Anarchist Stuff

[erifdekciw]

But...many would argue that the entire existence of the cartels in Mexico is a direct result of American govt. policy on controlled substances.

That's a good point, but raises another question. What would an anarchist society do about drugs? Your all about getting rid of government and living how you wanna live. So do you allow drugs in your society? If not, that's just like government. That would breed the same issues of people selling illegal drugs in your utopia. If you allow drugs then what do you do about drug addicts? Surely you can't kick them out for taking something that's legal in your society?

 

[dreamache]

That's a good point, but raises another question. What would an anarchist society do about drugs? Your all about getting rid of government and living how you wanna live. So do you allow drugs in your society? If not, that's just like government. That would breed the same issues of people selling illegal drugs in your utopia. If you allow drugs then what do you do about drug addicts? Surely you can't kick them out for taking something that's legal in your society?

All drugs would be legal, as they rightfully should. Good fb group that contains plenty of evidence to show how ridiculous the war on drugs is. http://www.facebook.com/endthewarondrugs

[Updated With Correction]: Forty Years of Drug War Failure Represented in a Single Chart - Hit & Run : Reason.com

 

[guerilla]

Better yet. If mexico was an anarchist society, how long do you think it would take the cartels to come back and kill everyone in that town? It says they only have about 8 guns.

The cartels aren't in the mass murder business. It's only fun to pick on people who are unarmed and compliant. Picking on people who fight back is a lot more dangerous and risky.

In an anarchist society you live in fear from what is outside your own territory. Everyone becomes suspect when passing through your town. Sounds like great times! Talk about going backwards.

How does having a federal government suddenly make every passer through "a-ok"?

Does having a President of Mexico suddenly make everyone good and safe?

If so, how did 9/11 happen?

This situation in Mexico isn't an example of anarchism, but self-defense when their own government failed them vs the cartels. The situation isn't great, but it was worse under the cartels. At least if these people choose to oppress themselves, that's better than being oppressed by outsiders.

You guys gotta do better when attacking this stuff. Seriously. You equate lawlessness with anarchy, and if that was true, we wouldn't have common law, or merchant law, or law of the sea, the foundations of our modern legal systems.

Law can be polycentric. Law can have multiple interpretations, and conflicts can be solved in arbitration. Please do some research on this, before assuming that centralized lawmaking can create a moral society (how is that drug war working out? alcohol prohibition?).

For that matter, is there any law in the US that is followed by everyone?

 

[Pseudo Nym]

That's a long question, but I don't believe in rights in any conventional sense.

I'm not a very big fan of natural rights theory either.

If you see me mention rights, it's usually in reference to property rights, which are agreements between individuals to respect the boundaries of mine and thine. Or "rights" implied by the pre-existence, and I might argue, necessity of property rights.

Alright, so rights aren't magical things that come from God or nature or anything else. They're just whatever two or more people think they ought to be. They don't exist outside a social context. I agree with that.

The problem I have with AnCap is property rights.


I'm going to tell a story now.

Say I'm on an island all by myself, living happily and minding my own business. I catch fish, eat the coconuts, life is alright. I've never seen another person so I've never thought about what I have a right to or not. No concept of rights whatsoever. I just take and use whatever I want however I want.

One day, after a big storm, some wreckage washes up on the island. Lo! Amidst the wreckage, there emerges a person! We'll call him George. I'm pretty stoked since I've never seen another person before.

So I show George around, everything's cool, we get along, so on. Time goes by. Then one day, I go out to catch some fish, bring 'em in and stick 'em on the fire to roast for a bit while I go grab some coconuts. On my return, I'm alarmed to find someone has filched my fresh fish fillet! And then I see George, happily gorging himself on my fish.

"George," I say, "this won't do. You've pinched my pollock!"

"Yours?" George inquires innocently.

"Yes, mine! I caught the fish, so it is mine to eat, not yours. You wouldn't want me to take the fish you had caught, would you?"

"Oh. I hadn't thought about it. I suppose I wouldn't," replied George.

"Okay then, I'll catch and eat my own fish, and you yours."

