Anarchy is Dumb

[REIMktg]

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?

Slow down here.

You asked for one, 1, uno example of a single Person who had redress. I named Michael Newdow. You failed to acknowledge this and jumped to the Indians. If I had Lexis/Nexis at home I could be able to cite more cases of a single person, but I do not, nor do I follow such cases. I can tell you that in LA the City is constantly paying millions of dollars to those that are harmed not to mention the hundreds of cases daily that are heard in courts every day across the land to protect the little guy.

As for the Indians, certainly we would all agree that it is terrible what happened. Same for the Japanese. My in-laws lost hundreds of acres in Sacramento and all of their businesses when interned, I do not need a lesson in this.

The Indians do not all live in welfare ghettos these days. In fact every Indian I know gets monthly checks, free land, and regulatory free opportunities. You are believing the propaganda about Indians. The truth is different at least in California. As for the rest of the country, there are Indian ghettos, but under what society, even anarchy could these individual live if they do not want to assimilate? Maybe they would have had land from the get go, but many would not have had it and so we go around and around in circles on this.

The key point is to see that in all of your scenarios steps have been taken to safeguard the future. The system fixed itself. Could it happen again? Sure. But it could happen under Anarchy too because you will never ever get everyone to participate in NAP. Man seeks what he wants. He cannot be trusted and therefore it is better to have a Govt system of publically accountable checks and balances rather than local property owners and those with the means to pay Mercs the control.

While I am not a fan of the US in its current state I far prefer it to Anarchy. The system we have at present can be fixed from the inside. In Anarchy there is no fix. I have run a thousand scenarios through my mind that leave "the little guy" out in the cold in an Anarchy.

 

[MSTeacher]

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.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ADgCeYJMN4]ONYX - Slam - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

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.

I can't speak for the US, but there's loads of places in Canada where the government is going to leave you alone. Throughout a good chunk of the Rocky Mountains, small islands scattered along the north west coast, up in most parts of Labrador, many places in Newfoundland, etc.

Newfoundland is a weird place, and apart from the few cities, the entire rock is basically just one huge fishing village. There's small villages scattered everywhere that don't even have a single police officer. On the downside, when you ask things like where the nearest computer store is, you get told, "well, there's one 200km south, and another 300km north".

Canada is the second largest country in the world, and only has a population of 35 million, most of which live close to the US border. So finding a place where the government will leave you alone isn't exactly difficult.

 

[REIMktg]

Our largest corporation already do make all the laws and keep citizens like slaves

Completely unfounded and not proven.

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.

People today have that same power yet they never exercise it save for products they do not want.

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!"

Then vote those politicians out. Stop buying that Corp's products. The masses rarely take any action like this now so why do you believe they will under a different system? Suddenly in an AnCap world people will change their behavior?

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'd like to see that proof or are you talking in the long run where ease of entry/exit from a market is not considered? Because in the long run I am dead, so it really doesn't do much for me or anyone that lives during the time of collusion. For them it will just suck.

 

[WickedJoe]

I can't speak for the US, but there's loads of places in Canada where the government is going to leave you alone.

Shit man.. they actually pay you to live in Alaska. And there are large parts of the state where there are NO property taxes - basically the parts not in cities. Alaska also has no sales tax, and no state tax.

 

[johnmatrix]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQXBbC3g-t0]Schizopolis - A Brief Statement - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

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.

Voluntary nation? lol

You don't need to buy a mountain, just fucking move there with your group of gay webmaster keyboard Anarchists and try it out. It doesn't have to be the mountains either. You want to live with no government interference - move to the eastside of Detroit. Or start a hippie commune out in the middle of nowhere, they used to do it all the time in the 70's. Alaska is full of REAL Anarchists too (not fake ones like you guys), as someone else pointed out.

You guys are so full of shit though, we all know you don't really want Anarchy. You guys just want to TALK about anarchy, you don't really want to LIVE anarchy. Watch a few Molyneux videos, make a few more posts on WF trying to beat the dead horse of the moral superiority of anarchy, and keep feeding tax money to the big bad evil state.

 

[scottspfd82]

Voluntary nation? lol

You don't need to buy a mountain, just fucking move there with your group of gay webmaster keyboard Anarchists and try it out. It doesn't have to be the mountains either. You want to live with no government interference - move to the eastside of Detroit. Or start a hippie commune out in the middle of nowhere, they used to do it all the time in the 70's. Alaska is full of REAL Anarchists too (not fake ones like you guys), as someone else pointed out.

