Anarchist Stuff

[guerilla]

So it was of my interest to learn how do you guys live day-to-day life in countries which on surface appear to be "free".

Ok, my bad. There is a lot of trolling on these forums, and I assumed you were trolling too.

I support myself and my extended family as much as possible, without leaning on the state for anything. We try to keep most of our healthcare private (at our own cost) and we don't engage in politics (volunteering, voting, campaigning, donating) or requesting benefits from the government.

There is a little more but I would rather not post it in public. You're welcome to PM me.

 

[Napolean]

Ethically would it have been right for a leader of the native people to have required all indians come and fight? You would say no. But... Realistically, what will happen if the indians don't fight together as one?

Why would he need to require his own people to do anything?

What kind of threats would he have to make to get his people to fight, that weren't already presented by the invading force?

 

[guerilla]

What kind of threats would he have to make to get his people to fight, that weren't already presented by the invading force?

That's their issue. They don't think people will act together in their self-interest.

And yet ironically, they think ONE person can act in EVERYONE'S self interest.

The question they cannot answer is "from whence does this superman come?"

 

[REIMktg]

Indeed. Which is why I continue to stay in the realm of ideas, not in the realm of [sic] solutions.

You'll notice many people don't want to address ideas, and prefer to make appeals to "solutions". This sort of thinking is reinforced in politics, public education, and media. The solution mindset is inherently anti-intellectual. What matters is what "works", as relatively perceived by those using it (ironically, not those being subjected to it). Why it works, or how, is not important. Only that it (supposedly) does.

Until it stops working or values change, and then we need something else that works.

This is also why libertarianism is slow to get traction. It requires an understanding of economics and philosophy. That's one hurdle.

The next hurdle is that it doesn't offer answers (indeed, economics is value free). It says that how we get to answers will help determine the quality of answers. But that isn't a "solution" in the traditional CURE MY PAIN RIGHT NOW sense. That's why we see these repetitive "What about security?" posts. People want security, they don't want to think about the best way to create security. Like watching a basketball game and playing a basketball game, very different modes.

If you've read any Hoppe, he is big on time preference as a model for values, and most people, particularly in our fast paced western culture, have super high time preferences. Perhaps more so than our tribal, caveman-esque ancestors, who understood the necessity of thinking ahead.

This thread would be 1/4 its length if this were established in the OP.

The implication of asking for absolute security, or holding security as your highest value, is that you would be willing to kill proactively to prevent a violation of security.

Yes.

So you and them are saying that the only system is one where we abandon ethics? Is this correct?

If one endorses a non AnCap view how is this an absolute either/or?

I believe humans can live under non-aggression. I don't think sociopaths, liars, assholes, dirtbags, thieves, rapists and politicians can live under non-aggression.

I would be interested in an explanation of the above, unless it is simply a matter of semantics or definition.

 

[Napolean]

That's their issue. They don't think people will act together in their self-interest.

And yet ironically, they think ONE person can act in EVERYONE'S self interest.

The question they cannot answer is "from whence does this superman come?"

Their logic follows "to protect us from outside threats we must have inside threats", and its insane that they don't see there isn't a difference between either.

 

[Suspect Device]

Here comes a long one.

This post will be more like a rant or thinking out loud.

I have just recently scratched the surface of libertarianism and anarchy. As I have exposed myself to a complete new way of perception and thinking, I still have a lot of confusion in me, but I guess that's what you call personal growth.

But anyway, here it goes.

Just as I started reading and gathering information about Anarchism, I instantly identified myself as minarchist (a different thing I know).

This is how I have always felt - since late teens, I have always felt, for no rational reason, that government is too big/too powerful, and actually is getting in the way of people.

My vision of a "perfect system" is where the government would only have few roles. They are:

*Court system
*Police/security
*National guard (only for defense)/Border guard
*A small organization that would overlook said roles

The rest is left entirely in the hands of free market. And a some kind of minimal taxation would happen to finance these functions.

And here comes the BUT...

If you actually think about it, and take it one step further, you don't even need government to do above mentioned roles. Why?

Well, before I started to write this post, I went downtown using public transport, which is owned by a private investor, to buy meat from the local farmer who has a very good reputation, while my apartment has a security system installed by a private security company for a monthly fee, which also has a very good reputation for providing good security services. You see where I am going with this?