And so it was that George and I established that we each have a right to the product of our labor. And all was right with the world.


Until the day I got greedy. Did I mention the only source of fresh water on the island is a small spring? One day I was watching George drink from the spring, and thought to myself, "you know, what right does he have to drink from the spring? After all, I was here first, I discovered it, I was using it before he ever showed up. It's my spring, not his."

I decided I'd tell George to that he couldn't drink from my spring.

"But but," George objected obnoxiously, "what will I drink? I will die if I do not drink!"

"Well," I responded indignantly, "that's not my problem." What can I say, I was feeling like an asshole that day.

Then, suddenly, a lightbulb went off in my head!

"Although..." I begun, "perhaps I could allow you to drink from my spring in exchange for something..."

George looked at me with a sudden fearful expression in his eyes.

"Oh god please don't say sexual favors... that's what happened on the last island I escaped from!"

...Okay, he did't really say that.

But what I said was: "Look, if you bring me fish, I'll let you have water from spring."

And so it was, begrudgingly, facing the choice between dying of thirst or becoming my servant in perpetuity, George, his shoulders slumping forlornly, his eyes cast down, agreed to my terms.

And that's the story of how I got all the free fish I wanted, for no work on my part, just by virtue of owning something that someone else couldn't do without.

It's good to be a capitalist.


That's my story. I hope you enjoyed it.


And that's my basic issue with property rights, as defined in AnCap/propertarianism. Interactions are voluntary in instances like these only insofar as the non-owner has the "choice" between doing what the property owner says on one hand, or starvation/destitution/death on the other. The reality is that situations like these happen all the time in the real world. I'm sure you'll point to the state as enabling and/or being complicit, but can you honestly tell me that it wouldn't happen as often in the absence of the state?

I have no great love or attachment to the state, but I see the unequal distribution of power and resources as an inevitable byproduct of capitalism, and insofar as the state mitigates the most deleterious effects (via "welfare state" policies) it is useful. Perhaps we'd all be better off in an anarchistic society after all, but as you yourself have admitted, it's not happening anytime soon. And as long as it doesn't, I stand in favor of policies that legitimately help those most in need. If that necessitates some abrogation of the rights (socially defined, remember) of those of lesser need, so be it.

I should mention that I'm not some flaming liberal here - I try to be fundamentally pragmatic rather than dogmatic, and to that extent I find some libertarian economic ideas compelling, e.g., Milton Friedman's NIT, basic income as supported by FA Hayek, or the land value tax of Geolibertarianism.

 

[Moxie]

For example, voluntary communists can do their communist thing in an Anarcho-Capitalist world...

I recently had the same issue discussing Communism with someone who knew almost nothing (and probably still knows almost nothing) about Communism as a political, philosophical or economic system.

Ha, maybe you are talking about Hellb or Unarm G or someone, but if not, I more than once specifically referred to "Marx's communism." By that I meant communism as it would exist according to Marx in its final and complete form - which is voluntary.

Peter Kropotkin, the first to call himself an anarchist communist, advocated for skipping stages that involved a state and instead going right to the final form.

Kropotkin is another dude with interesting facial hair :

 

[Moxie]

All drugs would be legal, as they rightfully should.

That doesn't mean that drugs would be available and be being used all over the place though, which seems to be their fear. Apartment building owners could still not allow drugs on their property. The same with private schools, shopping malls, etc. People against drugs could band together in Amish-like communities.

 

[erifdekciw]

All drugs would be legal, as they rightfully should. Good fb group that contains plenty of evidence to show how ridiculous the war on drugs is. http://www.facebook.com/endthewarondrugs

[Updated With Correction]: Forty Years of Drug War Failure Represented in a Single Chart - Hit & Run : Reason.com

I agree that the war on drugs is dumb, but that doesn't have anything to do with the question I asked. What would you do with the drug addicts?

The cartels aren't in the mass murder business. It's only fun to pick on people who are unarmed and compliant. Picking on people who fight back is a lot more dangerous and risky.

55k+ people have died because of drug cartels in mexico. Not exactly a big number, but not exactly a small one either.

