Proof that Anarchy = Destruction of Society
- Thread starter kingofsp
- Start date
Fact of the matter is that a percentage of the population is fucking outlandish and bordering on psychotic. It wouldnt be smart to "let them be" because all they do is fuck with other peoples shit. In my world, the punishment for serious shenanigans is you're getting cut and thrown in the shark tank fool. All you gotta do to avoid that unfortunate fate is be cool and not fuck shit up
It is very very hard to leave the US government's grasp if you are a US citizen.
That's where you're wrong if Guerilla doesn't beat me to it.
"every government "presumes to establish a compulsory monopoly of defense (police and courts) service over some geographical area. So that individual property owners who prefer to subscribe to another defense company within that area are not allowed to do so"; and, second, that every government obtains its income by stealing, euphemistically labeled "taxation." "All governments, however limited they may be otherwise, commit at least these two fundamental crimes against liberty and property."
There'd be no nation. But if you're assuming this entire land mass were to go into anarchy - I'd like to say we most likely wouldn't be attacked but our government isn't exactly making friends lately - I still don't think we'd be attacked. We wouldn't pose a threat, because threats of war come from Government, not from individuals. And we wouldn't have a government to take over. We do have guns though. The oceans are a nice border to have. I'm assuming people would work out a volunteer militia/alert system. Really, we're one of the only first world countries shitty enough to still attack people. You don't see people bombing Sweden, etc. People would figure it out.
The one the government uses to point guns at me? No thanks.
The market would handle them.
I can't believe how many people think the government is better equipped to solve hard problems than the free market. How is the government more capable of doing things better than the free market? People in government aren't any smarter. People in government don't magically know the solutions. People are people. How are people who assemble together and call themselves "government" now able to know better solutions than people who assemble together and call themselves "Company X"? Government is nothing more than a monopoly of people who are no more qualified to handle hard issues than any other group of people.
All these things people bring up have been solved years in advance by anarchists like Rothbard who are much more forward thinking than the high-school dropout public. Yeah, early America with minimalist government was good, but guess what? People become smarter and come up with better solutions. Minimal government is logically inconsistent. If all forms of government are bad why have any government at all? Why still keep a small piece? Sure Thomas Jefferson and those guys were smart, but if they were alive today they would be anarchists. People like Mises and Rothbard have taken early American liberal ideas and turned them into an even more pure form of "government". The anarchist solution is the most logically consistent, simple and elegant solution for "society" that there is. Anarchy is the new America. As others have said, 1,000 years from now we will look back and what a bunch of savage dipshits we were having an imaginary state going around telling people what to do.
Government and religion are almost identical. They are both man-made beliefs that people create in their head as to how life should be managed. If we don't need religion to live life then we sure as hell don't need government. They are both belief systems commensurate to the level of intelligence people are at. We are to outgrow things like government. They're illusions, just like religion.
How are we going to handle defense? However the market chooses. We can do it similar to insurance where people pay a private company a defense rate. How are we going to handle roads? Property owners can create their own cities and manage their "roads" however the hell they want to. How are we going to handle courts? Private courts will compete against other courts to be the most moral and consistent. The list goes on and on. Just because you can't imagine how these things will be handled in the free market doesn't mean other people can't. There are lots of other people who do read and commit their lives towards the betterment of humanity who do know how to make these things work in a free society.
Again, anarchy is not the perfect form of "government" or "society". It is simply way the hell better than primitive, dipshit democracy and rule by ignorance.
"All truth goes through three phases. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally it is accepted as self evident." - Schopenhauer
All these things people bring up have been solved years in advance by anarchists like Rothbard who are much more forward thinking than the high-school dropout public. Yeah, early America with minimalist government was good, but guess what? People become smarter and come up with better solutions. Minimal government is logically inconsistent. If all forms of government are bad why have any government at all? Why still keep a small piece? Sure Thomas Jefferson and those guys were smart, but if they were alive today they would be anarchists. People like Mises and Rothbard have taken early American liberal ideas and turned them into an even more pure form of "government". The anarchist solution is the most logically consistent, simple and elegant solution for "society" that there is. Anarchy is the new America. As others have said, 1,000 years from now we will look back and what a bunch of savage dipshits we were having an imaginary state going around telling people what to do.
Government and religion are almost identical. They are both man-made beliefs that people create in their head as to how life should be managed. If we don't need religion to live life then we sure as hell don't need government. They are both belief systems commensurate to the level of intelligence people are at. We are to outgrow things like government. They're illusions, just like religion.
