Proof that Anarchy = Destruction of Society

[Napolean]

It'll be like in the Godfather, the heads of the families that you pay tribute to will meet and arbitrage a deal. (srsly, it's pretty close to this).

Except organized crime needs government in order to be profitable. Think of it like lobbyists who make something illegal for everybody else but the companies they work for. The company no longer has to worry about competition because the government wont allow anybody to start a similar business.

Its virtually the same thing with organized crime. Your reasoning for not dealing drugs or running a casino in your garage isn't because you're concerned that the mafia is going to extort you for a cut or muscle you out of business, its because you're worried about a SWAT team kicking down your door.

Which is why minimal government is the way to go, not complete anarchy.

My 2c.

So they can grow government 8 to 10 years later, raking in windfall tax revenues after the economy has been soaring, and buy more guns so they can show us they're still in charge.

If you look at this from a global scope, we're already living in an anarchist world, we have security firms (the governments) competing over talents. If you don't like it, you can leave. Pledge to a government that suits you. The fee? Taxes.

Actually, that's called panarchy, and its not a good thing. Comparing the global political environment (panarchy) to anarchy is like telling slaves they are free to choose which plantation they want to serve, while pretending there is no such thing as north.

 

[guerilla]

Which is why minimal government is the way to go, not complete anarchy.

Minimal government is still immoral. And economically irrational.

It has no basis as a better choice except by your own subjective determination. You might as well be saying, "Coke is the way to go, not Pepsi." within the context of an argument about statism.

But Anarchists are not arguing about statism. They are arguing about freedom. And you can't be free if you're a minimal slave.

If you look at this from a global scope, we're already living in an anarchist world, we have security firms (the governments) competing over talents. If you don't like it, you can leave. Pledge to a government that suits you. The fee? Taxes.

Except you can't start a new firm because it is illegal. So it's anarchistic wrt relationships, but it's not anarchistic systemically.

Huge difference, because basically, we have a legal and defense oligopoly, not a free market in these things. Anarchists desire the latter because it is moral, it is just, and it is economically efficient.

Its virtually the same thing with organized crime. Your reasoning for not dealing drugs or running a casino in your garage isn't because you're concerned that the mafia is going to extort you for a cut or muscle you out of business, its because you're worried about a SWAT team kicking down your door.

Rothbard is famous for saying, "Government is a gang of thieves, writ large."

The difference between the state and the mafia is that the mafia is the mom and pop version of the State's walmart violence and criminality.

 

[clyde]

Except organized crime needs government in order to be profitable. Think of it like lobbyists who make something illegal for everybody else but the companies they work for. The company no longer has to worry about competition because the government wont allow anybody to start a similar business.

Its virtually the same thing with organized crime. Your reasoning for not dealing drugs or running a casino in your garage isn't because you're concerned that the mafia is going to extort you for a cut or muscle you out of business, its because you're worried about a SWAT team kicking down your door.

I wasn't arguing Mafia's profitability at all.

I gave an example of how one would enforce "justice" in an anarchist state.

It's a matter of your security firm vs. theirs.

If you watch documentaries about black gangs in the 80's, (before they started selling drugs etc) it was all about justice. You hit our homeboy, we hit you back. Justice in an anarchist state would be something similar to that.

So they can grow government 8 to 10 years later, raking in windfall tax revenues after the economy has been soaring, and buy more guns so they can show us they're still in charge.

Or the other way around. Democracy/voting keeps then in check. You have an alternative? Over-throw government and let everybody be? Fat chance. They tried that in Somalia, as soon as there is no government, a new form of control/power comes to be, dictactorship, monarchy, pirates running wild etc

Actually, that's called panarchy, and its not a good thing. Comparing the global political environment (panarchy) to anarchy is like telling slaves they are free to choose which plantation they want to serve, while pretending there is no such thing as north.

Sure, but it's real. It's how the world works.

Here's the thing, for an anarchy world to actually realize, there needs to be a power bigger than all the governments combined that enforces it.

 

[pfgannon]

So they can grow government 8 to 10 years later, raking in windfall tax revenues after the economy has been soaring, and buy more guns so they can show us they're still in charge.

Or the other way around. Democracy/voting keeps then in check. You have an alternative?

The difference between these two claims is that Napolean's example has actually occurred. To my knowledge, there's never been an example of accountable government. The United States, the greatest minarchist experiment in history, took less then a decade before it began its decline.

 

[clyde]

The difference between these two claims is that Napolean's example has actually occurred. To my knowledge, there's never been an example of accountable government. The United States, the greatest minarchist experiment in history, took less then a decade before it began its decline.

In what way is the government not accountable? Such problems would occur with security firms in an anarchist state as well.

 

[guerilla]

Democracy and republicanism has failed the Greeks, the Romans and the Americans.

The notion that voting is a check on power is ridiculous. Does anyone truly believe the two best Americans are Mitt Romney and Barack Obama? Are they the most intelligent, skilled, organized, successful, talented, knowledgeable or wise?

Obviously they are both immoral, when was the last time America chose a man to lead them who was not a sociopath?

