Anarchist Stuff

[pinchyfingers]

I think that the problem with this is that the world isn't a small town, someone can commit a crime, move 100 miles, spend the proceeds of that crime, then move to a location and commit more crime a roving bandit if you will.

The only potential solution that I can think of is an "Interpol" that shares information on criminals, but I think that may have problems scaling. Technology to the rescue?

This is true. I'd certainly like to hear more solutions.

More importantly, it's important to maintain perspective. Fear of other human beings not cooperating with society is one of the major grounds for people accepting government. In reality, the violence and loss of property caused by criminals is relatively minimal and infrequent. Compared to criminal activity by individuals, the violence and loss of property caused by governments is massive. If the goal is to minimize violence, then getting rid of government brings the biggest win in any scenario.

Additionally, the government doesn't actually offer any protection from crime. There is no evidence that the level of crime is lower than it would be without government intervention, and there are good reasons to believe that government actually makes things worse.

 

[kingofsp]

What happens if you're in a small town and the mexican mafia decides it wants to use your town as their base. Also they want you pay them 20% of what ever you make and they won't kill you and your family. Who's going to stop them?

Do you expect your whole town to rise up and fight back? How many people would be willing to risk their lives and their families lives over 20%. Don't think that scenario could happen? It's happening right now in Mexico.

The government is so corrupt you could say there is no government presence in some places. Whole towns are under the influence of Mexican cartels. People who try and fight back get killed. If there was no Mexican government how long do you think it would take for cartels to take over mexico? Would happen pretty fast. Then what happens? The whole process starts over again, but instead of a somewhat democratic government, a dictatorship government is installed and Mexico turns into a big turf war over warring cartels.

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

 

[Napolean]

I think that the problem with this is that the world isn't a small town, someone can commit a crime, move 100 miles, spend the proceeds of that crime, then move to a location and commit more crime a roving bandit if you will.

Sounds like a wild west story. In the wild west, those types of people avoided getting pictures taken or getting identified at all costs, so they wouldn't be featured in those wanted posters. How easy would that be today?

 

[guerilla]

Where anarchists live...

Where the rest of us live...

I lived in the city until 18 months ago. I've been an anarchist for years.

So.. yeah.

Also, are you saying that morality is different in different places? I mean, for the same person. Are you saying that it is wrong for you to steal in say, North Dakota, but it is ok for you to steal in New York?

 

[guerilla]

 

[turbolapp]

Made me LOL: Not really 100% comfortable with your opinions

 

[Andrew Scherer]

What happens if you're in a small town and the mexican mafia decides it wants to use your town as their base. Also they want you pay them 20% of what ever you make and they won't kill you and your family. Who's going to stop them?

Do you expect your whole town to rise up and fight back?

They did in Cheran, Mexico.

The people kicked out the cartel, the police, and all the politicians.

Now volunteers guard the towns entrances.

The people have banned drugs, firearms, alchohol, and political parties.

When the people hit a breaking point and snap, shit gets done.

 

[guerilla]

Seriously, I am not interested in the high brow academic utopian theories here.

Well why don't you fuck off then? Why troll the shit out of a serious thread, discussing serious moral and philosophical issues, if you are too intellectually lazy to put in a half assed effort?

You're embarrassing yourself Marcus. Have the good sense to quit while you're ahead.

 

[guerilla]

I'm almost sold on the idea on Anarchy, but there's one thing I still struggle with. Are there any good videos/articles on it?

How do you deal with violent criminals who won't respond to a Merchant Law system? If it's totally non-violent, you can't get a team of people to arrest them, but if you don't, and they're totally nuts, they'll just kill again (unless, of course, you just wait until someone being attacked by them shoots them, but that seems a bit flawed)

You can. Law of this sort was handled privately for centuries. It's not merchant law, but rather common law (in Islam, Sharia), and as a Brit, I expect you to be boned up on that!

There are a ton of resources, but the best one for general learning, is probably stefbot's channel on Youtube.

Look, Anarchism is not a suicide pact. If someone fucks with you, it is totally appropriate to use a reciprocal amount of force to make them stop.

The issue is the initiation of force. No one should start using force against another for any reason. We deal with each other voluntarily, with the same respect you expect others to treat you with. (Note: Christians, the golden rule, do unto others etc.)

Someone who violates this, becomes "out law" (that's where the term outlaw comes from). The law of getting along no longer applies. You can kick their ass if they are messing with your shit although violence might not be the best answer. That's up to you to decide as the person being attacked.

You might say, who decides when something is in or out of law?

There is a great video on how common law courts could operate and may have operated in some areas of early America (when the country's legal system was still largely based on British common law).

It's a bit long, but if you can spare the time, it might give you some insight into Americans and a private law society.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFOUqurUgFk]The Solution, Schaeffer Cox Speaks on the Future of the Liberty Movement - YouTube[/ame]

 

[guerilla]

Before I understood what Anarchy really was I had the same misconception. That's a misconception that most people have unfortunately.

I think it has a lot to do with the educational system and the expectations society places on us to do our own reasoning.

Many people cannot imagine things working differently than they do, ironically, as they vote for changes in how things are done.

