Anarchy is Dumb
- Thread starter SUP3RNOVA
- Start date
I'm sure none of us prefer violence to peaceful cooperation. It's just that most of us realize that in order to fight any violent aggressor you need to do it with violence. Ghandi was a fluke and worked on people's pity.. that rarely works. This means that it only takes one aggressor to fuck up any theoretical non-violent world.. forcing others to act violent as well. But of course in reality you'll always have more than one aggressor and there will always be aggression on all levels (neighborhood or continental).
If you agree with this then the question becomes whether an anarchy can sustain itself in a perpetually internally and externally violent world.
I mean there's plenty of other questions and problems to ask about anarchy. But I'm all for experimental societies and governments or lack of. An experimental anarchy society would be a great thing even though you can never test it against all variables. I'd love to see an anarchy society go to war against an enemy with a strong government.. oh wait I think that did happen in Spain many years ago and the Anarchists were annihilated if memory serves.. but one failure does not make a universal rule. More testing is needed. Split test governments (or lack of).
Never mind, I take back what I said. OP is pretty much a bad ass.
DOWN WITH EUROFAGS
lol at butthurt anarch-gays.
If you like anarchy, move to somalia. Somalia don't fit your distorted definition of anarchy? Then deal with the real definition and the implications based on human nature.
You can't say anarchy respects private property, as that is a made up rule. Something made up by groups of people sometimes called society... you know, with rulers and rules.
If you like anarchy, move to somalia. Somalia don't fit your distorted definition of anarchy? Then deal with the real definition and the implications based on human nature.
You can't say anarchy respects private property, as that is a made up rule. Something made up by groups of people sometimes called society... you know, with rulers and rules.
Guerrilla, is it not conceivable that a strong government could protect it's citizens w/out being criminal aggressors of other countries like the U.S gov is? Oh ya, that's one of your main believes I think.. that gov is 100% always evil. I don't believe in absolutes like that.
Is it possible that people in an anarchy could be more destructive and violent to themselves or people of the world than other government systems around it? I'm guessing it's possible and it has a lot to do with the people in the society more than the government or lack of. And you say that anarchy doesn't exclude the presence of strong leaders.. well strong leaders are where things quickly turn from bad to evil depending on the leader.
I also think one of your probs is that you always seem to be looking for a logical clean answer to the worlds problems. You want something you can spell out in logic in an argument on a piece of paper. I think the world is much messier than that and sometimes the most pleasant outcomes are in some ways contradictory. Especially when you try to spell them out in shorty pithy statements like the one in the pic you posted. It's because that short statement doesn't describe the actual situation much at all. Short statements rarely do. But they sound clever.
Is it possible that people in an anarchy could be more destructive and violent to themselves or people of the world than other government systems around it? I'm guessing it's possible and it has a lot to do with the people in the society more than the government or lack of. And you say that anarchy doesn't exclude the presence of strong leaders.. well strong leaders are where things quickly turn from bad to evil depending on the leader.
I also think one of your probs is that you always seem to be looking for a logical clean answer to the worlds problems. You want something you can spell out in logic in an argument on a piece of paper. I think the world is much messier than that and sometimes the most pleasant outcomes are in some ways contradictory. Especially when you try to spell them out in shorty pithy statements like the one in the pic you posted. It's because that short statement doesn't describe the actual situation much at all. Short statements rarely do. But they sound clever.
I hope so too, but that begs the question, why endorse it then?
What can someone like Unarmed Gunman say when the state comes and takes away his kids, his money and puts him in a cage one day?
He's the one arguing that we need a system capable of that in order to not have that.
I understand self-defense. But the state isn't self-defense. It attacks you, in order to protect you from attacks. It is like fucking for virginity. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Or hey, I keep asking people, make sense of it to me. Explain to me why we need to steal from people or threaten them with death to have a good society.
We're not specifically talking about non-violence, but non-aggression. And we're talking about holding it as a value, like how we hold the the humanity of blacks and women to be a value now.
Doesn't mean no one will be sexist or prey on women, or treat blacks badly, but it means that isn't a socially acceptable outcome.
Right now, hurting and stealing from the people the state supposedly protects is ok. Look at the anti-anarchists in this thread. No one wants to stand up and explicitly say that murder or theft are wrong when done by the government. They create an exception for the state for things they would never let me get away with as an individual. The outcome is the same, the rationale and rationalization process is different.
That is what has to change.
