current situation of the world. Success or failure simply based on your values and views of civilization. So as much as I hate government, if it disappeared overnight we would likely just end up in the same situation eventually - without some transcendence of human thought occurring in a critical mass of humans, enough to really change how we live and interact with each other. As long as government is here, schooling everyone, I don't see that happening. Even if it was possible to teach humans to live peacefully without the need for a violent authority, would they do it? No of course not, they have no incentive to - they have every incentive not to, it would destroy them. Everyone looks out for number one.
So it's totally not worth it to go through all of the suffering that may be brought by sudden removal of government if we would go through all that only to eventually end up in the same shit situation we are in now, which is why I am not an anarchist.
Thanks for getting back to me actually. I thought you'd abandoned the thread or something.
But it sounds like we're in agreement. There would be a *lot* of suffering for a lonnggg time. And as I've said before, I'm sure people living in lawless hunter-gatherer tribes thousands of years ago were indeed "Freer" than we are today. But the standard of living and equality that I enjoy in a modern structured society is not worth giving up to feel "free" in that sense.
Here's a potentially interesting question to ask at this point. Let's assume you do in fact truly enjoy your standard of living and what you feel is equality under the current system, to use Treemonkeys's example, you enjoy your cage and have no desire to leave it. What about the fact that the enjoyment of your cage implicitly requires that I remain in mine, regardless of how I feel about it? Is this right? Is the system justified by your enjoyment, despite my suffering?
You can always leave your cage, all you have to do is go somewhere in the middle of nowhere and live of plants, and that's still a richer lifestyle then the success of somalia lol.
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.
Hey you seem interested? I guess I will try to indulge your questions.
First of all, I said it would probably be hell at first. I might be wrong, but that is how I see it. Just because of how dependent people are on the structures of society, combined with how helpless and disarmed most people are. Plenty of room for plenty of suffering while the strong take advantage of the weak. Now it's not necessary to assume that EVERYTHING would stop working, but either way it is okay. It's also worth mentioning that the US makes life complete hell in other areas of the world, but I don't want to get into that too much right now outside of just mentioning it.
Why? Well value is subjective, so this is of course based on my own values. They don't have to be yours obviously. Let say you take every zoo in the entire world and release all the animals into the wilderness, each one in an area where they reasonably "should" be able to survive. Of course most of them wouldn't, they've been caged too long, they don't know how, and they lack the will required to endure and learn. Some would survive though, some would even reproduce. It might be a tiny fraction of all of them, but some most certainly would.
So some people would say it would be cruelty to release them like that, but I say it is cruel to keep them in the cage. That is just where I place my values. At some point I think people should realize that it's not a question of safety and a long life. We are all going to die. What should be more important is what we want out of the time we have. After all, without all of that horrible shit you described ever happening, everyone will die just the same.
Do we still use currencetly, etc? Yeah, human invention and ingenuity does not come from government, how accessible would it be for people who can't understand it and have almost nothing to offer? You can't really predict that. If you want to hear the good side of the idea though, check out some books by Murry Rothbard, he was good at making it sound stable and appealing.
What about me? My body is actually pretty weak and fucked up, like I wouldn't even be able to hold or pull the trigger on a gun, so no point in owning any of them. So if the shit hits the fan, how I would be able to survive would depending entirely on the people around me and how well we are able and willing to work together. Pretty much the same as it is for me right now, I was born in a successful part of the world with people around me who like to cooperate. There is definitely no way to predict what would happen to me if government disappeared overnight, but it is clear that I would be pretty helpless and would have to just roll with whatever opportunities or misfortunes that came my way. Fine with me. I am at the point were I would rather suffer than involuntarily cause suffering.
I'm not romanticizing about anything and I'm certainly not here trying to sell a new world. I am definitely not an anarchist, I am just a slave who doesn't enjoy being a slave. The reason I was debating in this thread, is because it bothers me when people throw around reckless arguments in support of government that are blatantly false. I actually don't see a big difference between government and anarchy. All of the horrible things from anarchy exist in this world. All of the horrible things from government exist in this world. Historically we think anarchy came first, but government is not externally imposed on us, collectively at some point in history we made it this way.
So if you want to look for the success or failure that will flow from an anarchist state, you only have to look at the current situation of the world. Success or failure simply based on your values and views of civilization. So as much as I hate government, if it disappeared overnight we would likely just end up in the same situation eventually - without some transcendence of human thought occurring in a critical mass of humans, enough to really change how we live and interact with each other. As long as government is here, schooling everyone, I don't see that happening. Even if it was possible to teach humans to live peacefully without the need for a violent authority, would they do it? No of course not, they have no incentive to - they have every incentive not to, it would destroy them. Everyone looks out for number one.
So it's totally not worth it to go through all of the suffering that may be brought by sudden removal of government if we would go through all that only to eventually end up in the same shit situation we are in now, which is why I am not an anarchist.
Thanks for getting back to me actually. I thought you'd abandoned the thread or something.
But it sounds like we're in agreement. There would be a *lot* of suffering for a lonnggg time. And as I've said before, I'm sure people living in lawless hunter-gatherer tribes thousands of years ago were indeed "Freer" than we are today. But the standard of living and equality that I enjoy in a modern structured society is not worth giving up to feel "free" in that sense.
Here's a potentially interesting question to ask at this point. Let's assume you do in fact truly enjoy your standard of living and what you feel is equality under the current system, to use Treemonkeys's example, you enjoy your cage and have no desire to leave it. What about the fact that the enjoyment of your cage implicitly requires that I remain in mine, regardless of how I feel about it? Is this right? Is the system justified by your enjoyment, despite my suffering?
This is kind of the whole reason why we have representative government. The idea is that we need government, but obviously we don't want tyranny, so we make our own government. Government isn't perfect by any means, but the idea that Government "cages" us is a completely far-fetched, and honestly is kind of insulting to people who have been slaves.
Look, it's nice to have theoretical conversations about what could happen if we abandoned all government, but in the real world, in somalia and several places thoroughout history, it pretty much sucks.
I believe Somalia devolved into tribalism on a radically decentralized scale. I don't know if Mogadishu is entirely irrelevant, but there appear to be multiple power organizations mutually coexisting in the same geographical area. In international relations terminology, Somalia is a failed state. The irony is that the failed state is a bit more successful and peaceful.
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.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
Why do we have to keep old nations borders?
So the world is going to unite unanimously? How are we going to decide who were alligned with? Everyone is going to agree with your new arbitrary state lines? Who gets to decide who is in and who is out? Whats going to happen when some groups get left out by others, or some groups get better land than others? If I was living on shit land, while a neighbouring group had rich fertile land, why wouldnt I find a way to take it from them? Why is it fair that they get that and I get the shaft? Whos going to protect you from my invasion? Do you not see, that every proposal you guys make, lead to thousands of problems, problems you cant offer effective solutions to?
No, they don't. They genuinly believe that the state is holding themselves and everyone else back and are blinded by this belief.
Edit: The opposite is true, you have the freedom you have now, and the livingstandard you have now, due to living in a successful and well-run state.
On July 03 2011 08:40 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 08:28 HellRoxYa wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:31 Harrow wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:21 Slakter wrote: [quote]
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.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now.
Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this".
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote: Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun.
I do not believe people were better before society, however I believe that we have to evolve past todays society, and in my opinion the natural evolution of society is to a more compassionate way of living. Also, what you´re saying is only true for people now, and even now people misstrust people way too much in my opinion. The human being is not naturally evil, we´ve just not evolved the shitty part yet you might say.
I never said anything about humans being evil. They're oppurtunistic and egotistical. This will lead to major problems in the anarchy fantasy. It's funny that you say people should evolve when it should be perfectly clear to you that people don't "evolve" unless millions of years pass. We have to work with what we have right now.
For instance we dont rape women and pull them by the hair into caves anymore, we have evolved from that
I guess we evolved past the cave part.
People haven't evolved, they are just better conditioned.
Sorry, but this is really a terrible argument against anarchism. At least, most anarchists I know don't advocate a society where people can shoot each other in the face and nothing happens...
And communists in the Soviet Union didn't advocate a society where everything was tightly rationed, and the nation lived in poverty. And, much like anarchists, they haven't figured out how to prevent that from happening, under their proposed system.
Good on you for pointing out the problems of centralised government... And then turning a blind eye to their counterparts in an anarchy.
What exactly would prevent the storeowner from getting shot over 5$, in your utopia, again?
Hired protection? So, if you don't hire Guys With Guns, you're on your own? And those Guys With Guns will never make mistakes? Kill innocent people? Ever?
You should really hold your proposed utopia up to the same level of criticism you apply to others.
You make it seem like anarchists must find the secret to all encompassing peace and love among mankind before it's a viable ethic. That's a little unfair. What anarchists (market anarchists/"Anarcho-Capitalists") do have is a consistent ethical framework of liberty, which allows for the maximum individual liberty for everyone. Anarchy won't necessarily eliminate every bad person, chances are there will always be bad people; what it does allow, as far as your example is concerned, is for an individual to protect his or herself, his or her property, and the people they care about from those bad people.
So for instance, what's preventing the store owner from getting shot over $5 in an anarchic society? I can think of a number of things. Perhaps the store owner is armed, heavily, and isn't afraid to advertise it? Or perhaps he or she has hired Guys With Guns, who may very well make mistakes. Do Guys With Guns make very few mistakes? Very many mistakes? Is it time to hire Chicks With Guns? If there's a market for protection services then that competition will, like usual, drive prices down and quality up.
What an anarchist society undoubtedly would be, is far safer, happier and freer than anything we have now.
PS: Wish I had the time to go back to the Libertarian Americans thread, there's great unfinished stuff in there...
Holy shit really? It would for one definently, 100%, be less safe than what you have right now. And even less so than what my society has. The scenario you described where you need to arm yourself and show it creates both tension and violence. And as you realize yourself when violence is unregulated it's easier to see as a legitimate option to obtain what you want - meaning that there will be more violence. Even if there wasn't, you'd be stuck with less trust because of the way you need to act (flaunt your defense). On top of this everyone who can't afford a massive weapon or who is in some way weak (handicapped people etc) would have major problems in your perfect society. Hardly my biggest problem with all of this but still.
Let's move on to happier. What is happiness? Living in peace or being free to kill anyone you want? I'll take my high living standard over a "free" Somaila any day. I'm not delusional enough to argue that there is any way that an anarchic society would be superior to a structured one.
Now lastly, freer, I'll give you that. There's more freedom, but also less freedom because anyone can infringe on your freedoms at any time and only you can defend them. Uncertainty and fear, yaaay.
Edit: And this is saying it'd even work. It wouldn't. Small groups form instantly, start pushing people around, this grows in to larger groups. Eventually you'll be stuck with a new state. Most probably of the tyrannical nature.
On July 06 2011 19:32 xM(Z wrote: way to completely miss his point...
Which point ? That he wants to live in a society with freedom, but not just any society, he wants to live in this same one and denie other people's freedom to live simple safe lives because he needs more "freedom".
There's no point to be missed, everybody can live in absolute freedom, just not next to people who don't care to regress back to the tribal ages ;p
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.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
Why do we have to keep old nations borders?
So the world is going to unite unanimously? How are we going to decide who were alligned with? Everyone is going to agree with your new arbitrary state lines? Who gets to decide who is in and who is out? Whats going to happen when some groups get left out by others, or some groups get better land than others? If I was living on shit land, while a neighbouring group had rich fertile land, why wouldnt I find a way to take it from them? Why is it fair that they get that and I get the shaft? Whos going to protect you from my invasion? Do you not see, that every proposal you guys make, lead to thousands of problems, problems you cant offer effective solutions to?
No, they don't. They genuinly believe that the state is holding themselves and everyone else back and are blinded by this belief.
Edit: The opposite is true, you have the freedom you have now, and the livingstandard you have now, due to living in a successful and well-run state.
On July 03 2011 08:40 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 08:28 HellRoxYa wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:31 Harrow wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:21 Slakter wrote: [quote]
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.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now.
Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this".
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote: Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun.
I do not believe people were better before society, however I believe that we have to evolve past todays society, and in my opinion the natural evolution of society is to a more compassionate way of living. Also, what you´re saying is only true for people now, and even now people misstrust people way too much in my opinion. The human being is not naturally evil, we´ve just not evolved the shitty part yet you might say.
I never said anything about humans being evil. They're oppurtunistic and egotistical. This will lead to major problems in the anarchy fantasy. It's funny that you say people should evolve when it should be perfectly clear to you that people don't "evolve" unless millions of years pass. We have to work with what we have right now.
For instance we dont rape women and pull them by the hair into caves anymore, we have evolved from that
I guess we evolved past the cave part.
People haven't evolved, they are just better conditioned.
Sorry, but this is really a terrible argument against anarchism. At least, most anarchists I know don't advocate a society where people can shoot each other in the face and nothing happens...
And communists in the Soviet Union didn't advocate a society where everything was tightly rationed, and the nation lived in poverty. And, much like anarchists, they haven't figured out how to prevent that from happening, under their proposed system.
Good on you for pointing out the problems of centralised government... And then turning a blind eye to their counterparts in an anarchy.
What exactly would prevent the storeowner from getting shot over 5$, in your utopia, again?
Hired protection? So, if you don't hire Guys With Guns, you're on your own? And those Guys With Guns will never make mistakes? Kill innocent people? Ever?
You should really hold your proposed utopia up to the same level of criticism you apply to others.
You make it seem like anarchists must find the secret to all encompassing peace and love among mankind before it's a viable ethic. That's a little unfair. What anarchists (market anarchists/"Anarcho-Capitalists") do have is a consistent ethical framework of liberty, which allows for the maximum individual liberty for everyone. Anarchy won't necessarily eliminate every bad person, chances are there will always be bad people; what it does allow, as far as your example is concerned, is for an individual to protect his or herself, his or her property, and the people they care about from those bad people.
So for instance, what's preventing the store owner from getting shot over $5 in an anarchic society? I can think of a number of things. Perhaps the store owner is armed, heavily, and isn't afraid to advertise it? Or perhaps he or she has hired Guys With Guns, who may very well make mistakes. Do Guys With Guns make very few mistakes? Very many mistakes? Is it time to hire Chicks With Guns? If there's a market for protection services then that competition will, like usual, drive prices down and quality up.
Cream isn't the only thing that rises to the top. It also doesn't matter how armed you personally are - guns are indeed the great equalizer. In your system, nothing stops anyone from getting one, walking into a store, and surprising someone. Guarantee it, storeowner won't draw fast enough. Oh, and the best part? Murderer will just walk away - nobody else will do anything about it. (Who are they to infringe on his freedom?)
Also, what stops someone from performing confidence scams - and skipping town once he gets the money? The threat that I will hire people to do a hit on him? He'll be long gone by then. All you'll end up, is a society where everyone's pointing a gun at eachother. And let me tell you, accidents will happen - far more accidents then there currently are police-related deaths.
On July 06 2011 06:42 Treemonkeys wrote: Modern standard of living fucked me over pretty hard personally, I wonder what I would think if it was not for that?
Could you care to elaborate on that? No pressure of course.
I had horrible asthma as a child. I was rushed to the emergency room numerous times before my first birthday. Had I been born 70-80 years earlier, I likely would have died an infant. I'm perfectly healthy today, but without modern medicine it's very unlikely I'd even be alive.
I know nothing of your condition, but would being born in a non-modern world have helped you live a better life?
But as bad as the consequence may or may not be, what about the consequences of massive government? Never mind the millions or billions that have been killed in government run wars, lets just say they were all worth our nice standard of living. What about the future and survivability of the human species and planet as a whole? Is government really taking us in a good direction? Now that they have amassed enough weapons to kill nearly the entire planet? Now as they continue to search for more ways of bigger and bigger destruction?
Have you ever looked into how many nuclear explosions the US government has set of for the sole purpose of "testing". That shit doesn't just float into the atmosphere and disappear. They have set off over 1000 of them, for no good reason at all, just the US alone. Add in all the other countries and I think it easily goes over 3000. All of this with only about 60 years of nuclear technology. What will the earth be like 100 years from now? 1000? They are basically psychopathic kids with an obsession for burning ants with a magnifying glass only instead of a magnifying glass they have nukes. It's not like we are immune to going extinct, and it's not like we as individuals have any control over the direction we live towards either.
Long term I don't think there is anything about our standard of living that is sustainable. Yeah maybe technology will be discovered to take recycling to a whole new level and things like that, but in my lifetime it definitely seems like problems are growing much faster than solutions are. We have entire billion dollar industries designed around motivating people to buy new shit and then throw it away for an upgrade a few years later.
Those billion dollar industries you're talking about? That's commercialism. That's capitalism. That has nothing to do with the government. That's makeup *companies* telling you you're ugly, and need their product. That's weight loss companies telling you you're fat, and need their product. That's Apple or Microsoft telling you that your current computer is garbage, and that you need to upgrade asap. It's car companies telling you how much better the latest model is than the old one. The government has nothing to do with the way they push their product, and I think you're finding faults with a commercialized society. What the government *does* do in those cases, is enforce certain safety standards so the product you're buying doesn't give you cancer. And you can bet your ass the companies that push those cancer-causing products will fight to the end to reassure you that they're perfectly safe.
Nuclear tests? I'm all for getting rid of nukes. No one should be able to level cities from across the world. Maybe such weapons deter attacks, but yes, I am very against nuclear weapons. (except in video games, BRING IT ON GHANDI, FINISHING STONEHENGE BEFORE ME! ) I disagree however that a world without a central government would be a world without nuclear weapons. What's to stop a powerful corporation from building a few for themselves?
The future of the planet? That should absolutely be a top priority of any and all governments. Again I think you're finding fault with the current administrations around the world, and not necessarily the system. Do you think that a non-government state would treat the planet better? Hint: The biggest enemies of the EPA are not governments. I find it hard to believe that companies would adhere to environmentally friendly standards were they not forced to. Recycling industrial waste is expensive. Dumping it in the river is cheap.
War is horrible, no one will contest that. I just find it unrealistic to think that no government = no wars. We've been killing each other since the dawn of humanity.
Is our way of life sustainable? I have no idea. The way the world is set up right now is far from ideal. There are villagers in Africa who instead of growing food crops for themselves, are growing peanuts so that I, (and everyone else in the first world), can go to the supermarket and buy a bottle of peanut oil for $3. The policies which support such a system were put in place because agricultural companies lobbied the government.
Has anyone mentioned the way that we got governments in the first place? It's not like our ancestors said "Let's saddle ourselves up with this obviously terrible system!"
First, there was anarchy. Then, people started buying (one way or another) the services of the biggest and strongest so that they could feel safe. Once the protector hires a clerk to keep track of his dues, you have the beginnings of a structured society.
According to the free market, anarchy is the worst form of government.
This isn't absolute success. Technically, in some aspects it can be considered "progress" but the "progress" is only relative to Somalia's surrounding countries. On a humanitarian front, anarchy is never success. Warlords and drug-trafficking pirates control the country, and I don't see how that's fruitful for the futur of the Somalian youth.
In the past we had democracy vs fascism/communism clashes. In the future I believe corporations vs anarchy is going to be the dominant clash.
As far as Somalia, this is not anarchy. Anyone trying to showcase Somalia as a successfull anarchy is an idiot or is trying to confuse people about anarchy on purpose
You make it seem like anarchists must find the secret to all encompassing peace and love among mankind before it's a viable ethic. That's a little unfair. What anarchists (market anarchists/"Anarcho-Capitalists") do have is a consistent ethical framework of liberty, which allows for the maximum individual liberty for everyone. Anarchy won't necessarily eliminate every bad person, chances are there will always be bad people; what it does allow, as far as your example is concerned, is for an individual to protect his or herself, his or her property, and the people they care about from those bad people.
No it isn't a little unfair. You advocate a political system that requires every citizen / family to become their own law enforcement agency, or, instead of setting up a police system through voting for a government and paying it taxes, instead paying a private firm to police your community.
The latter situation is indistinguishable from having a government, you just imagine that it is fundamentally different because there's more liberty or some such thing (no, there isn't, replacing votes and taxes with commercial transactions doesn't make anyone freer, it just turns a community into a pure small-d democracy, the bad kind honestly), and the former situation is heavily dependent on peace and love suddenly going on a big, big upswing, as unfortunately not many people are too keen on the idea of being the first, last, and only line of defense for themselves and their family.
They're simply incapable mentally, emotionally, or physically of defending themselves and their property, and we shouldn't put that burden on them just because we have a "consistent ethical framework." Yes, it is consistent; consistently devolved towards the "state of nature" down the line.
Your framework that allows for max liberty for each individual is a smokescreen; you're not broadening freedom. All you're doing is demanding that extremely long-settled political questions be reopened and everyone decides what political system they want in their community. All this is is a recipe for destroying institutions that already exist and then building them back up.
If a peaceful "anarchy" experiment ever came about on a national scale it would last about two weeks until communities effectively organized law enforcement organizations from their own ranks and the old trappings of government would soon follow.
The vast majority of people do not want to take the time or effort to make and then solidify political decisions that they are quite happy to delegate to other people that they vote for.
On July 06 2011 19:32 xM(Z wrote: way to completely miss his point...
Which point ? That he wants to live in a society with freedom, but not just any society, he wants to live in this same one and denie other people's freedom to live simple safe lives because he needs more "freedom".
There's no point to be missed, everybody can live in absolute freedom, just not next to people who don't care to regress back to the tribal ages ;p
his point was purely theoretical and was based on the symbiotic relation between those 2 cases. he said/stated that it exists (doesnt matter why). so, if the sad/suffering dude would just leave his cage (as you said), it would mean that the happy dude would stop enjoying his standard of living/equality/cage. (he actually said it the other way arround but i cant see why it wouldnt go both ways. he went with pity(hoping to get it from the happy dude), i went with contempt assuming the phrase "implicitly requires that i..." goes both ways ).
On July 06 2011 18:19 DeepElemBlues wrote: Actually the 1,000 is a guesstimate based off numbers for Ohio I found I semi-baselessly extrapolated for the nation, and that was just for people killed during an attempt at an arrest or other encounter, not while back at the station or lock-up. It was probably a few hundred off and if you add people who die at the station it's for sure more.
As for police, 117 total federal and local LEOs were dying in the line of duty in 2010, 124 in 2009, 140 in 2008, 130 in 2007. The total murdered seems to be about 35%, with the rest dying in accidents. I don't know if the accidents includes ones caused by chases whether in car or on foot. "Line of duty" means they were officially doing police work.
The source is the FBI for the number of LEOs dying
Just for a comparison, during the "Great Terror" in the USSR (about five years of the 1930s) about 1,900,000 million people were arrested and about 650,000 sentenced of those to execution with most of the rest off to the gulag.
The USSR then had about 130,000.000 people, the USA today has about 310,000,000. I think saying that "many" Americans are killed by the government is a gross and unfair exaggeration so I objected to it.
Not saying the USSR had more so the USA is great, but in terms of the numbers, the United States government does not kill "many" of its own citizens.
On July 06 2011 19:32 xM(Z wrote: way to completely miss his point...
Which point ? That he wants to live in a society with freedom, but not just any society, he wants to live in this same one and denie other people's freedom to live simple safe lives because he needs more "freedom".
There's no point to be missed, everybody can live in absolute freedom, just not next to people who don't care to regress back to the tribal ages ;p
his point was purely theoretical and was based on the symbiotic relation between those 2 cases. he said/stated that it exists (doesnt matter why). so, if the sad/suffering dude would just leave his cage (as you said), it would mean that the happy dude would stop enjoying his standard of living/equality/cage. (he actually said it the other way arround but i cant see why it wouldnt go both ways. he went with pity(hoping to get it from the happy dude), i went with contempt assuming the phrase "implicitly requires that i..." goes both ways ).
And my point was it's a bad example and if anything it shows anarchism can't exist since there's more happy caged ppl then unhappy ones.
Raining outside implies my car will get wet, my car is wet doesn't imply it was raining.
On July 07 2011 00:01 Haemonculus wrote: Those billion dollar industries you're talking about? That's commercialism. That's capitalism. That has nothing to do with the government. That's makeup *companies* telling you you're ugly, and need their product. That's weight loss companies telling you you're fat, and need their product. That's Apple or Microsoft telling you that your current computer is garbage, and that you need to upgrade asap. It's car companies telling you how much better the latest model is than the old one. The government has nothing to do with the way they push their product, and I think you're finding faults with a commercialized society. What the government *does* do in those cases, is enforce certain safety standards so the product you're buying doesn't give you cancer. And you can bet your ass the companies that push those cancer-causing products will fight to the end to reassure you that they're perfectly safe.
Captialism and government completely go hand in hand. The capitalism we see in the US would not be possible without the goverment enforced fiat curreny that fuels it. It is entirely designed for the extreme levels of growth, consolidiation, and debt. Stop and think about how many "mom and pop" stores are around today compared to 20 years ago. That isn't a random chain of events, rather it is the direct and inevitable result of the fiat currency that was forced on the entire country back in 1913 by the government. All developed countries of the world use the same basic rules of fiat currency enforced by their governments (because it works so well in terms of gaining power and control), and for most of then it is the same group of bankers running the whole show. Government is run for corporations and corporations are run in government, they are two arms of the same beast. As far as safety standards? Like safety standards that made the US the most obese country in the world? Like safety standards that made the US have the highest cancer rates in the world? Going back to my own problems with how society is detrimental for me, the majority of the food supply in the US is basically poison to me and everyone else with my condition. I have to go way out of my way and spend extra money to get food that doesn't destroy me. Only I grew up like you, trusting the goverment stamp of approval on food, so much damage has already been done that cannot be undone. With a healthy food supply I never would have had this condition to begin with.
Organic food that has not been genetically modified to include pesticides and other things is clearly better for you, but it costs more and is less accessable, do you know why? There are two main reasons, among others. First, the genetically modified food is subsidized by the goverment - making it less exepensive. In other words, government is stealing money from taxpayers, giving it to food corporations that are growing unhealthy food, and then feeding it back to those same taxpayers telling them it is perfectly safe. Second, to be allowed to advertise your food as organic and non-modifed, you have to pay extra money to have it "certified" to show you aren't lying - further increasing the cost. This is an expense imposed by the government. Whatever you think of the government's true intentions with doing all of this, the results of it are clear.
Nuclear tests? I'm all for getting rid of nukes. No one should be able to level cities from across the world. Maybe such weapons deter attacks, but yes, I am very against nuclear weapons. (except in video games, BRING IT ON GHANDI, FINISHING STONEHENGE BEFORE ME! ) I disagree however that a world without a central government would be a world without nuclear weapons. What's to stop a powerful corporation from building a few for themselves?
I agree with you that if "government" did not develop nuclear weapons, someone else "might". But dealing with our current reality, it was government that developed them, it was government that built them, and it was government that continues to test them. Like slaves, there is seemingly nothing we can do to stop this. Once again I am not arguing "for" anarchy, I am arguing against government. I see the evils of anarchy and goverment as the same thing, or rather the evils of humans dominating each other with violence and deception. Personally I think we are simply fucked BUT if there is to be any hope at all, it has to start with us - as common people - to realize and acknowledge how horrendously evil the people who are at the tip top of our society, running the whole show, truly are.
The future of the planet? That should absolutely be a top priority of any and all governments. Again I think you're finding fault with the current administrations around the world, and not necessarily the system. Do you think that a non-government state would treat the planet better? Hint: The biggest enemies of the EPA are not governments. I find it hard to believe that companies would adhere to environmentally friendly standards were they not forced to. Recycling industrial waste is expensive. Dumping it in the river is cheap.
While they may or may not be looking out for the planet, I can be damn sure that when the shit hits the fan they will not be looking out for the billions of people in the world. They will use every resource they have stolen to make themselves safe and comfortatble. I mean we see this already, who are the ones with vast underground complexes in the event of nuclear war? It's us that paid for those things, but it will be them hidden away safely inside.
War is horrible, no one will contest that. I just find it unrealistic to think that no government = no wars. We've been killing each other since the dawn of humanity.
Yeah, people would probably still fight. But it is the people's willingness to let the government take endless sums of labor and use it to create massive military and weapons of destruction that takes it to the scale it has been at for modern times.
You were on to something when you mentioned that agricultural companies lobbied to get what they want, that isn't an isolated event, it is the standard for all legistlation that goes through.
I don't have any background in economics, so I can't really argue your first point. However it sounds like your problem is more with the government currently looking out for the interests of the rich and powerful corporations. That is another point we can agree on. I still do not see how abolishing government entirely solves that. The current administrations around the world have slowly been hijacked by corporate interests. Our lobbying system is horridly flawed.
I'd also argue about food standards making us fat. More of a cultural thing. Countries around the world have been catching up to us in terms of obesity as they adopt more of our diet. Saying the government makes us fatties seems a bit silly to me.
Then again everything I write here I say coming from the point of view of someone lucky enough to be born into a life of relative comfort. I'm not rich by any means, but growing up I never had to worry about having enough to eat or anything like that.
On July 07 2011 04:33 Haemonculus wrote: I don't have any background in economics, so I can't really argue your first point. However it sounds like your problem is more with the government currently looking out for the interests of the rich and powerful corporations. That is another point we can agree on. I still do not see how abolishing government entirely solves that. The current administrations around the world have slowly been hijacked by corporate interests. Our lobbying system is horridly flawed.
I'd also argue about food standards making us fat. More of a cultural thing. Countries around the world have been catching up to us in terms of obesity as they adopt more of our diet. Saying the government makes us fatties seems a bit silly to me.
Then again everything I write here I say coming from the point of view of someone lucky enough to be born into a life of relative comfort. I'm not rich by any means, but growing up I never had to worry about having enough to eat or anything like that.
Honestly though, how is government looking out for the interests of the rich and powerful just current problem? Historically it has nearly always been that way, exceptions are few and far between. It has always been the rich and powerful running government for their own interests, going all the way back to the days of kings up to today. Even the people who created the constitution for the US were the rich and influential members of that society, and they created the constitution and become powerful. It's nothing new. The romanticized history taught by government funded schools can certainly make it seem that way.
It's fine to consider the diet a cultural thing, but on one hand you are saying government protects us by checking over the food supply, and on the other we have government not just allowing but subsidizing extremely unhealthy foods. Even foods that "should" be good for you are more often than not terrible. Take corn for example, unless you go out of your way and spend more money the corn you eat has been genetically modified to include insecticide inside of it. With each bite you are eating insect poison. Corn with built in insecticide is subsidized and therefore cheaper to produce, organic corn is not. That is just one small piece of why the US has the highest cancer rate in the world, it is not just obesity (which is most prevalent in poor demographics who cannot afford healthier food, as the government taxes their labor and uses it to fund poisoned food). Other countries catching up does not excuse anything or change my argument, it is simply a sign of the extreme draconian style of the US spreading to the rest of the world. It's not a good thing, any way you look at it.