All I/we can do is continue to present the case for thinking critically, and hope that enough people clue in that eventually the herd follows what has now become the prevailing wisdom of that day.

 

[guerilla]

Technology to the rescue?

Of course.

Really, really, really try to wrap your head around this, because it sounds simple, but it has deeper implications.

There is nothing the government does, that we (you, me and say, LukeP) cannot do ourselves EXCEPT force each other around with violence and call it "law".

We can take care of the sick. We can defend ourselves. We can negotiate. We can agree upon standards for waste reclamation. We can build roads. We can teach children. We can inspect our food. We can build a postal system (UPS, Fedex etc).

 

[guerilla]

If someone in Skyfire's parent's neighborhood put on a suit and started writing local laws, issuing fines, demanding taxes, everyone would think that person is nuts.

But when Barack Obama does it, everyone thinks it's serious. So many people think it is serious, they will kill for Obama to follow his orders.

That is the dangerous delusion I/we are constantly trying to show people. It's not ok to just follow orders to kill Jews, and it's not ok to just follow orders to imprison people in violent gang run rape houses for smoking some tree. There is no "right" to take from a wealthy person to give to someone less wealthy. Charity at the barrel of a gun is extortion, not moral goodness.

And yet for many people, they never make the connection that if it is wrong for me to steal from you, then it is also wrong for me to elect someone to steal from you on my behalf. Electing someone, or a majority doing something wrong, doesn't make it "right" unless one has a very (I am being kind here) "fluid" view of ethics.

 

[Andrew Scherer]

Rural neighborhoods in Mexico build roads themselves too. They pitch in to have one built if the people on the street want to organize and have one paved.

Some neighborhoods have a paved road, some don't.

 

[JakeStratham]

All I/we can do is continue to present the case for thinking critically, and hope that enough people clue in that eventually the herd follows what has now become the prevailing wisdom of that day.

This is the best path toward the adoption of a new system of political ethics. It will take time, and I doubt we'll be here to witness it. But the change will last. This is the reason I promote education rather than revolution.

The gradual abolition of feudal and absolutist rule and the rise of increasingly capitalist societies in Western Europe and the United States-accompanied by unheard of economic growth and increasing population-was the result of a growing class consciousness among the exploited, who were ideologically molded together through the doctrines of natural rights and liberalism. - HHH

The idea that states are murderous, thieving institutions of aggression strikes most as heresy. With time, as states becomes increasingly aggressive to maintain power, heretical thought will become accepted as truth. The facade of legitimacy will erode.

One day, long after we're gone, people might look back at this period - a time when states ruled - as the Era of Nonsense.

 

[SkyFire]

I'm reading all these pro status quo, anti anarchy posts, and they all seem to share one thing; the misconception that those promoting anarchy believe it'll be some sort of Disney level Utopia, where no one commits crimes, and no one is a lazy layabout.

It should be obvious that isn't correct.

 

[cabezon]

Look, Anarchism is not a suicide pact. If someone fucks with you, it is totally appropriate to use a reciprocal amount of force to make them stop.

In contrast to the current system of corporate/state insanity which is most assuredly a suicide pact. That's one thing I wonder about, is how environmental sustainability would be valued in an anarchist system, since that's so clearly not in the spreadsheet currently, yet one of the most pressing issues we face. What do you think about that, guerilla? And excuse my ignorance. I have a lot of reading to do.

One day, long after we're gone, people might look back at this period - a time when states ruled - as the Era of Nonsense.

One day, assuming humans aren't whacking each other with sticks, I think people will look back on this period for what it is - the late adolescence of our species, where we've pinched dad's credit card and gone on an insane spending spree of cheap beer and glue huffing.

This is a really interesting conversation. Thanks all.

 

[jacky8]

posting in a troll thread

In anarchy, several small corporations will eventually consolidate to a few big corporations. There will eventually be big monopolistic organizations constantly in war with each other absolutely without having to answer any citizens.

Teach non aggression principle in schools lol. NAP is such a joke

Don't debate me because you haven't read these books derp derp derp

Always keep white balm handy for your butthurt

 

[cabezon]

I think it has a lot to do with the educational system and the expectations society places on us to do our own reasoning.

Many people cannot imagine things working differently than they do, ironically, as they vote for changes in how things are done.

All I/we can do is continue to present the case for thinking critically, and hope that enough people clue in that eventually the herd follows what has now become the prevailing wisdom of that day.

posting in a troll thread

In anarchy, several small corporations will eventually consolidate to a few big corporations. There will eventually be big monopolistic organizations constantly in war with each other absolutely without having to answer any citizens.

Teach non aggression principle in schools lol. NAP is such a joke



Always keep white balm handy for your butthurt

 

[kingofsp]

posting in a troll thread

In anarchy, several small corporations will eventually consolidate to a few big corporations. There will eventually be big monopolistic organizations constantly in war with each other absolutely without having to answer any citizens.

Corporations cannot exist in anarchy. They are a product of the state.

I learn things on Wickedfire.

 

[cabezon]

I learn things on Wickedfire.

A radical notion for dude there...