Anarchist Stuff

[VinBed]

So you're saying there's no longer slavery in the world? Actually, that's being pedantic, so let's not do that.

Let me ask you, if all laws were stripped from the books, and government was abolished, do you believe slavery would resurface in various parts of the US? Or do you believe everyone's moral compass has intrinsically changed over the past 100 years to the point where nobody would entertain the idea?

I personally believe we'd see slavery pop up again. Maybe not widespread, but it'd be around. Reason it isn't right now is because anyone who tries it gets their ass thrown into prison for 20 years. Same argument can be made against women's rights. And regarding this type of thing, here's Paul Martin's speech just before parliament voted on gay marriage:

imp-176 Paul Martin speech on same-sex marriage

That's why having a government is a good idea. Protect minority rights from the whims of the majority, which is why there's no longer slavery, and why women can vote, etc.

Slavery will inevitably disappear for one simple reason: robotics will require less energy, are more efficient, are less of a hassle, and you don't have to deal with uprisings.

Instead of making humans our slaves, it's a lot better and easier to make carbon our slave.

This sort of logic can be applied to other parts of society. Representative democracy, for example, exists because we haven't yet taken advantage of the internet to make our collective decision-making. If society continues to progress, we can make collective decisions without requiring a president or any professional politicians.

The problem with government is that it makes decisions that do not represent the collective properly - it cannot. It turns 300+ million entities into 1 entity which acts based on what only a handful of entities decide is best, and that handful of entities spends all of its time convincing the 300+ million that its decisions are to be trusted.

By removing government, you can eliminate wars between nations. By empowering the collective of individuals to police and protect themselves, you won't need a state-run police force to maintain order.

The problem is that the entire collective does not receive the same information. Everyone has different opinions and beliefs because we are all given different snippets of the big picture and as a result it is hard for two individuals on different sides of the country to come up with the same reasoning and conclusions.

Leaders elect themselves with persuasion, not education.

 

[Djshorty89]

I still have a shit load to learn on this topic but I'm not sure how people argue against anarchy. Seems like a simple choice; what's better freedom or slavery? I think that's what it comes down to. Would you rather govern yourself or be born having others make decisions for you. Will it ever exist? Maybe not. But if I were given the choice of making my own decisions or having others make them for me, the choice would be simple.

Now do I think it's a better way to go then what we have now? Definitely. I don't think it would make the world a perfect place, but that's obviously not the point, it would be better than what we have now. One problem I have with it is it seems to require ownership of resources, something another poster brought up. In reality, ownership is just an illusion that humans use to function as a society. No one owns anything in reality. Do fish own the ocean?

 

[VinBed]

I still have a shit load to learn on this topic but I'm not sure how people argue against anarchy. Seems like a simple choice; what's better freedom or slavery? I think that's what it comes down to. Would you rather govern yourself or be born having others make decisions for you. Will it ever exist? Maybe not. But if I were given the choice of making my own decisions or having others make them for me, the choice would be simple.

Now do I think it's a better way to go then what we have now? Definitely. I don't think it would make the world a perfect place, but that's obviously not the point, it would be better than what we have now. One problem I have with it is it seems to require ownership of resources, something another poster brought up. In reality, ownership is just an illusion that humans use to function as a society. No one owns anything in reality. Do fish own the ocean?

The main arguments against anarchy are that a country cannot sustain itself without some sort of central authority to build roads and infrastructure, to provide education, etc etc.

 

[Eves]

I know there were a lot of anarchist threads before and i probably missed it, but, can someone just quickly summarize why you are not allowed to use Somalia (or Liberia and so on...) as examples against anarchy?

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

By removing government, you can eliminate wars between nations. By empowering the collective of individuals to police and protect themselves, you won't need a state-run police force to maintain order.

But that's where it all falls apart. Anarchy requires a leap of faith that humans have become so enlightened over the past few decades, we're now capable of world peace via personal responsibility. I'm sorry, but we're still quite a ways from that.

If history is anything to go by, some egomaniac will convince 500,000 people he's God and there to show them the path to a prosperous life. So they'll line up behind him, and go around committing genocide. According to history, that's far more of a realistic scenario versus us just all getting along via the NAP.

Either way, I don't want to find out, so I'm happy with having some government in place.