The only reason they don't conduct mass murder is because of the amount of backlash they would receive. It would force the mexican government to do something about the problem. It might even get the UN involved. Cartels aren't dumb. They don't want that kind of heat. For the most part they kill people to get their point across. If there was no government military to worry about you bet your ass they would start mass murdering people. Especially people who oppose them.

How does having a federal government suddenly make every passer through "a-ok"?

It doesn't. It just creates an illusion that if you do something stupid, big brother is gonna find you and kick your ass.

What happens if someone strolls through your town and kills someone and leaves back to his home town. Do you go after them? How would you prove to his people that hes guilty of murder? Why should they believe you? If there isn't some kind of higher power to mitigate problems it becomes a big mess.

Does having a President of Mexico suddenly make everyone good and safe?

No, but the idea that he controls an army of millions does if someone were to invade mexico.

If so, how did 9/11 happen?

It's impossible to prevent people from murdering other people, But the question is where does preventive measures stop in an anarchist society? How far would you go to protect you and your family from strangers? In our society we have 'rights'. If a stranger wandered into your anarchist town, would he have the same rights as everyone else?

This situation in Mexico isn't an example of anarchism, but self-defense when their own government failed them vs the cartels. The situation isn't great, but it was worse under the cartels. At least if these people choose to oppress themselves, that's better than being oppressed by outsiders.

You guys gotta do better when attacking this stuff. Seriously. You equate lawlessness with anarchy, and if that was true, we wouldn't have common law, or merchant law, or law of the sea, the foundations of our modern legal systems.

Law can be polycentric. Law can have multiple interpretations, and conflicts can be solved in arbitration. Please do some research on this, before assuming that centralized lawmaking can create a moral society (how is that drug war working out? alcohol prohibition?).

Any law can be changed (prohibition). In an anarchist society who decides the laws? Who enforces them? Eventually it all leads back to a government of some kind. People are dangerous in large numbers and need to be controlled like a sheep dog. If anarchism was the answer show me where it's ever been successfully implemented.

 

[lukep]

I'll take this one so G can get some rest... Hopefully I do Anarchy some justice.

The problem I have with AnCap is property rights.

I'm going to tell a story now....

There are several fallacies in the story and the underlying assumptions of it.

First of all, it must be pointed out that the geographical constraints placed on the story by it taking place on an island are rare at best and usually comically impossible out here in the real world. If such conflicts came up in say, Ohio, then George would just move away from you or not purchase real estate near you in the first place.

If such rare situations must be dreamed up to talk about the problems with anarchy then perhaps it's not so scary in reality?

But to play inside the example universe given, the day you told george he couldn't drink your water, there was only one logical response for him to respond with: "Well then. Good luck going to sleep ever again, meat." </licking his lips>

Sure, I know, you don't want to live in a world where "Such violence" is inherent in the system... But is it that bad?

The inescapable reality that george would be forced to threaten your life would prevent you from saying it in the first place. Think about it; it would very likely be impossible for you to ever demand he stop drinking from the only water source. Period.

Again, this is comically impossible though. In the real world george would certainly not purchase property that he didn't have access to water on, and if it was somehow lost after purchase, he'd pay to get some new water from the free market or he'd simply move away, plain and simple.

And that's the story of how I got all the free fish I wanted, for no work on my part, just by virtue of owning something that someone else couldn't do without.

It's good to be a capitalist.

Your overall situation is called the Tragedy of the Commons. It's referenced so often by anarchy's critics that there is actually a term for it. Many chapters of many books, including ones linked to in this thread, are dedicated to showing you how the tragedy of the commons, each and every time, completely dissolves in a totally free market.

The following book (Free pdf by Stefbot) answers a ton of questions just like these. I think you'll like it.

http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_5_PDF_Practical_Anarchy_Audiobook.pdf

I see the unequal distribution of power and resources as an inevitable byproduct of capitalism, and insofar as the state mitigates the most deleterious effects (via "welfare state" policies) it is useful.

Regulations, licensing, corporations and Taxes, four functions that don't exist without the state, all do FAR more to make the distribution of goods and services unequal than any free market monopoly ever could. This fear you have is irrational and likely planted in your psyche on purpose by the world's governments.