How are we going to handle defense? However the market chooses. We can do it similar to insurance where people pay a private company a defense rate. How are we going to handle roads? Property owners can create their own cities and manage their "roads" however the hell they want to. How are we going to handle courts? Private courts will compete against other courts to be the most moral and consistent. The list goes on and on. Just because you can't imagine how these things will be handled in the free market doesn't mean other people can't. There are lots of other people who do read and commit their lives towards the betterment of humanity who do know how to make these things work in a free society.
Again, anarchy is not the perfect form of "government" or "society". It is simply way the hell better than primitive, dipshit democracy and rule by ignorance.
"All truth goes through three phases. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally it is accepted as self evident." - Schopenhauer
So if I chose to leave the U.S today, I wouldn't be forced to pay any taxes before leaving? I can leave with all my assets? What about the expatriation tax? What about having to pay taxes for years after I leave? None of that is by force?
Somali “Anarchy” Is More Orderly than Somali Government: Newsroom: The Independent Institute
Great, then adjust your political views consistent with that.
By that same argument, anarchy can be useful if done properly.
Driving a car can be useful if done properly.
Empty...
States require armies. zzzzzzzzzzzz
Someone can be a purposeful rapist. Whoopity-doo.
I thought you believed in markets? If you do, then the market can solve this problem, at a lower cost than government, which has no competition, and is unaccountable.
Ron Paul is for anarchism.
Why do I have to leave?
Does the fact that I can run away from a rapist justify rape?
Who settles the dispute when a cop shoots a family member in the back of the head and gets off with a slap on the wrist because apparently if you wear a badge, a gun = equivalent force to a screw driver?
Amen.
I think the only way to end war, aggression, poverty - the list goes on - is to leave all government behind. Almost every negative thing you can think of is caused by government. I think one day people will look back on it like slavery (it is), realize what a sick and inhumane idea it was and wonder how the hell anyone ever accepted the idea of a government.
The people criticizing anarchism don't understand it, and like any nuanced topic, understanding is based on implicit connections in language and ideas.
When I say, anarchy is an archy, which is without rulers, that implies that there is no one above me.
If someone claims to be above me they can only get there by force.
Anarchists oppose this.
We're not worried about who will make the roads, who will have guns, or who will educate our children. The market provides these things as surely as the market provides link services and website hosting.
Creation comes from the market, the government implicitly has to take from the market to do anything. Everything the government does has an opportunity cost in the market.
When you argue for the state, even a minimal state, you're implicitly arguing that the market doesn't work, and that some men are smarter/better than everyone else.
When you say people are bad, you are implicitly saying that we can't trust people with power (force) over others, and yet if your proposed solution is government, then you are contradicting yourself.
You're saying we need to be aggressive against innocent people, in order to protect those innocent people from aggression.
Learn economics. Learn philosophy. Ignorance should disgust you.
When I say, anarchy is an archy, which is without rulers, that implies that there is no one above me.
If someone claims to be above me they can only get there by force.
Anarchists oppose this.
We're not worried about who will make the roads, who will have guns, or who will educate our children. The market provides these things as surely as the market provides link services and website hosting.
Creation comes from the market, the government implicitly has to take from the market to do anything. Everything the government does has an opportunity cost in the market.
When you argue for the state, even a minimal state, you're implicitly arguing that the market doesn't work, and that some men are smarter/better than everyone else.
When you say people are bad, you are implicitly saying that we can't trust people with power (force) over others, and yet if your proposed solution is government, then you are contradicting yourself.
You're saying we need to be aggressive against innocent people, in order to protect those innocent people from aggression.
Learn economics. Learn philosophy. Ignorance should disgust you.
Alright, you win. I still don't see America ever falling to anarchy (at least within our lifetime), but I can't really deny that if I believe free markets work, I should trust that free markets would work. There are still a couple of things,
Well, this is true. Unfortunately all people are not created equal. Some have benefits that others don't, and some are disadvantaged in every area. That's why I think a lack of leadership in some aspects would lead to increased conflicts.
If your proposed solution is to have private security companies handle disputes, how is that not giving them power to use force over others? What happens if a security company essentially becomes a monopoly and then falls to corruption?
I mean, that is basically what we have going on right now, but could a free market really protect against this?
Well, this is true. Unfortunately all people are not created equal. Some have benefits that others don't, and some are disadvantaged in every area. That's why I think a lack of leadership in some aspects would lead to increased conflicts.
If your proposed solution is to have private security companies handle disputes, how is that not giving them power to use force over others? What happens if a security company essentially becomes a monopoly and then falls to corruption?