I'm not saying we should abolish government, I might as well say we should move to the sun because that might be just as viable. I'm saying we should learn about it's deception, and not happily support it. We can't get rid of it but that doesn't mean we have to like it or help it grow every time it asks. It's an extremely small step, but also the only positive option that is still available to us. That might not always be the case.
Captialism and government completely go hand in hand. The capitalism we see in the US would not be possible without the goverment enforced fiat curreny that fuels it. It is entirely designed for the extreme levels of growth, consolidiation, and debt.
Stop and think about how many "mom and pop" stores are around today compared to 20 years ago. That isn't a random chain of events, rather it is the direct and inevitable result of the fiat currency that was forced on the entire country back in 1913 by the government. All developed countries of the world use the same basic rules of fiat currency enforced by their governments (because it works so well in terms of gaining power and control), and for most of then it is the same group of bankers running the whole show. Government is run for corporations and corporations are run in government, they are two arms of the same beast.
Then, if you have an investment, that will bring you more money than it costs you today, you should do that. In theory, you can't under a currency that is tied to something.
Lastly, monetary policy allows you to prevent inflation or deflation. Regardless of what you think of the FED's policies today, in theory that's darn important.
Consolidation is an emergent property of markets. There are laws against that. Others would argue that consolidation is not a bad thing as companies get more efficient when they get larger. Still others would argue that consolidation furthers the downfall of the giants today to make way for the giants tomorrow. Creative destruction and all that.
That same inefficiencies created by size are the reasons why small general stores don't exist anymore. They aren't as good in bringing to customers what they want cheaply.
As for "government is corporations", well, that's an empty phrase so I won't argue that.
On July 07 2011 04:05 Treemonkeys wrote: As far as safety standards? Like safety standards that made the US the most obese country in the world? Like safety standards that made the US have the highest cancer rates in the world? Going back to my own problems with how society is detrimental for me, the majority of the food supply in the US is basically poison to me and everyone else with my condition. I have to go way out of my way and spend extra money to get food that doesn't destroy me. Only I grew up like you, trusting the goverment stamp of approval on food, so much damage has already been done that cannot be undone. With a healthy food supply I never would have had this condition to begin with.
Either the safety issues you talk about could have been discovered by you in your local library for free or they weren't known.
If they weren't known, it's not the companies fault. If it was known, you should have checked that out first, as you would have in anarchy because nobody would stop companies selling bad stuff in anarchy, nobody did in the states.
On July 07 2011 04:05 Treemonkeys wrote: Organic food that has not been genetically modified to include pesticides and other things is clearly better for you, but it costs more and is less accessable, do you know why? There are two main reasons, among others. First, the genetically modified food is subsidized by the goverment - making it less exepensive. In other words, government is stealing money from taxpayers, giving it to food corporations that are growing unhealthy food, and then feeding it back to those same taxpayers telling them it is perfectly safe. Second, to be allowed to advertise your food as organic and non-modifed, you have to pay extra money to have it "certified" to show you aren't lying - further increasing the cost. This is an expense imposed by the government. Whatever you think of the government's true intentions with doing all of this, the results of it are clear.
The more yield you want your field to have, the closer you plant your crops. The closer the crops are, the more fertilizer you need and the more risk of total loss you have in case of a bug coming along.
So you need to spray your high yield field with fertilizers and pesticides. That makes the field more efficient and cheaper.
Organic food on the other hand can't be grown in high intensity mono-cultures because you can't use pesticides or fertilizers. That reduces the yield, increases production costs per unit. Thus, more expensive.
Now you have stuff on the market that is indistinguishable from other stuff, that is cheaper. The evil corporation could just label the cheap stuff as the expensive stuff and keep the difference. We don't want that. So we ask an institution to label the different kinds of stuff for us. Nothing sinister there.
Nuclear tests? I'm all for getting rid of nukes. No one should be able to level cities from across the world. Maybe such weapons deter attacks, but yes, I am very against nuclear weapons. (except in video games, BRING IT ON GHANDI, FINISHING STONEHENGE BEFORE ME! ) I disagree however that a world without a central government would be a world without nuclear weapons. What's to stop a powerful corporation from building a few for themselves?
I agree with you that if "government" did not develop nuclear weapons, someone else "might". But dealing with our current reality, it was government that developed them, it was government that built them, and it was government that continues to test them. Like slaves, there is seemingly nothing we can do to stop this. Once again I am not arguing "for" anarchy, I am arguing against government. I see the evils of anarchy and goverment as the same thing, or rather the evils of humans dominating each other with violence and deception. Personally I think we are simply fucked BUT if there is to be any hope at all, it has to start with us - as common people - to realize and acknowledge how horrendously evil the people who are at the tip top of our society, running the whole show, truly are.
We could stop it. We don't. The only point you have is that people in anarchy couldn't have developed the atom bomb due to lack of high tech.
The future of the planet? That should absolutely be a top priority of any and all governments. Again I think you're finding fault with the current administrations around the world, and not necessarily the system. Do you think that a non-government state would treat the planet better? Hint: The biggest enemies of the EPA are not governments. I find it hard to believe that companies would adhere to environmentally friendly standards were they not forced to. Recycling industrial waste is expensive. Dumping it in the river is cheap.
While they may or may not be looking out for the planet, I can be damn sure that when the shit hits the fan they will not be looking out for the billions of people in the world. They will use every resource they have stolen to make themselves safe and comfortatble. I mean we see this already, who are the ones with vast underground complexes in the event of nuclear war? It's us that paid for those things, but it will be them hidden away safely inside.
We elect the people who go into the bunkers. Or they build their own. Run for office or build a bunker. Nothing unfair with that. Still you dodged the point that individuals need force to internalize externalities.
War is horrible, no one will contest that. I just find it unrealistic to think that no government = no wars. We've been killing each other since the dawn of humanity.
Yeah, people would probably still fight. But it is the people's willingness to let the government take endless sums of labor and use it to create massive military and weapons of destruction that takes it to the scale it has been at for modern times.
You were on to something when you mentioned that agricultural companies lobbied to get what they want, that isn't an isolated event, it is the standard for all legistlation that goes through.
Whether people kill each other daily, on a tribal sized level, or on a massive scale every so often, doesn't really matter as long as they still kill each other. Western democracies have a pretty good track record of not fighting each other. We might be onto something.
Lastly, even though lobbying sucks, without rules, companies would just do whatever they wanted.
Anyway, we know that government is hugely inefficient as it is, but it is the best we got. All we have right now is due to organization that only in theory would be possible without it.
Winston Churchill: It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Then, if you have an investment, that will bring you more money than it costs you today, you should do that. In theory, you can't under a currency that is tied to something.
Lastly, monetary policy allows you to prevent inflation or deflation. Regardless of what you think of the FED's policies today, in theory that's darn important.
Consolidation is an emergent property of markets. There are laws against that. Others would argue that consolidation is not a bad thing as companies get more efficient when they get larger. Still others would argue that consolidation furthers the downfall of the giants today to make way for the giants tomorrow. Creative destruction and all that.
That same inefficiencies created by size are the reasons why small general stores don't exist anymore. They aren't as good in bringing to customers what they want cheaply.
As for "government is corporations", well, that's an empty phrase so I won't argue that.
I wasn't even arguing for a gold standard that is just a straw man. Monetary policy "allows" you to prevent inflation and deflation. Yeah it allows it, it also allows them to create inflation and deflation, which is what they do. In theory the Fed's policies are darn important? Yeah it's a theory, which means it can be wrong. In this case, it is. Actually the real question is "important for who and what purpose?". Obviously this mass economic scheme is important to someone. Go back to my post on how values are subjective and stop being so arrogant to shove what you and the "experts" think on to me.
I never said "government is corporations" unless there is a typo I am unaware of, repeating my arguments in a simplistic and stupid manor doesn't help your argument at all. Governments are people, corporations are people. More often than not they are the same people and/or share the same interests. This I am specifically saying about the US. Just take your pick of any senator, congressman, or executive officer and see what board of directors they used to sit on or continue to sit on and what stocks they own.
Either the safety issues you talk about could have been discovered by you in your local library for free or they weren't known.
If they weren't known, it's not the companies fault. If it was known, you should have checked that out first, as you would have in anarchy because nobody would stop companies selling bad stuff in anarchy, nobody did in the states.
This is another straw man. I was specifically making a counter point to what someone else said about government protecting us in this manor. You're point in that regard is irrelevant.
The more yield you want your field to have, the closer you plant your crops. The closer the crops are, the more fertilizer you need and the more risk of total loss you have in case of a bug coming along.
So you need to spray your high yield field with fertilizers and pesticides. That makes the field more efficient and cheaper.
Organic food on the other hand can't be grown in high intensity mono-cultures because you can't use pesticides or fertilizers. That reduces the yield, increases production costs per unit. Thus, more expensive.
Now you have stuff on the market that is indistinguishable from other stuff, that is cheaper. The evil corporation could just label the cheap stuff as the expensive stuff and keep the difference. We don't want that. So we ask an institution to label the different kinds of stuff for us. Nothing sinister there.
More additions to the straw man mentioned above, you are avoiding the primary point I made that government does not enforce a safe food supply. Actually you aren't even avoiding it, you are reinforcing it by making excuses for it.
We could stop it. We don't. The only point you have is that people in anarchy couldn't have developed the atom bomb due to lack of high tech.
This is ridiculous. Yes we as all of humanity in theory could stop it. Only we cannot make decisions or act in that manor. We as in me and you, everyone in this thread, cannot do a damn thing about it. To say we can is just as ridiculous as saying "Team Liquid disarms the entire world's nuclear arsenal!" Absurd.
We elect the people who go into the bunkers. Or they build their own. Run for office or build a bunker. Nothing unfair with that. Still you dodged the point that individuals need force to internalize externalities.
I didn't elect anyone, once again stop being arrogant and assuming your will on me. Run for office, which requires vast sums of money and successfully winning a popularity contest and then you *might* have a slight chance in hell to do something about it? Ridiculous. I don't even care to argue over what is fair, that is far too much of a simplistic way to look at it. My arguments are not about fair and unfair, they are about how we are all slaves. Yeah I think it's unfair, but that is irrelevant because it is our reality. I don't really give a shit if getting wiped out by an explosion while some fat bastards hides in safety inside of a bunker I helped pay for my entire life is fair or not, it's fucking stupid for me to go along with and reeks of disposable servitude.
I have no idea what you mean by internalize externalities or what point I supposedly dodged.
Whether people kill each other daily, on a tribal sized level, or on a massive scale every so often, doesn't really matter as long as they still kill each other. Western democracies have a pretty good track record of not fighting each other. We might be onto something.
Lastly, even though lobbying sucks, without rules, companies would just do whatever they wanted.
Anyway, we know that government is hugely inefficient as it is, but it is the best we got. All we have right now is due to organization that only in theory would be possible without it.
Call me crazy, but I'd consider WWII much worse than two guys trying to kill each other. Government is only inefficient in terms of what taxpayers get as a return on their "investment". In regard to what government itself gets, more power for themselves, more control, more wealth, more of the earth, they are extremely efficient. It's pretty damn hard not to be when you are only spending other people's money and labor.
Winston Churchill: It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Did you just ignore everything I said about how I wasn't arguing for anarchy? What is your purpose with this quote? Even as good as you may think democracy is, you think it came about over the satus quo of kings and emperors thanks to people like you, sitting here defending the status quo, saying it's the best we've had up until this point in time? No, of course not. It was people like me, saying the status quo is still fucking fucked up and needs to change.
Then, if you have an investment, that will bring you more money than it costs you today, you should do that. In theory, you can't under a currency that is tied to something.
Lastly, monetary policy allows you to prevent inflation or deflation. Regardless of what you think of the FED's policies today, in theory that's darn important.
Consolidation is an emergent property of markets. There are laws against that. Others would argue that consolidation is not a bad thing as companies get more efficient when they get larger. Still others would argue that consolidation furthers the downfall of the giants today to make way for the giants tomorrow. Creative destruction and all that.
That same inefficiencies created by size are the reasons why small general stores don't exist anymore. They aren't as good in bringing to customers what they want cheaply.
As for "government is corporations", well, that's an empty phrase so I won't argue that.
I wasn't even arguing for a gold standard that is just a straw man. Monetary policy "allows" you to prevent inflation and deflation. Yeah it allows it, it also allows them to create inflation and deflation, which is what they do. In theory the Fed's policies are darn important? Yeah it's a theory, which means it can be wrong. In this case, it is. Actually the real question is "important for who and what purpose?". Obviously this mass economic scheme is important to someone. Go back to my post on how values are subjective and stop being so arrogant to shove what you and the "experts" think on to me.
I never said "government is corporations" unless there is a typo I am unaware of, repeating my arguments in a simplistic and stupid manor doesn't help your argument at all. Governments are people, corporations are people. More often than not they are the same people and/or share the same interests. This I am specifically saying about the US. Just take your pick of any senator, congressman, or executive officer and see what board of directors they used to sit on or continue to sit on and what stocks they own.
I'm sorry, but you said that "the government forced a fiat currency on the people" and implied they did so for sinister reasons. You forgot to mention that that was done to stop the Great Depression and that there is good evidence today, that this was actually what did it. Either you are backtracking now, or your only point is "the fiat currency saved us, but it is evil!"
I've read your post on values and it remains a representative piece of moral relativism. It's also a red herring right now.
Also you said that the government is the left arm of the corporations and the other way round. Which is a phrase most often not followed by substantive evidence of corporations changing the government in a way people don't want. That's all I was saying.
Lastly, I apologize. I will henceforth refrain from linking to material created by people that have spent years to acquire the knowledge to create it.
Either the safety issues you talk about could have been discovered by you in your local library for free or they weren't known.
If they weren't known, it's not the companies fault. If it was known, you should have checked that out first, as you would have in anarchy because nobody would stop companies selling bad stuff in anarchy, nobody did in the states.
This is another straw man. I was specifically making a counter point to what someone else said about government protecting us in this manor. You're point in that regard is irrelevant.
I am aware that you were answering. The conversation was "Government forces corporations to make food safe" You answered "Government doesn't because people get sick, so we should abolish government" To which I am adding "With or without government, you have to check what you eat. So why are you complaining about something that you are not using anyway?"
Point is, the government has safety standards that are not totally ineffective. Without it, no regulations would be in place and people would be worse of. So again, your reasoning is: "Regulation sometimes fails to make food completely safe, thus we need to abolish regulation".
The more yield you want your field to have, the closer you plant your crops. The closer the crops are, the more fertilizer you need and the more risk of total loss you have in case of a bug coming along.
So you need to spray your high yield field with fertilizers and pesticides. That makes the field more efficient and cheaper.
Organic food on the other hand can't be grown in high intensity mono-cultures because you can't use pesticides or fertilizers. That reduces the yield, increases production costs per unit. Thus, more expensive.
Now you have stuff on the market that is indistinguishable from other stuff, that is cheaper. The evil corporation could just label the cheap stuff as the expensive stuff and keep the difference. We don't want that. So we ask an institution to label the different kinds of stuff for us. Nothing sinister there.
More additions to the straw man mentioned above, you are avoiding the primary point I made that government does not enforce a safe food supply. Actually you aren't even avoiding it, you are reinforcing it by making excuses for it.
One of us has a reading-comprehension issue. Could be me because I am the foreigner. IIRC, you claimed that the only reason government regulation exists and why organic, healthy food (that organic is always healthy is another natural fallacy) is so expensive is a government plot. I explained that it is simple economics. Industry farming is better than farming like a century ago.
We could stop it. We don't. The only point you have is that people in anarchy couldn't have developed the atom bomb due to lack of high tech.
This is ridiculous. Yes we as all of humanity in theory could stop it. Only we cannot make decisions or act in that manor. We as in me and you, everyone in this thread, cannot do a damn thing about it. To say we can is just as ridiculous as saying "Team Liquid disarms the entire world's nuclear arsenal!" Absurd.
You are almost there. "We" chose not to do that. We could if we cared enough, but we don't. And even if we cared enough, we would not get rid of our nuclear arsenal until everyone else does. Thus, the "we" that cannot change things is a "we" that is prevented in doing so by "them" who don't want to. Welcome to democracy.
We elect the people who go into the bunkers. Or they build their own. Run for office or build a bunker. Nothing unfair with that. Still you dodged the point that individuals need force to internalize externalities.
I didn't elect anyone, once again stop being arrogant and assuming your will on me. Run for office, which requires vast sums of money and successfully winning a popularity contest and then you *might* have a slight chance in hell to do something about it? Ridiculous. I don't even care to argue over what is fair, that is far too much of a simplistic way to look at it. My arguments are not about fair and unfair, they are about how we are all slaves. Yeah I think it's unfair, but that is irrelevant because it is our reality. I don't really give a shit if getting wiped out by an explosion while some fat bastards hides in safety inside of a bunker I helped pay for my entire life is fair or not, it's fucking stupid for me to go along with and reeks of disposable servitude.
I have no idea what you mean by internalize externalities or what point I supposedly dodged.
On a local level, running for office is easy. I will go to a cafe this sunday and talk to a guy who runs for my local district. If he wins, he will probably try and run for a city office. After this, maybe federal level. So that's easy. Of course your opinions might prevent you from gaining office and we are again at this darn "they", they who disagree with us and prevent us from doing what is good for them. Darn them!
You are not a slave. You are an american. Just your passport, and I really mean the thing you can hold in your hands, is worth 3000$ on the black market. Go anywhere you want, the jungle maybe, or an abandoned village in the ex soviet union, or even africa and live your society free dream. You can if you just want to. You have a right to also. What you don't have a right to is your anarchy where you are right now against the will of your fellow men.
Sorry, that was slang. Imagine I sell you an apple with a plastic wrapper. It's really cheap to produce both and the plastic wrapper adds value to my apple. Now you eat that apple, throw the plastic wrapper away. the externality is that the wrapper litters the street and somebody needs to clean that up. Without regulation I keep my profits and won't do a thing. A government can force me to go and pick up that wrapper, which costs time and thus money, but it has forced me to internalize the externality.
Whether people kill each other daily, on a tribal sized level, or on a massive scale every so often, doesn't really matter as long as they still kill each other. Western democracies have a pretty good track record of not fighting each other. We might be onto something.
Lastly, even though lobbying sucks, without rules, companies would just do whatever they wanted.
Anyway, we know that government is hugely inefficient as it is, but it is the best we got. All we have right now is due to organization that only in theory would be possible without it.
Call me crazy, but I'd consider WWII much worse than two guys trying to kill each other. Government is only inefficient in terms of what taxpayers get as a return on their "investment". In regard to what government itself gets, more power for themselves, more control, more wealth, more of the earth, they are extremely efficient. It's pretty damn hard not to be when you are only spending other people's money and labor.
If more people suffer by a societal system than did in WW2, then you are crazy preferring that. WW2 is over and we can do something to prevent that. Without government, we can't prevent the next guy from bashing someones head in.
Winston Churchill: It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Did you just ignore everything I said about how I wasn't arguing for anarchy? What is your purpose with this quote? Even as good as you may think democracy is, you think it came about over the satus quo of kings and emperors thanks to people like you, sitting here defending the status quo, saying it's the best we've had up until this point in time? No, of course not. It was people like me, saying the status quo is still fucking fucked up and needs to change.
I'm sorry, I got confused. You were using the language of either anarcho-capitalists or hard core communists. Funnily enough, the last synthesis of class warfare in communism resolves itself into communal anarchy. If you are none of these things, what are you?
Then, I am not defending the status quo exactly as is. I am just not willing to tear down the whole thing because of some flaws inherited from history. And yes, it was people like me that changed the world. People that read experts, people that don't expect everyone to be evil and sheeple but themselves.
#1) The FED only causes inflation. Deflation can only be caused by drop in prices which can only be caused by increased production. The FED doesn't produce anything. All it currently does is Quantifying Easing which basically means it's printing money (creating inflation.)
#2) We came off the gold standard because after we started printing money we didn't have enough gold to back up all the dollar bills with it.
#3) Roosevelt's New Deal didn't end the Great Depression, it only worsened it and pro-longed it, in fact it wasn't gonna be the "Great" Depression until his social programs kicked in.
On July 06 2011 09:07 BestZergOnEast wrote: As far as roads are concerned - well, I don't think we need to get rid of roads just because we get rid of governmnt. If there is a demand for transportation (which obviously there is and will be) there will be a supply for it. ECON 101. It's really no different than any other industry. How are we going to get food to 300 million people? We don't have to solve that problem. The market does. Same with water and sewage. Customers would pay companies to provide these services - and due to market competition it would be much cheaper. As far as being safe - first of all, there's nothing the government does right now that will prevent you from getting assaulted. Maybe they will catch the guy after the fact, but even that is pretty unlikely. If you even bother to report the crime. But yes, I think carrying a gun is a good idea. And there is no need to complely abandon the idea of security simply because we abolish the state - their could be private companies you can hire for protection / redress. Yes, we would have a currency - a gold standard, most likely, although that would depend on the market. The current fiat money supply is inherently inflationary; this need not be the case. Indeed, it wouldn't if we abolish central banking. Central banks cause business cycles - depressions, recessions, if we had sound mone this wouldn't happen. There would be no depressions, except in extreme circumstances (being invaded, for example). Banks would be free to operate, certainly, but they would be treated like any other business. That is they would not have the government priviledge that is fractional reserve banking. The process of investment would be separated from the process of saving or warehousing of money.
The free market does keep the cost of health care down - something which government seems incapable of doing. Actually, doctors themselves aren't the problem - it's all the extra waste, bureaucries and market incentives... everything has to cost the maximum. Back before the government take over of health care everything cost the minimum, it was no big deal, you would go and pay what you could; the doctors would take care of you. That's the way it should be. There's no one to be afraid of. People are, for the most part, good, caring and sincere. We have just been taught our whole lives to fear each other... to put ourselves in adversarily situations where we need not. I think in an anarcho-capitalist society I would probably start business. A society without government would be incredibly prosperous. If you look at examples throughout history, you will find the less government involvement in an economy the more prosperous the country. The middle evil times were terrible... like was short, bruttish and nasty, but we're not talking about going back in time. We are talking about how there is a criminal organization named the state and how the world would be a better place if we recognized that violence and coercion are immoral and that there is no problem so massive it cannot be conquered by the voluntary actions of a free society.
I'm sorry to be rude, but there are several statements which are just a horrible fail. The Problem is that the "free market" in itself doesn't solve every problem. Go back to the beginning of Industrialisation in england: Live for these people sucked in every possible way. And guess what: not the free market but organisation helped them to improve their life. I'm also no friend of carrying a gun. The more guns are on the field the more likely someone will finally use it. And if you carry gun, the robber will also need a gun. so instead of knife vs. unarmed, we suddenly have gun vs. gun. In the first case you maybe lose your wallet, in the second case there might be a shooting for the wallet. the logic behind that is, that the robber wants to rob you, not to kill you. But the owner of the wallet might be in "defender's" mode and just shoots, because he it's his wallet. I don't want to promote that you don't do anything while you get robbed, but I also don't want dead people about some wallet. No let's even spin the theory further: Let's say the robber somehow has a contract with a security company. And he pays more/his company has more guards than yours. So now what protects you from this company in case you defend yourself against the robbery? Do I need to continue to ask, what happens if the company itself starts to send out its people for collecting money.
For the medical case: How comes the price for drugs in Europe is lower than in the US despite the glorious free market of the US vs the gov. driven health care system in Europe?
Now for Sumsi who said that "it would make no sense to fake a degree in medicine": You should know best that there are problems in Germany with not enough doctors on the countryside. Question: If the problem gets worse, what stops a fake doctor to "take care of the problem".
I'm also on your side that some research fields may not meet the criteria of serious science. But the problem is, that there would also be no reason to support abstract maths or theoretical physics. Because as far as I know it, the market demands for technicians in the broadest sense . Now we know that quantum mechanics is a rich field which leads to many useful tools. But when it was discovered, this wasn't obvious. So who would be building the Hubble telescope or the LHC / Tevatron without state driven education?
And the final question for everyone supporting the absence of government: What should your society do, if it every loses balance?
Thriving small arms industry with rock bottom prices? Sounds great. Remember, guns are the great equalizer, which make a granny knitting club no less a pushover than a band of grunts. Where there is equality in power, there is peace. As such, these conditions are part of the reason for Peace in somalia. While the foreign opressors - UN, Ethiopia, US, are the reason for violence.
On July 07 2011 08:52 Kiarip wrote: #1) The FED only causes inflation. Deflation can only be caused by drop in prices which can only be caused by increased production. The FED doesn't produce anything. All it currently does is Quantifying Easing which basically means it's printing money (creating inflation.)
#2) We came off the gold standard because after we started printing money we didn't have enough gold to back up all the dollar bills with it.
#3) Roosevelt's New Deal didn't end the Great Depression, it only worsened it and pro-longed it, in fact it wasn't gonna be the "Great" Depression until his social programs kicked in.
edit:
ok you can carry on now
#1) No, please explain how you think fiscal policy works. Its called quantitative easing and why would we want to do anything but expand the money supply right now?
#2) No, we came off the gold standard because the Bretton Woods policy (which was a gold standard) created unsustainable currency arbitrage.
#3) No, the Fed may have been to blame due to a contractionary monetary policy (Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan hold this view) but a significant majority of economists and historians agree that Roosevelt's policies as a whole helped end the great depression. This does not mean all of them were effective.
@Treemonkeys: could you please link me to an article explaining how the suspension of the gold standard during world war one is responsible for the decline of "mom and pop" stores today?
I don't think it reasonable for you to just sit there and say "straw man" when your actual arguments are so unclear in the first place. It's part of why I got tired of our discussione arlier. To explain further:
It's fine to consider the diet a cultural thing, but on one hand you are saying government protects us by checking over the food supply, and on the other we have government not just allowing but subsidizing extremely unhealthy foods. Even foods that "should" be good for you are more often than not terrible. Take corn for example, unless you go out of your way and spend more money the corn you eat has been genetically modified to include insecticide inside of it. With each bite you are eating insect poison. Corn with built in insecticide is subsidized and therefore cheaper to produce, organic corn is not. That is just one small piece of why the US has the highest cancer rate in the world, it is not just obesity (which is most prevalent in poor demographics who cannot afford healthier food, as the government taxes their labor and uses it to fund poisoned food). Other countries catching up does not excuse anything or change my argument, it is simply a sign of the extreme draconian style of the US spreading to the rest of the world. It's not a good thing, any way you look at it.
I will give you my impression of this paragraph so you can see why making your point clearer would be helpful.
You go from diet, to government regulations of food safety, to food subsidies, to GMOs, to cancer and obesity rates, throw in a snarky comment about taxes, and then seem to touch on and end on US imperialism (maybe just US policy formation process going to other countries, its hard to tell) and in the end I just don't know what you are trying to say.
On July 07 2011 08:52 Kiarip wrote: #1) The FED only causes inflation. Deflation can only be caused by drop in prices which can only be caused by increased production. The FED doesn't produce anything. All it currently does is Quantifying Easing which basically means it's printing money (creating inflation.)
#2) We came off the gold standard because after we started printing money we didn't have enough gold to back up all the dollar bills with it.
#3) Roosevelt's New Deal didn't end the Great Depression, it only worsened it and pro-longed it, in fact it wasn't gonna be the "Great" Depression until his social programs kicked in.
edit:
ok you can carry on now
1. A drop in prices can also be caused if not enough money in relation to products is available. Like the paper argues that France hoarded gold without revaluing their currency and thus causing other countries to have their currencies increase in value relative towards their production.
2. I would invite you to read thearticle I posted. It's pretty good.
3. That is a claim. Backed by some good arguments, but usually from the more free-market minded folks. The problem with the way you put it is, that the New Deal kicked in 1933, when unemployment was highest and real GDP was lowest. After the New Deal was in place, unemployment fell and GDP rose unequivocally.
It's actually a misnomer to refer to the New Deal as Roosevelt's; in reality Roosevelt simply expanded upon what Hoover was trying to do. If you look at earlier recessions there was no government intervention to 'fix them' and instead of lasting decades they lasted years or months. To understand why you must understand the Austrian theory of the business cycle.
You see, the proper rate of interest is determined by the market (specifically by the % of income consumers save). When you have a central bank like the federal reserve manipulating interest rates it fools the market into making investments which seem profitable but they really are not. A recession is when this mal investment is liquidated. It's actually the healthy part of the boom-bust cycle.
Roosevelt's policies were absurd. He paid farmers to slaughter their own pigs. That's not going to get you out of a depression.
If you look at life a the beginning or during the industrial revolution, yes, life was brutal for the workers. But it was slightly less brutal than before. The reason why people moved to the cities abandoning their cottage industries and family farms was because as much as it sucked working 12 hours a day in a factory or coal mine it was slightly better than working 15 hours a day scractching a living out of the dirt. You cannot simply look at conditions 400 years ago in a vacuum, you must understand what came before and what came afterwards. It was capital accumulation, the development of industry - namely, it was capitalism that ameliorated the working conditions of these people, not orgnaization or unions. As far as arming yourself or not is concerned, I would live to live in a utopian world where I never have to worry about whether or not anyone who will hurt me, but so long as I don't I would rather trust in my ability to defend myself than trust in someone else not to attack me. I don't think a "dispute resolution organization" (as they have been theorized) would want to protect a criminal. It would cause too much headaches for them, so once they realized this guy was stealing from people they would drop him from their lists.
On July 07 2011 21:50 BestZergOnEast wrote: It's actually a misnomer to refer to the New Deal as Roosevelt's; in reality Roosevelt simply expanded upon what Hoover was trying to do. If you look at earlier recessions there was no government intervention to 'fix them' and instead of lasting decades they lasted years or months. To understand why you must understand the Austrian theory of the business cycle.
You see, the proper rate of interest is determined by the market (specifically by the % of income consumers save). When you have a central bank like the federal reserve manipulating interest rates it fools the market into making investments which seem profitable but they really are not. A recession is when this mal investment is liquidated. It's actually the healthy part of the boom-bust cycle.
Roosevelt's policies were absurd. He paid farmers to slaughter their own pigs. That's not going to get you out of a depression.