The truth is that unequal power and monopolies only hurt others so much when the state is involved. Yes, you read that right. State-backed monopolies fuck you over good, but free market monopolies have no teeth.

That's because when a corporation (which is actually only possible within the state) becomes a monopoly now, they have the power to control the state through bribery and choosing our elected officials... Which in turn grant them favors that hurt their would-be competitors. (Keep the market from being free.)

Meanwhile, if a free market were to exist, and there was no state to act like a gun in the room, then there is nothing at all to stop some kid in their garage from creating a better product and use the free market to take down that monopoly.

There would still be courts, so it's not like the big company could just put a hit on the newcomer and get away with it scott-free. That protection is not going away in anarchy, but the monoplies' unfair advantage of controlling elected officials is.

 

[Andrew Scherer]

Sounds like fun. So instead of being under the control of cartels. These people who patrol the city now have control. If this were a real anarchist society, how long do you think it would take for the people protecting the city to impose their own government upon its people? In fact i'd say they are already doing it. Either way you look at it the situation is not good.

Nice spin bro. The words you bolded:

Martial law: Would you consider citizens armed with the guns they stole from the police station 'martial law'?
Checkpoints: Yes, there are checkpoints that check the people coming into the town. It's run by volunteers who want to protect their town.
Schools shut down: I imagine this happened at the beginning, but for how long I don't know. I read about a student protest in Cheran not long ago, so they're certainly back running now.

Any way you try to argue it, you certainly couldn't be saying that a city once run by corruption politicans, police, and cartels is in better hands than its own populace... I mean, you really aren't, are you?

Cheran is pretty proud of their autonomy and new found freedom... I believe they have set up some form of government, kind of like a council. Indian chieftains or something.

Better yet. If mexico was an anarchist society, how long do you think it would take the cartels to come back and kill everyone in that town? It says they only have about 8 guns.

I have no idea how many guns they have, I know for sure it's more than 8 because they took all the guns out of the police station. I read people were asking the pastor of the town church to hook them up with a gun..

But I will say this about cartels. They exist to make money. Killing people is generally bad for business. I think you're greatly overestimating the power (and will) of a cartel vs a town of 17,000 people armed with their own milita...I've already read about gun battles between the town and cartels, town lost 2, cartel lost 6.

In an anarchist society you live in fear from what is outside your own territory. Everyone becomes suspect when passing through your town. Sounds like great times! Talk about going backwards.

It's certainly not like Mexico everywhere, I'm not sure how you could make this kind of comparison. Do you worry about cartels where you live? I doubt it.

But when the enemy is knocking at your door, sometimes its a good idea to see if he's holding a club before you let him in.

 

[Napolean]

Alright, so rights aren't magical things that come from God or nature or anything else. They're just whatever two or more people think they ought to be. They don't exist outside a social context. I agree with that.

The problem I have with AnCap is property rights.


I'm going to tell a story now.

Say I'm on an island all by myself, living happily and minding my own business. I catch fish, eat the coconuts, life is alright. I've never seen another person so I've never thought about what I have a right to or not. No concept of rights whatsoever. I just take and use whatever I want however I want.

One day, after a big storm, some wreckage washes up on the island. Lo! Amidst the wreckage, there emerges a person! We'll call him George. I'm pretty stoked since I've never seen another person before.

So I show George around, everything's cool, we get along, so on. Time goes by. Then one day, I go out to catch some fish, bring 'em in and stick 'em on the fire to roast for a bit while I go grab some coconuts. On my return, I'm alarmed to find someone has filched my fresh fish fillet! And then I see George, happily gorging himself on my fish.

"George," I say, "this won't do. You've pinched my pollock!"

"Yours?" George inquires innocently.

"Yes, mine! I caught the fish, so it is mine to eat, not yours. You wouldn't want me to take the fish you had caught, would you?"

"Oh. I hadn't thought about it. I suppose I wouldn't," replied George.

"Okay then, I'll catch and eat my own fish, and you yours."

And so it was that George and I established that we each have a right to the product of our labor. And all was right with the world.