You guys are so full of shit though, we all know you don't really want Anarchy. You guys just want to TALK about anarchy, you don't really want to LIVE anarchy. Watch a few Molyneux videos, make a few more posts on WF trying to beat the dead horse of the moral superiority of anarchy, and keep feeding tax money to the big bad evil state.

Still curious to know if you deserved to be in prison. Were there victims?

 

[Rage9]

I'll say straight off the bat I don't like being drug in to these circle jerks of thought. However I've had a few so why not, I'll humor you stupid ass.

It certainly can and will happen... Just not with anyone on this thread who hasn't decided that Voluntaryism is the way forward for humanity.

YOUR brain may be hardwired like an ant's, but don't speak for me, bro. Freedom and morality go hand in hand and my brain has no trouble seeing them through to their natural state.

Those statements are all you need buddy to go live in a cave by yourself. Guess what? You can do that even today! Go hunt your own food, forage and take care of yourself. Guess what dipshit? Not going to be that easy, which is why people create groups.

By all means though, we'd all love to see you live in a cave and rough it out.

I really have no idea how to respond to the rest of your shit as you seem to go off on some weird tangent about volentianism or some shit.

Just to be clear, Anarchy could be attempted a bajillion different ways. Sure, many of them will fail, and I'd go so far as to say all of the ones would fail that don't hold the NAP central to their existence... Because that's the State's mistake too. The NAP is a central anchoring point that anyone smart enough can see is completely true; a self evident truth that leads to happier and fair world for everyone.

Sure, anarchy could be attempted a bajillion different way, but it wont be. This is the part you seem to fight against. If anarchy started tomorrow what would happen?

People would form common groups for survival. Some people would form groups to pillage those people, after all there is a certain efficiency at just taking or killing people for their stuff to get what you want.

I think you and Gurilla put to much faith in humanity to be able to handle an Anarchy situation as anything less than their base animal instincts. You guys wish to change the rules of the game, but consider this...

Anarchy breaks out and you've been starving for days, you can die or you can take from, or kills someone, to acquire subsistence your require to live. Whatcha going to do? This is why anarchy without violence can never work.

I know, keep trying fuckers but our base DNA says to crush, kill, breed, and destroy as best you can. The hunters hunt the week, our prey. We do what we must, because we have to, to survive. Those that think we are above that are but nieve fools.

 

[scottspfd82]

I'll say straight off the bat I don't like being drug in to these circle jerks of thought. However I've had a few so why not, I'll humor you stupid ass.



Those statements are all you need buddy to go live in a cave by yourself. Guess what? You can do that even today! Go hunt your own food, forage and take care of yourself. Guess what dipshit? Not going to be that easy, which is why people create groups.

Where do you get the idea that Anarchy = No groups? Of course people form groups.

By all means though, we'd all love to see you live in a cave and rough it out.

So our choices are live in a society based on the initiation of violence or live in a cave? Funny. Most of the caves around here are used as nuclear fallout shelter contingency plans - I wonder who's more likely to drop nukes? A state or an individual?

I really have no idea how to respond to the rest of your shit as you seem to go off on some weird tangent about volentianism or some shit.

Ahh, voluntianism. I believe that's the practice of eating volunteers.

Sure, anarchy could be attempted a bajillion different way, but it wont be. This is the part you seem to fight against. If anarchy started tomorrow what would happen?

You practice it everyday.

People would form common groups for survival. Some people would form groups to pillage those people, after all there is a certain efficiency at just taking or killing people for their stuff to get what you want.

Like brown people in deserts?

I think you and Gurilla put to much faith in humanity to be able to handle an Anarchy situation as anything less than their base animal instincts. You guys wish to change the rules of the game, but consider this...

WTF is your definition of anarchy?

Anarchy breaks out and you've been starving for days, you can die or you can take from, or kills someone, to acquire subsistence your require to live. Whatcha going to do? This is why anarchy without violence can never work.

The only reason we'd be starving is because the State controls the food supply. You think it should be crime to sell raw milk? Non-GMO's?

So you agree that it should be illegal for humans to produce their own food?

I know, keep trying fuckers but our base DNA says to crush, kill, breed, and destroy as best you can. The hunters hunt the week, our prey. We do what we must, because we have to, to survive. Those that think we are above that are but nieve fools.

Damn those week nieve fools. Dumb bastards.