 

[guerilla]

But that's where it all falls apart. Anarchy requires a leap of faith that humans have become so enlightened over the past few decades, we're now capable of world peace via personal responsibility. I'm sorry, but we're still quite a ways from that.

That's not the argument for anarchy.

I am really disappointed that after literally thousands of posts, people still can't grasp the basics of what they are arguing.

The very fact people aren't enlightened is a fucking argument against government, and a monopoly on violence.

Why are you for unenlightened people voting? Do you really think our political leaders are enlightened individuals?

If history is anything to go by, some egomaniac will convince 500,000 people he's God and there to show them the path to a prosperous life. So they'll line up behind him, and go around committing genocide. According to history, that's far more of a realistic scenario versus us just all getting along via the NAP.

Right, because Hitler and Mao embraced the NAP right?

Nuking Japan, that was non-aggression, right?

C'mon man, you're a state apologist, and your sides record is terrible.

 

[Napolean]

I know there were a lot of anarchist threads before and i probably missed it, but, can someone just quickly summarize why you are not allowed to use Somalia (or Liberia and so on...) as examples against anarchy?

Because googling "somalia wiki" and reading the wiki does not describe a country practicing anarchy.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

Right, because Hitler and Mao embraced the NAP right?

Nuking Japan, that was non-aggression, right?

C'mon man, you're a state apologist, and your sides record is terrible

What are you talking about? Ok, Ghengis Khan. Off the top of my head, he's the best example I can think of, of someone who rose to power without any help from the state. You could also argue guys like Hitler would have still obtained obscene amounts of power without the state as well. Afterall, he started out on street corners and in bars.

Or you could even say guys like Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon, and Jim Morrison. They all had an obscene amount of followers, and if they decided to abuse that power, could have caused quite a bit of destruction.

The only way you're getting anarchy to work is if you remove the leader/follower social construct from human civilization, but since it's been part of our physiology since before we started walking upright, it's probably not going to happen anytime soon. Otherwise, you're always going to have people who want to lead, and others who want to be led. Every once in a while, a highly intelligent sociopath is going to come along, and find themselves in a position with many followers.

And I'm outta here. I have work to do.

 

[lukep]

I think you're giving the "unwashed masses" a little more credit than they deserve.

On the contrary; I'm giving the propaganda more credit than you detect.

It seems like you want to believe that they just need to be shown the way and they'll wake up. What I'm trying to explain is that they don't WANT to wake up. The truth is not hard to find, the fact that so little seek it should be evidence enough. If that isn't, just look at the entirety of human history. The vast majority have ALWAYS sought to be led.

I used to think this. Then I discovered how incredibly powerful the propaganda machine is, and that when people become aware the MSM is lying to them, they get really pissed off and go use energy for the cause of freedom in one way or the other.

Every single time. (Assuming that they weren't aware of the lies before, but that describes the sheeple perfectly.)

Anarchists (and other political freethinkers) will forever be a fringe group, a minority - sometime reviled, sometimes feared, mostly ignored, but forever irrelevant.

I disagree. Conditions are getting worse at the same time that information is flowing more freely. If we were a nation of 2% anarchists a decade ago, then were at 10% now and could even hit 50% after the internet has completely destroyed the TV and radio... So at some point there's got to be a tipping point... A point at which enough people can start to make changes that effect everyone. I'd say 20%. Double the penetration we have now, and then freedom would be something everyone is forced to get to know and make a decision on.

The internet is viewed as this bastion of freedom, but really it's the greatest control mechanism the shepherds have ever had.

Correction: It is the biggest information gathering mechanism the shepherds have ever had; but it doesn't control people at all.

Heck, the front page of this thread PROVES that. Could you have had access to any of those youtube videos or ebooks in 1990? I know I couldn't have. Now all you have to do is google a term you're curious about and you are instantly knowledgeable about it... This was the largest loss of control those shepherds could ever have worried about!

As soon as their microphone (the MSM) is gone, then the masses will get a Fair chance of receiving honest news... Right now they have a 0.00000000000001% chance or something thereabouts, so the lie called the state is perpetuated. Even up those odds and the masses can't help but run into constant news of how their precious government is lying to them, day in and day out.

Something will give.

I loved Dr. Paul's message and would have loved to see him get in and fuck shit up. But you do realize that voting for Paul is still voting to be led, right?