Until the day I got greedy. Did I mention the only source of fresh water on the island is a small spring? One day I was watching George drink from the spring, and thought to myself, "you know, what right does he have to drink from the spring? After all, I was here first, I discovered it, I was using it before he ever showed up. It's my spring, not his."

I decided I'd tell George to that he couldn't drink from my spring.

"But but," George objected obnoxiously, "what will I drink? I will die if I do not drink!"

"Well," I responded indignantly, "that's not my problem." What can I say, I was feeling like an asshole that day.

Then, suddenly, a lightbulb went off in my head!

"Although..." I begun, "perhaps I could allow you to drink from my spring in exchange for something..."

George looked at me with a sudden fearful expression in his eyes.

"Oh god please don't say sexual favors... that's what happened on the last island I escaped from!"

...Okay, he did't really say that.

But what I said was: "Look, if you bring me fish, I'll let you have water from spring."

And so it was, begrudgingly, facing the choice between dying of thirst or becoming my servant in perpetuity, George, his shoulders slumping forlornly, his eyes cast down, agreed to my terms.

And that's the story of how I got all the free fish I wanted, for no work on my part, just by virtue of owning something that someone else couldn't do without.

It's good to be a capitalist.


That's my story. I hope you enjoyed it.


And that's my basic issue with property rights, as defined in AnCap/propertarianism. Interactions are voluntary in instances like these only insofar as the non-owner has the "choice" between doing what the property owner says on one hand, or starvation/destitution/death on the other. The reality is that situations like these happen all the time in the real world. I'm sure you'll point to the state as enabling and/or being complicit, but can you honestly tell me that it wouldn't happen as often in the absence of the state?

I have no great love or attachment to the state, but I see the unequal distribution of power and resources as an inevitable byproduct of capitalism, and insofar as the state mitigates the most deleterious effects (via "welfare state" policies) it is useful. Perhaps we'd all be better off in an anarchistic society after all, but as you yourself have admitted, it's not happening anytime soon. And as long as it doesn't, I stand in favor of policies that legitimately help those most in need. If that necessitates some abrogation of the rights (socially defined, remember) of those of lesser need, so be it.

I should mention that I'm not some flaming liberal here - I try to be fundamentally pragmatic rather than dogmatic, and to that extent I find some libertarian economic ideas compelling, e.g., Milton Friedman's NIT, basic income as supported by FA Hayek, or the land value tax of Geolibertarianism.

Your story says George had already escaped a previous island, could he escape to another? Of course its a waste of time pointing that out because it doesn't really prove anything. I wouldn't even mention that part of the story next time to save the trouble of dealing with people who didn't get the actual point of the story.

Moving on.

George could always learn how to desalinate water from the ocean and then he would have his own source of fresh water, all he would need to acquire would be some piping and a pot to boil water with. He can catch rain water too, but obviously the other option is better.

If some disaster occurred or if your spring ran dry, the tables are then turned and George now has the power to make you pay him 2 fish per day in exchange for fresh water. Now you've learned what happens when you act like an asshole.

 

[Tommy Chong]

For example, voluntary communists can do their communist thing in an Anarcho-Capitalist world.

Then doesn't this mean that the world as a whole is already anarchistic since countries are free to have whatever form of (or lack of) government they want?

 

[dreamache]

Then doesn't this mean that the world as a whole is already anarchistic since countries are free to have whatever form of (or lack of) government they want?

No, because largely, participation in the government based on your geographical location is not voluntary. I couldn't just stay in shitty ohio and say "Naaaahh, I'll exempt myself from this group, not pay taxes, etc.."

 

[Napolean]

Then doesn't this mean that the world as a whole is already anarchistic since countries are free to have whatever form of (or lack of) government they want?

That is called panarchy and is not the same thing. Governments are anything but voluntary, otherwise you wouldn't be punished for leaving.

 

[lukep]

Then doesn't this mean that the world as a whole is already anarchistic since countries are free to have whatever form of (or lack of) government they want?

Clearly the anarcho-communists cannot force the rest of the landmass to pay their taxes and live by their laws.