I don't know enough about the Great Depression to have a fixed opinion on whether the New Deal exacerbated the problem or fixed it. Both sides have good arguments. What I find funky with the Austrian Business Cycle argument is, that they assume that all recessions are caused by the exact same thing. This is based on only a handful of data points, as capitalism is rather recent and industrialization and international markets is even more recent. Now, whatever the cause of the deflation that led to the Great Depression was, Austrians have to claim that it is the same cause as in every cycle. This seems to contradict the observation that interconnectedness and complexity of markets have increased and new instruments for the government to mess around have been developed.
To your second point, I never quite got this. The business crowd and the FED have the exact same numbers. Both now what is going to happen if the FED decides to do X. From this point onwards, whatever they decided, it will be priced into nominal prices, leaving real prices unchanged. Then, the FED has a policy of 2% expansion each year, (I don't know whether that includes or excludes productivity growth), so nominal terms of bonds, which potentially could be inflated away, are already incorporating these 2%. The FED, if they hit their target and the stated policy isn't a lie, provides stability which a free currency might not have.
On July 07 2011 21:50 BestZergOnEast wrote: It's actually a misnomer to refer to the New Deal as Roosevelt's; in reality Roosevelt simply expanded upon what Hoover was trying to do. If you look at earlier recessions there was no government intervention to 'fix them' and instead of lasting decades they lasted years or months. To understand why you must understand the Austrian theory of the business cycle.
You see, the proper rate of interest is determined by the market (specifically by the % of income consumers save). When you have a central bank like the federal reserve manipulating interest rates it fools the market into making investments which seem profitable but they really are not. A recession is when this mal investment is liquidated. It's actually the healthy part of the boom-bust cycle.
Roosevelt's policies were absurd. He paid farmers to slaughter their own pigs. That's not going to get you out of a depression.
Hoover did very little, nothing that was comparable to the New Deal; to call the New Deal a "continuation" of Hoover's policies is the weirdest thing I've ever heard.
Both Paul Krugman and Milton Friedman reject the Austrian business cycle. Its about the only thing they agree on that I can think of except that they probably agree being Nobel Laureates is awesome.
You cannot cherry pick one program out of the New Deal and criticize it to prove the entire program wasn't effective, the program was massive and some pieces of it were absolute failures. Your other point about farmer's lives being pretty bad was very true though, if working in early industrial factories was better is debatable. Tenant farmers and sharecroppers got screwed badly since... those systems of farming were created.
it was capitalism that ameliorated the working conditions of these people, not orgnaization or unions.
No, that is definitely not true. You could argue that industrialization increased their living standard and I would agree that it did eventually (significantly after the end of the industrial revolution) but working conditions improved almost entirely through legislation or organizational efforts.
About previous economic contractions not being as long as the Great Depression: The National Bureau of Economic Research dates the contraction following the panic as lasting from October 1873 to March 1879. At 65 months, it is the longest-lasting contraction identified by the NBER, eclipsing the Great Depression's 43 months of contraction. The long depression occurred from 1873 to 1879, The Federal Reserve was established in 1913.
On July 07 2011 08:42 Brotkrumen wrote: I'm sorry, but you said that "the government forced a fiat currency on the people" and implied they did so for sinister reasons. You forgot to mention that that was done to stop the Great Depression and that there is good evidence today, that this was actually what did it. Either you are backtracking now, or your only point is "the fiat currency saved us, but it is evil!"
I've read your post on values and it remains a representative piece of moral relativism. It's also a red herring right now.
Also you said that the government is the left arm of the corporations and the other way round. Which is a phrase most often not followed by substantive evidence of corporations changing the government in a way people don't want. That's all I was saying.
Lastly, I apologize. I will henceforth refrain from linking to material created by people that have spent years to acquire the knowledge to create it.
Because they did force in on people and it was for sinister reasons. That doesn't make the gold standard (which was also forced on people) jesus fucking christ. That is just you projecting your simplistic view of the issue on to me, and than choosing to argue based on an assumption rather than understand, why? The gold standard was bad and fiat is worse. They are both just systems of control, to serve the wealthy and powerful. To think that fiat currency was the only way out of the great depression is absurd, there are always other options, and the consquences of fiat currency will be far worse that whatever so called good it did. You're picking a pretty bad time to praise the success of fiat as world economies are on the brink of failure - which will only pave the way for new currencies, and new and more powerful systems of the control. Thanks to fiat currency we now have a government that has grown in spending over 13 trillion dollars, and it is still accelerating! Most of this money is being using to build systems of control that will ultimately be used against us. Used to spread military over the entire world (which never even left your country) creating the largest and most powerful empire of all known history. Now you're probably going to tell me it's not an empire, because it's not called that. Empire is just a word, the US has every characteristic of one.
I'm curious, have you ever been to the USA? If so where did you visit? It is pretty normal here for people to be unhappy with what the government allows the corporations to do, and what the corporations do for the government.
I don't recall you linking anything.
I am aware that you were answering. The conversation was "Government forces corporations to make food safe" You answered "Government doesn't because people get sick, so we should abolish government" To which I am adding "With or without government, you have to check what you eat. So why are you complaining about something that you are not using anyway?"
Point is, the government has safety standards that are not totally ineffective. Without it, no regulations would be in place and people would be worse of. So again, your reasoning is: "Regulation sometimes fails to make food completely safe, thus we need to abolish regulation".
No it does not "sometimes fail" it subsidizes food that is terrible for you. I'll say it once again, highest cancer rate in the world, highest obesity in the world, combined with terrible health care. That is the USA.
I don't want to really get into what I think should be done, because I'm not sure. Which is probably why you're acting like an argumentative jackass in this conversation, no it wasn't your link that pissed me off, but posting it for the stated purpose of doing so sure did. It is apparently impossibly for you to respectfully talk to someone unless they present a god-mode "I have an infallible plan for the entire world here to present on a silver platter". I was simply having an honest conversation with someone who seemed interested until you butted in demanding all the answers and acting like a god damned smart ass.
One of us has a reading-comprehension issue. Could be me because I am the foreigner. IIRC, you claimed that the only reason government regulation exists and why organic, healthy food (that organic is always healthy is another natural fallacy) is so expensive is a government plot. I explained that it is simple economics. Industry farming is better than farming like a century ago.
Yeah it is you because I said it was two reasons (which are both true) among others and rather than than discuss the others like a decent fucking person you saw an opportunity jumped on it. Oh and cheaper farming is not fucking worth it if you are eating fucking insecticide, and don't fucking tell me that is better when it fucking destroyed my life.
You are almost there. "We" chose not to do that. We could if we cared enough, but we don't. And even if we cared enough, we would not get rid of our nuclear arsenal until everyone else does. Thus, the "we" that cannot change things is a "we" that is prevented in doing so by "them" who don't want to. Welcome to democracy.
So I could do something if I cared more? Now you're fucking telling me I don't care enough? Jesus christ you are fucking arrogant.
On a local level, running for office is easy. I will go to a cafe this sunday and talk to a guy who runs for my local district. If he wins, he will probably try and run for a city office. After this, maybe federal level. So that's easy. Of course your opinions might prevent you from gaining office and we are again at this darn "they", they who disagree with us and prevent us from doing what is good for them. Darn them!
Oh so you talked to a guy in a cafe, so it's easy? Probably not even the same country as me? Fucking stupid.
You are not a slave. You are an american. Just your passport, and I really mean the thing you can hold in your hands, is worth 3000$ on the black market. Go anywhere you want, the jungle maybe, or an abandoned village in the ex soviet union, or even africa and live your society free dream. You can if you just want to. You have a right to also. What you don't have a right to is your anarchy where you are right now against the will of your fellow men.
Sorry, that was slang. Imagine I sell you an apple with a plastic wrapper. It's really cheap to produce both and the plastic wrapper adds value to my apple. Now you eat that apple, throw the plastic wrapper away. the externality is that the wrapper litters the street and somebody needs to clean that up. Without regulation I keep my profits and won't do a thing. A government can force me to go and pick up that wrapper, which costs time and thus money, but it has forced me to internalize the externality.
I can't survive without either having my labor taken from me and used against me and to kill others, or without greatly risking my own safety. I am a slave. Oh many times did I fucking say I am not an anarchist or saying we should have anarchy? HOW MANY TIMES?
On July 07 2011 21:50 BestZergOnEast wrote: It's actually a misnomer to refer to the New Deal as Roosevelt's; in reality Roosevelt simply expanded upon what Hoover was trying to do. If you look at earlier recessions there was no government intervention to 'fix them' and instead of lasting decades they lasted years or months. To understand why you must understand the Austrian theory of the business cycle.
You see, the proper rate of interest is determined by the market (specifically by the % of income consumers save). When you have a central bank like the federal reserve manipulating interest rates it fools the market into making investments which seem profitable but they really are not. A recession is when this mal investment is liquidated. It's actually the healthy part of the boom-bust cycle.
Roosevelt's policies were absurd. He paid farmers to slaughter their own pigs. That's not going to get you out of a depression.
What I find funky with the Austrian Business Cycle argument is, that they assume that all recessions are caused by the exact same thing. This is based on only a handful of data points, as capitalism is rather recent and industrialization and international markets is even more recent. Now, whatever the cause of the deflation that led to the Great Depression was, Austrians have to claim that it is the same cause as in every cycle. This seems to contradict the observation that interconnectedness and complexity of markets have increased and new instruments for the government to mess around have been developed.
All recessions are essentially caused by the exact same thing: over-investment and mal-investment. A recession is a correction being made from a period of over investment. It doesn't really matter very much if the over investment is in houses or derivatives or tech stocks or anything else for that matter. The similarity of every recession and even the great depression is that people significantly overestimated the demand in the economy and the long term rate of return.
There are many reasons for this, and the most prominent in my opinion is the federal reserve setting artificially low interest rates. They do this to try and get us out of the LAST recession, but they go so far and keep rates low so long that in effect they are creating the bubble that is going to pop in the next recession. For example, the housing bubble was caused by Alan Greenspan's credit expansion policies and extremely low interest rates during the 2001 recession.
Of course, the Great Depression is different, but the same problems existed. Excessive credit, excessive investment on margin, excessively aggressive fractional reserve ratios... But I don't want to get too off course here.
I'd like to make it clear that the beliefs of Treemonkeys do not in any way represent the beliefs of actual trees, tree enthusiasts, treehuggers, or other tree-related organisms that I personally have come to know.
I can only come to the conclusion that he was denied some measure of water, sunlight, and nutrient rich soil as a sapling.
On July 07 2011 21:50 BestZergOnEast wrote: It's actually a misnomer to refer to the New Deal as Roosevelt's; in reality Roosevelt simply expanded upon what Hoover was trying to do. If you look at earlier recessions there was no government intervention to 'fix them' and instead of lasting decades they lasted years or months. To understand why you must understand the Austrian theory of the business cycle.
You see, the proper rate of interest is determined by the market (specifically by the % of income consumers save). When you have a central bank like the federal reserve manipulating interest rates it fools the market into making investments which seem profitable but they really are not. A recession is when this mal investment is liquidated. It's actually the healthy part of the boom-bust cycle.
Roosevelt's policies were absurd. He paid farmers to slaughter their own pigs. That's not going to get you out of a depression.
What I find funky with the Austrian Business Cycle argument is, that they assume that all recessions are caused by the exact same thing. This is based on only a handful of data points, as capitalism is rather recent and industrialization and international markets is even more recent. Now, whatever the cause of the deflation that led to the Great Depression was, Austrians have to claim that it is the same cause as in every cycle. This seems to contradict the observation that interconnectedness and complexity of markets have increased and new instruments for the government to mess around have been developed.
All recessions are essentially caused by the exact same thing: over-investment and mal-investment. A recession is a correction being made from a period of over investment. It doesn't really matter very much if the over investment is in houses or derivatives or tech stocks or anything else for that matter. The similarity of every recession and even the great depression is that people significantly overestimated the demand in the economy and the long term rate of return.
There are many reasons for this, and the most prominent in my opinion is the federal reserve setting artificially low interest rates. They do this to try and get us out of the LAST recession, but they go so far and keep rates low so long that in effect they are creating the bubble that is going to pop in the next recession. For example, the housing bubble was caused by Alan Greenspan's credit expansion policies and extremely low interest rates during the 2001 recession.
Of course, the Great Depression is different, but the same problems existed. Excessive credit, excessive investment on margin, excessively aggressive fractional reserve ratios... But I don't want to get too off course here.
What about war? There have been many recessions/depressions caused by the devastation war entails. If you just come back and say that war is a mal-investment in soldiers and weapons, I doubt the actual usefulness of this theory, it is so broad as to explain almost nothing. Its hard to argue against a statement that in some way improper allocation of resources causes recessions.
@Treemonkeys, you need to make your angry ramblings more succinct, I still have no idea what you're talking about other than you are bitter and feel no need to present solutions.
@BestZergOnEast:I'm not sure what your video was implying but it was entertaining. It seemed like you were saying that I was advancing the Keynesian argument but the rejection of the Austrian Business Cycle bridges that gap between the two.
Friedman (boss enough to be in the spellcheck) and Krugman (not quite there apparently) both reject the Austrian business cycle based on historical analysis, Friedman is certainly not a Keynesian economist he has repeatedly credited Hayek as an integral part of his intellectual development as an economist. So mainstream modern schools of economics influenced by Hayek and schools influenced by Keynes reject that business cycle.
I also think the more nuanced claim is that it contracted the labor market and reduced structural unemployment while increasing production, largely through gov spending. The Great Depression was well over by that point in economic terms, in fact there had been another recession since the end of the GDP contraction.
I would go on about the difference between the historical time period called the Great Depression and the economic period of contraction, but I just remembered this thread is about anarchy in Somalia...
On July 07 2011 08:42 Brotkrumen wrote: I'm sorry, but you said that "the government forced a fiat currency on the people" and implied they did so for sinister reasons. You forgot to mention that that was done to stop the Great Depression and that there is good evidence today, that this was actually what did it. Either you are backtracking now, or your only point is "the fiat currency saved us, but it is evil!"
I've read your post on values and it remains a representative piece of moral relativism. It's also a red herring right now.
Also you said that the government is the left arm of the corporations and the other way round. Which is a phrase most often not followed by substantive evidence of corporations changing the government in a way people don't want. That's all I was saying.
Lastly, I apologize. I will henceforth refrain from linking to material created by people that have spent years to acquire the knowledge to create it.
Because they did force in on people and it was for sinister reasons. That doesn't make the gold standard (which was also forced on people) jesus fucking christ. That is just you projecting your simplistic view of the issue on to me, and than choosing to argue based on an assumption rather than understand, why? The gold standard was bad and fiat is worse. They are both just systems of control, to serve the wealthy and powerful. To think that fiat currency was the only way out of the great depression is absurd, there are always other options, and the consquences of fiat currency will be far worse that whatever so called good it did. You're picking a pretty bad time to praise the success of fiat as world economies are on the brink of failure - which will only pave the way for new currencies, and new and more powerful systems of the control. Thanks to fiat currency we now have a government that has grown in spending over 13 trillion dollars, and it is still accelerating! Most of this money is being using to build systems of control that will ultimately be used against us. Used to spread military over the entire world (which never even left your country) creating the largest and most powerful empire of all known history. Now you're probably going to tell me it's not an empire, because it's not called that. Empire is just a word, the US has every characteristic of one.
I'm curious, have you ever been to the USA? If so where did you visit? It is pretty normal here for people to be unhappy with what the government allows the corporations to do, and what the corporations do for the government.
I am aware that you were answering. The conversation was "Government forces corporations to make food safe" You answered "Government doesn't because people get sick, so we should abolish government" To which I am adding "With or without government, you have to check what you eat. So why are you complaining about something that you are not using anyway?"
Point is, the government has safety standards that are not totally ineffective. Without it, no regulations would be in place and people would be worse of. So again, your reasoning is: "Regulation sometimes fails to make food completely safe, thus we need to abolish regulation".
No it does not "sometimes fail" it subsidizes food that is terrible for you. I'll say it once again, highest cancer rate in the world, highest obesity in the world, combined with terrible health care. That is the USA.
I don't want to really get into what I think should be done, because I'm not sure. Which is probably why you're acting like an argumentative jackass in this conversation, no it wasn't your link that pissed me off, but posting it for the stated purpose of doing so sure did. It is apparently impossibly for you to respectfully talk to someone unless they present a god-mode "I have an infallible plan for the entire world here to present on a silver platter". I was simply having an honest conversation with someone who seemed interested until you butted in demanding all the answers and acting like a god damned smart ass.
One of us has a reading-comprehension issue. Could be me because I am the foreigner. IIRC, you claimed that the only reason government regulation exists and why organic, healthy food (that organic is always healthy is another natural fallacy) is so expensive is a government plot. I explained that it is simple economics. Industry farming is better than farming like a century ago.
Yeah it is you because I said it was two reasons (which are both true) among others and rather than than discuss the others like a decent fucking person you saw an opportunity jumped on it. Oh and cheaper farming is not fucking worth it if you are eating fucking insecticide, and don't fucking tell me that is better when it fucking destroyed my life.
You are almost there. "We" chose not to do that. We could if we cared enough, but we don't. And even if we cared enough, we would not get rid of our nuclear arsenal until everyone else does. Thus, the "we" that cannot change things is a "we" that is prevented in doing so by "them" who don't want to. Welcome to democracy.
So I could do something if I cared more? Now you're fucking telling me I don't care enough? Jesus christ you are fucking arrogant.
On a local level, running for office is easy. I will go to a cafe this sunday and talk to a guy who runs for my local district. If he wins, he will probably try and run for a city office. After this, maybe federal level. So that's easy. Of course your opinions might prevent you from gaining office and we are again at this darn "they", they who disagree with us and prevent us from doing what is good for them. Darn them!
Oh so you talked to a guy in a cafe, so it's easy? Probably not even the same country as me? Fucking stupid.
You are not a slave. You are an american. Just your passport, and I really mean the thing you can hold in your hands, is worth 3000$ on the black market. Go anywhere you want, the jungle maybe, or an abandoned village in the ex soviet union, or even africa and live your society free dream. You can if you just want to. You have a right to also. What you don't have a right to is your anarchy where you are right now against the will of your fellow men.
Sorry, that was slang. Imagine I sell you an apple with a plastic wrapper. It's really cheap to produce both and the plastic wrapper adds value to my apple. Now you eat that apple, throw the plastic wrapper away. the externality is that the wrapper litters the street and somebody needs to clean that up. Without regulation I keep my profits and won't do a thing. A government can force me to go and pick up that wrapper, which costs time and thus money, but it has forced me to internalize the externality.
I can't survive without either having my labor taken from me and used against me and to kill others, or without greatly risking my own safety. I am a slave. Oh many times did I fucking say I am not an anarchist or saying we should have anarchy? HOW MANY TIMES?
What a waste of time you have been.
Is there a specific reason why you started to use "fucking" as every fifth word in your ranting? It is pretty annoying, and does not help your points in any way.
Also, as far as i understand it now, your point seems to be "Everything is bad, everybody hates me. Everybody is corrupt and trying to abuse me." I really seem to miss what you are going on about, but what do you want? Just for everyone to realize that they live in a miserable world and should be unhappy all the time? That seems to both be pretty emo, and not really serve any purpose.
On July 06 2011 19:32 xM(Z wrote: way to completely miss his point...
Which point ? That he wants to live in a society with freedom, but not just any society, he wants to live in this same one and denie other people's freedom to live simple safe lives because he needs more "freedom".
There's no point to be missed, everybody can live in absolute freedom, just not next to people who don't care to regress back to the tribal ages ;p
his point was purely theoretical and was based on the symbiotic relation between those 2 cases. he said/stated that it exists (doesnt matter why). so, if the sad/suffering dude would just leave his cage (as you said), it would mean that the happy dude would stop enjoying his standard of living/equality/cage. (he actually said it the other way arround but i cant see why it wouldnt go both ways. he went with pity(hoping to get it from the happy dude), i went with contempt assuming the phrase "implicitly requires that i..." goes both ways ).
And my point was it's a bad example and if anything it shows anarchism can't exist since there's more happy caged ppl then unhappy ones.
Raining outside implies my car will get wet, my car is wet doesn't imply it was raining.
its not a bad example if you look at freedom/equality/standard of living as something finite. imagine freedom as being a buble and someone (the happy dude), gets to have 95% leaving 5% for the unhappy dude. now, you can scream as much as you want at the unhappy dude "go get yourself more freedom" but he cant do it, because he cant pass 100% and if he takes, lets say, 30% it means that the happy dudes part of the buble shrinks to 70%. in a world with limited resources its unwise to think at infinities then assume everyone can have their slice of heaven.
ps: "Raining outside implies my car will get wet" - if and only if your car is outside, else it doesnt. (wont be replying again since its a little off topic)
On July 08 2011 02:39 Simberto wrote: Is there a specific reason why you started to use "fucking" as every fifth word in your ranting? It is pretty annoying, and does not help your points in any way.
Also, as far as i understand it now, your point seems to be "Everything is bad, everybody hates me. Everybody is corrupt and trying to abuse me." I really seem to miss what you are going on about, but what do you want? Just for everyone to realize that they live in a miserable world and should be unhappy all the time? That seems to both be pretty emo, and not really serve any purpose.
Because the world is full of fucking morons and this is a complete waste of time to talk about anyways. What does it even matter how it "helps" my points? Even if I did convince anyone, it's not like any of us can change a god damned thing about it. It's not even that the whole world is fucked up but the US is pretty bad right now and getting worse, I am definitely getting the hell out while I hopefully still can.
On July 07 2011 21:57 BestZergOnEast wrote: Hryul :
If you look at life a the beginning or during the industrial revolution, yes, life was brutal for the workers. But it was slightly less brutal than before. The reason why people moved to the cities abandoning their cottage industries and family farms was because as much as it sucked working 12 hours a day in a factory or coal mine it was slightly better than working 15 hours a day scractching a living out of the dirt. You cannot simply look at conditions 400 years ago in a vacuum, you must understand what came before and what came afterwards. It was capital accumulation, the development of industry - namely, it was capitalism that ameliorated the working conditions of these people, not orgnaization or unions. As far as arming yourself or not is concerned, I would live to live in a utopian world where I never have to worry about whether or not anyone who will hurt me, but so long as I don't I would rather trust in my ability to defend myself than trust in someone else not to attack me. I don't think a "dispute resolution organization" (as they have been theorized) would want to protect a criminal. It would cause too much headaches for them, so once they realized this guy was stealing from people they would drop him from their lists.
First for Treehmonkeys: Herp Derp. You are not a slave. You have the choice where and how you want to live. What you can't achieve is living in some society without obeying its rules/without consequences. So either you accept the rules OR try to change them OR gtfo! But I won't reply any further because you just turned emo . . .
Now to the Zerg: It is at least questionable that live was really better at the factories. People moved there because they thought it was better. But I don't want to discuss this. The right point was mentioned earlier: Yes, live improved for workers eventually, but they had to fight for their right. It wasn't given to them by the owners of the factories. Labor union like organizations did that, not "capitalism".
For the second point: "drop" them from the list? So a contract isn't worth the paper written on it. Or do you have court? How do they stay independent, if they get paid by the same people they have to sentence? And the last question wasn't a rhetorical one: What if one of these companies turn into a mafia? What if they arrange prices in a cartel? Who could stop them?
The last point: I won't trust my ability to defend myself. Because there is always someone who is faster, stronger or smarter than me. Guns aren't the great equalizers. Some people can aim better than others, some are faster, some are easier to ambush and so forth. . .
There is hardly any gvmt that couldn't improve in one way or another on the whole wide world. But again: I really believe that without any gvmts it would be far worse.
E: Nice in dodging my point about the health care in europe.
Just a remark: I know that this is an English page, but do you really think the usage of words like "ameliorate" will improve this discussion?
On July 08 2011 02:39 Simberto wrote: Is there a specific reason why you started to use "fucking" as every fifth word in your ranting? It is pretty annoying, and does not help your points in any way.
Also, as far as i understand it now, your point seems to be "Everything is bad, everybody hates me. Everybody is corrupt and trying to abuse me." I really seem to miss what you are going on about, but what do you want? Just for everyone to realize that they live in a miserable world and should be unhappy all the time? That seems to both be pretty emo, and not really serve any purpose.
Because the world is full of fucking morons and this is a complete waste of time to talk about anyways. What does it even matter how it "helps" my points? Even if I did convince anyone, it's not like any of us can change a god damned thing about it. It's not even that the whole world is fucked up but the US is pretty bad right now and getting worse, I am definitely getting the hell out while I hopefully still can.
Hey at least we can play starcraft!
Just some things... Since we're both in the same country and all.
1) Do you have a college degree, if so what is it? 2) Do you vote? 3) Do you volunteer or take part in community actions?
Because all of those "we can't change anything, everyone is an idiot (but you of course, m i rite?), the US is pretty bad right now (slipping from the leaders of the industrialized world to lower on the paradigm doesn't make the US = anywhere near the level of half th third world countries out there)"...and so on.
My point is, yes...The US is currently struggling with a whole metric ton of issues from corruption at all levels to police brutality to being caught warmongering and trying to influence global policies through monetary muscle but that doesn't mean that tomorrow everything is going to go up in flames. Apathetic nihilism is never an answer for anything. I've run into far too many of people like you who shout all the negatives and never have any solutions. Instead, you're just as ineffective as the corrupt and if anything, only further that cause because it's very easy to see the bad. It's much harder to try and come up with effective solutions (eco-villages, permaculture, legal reform)
Also, I'm not going to say swearing makes anything different because people like George Carlin got their point across pretty damn well. The difference is, you have nothing to add except stating/parroting things people already know. So, by all means my fellow American, let's fuck up this thread but I've got a feeling when I look up to people like Michael Reynolds and Bill Mollison, you look up to people like Bill Hicks and Alex Jones.
However, if you have ideas/solutions. I would love to see them (sources please or at least something I can look up relatively easy) because I absolutely adore seeing new points of view.
If the US is shit I can't imagine what it was in the 30s - dinosaur shit? I don't even want to think what kind of shit the US was before electricity or indoor plumbing was invented. Some kind of shit no doubt. Treemonkeys can probably tell us.
It's a truly sinister system of control that gives you precisely what you want, isn't it? Fiat currency, credit, all of it resulting in a saturation of abundance. When almost everyone is fed and warm at night, the system has a compelling argument for control indeed.
Oh wait this isn't Brave New World we aren't popping somas and fucking strangers every day (only on the weekends!), faith in the system because it has worked is not a sign of it secretly controlling us through debt or some such nonsense. People go into debt because they see tangible benefits from it, not because they are maneuvered or forced to do so.
On July 08 2011 04:27 TheGlassface wrote: 1) Do you have a college degree, if so what is it? 2) Do you vote? 3) Do you volunteer or take part in community actions?
What is the purpose of these questions before I consider answering them? A pop quiz to see if I am running the appropriate hamster wheels required for change?
Oh and I don't look up to anyone and if I didn't it wouldn't be Alex Jones he's just an asshole making money off of people's fear offering them nothing valuable in return, I never heard of Bill Hicks before yout mentioned him. It's like you have never met a unique person in your entire life, got to shove me into one propaganda cubicle weather it is Alex Jones, Libertarian, Anarchist, Tea party, etc. While some people might agree with bits and pieces of my philosophy it is mine and mine only and I've yet to find a good reason to "look up to someone". I learn what is valuable from people and discard the rest, no one is anything close to perfect - far from it. Including me of course, I'm just another idiot in the pond and the only thing that sets me apart is being self aware my own shortcomings.
Society fucked me over, it is as simple as that. Call me emo or whatever the fuck you want, but that is what happened. I'd say I'm happy it worked out for you but I'd be lying. For most people have their minds bludgeoned effectively enough that they never become self aware of what has been done to them, and all of us. Ignorance is truly bliss, and for that I am jealous.
On July 08 2011 06:18 DeepElemBlues wrote: electricity or indoor plumbing
Do electricity and plumbing make you feel happy? Give you a reason to live? This is exactly why you cannot understand where I'm coming from. Such pointless and shallow luxuries, you only think life would be miserable without them because you have been weakened and caged for so long.
On July 08 2011 06:18 DeepElemBlues wrote: Oh wait this isn't Brave New World we aren't popping somas and fucking strangers every day (only on the weekends!)
The only on weekends is quite ironic, and I'm really surprised you wouldn't want to live in BNW.
On July 08 2011 06:18 DeepElemBlues wrote: electricity or indoor plumbing
Do electricity and plumbing make you feel happy? Give you a reason to live? This is exactly why you cannot understand where I'm coming from. Such pointless and shallow luxuries, you only think life would be miserable without them because you have been weakened and caged for so long.
And yet you spend all day on an Internet forum arguing about how we're all caged.... do us all a favor and show us who's boss by going and being happy without our shallow luxuries then.
On July 08 2011 06:50 dogmeatstew wrote: And yet you spend all day on an Internet forum arguing about how we're all caged.... do us all a favor and show us who's boss by going and being happy without our shallow luxuries then.
This is no longer possible for me.
On July 08 2011 06:55 Elegy wrote: Treemonkeys, it'd be fascinating if you could prove your labor is used to kill people.
On July 08 2011 06:50 dogmeatstew wrote: And yet you spend all day on an Internet forum arguing about how we're all caged.... do us all a favor and show us who's boss by going and being happy without our shallow luxuries then.
On July 08 2011 07:13 Elegy wrote: No, I'm wondering whether you can prove it was your actual dollar that paid for X bomb or Y gun and not your neighbors.
Irrelevant when my labor is taken without my consent while no one can prove it was not used for that purpose.
On July 08 2011 07:13 Elegy wrote: No, I'm wondering whether you can prove it was your actual dollar that paid for X bomb or Y gun and not your neighbors.
Irrelevant when my labor is taken without my consent while no one can prove it was not used for that purpose.
Ah. So burden of proof doesn't lie on you.
But you can always leave society completely and allow no man to take your labor. It'd be inconvenient, but you certainly do it if you had the willpower.
You voluntarily choose to remain within the slave society around you. No one will force you to work or pay taxes or any number of things if you simply packed up and left, or lived in a deep forest, or built a small farm out in the boondocks. You don't really have to labor, but you do, and you choose to labor in a society and a government not responsive to your needs.
