Anarchist Stuff
- Thread starter guerilla
- Start date
Your argument falls apart more quickly than mine, you don't have me convinced.
Egomaniacs rising up and convincing people to follow them into committing acts of genocide did not form in anarchist nations. Hitler, Stalin, Mao - their nations all had governments. They used their governments to commit atrocities.
Guerilla, you are really missing the base problem people here are having with anarchy.
You keep beating the shit out of the dead horse with your ethics rhetoric, but this isn't the problem people have with anarchy. No one here is arguing the use of force is ethical. This is sort of why people continually make the joke of you having asbergers syndrome; you seem to have a really hard time understanding the point of view people are arguing from.
Kiopa pretty much sums up what is holding people back with his Ghengis Khan example.
The native american indians were doing fine with their communities spread across america until Europe came along and wiped them out one by one.
It's a simple question of security. The main problem people are posing here is they do not see security in anarchy.
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?
I'm not making this statement as my own argument. Just pointing it out because I would like to see you focus on addressing these concerns rather then your ethics speech.
I think people here agree they would love to see a nation which lives on the morals you talk of. The problem people here are wondering is, who keeps this nation safe?
Don't address questions to me from this post as I am not arguing for/against this belief and won't reply. I just want to point out the main problem I think people here are having with anarchy in the interest of seeing you better address it.
You keep beating the shit out of the dead horse with your ethics rhetoric, but this isn't the problem people have with anarchy. No one here is arguing the use of force is ethical. This is sort of why people continually make the joke of you having asbergers syndrome; you seem to have a really hard time understanding the point of view people are arguing from.
Kiopa pretty much sums up what is holding people back with his Ghengis Khan example.
The native american indians were doing fine with their communities spread across america until Europe came along and wiped them out one by one.
It's a simple question of security. The main problem people are posing here is they do not see security in anarchy.
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?
I'm not making this statement as my own argument. Just pointing it out because I would like to see you focus on addressing these concerns rather then your ethics speech.
I think people here agree they would love to see a nation which lives on the morals you talk of. The problem people here are wondering is, who keeps this nation safe?
Don't address questions to me from this post as I am not arguing for/against this belief and won't reply. I just want to point out the main problem I think people here are having with anarchy in the interest of seeing you better address it.
guns > spears and arrows. I'm interested in the response to the above post, especially when you consider new technology of the past decade. If I was living in a community with no central government, how am I to protect myself from a drone strike courtesy of uncle sam? It's not like I can defend the airspace above my home, are communities supposed to pitch in for an army the same way they pitch in for a new road?
It's not a dead horse. There are guys here who continue to argue that non-aggression can't work as a social system.
By supporting the state as an alternative, implicitly they are.
People joke about me being autistic or having Asbergers because they are insecure and intellectually inferior. It's how people who can't argue choose to attack me. Personally. It's cowardly and doesn't bother me at all. It just reinforces my position.
It's an irrelevant example. It's nonsensical that people seeking peace have to fear someone becoming violent.
That's exactly why we seek peace over violence!
That may be the American narrative. Do you know the narrative of the Inuit and Canadian Native peoples?
Not to mention, we're not talking about resisting colonialism. There is nowhere left on earth to colonize.
The entire notion of being afraid of a Genghis Khan event or a Indian genocide event is ridiculous. Why are you guys not afraid of another Hitler event? He came to power in a secular democracy.
What is the world's reaction to genocide these days?
There is no security in the state either. It's a delusion.
If you want to argue with me that people are delusional, I agree wholeheartedly. If you feel that is a barrier to anarchism, I agree wholeheartedly.
That doesn't do anything to undermine the idea of pursuing rational ethics.
The arbitrary concerns you guys dredge up (been done 100,000 times before) are not the concerns anyone should care about.
What we should care about is aligning our means and ends, and the role of ethics in a society. If you're scared for your security and will do anything to assure it, then start mass murdering humans, because that's the only way you can reduce the human threat and prevent future Genghis Khans.