I mean, that is basically what we have going on right now, but could a free market really protect against this?
You're not forced to leave just like you're not forced to pay taxes. You can choose to leave like you choose to pay taxes.
Of course you'd owe taxes for a period of time after you left, but if you don't plan on ever coming back, you just wouldn't pay them.
I always want logic to win. If I am wrong, show me where so I can be better.
Yes. And whatever wrt countries. Countries are temporary social orders. Very few have endured more than a handful of centuries.
You can have leadership in a market. But if it is based on violence, then it's not leadership by merit, but fear.
My agent only has the power to act that I have, but I allow the agent to act on my behalf. That's what the Declaration of Independence essentially says.
I don't have the power/authority/right to take your money, or to bomb your village. From where did the USG get this power then?
Back to markets bro. If a firm does a bad job, what happens to it? The people who determine the quality of work are the customers. You know that in a democracy, the voter doesn't get to judge the role, scope of government, and certainly not the unelected bureaucracy.
There is no such thing as absolute security.
The questions are
1. Which system is moral?
2. Which system has the correct incentives to promote success?
3. Which systems can be altered or revised fastest?
I don't choose to pay taxes. It's not a voluntary decision when the threat is violence. This is essential to understanding markets.
It is not a market interaction if it isn't done freely. If I put a gun to your head and tell you to buy a cheeseburger, what does that tell me about how much you like a cheeseburger?
Nothing.
I never said I was forced to leave. My point is that just because I can flee being robbed or raped, doesn't mean robbery and rape are acceptable.
Would the security companies act non-violently to resolve every case? How can you regulate what violence is acceptable for certain actions?
I suppose this is true.
That's tough. I'd say one that is based on non-violence is a good start, but there are millions of people who would (violently) disagree with that.
As long as monopolies don't become an issue, free markets obviously.
I agree with you. What I was saying is that if the grass is greener elsewhere, you're free to move there and end your support of the US regime.
There are two types of man:
1. Those who follow/submit.
2. Those who lead/rule.
Until the numbers of those willing to lead surpass the numbers of those willing to follow, I don't think true Anarchy will ever be feasible.
I don't see any trends suggesting that more and more of mankind are becoming leaders, which is why I don't see true Anarchy as a feasible option in the next few hundred years.
Sure, governments fall and we may see brief periods of anarchy, but it will be quickly replaced by another government as leaders consolidate power.
Most people want to be lead, Most people want government. Until most people want Anarchy, there won't be Anarchy.
1. Those who follow/submit.
2. Those who lead/rule.
Until the numbers of those willing to lead surpass the numbers of those willing to follow, I don't think true Anarchy will ever be feasible.
I don't see any trends suggesting that more and more of mankind are becoming leaders, which is why I don't see true Anarchy as a feasible option in the next few hundred years.
Sure, governments fall and we may see brief periods of anarchy, but it will be quickly replaced by another government as leaders consolidate power.
Most people want to be lead, Most people want government. Until most people want Anarchy, there won't be Anarchy.
David Friedman, son of Milton wrote an excellent book on this, called "Machinery of Freedom" and it is available for free online. I suggest you read it. I loathe discussing whatifs endlessly. I explained in my last post what I feel is important about this discussion, and it's not discussing every way everything would be resolved in advance. If we could do that, we wouldn't need markets, we could have perfect communism.
There is a degree of emergence we all have to accept.
That said, this is not a novel challenge, and again, has been answered literally thousands of times before by better men than me.
Hence the need for education. When you point out to someone that their belief in mystical beings or any other such nonsense is irrational, they either have to adjust their views, or be a hypocrite. My understanding of human psychology is that people are slow to change individually, but they will change their minds quickly when there is a mass movement. Again, hence the need for education.
A free market is free, and so any monopoly would have to provide the best service and the best price to everyone, in order to have their natural monopoly status. Not an easy feat.
Sure. I am not an American, but I get that. But you're not always free to move, and the alternatives may not be much better.
Also, I shouldn't have to move. It might be the easiest or best option, but it shouldn't be my only option. The fact the "system" is as it is, makes moving a better alternative than staying. And that ultimately, is why the system will collapse. All that will be left are the moochers. Much of the dynamism is becoming transient.
Ron Paul wants a United States more in line with the founding fathers vision, and currently wants a tax payer funded military enforcing its borders.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZsOZO5hmk]The Anarchist Roundtable: Ron Paul - with Stefan Molyneux, Wendy McElroy and Brad Spangler - YouTube[/ame]