Or is Clyde's argument that democracy is a good system for a sociopathic society?

Voting is a game to keep the masses entertained and as a release valve against rebellion. It's a sucker's game, and in the US, people have a greater statistical chance of being killed on the way to vote than they do of picking a winner. But they still vote, because a lot of people do stuff because they think they are supposed to. The state survives on this sort of thoughtless commitment to habit. It teaches it in public schools.

 

[cardine]

Democracy and republicanism has failed the Greeks, the Romans and the Americans.

The notion that voting is a check on power is ridiculous. Does anyone truly believe the two best Americans are Mitt Romney and Barack Obama? Are they the most intelligent, skilled, organized, successful, talented, knowledgeable or wise?

Obviously they are both immoral, when was the last time America chose a man to lead them who was not a sociopath? Or is Clyde's argument that democracy is a good system for a sociopathic society?

Voting is a game to keep the masses entertained and as a release valve against rebellion. It's a sucker's game, and in the US, people have a greater statistical chance of being killed on the way to vote than they do of picking a winner. But they still vote, because a lot of people do stuff because they think they are supposed to. The state survives on this sort of thoughtless commitment to habit. It teaches it in public schools.

Absolutely, a republic is a broken system. However so is a military dictatorship, which is most likely what would happen if true anarchy were ever to occur.

The problem is that governments always grow bigger and a perfect anarchy will never stay as a perfect anarchy. I'm not sure what the best form of government that will keep itself as small as possible for as long as possible, but I don't think anarchy fits the bill.

I no longer think of it as "what government do I want where I am living" but instead "what can I do so that I am in a place where I have as much control over my life as possible". So for me it is less about bringing about anarchy and more about being in a position where I can move from Hong Kong, The Bahamas, or whatever country is best for me at any given time.

 

[guerilla]

Absolutely, a republic is a broken system. However so is a military dictatorship, which is most likely what would happen if true anarchy were ever to occur.

Why would that happen?

The problem is that governments always grow bigger and a perfect anarchy will never stay as a perfect anarchy.

Anarchists are not Utopians. People who think that government can be kept small, or we can trust some men with absolute power not to be corrupted are the Utopians.

I'm not sure what the best form of government that will keep itself as small as possible for as long as possible, but I don't think anarchy fits the bill.

You're arguing within the statist paradigm. You're saying the best form of government is not no government, which is like saying the best apple is not no apple.

Government is rulership. If you want to be ruled, please do it and enjoy it.

I do not want to be ruled. No one has demonstrated any reason why they should or must be able to rule me.

I no longer think of it as "what government do I want where I am living" but instead "what can I do so that I am in a place where I have as much control over my life as possible". So for me it is less about bringing about anarchy and more about being in a position where I can move from Hong Kong, The Bahamas, or whatever country is best for me at any given time.

I agree. Wholeheartedly.

There are ideas, and there is reality. The reality is, we're surrounded by shaved monkeys who are easily lead and drawn into committing violence, they have no need for economics or philosophy, they do what they are told, and they believe what those around them believe. The horizontal pressures of society guys like you and I have largely freed ourselves from, still apply to billions of others. And because of that, we're a minority, and we're somewhat forced to embrace the status quo.

I don't like being a slave, but I will do it rather than be killed. I see a profit in playing the game until the tables get turned.

 

[scottspfd82]

In what way is the government not accountable?

What? Did you vote for 10 more years in a war that was never declared by congress?

Do you know what "threats" the ~60k SOCOM army is after in 80 different countries a day?

How much money did the FED print today, and how much time to those who can access it have to spend it before it's flooded into the system and devalues your currency?

Why do you think we're perpetually in Afghanistan?

What do you see as the biggest threat to civilization?

Such problems would occur with security firms in an anarchist state as well.

No, voting someone into imaginary power corrupts. They'd compete, just like private security firms here. Or just like the ones the dumb fucking government wastes my tax money on to patrol perpetual war zones for the military industrial complex. They do fine, make great money too.

EDIT: Hey bro, didn't realize that was you. Disregard "Merican government problems.

 

[pfgannon]

In what way is the government not accountable? Such problems would occur with security firms in an anarchist state as well.

In practically every way.

Were Bush or his colleagues held accountable for their outright lies to the public, and initiating the unjust slaughter of the Iraqi people?

Was Obama held accountable for using a drone to murder a 16 year old boy?

If congressional public approval is so low, why do the vast majority still get reelected?

Who's held accountable when we overthrow democratically elected leaders abroad?

What do you think will happen to Holder if/when he gets charged with supplying weapons to violent gangs south of the border? I can tell you he won't be imprisoned like you and I would be. It's more likely he'll lose his job, only to be hired for 6 figures on K Street.

If that's accountability and justice, I don't want anything to do with it.

Sure, anarchy wouldn't remove evil from the world, but at least people would have a chance to resist other imposing it upon them.

 

[cardine]

Why would that happen?


Anarchists are not Utopians. People who think that government can be kept small, or we can trust some men with absolute power not to be corrupted are the Utopians.


You're arguing within the statist paradigm. You're saying the best form of government is not no government, which is like saying the best apple is not no apple.