But if you think killing is wrong, and you want to be treated humanely, then it is incumbent on you to adopt a universal ethic (golden rule) of treating others humanely as well.
Again, security at all costs, then you're no different than an animal. Indeed, animals care about pain and hunger. Not much more. Men are supposed to be rational actors.
That's it right there. You refer to it as a nation, when nations (which are just arbitrary lines on a map and mass delusions based around symbols like flags) would not exist at all.
There is no amount of security that will be sufficient for people who are terrified of everything. The media, public education, and popular culture at large, is all geared towards promoting fear, because fear is the most powerful tool of compliance.
I don't make these posts for people who don't want to think, or don't want to be ethical, or logically consistent. I don't make these posts for you guys who are terrified of everyone and everything. I cannot communicate ideas with you any more than I can communicate ideas with my dogs.
I made this thread to share information with those who are interested in these things, which is an increasing number of people here and at large. I share this stuff for the same reason I try to share IM information, for the same reason I try to share all information. Because it adds value to those who seek it. It's a networking tool. And it's the right thing to do to stand fast against evil.
Why should anyone take you seriously when you won't take this discussion seriously?
They don't have a problem with anarchy. They are not interested in thinking logically or rationally.
There is nothing I can tell them about Genghis Khan, or Chairman Mao that can make them start.
If they had that crucial, small amount of curiosity, they would have already checked out the massive wealth of knowledge on these topics. They would have done their own investigation into these mindless and ridiculous arguments which I tolerate, but have been brought up by thousands of people before.
That is because ikt's not about learning, or understanding or investigating. It's about repeating the same old, tired and sloppy arguments ad infinitum.
You see, it has never cost a nickel to be lazy and anti-intellectual on an internet forum.
What would stop you from owning drones?
Sure. Why can't people cooperate for defensive purposes? Why can't people hire agencies which specialize in defense (and negotiation) for them?
Does the US government actually protect anyone, or as Smedley Butler said, go around enforcing corporate interests and bullying non-whites around the world?
The only attack on US soil, was 9/11, which wasn't even an attack by a state, but rather a handful of (supposed) nutjobs. This presumes you believe the "official" story.
If the US government can't protect you from 9/11, how are they supposed to defend you from anything more serious?
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.
Think about that. Long and hard.
Just because it's the state doing the actual killing, if you sanction it, and you support it materially and philosophically, then you're a party to it.
Which one of you tough guys is going to pick up the jawbone of an ass and slay 1,000 of your supposed foes?
Think about that. Long and hard.
Just because it's the state doing the actual killing, if you sanction it, and you support it materially and philosophically, then you're a party to it.
Which one of you tough guys is going to pick up the jawbone of an ass and slay 1,000 of your supposed foes?
Really Guerilla?
You really just missed everything I said and proceeded to tunnel vision through it with the same ethics approach...
YES, there are people here who argue non-aggression can't work as a social system and the reason they argue this is NOT because it's not ethical.
If you're motives to continue posting about this and other beliefs you hold on this forum are because you like the superior feeling it is giving you, then go right ahead, continue to argue for pure ethics based living and don't address anything else. It's a great standpoint and it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside while upholding it.
If on the other hand you are actually interested in changing people's minds, you need to address the point of view people are coming from.
Unfortunately it seems you are more interested in the former. Just read the response you wrote to me. It drips of contempt towards human nature and a complex with seeing others as inferior. It doesn't seem to imply a belief in humans being capable of learning to live under non-aggression.
Yeah.
I live in the U.S.
This past weekend I went camping. I went to a campsite on private land (they somehow managed to build roads).
In my group there were about 10 of us. It was a nice weekend and it's a popular spot, so there were probably about 40 other people there, complete strangers.
So you have a dozen or so groups of 4-10 people who've never met. I doubt that there was a Government official around for 50 miles.
