Anarchy is Dumb

SUP3RNOVA

SUP3RNOVA

Goober Gay
Mar 5, 2007
2,300
72
0
I have read about anarchy and argued for it for months, but in the end can't retain that it's a good idea.

I could nitpick many issues, but the philosophy comes down to the fact that people want to make their life easier, and government is easy. Why would you want to worry about searching around for the top "security contractor" when you can just pay a tax and have the nationwide police force patrolling the streets for you every day and night? Your every day Betty Sue doesn't want to carry a handgun to protect herself, and she loves that police literally drive around looking for bad guys for her. There is no need to manage this because it is all covered under her single tax payment.

Governments are ways of simplifying solutions for massive societies. In the instance of security in a free market, you would HOPE that 1-2 companies rise above all others and become the most trustworthy and money-efficient source of protection. If that doesn't happen, it means that most security companies aren't trustworthy and you constantly have to weed through shitty companies to find good ones. So fuck that. If that does happen, you are starting to realize that centralizing something with a trusted source is good...so a government starts to form.

I could ramble on, but the idea that "government = bad" is kind of stupid. I do not like the idea of forcing anything on anybody, so I think a better government would operate if people could opt out of programs, not pay taxes for them, but also not be eligible to rejoin for X amount of years. But for your every day person, governments simplify life and is worth the investment.

The fact that so many governmental nations are broke or in turmoil is not because of government, it's because of a lack of accountability being held within government. A basic government in of itself is not a bad idea.
 


2ykdksp.jpg
 
SUP3RNOVA said:
Governments are (wholly ineffective) ways of simplifying solutions for massive societies.
Click to expand...

of course, i may be wrong. societal solutions have always been easily solved by politicians, and that why we love them so.
 
It's nothing more than a crazy ideal a few outliers take to feel superior and more intellectual than others, whatever works to make their daily life more enjoyable is fine with me.
 
SUP3RNOVA said:
Your every day Betty Sue doesn't want to carry a handgun to protect herself, and she loves that police literally drive around looking for bad guys for her. There is no need to manage this because it is all covered under her single tax payment.
Click to expand...

Betty Sue also doesn't want to run her own farm, diamond mine, printing press or movie studio. She loves that she can instead just go to privately owned stores and buy food, jewelry, books and dvds.
 
So far the responses are as predicted. "Governments don't work! Just look!" Which I've already covered. Inefficient governments don't work, no shit. Inefficient anything rarely works. Captain Obvious FTW!

Please, reference some flourishing anarchist societies so we can revel at the great work of anarchy. That's about the only thing that can counteract the "Look at government in practice, it blows!" argument.
 
SUP3RNOVA said:
So far the responses are as predicted. "Governments don't work! Just look!" Which I've already covered. Inefficient governments don't work, no shit. Inefficient anything rarely works. Captain Obvious FTW!

Please, reference some flourishing anarchist societies so we can revel at the great work of anarchy. That's about the only thing that can counteract the "Look at government in practice, it blows!" argument.
Click to expand...

Opzq1.gif
 
It might "work" better to spend money on gym memberships and children's charities vs. cigarettes and video games. The issue is with using force to tell people how to spend their money.
 
Moxie said:
It might "work" better to spend money on gym memberships and children's charities vs. cigarettes and video games. The issue is with using force to tell people how to spend their money.
Click to expand...

Of course, which is why I said governments would be much more moral and functional by allowing people to opt out of programs.

I hate the idea of forcing anybody to do anything, yet 9-5 jobs generally work much better than "Hey, we trust you, work when you want." If employers did not force their employees to be at work at a strict time, their companies would go to shit.

So there should be an opt-out, but on the surface the concept as a whole works for large societies.
 
SUP3RNOVA said:
Please, reference some flourishing anarchist societies so we can revel at the great work of anarchy. That's about the only thing that can counteract the "Look at government in practice, it blows!" argument.
Click to expand...