Taxes bro. Think about it.

 

[guerilla]

And that's my basic issue with property rights, as defined in AnCap/propertarianism.

I don't think you understand how property rights work, or that they aren't just one fixed conception of how to handle property.

The problem with your issue with clearly delineated property is that you don't have an alternate system which leads to rational outcomes or incentivizes the sort of behavior you seek to obtain. That's essentially the problem with every form of socialism, whether it is small government republicanism, or flaming Maoist Communism.

Not to mention, once you avoid property rights, I wonder how you actually can create a coherent ethical system, or even one without massive violence.

If no one should own anything, how do we decide who gets to use what?

Are you aware of the environmental nightmares that were exposed when the Eastern German and Soviet governments fell? The lack of private property ownership and communal (state ownership) had reduced these territories closer to ghettos than their thriving western counterparts.

Interactions are voluntary in instances like these only insofar as the non-owner has the "choice" between doing what the property owner says on one hand, or starvation/destitution/death on the other.

But you're not addressing the premise.

On the one hand, you're saying the property owner is preying on the guy without property. On the other hand, you're implying (correct me if I am wrong) that the guy without should be able to prey on the guy who has stuff.

Do you see what sort of incentives such a system creates?

The reality is that situations like these happen all the time in the real world.

Do they really? Where?

I'm sure you'll point to the state as enabling and/or being complicit, but can you honestly tell me that it wouldn't happen as often in the absence of the state?

Well, as I've said (I repeat myself a lot, my ideas aren't that complex, just apparently, very hard to understand) we live in a 100% statist system, so the burden of proof is on you to explain why things are the way they are, the burden isn't on me.

I am proposing something very simple. Something which is intuitive to small children. I'm simply saying that using violence against peaceful individuals is wrong. Of course, that implies all sorts of other decisions, conditions and values, but if you don't believe that the use of violence is wrong, then we need to stop talking (I don't like sociopaths) and if you agree, then we need to figure out how your system is compatible with such an ethic.

You're welcome to ask me how my system is compatible with the ethic that it is wrong to commit violence against peaceful people.

I have no great love or attachment to the state, but I see the unequal distribution of power and resources as an inevitable byproduct of capitalism, and insofar as the state mitigates the most deleterious effects (via "welfare state" policies) it is useful.

Why do you oppose unequal distribution of power and resources?

By that rationale, no one gets better results, or does a better job than anyone else. It's a leveling of the successful, whether in sports, art or commerce, to the level of the failure, the untalented, and the dull.

The state doesn't operate on justice. It operates on political power. The majority of state welfare goes to corporations and big business. The amount of social welfare (which is a very recent thing, and totally unsustainable) is very small relative to the amount of resources the state consumes in graft, bailouts, handouts, kickbacks and militarism.

Your take on capitalism sounds very Marxian, but are you aware that Mises refuted most of Marx's core ideas on economics? Indeed, several Austrians I am fond of, are very keen on Marx's class analysis, however his economics are regarded as miserably bad by all schools of economics. I could spend several hours talking about the problems with Marxism, but surely you could do a little of the research on your own. It's out there.

As far as the usefulness of the state, isn't that subjective? If you benefit from the state, then yeah, it's great. If you don't then it is miserable. I take care of my family, I look after my parents, I pay my own way, and the state bleeds me dry for it. Is this justice? I've hurt no one, I try to employ people, I work very hard, I try to do business honorably, I try to pay it forward all the time.

Why am I supporting single mothers who made bad decisions? People on unemployment who make so much they are disincentivized to look for new work? Why am I bailing out banks? Why am I sending money to Israel?

You think that's justice?

I dunno, we've got different ethical scales for sure.

And as long as it doesn't, I stand in favor of policies that legitimately help those most in need. If that necessitates some abrogation of the rights (socially defined, remember) of those of lesser need, so be it.

But that's the thing. Poverty hasn't been eradicated. In fact, with the massive amounts of debt in western economies, public more so than private, this whole thing will collapse.

It's not a matter of being a meanie or a propertarian, but a system needs to be rational. To be rational, it can't have inherent failures that ignored until they manifest. Welfare has all of the wrong incentives. Charity is infinitely superior.