Yes. Please don't assume I still condone anyone voting. I spoke about Paul there to illustrate the point of sheeple waking up angry and wanting to do something about their lack of freedom.

I'm curious, do you have any idea how much of a wannabe cult leader you sound like?

No. Do you know how much you sound like you want your obamaphone?

One problem I have with it is it seems to require ownership of resources, something another poster brought up. In reality, ownership is just an illusion that humans use to function as a society. No one owns anything in reality. Do fish own the ocean?

Please watch the 2nd video in my first post on this thread, called the Philosophy of Liberty. It details why property rights are key to freedom. (AnarchoCommunists don't agree but they also think freedom is something that must be limited by the community, so no one man can be as free as he wants.)

The way to think of property is that it is your product of your effort and time. At the time that you made the property or the capital that you traded for said property, you put effort into creating that thing and you deserve it. For someone to take that thing away from you is for them to steal that time and effort you exerted... To steal your past self from you.

Yes, it does get confusing when dealing with community property like air, wildlife and water, but if you read the books we've linked to in the first parts of this thread you'll find there are very good, consistent answers to the situations that pop up with those.

 

[guerilla]

I know there were a lot of anarchist threads before and i probably missed it, but, can someone just quickly summarize why you are not allowed to use Somalia (or Liberia and so on...) as examples against anarchy?

First, because how many people here have actually studied Somalia's politics, economy and society besides me?

Second, because Somalia isn't anarchy in the sense we're talking about. The absence of government doesn't mean the absence of organization.

Third, Somalia actually has made some really interesting progress since they lose their federal government. Did you know that without government, that health factors (like infant mortality) have improved?

Just because a place has government, doesn't mean the government is any good.

 

[guerilla]

What are you talking about? Ok, Ghengis Khan. Off the top of my head, he's the best example I can think of, of someone who rose to power without any help from the state.

He was the state!

Why don't you answer the enlightenment question? Do you really feel your fellow man is enlightened enough to rule over you? Do you really feel your one vote in the elections of a country you don't even live in, is sufficient political power to represent your pov?

Do you really feel your leaders are enlightened human beings, cut from a different cloth, better than the rest?

Or you could even say guys like Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon, and Jim Morrison. They all had an obscene amount of followers, and if they decided to abuse that power, could have caused quite a bit of destruction.

But they didn't. However, governments have killed over 100 million people in the last century.

The burden of proof is on you to explain the violence of the state, not on me to explain the theoretical violent outcome of a non-aggressive society.

The only way you're getting anarchy to work

No one is talking about getting anarchy to work. Statism doesn't work. That's the entire point. You're saying we can't have a system because it won't work, but then existing paradigm doesn't exactly work either, does it?

Why do you endorse a system of violence against EVERYONE as a method of social organization?

Why is violence better than peace? Do you really feel violence is "working"?

Every once in a while, a highly intelligent sociopath is going to come along, and find themselves in a position with many followers.

By your rationale, we're going to subjugate women and blacks again as soon as a charismatic sociopath comes along.

Is that correct? Is that really what you think?

 

[Djshorty89]

The main arguments against anarchy are that a country cannot sustain itself without some sort of central authority to build roads and infrastructure, to provide education, etc etc.

I understand that rationale, but government is just a group of individuals. As an individual my decision to join in these things has been made for me by another group of individuals. Let's take an extreme example of what a government can now command of me simply because of where I'm born. Theoretically, they can command me to go kill people in a foreign country like Afghanistan. If I don't, they can throw me in jail. Where was my choice in all of this? I never had one. That's not freedom. So the argument is that if I choose freedom, roads won't get built and all mayhem will break loose. It's still a choice between freedom and slavery, you're just saying that slavery is better.

Instead of people being forced to work together to build roads and provide education, I think people would voluntarily work together to complete those tasks without the threat of getting thrown in jail. However, maybe I'm wrong and people who argue for a central authority are correct; society completely breaks down and people kill each other in the streets with no recourse. I don't know, but if I'm going to make that position I'd have to accept that slavery is better than freedom if I wanted to be sincere.

If people who argue for government flat out say that slavery is better than freedom then at least they're being sincere with their position.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

He was the state!

He built and became the state. Huge difference. It wasn't handed to him. He was just some poor schmuck living in a tribal village with a vision when he started.

