Proof that Anarchy = Destruction of Society
- Thread starter kingofsp
- Start date
Incorrect.
Law originated in the market, not in government (see common law, contract law etc.)
Anarchy means "without rulers". Nothing more, nothing less.
Also people spend a lot of time blaming government. Government is an institutional run by people. In some countries, it's a crazy person. But in the US, it's a lot of people.
The reason why government in the US is corrupt is because people who seek power or wealth get elected, then use their law-making ability and influence to directly benefit themselves or their corporations. Their money pours into politics, more of their people get elected, and the feedback loop continues.
People in the current US government that do not have some sort of corporate backing are few and far between. Money runs politics, so it shouldn't be shocking that our country is so fucked up.
Imminent domain, tax breaks and credits, going to war, etc. Shit like that doesn't just sprout up - there's always some asshole from a profit/power hungry corporation behind that legislation. Power, greed, and money does not play well with the common good, the good of the people.
The reason why government in the US is corrupt is because people who seek power or wealth get elected, then use their law-making ability and influence to directly benefit themselves or their corporations. Their money pours into politics, more of their people get elected, and the feedback loop continues.
People in the current US government that do not have some sort of corporate backing are few and far between. Money runs politics, so it shouldn't be shocking that our country is so fucked up.
Imminent domain, tax breaks and credits, going to war, etc. Shit like that doesn't just sprout up - there's always some asshole from a profit/power hungry corporation behind that legislation. Power, greed, and money does not play well with the common good, the good of the people.
I don't disagree with any of that. But what is easier for a corporation to do, actually compete or pay off the right people to keep their machine running? Without government, theoretically, they have no one to pay off and would be forced to actually compete to stay in business.
btw i don't really read these political debates because i just get heated and waste too much time on them. so if i missed anyone's points then whatever.
I like to consider myself independent, but at this point in time 2012 - I cannot phantom letting Tea party Republicans run this country again. It's just wrong. It doesn't benefit us as a society.
So when I have to pick between a Douche ( Dems / Obama ) and a Turd Sandwhich ( Romney and Repubs) - I am picking the Douches.
Someone start a 3rd party already...
I like to consider myself independent, but at this point in time 2012 - I cannot phantom letting Tea party Republicans run this country again. It's just wrong. It doesn't benefit us as a society.
So when I have to pick between a Douche ( Dems / Obama ) and a Turd Sandwhich ( Romney and Repubs) - I am picking the Douches.
Someone start a 3rd party already...
(O_o)
H̨̼̩͐̑͆̀̚&
Markets emerge for anything of value. Money in politics is predictable, because democracy is not a market for political power.
I hope you realize that government creates corporations, and corporations wouldn't exist in a free market system.
Most people don't understand what corporations are. They are legal personhood that creates an agent that can act independent of the people who own it, and perform within it. It's a delusion, but one which we are forced to legally accept. Like being forced in Thailand to never say anything bad about the King. Same sort of idea.
I disagree with the last 2. Everyone is greedy and pursues money (currency of voluntary social relations). Power is the problem.
As long as people accept that someone has power over them, there will be bad government.
Honestly I don't really know.
Term limits, getting lobbyists out of politics, ending insider trading, reversing Citizens United ... in addition to 100 more things we could do that will never happen. Money and power has the death grip on politics and its not letting go.
We need more people books like "Free Lunch," "Drift" just more exposure of these fucked up corrupt politicians on the news. But we won't, because we're down to 6 media companies driven by the profit motive. Unbiased independent news is dead.
This article alone is worth a good read if you're interested in law and politics.
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
Excerpt
This list is an old list someone compiled on the Mises forums a few years ago for people with objections to, or curious about, anarchism.
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
Excerpt
This list is an old list someone compiled on the Mises forums a few years ago for people with objections to, or curious about, anarchism.
- No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority - Lysander Spooner
- Anatomy of the State - Murray Rothbard
- The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts - Murray Rothbard
- The Production of Security - Gustave de Molinari
- Chaos Theory - Robert Murphy
- Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security - Hans Hoppe
- On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution - Hans Hoppe
- Market Anarchism As Constitutionalism - Roderick Long
- Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy? - Alfred Cuzán
- Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections - Roderick Long
The independent news is growing at a huge rate, it's just not found a constituency with couch potatoes and retards.
Change is coming Barman, but it won't be a third party. Keep your chin up, we're a lot further ahead than we were 20 years ago.
I agree with that actually. Weren't corporations originally created so they could perform one job (like build a bridge) then dissolved afterwards? Then someone decided it'd be a good idea for them to stick around indefinitely?
I will say / agree? that corporations are a major part of the problem. They've wrangled the legal system to the point where regular people are defenseless against air pollution, water pollution, imminent domain, and seeing their tax money go to support single corporations instead of the common good ( parks, schools, etc ). This is why citys and states are broke today.
“I believe that voting for the lesser of two evils in game theory will always leads to more evil,” Jillette replied.
Penn Jillette’s 2012 pick: Gary Johnson
GOV. GARY JOHNSON WINS LIBERTARIAN PARTY NOMINATION
Gary Johnson 2012 :rainfro:
Here is a theoretical solution I brain farted a while ago. Let's work together, homos.
