Anarchist Stuff

Compared to most long internet debates, this one has stayed remarkably civil.

That is my unique contribution to this debate.

I only started reading it because of an argument I got into with an anarchist. Now I have read the thread, I feel much more enlightened but I also feel like we are only really talking about a hypothetical scenario and even if said scenario would be really reaaally amazing and awesome, it's time to get back to business. Peace.
 


Highways, anyone? Are you really going to chip in for a stretch of highway going through some desert? (As such, no local involvement, etc..) also upkeep, etc..?

Is the highway going trough an desert adding value (and in demand)? If yes, then the free market will take care of this. If not, then again, free market will take care of this.
 
Is the highway going trough an desert adding value (and in demand)? If yes, then the free market will take care of this. If not, then again, free market will take care of this.

Rather than people chipping in, my bet would be that there would be large road networks you could join and pay fees to use.

Raises all sorts of questions about monopolies, though.
 
Raises all sorts of questions about monopolies, though.
There are two kinds of monopolies.

One is a natural monopoly, where current market conditions cannot support more than one firm providing similar goods or services.

The other is a coercive monopoly. This is what government does by licensing certain industries. These licenses are provided and usually for political favors/payoffs etc.

The latter example is enforced with force. The former example is always open to competition if it can be done cost effectively.

So yeah, if there is an existing power company, it may not be cost efficient for another firm to duplicate the infrastructure to gain less than a full share of the market.

That is radically different than say trying to cut hair for a living without a license, which if you resist the licensing authority peacefully but consistently, will lead to you being killed.

The monopolies created by patent, copyright, licenses and regulations are not of the market and yet people have been snookered into believing that these are legitimate monopolies, and market monopolies are something insidious (hence, anti-trust).
 
Did anyone actually watch this video, or buy his book?

If you didn't, you're missing out.

I'm 2/3 through this book. Anyone with interest in knowledge and ideas should read it.

I'm currently reconsidering my ideas on the rule of law. For example, one of the implications of my current(/previous?) political system is that events are treated differently dependent upon who is performing the act. But this is inconsistent with the factual nature of reality. A robbery is a robbery, and that's it. If I think robbery is wrong, I must think it's wrong independent from who the robber is. A "law" doesn't alter the underlying facts.
 
I don't personally see what your beef with G is in this case: he asked someone to define morals, something that cannot be defined, simply because not many people have identical moral ideals.
I didn't ask him to define morals, I believe he did that with me. He said there was a social contract and there exist moral obligations.

When I pressed him to explain these, he could not. Then we took it to PM, where he admitted to me his philosophy is based on what he wants it to be, he rejects any portion of reality which does not lead to an outcome he finds acceptable.

The conversation ended because he's not interested in rational thought, ironically, after calling out the Anarchists who participated in this thread to act rationally rather than emotionally.

You gotta love humans.

The more I learn, read and think the more I start to realize that most of the things that people are afraid of what would Anarchy enable, are actually happening right now.

Mass murder (including women and children)? Mob rule? Selected few who control rest of the people/system? Questionable global business actions? Mass pollution? Aggression, violence and deception?

Well, a good fucking morning to you too, this is happening right now, in your own backyard. Yet people state that Anarchy will enable all above mentioned things... wake up.
Yes. I mean, I understand these guys who live in western countries, they have no frame of reference for what it is like to be bombed or put under economic sanctions to where the basic necessities of life are hard to come by, and innocent people die around you.

To them, they won the life lottery and got born into a pseudo-civil society they didn't have to understand, construct or defend. It's simply not possible for them to perceive the world being any different than their narrow experience.

Is the highway going trough an desert adding value (and in demand)? If yes, then the free market will take care of this. If not, then again, free market will take care of this.
This was basically what turned me into an anarchist. I worried about who would make roads and whatnot, then one day it occurred to me, the same way that there is sushi at the supermarket. Someone wanted it and would pay for it, so people made it.

As (supposed) entrepreneurs around here, you would think this sort of thinking would come naturally. But then if you look at the guys who argue for statism, more often than not, they are not IMers, but wage employees who dabble on the side.

I'm 2/3 through this book. Anyone with interest in knowledge and ideas should read it.
It really helped sharpen my perspective on many things. What we see, is it real or is everyone participating in a mass delusion?

I believe it's the latter.

I'm currently reconsidering my ideas on the rule of law. For example, one of the implications of my current(/previous?) political system is that events are treated differently dependent upon who is performing the act. But this is inconsistent with the factual nature of reality. A robbery is a robbery, and that's it. If I think robbery is wrong, I must think it's wrong independent from who the robber is. A "law" doesn't alter the underlying facts.
And that is the essential truth many people struggle to embrace.

Everyone, or nearly everyone in this discussion wants peace and prosperity. But some people allow/endorse/encourage others to do the very things which undermine peace and prosperity, because they perceive them to have some sort of legitimacy.

When I question people to explain the legitimacy that makes murder or theft ok when done by someone "official", the conversation usually shuts down. There is no good explanation or answer beyond blind obedience (because that's how it is, love it or leave it, it's always been like that, because humans need to be lead etc.).

People say they want liberty. They say they want peace. They say they want prosperity. A liberal, tolerant society. But then they act politically in complete contradiction to that.

When (if?) that contradiction resolves, I think humanity will soar. A second Enlightenment. We'll be wealthy and happy beyond our wildest dreams.
 
Yes. I mean, I understand these guys who live in western countries, they have no frame of reference for what it is like to be bombed or put under economic sanctions to where the basic necessities of life are hard to come by, and innocent people die around you.