It sounds like you're upset that you can't live the quality of life you apparently desire without paying into the slave society around you, the very same society from which you derive that quality of life. No one forces you to live where you do (well, assuming you didn't voluntarily sign a contract or something of that nature, or you are on probation for deliberately violating the law), etc. I'll read your previous posts to see what exactly you mean though
What kind of ignorance bomb exploded in this thread? Seems like a whole bunch of people whining about being "victims" of the time/society/world they were born in, as though this wasn't the case for every other human being ever.
[QUOTE]On July 08 2011 06:45 Treemonkeys wrote: [QUOTE]On July 08 2011 04:27 TheGlassface wrote: 1) Do you have a college degree, if so what is it? 2) Do you vote? 3) Do you volunteer or take part in community actions? [/QUOTE]
What is the purpose of these questions before I consider answering them? A pop quiz to see if I am running the appropriate hamster wheels required for change?
Oh and I don't look up to anyone and if I didn't it wouldn't be Alex Jones he's just an asshole making money off of people's fear offering them nothing valuable in return, I never heard of Bill Hicks before yout mentioned him. It's like you have never met a unique person in your entire life, got to shove me into one propaganda cubicle weather it is Alex Jones, Libertarian, Anarchist, Tea party, etc. While some people might agree with bits and pieces of my philosophy it is mine and mine only and I've yet to find a good reason to "look up to someone". I learn what is valuable from people and discard the rest, no one is anything close to perfect - far from it. Including me of course, I'm just another idiot in the pond and the only thing that sets me apart is being self aware my own shortcomings.
Society fucked me over, it is as simple as that. Call me emo or whatever the fuck you want, but that is what happened. I'd say I'm happy it worked out for you but I'd be lying. For most people have their minds bludgeoned effectively enough that they never become self aware of what has been done to them, and all of us. Ignorance is truly bliss, and for that I am jealous.
-------- I ask because if you're getting fucked over and complaining, I'd assume you're doing something to change that. I ask about college because, if you're some punk kid whining who has little to no education...then I see a lot of that and that moves to discredit the rest of that "woe is me," crap.
There's no hamster wheel man, it's just simply asking if you're doing anything aside from complaining. Once again, nihilism solves nothing. The fact that you look up to on one says quite a bit in itself. Also, I've met plenty of unique people, why do you think I asked those questions? It gives insight into you as a person. I don't care to pry into your personal life and ask what it is that has you so down, I'm asking about you and what you do to contribute to society. You speak with such disdain, it really is disheartening to read. You make these broad, sweeping generalizations about society and act like if you're not unhappy you've been brainwashed. You have to see the irony in speaking about ignorance being bliss and then acting as if the only way to be truly intelligent is to be morose and spiteful to everyone with an opposite opinion to you. You came out the gates attacking throughout this thread. I can't even begin to imagine why
anarchists should all just move to Antarctica. they would have no government and they would stop bothering people who understand peoples nature and how the world works
Irrelevant when my labor is taken without my consent while no one can prove it was not used for that purpose.
Since we live in a republic with representative democratic elections and not a direct democracy, and you have every right in the world to complain about it and campaign for votes against it, your argument is moot.
We've moved from a sense of entitlement to equal participation to one of equal outcome, which is unrealistic to build a society on. Your view loses, your tax dollars pay for war and your objection is noted but won't change the outcome. This is not oppression or political disenfranchisement, it is the unfair real world. There are winners and losers. Everyone has an equal chance to convince everyone else that things should be run the way they think right. You have an equal chance to say that your objection should have more weight than that of just an opinion and convince others that some kind of policy should be enacted based upon it.
If you do undertake that endeavor and don't succeed, it's because you failed.
90% of arguments like yours are basically imbalance whines. Government / corporations / capitalists / socialists / Republicans / Democrats are imba my side should get a buff they need a nerf
How are you supposed to beat the other side's deathball (and it's always the other side that has the deathball) WTF BLIZZ?
The only on weekends is quite ironic, and I'm really surprised you wouldn't want to live in BNW.
Why, because my 200 words is enough for you to divine my character?
You must be supergenyuz!
Do electricity and plumbing make you feel happy? Give you a reason to live? This is exactly why you cannot understand where I'm coming from. Such pointless and shallow luxuries, you only think life would be miserable without them because you have been weakened and caged for so long.
Do you make do without them?
Go do it for an extended period of time and then talk about how they are pointless and shallow luxuries.
Also without electricity and control of water that is necessary for indoor plumbing how many people would die of starvation and other wants?
And what is this emotional nonsense, you're trying to be all rational but you're talking about modern society "weakening" man and putting him in a 'cage,' how so? Because we aren't all a bunch of yeoman farmers breaking our backs to make a living?
On July 07 2011 08:52 Kiarip wrote: #1) The FED only causes inflation. Deflation can only be caused by drop in prices which can only be caused by increased production. The FED doesn't produce anything. All it currently does is Quantifying Easing which basically means it's printing money (creating inflation.)
#2) We came off the gold standard because after we started printing money we didn't have enough gold to back up all the dollar bills with it.
#3) Roosevelt's New Deal didn't end the Great Depression, it only worsened it and pro-longed it, in fact it wasn't gonna be the "Great" Depression until his social programs kicked in.
edit:
ok you can carry on now
#1) No, please explain how you think fiscal policy works. Its called quantitative easing and why would we want to do anything but expand the money supply right now?
#2) No, we came off the gold standard because the Bretton Woods policy (which was a gold standard) created unsustainable currency arbitrage.
#3) No, the Fed may have been to blame due to a contractionary monetary policy (Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan hold this view) but a significant majority of economists and historians agree that Roosevelt's policies as a whole helped end the great depression. This does not mean all of them were effective.
@Treemonkeys: could you please link me to an article explaining how the suspension of the gold standard during world war one is responsible for the decline of "mom and pop" stores today?
I don't think it reasonable for you to just sit there and say "straw man" when your actual arguments are so unclear in the first place. It's part of why I got tired of our discussione arlier. To explain further:
It's fine to consider the diet a cultural thing, but on one hand you are saying government protects us by checking over the food supply, and on the other we have government not just allowing but subsidizing extremely unhealthy foods. Even foods that "should" be good for you are more often than not terrible. Take corn for example, unless you go out of your way and spend more money the corn you eat has been genetically modified to include insecticide inside of it. With each bite you are eating insect poison. Corn with built in insecticide is subsidized and therefore cheaper to produce, organic corn is not. That is just one small piece of why the US has the highest cancer rate in the world, it is not just obesity (which is most prevalent in poor demographics who cannot afford healthier food, as the government taxes their labor and uses it to fund poisoned food). Other countries catching up does not excuse anything or change my argument, it is simply a sign of the extreme draconian style of the US spreading to the rest of the world. It's not a good thing, any way you look at it.
I will give you my impression of this paragraph so you can see why making your point clearer would be helpful.
You go from diet, to government regulations of food safety, to food subsidies, to GMOs, to cancer and obesity rates, throw in a snarky comment about taxes, and then seem to touch on and end on US imperialism (maybe just US policy formation process going to other countries, its hard to tell) and in the end I just don't know what you are trying to say.
Mate, youre talking about 30's keynesianism and 80s friedmanism. And guess what? Both of those economic schools were debunked by Misesians before they even existed. Respect your elders. And Mises is exactly that: the elder of economics of 20th century. Without doubt, the most consistent, innovative, and epistemologically coherent economist of the modern era. As such, his refutations of the claims you made are strictly relevant.
On July 07 2011 08:52 Kiarip wrote: #1) The FED only causes inflation. Deflation can only be caused by drop in prices which can only be caused by increased production. The FED doesn't produce anything. All it currently does is Quantifying Easing which basically means it's printing money (creating inflation.)
#2) We came off the gold standard because after we started printing money we didn't have enough gold to back up all the dollar bills with it.
#3) Roosevelt's New Deal didn't end the Great Depression, it only worsened it and pro-longed it, in fact it wasn't gonna be the "Great" Depression until his social programs kicked in.
edit:
ok you can carry on now
#1) No, please explain how you think fiscal policy works. Its called quantitative easing and why would we want to do anything but expand the money supply right now?
#2) No, we came off the gold standard because the Bretton Woods policy (which was a gold standard) created unsustainable currency arbitrage.
#3) No, the Fed may have been to blame due to a contractionary monetary policy (Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan hold this view) but a significant majority of economists and historians agree that Roosevelt's policies as a whole helped end the great depression. This does not mean all of them were effective.
#1) Quantitative easing creates inflation. It destroys the value of the currency and sets us up for a bigger recession.
#2) The fault of the Bretton Woods policy was that it tied all the currencies to the dollar and not to gold directly.
#3) Throughout all of its existence the FED has never had a monetary policy that was TOO contractionary. It's loose monetary policies that leads to financial crisis.
I love this thread, really. I never would have imagined I would read people critiquing keynesian economics on TL.
But the reality is that the failure of government is always used to justify increased government regulation. We should start regulating the financial industry more the moment we stop saturating the market with overabundant credit and artificially low interest rates. You cannot expect a market to behave rationally when the overabundance of credit creates the false image of excessive demand, which in turn creates overinvestment and sows the seeds for the next recession.
On July 08 2011 15:02 jdseemoreglass wrote: You cannot expect a market to behave rationally when the overabundance of credit creates the false image of excessive demand, which in turn creates overinvestment and sows the seeds for the next recession.
This is actually true, and it's so rare to see reasoned debate from libertarians that I thought you deserved a QFT, for your honesty!
On July 08 2011 10:06 TheGlassface wrote: I ask because if you're getting fucked over and complaining, I'd assume you're doing something to change that. I ask about college because, if you're some punk kid whining who has little to no education...then I see a lot of that and that moves to discredit the rest of that "woe is me," crap.
There's no hamster wheel man, it's just simply asking if you're doing anything aside from complaining. Once again, nihilism solves nothing. The fact that you look up to on one says quite a bit in itself. Also, I've met plenty of unique people, why do you think I asked those questions? It gives insight into you as a person. I don't care to pry into your personal life and ask what it is that has you so down, I'm asking about you and what you do to contribute to society. You speak with such disdain, it really is disheartening to read. You make these broad, sweeping generalizations about society and act like if you're not unhappy you've been brainwashed. You have to see the irony in speaking about ignorance being bliss and then acting as if the only way to be truly intelligent is to be morose and spiteful to everyone with an opposite opinion to you. You came out the gates attacking throughout this thread. I can't even begin to imagine why
I am probably one of the older members here, definitely not a "punk kid" more of a grouchy man who is getting old much faster than I thought I would. I went to college and I make a good living for myself, and I am working on getting things in order to leave this country while they are still letting people do so. For the record it is an asshole approach to say "you don't like it, leave" which is what a lot of people tell me when all I am doing is trying to tell people who much danger we are in from our government - and yes I admit, often rudely and abrasively. It should already be setting off alarms in the minds of people when that has become the most viable option for change, but who am I to expect wisdom in others? So basically this massive landmass belongs to the US government (after they enslaved and murdered the original occupiers back in the day, such is humanity) and if you don't like how they do things then just leave. Well aside from the shit of leaving all my lifelong friends and family behind who I may never see again, leaving the land I grew up on, worked on, and lived on my whole life my choices is to continue getting a dildo up the ass or leave this half of the continent. I perfectly understand that is just the way it is.
But then on top of all that, I have people - sometimes the same people and in the same breath - telling me I am free or that I have given my consent in this. The contradiction is blatantly obvious and the stupidity is infuriating. So that is where all my rudeness and abrasiveness comes from. A life of trying to convince people that the government is getting way, way out of control while constantly being bombarded with government educated ignorant people. These are people who have no concept of how someone like Hitler came to power and do what he did, and they have the same attitude and ignorance that the German people shared who defended his actions up until it became quite clear that his actions were inexcusable. Some people are gifted with a little more wisdom and clairvoyance to see the warning signs before it has to reach that horrible climax, and these people have no place in this country.
For the record I did not come out of the gates attacking in this thread. Attacking ideas of government yes, but not people, and not with being rude. I even turned around and pointed out clear flaws with anarcho-capitalist thought as well. I was even having an enjoyable conversion with some people before others decided to jump in and be as argumentative as possible using straw men and logical fallacies to basically be a jackass, and yes that is when I started talking like a jackass. I honestly shouldn't have bothered, leaving the country is a much better plan than trying to convince anyone.
Perhaps I should point out the sheer irony of "you live in a democracy so you have methods for change" - which require votes, which require changing of minds, which is met with "go do it somewhere else". They are the ones telling me I have options while proving how futile those options are in the same moment. Never mind that the USA has almost constantly been at war for the past 60 years and has always had the same foreign policy for those 60 or so years regardless of who or what party is in power. The two party system is just a smoke and mirrors divide conquer tactic to ensure those in power get whatever they want while the corporate run media who is partnered with the government ensure a 3rd party or new viewpoint will never get anywhere. So then all we have left is personal interaction to change the minds of our countrymen which is met with nothing but government educated ignorance.
Basically it is already check-mate in the USA - the government has all of the cards - the ability to spy on and remove political opponents, the minds of our youth, a population that is mostly disarmed, and a mass media system that parrots whatever they say as truth. Because of all that I am wasting my time here.
Everything that people are afraid of in regard to anarchy is already true - we are already dominated by violent warlords and we cannot safely work to survive without paying a portion to them. They farm us like cattle, and value our lives as such as they play chess with the destruction and prosperity of civilization. Also like cattle, we must be given just enough freedom so that we will remain productive - this freedom will only last as long as it is profitable to them. It is quite clear we have no say in the matter. All of this while they use the labor they steal from use to build secret bunkers so that we will bear the burden and suffering from their mistakes while they will stay safely hidden from it.
The one glimmer of hope is the sheer amount of deception that this system requires to maintain the scale of power it currently enjoys. Somehow humanity has reached the point where it will we will not tolerant such violence openly, and excuses have to be given to explain how it is all for our good. Government is not good for humanity, but abolishing it overnight wouldn't accomplish a damn thing. If somehow a majority of humanity was ready to live cooperatively without initiating violence against each other government would not be needed - but how will we ever reach that point with the same organization is providing our education, and has our mass information systems preach whatever they say as truth? They will never work towards their own removal, it is simply a problem of incentives. Their own existence feeds off of our problems and shortcomings which means they have every reason to ensure better solutions are not found while also having the tools required to do just that.
Murry Rothbard and others have done a great job of defining systems or cooperation that would not require the initiation of violence to accomplish everything as government does - while still giving us all of the good aspects of what government provides, but how can this ever come about when government has as much power over our minds as they do?
when stuff is too bad for too long, people revolt. most people are satisfied. I'd be significantly less happy with my government if I were american than I am as a norwegian, but even as an american, I'd be happier with my government than I would have been in about 99% of societies that have ever existed on earth.
I think democracy in usa does have some major problems that are largely not present in europe though - two of which I wanna mention now. 1: the electoral college kinda dictates that you end up with a two-party state. this makes it virtually impossible for anyone to change the system, because to attain power you must go through one of the channels already present, and those channels might not want change. whereas in several european countries, you've had parties whose main agenda has been to protest against the current system that have gotten significant followings and attained some power. 2: political advertisement has been so big and expensive and important that fund-raising is a more important aspect of campaigning than developing sound policies. this has granted lobbyists/financial contributors far more power than they should have. (whereas in norway, political advertisement has actually been illegal until somewhat recently, and there have also been some laws regarding distribution of airtime to different political participants.)
On July 01 2011 12:57 partisan wrote: This is a joke right? Surely there is not a single sane person that looks at Somalia as a success story. Yea, 20 years of endless violence where its citizens have to turn to piracy to make money.
But apparently the US is at fault again, which is great because I was beginning to miss that dead horse.
On July 08 2011 10:06 TheGlassface wrote: I ask because if you're getting fucked over and complaining, I'd assume you're doing something to change that. I ask about college because, if you're some punk kid whining who has little to no education...then I see a lot of that and that moves to discredit the rest of that "woe is me," crap.
There's no hamster wheel man, it's just simply asking if you're doing anything aside from complaining. Once again, nihilism solves nothing. The fact that you look up to on one says quite a bit in itself. Also, I've met plenty of unique people, why do you think I asked those questions? It gives insight into you as a person. I don't care to pry into your personal life and ask what it is that has you so down, I'm asking about you and what you do to contribute to society. You speak with such disdain, it really is disheartening to read. You make these broad, sweeping generalizations about society and act like if you're not unhappy you've been brainwashed. You have to see the irony in speaking about ignorance being bliss and then acting as if the only way to be truly intelligent is to be morose and spiteful to everyone with an opposite opinion to you. You came out the gates attacking throughout this thread. I can't even begin to imagine why
I am probably one of the older members here, definitely not a "punk kid" more of a grouchy man who is getting old much faster than I thought I would. I went to college and I make a good living for myself, and I am working on getting things in order to leave this country while they are still letting people do so. For the record it is an asshole approach to say "you don't like it, leave" which is what a lot of people tell me when all I am doing is trying to tell people who much danger we are in from our government - and yes I admit, often rudely and abrasively. It should already be setting off alarms in the minds of people when that has become the most viable option for change, but who am I to expect wisdom in others? So basically this massive landmass belongs to the US government (after they enslaved and murdered the original occupiers back in the day, such is humanity) and if you don't like how they do things then just leave. Well aside from the shit of leaving all my lifelong friends and family behind who I may never see again, leaving the land I grew up on, worked on, and lived on my whole life my choices is to continue getting a dildo up the ass or leave this half of the continent. I perfectly understand that is just the way it is.
But then on top of all that, I have people - sometimes the same people and in the same breath - telling me I am free or that I have given my consent in this. The contradiction is blatantly obvious and the stupidity is infuriating. So that is where all my rudeness and abrasiveness comes from. A life of trying to convince people that the government is getting way, way out of control while constantly being bombarded with government educated ignorant people. These are people who have no concept of how someone like Hitler came to power and do what he did, and they have the same attitude and ignorance that the German people shared who defended his actions up until it became quite clear that his actions were inexcusable. Some people are gifted with a little more wisdom and clairvoyance to see the warning signs before it has to reach that horrible climax, and these people have no place in this country.
For the record I did not come out of the gates attacking in this thread. Attacking ideas of government yes, but not people, and not with being rude. I even turned around and pointed out clear flaws with anarcho-capitalist thought as well. I was even having an enjoyable conversion with some people before others decided to jump in and be as argumentative as possible using straw men and logical fallacies to basically be a jackass, and yes that is when I started talking like a jackass. I honestly shouldn't have bothered, leaving the country is a much better plan than trying to convince anyone.
Perhaps I should point out the sheer irony of "you live in a democracy so you have methods for change" - which require votes, which require changing of minds, which is met with "go do it somewhere else". They are the ones telling me I have options while proving how futile those options are in the same moment. Never mind that the USA has almost constantly been at war for the past 60 years and has always had the same foreign policy for those 60 or so years regardless of who or what party is in power. The two party system is just a smoke and mirrors divide conquer tactic to ensure those in power get whatever they want while the corporate run media who is partnered with the government ensure a 3rd party or new viewpoint will never get anywhere. So then all we have left is personal interaction to change the minds of our countrymen which is met with nothing but government educated ignorance.
Basically it is already check-mate in the USA - the government has all of the cards - the ability to spy on and remove political opponents, the minds of our youth, a population that is mostly disarmed, and a mass media system that parrots whatever they say as truth. Because of all that I am wasting my time here.
Everything that people are afraid of in regard to anarchy is already true - we are already dominated by violent warlords and we cannot safely work to survive without paying a portion to them. They farm us like cattle, and value our lives as such as they play chess with the destruction and prosperity of civilization. Also like cattle, we must be given just enough freedom so that we will remain productive - this freedom will only last as long as it is profitable to them. It is quite clear we have no say in the matter. All of this while they use the labor they steal from use to build secret bunkers so that we will bear the burden and suffering from their mistakes while they will stay safely hidden from it.
The one glimmer of hope is the sheer amount of deception that this system requires to maintain the scale of power it currently enjoys. Somehow humanity has reached the point where it will we will not tolerant such violence openly, and excuses have to be given to explain how it is all for our good. Government is not good for humanity, but abolishing it overnight wouldn't accomplish a damn thing. If somehow a majority of humanity was ready to live cooperatively without initiating violence against each other government would not be needed - but how will we ever reach that point with the same organization is providing our education, and has our mass information systems preach whatever they say as truth? They will never work towards their own removal, it is simply a problem of incentives. Their own existence feeds off of our problems and shortcomings which means they have every reason to ensure better solutions are not found while also having the tools required to do just that.
Murry Rothbard and others have done a great job of defining systems or cooperation that would not require the initiation of violence to accomplish everything as government does - while still giving us all of the good aspects of what government provides, but how can this ever come about when government has as much power over our minds as they do?
I don't understand how people as far as you in their thinking can still cling to the old way of money and don't understand how capitalism and capital accumulation will always produce centralized power and oppression.
Maybe I'm a little ignorant of all the problems occurring in America Treemonkeys, but I think we should be thankful its not as bad as some of those countries in the middle East or Africa, where people are starving to death, living in huts, being ruled over by warlords...or in China where they have serious human rights issues (they openly deny internet access, for example, and jail political dissidents). Just look at the quality of life the average teenager lives, they have education, decent job prospects, live in a very rich country with basic rights and freedoms secured. I think you're being a bit extreme in how you perceive Western society.
The media probably is, to some extent, influenced by the corporations that fund them. But there has also been an explosion in internet-delivered media, such as the young turks, or Democracy Now!, or the thousands of blogs from economists and scientists. Its harder than ever before to channel the news through one source in order to control the public's opinion. People have more options than ever before, and can learn a lot of things on their own if they want to (wikipedia, free books online, libraries where people are free to read the works of great thinkers in the past).
If anything there's too much information out there (we do live in the information age, after all ).
Also...to say that we are like cattle is really kind of extreme. I mean, yes people pay taxes...but does the government *really* impede how you live your life? Social services, health care, maybe some controversial decisions...but 95% of your life probably you're free to do what you want, drive wherever you want, party, go to Las Vegas. Its hardly the life of a cattle or a slave.
Anyways, maybe its different in Canada than the United States (although I doubt its that bad)...but at least from where I'm living, we really have near complete freedom except for taxes and maybe some regulatory forms you have to fill in now and then. If the government ever did something truly outrageous the people would fight against it anyways, especially in a society with so many news outlets. Anyways, just my 2 cents
On July 01 2011 12:22 T0fuuu wrote: Its not a success of anarchy. Its just what should of been done with Africa from long long ago. Get out, let them fix their own problems instead of inserting dictators and throwing aid at them.
I agree with this sentiment completely. All the first world and even second world countries have anywhere from 40-100s of years of societal development. We can't expect throwing money at third world countries will suddenly negate the need for the same progress.
On July 12 2011 00:47 radscorpion9 wrote: Maybe I'm a little ignorant of all the problems occurring in America Treemonkeys, but I think we should be thankful its not as bad as some of those countries in the middle East or Africa, where people are starving to death, living in huts, being ruled over by warlords...or in China where they have serious human rights issues (they openly deny internet access, for example, and jail political dissidents). Just look at the quality of life the average teenager lives, they have education, decent job prospects, live in a very rich country with basic rights and freedoms secured. I think you're being a bit extreme in how you perceive Western society.
The media probably is, to some extent, influenced by the corporations that fund them. But there has also been an explosion in internet-delivered media, such as the young turks, or Democracy Now!, or the thousands of blogs from economists and scientists. Its harder than ever before to channel the news through one source in order to control the public's opinion. People have more options than ever before, and can learn a lot of things on their own if they want to (wikipedia, free books online, libraries where people are free to read the works of great thinkers in the past).
If anything there's too much information out there (we do live in the information age, after all ).
Also...to say that we are like cattle is really kind of extreme. I mean, yes people pay taxes...but does the government *really* impede how you live your life? Social services, health care, maybe some controversial decisions...but 95% of your life probably you're free to do what you want, drive wherever you want, party, go to Las Vegas. Its hardly the life of a cattle or a slave.
Anyways, maybe its different in Canada than the United States (although I doubt its that bad)...but at least from where I'm living, we really have near complete freedom except for taxes and maybe some regulatory forms you have to fill in now and then. If the government ever did something truly outrageous the people would fight against it anyways, especially in a society with so many news outlets. Anyways, just my 2 cents
Yes I am afraid you are ignorant of the problems in the USA, I would like to think in time it will become painfully obvious, but it is more sophisticated than that so even that may be too much to hope for.
Yes it is better than places like the middle east and Africa - places who's turmoil was caused by western civilization. But China? That is pretty ironic. All the pieces are slowly being put in place to have as much or more control in the USA than China has. What are so called human rights violations? That is all relative. In China you see it has a human right violation, in American you see it as something that is good and needed. That is how it is designed to work, it is all about perception - and when they control the education of young minds, they eventually control the perception.
Job prospects for teenagers? I hope your joking. Unless you consider joining the military or working a job with no possible way of provided healthcare a good prospect. The worst part is how quickly it continues to get worse. Nearly everyone who enlists in the military does it because of a lack in job prospects and ability to get a good education - no draft is needed, there are better ways to fill the ranks and they are already being used.
The media is not somewhat influenced by corporations, they are owned and ran by and for corporations. They are a corporation.
As far as information age? Yeah, that's nice, that allows me to talk about it here and all that - but look at the tools that are in place. They can already log and spy on all of this - what we are saying, what we are reading, etc. They have ever tool in place to to restrict portions or all of the internet. They have every tool in place to do whatever they wish to people who say or read the wrong things. All this will they continue to hoard more tools of immense power, only time will tell how these tools are used - and they can change this on a whim and there is not a damn thing people can do about it outside of some extreme and likely suicidal revolt.
I don't think comparison to cattle is that extreme, cattle are allowed some freedom, same as me. Their freedom is limited to the confines set by their owners, same as me. Those confines can change on a whim and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it, same as me. To some people the luxury allowed to us within these confines are worth it, we can play video games, we can eat tasty food, we can get drunk, etc. To me, it's not. But what does that matter? I don't have a choice, I'm already broken into this existence of servitude.
Here are some other differences between the US and Canada - you don't have a military budget that equals the rest of the world combined, you don't have military bases in over 170 different countries. While I'm sure your government enjoys it's share of gluttonous and wasteful spending, there is still much more of your tax money that is returned to you in a useful way.
You think the people would fight against it if they did something truly outrageous? How? Let's assume the population actually has the will to fight. A population whose vast majority is completely disarmed. Who has a large percentage of it's people completely dependent on government handouts. Who has another large percentage completely dependent on the government, because they work for them. Who will have to fight against police with automatic weapons, body armor, and armored vehicles? Against I military with the most sophisticated and deadly weapons in the world? Against a government who continues to gain more and more experience suppressing rebellious populations?
I wish I could hope that the government would just never decide to become truly evil as they are amassing all the tools needed to do so, but to think the people could fight back if it did happen seems frankly delusional. Maybe in Canada, but certainly not here.
On July 11 2011 23:34 BlackFlag wrote: I don't understand how people as far as you in their thinking can still cling to the old way of money and don't understand how capitalism and capital accumulation will always produce centralized power and oppression.
I don't cling to old ways of anything, certainly not money or capitalism. That is what got us in this mess, part of it at least.
Jesus christ, just leave the country if you think its condition is that bad. All the internet libertarians are so willing to argue yet they don't trust their own theories enough to see them in action. You have mobility. You're living in a country where the vast majority of people enjoy social democracy and the many government-provided benefits it entails, and you think you can redirect things and find your "homeland" by arguing on the internet? If the US isn't accommodating your interests, pick up and leave. That's a key principle within laissez faire-ism.
Jibba if you, like many internet libertarians are dissatisfied with the abundance of social liberties, consider moving to Sealand! There, you can enjoy the rich and extravagant lifestyle of being an online lunatic or indulge in one of the many square feet to eat tinned beans and yell at the bulkhead about US politics! [/sarcasm <3]
Somalia: How Has Life Changed? Index 1991 2011 (or latest) Life expectancy 46 years 50 years Birth rate 46 44 Death rate 19 16 GDP per capita $210 $600 Infant mortality 116 deaths <1yr, per 1,000 births 109 deaths <1yr, per 1,000 births Access to safe water 35% 29% Adult literacy 24% 38%
I'm finding inconsistencies in the data presented and the sources cited, however it is only a cursory glance and I may be incorrect.
This article doesn't address points brought up from its major source, a BBC article, which irks the hell out of me.
Business success is hardly a measure for government stability or success. Since 1991 the arms trade has done well while basic foods industries have failed.
I find zatics link much more informative and reflective of reality than the article linked in the OP. That's my point.
Here in Brazil we have some regions, (in the north of the country, a the borders of the rain florest), where there's very little governament intervention. So, basicly, big lumber company and farmers rule the region, they just take, using brute force or deception, lands of little farmers.
Some people tryed to denounce this kind of thing (the most known are Chico Mendes and Dorothy Stang), they where all murdered.
But now it looks like things are getting better, people have been more aware of th situation.
Let's forget economic issues then. I'll freely admit that I don't know enough about economics to really debate how our federal masters abuse our wallets. So let's just look at social issues.
There's a horrific article in last month's edition of National Geographic, about the underground world of child brides. Girls as young as 6 being married to fully grown men against their will. Girls as young as 9 being dropped off at the hospital, dying of internal injuries sustained when their adult husbands forcibly consummated the marriage. A man who stabbed his 15 year old wife to death for disobeying him, who later walked away unpunished when it was decided he didn't do anything wrong. That's reality for a lot of women in poorer parts of the world. These stories all came from rural parts of India, in villages so far from the cities that the government simply doesn't touch them. They *do* live in your happy anarchy world, and they treat their women like shit.
There was another article a few months earlier about the lives of women in other parts of the world. Two sisters in Iran, aged 16 and 24, who had *never been allowed outside the house in their entire lives*. They've spent their entire lives locked inside. Or again, girls as young as 9 who *set themselves on fire* in suicide attempts to get away from their abusive husbands. Humanity does not have a good track record when it comes to women's rights. Personally, I'm thrilled to live in a first world country where I've never had to experience that. I didn't give blanket consent to every man in the village on the day of my first period. I wasn't married off at 13 one of my dad's friends and taken away from my family forever. The plight of women in a lot of the undeveloped world, (including Somalia), is horrible beyond belief. Most of us can't even imagine the lives lots of these women lead.