I can't worry that doing the right thing is "feasible" or "sustainable". If the alternative is to do evil, I have to do the right thing, and find a way to make it work for as long as I can.
That's another fundamental question. Will you only do the right thing if it serves you? What if you could get rich lying, or intimidating others? Would that make it ok? That's implicit in a lot of the arguments here.
Some people may be willing to sell out their values for their own short term gain.
Statism however seeks to make us all complicit with its crimes (as UG tried to imply) through bribery and intimidation.
- Why not take money for school if I don't have to worry about where it came from?
- Why not take more out of SS than I paid in, since I don't have to worry about who is paying the difference or how.
- Who cares what happens overseas with the military, as long as no one disturbs me at home, those guys can do anything to total strangers and I won't ask what or why.
It's that indifference to others which the state cultivates as a social value. Someone else is taking care of my neighbor, it's not my problem. It's essential to deconstruct a voluntary cooperative society in order to create a dependent state directed society. You can't have people acting on their own, exercising their own prerogatives. They need to look to the state for help, for welfare, for protection, for jobs, for money, for education.
In an anarchist society, looking out for one another is a must because there is no social safety net but what we provide for one another. All of these bleeding heart liberals would have to nut up and actually help people themselves, instead of lobbying for more violence to suck me dry.
I've just come to accept it as part of having a fairly involved discussion with casual internet posters.
You're going to have guys post random shit, and not care one whit what you write back, so when I reply, I try to write for the next reader than the person whose post I am responding to.
We agreeing here? Cities no longer make any sense.
Michael Newdow had his day. He lost. But he is one man who was able to challenge the status quo all the way to the Supreme Court.
Single man appeals happen daily and laws/regulations etc do change.
While the system is not perfect the Native Americans this day and age do have a voice. Had the system been then as it is now, they would have a voice. For the record, every tribal roll Native American I know has a pretty good gig. They get monthly checks, get free land, and can build on that land without any of the fees, restrictions, or regulations that the rest of society faces every day to build the same. It is amazing the things they can do outside the rules everyone else must adhere to.
Its a matter of not making enough - that is what I need to keep my mind on, not a matter of putting together logical arguments using proper definitions etc. I enjoy it, but I have to focus on earning.
I made some from my WF knowledge, but never enough to leave my offline behind. I hope to get back into it soon.
Yet the whole theme of modern politics is basically statists disagreeing about what taxes should be and how the money should be spent. Some want the government to spend less on defense, but more on health care, or vice versa, or more on both, etc.
Few statists are ever satisfied in that area, yet it's very easy for society as a whole to give the exact amount that they want to a charity like the Red Cross.
Someone can think everything the government does is awesome, but also not like their fundraising methods any more than if the Red Cross did the same.
A voice?
You went from how the system protects the little guy, to now they have a voice?
Genocide was committed against their ancestors, their land stolen, and they live in squalor in welfare ghettos.
And now you're trying to rationalize?
At what point do you give up a point you cannot support? I asked you to name ONE example which substantiated your claim, and you couldn't.
Surely in a country of 350 million people, you could name dozens, hundreds or thousands of examples of the little guy being able to get justice from the government if such a thing was possible.
Now if I said things, and couldn't support them there is no shortage of people who would call me an asshat. There already is no shortage, but you get my point.
So what do you want me to do with claims that the government protects the little guy?
Do we wanna talk about experimenting on blacks with syphilis? Or the secret medical experiments the US government ran on Canadians out of Montreal hospitals?
Let's talk about the Japanese and Italian Americans who were locked up and had their property stolen during WWII.
We don't have to stick with the American Indians. There are a lot of parties who have been violated.
Oh, but you'll maintain, it's just not a "perfect" system.
Then why are you using its imperfection as a justification?
Depending on what you're talking about many of us do not endorse the violence the U.S currently commits.
Maybe he realizes that life will never be truly and fully fair or just. Life will always be about trying to find the lesser evil. Sometimes the lesser evil will still hurt you because it's still evil. Some people, by chance, will be hurt more than others. The same would be true in an anarchy society. Sometimes your lesser evil will grow into a greater evil.. and the fight is always on to lessen and tame that evil. You can bet that you'd have to tame some evil in an anarchy society as well.
Like I said in previous post.. when simplified to a single sentence no it doesn't make much sense. But when you actually flesh out the details to describe the reality of the situation more.. then it might make sense.
