Anarchy is Dumb
- Thread starter SUP3RNOVA
- Start date
Are you seriously that stupid?
WF is Jon's private property and as the owner he has the right to decide what happens on here and to ban people.
He can not do anything to anyone here except banning them from entering his private property. He has no way of exercising force against anyone here.
This is not being a ruler, but simply a private property owner.
If you want to see what it is like to talk to someone who cannot critically think, this is your guy.
The more anarchy threads, the more win for me. I say, let a thousand threads bloom. There are 50x if not 100x more anarchists here now than there were 3 years ago.
Apparently that sincere humanitarian MSTeacher liked your post. He doesn't have time to post, but he does, he is too busy to read this stuff, but he does, he's got plenty of time to tell everyone he is right, and yet strangely has no time to explain how or why.
Imagine that WF was every member here, but in real life all just standing in a room. I start trolling and screaming and shitting everywhere, do you think Jon is just going to say "Sup3rnova, leave now" because I won't. I'm just trollin. But eventually Jon would use force on me, or watch the room go into chaos as they pummel me to death and wait for the next troll to say something. It would be a shitty place in real life.
Wickedfire is not anarchy in practice within the context of human civilizations. It's a poor "real life example".
But it's not weak. Everyone has morals. Everyone claims to believe in some moral standard.
Ask them to apply it consistently, and they flip out.
People are either dumb, hypocrites, insecure or scumbags. Frankly, I don't care because ignorance looks a lot like evil. The reason why a Nazi soldier would kill a Jew is less important than that they did it. At least to the Jew it was.
Anarchism is a simple idea. Don't use aggression.
Those of you arguing against anarchism miss the entire point. There is no system which "works" for everyone. There is only a system which can be ethical for everyone.
By choosing statism, you're saying, I am going to pick the imperfect system (because man, and his interactions with reality are imperfect) that hurts people.
You don't have to choose that system, but you do. You rationalize it as, "NY would be chaos" or "Who would run schools" but it's still endorsing violence against innocent people at the end of the day.
I could make fact based, economic arguments. You guys would try to come back with different facts. We would descend into the world of endless fact comparison, pushing our argument further and further away from one another.
I could make arguments based on logic, but as several posters here have demonstrated, they have zero interest in forming a logically sound position. No interest in squaring their means and ends.
So I make the moral argument, because it is simple. If you're going to reject it, you do it quick, saves me tons of time. I don't have to lay out casual trains of reasoning, I don't have to argue an intellectual discipline (economics) which takes time to understand.
My focus on the moral component cuts through all of the bullshit, andcalls people who claim they are for social "justice" (MSTeacher et al) to the center of the mat. Either they really believe in justice or they don't. It's hard to argue you're a hero of mankind if you're willing to hurt, kill or steal from innocent people. That's one logic trap (which we see so many cowards avoid) that gets us to the root of "Are you human" or "Are you an animal who can rationalize any behavior to himself"
I don't think you're a coward. I think you're someone who doesn't believe in ethics. You simply don't care about anyone but yourself, and don't see human values as being universal or reciprocal.
Then align your beliefs with your values. If you don't want violence against innocent people, then reject the institution which is based on it.
Don't tell me chocolate is your favorite ice cream, and then order vanilla every time you go out for dessert. I won't take you seriously, I suspect others won't take you seriously, and while you can rationalize saying one thing and doing another, that's your delusion. It makes you look at best, confused, and at worst, like a dangerous hypocrite.
There is no singular point of government. What you define as unnecessary violence is arbitrary. To people getting bombed, or put in jail for smoking a joint, that violence probably seems pretty fucking unnecessary.
You can't opt out. The earth is covered with governments. You can't hide, you can only defer.
And yes, the entire concept of government is immoral, because it is a violent monopoly on the use of force. What the fuck is your definition of moral, if you think that using violence against innocent people isn't immoral?
This stuff is mindboggling. If it is not wrong to steal from and hurt people, then what is wrong?
This is why I repeatedly told you to learn economics. Because anyone who flirts with these ideas, and doesn't establish an intellectual base of understanding to work from, is going to be at best, squishy.
We've never had anarchy, because anarchy necessitates property rights, and that's a relatively new concept. You could argue that property rights really didn't begin to come into vogue until Adam smith.
So this idea what we started with anarchy is completely, easily and demonstrably false.
Non sequitur.
This is why you needed to learn economics.
There is no definition of free trade that includes compulsion by force. By it's very definition, taxes are theft. They aren't a "free trade" any more than raping someone is love making.
If you don't pay taxes, people will imprison you. If you resist, they will kill you.
Taxes are not trading. It's a very clear distinction.
And, extending your argument, then slavery wasn't really slavery. It was a trade and there was nothing wrong with it.