Or perhaps race relations? Do you think schools in the American south would have willingly desegregated had the government not sent the goddamn army in? You remember those pictures you see of little black children being escorted to class by men with machine guns, while thousands of people jeer and throw things? That wasn't so long ago. We used to lynch minorities for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hell, slavery wasn't too long ago. What happens in an anarchist society if some undesirables try to move into the neighborhood? Do we let the free market decide how to treat people who are different? Humanity has a shitty record in that area too.
I understand you don't like the system or how it's treated you. But honestly is there anything better out there?
On July 15 2011 01:57 Jibba wrote: Jesus christ, just leave the country if you think its condition is that bad. All the internet libertarians are so willing to argue yet they don't trust their own theories enough to see them in action. You have mobility. You're living in a country where the vast majority of people enjoy social democracy and the many government-provided benefits it entails, and you think you can redirect things and find your "homeland" by arguing on the internet? If the US isn't accommodating your interests, pick up and leave. That's a key principle within laissez faire-ism.
On July 15 2011 02:40 Haemonculus wrote: Let's forget economic issues then. I'll freely admit that I don't know enough about economics to really debate how our federal masters abuse our wallets. So let's just look at social issues.
There's a horrific article in last month's edition of National Geographic, about the underground world of child brides. Girls as young as 6 being married to fully grown men against their will. Girls as young as 9 being dropped off at the hospital, dying of internal injuries sustained when their adult husbands forcibly consummated the marriage. A man who stabbed his 15 year old wife to death for disobeying him, who later walked away unpunished when it was decided he didn't do anything wrong. That's reality for a lot of women in poorer parts of the world. These stories all came from rural parts of India, in villages so far from the cities that the government simply doesn't touch them. They *do* live in your happy anarchy world, and they treat their women like shit.
There was another article a few months earlier about the lives of women in other parts of the world. Two sisters in Iran, aged 16 and 24, who had *never been allowed outside the house in their entire lives*. They've spent their entire lives locked inside. Or again, girls as young as 9 who *set themselves on fire* in suicide attempts to get away from their abusive husbands. Humanity does not have a good track record when it comes to women's rights. Personally, I'm thrilled to live in a first world country where I've never had to experience that. I didn't give blanket consent to every man in the village on the day of my first period. I wasn't married off at 13 one of my dad's friends and taken away from my family forever. The plight of women in a lot of the undeveloped world, (including Somalia), is horrible beyond belief. Most of us can't even imagine the lives lots of these women lead.
Or perhaps race relations? Do you think schools in the American south would have willingly desegregated had the government not sent the goddamn army in? You remember those pictures you see of little black children being escorted to class by men with machine guns, while thousands of people jeer and throw things? That wasn't so long ago. We used to lynch minorities for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hell, slavery wasn't too long ago. What happens in an anarchist society if some undesirables try to move into the neighborhood? Do we let the free market decide how to treat people who are different? Humanity has a shitty record in that area too.
I understand you don't like the system or how it's treated you. But honestly is there anything better out there?
It was the government itself that enforced slavery, hell it was the original founders of this government that were damn slave owners. It was the government itself that setup rules to treat women as inferior citizens. Everything you're talking about was enforced by the government on both sides, the so called good they did was just a change in attitude and action after years and years of doing the direct opposite. You can't cherry pick the good and ignore the bad. So yeah it's good those things happened, but hardly gives any credit to the institution itself. It actually just shows how dangerous power can be - and how they don't actually do good, they just do whatever whims they have at the time for whatever reasons.
Is there anything better? Of course we can find something better, of course it is possible. There is nothing in the world that can't be improved on in some way. The big problem is we are stuck in a rut where education is run by people who have no incentive for change in a good way. Like I said before, all of our problems, our insecurities, our acts of violence and ill will towards each each - governments feeds off of these it needs people to act this way to justify it's existence. So explain to me how they will ever have the incentive to move humanity beyond this, why they would ever look for better methods of education that would do so - it would only destroy them.
I just read that the worst famine for under 5 year olds is in Somalia.
Somali minister of women and family matters Maryan Qasim was suprised when she heard that Somalia is only the 5th worst place for women in the world. She described her country as hell on earth.
Basically on almost any indicator/ranking of welfare Somalia is one of the worst countries.
Anarchy doesnt work, not necessarily because itself is flawed but because man is. The power void created by the lack of government will be filled by individuals or companies.
On July 15 2011 01:57 Jibba wrote: Jesus christ, just leave the country if you think its condition is that bad. All the internet libertarians are so willing to argue yet they don't trust their own theories enough to see them in action. You have mobility. You're living in a country where the vast majority of people enjoy social democracy and the many government-provided benefits it entails, and you think you can redirect things and find your "homeland" by arguing on the internet? If the US isn't accommodating your interests, pick up and leave. That's a key principle within laissez faire-ism.
I understand that Anarchy is not supposed to be an option for most people. On the other hand the social-democratic Welfare/Warfare State is on the edge of bankruptcy. So maybe a bit of Libertarianism wouldn't be such a bad idea - in the US and in Europe.
You can't do that by just running away.
Some guys here should really read the news before praising how well government works these days.
On July 15 2011 02:40 Haemonculus wrote: Let's forget economic issues then. I'll freely admit that I don't know enough about economics to really debate how our federal masters abuse our wallets. So let's just look at social issues.
There's a horrific article in last month's edition of National Geographic, about the underground world of child brides. Girls as young as 6 being married to fully grown men against their will. Girls as young as 9 being dropped off at the hospital, dying of internal injuries sustained when their adult husbands forcibly consummated the marriage. A man who stabbed his 15 year old wife to death for disobeying him, who later walked away unpunished when it was decided he didn't do anything wrong. That's reality for a lot of women in poorer parts of the world. These stories all came from rural parts of India, in villages so far from the cities that the government simply doesn't touch them. They *do* live in your happy anarchy world, and they treat their women like shit.
There was another article a few months earlier about the lives of women in other parts of the world. Two sisters in Iran, aged 16 and 24, who had *never been allowed outside the house in their entire lives*. They've spent their entire lives locked inside. Or again, girls as young as 9 who *set themselves on fire* in suicide attempts to get away from their abusive husbands. Humanity does not have a good track record when it comes to women's rights. Personally, I'm thrilled to live in a first world country where I've never had to experience that. I didn't give blanket consent to every man in the village on the day of my first period. I wasn't married off at 13 one of my dad's friends and taken away from my family forever. The plight of women in a lot of the undeveloped world, (including Somalia), is horrible beyond belief. Most of us can't even imagine the lives lots of these women lead.
Or perhaps race relations? Do you think schools in the American south would have willingly desegregated had the government not sent the goddamn army in? You remember those pictures you see of little black children being escorted to class by men with machine guns, while thousands of people jeer and throw things? That wasn't so long ago. We used to lynch minorities for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hell, slavery wasn't too long ago. What happens in an anarchist society if some undesirables try to move into the neighborhood? Do we let the free market decide how to treat people who are different? Humanity has a shitty record in that area too.
I understand you don't like the system or how it's treated you. But honestly is there anything better out there?
It was the government itself that enforced slavery, hell it was the original founders of this government that were damn slave owners. It was the government itself that setup rules to treat women as inferior citizens. Everything you're talking about was enforced by the government on both sides, the so called good they did was just a change in attitude and action after years and years of doing the direct opposite. You can't cherry pick the good and ignore the bad. So yeah it's good those things happened, but hardly gives any credit to the institution itself. It actually just shows how dangerous power can be - and how they don't actually do good, they just do whatever whims they have at the time for whatever reasons.
Is there anything better? Of course we can find something better, of course it is possible. There is nothing in the world that can't be improved on in some way. The big problem is we are stuck in a rut where education is run by people who have no incentive for change in a good way. Like I said before, all of our problems, our insecurities, our acts of violence and ill will towards each each - governments feeds off of these it needs people to act this way to justify it's existence. So explain to me how they will ever have the incentive to move humanity beyond this, why they would ever look for better methods of education that would do so - it would only destroy them.
You've been criticizing the notion of government and how they continuously oppress the people to justify its existence. At the same time, you concede that anarchy is not the best solution either. The only alternative you have to having a government is that we might be able to find something better in the future. It's all fine and dandy to criticize some of the elements of existing institutions, I even agree with some of your criticisms, but unless you can articulate a clear alternative to the current status quo, the criticisms mean nothing since decisions in the real world involve comparisons between opposing choices.
EDIT: Also, what does it mean for our education to be taught in a 'good' way? Does that mean education people on the harms of government?
Every time I think I'll finally have a chance to respond to the various worthwhile discussions in this thread, there's more to read and respond to...damn you all for having opinions.
With what time I do have though:
On July 15 2011 03:24 bRuTaL!! wrote: Anarchy doesnt work, not necessarily because itself is flawed but because man is. The power void created by the lack of government will be filled by individuals or companies.
Man's flaw in this case is that we lack a widely held understanding of force, property rights and individual liberty in general. Anarchy (based on libertarian ethical theory, anything else is just more of the same varying degrees of socialism) will work just fine once people understand the relatively easy concepts it's built upon. The power vacuum you're worried about doesn't have to occur, and if people abolish governments for the right reasons it won't.
On July 15 2011 02:40 Haemonculus wrote: Let's forget economic issues then. I'll freely admit that I don't know enough about economics to really debate how our federal masters abuse our wallets. So let's just look at social issues.
There's a horrific article in last month's edition of National Geographic, about the underground world of child brides. Girls as young as 6 being married to fully grown men against their will. Girls as young as 9 being dropped off at the hospital, dying of internal injuries sustained when their adult husbands forcibly consummated the marriage. A man who stabbed his 15 year old wife to death for disobeying him, who later walked away unpunished when it was decided he didn't do anything wrong. That's reality for a lot of women in poorer parts of the world. These stories all came from rural parts of India, in villages so far from the cities that the government simply doesn't touch them. They *do* live in your happy anarchy world, and they treat their women like shit.
There was another article a few months earlier about the lives of women in other parts of the world. Two sisters in Iran, aged 16 and 24, who had *never been allowed outside the house in their entire lives*. They've spent their entire lives locked inside. Or again, girls as young as 9 who *set themselves on fire* in suicide attempts to get away from their abusive husbands. Humanity does not have a good track record when it comes to women's rights. Personally, I'm thrilled to live in a first world country where I've never had to experience that. I didn't give blanket consent to every man in the village on the day of my first period. I wasn't married off at 13 one of my dad's friends and taken away from my family forever. The plight of women in a lot of the undeveloped world, (including Somalia), is horrible beyond belief. Most of us can't even imagine the lives lots of these women lead.
Or perhaps race relations? Do you think schools in the American south would have willingly desegregated had the government not sent the goddamn army in? You remember those pictures you see of little black children being escorted to class by men with machine guns, while thousands of people jeer and throw things? That wasn't so long ago. We used to lynch minorities for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hell, slavery wasn't too long ago. What happens in an anarchist society if some undesirables try to move into the neighborhood? Do we let the free market decide how to treat people who are different? Humanity has a shitty record in that area too.
I understand you don't like the system or how it's treated you. But honestly is there anything better out there?
It was the government itself that enforced slavery, hell it was the original founders of this government that were damn slave owners. It was the government itself that setup rules to treat women as inferior citizens. Everything you're talking about was enforced by the government on both sides, the so called good they did was just a change in attitude and action after years and years of doing the direct opposite. You can't cherry pick the good and ignore the bad. So yeah it's good those things happened, but hardly gives any credit to the institution itself. It actually just shows how dangerous power can be - and how they don't actually do good, they just do whatever whims they have at the time for whatever reasons.
Is there anything better? Of course we can find something better, of course it is possible. There is nothing in the world that can't be improved on in some way. The big problem is we are stuck in a rut where education is run by people who have no incentive for change in a good way. Like I said before, all of our problems, our insecurities, our acts of violence and ill will towards each each - governments feeds off of these it needs people to act this way to justify it's existence. So explain to me how they will ever have the incentive to move humanity beyond this, why they would ever look for better methods of education that would do so - it would only destroy them.
You've been criticizing the notion of government and how they continuously oppress the people to justify its existence. At the same time, you concede that anarchy is not the best solution either. The only alternative you have to having a government is that we might be able to find something better in the future. It's all fine and dandy to criticize some of the elements of existing institutions, I even agree with some of your criticisms, but unless you can articulate a clear alternative to the current status quo, the criticisms mean nothing since decisions in the real world involve comparisons between opposing choices.
EDIT: Also, what does it mean for our education to be taught in a 'good' way? Does that mean education people on the harms of government?
I'm sorry I don't have answers, maybe in time I will - but it's not about me, and most of what I am saying is true and valid and should be taken into consideration . I think discussion helps with that. At some level I think the solution is quite obvious. The problem is simply violence and taking advantage of other people. That is the fear of anarchy, that is the sum of all the problems with government. So the solution is, get people to stop doing that to each other, at least a critical mass. How to get there is the hard part. In fear of being extremely redundant, it is made much worse when the government is responsible for educating young minds, while having every incentive NOT to work towards that.
It is basically just what Chaulker described, or educating people so that they will learn it is better to not be violent and manipulative with each other. It is basically useless to call this anarchy, because very few will understand what the means. It is more a system of taking the good aspects of government (organization, cooperation) and getting rid of the bad (initiation of force to get everything done) and finding a way to make it work in a way that is superior. This cannot happen without a change in mindset on a wide scale. People have already described this in detail, and it is an ideal. Perhaps unattainable in 100 or 1000 years, but it is still an ideal. An ideal that most will never learn about, pushing it that much further from reality.
Evolution should be brought into this, because it is quite valid. This so called "flaw of humanity" is nothing but a relic leftover from religious dogma. If people learn anything from evolution, it should be that we are not static beings, we can change for better and for worse. This so called flaw doesn't have to be permanent. With the right change on environment almost anything is possible in the long run...but who has the most control over our environment and where are they taking us?
So short term the only solutions I can see, is to just scale down government as much as possible. It's too bad we are going in the opposite direction, and at a fast pace, so even that isn't really realistic. So extremely short term the solution I see is to be honest with each other about how limited we truly are.
When you talk about real world comparisons between opposing choices - everything I am talking about has no place there in the real political realm, and we should be honest about that. It is the only first step we can take, however small it is. In the US the politicians and the media grant no place for this discussion, none at all. It is only right vs. left. It is only a question the details of what government will do, rather that the philosophical question of how much we should actually want or have. Until we are ready to have that discussion, we will get no where. Until we are honest about the fact that our overlords avoid that discussion - and it is not some vast conspiracy, it is simply the result of incentives placed on them, it will remain this way.
On July 15 2011 02:40 Haemonculus wrote: Let's forget economic issues then. I'll freely admit that I don't know enough about economics to really debate how our federal masters abuse our wallets. So let's just look at social issues.
There's a horrific article in last month's edition of National Geographic, about the underground world of child brides. Girls as young as 6 being married to fully grown men against their will. Girls as young as 9 being dropped off at the hospital, dying of internal injuries sustained when their adult husbands forcibly consummated the marriage. A man who stabbed his 15 year old wife to death for disobeying him, who later walked away unpunished when it was decided he didn't do anything wrong. That's reality for a lot of women in poorer parts of the world. These stories all came from rural parts of India, in villages so far from the cities that the government simply doesn't touch them. They *do* live in your happy anarchy world, and they treat their women like shit.
There was another article a few months earlier about the lives of women in other parts of the world. Two sisters in Iran, aged 16 and 24, who had *never been allowed outside the house in their entire lives*. They've spent their entire lives locked inside. Or again, girls as young as 9 who *set themselves on fire* in suicide attempts to get away from their abusive husbands. Humanity does not have a good track record when it comes to women's rights. Personally, I'm thrilled to live in a first world country where I've never had to experience that. I didn't give blanket consent to every man in the village on the day of my first period. I wasn't married off at 13 one of my dad's friends and taken away from my family forever. The plight of women in a lot of the undeveloped world, (including Somalia), is horrible beyond belief. Most of us can't even imagine the lives lots of these women lead.
Or perhaps race relations? Do you think schools in the American south would have willingly desegregated had the government not sent the goddamn army in? You remember those pictures you see of little black children being escorted to class by men with machine guns, while thousands of people jeer and throw things? That wasn't so long ago. We used to lynch minorities for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hell, slavery wasn't too long ago. What happens in an anarchist society if some undesirables try to move into the neighborhood? Do we let the free market decide how to treat people who are different? Humanity has a shitty record in that area too.
I understand you don't like the system or how it's treated you. But honestly is there anything better out there?
It was the government itself that enforced slavery, hell it was the original founders of this government that were damn slave owners. It was the government itself that setup rules to treat women as inferior citizens. Everything you're talking about was enforced by the government on both sides, the so called good they did was just a change in attitude and action after years and years of doing the direct opposite. You can't cherry pick the good and ignore the bad. So yeah it's good those things happened, but hardly gives any credit to the institution itself. It actually just shows how dangerous power can be - and how they don't actually do good, they just do whatever whims they have at the time for whatever reasons.
Is there anything better? Of course we can find something better, of course it is possible. There is nothing in the world that can't be improved on in some way. The big problem is we are stuck in a rut where education is run by people who have no incentive for change in a good way. Like I said before, all of our problems, our insecurities, our acts of violence and ill will towards each each - governments feeds off of these it needs people to act this way to justify it's existence. So explain to me how they will ever have the incentive to move humanity beyond this, why they would ever look for better methods of education that would do so - it would only destroy them.
You've been criticizing the notion of government and how they continuously oppress the people to justify its existence. At the same time, you concede that anarchy is not the best solution either. The only alternative you have to having a government is that we might be able to find something better in the future. It's all fine and dandy to criticize some of the elements of existing institutions, I even agree with some of your criticisms, but unless you can articulate a clear alternative to the current status quo, the criticisms mean nothing since decisions in the real world involve comparisons between opposing choices.
EDIT: Also, what does it mean for our education to be taught in a 'good' way? Does that mean education people on the harms of government?
The alternative is simple. But it is a struggle. Its hard fighting against the oppressors, especially with the entire world of statist bullies looking to brutalise the libertarian dreams of somalis. But they wont give up, because they know what they want. It is something that once you feel, you know its right, and you know you got to keep doing it, no matter what. Its just purely keeping going, no matter what happens, and then you can do it. If you do that, all the distractions will bounce off you and anarchy can be sustained.
Trotsky was right in a way - it is a struggle, a (thus far) permanent revolution against the statist powermongers. But libertarian capitalism, not communism.
On July 15 2011 02:40 Haemonculus wrote: Let's forget economic issues then. I'll freely admit that I don't know enough about economics to really debate how our federal masters abuse our wallets. So let's just look at social issues.
There's a horrific article in last month's edition of National Geographic, about the underground world of child brides. Girls as young as 6 being married to fully grown men against their will. Girls as young as 9 being dropped off at the hospital, dying of internal injuries sustained when their adult husbands forcibly consummated the marriage. A man who stabbed his 15 year old wife to death for disobeying him, who later walked away unpunished when it was decided he didn't do anything wrong. That's reality for a lot of women in poorer parts of the world. These stories all came from rural parts of India, in villages so far from the cities that the government simply doesn't touch them. They *do* live in your happy anarchy world, and they treat their women like shit.
There was another article a few months earlier about the lives of women in other parts of the world. Two sisters in Iran, aged 16 and 24, who had *never been allowed outside the house in their entire lives*. They've spent their entire lives locked inside. Or again, girls as young as 9 who *set themselves on fire* in suicide attempts to get away from their abusive husbands. Humanity does not have a good track record when it comes to women's rights. Personally, I'm thrilled to live in a first world country where I've never had to experience that. I didn't give blanket consent to every man in the village on the day of my first period. I wasn't married off at 13 one of my dad's friends and taken away from my family forever. The plight of women in a lot of the undeveloped world, (including Somalia), is horrible beyond belief. Most of us can't even imagine the lives lots of these women lead.
Or perhaps race relations? Do you think schools in the American south would have willingly desegregated had the government not sent the goddamn army in? You remember those pictures you see of little black children being escorted to class by men with machine guns, while thousands of people jeer and throw things? That wasn't so long ago. We used to lynch minorities for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hell, slavery wasn't too long ago. What happens in an anarchist society if some undesirables try to move into the neighborhood? Do we let the free market decide how to treat people who are different? Humanity has a shitty record in that area too.
I understand you don't like the system or how it's treated you. But honestly is there anything better out there?
It was the government itself that enforced slavery, hell it was the original founders of this government that were damn slave owners. It was the government itself that setup rules to treat women as inferior citizens. Everything you're talking about was enforced by the government on both sides, the so called good they did was just a change in attitude and action after years and years of doing the direct opposite. You can't cherry pick the good and ignore the bad. So yeah it's good those things happened, but hardly gives any credit to the institution itself. It actually just shows how dangerous power can be - and how they don't actually do good, they just do whatever whims they have at the time for whatever reasons.
Is there anything better? Of course we can find something better, of course it is possible. There is nothing in the world that can't be improved on in some way. The big problem is we are stuck in a rut where education is run by people who have no incentive for change in a good way. Like I said before, all of our problems, our insecurities, our acts of violence and ill will towards each each - governments feeds off of these it needs people to act this way to justify it's existence. So explain to me how they will ever have the incentive to move humanity beyond this, why they would ever look for better methods of education that would do so - it would only destroy them.
You've been criticizing the notion of government and how they continuously oppress the people to justify its existence. At the same time, you concede that anarchy is not the best solution either. The only alternative you have to having a government is that we might be able to find something better in the future. It's all fine and dandy to criticize some of the elements of existing institutions, I even agree with some of your criticisms, but unless you can articulate a clear alternative to the current status quo, the criticisms mean nothing since decisions in the real world involve comparisons between opposing choices.
EDIT: Also, what does it mean for our education to be taught in a 'good' way? Does that mean education people on the harms of government?
The alternative is simple. But it is a struggle. Its hard fighting against the oppressors, especially with the entire world of statist bullies looking to brutalise the libertarian dreams of somalis. But they wont give up, because they know what they want. It is something that once you feel, you know its right, and you know you got to keep doing it, no matter what. Its just purely keeping going, no matter what happens, and then you can do it. If you do that, all the distractions will bounce off you and anarchy can be sustained.
Trotsky was right in a way - it is a struggle, a (thus far) permanent revolution against the statist powermongers. But libertarian capitalism, not communism.
How great for you, but you created this thread based on the 'succes of anarchy in somalia', and you're yet to take back a single thing about what you've said about Somalia. Then again, if you remain as consisted as you have been with your responses, you'll just ignore this post as part of your usual routine.
Which is in a region of the world that is about to be hit with the worst famine in what, 60 years? While our current forms of government have their flaws, famines are substantially less likely to occur in a liberal democratic system of government then they are in your awesome anarchistic world. If I were living in the Horn of Africa, I'd count myself extremely lucky to be living in either Kenya or Ethiopia as opposed to Somalia, where this famine will be hitting the hardest due to the complete lack of governance, and therefore the means of any regulation/distribution of food, including foreign aid, and is substantially less likely to receive aid from international donors because of the aforementioned factors.
I'm fine with you discussing anarchy and all, but to do so in a thread claiming that Somalia is african paradise is firstly very poor taste and secondly just stupid. I'm certain there was a thread on anarchy a while back where you would be able to vent your opinions as much as you want, but seeing a thread on 'the succes of anarchism in somalia' constantly pop-up where people discuss the theoretical grounds of anarchy instead of actually realizing what this means for a country like somalia is driving me absolutely crazy (having worked in africa myself and all).
Anarchy quickly turns into corporate oligarchy. Even the OP mentions that the people who have benefited the most from Somalian anarchy are cellphone companies.
Derez, there cannot exist an argument to claim government use of resources being preferrable to consumers keeping their purchasing power. It is because the concept of exchange does not exist within production. If it did, it would be private institution, hence the Hoppean argumentation supporting Monarchy&Anarchy over Democracy.
But it also means that government by the very definitions that western culture holds dear cannot be demonstrated to be better at solving the problem of famines than private enterprise.
On July 15 2011 08:48 xarthaz wrote: Derez, there cannot exist an argument to claim government use of resources being preferrable to consumers keeping their purchasing power. It is because the concept of exchange does not exist within production. If it did, it would be private institution, hence the Hoppean argumentation supporting Monarchy&Anarchy over Democracy.
But it also means that government by the very definitions that western culture holds dear cannot be demonstrated to be better at solving the problem of famines than private enterprise.
Again, you're not actually responding to anything I just said.
You're just sticking with vague theoretical points instead of actually adressing anything happening in Somalia. This isn't a theoretical argument, this is people dying of hunger because their government is unable to allocate resources in any effective way. This relationship has been _proven_ to hold true, after the initial theory by Sen.
As I said, I'm fine with you having a discussion on the theoretical grounds of anarchism, but for gods sake, don't do it in a thread where you list somalia as the main example in the OP. In the 1990's, famine claimed over 300.000 lives in Somalia, and the one currently coming up is probably going to be worse. As a percentage of population killed, Somalia is going to be worse off then any other country in the region. System of government doesn't mean anything if 5% of your population are about to die due to starvation and people are killing eachother over the little food left. Somalia (and the rest of the Horn of Africa) is going to be needing major western aid, and the sad truth is that we can't give it to them (while we can to Kenya, or Ethiopia), simply because even if we were to ship the food, they have no means of actually getting it to where it's needed. It's the 1990's all over again, and having 5% of your population die due to famine isn't something that's compensated for by being cool and anarchist.
Go continue your discussion in a theoretical anarchism thread or something, this isn't the place for it at all.
Man's flaw in this case is that we lack a widely held understanding of force, property rights and individual liberty in general. Anarchy (based on libertarian ethical theory, anything else is just more of the same varying degrees of socialism) will work just fine once people understand the relatively easy concepts it's built upon. The power vacuum you're worried about doesn't have to occur, and if people abolish governments for the right reasons it won't.
And once true communism the state will wither away and it will truly be from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. <-- sarky sarc sarc
I'm sorry I don't have answers, maybe in time I will - but it's not about me, and most of what I am saying is true and valid and should be taken into consideration . I think discussion helps with that. At some level I think the solution is quite obvious. The problem is simply violence and taking advantage of other people. That is the fear of anarchy, that is the sum of all the problems with government. So the solution is, get people to stop doing that to each other, at least a critical mass. How to get there is the hard part. In fear of being extremely redundant, it is made much worse when the government is responsible for educating young minds, while having every incentive NOT to work towards that.
A critical mass to do what exactly?
Form some sort of communal agency to... enforce public safety and order?
Why, that sounds suspiciously like a police department.
It is basically just what Chaulker described, or educating people so that they will learn it is better to not be violent and manipulative with each other. It is basically useless to call this anarchy, because very few will understand what the means. It is more a system of taking the good aspects of government (organization, cooperation) and getting rid of the bad (initiation of force to get everything done) and finding a way to make it work in a way that is superior. This cannot happen without a change in mindset on a wide scale. People have already described this in detail, and it is an ideal. Perhaps unattainable in 100 or 1000 years, but it is still an ideal. An ideal that most will never learn about, pushing it that much further from reality.
Changing the nature of man is a universal goal of utopian philosophies.
Evolution should be brought into this, because it is quite valid. This so called "flaw of humanity" is nothing but a relic leftover from religious dogma. If people learn anything from evolution, it should be that we are not static beings, we can change for better and for worse. This so called flaw doesn't have to be permanent. With the right change on environment almost anything is possible in the long run...but who has the most control over our environment and where are they taking us?
How... Spencerian, and socially Darwinist of you.
The flaws of humanity exist whether religions are fantasies are not. Most of the worst examples of those flaws in action have taken place by men who professed atheism (Stalin, Mao, etc.) or a burning hatred of existing religion and its thoughts on the nature of man (Hitler). Religion or lack of it does not seem to be an issue.
When you talk about real world comparisons between opposing choices - everything I am talking about has no place there in the real political realm, and we should be honest about that. It is the only first step we can take, however small it is. In the US the politicians and the media grant no place for this discussion, none at all. It is only right vs. left. It is only a question the details of what government will do, rather that the philosophical question of how much we should actually want or have. Until we are ready to have that discussion, we will get no where. Until we are honest about the fact that our overlords avoid that discussion - and it is not some vast conspiracy, it is simply the result of incentives placed on them, it will remain this way.
When it suits you you at least attempt to be modest, but you are still infected by the idea that most of the people can be fooled most of the time. Not in a free society.
Derez, there cannot exist an argument to claim government use of resources being preferrable to consumers keeping their purchasing power.
If only you could boil down the entirety of human interaction to exchanges based on individual purchasing power.
But it also means that government by the very definitions that western culture holds dear cannot be demonstrated to be better at solving the problem of famines than private enterprise.
Well actually it required the shaping undeveloped wilderness in the nineteenth century, by government encouraging and protecting the ambitions of the people that created the great class of farmers that made the West the breadbasket of the world. Both the State and the private individual and enterprise were necessary.
Many of you are operating under the notion that today's corporations would take over if government is gotten rid of tomorrow. What you neglect to take into account is that corporations couldn't exist in its current form without government support.
The whole idea of a corporation is that private assets are protected if a company goes bankrupt. As a share holder you can only claim the assets of the "corporation", but the CEO can get away with million dollar bonuses and those are untouchable, even if the corporation went into debt precisely because of such a corrupt CEO. Corporations have signed a deal with the government, you protect us from the worse consequences of our actions, and we will pay you large corporate taxes. In a free market system, shareholders would be at an outrage and would never agree to give corporate elites such protection. This is only possible with government intervention.
Companies will look very different in a truly stateless society. Will there be corrupt ones? yes. Will they be greedy? sure. But without government protection, they will be forced to bear the full consequences of their actions. Everyone wants a way to protect workers from loosing their underwear just because their boss made really bad decisions, but higher-ups also need to be held accountable for ruining entire ecosystems and fishing families because of an oil spill. Loosing your current job title isn't quite at the same proportion.
On July 15 2011 09:13 Railxp wrote: Many of you are operating under the notion that today's corporations would take over if government is gotten rid of tomorrow. What you neglect to take into account is that corporations couldn't exist in its current form without government support.
The whole idea of a corporation is that private assets are protected if a company goes bankrupt. As a share holder you can only claim the assets of the "corporation", but the CEO can get away with million dollar bonuses and those are untouchable, even if the corporation went into debt precisely because of such a corrupt CEO. Corporations have signed a deal with the government, you protect us from the worse consequences of our actions, and we will pay you large corporate taxes. In a free market system, shareholders would be at an outrage and would never agree to give corporate elites such protection. This is only possible with government intervention.