Maybe punishment from not paying taxes is not something required in a government. Voluntary payment of taxes might be doable.. we'd have to experiment under different conditions to see. Remember most of the people in this thread are not arguing that the current strongest governments in the world are the best solution.. we're arguing that government in general might be better than a complete lack of government. Government is probably possible even w/out taxation. You mostly need laws.. and then possibly voluntary enforcement of the laws. Not sure, haven't thought it out fully.
Murder is definitely wrong when done by the government in cases that don't involve self-defense. Theft is likely wrong.. but I'd still have to think more about the viability of a government without mandatory taxation.. it might work.
Ah that's the biggest difference between you and others then most likely. Most people are interested in what works and what's practical not what's most theoretically justified on paper. Most people, care more about quality of life then ideologies and philosophy.
Well my morals are questionable at best. I don't know what I would or wouldn't do because I follow no real moral code. I take a look at nature.. and see it constantly attacking and doing violence against me.. each insect, mite, virus, etc is there to take what I have. I see no true good or evil in this world but I do see violence on every level. This universe is a cluster fuck of warfare on every level. Being born on this violent battleground, and having a personality warped by it, I'd have no problem committing violence against something else if it served me unless I felt empathy for that something. Luckily I usually feel empathy for living mammals.. but death to all fucking insects!
I might be one of those people. My only real value is empathy. Most of my actions are guided by desire, empathy, or fear (consequences of actions).
It's possible anarchy would increase social responsibility and the caring of your neighbors.. would have to test. Then would have to decide if that's something I care about.
Not even close. You're either functionally retarded, or lying. Or maybe you never read my posts because you've added me to your ignore list.
I've already explained the state is inevitable, not desirable. You can't be that stupid to not understand the difference.
We have government because the majority of people want to be led - it's human fucking nature. This extremely inconvenient fact has been ignored by you and others for this entire thread. You keep beating the dead horse of ethics but it doesn't fucking matter that the state is evil or unethical or immoral because people want to be led. You sound like a vegan preaching the "Meat is Murder" bullshit. Maybe, maybe not, but we're omnivores and most people are gonna eat meat so deal with it.
I'm starting to think you're just trolling. I mean, you're definitely not as smart as you like to pretend, but you can't be this fucking stupid.
To everybody else:
FUCK SOMALIA - MOVE TO THE MOUNTAINS!
You can have your anarchy if you really want it, but you don't. You just want to talk about it on the government funded Internet. Actually living in an Anarchist manner would require more work than you're willing to do. You would rather keep paying your taxes while you sit snuggly in your computer chair.
I know you're just having fun with this pic, but I've been wanting to properly refute it since the last time you posted it, because I think a lot of statists make arguments with this problem in mind.
To believe that "5 super-rich mega businesses" can "buy up 90% of the land in an anarchist world is absurd. It's an irrational fear that shows that the speaker of it hasn't thought his scenario through at all.
First of all, a country like the USA is the closest thing you'd get if they tried. I mean hell, you practically just described the land you're typing from... Our largest corporation already do make all the laws and keep citizens like slaves... (Wage slaves or tax slaves, either way saddled down with debt to be indentured servants.) So what you fear is ironically what you already have... And even with that kind of power they still don't need to "kick us off their land." -That's because we are livestock to them.
Why not ask why farmers don't kick their own cows off their land?
But putting all of that aside, in a system of full anarchy where the free market is truly free, none of the 5 companies could aquire the power mentioned, even if it holds a complete monopoly in its' industry.
The free market ensures that when a company starts acting in a way that the people don't like, they can strip that company of ALL of it's power instantly by simply stopping buying its' product.
Under the state, of course, that can't happen because they'll just go to capital hill, poke their paid-for reps with a stick and say: "The people don't want our crap anymore... Give us a bailout and tell them they must buy american!"
So again, it's only under the state that these fears are reality. Under anarchism the people would simply stop buying the product of any company that asked them to get off their land and boom; they'll instantly lose all their power to ask such.
True enough. I didn't really mean to imply that this sort of thing would always lead to some Nazi-type level of oppression.. only that it would lead to something that is not anarchy and it's a possible reason why anarchy is less sustainable than other systems. Simply put, if free anarchists can own land, then they can change the law/governmental system on that land if they wanted.
Well the reason I made it 5 different companies is because people wouldn't see the threat at first.. until one day these companies decided to join forces and boom they're an obvious threat if they wanted to change the system on the lands they own. This could be 10 companies or whatever.