Free trade is voluntary, not coerced. And that's not my definition, go take any Econ 101 class. Even the statists accept that definition.
Government are monopolies created by force. Not by voluntary consent. Not by contract. If you can't see the difference between McDonalds and the USG, then that's on you. I can only point out the obvious.
All genuinely free trade is anarchistic by definition.
Centralized state money is a monopoly again. It's not progressive, and if you were familiar with the technical arguments against socialism, you'd understand why.
So you financially support the Canadian military, government, police forces etc - yet you "don't endorse violence against peaceful people"? Your tax money is put to just as much oppressive use as your neighbor, the statist.
Then you say:
Yet anyone that disagrees with your "current" take on things is wrong? As you get older and gain wisdom, your beliefs will continue to change. So then everyone that agrees with you now, will be wrong once again?
I'm continually amazed at how many people on this board take you seriously. You are a narcissistic ball of contradiction.
Furthermore, if you really believe the things you say, yet continue to financially support the government helping them use violence against your fellow man - then that makes you a coward. At least a statist believes that the government is necessary (or inevitable, since apparently that makes us statists too), so he pays his taxes because he feels it's necessary. You pay your taxes out of fear. Any ideological anarchist that pays his taxes is a fucking coward. A true Anarchist would never do such a thing because he would never compromise his values.
Therefore, if you claim to be an Anarchist, but you pay your taxes, then you are a coward, and a hypocrite.
And yet it is exactly the example that economists around the world would use to describe free trade, which is necessary for anarchism and antithetical to statism.
If you don't understand (implicitly or explicitly) ideas like Lockean homesteading, property rights, universality in ethics etc. it is going to be very hard for you to understand any of this discussion in a manner which is conducive to productive discourse.
I've said a couple times lately, I don't try to discuss topics I know nothing about. While you guys have opinions (and in the western tradition, anyone with an opinion assumes his opinion is valid because it exists) you're woefully short on understanding.
Back to the moral argument,
if you support government, you support using violence against me.
And if you support using violence against me, someone who has done nothing to harm you,
what does that say about who you are?
REALLY? The police and military exist to prevent unnecessary violence? Seriously? Thousands of innocent people a day are hurt and murdered at their hands, at home and abroad. That's why they exist. To initiate violence.
Where do I file to opt-out?
You can't. It's not voluntary.
And the entire concept of a Government is to claim a monopoly on the initiation of violence and finance itself through theft.
Government, by it's very definition, is immoral.
No, my money is taken away by force under the threat of violence. I have no choice or any say in where it's spent.
That will NEVER happen.
Why do you think the Government is balls deep into every profitable industry on the planet? So they get their cut. Pharma, drugs, healthcare, insurance, education, banking...
You literally can't take a shit (water, property tax, sales tax on toilet paper) without giving a cut to the Government. You think that's an accident?
Agh.
For one, Government doesn't create money, or value, it steals it. Two, your money is created by a private bank - that's well connected to the Government and is free to fuck the entire monetary system sideways without repercussions.
I have him on ignore.
By this argument, there is no such thing as a rape victim, because they could have run away.
Or slavery isn't slavery because slaves didn't leave.
It's an obviously stupid argument.
I like how you guys have now yielded that the state is a violent institution, but that the fact that we're all living in the state (the world is covered in them), somehow makes anyone for peace a hypocrite.
In a sense, you guys have made my argument for me. The government is violent, but I don't consent to or support it. YOU GUYS ARE DOING THAT.
I can usually, at the least, appreciate your point of view on things. But that is bullshit. That's like saying a woman who doesn't wish to be raped yet submits when someone puts a knife to her throat is a coward and a hypocrite.
EDIT: Just saw Guerilla reply with the same analogy above after I posted. Still going to leave this here.
Of course I support and endorse violence against innocent people, and so do you. We are both taxpayers. We would both also like to make society function with less violence against innocent people. Governments are not based on violence, pretty sure any of our founding fathers would agree with that. What they warned was that the government would turn into a violent force if left unchecked. Government is not the problem, leaving it unchecked is.
Every argument of yours tries to hole someone into saying "I'm immoral" so you can use that as your attacking point. You are guilty of the exact same fucking thing, which is why your method of arguing is stupid. You're a walking hypocrite, it's hard to respect that in an argument.
This
is why the moral argument is so strong.
On the one hand, Super argues that government reduces violence, when I point out that government causes a lot of violence, he goes quiet and avoids replying.
And that saves me so much time because (1) he's discredited himself except to the few guys here who also believe in using violence but don't want to explicitly admit it, and (2) the discussion is over. There is no argument which can change the fact that the state hurts people and rules with force.
is why the moral argument is so strong.