If you're familiar with DonorsChoose.org - it's a system where teachers put up pages for specific stuff for their classroom or schools, then people donate and if the limit is reached, the project get funded.
In similar fashion, someone should create TaxPayersChoose. Every citizen gets a theoretical amount of $$ they can use to fund projects. Perhaps it could be proportional to the actual tax money they paid? If enough votes and money are dedicated to a project, it passes and goes.
It should also list the pros and cons of each project no matter how minimal. Mix in some celebrities American Idol style so people participate.
Projects could be all shapes and sizes:
- "Give Target Corporation a $14 MILLION tax break to build a new store in Colorado so it will create jobs" ( This actually happened recently and happens all the time. Read Free Lunch )
- "Go to war with Iran."
- "Build a new park in the worst neighborhood in the city so children have a place to escape crime and gangs"
- "Build a new school, art center, fire department, etc... "
So on and so forth... Which projects do you think will get funded? The ones that support corporations or the ones that support the common good? Perhaps I'm putting too much faith in the American public....
Government might as well take advantage of the internet. We might as well spread the power of decision-making to more people, not less. This would be far more efficient then voting on every piece of legislation. We can barely get up to vote for a president.
The question shouldnt be "Should we spend more, or should we spend less?" How about we keep it as-is- and worry about efficiency?
If you're familiar with DonorsChoose.org - it's a system where teachers put up pages for specific stuff for their classroom or schools, then people donate and if the limit is reached, the project get funded.
In similar fashion, someone should create TaxPayersChoose. Every citizen gets a theoretical amount of $$ they can use to fund projects. Perhaps it could be proportional to the actual tax money they paid? If enough votes and money are dedicated to a project, it passes and goes.
It should also list the pros and cons of each project no matter how minimal. Mix in some celebrities American Idol style so people participate.
Projects could be all shapes and sizes:
- "Give Target Corporation a $14 MILLION tax break to build a new store in Colorado so it will create jobs" ( This actually happened recently and happens all the time. Read Free Lunch )
- "Go to war with Iran."
- "Build a new park in the worst neighborhood in the city so children have a place to escape crime and gangs"
- "Build a new school, art center, fire department, etc... "
So on and so forth... Which projects do you think will get funded? The ones that support corporations or the ones that support the common good? Perhaps I'm putting too much faith in the American public....
Government might as well take advantage of the internet. We might as well spread the power of decision-making to more people, not less. This would be far more efficient then voting on every piece of legislation. We can barely get up to vote for a president.
The question shouldnt be "Should we spend more, or should we spend less?" How about we keep it as-is- and worry about efficiency?
In order to correctly debate this topic, we have to first define Anarchy. I don't want to get into a long drawn out debate like Guerilla is having in regards with the word "value".
The definition the majority of society utilizing is in my opinion as follows:
Anarchy is a state of society without government or law.
With that being said, The original topic, "Proof that Anarchy = Destruction of Society" - that said title, is completely erroneous, since "Anarchy is still a society".
Moving on.
Anarchy is a state of society without government or law, no courts since there is no law. Your argument is invalid.
Anarchy is a state of society without government or law, no courts since there is no law. Your argument is still invalid. I do concur that we should shot the guy, and stop wasting money.
There is no one to investigate you, since there is no government or body of investigation. Anarchy, remember.
Maybe, maybe not, I don't know, since currently we have computer standards. If Apple for example get so big, it decides not to support IP address or the general internet, the little mortals would not have a lot of power to stop this scenario, kinda of like AOL back in the day, when the only thing you go do was stay on the "AOL internet". But I truly hope a agorist internet would be put it place, and a governing body can set standards, so our devices can communicate together. Remember, the FCC's gone, so hopefully no wires/radio signals/bauds are crossed with other competitors devices.
I would drop comcast in that scenario, but again, that would make it tougher on me, since even though I live in Miami Beach, there are only 3 providers. There are scenarios, where the majority of people don't have that much choice. Maybe you live in an area, that has 12 options, most people do not.
Well remember, Anarchy is a state of society without government or law. So there would no longer be a body of people to enforce polices, so yes, that criminal would be able to do whatever he wants, until someone else stops him. That's why I stated, to let me purchase my ammo first, then we can test this experiment.
I have no illusion that the purpose of this government is to help business rather than individual. I never stated that it was going to deliver us into a better existence. Private citizens and Private companies do that with their innovations and new technologies. When I state that the government is there create standards, I am referring to "IP Address" and the FCC making sure the manufacture of devices do not cross radio waves or whatever. So I know, when I answer my phone, my garage door won't start opening.
Maddoff was an example, There are thousands of people running scams, and eventually they get caught, I am not saying the system is perfect, what I am saying is there is a system. If there was no system, Madoff would have been killed by investors I assume, or kept going until someone caught up with him. Remember, Anarchy is a state of society without government or law.
So you are stating that Halliburton (who was on the BP oil ridge, and is a business partner of BP), has enough resources to go do war. But your argument that war is not profitable? BP, Exxon, and Halliburton have all had their highest grossing decade because of the war. Apple, well, yeah, they've had their highest grossing decade as well, So has Walmart. War is profitable, since it drives up prices.