And without borders you don't need no border guard. There would be no borders to secure other than your own property.

If you take some time, and actually think. Just think. Then you'll see anarchy is happening all around you. Every minute, every hour, everyday. There are millions of voluntary transactions happening around the world every day, without the government being part of.

All you have to do is identify it, practice it and pay it forward.

Government is shaking your hand, while pissing on your feet.

Then again, I still don't know how people would handle pollution and natural resources without the big brother watching. I still need to study and explore that area.

Luke, no offence, but I believe that voting for Ron Paul would make no difference, it's quite delusional actually. The system itself is crippled. Then again, on the other hand, with the help of Ron Paul campaign, people are actually (at least some part) are starting to realize other paths, and will take some kind of action even if Ron Paul won't get elected in the office.

Also one thing that I have noticed. The people that are aware of these things are mostly somewhat more intelligent (I'm not praising myself in any way), than most of the society. I doubt that Monica who lives in Atlanta, a single mom of two, who works double shifts at Walmart will ever think of Anarchy, or actually take some kind of action to reduce the power of government. There are other things for her to think and worry about.

Like I said, this is more like thinking out loud, than an actual opinion on things.

Just wanted to share

But whatever, my two cents.

TL;DR

 

[guerilla]

Their logic follows "to protect us from outside threats we must have inside threats", and its insane that they don't see there isn't a difference between either.

And that is the core of the entire dialog.

How do we get people who do not recognize, or care about contradiction, to address those contradictions?

Why would we? Because they can be very dangerous when you have people acting under a delusion. The Jews experienced the downside of mass delusion in Germany circa 1942.

 

[guerilla]

If you take some time, and actually think. Just think. Then you'll see anarchy is happening all around you. Every minute, every hour, everyday. There are millions of voluntary transactions happening around the world every day, without the government being part of.

You get it. You made my day.

 

[guerilla]

This thread would be 1/4 its length if this were established in the OP.

Well, I don't pretend to be an expert educator or promoter, only an enthusiastic one.

I'm learning things in this discussion too. Understanding is rarely pretty or well organized, it comes in fits and starts.

If one endorses a non AnCap view how is this an absolute either/or?

I'd be happy for anyone interested in making a case for ethics without anarchism to do so. That would be an interesting discussion.

Earlier in the thread Pseudo Nym shared some of his values. He shared some of the conclusions he has drawn around his values and his perception of reality.

What he didn't do, is explain where those values came from. What were their origin? Were they good/bad? What are the consequences to himself and to others of holding those values?

I would be interested in an explanation of the above, unless it is simply a matter of semantics or definition.

It was a bit of rhetoric but I think the case it makes has truth.

If you think and behave like an animal, are you a man? If you would use force to get your way against others, basically following a law of the jungle mentality, then what good is the human faculty of reason? The Law of the Jungle isn't compatible with humane treatment or behavior.

Just because we're both born biologically human, doesn't mean we're both going to be the best of humanity. People who behave in a dangerous manner to people who want to co-exist ethically and peacefully are perhaps less human than those who do not.

Common law actually has this sort of built-in. People who violate laws and don't make restitution are OUT LAW. The law no longer protects or applies to them, since they refuse to participate in the law.

I suggest ethics may be well served to operate in a similar manner.

 

[thedarkness]

I think I lean toward anarchism. Although I don't know if it's the exact same flavor as some prefer here.

I remember finding Chomsky on anarchism to be immensely persuasive. In fact, a quick google of "Chomsky anarchism" turned up this beautiful paragraph:

CHOMSKY: I was attracted to anarchism as a young teenager, as soon as I began to think about the world beyond a pretty narrow range, and haven't seen much reason to revise those early attitudes since. I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. That includes political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women, parents and children, our control over the fate of future generations (the basic moral imperative behind the environmental movement, in my view), and much else. Naturally this means a challenge to the huge institutions of coercion and control: the state, the unaccountable private tyrannies that control most of the domestic and international economy, and so on. But not only these. That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met. Sometimes the burden can be met. If I'm taking a walk with my grandchildren and they dart out into a busy street, I will use not only authority but also physical coercion to stop them. The act should be challenged, but I think it can readily meet the challenge. And there are other cases; life is a complex affair, we understand very little about humans and society, and grand pronouncements are generally more a source of harm than of benefit. But the perspective is a valid one, I think, and can lead us quite a long way.