We all talked about what to bring before we left. Almost everyone brought their own tent, some food to throw down, water, beer, etc etc.
One of my friends in the group is having a rough time right now. He really couldn't afford to contribute, but we encouraged him to come anyway. Someone loaned him a tent, we all shared our beer and food, etc.
He didn't want to feel like a burden, so in return he tended the fire, did most of the cooking, helped everyone carry gear and setup, things like that.
It made life a little easier.
I consider safety an individual responsibility. So I had a gun concealed in my pocket the whole time. When I'm thinking about possible threats in a situation like that, I'm 100x more worried about a wild boar or cougar or bear than other people.
Somehow, despite the lack of Government protection I managed to not shoot all 40 people. I didn't even shoot one! Hell, I'm 90% sure I could have killed everyone, robbed them blind and gotten away with it.
There were probably a few other people with guns, but I could have taken cover in the woods and pulled a sneak attack - no one would see it coming.
But the thought never crossed my mind. And it wasn't because I was afraid of what the Government may do if they caught me. It's because - like most humans - I have no desire to hurt other people.
I brought some valuable things with me. I had a guitar, phone, camping gear, etc. All things that would appeal to a would-be thief. Maybe I got lucky but despite the lack of a police presence nothing was stolen from me. All I had to do was keep an eye on my own stuff and no one even tried to steal from me.
Even when I went hiking and left all of my valuable stuff at camp, no one touched it. It was crazy.
Over the weekend, my group started to get to know the other groups. Somehow we all got along peacefully. I guess all of the warlords stayed home.
Maybe that was an isolated incident. I live in a city. Funny enough, the only people I fear in the city on a daily basis happen to be Government employees.
And yeah, there are criminals to be feared too. But I practice common sense, like locking my shit up and not walking through bad parts of town alone at night.
It's crazy that I have to worry about my own safety when I should be able to rely on Government to protect me - but oddly enough I've NEVER seen a cop protect anyone.
I got home yesterday night and voluntarily had dinner with my parents. I didn't even have to get a permit.
You practice anarchy everyday. We all do.
We enjoy freedom despite the state, not because of it.
You like capitalism? I do. The State fucking hates capitalism. You mention "what do we do with 1 million people who don't want to pay for what they use" like we don't already have MILLIONS of them to support, because the State encourages dependence - you already pay for that shit.
You want to see what the State is? Join the military or go to prison. That's what the State stands for.
It's a thieving, violent, corrupt mass-murdering institution that's sole purpose is to exploit and kill the many for the benefit of the few. The word "evil" does not begin to do it justice.
Assume there is no State. And a Ghengis Khan or Hitler or whoever tries to rise to power.
There is no legitimate power. The State has power because they assume a monopoly on violence. Without that, they have nothing.
So if a ruler appears, realize that he doesn't have the monopoly on violence and his "rule" is illegitimate.
If he tries to rule with violence defend yourself.
To be fair Native Americans were not "one" people, there were many different tribes, many different forms of Government and many wars amongst them.
Fear is a powerful tool. It's the only one the Government has to convince people of its legitimacy.
Assume you take the official 9/11 story at face value. Why did they attack us? It's not because they hate "freedom", it's because our Government has been both overtly and covertly killing their people and plundering their resources for the better part of a century.
How many people have died in terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11? You're more likely to be killed by your computer chair.
Some may say it's because the "war on terror" is working. That's bullshit. We're much less free and much less secure because of it.
Native American's weren't "one" people, and many tribes weren't allies. Guerilla made a good point about colonization. We're talking about the present.
Back to security - what does Government REALLY protect you from?
Government in itself is much more dangerous than anything it protects you from. You're much more likely to be falsely imprisoned or accidentally shot by a cop than killed by a terrorist.
On a local level, the job of the police is NOT to protect you. That's your job. Their job is to collect revenue for the State and fill prisons.
Safety and defense are individual responsibilities.