Whereas in contrast with someone like Milosovic, it's quite obvious without the presence of the state, he would have never obtained the power he did, and wouldn't have been able to commit genocide.

Then in the middle you have guys like Hitler, who could be argued either way. You could easily argue the presence of the state is what allowed him to gain that much power, but you could also argue he would have obtained it regardless. He was well on his way before he entered the political arena. He simply wanted power and control, and used the state as a tool to achieve it, but I think would have achieved it regardless.

Do you really feel your leaders are enlightened human beings, cut from a different cloth, better than the rest?

Not at all, they're just typical humans, which is why I enjoy having a modern day state in place. No one individual can screw things up too badly. For example, even if some Charles Manson type character ends up as Canadian PM, the damage they can do is limited, due to the checks and balances in place.

For example, I believe without the checks & balances of the US govt, Bush would have been much worse, and would probably still be in power. Due to those checks and balances though, he's sipping lemonade at a ranch in Texas right now.

So yes, due to the number of people involved to make a decision, and the checks & balances that everyone must abide by, I believe it's a better system then anarchy.

The burden of proof is on you to explain the violence of the state, not on me to explain the theoretical violent outcome of a non-aggressive society.

We've been aggressive towards each other way before there was government. You should be placing the blame on our DNA, not the government.

By your rationale, we're going to subjugate women and blacks again as soon as a charismatic sociopath comes along.

Is that correct? Is that really what you think?

Well, I don't know for sure, but if you remove government and all the checks & balances that it comes with, it wouldn't surprise me if something like that happened again. Don't kid yourself, there's alot of people out there who would love to see slavery again, and even more who wouldn't speak out against it if it happened.

 

[tomaszjot]

So far some very good posts, thanks to anyone who contributed. I've got a question, a lightweight one. How do you guys exercise anarchy? I can see you do a lot of reading, you spend time spreading ideas around. Is there a chance you put theory into practice?

 

[Moxie]

@moxie - where exactly do we disagree with each other? You lost me.

You were saying that shepherds have to exist because people need them. Since this thread is about anarchy I assumed you were talking about shepherds who rule by force and such (i.e. government). I'm saying in a hypothetical world where nobody is forced to join a group, that there would still be shepherds if people wanted them.

 

[guerilla]

I can see you do a lot of reading, you spend time spreading ideas around. Is there a chance you put theory into practice?

Of course.

 

[lukep]

So far some very good posts, thanks to anyone who contributed. I've got a question, a lightweight one. How do you guys exercise anarchy? I can see you do a lot of reading, you spend time spreading ideas around. Is there a chance you put theory into practice?

Although you practice anarchy every time you do something like buy any non-state-mandated product from someone else, it is true that the macro-view anarchy cannot fully exist within the geographic confines of an existing government... The markets can't be free, you still get taxed, etc... But on top of self-education, there are 3 or 4 things that I know of personally that you can do today to get us closer to that freedom:

1. Chip away at the state by practicing Agorism and using alternative currencies like Bitcoin.

2. Chip away at statism itself by spreading enlightenment, which is what you see us do on threads like these. That can be in support of two different outcomes:

2A. You can try to enlighten the whole world over the span of your lifetime so that in a generation or three the world will be free-minded enough to decide to set aside their childish ways. (Guerilla's path)

2B. You can try to enlighten enough of the world over the next decade or so that when you are financially ready, you & those you've enlightened can go start a Seasteading colony in the open seas and tell the world to go get fucked while you and a few hundred Voluntaryists can live in peace for the first time in human history. (My path)

Either way, it's pretty similar at this point, unless your name is Peter Thiel.

 

[guerilla]

Luke, he's asking if we're hypocrites, not how to be an anarchist.

 

[Napolean]

2B. You can try to enlighten enough of the world over the next decade or so that when you are financially ready, you & those you've enlightened can go start a Seasteading colony in the open seas and tell the world to go get fucked while you and a few hundred Voluntaryists can live in peace for the first time in human history. (My path)

Or just wait a few more years for the current state to implode.

 

[Napolean]

Luke, he's asking if we're hypocrites, not how to be an anarchist.

I like how people post things like "yeah.. you guys are all talk".

I'm always curious how they know that in real life, I'm violent towards everybody unprovoked, I make a habit of getting what I want from people at gun point, and I enjoy playing soccer using puppies as the soccer ball.