It's simple but true. The onus should always be on the person exerting authority to justify that authority. That simple principle really would go a long way.

What I find confusing, oftentimes, is just what to think about what's best to do in there here and now, in the making the best of a radically fucked up situation. It seems preferable to support the least destructive iteration of state authority in the short term, even if in the long run I hope it is done away with altogether.

I have always meant to read more about this and attempt to clarify my thinking on anarchism, and maybe eventually be well-read enough to write elegantly and usefully on it like Chomsky can. I've been too busy jacking off the last few years, though. Maybe some day if I stop jacking off I'll get back to reading more history and do something useful with my life, godammit.

:xomunch:

 

[guerilla]

People could do a lot worse than be interested in Chomsky. He's very good on seeing the state as it is, not as people imagine it to be.

I do find him lacking a little when it comes to economics.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

I've already addressed why anarchy won't work on any large scale in society earlier in the thread. But for those that feel all warm and fuzzy about camping trips and private security systems at their apartments, I think you're missing the fact that those arrangements exist within the State, not outside of the State. Your private security company isn't going to drive to your apartment if it's broken into for instance, they're going to call the cops (The State).

It's also ironic that we're discussing the evils of the State on the Internet, which was developed and funded by the State. The free market didn't create The Internet, the State did with taxpayer money that it took by force. My point is simply that everything isn't as simple as people want to believe.

Yes, the State is evil. But if you want to see what happens in a modern society when you remove the State apparatus, read about the recent collapse in Argentina. If nothing else, it's a great document for preparing for when the shit hits the fan. Life goes on, but it's something very different than what most of us are accustomed to.

The "Anarchy" that many of you describe in your everyday lives is happening within the apparatus of the State, don't assume those transactions/experiences would look the same with that apparatus removed. The State is always there, even if you don't see it, and that threat of force has an effect on people's behavior/ethics/morals etc. whether you want to believe it or not. Therefore the Anarchy that you see everyday within the State, is something very different than the Anarchy that you'll see without that State.

Anyway, I'm not a statist or an anarchist, I'm a realist. Carry on.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

I've already addressed why anarchy won't work on any large scale in society earlier in the thread.

Nah, it's already been cleared up. This anarchy stuff is about ideals and dreams only. Not reality.

 

[lukep]

No it's not.

You don't see it all then. Hopefully one day you will... Until then you won't know what a slave you actually are.

When the people realize that FOX is lying to them, they go to MSNBC. When they realize that MSNBC is lying to them they go to FOX.

I was laughing about how stupid people were to do that back when clinton was in office. Something has changed with the liberty movement and it's sad that you can't recognize that, considering you support it.

If you think 10% of the population are Anarchists, you're nuts.
...
You're being naive Luke.

I certainly don't have the numbers to back up this opinion, but the growth has been obvious, even off of the liberty-loving sites.

We'll agree to disagree on this point because you'd first have to see how bad the propaganda situation is (and you obviously haven't scratched the surface yet) to even get a starting point on estimating how large the numbers they are hiding is.

The masses finally began to wake-up and wanted to get rid of their leaders by...electing different leaders? lol

Some of them, not as far along, actually do believe that, but it's just a stage in their growth. Then you get real sure, real fast that the state should not be given any more power than it already takes. It's a pretty short jump, in fact. I'd say 80% of the Ron Paul voters that were active during the 2012 campaign season will be anarchists soon, if they aren't already.

Option 3. Buy Niue for $10m or Tuvalu for $36m and educate everyone on Anarchy, and let them vote for whether they want it, and see if it works.

The problem with this is that those people are likely perfectly happy right now living with their localized government. It isn't as evil as the american empire so they don't get taxed so hard to pay for foreign wars and their personal freedoms are relatively intact... So what would be their incentive to care about living without a government? That's a pretty drastic change to ask someone to take without them caring (much) about the problems it solves.

Just as I started reading and gathering information about Anarchism, I instantly identified myself as minarchist (a different thing I know).

Are you still leaning towards minarchism?

There is no better example in human history of minarchists failing than right here in the usa. Any government at all WILL eventually be run by bad people who expand it until it is too bloated to work well anymore, and then they'll run it into the ground fully. This is fact.

Then again, I still don't know how people would handle pollution and natural resources without the big brother watching. I still need to study and explore that area.