Without corporatism - the ability to profit from the power of the state - there is no incentive for war.
And without centralized power to fight over, there's no reason for anyone to see you as a threat or attack you.
To the guy who asked about drones - who's doing the drone flying and killing right now?
Everything people believe that Government protects them from is either fear propaganda, or a legitimate threat that only exists because of the state. Usually the former.
No it's not.
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. (you can replace those words with Republicans, Democrats, male leaders, female leaders, white leaders, black leaders, conservative leaders, progressive leaders etc). They still seek to be led, they just decide they want to be led by someone else. A handful wake-up and they are promptly replaced by 5 more sheep looking to take their place.
If you think 10% of the population are Anarchists, you're nuts. The leading anarchist thinkers of 100 years ago were far more mainstream then the ones we have now. It doesn't seem that way because there are more defined channels of information now. You can spend a lot more time on anarchist forums, watching anarchist videos on Youtube and reading anarchist writings online until it seems like Anarchy is growing. But it's only growing on you because you are seeking it out. It's not growing on the masses. Go to your local Wal-Mart (or college campus), and ask strangers how many have heard of Hoppe or Molyneux or Casey lol - when you get to 10% let me know.
Molyneux is probably the most prolific Anarchist on Youtube, does speaking tours, podcasts etc - everybody knows him right? He has 49,000 Youtube subscribers!!!11!!!! Take a look at this and tell me if you see the problem with the attention of the mainstream.
You're being naive Luke.
You're being naive Luke.
The masses finally began to wake-up and wanted to get rid of their leaders by...electing different leaders? lol
No, I addressed your security concerns. I pointed the implicit things you have to buy in to, in order to satisfy your need for infinite security.
Also, ethics are important, because that's what separates us from animals. If you can't have an ethical discussion with me, you're yielding the high ground. You're basically admitting, that I can't treat you with, or expect, rational behavior from you.
That's a pretty huge deal.
I see it like this. You guys want it both ways. You wanna be able to poke at anarchism, without offering something better. You won't explicitly endorse the state, but arguing against change, is in itself a tacit endorsement.
So you and them are saying that the only system is one where we abandon ethics? Is this correct?
I don't like the feeling of being superior. It bums me out. If you knew me, you'd know that I presume everyone is more like me, than different from me.
It's very sad to see people argue against values AS A VALUE. It's a sad statement about the world I must live in. Imagine feeling outnumbered, 7 billion to 1. That's how I feel in these discussions, and I am outnumbered on what I believe to be a crucial value. Peace.
I can't change anyone's mind. They have to change their mind. Many of you are hard-headed, have no interest in being logically consistent, and prefer delusions to facts. I can't change that. Only you can.
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.
So why were you arguing that you can't live under non-aggression again?
Look, this was an info thread for people sincerely interested in broadening their perspective by taking a look at anarchism. It got hijacked a little by LukeP, but this isn't a thread where I have to defend my beliefs or ideas to anyone. I don't care if you don't like them. I don't care if you don't think they will work. History is paved with ideas no one thought would work. There have always been cowards who have been afraid to take the first step. They would have us living in caves if a small minority of people weren't determined and bold to shape the world in a better way.
So again, if you don't like my posts, don't read my fucking thread. We, and the world around us, will get on just fine without you.
Disease killed more of the natives than guns. Coincidently, I was just yesterday reading this summary :
1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Guns were a prime example, as they were seen by Indians as nothing more than "noisemakers", and they were difficult to aim. Famous colonist John Smith noted that "the awful truth...it could not shoot as far as an arrow could fly."