I think what I'm mostly trying to say is that anarchy won't last. Consolidation of powers will always result in something that is not anarchy. My example just showed how this can happen while working fully within anarchist principles - if land ownership is an option. Land is limited. Limited resources and land is one of the things you guys rarely consider in your theoretical arguments. Once someone owns that land and they don't have to pay taxes on it.. then they basically are the government over that land.
You are ignoring the inconvenient fact that people want to be free to join and leave groups, and from within these voluntary groups is where those seeking leadership could best find the type they want.
Most Walmart workers and shoppers want Walmart to have a leadership structure, but they don't want to be forced to work and shop there, even if that is preferable to attempting to somehow create their own secret invisible "Walmart" in the mountains.
Just where are these mountains you speak of, though? Even if people go buy some actual mountains the state will still not let them form their own voluntary nation.
This thread is basically "libertarians" arguing how "it's really possible!" for a completely anarchic system to exist, while in the other threads they lament and moan how it will never exist because nothing will ever change.
The real problem with their vision is law and order. Their ultimate "higher power", if you will, is a vague deference to "morality", which in reality could be anyone's morality. They say that there would be security agencies instead of police. In that case, why wouldn't the richest man simply use his "security agency" however he wanted? Since the state is verboden because humans are intrinsically immoral, what would stop the richest man in an anarchic system from practicing his immorality?
None of these questions will ever be solved because government was always supposed to be man governed by God, because he is a perfectly just and righteous king. The closest thing on Earth was probably the tribes under Moses, Joshua, the judges, and some of the better kings like David, Josiah, etc.. But we live in a rebel sector of God's kingdom, and while he may rule over the hearts and minds of many, injustice, evil, and immorality will continue to flourish until he returns, convicts and imprisons the rebels, and takes his rightful place on the throne.
The real problem with their vision is law and order. Their ultimate "higher power", if you will, is a vague deference to "morality", which in reality could be anyone's morality. They say that there would be security agencies instead of police. In that case, why wouldn't the richest man simply use his "security agency" however he wanted? Since the state is verboden because humans are intrinsically immoral, what would stop the richest man in an anarchic system from practicing his immorality?
None of these questions will ever be solved because government was always supposed to be man governed by God, because he is a perfectly just and righteous king. The closest thing on Earth was probably the tribes under Moses, Joshua, the judges, and some of the better kings like David, Josiah, etc.. But we live in a rebel sector of God's kingdom, and while he may rule over the hearts and minds of many, injustice, evil, and immorality will continue to flourish until he returns, convicts and imprisons the rebels, and takes his rightful place on the throne.
Collusion also doesn't work in a truly free market. No grouping of companies could stand unified at any price point because the one that undercuts the others always wins. It's proven by game theory, in fact.
I know, you're going to say that when land ownership is thrown in the mix too it's not the same as colluding on a price point, but in a very real way it would be: Land costs money, and they would have to compete with each other for the cost of that land... So again, it's about who would spend the least among those conspirators, and that company could pass along the most value to it's customers and destroy it's competition.
The free market is one of the most fascinating things you could ever spend your time reading about. Head over to mises.org and pick up just about any book there to get started learning why all these arguments fall flat.
You are mistaken, we do consider it, and realize that the state's system is worse. Not just for a morality standpoint either, but from a community standpoint. Commons are stupid; If all land was privately owned then all land would have someone being responsible for it. Just look at the buffalo to see how this works.
Actually, this thread is statists calling Anarchists "Dumb" (see title) and we get to rightfully defend ourselves. I don't even know where libertarians came into the mix...
No reason for such a problem to exist though; no one is proposing removing the courts... Heck, there are private courts online today, like Judge.me.
That's cute... Do you always call things that are above your head "vague?"
Only if that security agency doesn't mind not retaining customers. There are several videos posted on the Anarchy Stuff thread that explain why this system works. (And is therefore superior to what we have now, which doesn't.)
Wow. You got all jeezusy on me... The ultimate trump card in any argument... I'm truly humbled.
Look, I'm not going to try to convince you to believe the same thing about the hereafter that I do. I know that's pointless. But can we at least agree in the difference between moral and immoral right? Let's start with the golden rule.
Is it or is it not immoral to do unto others things you would not want done unto you?
If you say it is, and further agree that we should strive towards a moral society one day, then you're 99% of the way to becoming an anarchist yourself, and likely will one day if you live long enough.