Check out the books linked to on the front page of this thread. Most are free, and they cover this area very well.

Luke, no offence, but I believe that voting for Ron Paul would make no difference, it's quite delusional actually.

Don't worry bro, I don't condone voting. That signature is just for the sheeples... Voting for RP is the first step along the path of natural progression towards anarchy. Thankfully I get to take it down in a few weeks and I can stop hearing from other anarchists about how it's so stupid...

But for those that feel all warm and fuzzy about camping trips and private security systems at their apartments, I think you're missing the fact that those arrangements exist within the State, not outside of the State. Your private security company isn't going to drive to your apartment if it's broken into for instance, they're going to call the cops (The State).

Are you actually arguing that a camping trip can't exist without a government to make the land free? Or that an unrestricted security firm can't do the job of the whole job of policemen?

I can't accept that you actually think this. I feel like I'm being set up here... What's the catch?

It's also ironic that we're discussing the evils of the State on the Internet, which was developed and funded by the State. The free market didn't create The Internet, the State did with taxpayer money that it took by force. My point is simply that everything isn't as simple as people want to believe.

Your point is simply state propaganda and crap.

A totally free market could have delivered the internet to humanity before the pyramids. (In fact it never would have resulted in any pyramids, because slavery is extremely unfree and economically unsound.) Arguing that we couldn't have had the internet without the government is madness... The government's only power is to RESTRICT freedoms, and who knows where we'd be today without it... Possibly existing as pure energy by now...

The "Anarchy" that many of you describe in your everyday lives is happening within the apparatus of the State, don't assume those transactions/experiences would look the same with that apparatus removed.

Au contraire, we don't assume it would look the same at all, actually. We assume it would be BETTER. More freedom is a good thing.

The State is always there, even if you don't see it, and that threat of force has an effect on people's behavior/ethics/morals etc. whether you want to believe it or not.

We do believe it... It has a very NEGATIVE effect on people's behaviors, making them more likely to be bad people who perpetuate the current system.


We can still practice limited anarchy though IN SPITE OF the state's invisible hand.

Anyway, I'm not a statist or an anarchist, I'm a realist. Carry on.

What a total spineless cop-out. You either support the state or you don't. In this case if you try to stay out of it you help perpetuate the current system, and that is the state.

Statist.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

You don't see it all then. Hopefully one day you will... Until then you won't know what a slave you actually are.

???

I don't think you understood what I was responding too. The main argument against anarchy as a system has nothing to do with roads or schools, it has to do with the desire of people to be led.

I was laughing about how stupid people were to do that back when clinton was in office. Something has changed with the liberty movement and it's sad that you can't recognize that, considering you support it.

I certainly don't have the numbers to back up this opinion, but the growth has been obvious, even off of the liberty-loving sites.

We'll agree to disagree on this point because you'd first have to see how bad the propaganda situation is (and you obviously haven't scratched the surface yet) to even get a starting point on estimating how large the numbers they are hiding is.

Numbers Luke. You keep skipping over the point that for every person that wakes up, 5 more take their place in the flock. If you expect Anarchy to take hold in society, you need numbers. You need mainstream acceptance. You need human nature to change. You need human nature to change. You need human nature to change. You need human nature to change.

It has nothing to do with education - Anarchy is not new. It has everything to do with human nature. You're never going to have more than a small percentage of people that are comfortable with Anarchy. They will always demand leaders. ALWAYS. baaa baaa baaa baaaa

There is no better example in human history of minarchists failing than right here in the usa. Any society at all WILL eventually be run by bad people who expand it until it is too bloated to work well anymore, and then they'll run it into the ground fully. This is fact.

Fixed that for you. You keep blaming this on government, but government is just people. People are to blame, Luke. Whether they call it government or anarchy, people will always do what people do. Human nature can not changed. The masses will always demand leaders, and the most corrupt amongst us will always be there to seize power. That's not a knock on Anarchy, nor a defense of the State, it's just a realistic understanding of human nature.

Are you actually arguing that a camping trip can't exist without a government to make the land free? Or that an unrestricted security firm can't do the job of the whole job of policemen?

No. I'm pointing out that those things might look very different without the framework of the State. Anytime you remove a variable from an equation, everything changes. Read the link in my last post about the crisis in Argentina a few years back and you'll see how different things looked when the State stopped functioning. Again, it's not a knock on Anarchy, but if you really want to understand it in a real world context, study it in a real world context. Otherwise you're just like any of the other keyboard Anarchists around here.