Government is rulership. If you want to be ruled, please do it and enjoy it.

I do not. No one has demonstrated any reason why they should or must be able to rule me.

The problem is that anarchy is a power vacuum and in every case in which there has ever been a power vacuum, somebody has rushed in to fill it.

I agree with you completely, that anarchy is the best form of government, if anarchy could be maintained indefinitely. I do not think that is possible, so the next best thing for me is to seek out countries which have the smallest government and then leave them when they inevitably get bigger.

 

[guerilla]

Such problems would occur with security firms in an anarchist state as well.

There is no such thing as an anarchist state.

Security firms may act inappropriately but they would be punished in the market.

You can't punish government. It has no competition. You have no other choices. That's the entire damn problem.

When George Bush breaks the law, what can YOU do about it? Nothing. The state owns the courts.

When your free market security or insurance agency violates the law or some agreement? You can fire them.

 

[guerilla]

The problem is that anarchy is a power vacuum and in every case in which there has ever been a power vacuum, somebody has rushed in to fill it.

You didn't answer my question.

I agree with you completely, that anarchy is the best form of government, if anarchy could be maintained indefinitely.

Anarchy is not a government. Anarchy for a day would be better than no anarchy at all.

I do not think that is possible, so the next best thing for me is to seek out countries which have the smallest government and then leave them when they inevitably get bigger.

Our posts are asynchronous right now, you added to yours so I added to mine.

We're in agreement on this, albeit for slightly different reasons.

 

[clyde]

EDIT: Hey bro, didn't realize that was you. Disregard "Merican government problems.

:thumbsup:

Sure, anarchy wouldn't remove evil from the world, but at least people would have a chance to resist other imposing it upon them.

Here's the problem though, you and what army?

Were the Somali pirates held accountable when they kidnapped random sailors?

Unrelated, have any of you guys seen the movie "Gone into the wild"?

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

Pick up a fucking book, learn about anarchy, get answers to your very basic questions that have been asked a million times before.

On paper is the only place anarchy seems sensible. There is no realistic answer to security questions under an anarchist country. As I've said already (and has clyde), look at Somalia. There is nothing stopping a warlord with money and guns from going on a rampage and living by his own means. There would be nonstop gang warfare and civil war between "security companies". Not to mention the different colonies would be far more susceptible to an attack from China, Russia, NK, etc. A national defense is useful in our day and age.

There is such a thing as a sensible minimalist government, it's what our country was founded on.

Until then, keep supporting statism with your dollars, because that support means tenfold more than your useless words on the internet.

 

[Napolean]

In what way is the government not accountable? Such problems would occur with security firms in an anarchist state as well.

Government collects its revenue with force. If you don't pay taxes, they will come get you, and if you resist, let's hope the dingman hates the IRS as much as we do.

Government also inflates currency, making everything more expensive for everyone.

A security firm sends you an invoice, if you don't pay, they simply don't show up. Ever. I prefer the prospect of dealing with a burglar on my own rather than 30 armed men from the government who are just itching to blow someones head off.

 

[scottspfd82]

On paper is the only place anarchy seems sensible. There is no realistic answer to security questions under an anarchist country.

Yes there are. There is more private security in Iraq than military and I think it's 50/50 in Afghanistan right now. Private security firms would be everywhere if the US government dissolved. They wouldn't be booked up for work 20 years at a time.

look at Somalia.

I wouldn't go to Somalia. Nothing works there. Why the fuck would I go there?

There is such a thing as a sensible minimalist government, it's what our country was founded on.

How many innocent people has our country murdered this week? Unless it's 0 (it's not) is that sensible to you? If so our definitions of sensible vary greatly. And if it's not okay with you I may want to think about not financing murder.

 

[clyde]

Government collects its revenue with force. If you don't pay taxes, they will come get you, and if you resist, let's hope the dingman hates the IRS as much as we do.

Government also inflates currency, making everything more expensive for everyone.

A security firm sends you an invoice, if you don't pay, they simply don't show up. Ever. I prefer the prospect of dealing with a burglar on my own rather than 30 armed men from the government who are just itching to blow someones head off.

So do the Mafia, "Nice place. Wanna keep it this way?"

The reason the current "security firms" we have don't force you to pay is because we have a government that outlaws that.

 

[scottspfd82]

The reason the current "security firms" we have don't force you to pay is because we have a government that outlaws that

If you signed an agreement to pay you'd pay or you'd get sued.

 

[Napolean]

There is no realistic answer to security questions under an anarchist country. As I've said already (and has clyde), look at Somalia.

You can't entertain anarchy without looking at Somalia. Which part are we looking at though? The theocratic slums that submit to Sharia law or the Xeer part that is actually churning out a profitable airline industry? Something we can't even seem to do here?

There is nothing stopping a warlord with money and guns from going on a rampage and living by his own means.

Here in the U.S you can't throw a stick without hitting a household that owns a gun. I think a warlord would have a rather difficult time overcoming that little snag.

There is such a thing as a sensible minimalist government, it's what our country was founded on.

Well, that is a relief then. It only broke once, we'll hit a home run next pitch.