Companies will look very different in a truly stateless society. Will there be corrupt ones? yes. Will they be greedy? sure. But without government protection, they will be forced to bear the full consequences of their actions. Everyone wants a way to protect workers from loosing their underwear just because their boss made really bad decisions, but higher-ups also need to be held accountable for ruining entire ecosystems and fishing families because of an oil spill. Loosing your current job title isn't quite at the same proportion.
Corporations existed before corporate taxation and regulation and they will exist afterwards. They'll be more unstable, I give you that, a lot of corporations would have been wiped out in 2008 if not for the government, but the notion that they wouldn't be the most powerful entities if government were to disappear is beyond silly.
On July 15 2011 02:40 Haemonculus wrote: Let's forget economic issues then. I'll freely admit that I don't know enough about economics to really debate how our federal masters abuse our wallets. So let's just look at social issues.
There's a horrific article in last month's edition of National Geographic, about the underground world of child brides. Girls as young as 6 being married to fully grown men against their will. Girls as young as 9 being dropped off at the hospital, dying of internal injuries sustained when their adult husbands forcibly consummated the marriage. A man who stabbed his 15 year old wife to death for disobeying him, who later walked away unpunished when it was decided he didn't do anything wrong. That's reality for a lot of women in poorer parts of the world. These stories all came from rural parts of India, in villages so far from the cities that the government simply doesn't touch them. They *do* live in your happy anarchy world, and they treat their women like shit.
There was another article a few months earlier about the lives of women in other parts of the world. Two sisters in Iran, aged 16 and 24, who had *never been allowed outside the house in their entire lives*. They've spent their entire lives locked inside. Or again, girls as young as 9 who *set themselves on fire* in suicide attempts to get away from their abusive husbands. Humanity does not have a good track record when it comes to women's rights. Personally, I'm thrilled to live in a first world country where I've never had to experience that. I didn't give blanket consent to every man in the village on the day of my first period. I wasn't married off at 13 one of my dad's friends and taken away from my family forever. The plight of women in a lot of the undeveloped world, (including Somalia), is horrible beyond belief. Most of us can't even imagine the lives lots of these women lead.
Or perhaps race relations? Do you think schools in the American south would have willingly desegregated had the government not sent the goddamn army in? You remember those pictures you see of little black children being escorted to class by men with machine guns, while thousands of people jeer and throw things? That wasn't so long ago. We used to lynch minorities for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hell, slavery wasn't too long ago. What happens in an anarchist society if some undesirables try to move into the neighborhood? Do we let the free market decide how to treat people who are different? Humanity has a shitty record in that area too.
I understand you don't like the system or how it's treated you. But honestly is there anything better out there?
It was the government itself that enforced slavery, hell it was the original founders of this government that were damn slave owners. It was the government itself that setup rules to treat women as inferior citizens. Everything you're talking about was enforced by the government on both sides, the so called good they did was just a change in attitude and action after years and years of doing the direct opposite. You can't cherry pick the good and ignore the bad. So yeah it's good those things happened, but hardly gives any credit to the institution itself. It actually just shows how dangerous power can be - and how they don't actually do good, they just do whatever whims they have at the time for whatever reasons.
Is there anything better? Of course we can find something better, of course it is possible. There is nothing in the world that can't be improved on in some way. The big problem is we are stuck in a rut where education is run by people who have no incentive for change in a good way. Like I said before, all of our problems, our insecurities, our acts of violence and ill will towards each each - governments feeds off of these it needs people to act this way to justify it's existence. So explain to me how they will ever have the incentive to move humanity beyond this, why they would ever look for better methods of education that would do so - it would only destroy them.
You've been criticizing the notion of government and how they continuously oppress the people to justify its existence. At the same time, you concede that anarchy is not the best solution either. The only alternative you have to having a government is that we might be able to find something better in the future. It's all fine and dandy to criticize some of the elements of existing institutions, I even agree with some of your criticisms, but unless you can articulate a clear alternative to the current status quo, the criticisms mean nothing since decisions in the real world involve comparisons between opposing choices.
EDIT: Also, what does it mean for our education to be taught in a 'good' way? Does that mean education people on the harms of government?
The alternative is simple. But it is a struggle. Its hard fighting against the oppressors, especially with the entire world of statist bullies looking to brutalise the libertarian dreams of somalis. But they wont give up, because they know what they want. It is something that once you feel, you know its right, and you know you got to keep doing it, no matter what. Its just purely keeping going, no matter what happens, and then you can do it. If you do that, all the distractions will bounce off you and anarchy can be sustained.
Trotsky was right in a way - it is a struggle, a (thus far) permanent revolution against the statist powermongers. But libertarian capitalism, not communism.
it's a struggle because most people (in western countries) are content. that is the real reason why no larger scale revolutions have happened in western democracies for the past 70 years; most people are content. the reason is not that the people are powerless, or that our regimes are so brutal that people are too frightened to dissent. look at northern africa, where you've had actually oppressive regimes for decades. eventually, people were fed up and revolted - even though the response has largely been quite brutal..
it's not like stuff is perfect. and not everyone is content. I can name hundreds of things I am dissatisfied with regarding society, or aspects I'd like to see improved upon.. absolutely. there are laws I'd like to see removed or altered, and I happily break the law regularly - and I am happy that my government is not competent enough to know that I am doing this. but there has also never been a time or a place through the entire history of mankind I would rather live in, than norway at the time being. and norway today is a thoroughly "staty" society; the state plays a significant role in my life, and the life of all norwegians, from birth until I die. in fact, every country I'd possibly like to live in, actually all share this attribute - that the state plays a significant role in the lives of ordinary citizens. there are absolutely examples of this going much too far (NK), but virtually every successful country on earth (going by factors such as education level, life expectancy, health care, crime) have one major thing in common: they are heavily regulated societies.
now, a powerful state that exercises its power to hurt its citizens is a truly horrific thing to behold. but a competent and compassionate state is amazing. this is what you should strive for - not the abolition of the entire institution. people always bond together in groups and people always try to look out for their own group before they look out for other groups. these are undeniable facts relating to human behavior. knowing that - can you actually think of a better system to keep people happy than one where people decide what should happen based on who has the best ideas, best ability to convey their ideas, and best track record in keeping promises? like I wrote before, american democracy does have some serious issues - and I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the posters I see both on this forum and elsewhere on the internet who advocate anarchy stem from usa or other countries where the state has been unsuccessful at providing security and stability. I don't know how to fix that - but I am absolutely confident that abolishing world governments would lead us closer to the direction of mad max than the direction of imaginationland where everyone is looking out for himself first, and that somehow resulting in improvement for most.
The whole idea of a corporation is that private assets are protected if a company goes bankrupt. As a share holder you can only claim the assets of the "corporation", but the CEO can get away with million dollar bonuses and those are untouchable, even if the corporation went into debt precisely because of such a corrupt CEO. Corporations have signed a deal with the government, you protect us from the worse consequences of our actions, and we will pay you large corporate taxes. In a free market system, shareholders would be at an outrage and would never agree to give corporate elites such protection. This is only possible with government intervention.
In a "free market system" of the kind you describe, economic activity would be horribly stunted as protecting private individuals from liability is the great strength of the concept of the limited liability corporation. Without it harnessing of the resources necessary to provide for a huge consumerist society is impossible.
The whole idea of a corporation is that private assets are protected if a company goes bankrupt. As a share holder you can only claim the assets of the "corporation", but the CEO can get away with million dollar bonuses and those are untouchable, even if the corporation went into debt precisely because of such a corrupt CEO. Corporations have signed a deal with the government, you protect us from the worse consequences of our actions, and we will pay you large corporate taxes. In a free market system, shareholders would be at an outrage and would never agree to give corporate elites such protection. This is only possible with government intervention.
In a "free market system" of the kind you describe, economic activity would be horribly stunted as protecting private individuals from liability is the great strength of the concept of the limited liability corporation. Without it harnessing of the resources necessary to provide for a huge consumerist society is impossible.
Man's flaw in this case is that we lack a widely held understanding of force, property rights and individual liberty in general. Anarchy (based on libertarian ethical theory, anything else is just more of the same varying degrees of socialism) will work just fine once people understand the relatively easy concepts it's built upon. The power vacuum you're worried about doesn't have to occur, and if people abolish governments for the right reasons it won't.
And once true communism the state will wither away and it will truly be from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. <-- sarky sarc sarc
I'm sorry I don't have answers, maybe in time I will - but it's not about me, and most of what I am saying is true and valid and should be taken into consideration . I think discussion helps with that. At some level I think the solution is quite obvious. The problem is simply violence and taking advantage of other people. That is the fear of anarchy, that is the sum of all the problems with government. So the solution is, get people to stop doing that to each other, at least a critical mass. How to get there is the hard part. In fear of being extremely redundant, it is made much worse when the government is responsible for educating young minds, while having every incentive NOT to work towards that.
A critical mass to do what exactly?
Form some sort of communal agency to... enforce public safety and order?
Why, that sounds suspiciously like a police department.
It is basically just what Chaulker described, or educating people so that they will learn it is better to not be violent and manipulative with each other. It is basically useless to call this anarchy, because very few will understand what the means. It is more a system of taking the good aspects of government (organization, cooperation) and getting rid of the bad (initiation of force to get everything done) and finding a way to make it work in a way that is superior. This cannot happen without a change in mindset on a wide scale. People have already described this in detail, and it is an ideal. Perhaps unattainable in 100 or 1000 years, but it is still an ideal. An ideal that most will never learn about, pushing it that much further from reality.
Changing the nature of man is a universal goal of utopian philosophies.
Evolution should be brought into this, because it is quite valid. This so called "flaw of humanity" is nothing but a relic leftover from religious dogma. If people learn anything from evolution, it should be that we are not static beings, we can change for better and for worse. This so called flaw doesn't have to be permanent. With the right change on environment almost anything is possible in the long run...but who has the most control over our environment and where are they taking us?
How... Spencerian, and socially Darwinist of you.
The flaws of humanity exist whether religions are fantasies are not. Most of the worst examples of those flaws in action have taken place by men who professed atheism (Stalin, Mao, etc.) or a burning hatred of existing religion and its thoughts on the nature of man (Hitler). Religion or lack of it does not seem to be an issue.
When you talk about real world comparisons between opposing choices - everything I am talking about has no place there in the real political realm, and we should be honest about that. It is the only first step we can take, however small it is. In the US the politicians and the media grant no place for this discussion, none at all. It is only right vs. left. It is only a question the details of what government will do, rather that the philosophical question of how much we should actually want or have. Until we are ready to have that discussion, we will get no where. Until we are honest about the fact that our overlords avoid that discussion - and it is not some vast conspiracy, it is simply the result of incentives placed on them, it will remain this way.
When it suits you you at least attempt to be modest, but you are still infected by the idea that most of the people can be fooled most of the time. Not in a free society.
But it also means that government by the very definitions that western culture holds dear cannot be demonstrated to be better at solving the problem of famines than private enterprise.
Well actually it required the shaping undeveloped wilderness in the nineteenth century, by government encouraging and protecting the ambitions of the people that created the great class of farmers that made the West the breadbasket of the world. Both the State and the private individual and enterprise were necessary.
But whatever you want to believe is cool I guess.
Elem, rejection of propertarian production concepts implies impossibility of capital structure - hence being at odds with the premise of the argument of welfarism. In short, it doesnt prove your point, but rather a paradoxical absurd. Not unlike the argumentation of "property is theft"Blues, liability is a core element of functional society. Surely, the premise of propertarianism goes at hand with it. And as such, the existance of acceptance of capital structure requires the other half of the production engine. It is a duality - production and liability, harmonously directing resource utilization.
Drone, CIA funded statist power mongers and UN transitional government brutes prove the point. While welfarism of scandinavia can be interpreted as comfort, direct money injections to violence cant. Though disturbingly the very welfarist argument of statists is nearly a carbon copy of that of slavery support. A parallel i pointed out earlier, and disturbing to think about, yet as the confines of defining terms of debate require, it must be accepted. Rockwell has published articles on the subject. Molyneux too, I believe.
Elem, rejection of propertarian production concepts implies impossibility of capital structure - hence being at odds with the premise of the argument of welfarism. In short, it doesnt prove your point, but rather a paradoxical absurd. Not unlike the argumentation of "property is theft"Blues, liability is a core element of functional society. Surely, the premise of propertarianism goes at hand with it. And as such, the existance of acceptance of capital structure requires the other half of the production engine. It is a duality - production and liability, harmonously directing resource utilization.
Do you ever read what you write. It seems you just try to drown people in jargon. Incoherent jargon at that.
Unfortunately rejection of your definition of "propertarian production concepts" does not imply "impossibility of capital structure."
I think you are trying to breezily paper over the difficulties lack of limited liability would cause - the main reason it exists, broadly speaking, is to encourage people to try to gather capital for new economic activity without risking their personal property in the bargain.
Talking about how liability is essential to production and all the rest of what you are saying is just odd. I never said liability is bad, I said lack of limited liability is an obstruction to gathering capital. If you think it is not, respond to that, and not with some jumbled together screed of phrases picked off LewRockwell.com.
Drone, CIA funded statist power mongers and UN transitional government brutes prove the point. While welfarism of scandinavia can be interpreted as comfort, direct money injections to violence cant.
One cannot help but feel that relevant parts of the story are not being told in this rendition of events.
While welfarism of scandinavia can be interpreted as comfort, direct money injections to violence cant.
I agree, "what is to be done?" about direct money injections to violence coming from organizations like the Pakistani ISI, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Syrian Ba'ath Party, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hezbollah?
Though disturbingly the very welfarist argument of statists is nearly a carbon copy of that of slavery support.
I would think I would enjoy an explanation of how arguments for the welfare state are arguments for classifying humans as property, but I think it would most likely be incomprehensible and incoherent, judging from what has been posted so far.
A parallel i pointed out earlier, and disturbing to think about, yet as the confines of defining terms of debate require, it must be accepted.
Well no it must not, because it is a weak and strained argument, but whatever.
Rockwell has published articles on the subject. Molyneux too, I believe.
Lew Rockwell ghost-wrote racist, homophobic, and xenophobic articles for Ron Paul's various newsletters through the 70s and 80s in a craven attempt to get cash donations from white supremacists by making them think Ron Paul was on their side. I would guess that from that experience Rockwell is well-informed about arguments for slavery.
Drone - if the compassionate state is so wonderful, if everyone thinks it is so great, (and I agree, it is a tremendous difference between the welfare state and the warfare state or imperial empire, but I still think both are bad, it's just that one is a million times worse), then why must financing for it be compulsory?
Still so much to respond to; still so little time...
I wonder though, DeepElemBlues, why it is you think that the free market somehow rejects the concept of the limited liability company.
The concept of an LLC would be perfectly acceptable in a free society; the company can simply state that when you deal with it, you implicitly agree that any legal action must be directed at the company and not the shareholders. There's no need for government involvement, or more specifically, the system of law currently in place.
I wonder though, DeepElemBlues, why it is you think that the free market somehow rejects the concept of the limited liability company.
Uncertainty is the bane of freely flowing capital.
The concept of an LLC would be perfectly acceptable in a free society; the company can simply state that when you deal with it, you implicitly agree that any legal action must be directed at the company and not the shareholders. There's no need for government involvement, or more specifically, the system of law currently in place.
Ah yes, the good old "a new system of individual, self-imposed law will spring Venus-like from the hearts of man" in your utopia. Tell me, why should I care if a corporation tells me that any legal action must be directed at the company and not the shareholders? Who will stop me? The courts? What courts? We are in a new system of law where there is no third, disinterested party, to provide a forum and a method for handling disputes.
Of course the company could just ignore lawsuits as there is no enforcement mechanism to make them do so... oh wait there's that voluntary association of fellows suspiciously looking like police again, come to save the day!
And I suppose, of course, there would be some voluntary association of men and women that we could voluntarily send our dispute to... or maybe it must go there because the community has decided this group shall settle legal disputes. Sounds suspiciously like a courts system, but what do I know.
Or perhaps the company's bank will refuse to give me any of their money if I don't play by the rules... unless, of course, I have a connection at the bank, maybe I'll just have them take the money out even without a lawsuit, we can split it or something. But surely that wouldn't happen, wouldn't it?
There's no need for government involvement as long as everyone behaves as if there is a force of law existent where there is not; you simply just assume that people will act as if there is still a government when there is no government. I wonder why people like you think that. There are no examples of men acting as if there was a government when there was none, save to create government.
In a world where the only law and law enforcement are voluntary agreements and associations, why couldn't I just make my own law and get the strength to enforce it against others' will? The community will stop me? Communities are weak, fragile things, easily awed by men with guns.
Somalia is once again spewing misery across its borders, and once again man-made dimensions are making this natural disaster more acute.
The Islamist militants controlling southern Somalia forced out Western aid organizations last year, yanking away the only safety net just when the soil was drying up and the drought was coming. Only now, when the scale of the catastrophe is becoming clear, with nearly three million Somalis in urgent need and more than 10 million at risk across the parched Horn of Africa, have the militants relented and invited aid groups back. But few are rushing in because of the complications and dangers of dealing with a brutal group that is aligned with Al Qaeda and has turned Somalia into a focal point of American concerns on terrorism.
Just to keep this somewhat on topic and to show my dissatisfaction with a thread title like this by an OP still to take back a single word of what he said in his OP. Theoretical debates have zero value in cases like this. With such an amazing system of government, who would ever leave somalia :/.
On July 01 2011 12:50 0neder wrote: Anarchists are foolish idealists. The founders of USA understood the need to balance freedom and order. And, they established a framework for people to freely succeed according to their ambition that also restricted government power. Granted, after a few hundred years it is swamped by general laziness and nearly overcome by a demand for endless 'rights' without compensatory sacrifices by its citizens, but it's so robust that it's still succeeding for the most part.
the founding fathers of america were anarchists AND TERRORISTS to the English Crown and its sovereign rights.
On July 01 2011 13:17 Sanctimonius wrote: Interesting study and it raises interesting questions. Somalia refused their own government and no other has been able to set itself up across the entire country despite backing from various foreign interests, since they seem to be functioning very well by themselves, than'youver'much. I'm still a bit sceptical about the idea that anarchy is basically a good thing here.
The study talks about the seperation between the north and the south - Somaliland in the north is a proto-state. It tries to operate with a cenralised currency, it has infrastructure and investment while not interfering with the things that work - obviously agriculture and law has worked for centuries in this area without a central authority, they are doing well enough leaving it alone. But in the south, piracy is on the increase. These networks and developed communites are preying on the weak and raiding what they can from other sources, if not themselves. Southern Somalia has realised that without an authority to limit them, they are free to take it upon themselves to do what they wish. With a legal system that relies on the strong social ties they have, attacking each other has penalties they aren't prepared to face. But raiding neighbours, raiding passing shipping lanes with no real legal consequences to themselves? Sure. Prop up an anarchistic society with the proceeds from other nations and it seems to keep going.
I also question this idea of doing well. Somalia isn't doing well, it's doing better. Sure, it has improved since the awful days of civil warfare and corrupt governments. It's doing generally better than neighbouring countries with repressive governments of their own. But these are relative ideas - there is little scope to improve the country of the lot of the people there. Their lives are functioning, their society keeps going, but there is no real chance to develop the country. Are taxes being collected and spent on public works like hospitals, roads, schools? Only in the north, Somaliland. Basically the entire study can boil down to this:
Repressive regimes suck for you. No government can work better than a terrible government.
There is nothing to say that this system is better than good government. I would also dispute the presence of foreign investment being a sign of progress. It merely means foreign investors see a sign of profit. To sue the example of Coca Cola, never a company to baulk at shirking local laws, maybe they realised that without a central authority trying to impose such silly ideals as 'basic wage' or 'safe practices' they could make and sell Cola to other countries using impoverished labourers in an unsafe environment. This is, of course, not necessarily what is happening here. Maybe Cola is going in with the intention of creating a safe work environment and good wages for the workers there. I'm merely trying to say it's not necessarily a sign of something good.
if thats true than as a completely individualist state with no government, perhaps they should be treated like incorporated companies, which are also legally considered individuals, and threaten to take resources or blockade them and otherwise clamp down. I mean, whats interpol doing with them? They're after all just a bunch of individuals, so what happens if countries start treating them as individuals who have committed crimes, since they have no law in their own country?
On July 17 2011 07:41 DeepElemBlues wrote: And we care what Lord North and George III thought?
Tadaa.
The revolutionaries were clearly not anarchists, the idea is preposterous.
my point you numpty, is that what you're called and considered changes based on 1: who you talk to and 2: If its beneficial to call you one or the other. Beneficial to short term gains or long term gains or whitewashing history, or painting some group or person as the villain, etc.
Terrorist is thus used to ensure citizens cling to your rule. I still remember playing as a "terrorist" in certain video games where they were destroying parts of the reactors sucking the planets energy dry, because the corporation that owned the city was being greedy, and etc etc, and yep, I agreed with terrorists in that position. amazing how they can look good or bad depending on your side of the coin.
An individual born in a priviledged state dreams about living in some kind of utopian anarchist society and has the audacity to claim that Somalia is an example of "success" when millions and millions of Somalians are starving and in need of dire aid with slews of people dying every day right now. You are so divorced from reality that it boggles my mind.
That's seriously the most fucking stupid thing I've ever read for a very long time. Somalia is currently going through what is called, by the UN, the worst humanitarian distaster in the world. I don't recall there being millions of Americans trekking to Canada and Mexico because they are starving to death.
You can talk about all the shit you want to, but when what you're saying is completely divorced from reality then your words are worth just about as much as shit on the ground.
On July 18 2011 03:46 BlizzrdSlave wrote: actually most somalians are well fed and living more comfortably than the current american atm. woot american depression.
Yeah, the average American definitely suffers from lack of food LOL.
On July 18 2011 01:38 koreasilver wrote: An individual born in a priviledged state dreams about living in some kind of utopian anarchist society and has the audacity to claim that Somalia is an example of "success" when millions and millions of Somalians are starving and in need of dire aid with slews of people dying every day right now. You are so divorced from reality that it boggles my mind.
It's always like that.
Xarthaz lives a comparatively comfortable life in a wealthy society built on the opposite of the principles he claims to endorse. Exexee or whoever that Danish guy is who posts about the evils of capitalism and corporations and pretty much everything also lives a very comfortable life granted to him by successive governments favoring the opposite of what he espouses and decries.
Hell, I'd say one of the saddest things about post industrial western world is the fact that well off comfortable people who have likely never faced hunger nor probably worked a real hard day's labor in their life for a weak wage have the audacity to sit around and post on thousand dollar computers in air conditioned rooms decrying the system around them that apparently causes them so much grief because their "liberty is violated' or some equally retarded thing to say.
It is useless to compare absolute living standards between countries when trying to assess the efficacy of a particular socio-economic system. No one but an idiot would claim that Somalia is a nice place to live - but is it nicer currently than it was 10 years ago?
Botswana is also in Africa. It's a very poor nation. Because of the limited government approach taken by the Botswani people they had the fastest growing economy in the world for 50 years. Sure, Botswana isn't as nice to live in as Florida; but the lessons learned from their experiences are very meaningful.
I think currently, somalia is worse than it was 10 years ago. and botswana is certainly a success story - but it's a success story through having had free democratic elections with good governance, not through any sort of anarchist approach, nor anything resembling lassez-faire economical policies.. Botswana is more than anything, an example of good governance producing good results.
On July 21 2011 02:57 BestZergOnEast wrote: Yeah, I bet anarchy dried up all the water.
Anarchy didn't dry up any water. It did however lead to a lawless state incapable of producing enough grain to feed its nation, and enough commerce to buy the food from other nations.
Tweks44, there cannot exist an argument to claim government use of resources being preferrable to consumers keeping their purchasing power. It is because the concept of exchange does not exist within production. If it did, it would be private institution, hence the Hoppean argumentation supporting Monarchy&Anarchy over Democracy.
But it also means that government by the very definitions that western culture holds dear cannot be demonstrated to be better at solving the problem of famines than private enterprise.
Why is this important? Because this simple analytic passage debunks claims of any government involvment within economy having utility, hence it is a universal anti-government answer. And most of all, it is logically consistent and a resut of a priori praxeology, hence not open to refutation.
On July 21 2011 02:57 BestZergOnEast wrote: Yeah, I bet anarchy dried up all the water.
Anarchy didn't dry up any water. It did however lead to a lawless state incapable of producing enough grain to feed its nation, and enough commerce to buy the food from other nations.
It's all good though, they've got really good phone service, they can just call in a pizza.
On July 21 2011 03:26 xarthaz wrote: I must repeat myself, however,
Tweks44, there cannot exist an argument to claim government use of resources being preferrable to consumers keeping their purchasing power. It is because the concept of exchange does not exist within production. If it did, it would be private institution, hence the Hoppean argumentation supporting Monarchy&Anarchy over Democracy.
But it also means that government by the very definitions that western culture holds dear cannot be demonstrated to be better at solving the problem of famines than private enterprise.
Why is this important? Because this simple analytic passage debunks claims of any government involvment within economy having utility, hence it is a universal anti-government answer. And most of all, it is logically consistent and a resut of a priori praxeology, hence not open to refutation.
wow, those are some big words. Unfortunately this kind of logic will not make Somalia any more prosperous. You can argue around it all you want. The fact of the matter is Somalia is one of the worse off states in the world. Complex logical arguments aside, empirical evidence shows us: Stable governments are generally prosperous and nations with no centralized government (aka in a state of anarchy) are generally poor and incapable of supporting themselves.
A common occurrance on the forums - incomprehension of argument results in ignoring it and following up with a semi-related idea. It does not constitute refutation of the points made and hence is unproductive for debate.
ok fair enough. I admit I ignored your argument. I'll try to address it here.
"there cannot exist an argument to claim government use of resources being preferrable to consumers keeping their purchasing power. It is because the concept of exchange does not exist within production"
what do you mean the concept of exchange does not exist within production? If I produce x amount of goods I can trade them for someone who produces y amount of goods. Therefore production can be indirectly exchanged. Also in the global market production CAN be directly exchanged. It happens all the time when we export labor (aka production) overseas.
"But it also means that government by the very definitions that western culture holds dear cannot be demonstrated to be better at solving the problem of famines than private enterprise."
please elaborate on this point, I fail to see a connection.
"this simple analytic passage debunks claims of any government involvment within economy having utility, hence it is a universal anti-government answer."
your conclusion seems to be that no matter what, a government cannot improve the state of a nation's economy. Therefore Somalia's problems would exist regardless of what kind of government was in place. Perhaps I'm not following your argument but I fail to see how this connection is made.
Ho-ho-holy crap. Xarthaz, you are quickly becoming one of the most laughable posters I have seen on this site.
You make every post of yours chock-full of high level words in an attempt to come off as knowledgeable, then someone calls you out on it and you go through the eternal run around of naming names and ignoring entire sections of a post in attempt to come out again.
Are you practicing for debate here or do you just enjoy clicking keys? I mean, the entire concept here is at least debatable but your little quickly-moved-to-blogs post about the objectively top 10 games is this same kind of nonsense with no grounds in reality at all. "A common occurrance on the forums - incomprehension of argument results in ignoring it and following up with a semi-related idea. It does not constitute refutation of the points made and hence is unproductive for debate."
First off, you didn't even spell occurrence right and we have a built in spell check. Then you take a quick step to say that if someone disagrees, they obviously must have comprehension problems because there's no way you could be wrong...m i rite? Not to mention another trip to the thesaurus in an attempt to obfuscate your lack of credibility. Broad, sweeping generalizations do not constitute an argument man. Come on now.
You want to debate something? Try and weasel your way out how much longer everyone is even going to keep replying to something like that. Then go back and learn what the word "objectively" means and finally, go read damn near well anything about Anarchists and see how little it will ever come to success. Much less in a country like Somalia of all places. You'd have better chances saying Juarez was/is a peaceful town.
On July 21 2011 03:26 xarthaz wrote: I must repeat myself, however,
Tweks44, there cannot exist an argument to claim government use of resources being preferrable to consumers keeping their purchasing power. It is because the concept of exchange does not exist within production. If it did, it would be private institution, hence the Hoppean argumentation supporting Monarchy&Anarchy over Democracy.
But it also means that government by the very definitions that western culture holds dear cannot be demonstrated to be better at solving the problem of famines than private enterprise.
Why is this important? Because this simple analytic passage debunks claims of any government involvment within economy having utility, hence it is a universal anti-government answer. And most of all, it is logically consistent and a resut of a priori praxeology, hence not open to refutation.
There are no a priori synthetic truths, how is that for refutation But seriously, a priori synthetic truths are debatable concept and their existence at all is far from clear, not even mentioning claim that action axiom is a priori synthetic truth. Big problem with all that is that this issue is so closely related to the language itself that discussing it is close to pointless. The only reasonable answer can come from empirical observation, specifically for example neurology and linguistics, but since praxeology rejects empiricism, there is no way for it to have any objective say on the matter whatsoever as non-empirical systems are just language plays, some more useful (math/logic), some less.
It all comes down to assumptions. And if people disagree about those assumptions there is no way to prove anything to the other person. I assume the empiricism as the main way to study the world. If someone assumes something different there is no way to disprove it as long as he stays consistent and vice versa. The reason to prefer empiricism is that it (from historical experience and "intuition") has shown some descriptive and manipulative power in reality. Other systems did not (yet?). And consistency with reality is in my book much more important than (just) logical consistency.
EDIT: Just to add, there are many logically consistent systems that can easily be shown to be totally divorced from reality.
On July 21 2011 03:26 xarthaz wrote: I must repeat myself, however,
Tweks44, there cannot exist an argument to claim government use of resources being preferrable to consumers keeping their purchasing power. It is because the concept of exchange does not exist within production. If it did, it would be private institution, hence the Hoppean argumentation supporting Monarchy&Anarchy over Democracy.
But it also means that government by the very definitions that western culture holds dear cannot be demonstrated to be better at solving the problem of famines than private enterprise.
Why is this important? Because this simple analytic passage debunks claims of any government involvment within economy having utility, hence it is a universal anti-government answer. And most of all, it is logically consistent and a resut of a priori praxeology, hence not open to refutation.
You are just making bold statements, and claim they are facts. You can not just say "there cannot exist an argument for ..." without giving reasons as to WHY that argument can not exist. An absolute negative is usually hard to proof, so when you claim something like that, don't just act like it is obvious, because it is not. Give a good, logically sound explanation why that would be the case.