 

[lukep]

You guys are so full of shit though, we all know you don't really want Anarchy. You guys just want to TALK about anarchy, you don't really want to LIVE anarchy. Watch a few Molyneux videos, make a few more posts on WF trying to beat the dead horse of the moral superiority of anarchy, and keep feeding tax money to the big bad evil state.

This slant you're on lately where you keep calling us cowards isn't going to make us feel bad or be any kind of call to action for us.

The thing is, Voluntaryists (not all anarchists, just the type of anarchist that most of the ppl on this board happen to be) came to anarchy through appreciation for true Liberty and for the NAP.

The society you are talking about, where those "true anarchists" might exist would be one with violent resistance from the state possible at any time.

Does that sound like something that people who follow the NAP are looking for?

It may be a lifestyle compatible with the NAP, but anyone who came to anarchy in search of Non-Aggression would be almost surely opposed to putting themselves & especially their loved one in situations that raise the probability of violent encounters. (Which not paying taxes is known to do.)

So while you see it as being cowards, you're holding us to a false standard in the first place that we never claimed... It's like you heard the word anarchy and just assumed that we all had mohawk hairdos and were looking for a fight.

That's just not what anarchy is... That's propaganda, plain and simple.

We're against aggression. Voluntaryism is almost pacifism, just with self-defense being A-OK.

 

[Andrey]

Connecting spirituality, NWO, anarchism, consciousness, etc:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AanQ2mY2jjc]KYMATICA - FULL LENGTH MOVIE - Expand Your Consciousness!!! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Still curious to know if you deserved to be in prison.

Not for being an unarmed gunman of course, but I deserved to go to prison for all the shit I didn't get caught for, so it probably balanced out. Besides, I can honestly say that prison was the best thing for me because I was seriously on the wrong track in life. I'm pretty sure that's not the outcome the State was hoping for (they love recidivism), but I used the experience to benefit me.

I wasn't avoiding the question by the way, because I've talked about it on here before, but it's just not relevant to the thread. I DESPISE this fucking government, and I've seen a side of it that most of you haven't, which is why I laugh when I get called a statist just for pointing out that the vast majority of people will always want government. It doesn't matter what's right, it matters what's real.

The society you are talking about, where those "true anarchists" might exist would be one with violent resistance from the state possible at any time.

So? You're always going to have people hostile to your group, whether you call them a state, gang, warlords or anything else. Conflict is part of the human condition - I would be glad to debate this point with anyone. If you're not willing to resist them, you can never survive as any type of group because you will become victims. Wishing this not to be the case is the same as wishing Santa would slide down your chimney to save you some money at Christmas.

It seems you're confusing anarchy with pacifism. If you want an anarchist group, you'll need to resist others at some point. If you don't have the stomach for that, then anarchy isn't really for you.

We're against aggression.

That's adorable, but your fellow man isn't.

 

[Moxie]

Or start a hippie commune out in the middle of nowhere, they used to do it all the time in the 70's.

And didn't some of them get convicted for tax evasion? This would be even harder to do today with modern satellite surveillance and such.

You guys are so full of shit though, we all know you don't really want Anarchy.

So people who think shoplifting is wrong don't really want a world without shoplifting because they won't move off into the wilderness?

If government had a monopoly on food distribution, eating that food would still be preferable to most people. That doesn't mean that they couldn't point out that they thought it was wrong.

 

[Moxie]

Newfoundland is a weird place

The way they do their time zone seems evidence enough of that.

 

[guerilla]

I have to take a break from this thread, but I wanted to point out

MSTeacher posted again, nothing substantive.

Uber is on skype, but apparently still can't answer my simple question.

JohnMatrix also, posted again, won't answer the question.

And from the quotes, UG is still carrying on this line of "your position is invalid because you're a hypocrite" which is basically ad hominem.

It is a really cheap way to go about this, because there are repercussions to talking about the stuff we do to avoid the state, specifically with taxes, that no one can easily discuss it publicly. So what he does, is challenge us to out ourselves, knowing unless we're nuts we can't, and he can win a cheap point.

That's exactly why he attacks people personally in an environment with a high degree of anonymity.

Not to mention, the logic of "you pay, you agree" has been disrupted numerous times.

And the logic of, "move away" (the love it or leave it argument) is fallacious because it presumes I can't be the way I am, where I am because the state (a delusion) has rights I don't.

If you don't like slavery, move away. If you don't like racism, move away. If you don't like being raped, move away.