A totally free market could have delivered the internet to humanity before the pyramids.

Sometimes it's very difficult to take you seriously.

Au contraire, we don't assume it would look the same at all, actually. We assume it would be BETTER. More freedom is a good thing.

Jesus Christ this is getting old. You guys keep arguing the merits of anarchy, but you keep ignoring the fact that anarchy can not exist as a societal system because human nature will not allow it. People want to be led, Luke. Until you can reprogram the human mind, anarchy will forever be relegated to philosophical discussion like this one.

We can still practice limited anarchy though IN SPITE OF the state's invisible hand.

OK...who said you couldn't? Go join a commune, or become Amish, or move to the mountains. Nobody is going to stop you. You're the only one holding you back from a voluntaryist existence. But you're wasting your time if you expect the rest of society to join you.

What a total spineless cop-out. You either support the state or you don't. In this case if you try to stay out of it you help perpetuate the current system, and that is the state.

Statist.

There is a difference between supporting the State, and recognizing the inevitability of the State. For instance, murder is wrong. I do not support murder. But I also know that there will always be murder.

 

[Napolean]

It's also ironic that we're discussing the evils of the State on the Internet, which was developed and funded by the State. The free market didn't create The Internet, the State did with taxpayer money that it took by force. My point is simply that everything isn't as simple as people want to believe.

Telegraphs, bitch.

 

[guerilla]

Crediting the state with inventing the internet is like crediting the Pharaohs with inventing pyramids.

Nikola Tesla wrote about and envisioned the internet long before anyone started practical work on it.

 

[-joe-]

That doesn't work. Anarchy works when the incentives are right, and when the morality or ethics of the people is proper for the task.

Agreed.

The absence of government is not in itself anarchy (that's what some guys in this thread cannot get past). The absence of government could very well lead to government again (OH NOES)

Again, I'm with you. However, that's where the mass education (some would call it propaganda, but I'm talking full education, pros and cons, etc), as well as the vote. It could also be made so that for the first 5 years it's "semi" anarchy. In that, you're still technically in power, but don't get involved (unless things collapse) for 5 years, where there's a second vote, and if that turns out to be "no anarchy", then you go back to a full statist system. (That 5 years is a random number I plucked out of the air, it'd need more thought obviously, to say the least.)

People who understand the immortality of the state won't tolerate a new one any more than we would tolerate the subjugation of women and blacks again in our society.

Perhaps. But what if you can convince people the state doesn't have to be immortal? I wouldn't say it necessarily compares in people's belief systems to slavery or lack of womens rights. It's a strong belief, certainly, but I think it can be challenged, in the same way that someone can convert from liberalism to conservatism, or vice versa. (I will admit that it's more difficult than that, but not impossible; it's just a different spectrum to go down.)

 

[guerilla]

Again, I'm with you. However, that's where the mass education (some would call it propaganda, but I'm talking full education, pros and cons, etc), as well as the vote. It could also be made so that for the first 5 years it's "semi" anarchy. In that, you're still technically in power, but don't get involved (unless things collapse) for 5 years, where there's a second vote, and if that turns out to be "no anarchy", then you go back to a full statist system. (That 5 years is a random number I plucked out of the air, it'd need more thought obviously, to say the least.)

I'm not sure voting has anything to do with anything.

Power corrupts. It corrupts everyone.

Perhaps. But what if you can convince people the state doesn't have to be immortal? I wouldn't say it necessarily compares in people's belief systems to slavery or lack of womens rights. It's a strong belief, certainly, but I think it can be challenged, in the same way that someone can convert from liberalism to conservatism, or vice versa. (I will admit that it's more difficult than that, but not impossible; it's just a different spectrum to go down.)

State doesn't have to be immortal or immoral?

 

[-joe-]

Power corrupts. It corrupts everyone.

I'm not sure of the point you're making here, to be honest. Could you elaborate a bit further?

State doesn't have to be immortal or immoral?

Immortal. And to clarify, I am right in saying you meant your original quote in a sense of "will live forever" rather than "not being mortal"? 99% sure you meant the first one, but just wanted to double-check.

Sorry if that didn't make a lot of sense, it's getting late, I'll be back on tomorrow