Also, do not expect everyone to have read exactly what you have read. Trying to throw as much unexplained terminology as possible at people in the hopes that they believe that because you have large words what you say must be true is not a good conversational technic. A good argumentation and understandable as possible, and only as complicated as necessary, instead of being as complicated as possible to obscure its actual meaning. If you feel the need for the latter, your points are probably not as good as you think.
Good scientific methodicality means that if you challenge the status quo, the burden of proof is yours. So, since you claim a lot of things that are counterintuitional, it would be a nice thing if you would deliver some proof. Please use as small words and as clear logic as possible to help people as stupid as me to understand your highly complex arguments. Maybe even use a second sentence to explain what you mean with the first one only filled with terminology.
Why can no argument exist to claim government use of resources is being preferrable to consumers keeping their purchasing power?
Why can government not be demonstrated to be better at solving the problems of famine?
On July 21 2011 03:26 xarthaz wrote: I must repeat myself, however,
Tweks44, there cannot exist an argument to claim government use of resources being preferrable to consumers keeping their purchasing power. It is because the concept of exchange does not exist within production. If it did, it would be private institution, hence the Hoppean argumentation supporting Monarchy&Anarchy over Democracy.
But it also means that government by the very definitions that western culture holds dear cannot be demonstrated to be better at solving the problem of famines than private enterprise.
Why is this important? Because this simple analytic passage debunks claims of any government involvment within economy having utility, hence it is a universal anti-government answer. And most of all, it is logically consistent and a resut of a priori praxeology, hence not open to refutation.
The fundamental problem with this argument is that production CAN be exchanged. I don't understand why you think it can't.
Guys, the extended argument for the claim of impossibility of demonstrating government spending being productive, unlike private spending, can be presented, Rothbard does it in a concise and powerful fashion:
This type of analysis of government has been neglected because economists and statisticians tend to assume, rather blithely, that government expenditures are a measure of its pro- ductive contribution to society. In the “private sector” of the economy, the value of productive output is sensibly gauged by the amount of money that consumers spend voluntarily on that output. Curiously, on the other hand, the government’s “pro- ductive output” is gauged, not by what is spent on government, but by what government itself spends! No wonder that grandiose claims are often made for the unique productive power of government spending, when a mere increase in that spending serves to raise the government’s “productive contribu- tion” to the economy. What, then, is the productive contribution of government? Since the value of government is not gauged on the market, and the payments to the government are not voluntary, it is impossi- ble to estimate. It is impossible to know how much would be paid in to the government were it purely voluntary, or indeed, whether one central government in each geographical area would exist at all. Since, then, the only thing we do know is that the tax-and- spend process diverts income and resources from what they would have been doing in the “private sector,” we must conclude that the government’s productive contribution to the economy is precisely zero. Furthermore, even if it be objected that govern- mental services are worth something, it would have to be noted that we are again suffering from the error pointed out by Bastiat: a sole emphasis on what is seen, to the neglect of what is not seen. We may see the government’s hydroelectric dam in operation; we do not see the things that private individuals would have done with the money—whether buying consumers’ goods or investing in producers’ goods—but which they were compelled to forgo. In fact, since private consumers would have done something else, something more desired, and therefore from their point of view more productive, with the money, we can be sure that the loss in productivity incurred by the government’s tax and spending is greater than whatever productivity it has contributed. In short, strictly, the government’s productivity is not simply zero, but neg- ative, for it has imposed a loss in productivity upon society.
(MESPM, page 939-940) Rothbard continues his crushing strike on government for a few hundred more pages, if interested. All his material is free available + free audio books at the Mises institute.
On July 21 2011 04:56 xarthaz wrote: Guys, the extended argument for the claim of impossibility of demonstrating government spending being productive, unlike private spending, can be presented, Rothbard does it in a concise and powerful fashion:
This type of analysis of government has been neglected because economists and statisticians tend to assume, rather blithely, that government expenditures are a measure of its pro- ductive contribution to society. In the “private sector” of the economy, the value of productive output is sensibly gauged by the amount of money that consumers spend voluntarily on that output. Curiously, on the other hand, the government’s “pro- ductive output” is gauged, not by what is spent on government, but by what government itself spends! No wonder that grandiose claims are often made for the unique productive power of government spending, when a mere increase in that spending serves to raise the government’s “productive contribu- tion” to the economy. What, then, is the productive contribution of government? Since the value of government is not gauged on the market, and the payments to the government are not voluntary, it is impossi- ble to estimate. It is impossible to know how much would be paid in to the government were it purely voluntary, or indeed, whether one central government in each geographical area would exist at all. Since, then, the only thing we do know is that the tax-and- spend process diverts income and resources from what they would have been doing in the “private sector,” we must conclude that the government’s productive contribution to the economy is precisely zero. Furthermore, even if it be objected that govern- mental services are worth something, it would have to be noted that we are again suffering from the error pointed out by Bastiat: a sole emphasis on what is seen, to the neglect of what is not seen. We may see the government’s hydroelectric dam in operation; we do not see the things that private individuals would have done with the money—whether buying consumers’ goods or investing in producers’ goods—but which they were compelled to forgo. In fact, since private consumers would have done something else, something more desired, and therefore from their point of view more productive, with the money, we can be sure that the loss in productivity incurred by the government’s tax and spending is greater than whatever productivity it has contributed. In short, strictly, the government’s productivity is not simply zero, but neg- ative, for it has imposed a loss in productivity upon society.
(MESPM, page 939-940) Rothbard continues his crushing strike on government for a few hundred more pages, if interested. All his material is free available + free audio books at the Mises institute.
That's a well organized argument for anarchy. A government will not, by the virtue of its existence, increase the cash flow in an economy. This doesn't prove Somalia is a thriving nation though.
I'll delve deeper into this later if the thread hasn't ventured into different material. Particularly on the importance of a police force, fire fighting force, military and infrastructure that private institutions haven't been shown to successfully provide. I'm at work now.
Are we talking about this country located in the Horn of Africa currently experiencing an incredible famine?
It s not really anarchy there though, it can actually be divided in about 10 areas, each with different leaders (mostly warlords but not only). If anybody goes against their will they basically die.
Personnally I d rather have some corrupt politicians...
On July 21 2011 04:56 xarthaz wrote: Guys, the extended argument for the claim of impossibility of demonstrating government spending being productive, unlike private spending, can be presented, Rothbard does it in a concise and powerful fashion:
This type of analysis of government has been neglected because economists and statisticians tend to assume, rather blithely, that government expenditures are a measure of its pro- ductive contribution to society. In the “private sector” of the economy, the value of productive output is sensibly gauged by the amount of money that consumers spend voluntarily on that output. Curiously, on the other hand, the government’s “pro- ductive output” is gauged, not by what is spent on government, but by what government itself spends! No wonder that grandiose claims are often made for the unique productive power of government spending, when a mere increase in that spending serves to raise the government’s “productive contribu- tion” to the economy. What, then, is the productive contribution of government? Since the value of government is not gauged on the market, and the payments to the government are not voluntary, it is impossi- ble to estimate. It is impossible to know how much would be paid in to the government were it purely voluntary, or indeed, whether one central government in each geographical area would exist at all. Since, then, the only thing we do know is that the tax-and- spend process diverts income and resources from what they would have been doing in the “private sector,” we must conclude that the government’s productive contribution to the economy is precisely zero. Furthermore, even if it be objected that govern- mental services are worth something, it would have to be noted that we are again suffering from the error pointed out by Bastiat: a sole emphasis on what is seen, to the neglect of what is not seen. We may see the government’s hydroelectric dam in operation; we do not see the things that private individuals would have done with the money—whether buying consumers’ goods or investing in producers’ goods—but which they were compelled to forgo. In fact, since private consumers would have done something else, something more desired, and therefore from their point of view more productive, with the money, we can be sure that the loss in productivity incurred by the government’s tax and spending is greater than whatever productivity it has contributed. In short, strictly, the government’s productivity is not simply zero, but neg- ative, for it has imposed a loss in productivity upon society.
(MESPM, page 939-940) Rothbard continues his crushing strike on government for a few hundred more pages, if interested. All his material is free available + free audio books at the Mises institute.
I have some questions:
Why does economy pay any role in the way a country should be governed?
How does the fact, that the government does not produce goods, that could not be produced in a "private" sector, make you jump to the conclusion, that any kind of government is completely useless and needs to be abolished? Also the government is providing jobs and thus the money comes back into the economy and vcia this way back into the private sector or am i wrong there and the government just burns it?
Police, Firedepartment, Hospitals and so on, could be replaced by private Companies. However those would be based on you paying these institutions money, which would let the poor not get these kinds of protection, so they have to do this stuff themselves. The government however provides this services for everybody in a equal way, without a direct payment, except for taxes.
Could you please explain that to me in simple words, cause english is not my native language and i have real trouble reading and understanding your posts T_T
On July 21 2011 05:14 WGT-Baal wrote: Are we talking about this country located in the Horn of Africa currently experiencing an incredible famine?
It s not really anarchy there though, it can actually be divided in about 10 areas, each with different leaders (mostly warlords but not only). If anybody goes against their will they basically die.
Personnally I d rather have some corrupt politicians...
Didn't you read the OP? The thriving security sector and the booming cellphone industry all make up for tens of thousands of people dying due to violence and famine.
This thread is becoming more distasteful by the day, and all the armchair statesmen in this thread continue to discuss a theoretical approach on the benefits of anarchy in a modern society, which is fine and all, but has jack shit to do with anything happening in countries like Somalia. These countries need more, and better, governance.
Somalia has been a total disaster for at least the last 20 years, and will continue to be just that until some kind of government is in place, preferrably somewhat democratic, but anything would be a step up from the current situation.
On July 21 2011 04:56 xarthaz wrote: Guys, the extended argument for the claim of impossibility of demonstrating government spending being productive, unlike private spending, can be presented, Rothbard does it in a concise and powerful fashion:
This type of analysis of government has been neglected because economists and statisticians tend to assume, rather blithely, that government expenditures are a measure of its pro- ductive contribution to society. In the “private sector” of the economy, the value of productive output is sensibly gauged by the amount of money that consumers spend voluntarily on that output. Curiously, on the other hand, the government’s “pro- ductive output” is gauged, not by what is spent on government, but by what government itself spends! No wonder that grandiose claims are often made for the unique productive power of government spending, when a mere increase in that spending serves to raise the government’s “productive contribu- tion” to the economy. What, then, is the productive contribution of government? Since the value of government is not gauged on the market, and the payments to the government are not voluntary, it is impossi- ble to estimate. It is impossible to know how much would be paid in to the government were it purely voluntary, or indeed, whether one central government in each geographical area would exist at all. Since, then, the only thing we do know is that the tax-and- spend process diverts income and resources from what they would have been doing in the “private sector,” we must conclude that the government’s productive contribution to the economy is precisely zero. Furthermore, even if it be objected that govern- mental services are worth something, it would have to be noted that we are again suffering from the error pointed out by Bastiat: a sole emphasis on what is seen, to the neglect of what is not seen. We may see the government’s hydroelectric dam in operation; we do not see the things that private individuals would have done with the money—whether buying consumers’ goods or investing in producers’ goods—but which they were compelled to forgo. In fact, since private consumers would have done something else, something more desired, and therefore from their point of view more productive, with the money, we can be sure that the loss in productivity incurred by the government’s tax and spending is greater than whatever productivity it has contributed. In short, strictly, the government’s productivity is not simply zero, but neg- ative, for it has imposed a loss in productivity upon society.
(MESPM, page 939-940) Rothbard continues his crushing strike on government for a few hundred more pages, if interested. All his material is free available + free audio books at the Mises institute.
First thing, you sound kind of like propaganda pamphlet. Maybe you can use your own words to argue ?
Anyway the cited argument is jumping to conclusions improperly and is contradictory. First he states that government's contribution is impossible to estimate and then (in next sentence) he claims it is precisely zero You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Actually only the statement about impossibility is correctly inferred from praxeology as far as I gather. So praxeology cannot tell us anything about value of the government. And that is it.
On July 21 2011 04:56 xarthaz wrote: Guys, the extended argument for the claim of impossibility of demonstrating government spending being productive, unlike private spending, can be presented, Rothbard does it in a concise and powerful fashion:
This type of analysis of government has been neglected because economists and statisticians tend to assume, rather blithely, that government expenditures are a measure of its pro- ductive contribution to society. In the “private sector” of the economy, the value of productive output is sensibly gauged by the amount of money that consumers spend voluntarily on that output. Curiously, on the other hand, the government’s “pro- ductive output” is gauged, not by what is spent on government, but by what government itself spends! No wonder that grandiose claims are often made for the unique productive power of government spending, when a mere increase in that spending serves to raise the government’s “productive contribu- tion” to the economy. What, then, is the productive contribution of government? Since the value of government is not gauged on the market, and the payments to the government are not voluntary, it is impossi- ble to estimate. It is impossible to know how much would be paid in to the government were it purely voluntary, or indeed, whether one central government in each geographical area would exist at all. Since, then, the only thing we do know is that the tax-and- spend process diverts income and resources from what they would have been doing in the “private sector,” we must conclude that the government’s productive contribution to the economy is precisely zero. Furthermore, even if it be objected that govern- mental services are worth something, it would have to be noted that we are again suffering from the error pointed out by Bastiat: a sole emphasis on what is seen, to the neglect of what is not seen. We may see the government’s hydroelectric dam in operation; we do not see the things that private individuals would have done with the money—whether buying consumers’ goods or investing in producers’ goods—but which they were compelled to forgo. In fact, since private consumers would have done something else, something more desired, and therefore from their point of view more productive, with the money, we can be sure that the loss in productivity incurred by the government’s tax and spending is greater than whatever productivity it has contributed. In short, strictly, the government’s productivity is not simply zero, but neg- ative, for it has imposed a loss in productivity upon society.
(MESPM, page 939-940) Rothbard continues his crushing strike on government for a few hundred more pages, if interested. All his material is free available + free audio books at the Mises institute.
The problem with arguing from a purely economic standpoint is that economic gains do not necessarily correlate with an increase in quality of life. There have been plenty of years where economic indicators point to success but the quality of life for the average person is on the decline. I guess it depends entirely on how you define success.
zocktol, Government burning money would be better for the economy than spending it. Spending it bids resources to unprofitable government dictated ends, burning the taxed money would raise interest rates and stimulate real savings and investment. mcc, rothbard is talking about statements that can be demonstrated. In the paradigm of demonstrated utility, government contribution is indeed zero
The title is very misleading, as it in a way promotes anarchy by stating that it is successful, even though that's not even true. Also, Somalia can't possibly be a model for the rest of the world.
Anarchy =/= Initiation of Violence. Be careful of attributing the effects of violence to the existence of anarchy. It's doubly wrong because also the person who is actually responsible for initiating the violence in question evades notice. Besides. How much anarchy is there really in Somalia, compared to how much initiated violence there is?
On July 21 2011 05:35 xarthaz wrote: zocktol, Government burning money would be better for the economy than spending it. Spending it bids resources to unprofitable government dictated ends, burning the taxed money would raise interest rates and stimulate real savings and investment.
Burning money is far worse, are you serious? The interest rates would rise because the cash supply is decreasing, not because the real demand for cash is increasing. It would put a large amount of strain on debtors and suppliers that would have sold goods to the government for government projects would not sell anything. If the economy could be fixed by artificially raising interest rates via destroying money all of the world's economic problems would be solved. Your logic has shown time and again to be highly flawed
Until price equilibrium at new money supply forms, the real demand for cash indeed IS increasing, thus facilitating savings over consumption, lengthening the capital structure and making production more efficient. The second part - forgoing sales to government is also excellet for economy as it redistributes into productive ends, what would otherwise have essentially been waste.
On July 21 2011 05:35 xarthaz wrote: zocktol, Government burning money would be better for the economy than spending it. Spending it bids resources to unprofitable government dictated ends, burning the taxed money would raise interest rates and stimulate real savings and investment.
So money should be used to increase the economy, so that it can increase the economy?
What's so bad about deflation? Purchasing power goes up. There's an incentive to save (which, despite the mantra of the media that consumption and consumer spending is the key to prosperity, is a much better measure of economic health). Indeed, a healthy sound monetary system would have gentle deflation (combined with wages that increased!). But the government shouldn't burn or print money. There is no need to adjust the money supply. Any amount of money supply is adequate for any economy. The key isn't to raise interest rates or lower them - it's to allow consumers to set interest rates by the % of their income that they save. Let the market decide.
As soon as an Austrian (Schooler, not countryman) starts talking about a priori and irrefutable and praxeology my eyes start to glaze over, because I know it's going to be a jumble of jargon that has been copy-pasted into the poster's mind, that in the end says, "I already figured it out in my head - you're wrong."
The very idea that ideas are not "open to refutation" - i.e. that they must be accepted without examination past checking logical soundness - is not intellectual or even scientific and certainly not a way to discover truth.
The entire school of praxeology is essentially a construct of Mises. It is an odd form of circular logic, where your ideas are perfect because your logic is perfect, your logic is perfect because your premises are perfect, and your premises are perfect because their logic is perfect.
On July 21 2011 05:35 xarthaz wrote: zocktol, Government burning money would be better for the economy than spending it. Spending it bids resources to unprofitable government dictated ends, burning the taxed money would raise interest rates and stimulate real savings and investment. mcc, rothbard is talking about statements that can be demonstrated. In the paradigm of demonstrated utility, government contribution is indeed zero
No Blue's, the premises are perfect because the concept is necessary for perception of world: All experience concerning human action is conditioned by the praxeo- logical categories and becomes possible only through their application. If we had not in our mind the schemes provided by praxeological reasoning, we should never be in a position to discern and to grasp any action. We would perceive motions, but neither buying nor selling, nor prices, wage rates, interest rates, and so on. It is only through the utilization of the praxeological scheme that we become able to have an experience concerning an act of buying and selling, but then independently of the fact of whether or not our senses concomitantly perceive any motions of men and of nonhuman elements of the external world. Unaided by praxeological knowledge we would never learn anything about media of exchange. If we approach coins without such preexisting knowledge, we would see in them only round plates of metal, nothing more. Experience concerning money requires familiarity with the praxeological category medium of exchange. Experience concerning human action differs from that concerning natural phenomena in that it requires and presupposes praxeological knowledge. This is why the methods of the natural sciences are inappropriate for the study of praxeology, economics and history.
On July 21 2011 06:30 DeepElemBlues wrote: As soon as an Austrian (Schooler, not countryman) starts talking about a priori and irrefutable and praxeology my eyes start to glaze over, because I know it's going to be a jumble of jargon that has been copy-pasted into the poster's mind, that in the end says, "I already figured it out in my head - you're wrong."
The very idea that ideas are not "open to refutation" - i.e. that they must be accepted without examination past checking logical soundness - is not intellectual or even scientific and certainly not a way to discover truth.
The entire school of praxeology is essentially a construct of Mises. It is an odd form of circular logic, where your ideas are perfect because your logic is perfect, your logic is perfect because your premises are perfect, and your premises are perfect because their logic is perfect.
It is not necessarily circular logic, although some adherents might fall into that trap. But it is purely theoretical construct, that has in itself no way to say anything about the world. The problem is that there is basically no way to actually prove that action axiom is a priori synthetic truth.
On July 21 2011 06:43 xarthaz wrote: No Blue's, the premises are perfect because the concept is necessary for perception of world: All experience concerning human action is conditioned by the praxeo- logical categories and becomes possible only through their application. If we had not in our mind the schemes provided by praxeological reasoning, we should never be in a position to discern and to grasp any action. We would perceive motions, but neither buying nor selling, nor prices, wage rates, interest rates, and so on. It is only through the utilization of the praxeological scheme that we become able to have an experience concerning an act of buying and selling, but then independently of the fact of whether or not our senses concomitantly perceive any motions of men and of nonhuman elements of the external world. Unaided by praxeological knowledge we would never learn anything about media of exchange. If we approach coins without such preexisting knowledge, we would see in them only round plates of metal, nothing more. Experience concerning money requires familiarity with the praxeological category medium of exchange. Experience concerning human action differs from that concerning natural phenomena in that it requires and presupposes praxeological knowledge. This is why the methods of the natural sciences are inappropriate for the study of praxeology, economics and history.
Again no it does not require or presupposes any such knowledge. Your say so and Rothbard's incomplete argumentation do not make it so. And human action is natural phenomena.
Anyway you continue to basically "copy-paste" misesian/rothbardian walls of text. You might actually start with answering my concern about a priori synthetic truths. Show that axiom of human action actually is one.
On July 21 2011 06:43 xarthaz wrote: No Blue's, the premises are perfect because the concept is necessary for perception of world: All experience concerning human action is conditioned by the praxeo- logical categories and becomes possible only through their application. If we had not in our mind the schemes provided by praxeological reasoning, we should never be in a position to discern and to grasp any action. We would perceive motions, but neither buying nor selling, nor prices, wage rates, interest rates, and so on. It is only through the utilization of the praxeological scheme that we become able to have an experience concerning an act of buying and selling, but then independently of the fact of whether or not our senses concomitantly perceive any motions of men and of nonhuman elements of the external world. Unaided by praxeological knowledge we would never learn anything about media of exchange. If we approach coins without such preexisting knowledge, we would see in them only round plates of metal, nothing more. Experience concerning money requires familiarity with the praxeological category medium of exchange. Experience concerning human action differs from that concerning natural phenomena in that it requires and presupposes praxeological knowledge. This is why the methods of the natural sciences are inappropriate for the study of praxeology, economics and history.
Heh, googling for passages from this not only brings up the actual Mises book you copy-pasted from, but posts by you in other topics on TL as well as posts by you on other gaming forums. Have you tried reading some contrary opinions?
Even most ardent anarcho-capitalists I've read/talked to don't point to Somalia as a success story. A better argument is that it's not a good example of the FAILURE of anarchy, since it hasn't developed as an alternative to an existing stable state. Instead it has risen from the ashes of other terrible, corrupt, chaotic states.
I still think it serves as an example of some of the problems with anarchy, and I think there are reasons that democratic states have grown as the most stable and produced the best standards of living.
On July 21 2011 05:46 BestZergOnEast wrote: What's so bad about deflation? Purchasing power goes up. There's an incentive to save (which, despite the mantra of the media that consumption and consumer spending is the key to prosperity, is a much better measure of economic health). Indeed, a healthy sound monetary system would have gentle deflation (combined with wages that increased!). But the government shouldn't burn or print money. There is no need to adjust the money supply. Any amount of money supply is adequate for any economy. The key isn't to raise interest rates or lower them - it's to allow consumers to set interest rates by the % of their income that they save. Let the market decide.
Deflation is bad because everyone can make money without doing anything. Nobody has any incentive to spend or invest, bringing the economy to a screeching halt.
I don't even understand how anarchy can even exist in a capitalist state... Anarchy design a society without chief... In my opinion Somalia is the opposite of Anarchy : power without order, while anarchy is order without power.
Wrong. Bringing the consumer economy largely to a halt as more consumption is forgone is possible. However the higher orders of production boom - as investment increases due to increased savings. That is how economic growth happens!
mcc, The meaning of observable behavior of humans comes from attaching the definition of human action to it. You say it doesnt presuppose action axiom. If that is the case, then it is not perceived in a manner that does suppose action axiom. Yet that is incorrect, as human behavior gets its meaning from being interpreted as being action
Read the middle part of the Mises quote carefully - thats where the meat is. Now, it is quite an abstract concept so it requires quite a bit of concentration to grasp it, and reading it over and over again. I have seen this often in forums. I present the irrefutable evidence of the validity of action axiom, yet it is ignored. Sure, the readers think they answer it. But their reading is shallow, they move over the abstract meaty part of what Mises is trying to say, so they end up ignoring the belly of the argument. It is the kind of thing.
Setting aside the discussion concerning the validity of praxeology, how can Rothbard say that productivity is measured by the satisfaction of individual desires? He actually considers that something is productive if it is in the eyes of the individuals. First off, very rarely is something universally viewed as productive, and even then his example (the dam) is probably one of these (i.e. a large portion of the population agrees that it fulfills their energetical needs, therefore is productive). He then argues that this perceived productivity is in reality less than what would have been done if there hadn't been any taxes perceived.
But if everyone was left to their own devices, acting solely in order to satisfy their urges, I doubt the world would be a better, more productive place. This has been demonstrated time and time again with the free market economy: Adam Smith's invisible hand - which was to push markets in a direction profitable for the entire society through the collective research of personal advancement, the same idea that Rothbard develops here with "productivity" - is a myth. Firstly, the free market is in no way self-regulating: confer the numerous bubble bursts and krachs which were all foreseen but ignored until the last moment. Secondly, even in periods of economic growth, speculation has had nefarious consequences for society: speculation over rice and wheat has made prices soar, therefore effectively starving entire populations around the world.
Evidence therefore suggests that a mass of individuals seeking to satisfy their personal desires does not lead to general advancement but simply to the richest getting richer (with a sufficient amount of money, you can effectively trump the market and win in any case) and the poorest getting poorer, which I personally find an extremely indesirable result, but that Rothbard seems to consider "productive". In short, I disagree.
Without government there is no way to protect property rights. With no property rights an economy can't thrive. I think it's adorable that the OP is trying to argue his way out of this even though the country he mentioned is currently experiencing famine and is one of the most violent countries in the world. You can try to craft an argument as elegantly as you want. The fact of the matter is anarchy doesn't work, and Somalia is an example.
On July 21 2011 07:19 xarthaz wrote: Wrong. Bringing the consumer economy largely to a halt as more consumption is forgone is possible. However the higher orders of production boom - as investment increases due to increased savings. That is how economic growth happens!
mcc, The meaning of observable behavior of humans comes from attaching the definition of human action to it. You say it doesnt presuppose action axiom. If that is the case, then it is not perceived in a manner that does suppose action axiom. Yet that is incorrect, as human behavior gets its meaning from being interpreted as being action
No. Last sentence does not necessarily follow.
But that is irrelevant, you still did not provide any argument why action axiom is an a priori truth.
EDIT: Ah, you edited.Anyway your quote does not show anything about validity of action axiom. It pertains only to our disagreement about whether praxeology and action axiom are required for experience of human action phenomena.
I've realized the OP is the kind of person would rather sound smart than provide an argument that makes sense. He's posted nothing but big words, quotes from other people, and non sequiturs. And all this nonsense aside, he still hasen't addressed the fact Somalia is a complete hell hole.
On July 21 2011 07:19 xarthaz wrote: Wrong. Bringing the consumer economy largely to a halt as more consumption is forgone is possible. However the higher orders of production boom - as investment increases due to increased savings. That is how economic growth happens!
mcc, The meaning of observable behavior of humans comes from attaching the definition of human action to it. You say it doesnt presuppose action axiom. If that is the case, then it is not perceived in a manner that does suppose action axiom. Yet that is incorrect, as human behavior gets its meaning from being interpreted as being action
Read the middle part of the Mises quote carefully - thats where the meat is. Now, it is quite an abstract concept so it requires quite a bit of concentration to grasp it, and reading it over and over again. I have seen this often in forums. I present the irrefutable evidence of the validity of action axiom, yet it is ignored. Sure, the readers think they answer it. But their reading is shallow, they move over the abstract meaty part of what Mises is trying to say, so they end up ignoring the belly of the argument. It is the kind of thing.
I'm going to reword your arguments so you can't confuse people with unnecessarily complex wording
"bringing consumption largely to a halt as consumption is stopped is possible. However, investment increases due to savings."
this is entirely unsubstantiated. There's no point in forming an argument against it.
"the meaning of observable human behavior comes from interpreting human actions."
cool, I agree. See how I did that without throwing around words like "axiom" and "presuppose" You really don't have to pepper SAT words into every sentence you type.
"if you disagree with me you haven't read my quote closely enough because you have to agree with me to be logically correct"
well, I don't know how anyone is suppose to argue with that.
On July 21 2011 06:43 xarthaz wrote: No Blue's, the premises are perfect because the concept is necessary for perception of world: All experience concerning human action is conditioned by the praxeo- logical categories and becomes possible only through their application. If we had not in our mind the schemes provided by praxeological reasoning, we should never be in a position to discern and to grasp any action. We would perceive motions, but neither buying nor selling, nor prices, wage rates, interest rates, and so on. It is only through the utilization of the praxeological scheme that we become able to have an experience concerning an act of buying and selling, but then independently of the fact of whether or not our senses concomitantly perceive any motions of men and of nonhuman elements of the external world. Unaided by praxeological knowledge we would never learn anything about media of exchange. If we approach coins without such preexisting knowledge, we would see in them only round plates of metal, nothing more. Experience concerning money requires familiarity with the praxeological category medium of exchange. Experience concerning human action differs from that concerning natural phenomena in that it requires and presupposes praxeological knowledge. This is why the methods of the natural sciences are inappropriate for the study of praxeology, economics and history.
Heh, googling for passages from this not only brings up the actual Mises book you copy-pasted from, but posts by you in other topics on TL as well as posts by you on other gaming forums. Have you tried reading some contrary opinions?
Even most ardent anarcho-capitalists I've read/talked to don't point to Somalia as a success story. A better argument is that it's not a good example of the FAILURE of anarchy, since it hasn't developed as an alternative to an existing stable state. Instead it has risen from the ashes of other terrible, corrupt, chaotic states.
I still think it serves as an example of some of the problems with anarchy, and I think there are reasons that democratic states have grown as the most stable and produced the best standards of living.
Well elaborate on how it is wrong then. What mistakes does Mises make in the statements. Please chew it down for me, otherwise we end up ignoring each other. To me, the statements show how it is, to you, it doesnt show how it is. And how mises' examples fail to fulfill the criterion they attemt to describe.
When i try to debunk someone, i show how what they said was wrong, that gets the debate going you know. but the mises passage - havent received any feedback on its content.
It is not necessarily circular logic, although some adherents might fall into that trap. But it is purely theoretical construct, that has in itself no way to say anything about the world. The problem is that there is basically no way to actually prove that action axiom is a priori synthetic truth.
You're right, the circle is never really completed, you just have to keep pushing it back and back further until you reach the Ultimate Self-Evident Premise, which is what I suppose "the axiom of human action" is.
Well elaborate on how it is wrong then. What mistakes does Mises make in the statements. Please chew it down for me, otherwise we end up ignoring each other. To me, the statements show how it is, to you, it doesnt show how it is. And how mises' examples fail to fulfill the criterion they attemt to describe.