All of you guys arguing that ethics aren't a primary concern, then what your position means is
* There is no right and wrong (ex. anything we do for security is implicitly right, such as rationalizing the shoving of Jews into ovens as security for the Aryan race)
* There is no concept of humanity (man is just an animal, the strongest animal, but an animal just the same)
* There is no possibility for good behavior based on values, only violence (we're fundamentally incapable of getting along in the absence of violence, and all of our peaceful relationships are only the result of violence. Our wives and children love us because they know we will kick their ass if they don't)
That's why ethics is important. That is why ethics in debate bothers people so much. People make compromises every day if they can avoid ethics. They can support anything. Genocide? Sure, the Germans shucked ethics for security against Bolsheviks and Jews. That's a great example of the "pragmatic" security perspective and how horrible it can become in the absence of values or ethics of peace.
How about taxes? It's economic insanity to tax, and yet everyone pays their taxes.
What about war? There are wars going on, and very few people trying to stop them. In fact, when the war blowsback, they endorse going out and making even more war!
Without values and first principles, "man" is no different than an animal.
You're welcome to disagree. I'd love to hear what makes a man a man, rather than an animal in your opinion.
* There is no right and wrong (ex. anything we do for security is implicitly right, such as rationalizing the shoving of Jews into ovens as security for the Aryan race)
* There is no concept of humanity (man is just an animal, the strongest animal, but an animal just the same)
* There is no possibility for good behavior based on values, only violence (we're fundamentally incapable of getting along in the absence of violence, and all of our peaceful relationships are only the result of violence. Our wives and children love us because they know we will kick their ass if they don't)
That's why ethics is important. That is why ethics in debate bothers people so much. People make compromises every day if they can avoid ethics. They can support anything. Genocide? Sure, the Germans shucked ethics for security against Bolsheviks and Jews. That's a great example of the "pragmatic" security perspective and how horrible it can become in the absence of values or ethics of peace.
How about taxes? It's economic insanity to tax, and yet everyone pays their taxes.
What about war? There are wars going on, and very few people trying to stop them. In fact, when the war blowsback, they endorse going out and making even more war!
Without values and first principles, "man" is no different than an animal.
You're welcome to disagree. I'd love to hear what makes a man a man, rather than an animal in your opinion.
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.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.
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.
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)
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.
So in a way isn't the form of government (or lack thereof) of less importance than the actual consciousness and intelligence of the people? Even in a pure totalitarian state wise people would immediately destroy such an edifice and rule themselves. Even in a pure free location with no government ignorant people would immediately collapse into slavery and erect a government with rulers.
While I think high government tends to create ignorant people while low government tends to create wise people, at the end of the day doesn't it come down to people and how they educate themselves and where their current consciousness stands? People, in the sense of intelligence and understanding, matter more than social structure. The social structure is a result/measurement of where people currently stand. And people are always changing. Some people become less ignorant, some become more ignorant. Some become wise in tyranny, others become wise in freedom (probably more). But even in complete freedom people can always collapse back into servitude and ignorance.
Will there ever be a world with no government? I think the better question is will there ever be a world with wise people? Is it possible to make everyone wise? Is it up to us or up to them? What makes people wise? What makes them ignorant? Why do some people start smarter than others? I think these are the interesting questions.
No no, I didn't want it to sound that way.
I come from family which members suffered from being in opposition to the state.
I know how my life has been influenced by government. Pretty much state pushed me in direction I've never wanted to take (I'm East European).
I lived in time of communism in my old country (or so called communism), I was born at the time invigilation was at its highest level.
For many East Europeans no trust for government and state institutions is common, even today. I don't consider myself anarchist (or anything else) but rather a person with opened eyes (which become open more and more every single day). I bet however, I share many views of anarchists not even realizing it.
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".
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.
Dark ages.
This is why I say that the American people will get better government when they are better people. The politicians are mirrors of the peoples' values. Obama didn't sneak into power, he won the election. A lot of people wanted him. If he gets re-elected, it means a lot of people want him still.
Why people get mad at Obama, when they should get mad at the people who vote for Obama, is beyond me. But that's one of the rabbit in the hat tricks of politics. Everything becomes abstracted into nonsense.
I think they are interesting too. I spend a lot of time thinking about them.