You experience anarchy at Starbucks? You experience state of society without government or law, at Starbucks? DO you understand that the sanitary conditions, even though they are bad, could be a lot worst? At least there are food inspectors. They are not perfect, but you are not taking into consideration the restaurant standards create by your government when you walk into a restaurant in order just to eat. Anarchy at Starbucks… next argument please…
No sir, you are indeed incorrect, again, I want to re-iterate the definition of the word:
Anarchy is a state of society without government or law.
Unless you confirm this definition, we are going to argue about definition, instead of policies.
If you can please clarify your meaning of "law originates in the market", we can go from there on this debate.
--
Again, I hate the political environment we are in, and really don't think that deleting government and laws all together is a realistic solution.
The definition the majority of society utilizing is in my opinion as follows:
Anarchy is a state of society without government or law.
With that being said, The original topic, "Proof that Anarchy = Destruction of Society" - that said title, is completely erroneous, since "Anarchy is still a society".
Moving on.
Anarchy is a state of society without government or law, no courts since there is no law. Your argument is invalid.
Anarchy is a state of society without government or law, no courts since there is no law. Your argument is still invalid. I do concur that we should shot the guy, and stop wasting money.
There is no one to investigate you, since there is no government or body of investigation. Anarchy, remember.
Maybe, maybe not, I don't know, since currently we have computer standards. If Apple for example get so big, it decides not to support IP address or the general internet, the little mortals would not have a lot of power to stop this scenario, kinda of like AOL back in the day, when the only thing you go do was stay on the "AOL internet". But I truly hope a agorist internet would be put it place, and a governing body can set standards, so our devices can communicate together. Remember, the FCC's gone, so hopefully no wires/radio signals/bauds are crossed with other competitors devices.
I would drop comcast in that scenario, but again, that would make it tougher on me, since even though I live in Miami Beach, there are only 3 providers. There are scenarios, where the majority of people don't have that much choice. Maybe you live in an area, that has 12 options, most people do not.
Well remember, Anarchy is a state of society without government or law. So there would no longer be a body of people to enforce polices, so yes, that criminal would be able to do whatever he wants, until someone else stops him. That's why I stated, to let me purchase my ammo first, then we can test this experiment.
I have no illusion that the purpose of this government is to help business rather than individual. I never stated that it was going to deliver us into a better existence. Private citizens and Private companies do that with their innovations and new technologies. When I state that the government is there create standards, I am referring to "IP Address" and the FCC making sure the manufacture of devices do not cross radio waves or whatever. So I know, when I answer my phone, my garage door won't start opening.
Maddoff was an example, There are thousands of people running scams, and eventually they get caught, I am not saying the system is perfect, what I am saying is there is a system. If there was no system, Madoff would have been killed by investors I assume, or kept going until someone caught up with him. Remember, Anarchy is a state of society without government or law.
So you are stating that Halliburton (who was on the BP oil ridge, and is a business partner of BP), has enough resources to go do war. But your argument that war is not profitable? BP, Exxon, and Halliburton have all had their highest grossing decade because of the war. Apple, well, yeah, they've had their highest grossing decade as well, So has Walmart. War is profitable, since it drives up prices.
You experience anarchy at Starbucks? You experience state of society without government or law, at Starbucks? DO you understand that the sanitary conditions, even though they are bad, could be a lot worst? At least there are food inspectors. They are not perfect, but you are not taking into consideration the restaurant standards create by your government when you walk into a restaurant in order just to eat. Anarchy at Starbucks… next argument please…
No sir, you are indeed incorrect, again, I want to re-iterate the definition of the word:
Anarchy is a state of society without government or law.
Unless you confirm this definition, we are going to argue about definition, instead of policies.
If you can please clarify your meaning of "law originates in the market", we can go from there on this debate.
--
Again, I hate the political environment we are in, and really don't think that deleting government and laws all together is a realistic solution.
No one is arguing for a society without law bro.
Anarchy is an (anti) archy (rulers). Nothing more, nothing less.
You're welcome to argue a bullshit position against people who don't hold it, but that just makes you an idiot, it can't make you right.
Good idea, but the military industrial complex and such aren't going to want that as they know that their budget would end up a lot less.
Current spending rates are not sustainable with the national debt growing at 150 million dollars per hour.
What is Starbucks doing now only because the government makes them?
Responsibly Grown and Fair Trade Coffee | Starbucks Coffee Company
That's one area in which they go beyond what the US government requires, and probably way beyond what is required by the countries where the coffee comes from.
The majority believe anarchy is chaotic and that all anarchists are punks with mohawks vandalizing private property. Just because most people believe it, doesn't make it accurate.
Are you telling me if I go somewhere in the south where the majority believes that all muslims are terrorists, that any muslim in that area is without a doubt a terrorist?
Weird, I am literally taking the definition from the dictionary (Anarchy | Define Anarchy at Dictionary.com). I assume, you are working along a different definition, which I am not privy to. If you can make that definition accessible then we can figure this out.