Unfortunately the simplest and most valid way, that of evidence, has been declared by you to be off-limits, and you have declared that your logic and premises are so airtight as to survive the strictest of inspection from Socrates himself, so we don't really have much to say in general other than to suggest that your methods of finding truth and then proving so are possibly lacking in rigor and justification.
On July 21 2011 07:38 xarthaz wrote: Well elaborate on how it is wrong then. What mistakes does Mises make in the statements. Please chew it down for me, otherwise we end up ignoring each other. To me, the statements show how it is, to you, it doesnt show how it is. And how mises' examples fail to fulfill the criterion they attemt to describe.
When i try to debunk someone, i show how what they said was wrong, that gets the debate going you know. but the mises passage - havent received any feedback on its content.
In case that was directed at me. Lets not discuss too many things at once, so let's for now ignore the higher level problem of interpreting actions,... Just show me your argument for why is human action axiom a priori synthetic truth. And use your words as I am not discussing Mises but you. If any of your posts actually had such an argument, then reformulate it and show the logical steps as I did not notice it.
And a small note : In my experience all that "fancy" language can easily be translated to a text at least half its length and half its obscurity, so try to do that.
Well the discussion is about Mises so might as well debunk him instead of me. He was the main guy who applied the kantian concept of knowledge as justification of action, rothbard kind of denounced that. "theory and history" also contains relevant passages in addition to "human action"
somalia isnt a success and saying it has a vibrant telecommunications industry means nothing when the country is gripped by civil war and violent internal divisions
On July 21 2011 08:47 xarthaz wrote: Well the discussion is about Mises so might as well debunk him instead of me. He was the main guy who applied the kantian concept of knowledge as justification of action, rothbard kind of denounced that. "theory and history" also contains relevant passages in addition to "human action"
Nope, discussion is about a statement, not about a person. The argument is independent of any person and quoting is not a valid way to argue, especially quoting those unclearly written texts. But if you must then quote at least only things that are relevant to the point someone is making.
And no I am not going to waste time reading these books unless I get convinced they are worth it, but that seems very unlikely judging by the quotes I saw.
Somalia is in huge trouble: "10,000 people are dying of hunger every day in some parts of the Bakool and Lower Shabelle regions of Somalia", according to the UN. link to article
On July 21 2011 08:47 xarthaz wrote: Well the discussion is about Mises so might as well debunk him instead of me. He was the main guy who applied the kantian concept of knowledge as justification of action, rothbard kind of denounced that. "theory and history" also contains relevant passages in addition to "human action"
But just because Kant said it, it isn't necessarily true. I must admit, that I stopped halfway while reading Kant because I neither agree with him him nor does he provide proper conclusions.
Kant's main success was the insight that there must be some a priori ability of perception. What he didn't know about was evolution, so one can understand, why he just made educated guesses about the nature of the a priori given abilities of perception.
But for me, due to evolution, these a priori abilities of perception are a subject of natural sciences, mainly biology/psychology. I tend to assume that they might be far more general than Kant (and maybe Mises too) assumed.
On July 21 2011 19:50 Maenander wrote: Somalia is in huge trouble: "10,000 people are dying of hunger every day in some parts of the Bakool and Lower Shabelle regions of Somalia", according to the UN. link to article
Least they can make phone calls from ANYWHERE while starving to death.
This thread is a joke given the situation that has been building up over the last few months. Glad to see it's become major news so that the idea that the country is some success story can be laid to rest.
On July 21 2011 19:50 Maenander wrote: Somalia is in huge trouble: "10,000 people are dying of hunger every day in some parts of the Bakool and Lower Shabelle regions of Somalia", according to the UN. link to article
Least they can make phone calls from ANYWHERE while starving to death.
You stole that from the second page of this thread.
On July 21 2011 19:50 Maenander wrote: Somalia is in huge trouble: "10,000 people are dying of hunger every day in some parts of the Bakool and Lower Shabelle regions of Somalia", according to the UN. link to article
Least they can make phone calls from ANYWHERE while starving to death.
You stole that from the second page of this thread.
Well gee, I guess we'd better get out the torches and pitchforks.
On July 21 2011 19:50 Maenander wrote: Somalia is in huge trouble: "10,000 people are dying of hunger every day in some parts of the Bakool and Lower Shabelle regions of Somalia", according to the UN. link to article
Least they can make phone calls from ANYWHERE while starving to death.
You stole that from the second page of this thread.
Well gee, I guess we'd better get out the torches and pitchforks.
You forgot the ropes. Can't have a good lynching without good ropes.
Its nice that you so strongly believe in anarchy, I strongly believe in Marxism,but I am not so naive as to think it will be implemented in a working way in any State, until humans reach a new evolutionary step and don't want a bigger car than their neighbour.
careful analysis of conditions in the area
This is what you base most of opinion on and it is what is know here as "fancy bullshit". This sentence means nothing except that the presented facts are out of context, well selected and for the most part will ignore any opposing facts or facts that might fuel any counter argument.
here is Somalia total success, this thread makes me puke. PS he doesn't have a mobile phone either.
On July 01 2011 13:04 xarthaz wrote: The piracy is a display of free market enterprising - while one may not morally agree with it, it shows the fast adapting cheap operating cost efficient nature of free market solution...[]
edit: Oh yeah one more thing. Your fucking clever pirates found another clever enterprise. Raiding unarmed supply convoys that are bringing food to the starving and selling it to other country's.
On July 21 2011 08:47 xarthaz wrote: Well the discussion is about Mises so might as well debunk him instead of me. He was the main guy who applied the kantian concept of knowledge as justification of action, rothbard kind of denounced that. "theory and history" also contains relevant passages in addition to "human action"
But just because Kant said it, it isn't necessarily true. I must admit, that I stopped halfway while reading Kant because I neither agree with him him nor does he provide proper conclusions.
Kant's main success was the insight that there must be some a priori ability of perception. What he didn't know about was evolution, so one can understand, why he just made educated guesses about the nature of the a priori given abilities of perception.
But for me, due to evolution, these a priori abilities of perception are a subject of natural sciences, mainly biology/psychology. I tend to assume that they might be far more general than Kant (and maybe Mises too) assumed.
Mises addresses the evoloutionary intermediate logic stage argument against The Formal and Aprioristic Character of Praxeology in Human Action Chapter 2:2 Page 32 and onwards.
Nope, discussion is about a statement, not about a person. The argument is independent of any person and quoting is not a valid way to argue, especially quoting those unclearly written texts. But if you must then quote at least only things that are relevant to the point someone is making.
And no I am not going to waste time reading these books unless I get convinced they are worth it, but that seems very unlikely judging by the quotes I saw.
The premise of argumentation being independent of person also implies no differentiation between quoting and writing own claims.
Nope, discussion is about a statement, not about a person. The argument is independent of any person and quoting is not a valid way to argue, especially quoting those unclearly written texts. But if you must then quote at least only things that are relevant to the point someone is making.
And no I am not going to waste time reading these books unless I get convinced they are worth it, but that seems very unlikely judging by the quotes I saw.
The premise of argumentation being independent of person also implies no differentiation between quoting and writing own claims.
Yes, that is why I wrote that if you really must quote then quote. The reason why quoting is not a good way to argue is that if I am arguing with you I actually want to know you understand what you are writing and not just posting somewhat related blocks of text and non-quoted text makes it easier. But whatever, I am still waiting for the actual argument.
On July 21 2011 08:47 xarthaz wrote: Well the discussion is about Mises so might as well debunk him instead of me. He was the main guy who applied the kantian concept of knowledge as justification of action, rothbard kind of denounced that. "theory and history" also contains relevant passages in addition to "human action"
But just because Kant said it, it isn't necessarily true. I must admit, that I stopped halfway while reading Kant because I neither agree with him him nor does he provide proper conclusions.
Kant's main success was the insight that there must be some a priori ability of perception. What he didn't know about was evolution, so one can understand, why he just made educated guesses about the nature of the a priori given abilities of perception.
But for me, due to evolution, these a priori abilities of perception are a subject of natural sciences, mainly biology/psychology. I tend to assume that they might be far more general than Kant (and maybe Mises too) assumed.
Mises addresses the evoloutionary intermediate logic stage argument against The Formal and Aprioristic Character of Praxeology in Human Action Chapter 2:2 Page 32 and onwards.
Nope, discussion is about a statement, not about a person. The argument is independent of any person and quoting is not a valid way to argue, especially quoting those unclearly written texts. But if you must then quote at least only things that are relevant to the point someone is making.
And no I am not going to waste time reading these books unless I get convinced they are worth it, but that seems very unlikely judging by the quotes I saw.
The premise of argumentation being independent of person also implies no differentiation between quoting and writing own claims.
Except when the quote isn't relevant to the discussion? Not only that, but throwing page numbers and chapters at people and expecting them to find your book and read it isn't conductive to the discussion..
Some of your posts have caused quite a lot of backlash, and you have not addressed your detractors. You mentioned how deflation creates economic growth (by stimulating savings) without commenting on how it also reduces market demand, forces companies out of the market, and drives up wages, all of which do not cause economic growth.
You post one paragraph by Rothbard about how governments are an overall economic loss, but haven't addressed people's arguments countering Rothbard. Rothbard doesn't "prove" anything in his argument, and in fact only attacks a strawman constructed on vastly outdated economic theory. All economists currently realize the loss of value inside government, there is a term "dead weight loss" attributed to it. It is the concept of diminishing marginal returns that give governments positive value.
I am getting frustrated by your posts because you have claimed you would like discussion, but you are avoiding actually articulating arguments. You have spent your time throwing walls of text at us, usually containing so much jargon, straw men, and circular logic that we end up more confused and frustrated than informed. So use your own words, write plainly what you want to say, and if you are incapable of that, clearly you don't understand what you are trying to argue well enough.
The thing is, I've seen you post in other topics Xarthaz. I know you can effectively communicate. Or do two people use that account?
I've seen hole after hole poked in your posts and I've seen time and again, you ignore what suits you and vomit back a link or direct copy/paste.
All everyone keeps asking is that you try a little harder if you're going to make some ludicrous claim like this whole topic.
In fact, I challenge you to get your point across in 150 words or less using common everyday language. If the average journalist can do it, so can you. You're not writing a dissertation, you're not spreading propaganda, you're trying to communicate. Oh and no links. Use your own words.
I've recently watched a Ross Kemp's film about Nigeria's petrol problem, in particular, petrol piracy. It was following the whole problem's story. I could clearly see that back then, maybe 5 years ago, it was literally blooming. There was no control at all. Petrol wells were left unchecked and everybody who owned a small tanker ship with an appropriate equipment could just go there and get some black gold. Like the Somalian anarchy today.
But what's the important?
Back then, Nigeria didn't have a good government at all. Just constant political wars about power and no administration at all. Looks like Somalia today.
In contrast, in the final part of the film, Ross Kemp visited one of the states' governor. A variety of viseomaterial and statistics were shown in the research, displaying that cases of oil piracy and oil leakage has dropped a significant number. Suddenly all that misery, pesimism and constant feeling of utter upsetness, induced by the previous scenes were gone. People were happily yellling at they leader.
The whole point of this was that anarchy is one of the worst possible scenarios for one country.
Simple conclusion - better have a poor, but stable political leader than not having one at all. Might sound naive, but history confirms that.
Unite people! White, black, asian - we're all the same!
The fundamental logical relations are not subject to proof or disproof. Every attempt to prove them must presuppose their validity. It is impossible to explain them to a being who would not possess them on his own account. Efforts to define them according to the rules of definition must fail. They are primary propositions antecedent to any nominal or real definition. They are ultimate unanalyzable categories. The human mind is utterly incapable of imagining logical categories at variance with them. No matter how they may appear to superhuman beings, they are for man inescapable and absolutely necessary. They are the indispensable prerequisite of perception, apperception, and experience.
Since you forgot the nice thing, that everyone here expects you to do, namely writing down the arguments on your own, I just started reading Mises' Human Action chapter 2.2 on my own. I will not do this again!
Then I came to the paragraph above. Since you just said: read that, I read until I found something very questionable.
I agree, that the fundamental logical relations i.e the Axioms are not subject to proof or disproof, but I refuse to accept, that they are unexplainable. One can very easily write down all the Axioms needed for conclusions in Maths. Then you just plug in the expression you want to prove and go all the way down just following these rules. It's like connecting lines. You don't even need to know the meaning of what you want to prove as long as you obey the rules.
The human mind is also not incapable of imagining other logical structures. There exists works of Philosophers and Mathematicians who (successfully) try to research different ways of logical conclusions. It's just very abstract but very much possible.
Furthermore I don't think that they are very much out of touch with nature since the logic we use provided as with a tool to survive thousands of years. So at least at the first glance, the logic we use works very well together with the nature we live in. (Let alone quantum mechanics or relativism.)
I just wanted to write the spoilered paragraph until I realized the huge misstep: He admits that our logic is formed by evolution yet claims the fundamental rules are independent of evolutions. Then, we are unable to explain our logic to any other race, while the fundamental rules are independent of the world we live in. wtf?
Edit: removed a word which I didn't erase from a previous version
On July 21 2011 08:47 xarthaz wrote: Well the discussion is about Mises so might as well debunk him instead of me. He was the main guy who applied the kantian concept of knowledge as justification of action, rothbard kind of denounced that. "theory and history" also contains relevant passages in addition to "human action"
But just because Kant said it, it isn't necessarily true. I must admit, that I stopped halfway while reading Kant because I neither agree with him him nor does he provide proper conclusions.
Kant's main success was the insight that there must be some a priori ability of perception. What he didn't know about was evolution, so one can understand, why he just made educated guesses about the nature of the a priori given abilities of perception.
But for me, due to evolution, these a priori abilities of perception are a subject of natural sciences, mainly biology/psychology. I tend to assume that they might be far more general than Kant (and maybe Mises too) assumed.
Mises addresses the evoloutionary intermediate logic stage argument against The Formal and Aprioristic Character of Praxeology in Human Action Chapter 2:2 Page 32 and onwards.
Now it really gets ridiculous. You don't even quote anymore, you just state pages. I really hate when people claim that, but i come to believe that you are actually a troll. No intelligent person would actually argue in such a way directly after people were complaining that your posts usually just consist of quotes instead of your own arguments, or at least using your own words to formulate other peoples arguments.
He doesn't have his own opinion. He's doing the ole' copy paste bull crap, while attackin strawmen he makes for himself. All the while ignoring any posts that call him it.
the argumentation evidence for logical supportation of your claims are anomalous for the particularly reasonable claims you have here forth made assertions to but however the logical flaws are corollary of an argument that fails to address all aspects of relevant axiom.
This is how you sound like OP... you sound like a pretentious asshole whenever you say anything. Sorry, someone had to say it.
On July 21 2011 07:24 Tewks44 wrote: Without government there is no way to protect property rights. With no property rights an economy can't thrive. I think it's adorable that the OP is trying to argue his way out of this even though the country he mentioned is currently experiencing famine and is one of the most violent countries in the world. You can try to craft an argument as elegantly as you want. The fact of the matter is anarchy doesn't work, and Somalia is an example.
That's why it's not an anarchist country. People such as Xarthaz are only trolling anarchy in my opinion.
Proudhon, the first who said "I am an anarchist" was not against State ! You think anarchy is as simple as that ? Please. Anarchist have never stated "let's just destroy the state and live with no law"... No it's about power and not order. Everything in this thread is about a bunch of free markestist putting a new make up on their ideas and using a disgusting exemple. It's not anarchy because there is nothing about dialectics in their thinking process, while it's actually the ground of any thought on anarchy. Everything is too perfect, like one idea or one system can solve the problems of mankind while for true anarchy it's the opposite : the state protect you and at the same time it is the biggest source of violence / property is theft and will eventually destroy freedom and equality but you can't do nothing about it and it's a necessity to keep individual freedom / technologies diminish the pain of workers but it also develop wage labour and so on... Anarchy is all about contradiction, that's why anarchist were always the ennemy of both communism and liberalism.
I will state things again : Anarchy from the grec anarkhia meaning absence of leadership. It's a society without chief or unique authority, but not necessarily a society with no organisation : you can have political power but no domination in an anarchist state.
The fundamental logical relations are not subject to proof or disproof. Every attempt to prove them must presuppose their validity. It is impossible to explain them to a being who would not possess them on his own account. Efforts to define them according to the rules of definition must fail. They are primary propositions antecedent to any nominal or real definition. They are ultimate unanalyzable categories. The human mind is utterly incapable of imagining logical categories at variance with them. No matter how they may appear to superhuman beings, they are for man inescapable and absolutely necessary. They are the indispensable prerequisite of perception, apperception, and experience.
Since you forgot the nice thing, that everyone here expects you to do, namely writing down the arguments on your own, I just started reading Mises' Human Action chapter 2.2 on my own. I will not do this again!
Then I came to the paragraph above. Since you just said: read that, I read until I found something very questionable.
I agree, that the fundamental logical relations i.e the Axioms are not subject to proof or disproof, but I refuse to accept, that they are unexplainable. One can very easily write down all the Axioms needed for conclusions in Maths. Then you just plug in the expression you want to prove and go all the way down just following these rules. It's like connecting lines. You don't even need to know the meaning of what you can want to prove as long as you follow the rules.
The human mind is also not incapable of imagining other logical structures. There exists works of Philosophers and Mathematicians who (successfully) try to research different ways of logical conclusions. It's just very abstract but very much possible.
Furthermore I don't think that they are very much out of touch with nature since the logic we use provided as with a tool to survive thousands of years. So at least at the first glance, the logic we use works very well together with the nature we live in. (Let alone quantum mechanics or relativism.)
I just wanted to write the spoilered paragraph until I realized the huge misstep: He admits that our logic is formed by evolution yet claims the fundamental rules are independent of evolutions. Then, we are unable to explain our logic to any other race, while the fundamental rules are independent of the world we live in. wtf?
Ah cool, that paragraph is actually close what I wanted him to state and defend. Most of this post is directed at xarthaz.
I will start with thinking about "proofs" of human action axiom. Most of them that I saw use law of excluded middle to "prove it". But what if I reject that law, and I can easily do that. There are logical systems that do not contain it and therefore do not contain proof by contradiction. Now we are at an impasse as we do not agree on the basis of argumentation and in my system suddenly many of the logical conclusions of your system are not valid.
Now point of that was not to say that there is no way for people to argue, because of different logical systems. No, the point is that there are different logical systems and we choose one for our discourse. How do we do that ? Well we choose the one that makes sense based on our experience, the one that somewhat matches the reality. (Note that when I say choose I mean partially by biological evolution and partially by cultural one). That means that even the base of our discourse is based in empiry. No a priori truths.
On July 21 2011 05:35 xarthaz wrote: zocktol, Government burning money would be better for the economy than spending it. Spending it bids resources to unprofitable government dictated ends, burning the taxed money would raise interest rates and stimulate real savings and investment. mcc, rothbard is talking about statements that can be demonstrated. In the paradigm of demonstrated utility, government contribution is indeed zero
Nope. Still impossible to determine.
Thats the point. He is talking about that which is possible to determine. And that is zero.
Trying to keep this on the topic of the fundamental arguments against government, hence ignoring some tangents. the argument over existance of action axiom is infact unnecessary because any talk on economics presupposes it hence it being a necessary premise of the debate, not a subject of argumentation(logical order being- debate of economics assumes market activity, which assumes supply demand, which assumes exchange and diminishing marginal utility, which assumes action in a scarce world.).
You post one paragraph by Rothbard about how governments are an overall economic loss, but haven't addressed people's arguments countering Rothbard. Rothbard doesn't "prove" anything in his argument, and in fact only attacks a strawman constructed on vastly outdated economic theory. All economists currently realize the loss of value inside government, there is a term "dead weight loss" attributed to it. It is the concept of diminishing marginal returns that give governments positive value.
so show how rothbards argument is wrong and how your argument is correct
Trying to keep this on the topic of the fundamental arguments against government, hence ignoring some tangents. the argument over existance of action axiom is infact unnecessary because any talk on economics presupposes it hence it being a necessary premise of the debate, not a subject of argumentation(logical order being- debate of economics assumes market activity, which assumes supply demand, which assumes exchange and diminishing marginal utility, which assumes action in a scarce world.).
Nope, discussion is about a statement, not about a person. The argument is independent of any person and quoting is not a valid way to argue, especially quoting those unclearly written texts. But if you must then quote at least only things that are relevant to the point someone is making.
And no I am not going to waste time reading these books unless I get convinced they are worth it, but that seems very unlikely judging by the quotes I saw.
The premise of argumentation being independent of person also implies no differentiation between quoting and writing own claims.
Yes, that is why I wrote that if you really must quote then quote. The reason why quoting is not a good way to argue is that if I am arguing with you I actually want to know you understand what you are writing and not just posting somewhat related blocks of text and non-quoted text makes it easier. But whatever, I am still waiting for the actual argument.
That was the argument, the mises quote block. one of the justifications for action axiom as mises presented it. You are waiting? But what about critiquing it, like hryul did?
Hryul sadly accepted your very poor dialog manners, and still reacted as if you were politely arguing. But not everyone is that forgiving of impoliteness.
The polite way of having a discussion is by using your own words to formulate an argument, instead of copying and pasting the argumentation of someone else. By doing so, you demonstrate to the other parties that you both understand your argument, and value them enough to actually type a specific post.
By posting just posting quotes or, even worth, stating that other should read up on the subject, you demonstrate that you think that the other is not worth your own time, or that you think the other needs to be lectured instead of taken seriously. Maybe you don't even know what you are talking about, noone can tell since you don't use your own words. Also by using your own words, you shut down that avenue of argumentation of "you just don't understand what these intelligent people are writing", which you seem to like to use, and which also is very condescending and dependent on the idea that your interpretation of that scripture is absolute, and any other is wrong, thus adding another layer of safety nets to your argumentation because you don't actually tell people how you interpretate that highly technical text.
The main problem here is obviously that you don't seem to have any common ground with anyone else in this discussion, since you go for a dogmatic view, rather than one founded by empirical data. So, by ignoring the best known scientific methodologic for an archaic system, you make it impossible to argue with your points. For this debate to make any sense, either you need to accept scientific methods, and then one can debate on this grounds, or everyone else needs to accept your dogmas, and then one can have a theological debate on the grounds of those dogmas. If not one of those happens, the whole thing makes about as much sense as a debate between creationists and intelligent people.
Nope, discussion is about a statement, not about a person. The argument is independent of any person and quoting is not a valid way to argue, especially quoting those unclearly written texts. But if you must then quote at least only things that are relevant to the point someone is making.
And no I am not going to waste time reading these books unless I get convinced they are worth it, but that seems very unlikely judging by the quotes I saw.
The premise of argumentation being independent of person also implies no differentiation between quoting and writing own claims.
Yes, that is why I wrote that if you really must quote then quote. The reason why quoting is not a good way to argue is that if I am arguing with you I actually want to know you understand what you are writing and not just posting somewhat related blocks of text and non-quoted text makes it easier. But whatever, I am still waiting for the actual argument.
That was the argument, the mises quote block. one of the justifications for action axiom as mises presented it. You are waiting? But what about critiquing it, like hryul did?
I am waiting for you to actually post it again with some more inferences as to how it shows that human action axiom is a priori truth. As for some critique see my response to Hryul's post.
On July 21 2011 05:35 xarthaz wrote: zocktol, Government burning money would be better for the economy than spending it. Spending it bids resources to unprofitable government dictated ends, burning the taxed money would raise interest rates and stimulate real savings and investment. mcc, rothbard is talking about statements that can be demonstrated. In the paradigm of demonstrated utility, government contribution is indeed zero
Nope. Still impossible to determine.
Thats the point. He is talking about that which is possible to determine. And that is zero.
You cannot just default to zero because you cannot determine something. He gets the zero by purely arbitrary declaring it after he just said that without market valuation there is no way to get anything.
On July 22 2011 07:15 Simberto wrote: Hryul sadly accepted your very poor dialog manners, and still reacted as if you were politely arguing. But not everyone is that forgiving of impoliteness.
The polite way of having a discussion is by using your own words to formulate an argument, instead of copying and pasting the argumentation of someone else. By doing so, you demonstrate to the other parties that you both understand your argument, and value them enough to actually type a specific post.
By posting just posting quotes or, even worth, stating that other should read up on the subject, you demonstrate that you think that the other is not worth your own time, or that you think the other needs to be lectured instead of taken seriously. Maybe you don't even know what you are talking about, noone can tell since you don't use your own words. Also by using your own words, you shut down that avenue of argumentation of "you just don't understand what these intelligent people are writing", which you seem to like to use, and which also is very condescending and dependent on the idea that your interpretation of that scripture is absolute, and any other is wrong, thus adding another layer of safety nets to your argumentation because you don't actually tell people how you interpretate that highly technical text.
I just want to second this part. If you want to have a conversation, take the other serious and tread them as equal.
Now I will have myself a bunch of games. Maybe I get some response to my arguments by the next time, I'm around. have a nice day fellas.
An axiom does not require proof, it is prima facie true. Man act's purposefully. How can anyone dispute this? We think of things we want and we take action to get them. You are hungry so you open to fridge.
On July 22 2011 09:17 BestZergOnEast wrote: An axiom does not require proof, it is prima facie true. Man act's purposefully. How can anyone dispute this? We think of things we want and we take action to get them. You are hungry so you open to fridge.
Yes axioms do not require proof, and they can also be pretty arbitrary. You can create two systems, in one axiom A is assumed and in the second negation of A is axiom. Both of those systems can be logically consistent and you cannot judge one over another without knowledge external to both systems. If we want to talk about reality than I would propose empirical evidence to be that judge, for example.
That said I did not dispute that human action axiom is "true" ( I could raise some objections to it, but I did not yet ), I disputed that it is a priori synthetic truth. I do that because claiming a priori truth is the dogmatic crutch that a lot of "austrians" revert to when they have no other arguments left.
Xarthaz, you are a nut if you think Somalia is a success story. It's downright offensive to call that bad of a humanitarian crisis a "success story". Cell phone towers...please. Have you looked at the facts concerning how many are currently starving to death there? It makes me sick. The little boy in the video...it's powerful stuff - I don't even know what else to say.
In free market the price and exchange equilibrium guide available resources to those which are bid to their prices by their consumers. This ensures use of the factors of production according to consumer preferences. Remember, the free market can produce a solution to Somalia's problems, where the State can only blindly guess what the resources are to be used for. The categorical strictness of the Rothbard passages i posted is solid elaboration of this concept.
On August 06 2011 10:59 dreamsmasher wrote: is this a joke. armchair philosopher looking to debate internet forums to gain some sense of intellectual superiority.
It definitely has something to do with the unique nature of forum communication. Whereas with normal intellectual interaction there exist certain standards of communication, forums allow individuals to get away with (I say this loosely mind you) parroting the thinking of those they believe to be intelligent without having to perform any sort of contextualization or personalization. Then again, most people who champion the likes of Mises tend to do act in this manner, even in true interpersonal interaction. Sorry bub, but if you debated people in real life and did nothing but regurgitate the thoughts of other men, no one would listen or care.
In free market the price and exchange equilibrium guide available resources to those which are bid to their prices by their consumers.
This is true of any market, not just a free one... the issue is who is allowed to bid and what the bids are allowed to be that makes a market free or not.
This ensures use of the factors of production according to consumer preferences.
Okay so we have two non-controversial sentences...
Remember, the free market can produce a solution to Somalia's problems, where the State can only blindly guess what the resources are to be used for.
I think you left out a sentence or two, first you're simply explaining how supply and demand (simplicity is a virtue in speech!) causes the allocation of resources, and now we're on "the free market can solve Somalia's problems" and "the State can only guess blindly at supply and demand."
There's no connection in the text between the first two sentences and the last two, for such a logical person you should know better than to do that.
In any case, Somalia does not have the rule of law or societal cohesion necessary for the respect of private property both from the State and private individuals / organizations that is necessary for a free market to escape distortion through corruption / extortion / etc.
The free market could indeed solve Somalia's problems, if Somalia was in a condition where the free market would actually be free. It is not, and it is not the existence of the State that is responsible for this.
The categorical strictness of the Rothbard passages i posted is solid elaboration of this concept.
You know, Rothbard wrote a play about Ayn Rand (after the fallout between the Austrians and Objectivists mostly caused by Rand acting like a massive bitch towards Rothbard) mocking her for exactly the same behavior devotees of Rothbard display today. He would have been appalled that his works were simply being regurgitated, instead of being ingested and carefully considered so the readers would have a full mastery of his ideas. He certainly would have taken the time to explain his concepts rather than just copy-paste passages from his books and say "there's your explanation." But that's because he had mastery over his ideology, something you do not. Your understanding of it is evidently very shallow, as you are unable to actually talk about Rothbard's works, you just copy-paste them.
But on the other hand, later in his career Rothbard started to use the same kind of moral heavy-handedness, particularly towards Hayek (“F.A. Hayek’s Constitution of Liberty is, surprisingly and distressingly, an extremely bad, and, I would even say, evil book.”). So maybe he wouldn't be surprised or appalled at how his acolytes behave.
But the free market - it is true Somalia's is not completely free. But then you go on to say that the state is necessary to get it free. Cant you see its the complete opposite? It is the statist oppressors who are tainting the free enterprise of the residents of the area. The US and UN sponsored combatants that attempt to set up a proxy through which their policies could be enforced. It is the grim result of shady world politics. But the Somalis are bravely fighting back. Even in the midst of tragic weather conditions the struggle to remain free continues.
The Rothbard fanaticism - It was related to Hayek's inconsistent and unclear presentation of propertarianism. Rothbard and Hoppe cleared the issue out, and hence the necessary warnings to readers about the confusion still present in Hayeks writings on the matter.
The reasoning for word-to-word argumentations is wish to remain true to the purity of the rothbardian system. One can develop own tangents from that but the resulting incoherence and future issues to deal with limit its use to the frontiers of Austrian brain storming, rather than a structured and unified thrust for liberty that is to be used in more common situations like message board debate.
EPT![[image loading]](http://images.mises.org/DailyArticleBigImages/5418.jpg)
) and burned Athens down. Other city-states had the coice to continue fighting because they had their own standing armies - in a centralised state, generally you have a single army. it falls, and you lose. That doesn't mean a centralised state is worse than a federalised state, or a collection of city-states.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lKfEf.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nkEqK.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.diet-blog.com/archives/us-fao.gif)
![[image loading]](http://allartsangle.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/hunger2.jpg)