On the one hand, Super argues that government reduces violence, when I point out that government causes a lot of violence, he goes quiet and avoids replying.
And that saves me so much time because (1) he's discredited himself except to the few guys here who also believe in using violence but don't want to explicitly admit it, and (2) the discussion is over. There is no argument which can change the fact that the state hurts people and rules with force.
Like a petulant fucking child. Just keep covering your eyes and ears so you don't have to respond.
I spent time in prison with real anarchists. Sorry if I get annoyed at the keyboard variety, but I know people that sacrificed their freedom for their beliefs. If you would use violence against your fellow man to save your own ass, then you are not an Anarchist. You're a keyboard warrior. An internet tough guy that talks a good game from the safety of his computer chair. (in general, not directed at you personally)
You can't even compare yourselves to rape victims, because at least a rape victim would fight back. A rape victim might eventually be subdued and raped but at least she could know she fought to maintain her values. There is honor in that.
There is no knife to your throats. It's not hard to move to the mountains. You can support yourself by barter. You can support yourself in the gray market in most major cities to avoid taxes. You guys hide your own cowardice behind this false rape analogy, but really you guys are just too scared to put your money where your mouths are.
This
is why the moral argument is so strong.
On the one hand, Super argues that government reduces violence, when I point out that government causes a lot of violence, he goes quiet and avoids replying.
And that saves me so much time because (1) he's discredited himself except to the few guys here who also believe in using violence but don't want to explicitly admit it, and (2) the discussion is over. There is no argument which can change the fact that the state hurts people and rules with force.
More useless rhetoric. I think you should try living in a city and not on mises.org in the mountains.
I want cooperation as much as you do, but you can't mass together hundreds of millions of people and expect them all to cooperate without a standard set of rules. It doesn't work, there are no examples of it working (full societies), and it would only work if everyone were nice. Spend your time trying to help mean people be nice, become a counsellor, that would be about 100000x more productive than being happy about doubling the anarchist count on Wickedfire. You should feel proud of that great accomplishment, you centurion of morality.
I am explicitly not supporting it. That couldn't be more clear.
You mean we're both stolen from. Taxpayers is a very Orwellian term.
Strange that you support a violent monopoly which has killed 10s of millions of people then.
LOL. If governments weren't based on violence, they wouldn't have had to wage a bloody war to create their own government.
Governments are based on violence. Stop paying taxes and see what happens. Try smoking dope openly and see what happens.
Government is the problem because it is a violent monopoly. You can't check a monopoly. You have absolutely zero political power. You cannot exert any discipline on the government.
It's to address the moral contradiction.
You say you want less violence, but you endorse the use of force. I am just asking you to square that circle. Yes, I know it is uncomfortable, that is exactly why I do it. You're not going to yield one inch in your endless arguing (as seen on skype) so why waste my time?
Either you can make a logically coherent argument or you can't. That you come off looking like a violent nutjob is your optics problem, not mine.
It's been posted twice already. If there was no violence supporting taxes, I wouldn't pay them.
Because you support the government, you would keep paying taxes (assuming you're sincere) even if you were not forced to.
In fact, by your and UG's rationale, you both should be paying more, since you believe Government is a necessary social good. The US needs the money badly.
But I guess you guys don't pay more. And I guess if there were no violent consequences to not paying, you guys probably wouldn't pay much taxes either.
It's easy to rationalize. It's hard to be consistent.
You still haven't answered the question. Why?
Which is irrelevant to answering the question. I spent 35 years living in cities, longer than you have been alive.
Let's assume this is true.
Indeed you can. It's called spontaneous order. It's how we manufacture pencils.
Have you ever thought about what it takes to manufacture a pencil? Did you know that the government didn't plan the process? That by and large, they have almost nothing to do with the process?
How is it we're able to coordinate thousands of people, in many different countries, to make pencils?
Read, I, Pencil | Library of Economics and Liberty
No, it doesn't require everyone to be nice. On the contrary, your belief in government requires everyone to be nice. It requires that politicians don't lie or steal. It requires that everyone in government can behave morally, and not in his self-interest. It requires that everyone believe that power does not corrupt.
Anarchism only requires that people not accept as a norm, the notion of aggression. We don't have to like each other, we just have to not attack each other. You can dislike your neighbor. You just shouldn't go whack him on the head with a shovel. Do you think that is possible? I think we're already capable of doing it.
There are no anarchistic societies yet, like there were no "rights" for women 200 years ago. Like slavery was law (yay government!) 250 years ago. That doesn't mean there won't be anarchistic societies. Indeed, that's exactly where we are headed, regardless of what you or I think of it.
I am not happy about doubling the count (it's closer to 50x or 100x, but not all due to me). I'll be happy when the world is safe to live in.
You still haven't answered the question. Why?