To them, they won the life lottery and got born into a pseudo-civil society they didn't have to understand, construct or defend. It's simply not possible for them to perceive the world being any different than their narrow experience.

In many cases - perspective is everything.

So to all you balling MOFOs, stack your coin, and start traveling!
 
Everyone, or nearly everyone in this discussion wants peace and prosperity. But some people allow/endorse/encourage others to do the very things which undermine peace and prosperity, because they perceive them to have some sort of legitimacy.

When I question people to explain the legitimacy that makes murder or theft ok when done by someone "official", the conversation usually shuts down. There is no good explanation or answer beyond blind obedience (because that's how it is, love it or leave it, it's always been like that, because humans need to be lead etc.).

Not really though. If you're forced to make a choice as to whether 10 or 100 people get murdered, and you choose 10, that doesn't mean you support murder.

Same as if you choose to live somewhere that has a stable political system, which provides a stable economy, and good infrastructure, all for the price of one annual tax bill, that doesn't mean you support everything the government does. It just means you'd prefer that over paying 80 monthly bills to private unelected corporations who have no oversight or regulation to provide the basic necessities required for a civilized society.


When (if?) that contradiction resolves, I think humanity will soar. A second Enlightenment. We'll be wealthy and happy beyond our wildest dreams.

But you don't have any proof of that. All you have is an idealistic vision, and if anything, all evidence supports the opposite.
 
Not really though. If you're forced to make a choice as to whether 10 or 100 people get murdered, and you choose 10, that doesn't mean you support murder.
Sure it does.

The only principled answer is to decline to participate. Trying to pick lesser evils is still picking evil.

Same as if you choose to live somewhere that has a stable political system, which provides a stable economy, and good infrastructure, all for the price of one annual tax bill, that doesn't mean you support everything the government does.
Your income taxes do not go to infrastructure.

Income tax is redistributed, and consumed by the political elites and the people they sell the money too (public choice economics). Foreign Aid. Militarism. Bribes to states and provinces. Maintenance of the debt from the last round of overspending.

It just means you'd prefer that over paying 80 monthly bills to private unelected corporations who have no oversight or regulation to provide the basic necessities required for a civilized society.
Let's unpack this. One, the free market does a great job of consolidating billing. Two, elections don't mean anything. There is no legitimacy conveyed by a group of people agreeing upon something.

Three, all that is necessary for a civilized society is respect of the individual and his property.

But you don't have any proof of that. All you have is an idealistic vision, and if anything, all evidence supports the opposite.
I never claimed it as empirical fact. It's my opinion.

Of course I have an idealistic vision, it's what gets me out of bed and keeps me working. If I wanted to be negative, or give up, or stop caring, what would the point of living be?

Why are you alive?

I think the evidence that the more free people are, the more happy and prosperous they become is pretty sound. Economics explains why this happens.
 
I myself got tired of Guerilla acting like a total douchebag when someone asks questions that are skeptical of anarchy.

G, when there's more than one person telling you, you gotta listen.
 
This thread is a fantastic resource for folks who want to learn about anarchism. Thanks to guerilla for starting it.

Here is a thoughtful blog post by Wendy McElroy:

The Futility of Repeal - Daily Anarchist

She addresses the reasons seeking to repeal a law is problematic, not only for those who believe the state lacks legitimacy, but also for activists in general. The comments are worth reading, too. They focus on practicing civil disobedience.

Several folks on WF have chided anarchists on their seeming unwillingness to live lives that are consistent with their views. The fact is, we do so every day in countless ways. McElroy's blog post, as well as the comments that follow it, speak to that effort. For those learning about anarchism, the material found at the link above is worth reading and pondering.
 
I myself got tired of Guerilla acting like a total douchebag when someone asks questions that are skeptical of anarchy.
You never asked a single question about anarchy.

I'm tough in argument. If you say something, you better be able to explain it. Don't ask me to participate in your delusion. Be precise.

G, when there's more than one person telling you, you gotta listen.
Really think about the "logic" of this.
 
A 75 minute introduction to Anarchism

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L052vAoSiKU]An Introduction to Anarchy - YouTube[/ame]
 
You never asked a single question about anarchy.

I'm tough in argument. If you say something, you better be able to explain it. Don't ask me to participate in your delusion. Be precise.

Really think about the "logic" of this.

You're not tough in argument, you're bull-headed. You make ad hominem attacks, refuse to clarify your own position. Appeal to emotions and ridicule.

That's not tough, that's acting like a petulant 12-year old. and it's better you hear it here than anywhere else.
 
You're not tough in argument, you're bull-headed.
Potato, Potatoe

You make ad hominem attacks
Source?

refuse to clarify your own position.
Have you read my posts? lol

Appeal to emotions and ridicule.
Source?

That's not tough, that's acting like a petulant 12-year old. and it's better you hear it here than anywhere else.
Here is the thing. I'd like to be the world's most tolerant and perfectly open-minded person. But time, and the universe itself, is finite. That means I have to discriminate (economize).

Now just think for a moment. Why would your opinion matter at all to me?

You can't articulate a position (let alone prove the facts of your position), you won't/can't define the terms you use. You admitted to me in PM that you do not accept facts of reality which lead to outcomes you disagree with (basically, living in a fantasy).

Now knowing that, why would I care about your opinion over Jake's? Or Dreamache's? Or even Kiopa_Matt's? That presumes I care what anyone else thinks of me, which I do not.

If you want to come into this thread, make a bunch of unsubstantiated claims, attack me without proof, and insist that your opinion is valid, be my guest. But don't kid yourself, your posts don't make me look bad.