Moving is not a solution.

---

None of these cats wants to defend the state, no one wants to promote a better system and defend that idea. And no one wants to address the violence inherent in their positions.

It's hard to take people seriously when they accuse you of being naive or a hypocrite, but they won't discuss with sincerity.

In a way, I understand (not the insincerity part). I wasn't ready for anarchism when I got confronted with it. I laughed at Agorists as naive. I even made the love it or leave it "you're a hypocrite" argument.

You're all on the path, whether you like it or not. In the end, the truth wins. Not you, not me. What is real. It's irresistible.

@Reimtkg, I skimmed the first line of your response and will reply back later.

 

[scottspfd82]

Not for being an unarmed gunman of course, but I deserved to go to prison for all the shit I didn't get caught for, so it probably balanced out. Besides, I can honestly say that prison was the best thing for me because I was seriously on the wrong track in life. I'm pretty sure that's not the outcome the State was hoping for (they love recidivism), but I used the experience to benefit me.

I wasn't avoiding the question by the way, because I've talked about it on here before, but it's just not relevant to the thread. I DESPISE this fucking government, and I've seen a side of it that most of you haven't, which is why I laugh when I get called a statist just for pointing out that the vast majority of people will always want government. It doesn't matter what's right, it matters what's real.

I haven't heard you talk about it, but I also sometimes go months at a time without popping up here.

The only reason I asked is I figured that you probably didn't feel it was justified - and by your logic - you'd be a coward for not trying to jump an electric razor-wire fence even though you'd most likely end up full of shotgun shells as a result.

Glad it was a positive experience for you. I'm done debating the tax argument.

I was in the military, and for a lot of the same reasons I'd say it was an overall positive experience. I saw the difference first hand between what the Government feeds the sheeple and what reality is like.

I think the main area we disagree on is the importance of showing people that "what's real" is wrong.

 

[kingofsp]

Shit man.. they actually pay you to live in Alaska. And there are large parts of the state where there are NO property taxes - basically the parts not in cities. Alaska also has no sales tax, and no state tax.

Alaska is cold as fuck.

 

[guerilla]

As for the rest of the country, there are Indian ghettos, but under what society, even anarchy could these individual live if they do not want to assimilate?

That's exactly what anarchy is. A system where these people can make like the Amish, and not assimilate.

But it could happen under Anarchy too because you will never ever get everyone to participate in NAP.

I get tired of repeating myself, particularly when I think I have made this point specifically to you many times. Anarchism isn't a Utopia.

If you don't understand this, let me know, and I will explain in more detail.

Man seeks what he wants. He cannot be trusted and therefore it is better to have a Govt system of publically accountable checks and balances rather than local property owners and those with the means to pay Mercs the control.

The government isn't publicly accountable because the courts are run by the government, and the government prohibits competition.

Your entire position on this, which I have refuted directly to you many times, is a non sequitur.

Man is bad, therefore we need a government of men.

It's pure nonsense.

While I am not a fan of the US in its current state I far prefer it to Anarchy.

So you're saying that you prefer government welfare to charity?

You prefer the use of force to voluntary relationships?

Please explain. The only thing I am aware of that the government can do, that we can't do for ourselves, is to exercise and maintain a monopoly over the use of force. Everything else, we can do voluntarily if we want to.

The system we have at present can be fixed from the inside.

That's an assertion. Has it ever been true?

Going to theory, how would you fix it? I am not even sure you can identify how and where it is broken.

In Anarchy there is no fix.

Sure there is. Anarchy is not the absence of rules, or law or morality. It's just the absence of aggressive violence.

I have run a thousand scenarios through my mind that leave "the little guy" out in the cold in an Anarchy.

How so? I mean, you're a Christian right? Isn't charity a virtue? Are you going to leave the little guy in the cold unless someone puts a gun to your head and forces you to give welfare?

It's very disappointing to have spent so much time conversing with you, and you're still posting fallacies and assertions as fact, ignoring what's already been answered, and apparently you've done little or no scholarship on your own concerning the matter.

I cannot continue to debate with someone who refuses to advance the discussion. You claim your time is valuable, but you spend it like it is not. Another of many contradictions I suppose.

 

[HKSEO Jonbones]

True anarchy can never exist--without laws the strong, and well armed will impose their will on the weak.

Thus, control is asserted.

Anarchy can only ever be temporary, in the immediate chaos of oppression being removed, IE, Iraq right after the invasion