I am really struggling to believe that you believe, that bureaucrats and politicians aren't self-serving, and are instead noble and honorable people serving their constituents.

Let's not even touch on the war machine that is the state, and the horrible devastation it rains down on the most poor, sad and helpless people in the world.

I should mention that I'm not some flaming liberal here - I try to be fundamentally pragmatic rather than dogmatic, and to that extent I find some libertarian economic ideas compelling, e.g., Milton Friedman's NIT, basic income as supported by FA Hayek, or the land value tax of Geolibertarianism.

You've sort of picked the very worst of economic theory here.

Have you read anything from Rothbard? Or Mises?

I've run across guys with your basic perspective. We're not too far apart on goals, but our understanding of means is radically different. My view is rooted in recognition of the individual, the immorality and irrationality of theft and violence, and the desire to see a society prosper at a very high level.

I don't see how your views, which seem very politically oriented, are consistent with achieving your goals. As you've admitted, you're ok with all kinds of compromises, and I suppose as long as you ignore the ugliness and pain the state creates, those compromises make you feel better about how you wish things could be.

The problem with values in the absence of principles, is that they can never be achieved except perhaps, by accident. For your values to be more than feelings and words, but rather the exercise of your capacity as a man to influence events, they must be rooted in something rational (means aligned to ends). If you do something counter to your stated goals, you can never achieve them.

The state serves everything you think it does not. And that is why supporting the state will not make these problems go away. The modern welfare state, only about 55 years old, is probably going to go bankrupt in waves over the next 20 years. It's already insolvent beyond the political will to fix it.

I think you don't quite understand capitalism as I do. We don't have capitalism right now. We have socialism. Any country operating a central bank (holla Hellblazer!) is operating straight from the communist manifesto. Indeed, as hard as you may find it to believe, the very arguments you make, are the same arguments used to justify the system we have now.

I am saying we can do better. I think, if you're really honest, deep down you think we can do better. So why insist the current system isn't bad and only needs marginal tweaking with how we collect taxes?

As always, I advise you to take the time to learn some economics. At least then, you will feel compelled to root your analysis in the world of actions and consequences, rather than arbitrary ad hoc decisions without consideration for the costs on other people. It's not a pragmatic analysis if you ignore who gets hurt and only looks at who gets benefit. It's certainly not a moral outlook.

 

[Tommy Chong]

That is called panarchy and is not the same thing. Governments are anything but voluntary, otherwise you wouldn't be punished for leaving.

So in an anarchic society, people wouldn't be allowed to form totalitarianisms and keep people from leaving their subcommunity?

Clearly the anarcho-communists cannot force the rest of the landmass to pay their taxes and live by their laws.

Taxes bro. Think about it.

What's going to stop them?

 

[guerilla]

Ha, maybe you are talking about Hellb or Unarm G or someone, but if not, I more than once specifically referred to "Marx's communism."

I am not referring to you.

 

[guerilla]

Then doesn't this mean that the world as a whole is already anarchistic since countries are free to have whatever form of (or lack of) government they want?

A country isn't a person.

Anarchism requires freedom for individuals, not imaginary political and geographic territories.

 

[guerilla]

So in an anarchic society, people wouldn't be allowed to form totalitarianisms and keep people from leaving their subcommunity?

It's not a matter of "being allowed".

What man has the authority to "allow" or "disallow" anyone from doing anything?

Did you bother to read or watch any of the info on the first page of this thread? You don't seem to understand the subject matter whatsoever.

 

[jacky8]

re-read what you said and it still sounds familiar.

Just a difference of opinion in that case. I wouldn't consider what we have today as a worst case scenario at all.

This is what we have today, only the corporations are called countries.

In that case, we already have anarchy on this planet (like someone said on this forum a while ago)

The utopia with NAP and non-violence principles you talk about would require some enforcement.

Perfect voluntarism and non-aggression is the kind of shit where you're talking about some kind of enlightening on the genetic and spiritual level. Kind of thing where as per hindu philosophy, we're living in kalyuga and are due for a new yuga