This is the problem with anarchy, it simply doesn't scale when you try to bring out to the masses therefor there is no market for it. Sure you can get a few hundred millionaires/billionaires on something like those planned floating cities but beyond that it doesn't work.
 
tomaszjot said:
I opted-out from Taxation 2010 program.






Sent from

HM Prison Wandsworth
Click to expand...

once separated from government, individuals can do business with the state on their own, such as paying to use state roads. this is why the minarchy vs anarchy argument is pointless, as none of you experts (including molyneux) can truly predict how tge free market will stack up against government services. but if i was to speculate, i believe that the option to opt out will lead the free market to slowly and inevitably replace all government monopolies.
 
The problem is that you don't fully understand the inevitable end result of government. I know this to be true, because if you did...you wouldn't have made this thread.

Is anarchy perfect? I really don't fucking know to be quite honest, but at least if everything gets fucked under anarchy, I'd be fucked in my own way.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BShyYZQEmBk"]Make Yourself - Incubus (LYRICS) - YouTube[/ame]
 
SUP3RNOVA said:
If employers did not force their employees to be at work at a strict time, their companies would go to shit.
Click to expand...

No, they would just fire the poorly performing employee. Why would they sit back and let their company go to shit?

A basic government in of itself is not a bad idea.
Click to expand...

I'll just leave this here:

"There's this weird thing where people say - 'well you know, a 'free society' is only going to work if everybody is perfect, if everybody is really good.' And they think that we're going to be like these dreamy-eyed, dewy-eyed, rainbow-afro'd lambs - baying around, chewing on the cuds of liberty...but the moment a wolf comes in, AHHHH, it's all over! The moment some bad guy comes along he's just going to take over all of society, and we're all just gonna go "baa-aa-aa-aa" and walk right back into the slaughterhouse.

And nothing, really, could be further from the truth. The idea of a voluntary society, or a stateless society, or an anarchic society, is not idealistic. What is idealistic is a statist society - that is naive, and dangerous... because a statist society carries with it the assumption that you're going to create this incredible hierarchy, this blood-soaked pyramid - institutionalized hierarchical power - with the power to print money whenever it wants, the power to start wars, to incarcerate at-will, to create laws at-will, to bribe their friends and punish their enemies...and not ONE SINGLE evil guy is ever going to be interested in running that system. Never! You're only going to get really great guys at the top, and all the evil guys are going to be criminals in alleys, they're never going to be congressmen or presidents or prime ministers, or anything like that!

It is the statist who is naive about human nature and the potential for evil. The anarchist, the voluntaryist, recognizes that human nature is corrupted by power - and to create a monolithic thing called "the state," with all of the powers that it has, is only gonna draw - like flies to shit, the most evil people to the top of that pyramid structure. And so, we cannot have a state because human nature is prone to wanting something for nothing, you know, 'the desire for the unearned is the root of all evil.' And so we recognize that you can't create this monster machine called "the state," and not end up with bad people driving it. The possibility of human evil is exactly why we can't have a state." - Stefan Molyneux
 
^^ /thread

If employers did not force their employees to be at work at a strict time, their companies would go to shit.
Click to expand...

Missed this statement at first... Dude, with all due respect (not sure if there is any) but you can't seriously think this to be fucking true? It's pure retardation.
 
JarredLv said:
"The possibility of human evil is exactly why we can't have a state." - Stefan Molyneux
Click to expand...
This is very true, but you'll never get people to understand it.

I tried to talk to Super on Skype about anarchism, but at the end of the day, he has no morals, and so he can't see the immorality of using force against others or himself. To him, there is no good or evil, just whatever suits his purpose in a given moment. Basically, ethical nihilism.

Likewise, you've got guys like JohnMatrix who will talk a good game, but by their own admission, owe everything good in their lives to something, or someone else (the state as an institution). It's hard to take his opinion seriously when he doesn't believe individuals are capable of doing good independent of the state, because that position implicitly means he isn't even the master of his own "correct" thoughts.

It's similar to the argument made by relativists. They are objectively sure that everything is relative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom