Anarchy: What you'll have to tackle if you want it

[thewake]

Seriously: My whole economic rhetoric is to let people do whatever they want to with whatever they own.

Which totally allows for voluntary communism!

[Ahab]

...Voluntary hirearchies too...


Yeah, I'm pretty much with weswammy on this one, though I do enjoy anarchy theory and like the idea of having no taxes and privatizing everything - roads and whatnot. A more extreme version of wes's miniarchist ideas. Though I do have a question for you: Do you favor Milton Friedmans chicago school approach in which he calls for intervention when it comes to monetary policy as a means to control inflation, or do you favor a more mises styled, utter non-intervention complete laissez-faire ideal. Both are similar, but one is neokeynesian and the other is antikeynesian.

[Ahab]

SoulRiser Wrote:

Quote:I think the best world would be one where there was only government so far as to enforce the Libertarian Axiom of Non-Aggression:
"that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else."
The only thing the State is good for is this, it is a tool to be used to enforce this and nothing more.

I'd go for that.
I think it'd be slightly easier to get people to support that, than it would be to get them to support anarchy. Only slightly though, most people are still so damn dependant on all the weird laws we have, they wouldn't be able to imagine life without them. Change will have to be gradual...

Most people have some kinda libertarian ideas in their head anyways. Take example laws. Most people dont know what the hell all the laws are, but they tend to know what to do and not to do without legislation.

[Chaotic_Punk]

In my opinion, the goverment here doesn't do much anyway. They make rules to change our generations lives, in other words it makes it easier for them.

[thewake]

Captain Ahab Wrote:...Voluntary hirearchies too...


Yeah, I'm pretty much with weswammy on this one, though I do enjoy anarchy theory and like the idea of having no taxes and privatizing everything - roads and whatnot. A more extreme version of wes's miniarchist ideas. Though I do have a question for you: Do you favor Milton Friedmans chicago school approach in which he calls for intervention when it comes to monetary policy as a means to control inflation, or do you favor a more mises styled, utter non-intervention complete laissez-faire ideal. Both are similar, but one is neokeynesian and the other is antikeynesian.

I'm more Austrian school leaning. Definitely. The fact government is in the market controlling money is what causes inflation.
At least we need to get back on the gold standard, but it would be even better for there to be private bank money. Not to mention the fact bartering would be more prevalent for small trades.

Of course I'm no economist, but I just got to the part about the economy on For A New Liberty.
One thing I learned most of all from this book: Political books can be boring if you read them too fast.

[TheSovereign]

Anarchy fails, it'll never work. Get over yourselves.

[Rebelnerd]

wow, thank you for showing us the error of our ways with such a thorough, well thought-out and informative argument.

[TheSovereign]

Rebelnerd Wrote:wow, thank you for showing us the error of our ways with such a thorough, well thought-out and informative argument.

Honestly, anyone with a basic understanding of politics will realize anarchism will never work.

Without any form of organization as a society were would we be? Nowhere. With the inception of anarchism, there would be a few honest folk who'd do the honest way of survival; farming or hunting. But most people don't know how to that shit and without rules, they can do whatever the fuck they want. So they could just shoot all the honest people and take their shit to survive. With-in months it'd become a battle between bandits and honest folk. Latter on people who start forming little societies with rules and leaders. Eventually as they grow bigger they'll need more resources so they'll invade other mini societies or merge with them. After awhile we'd just end up with the same shit. Either that, some other country takes over... like Mexico.

Fuck, I bet your just another stupid teen anarchist who wishes anarchism so he could smoke pot and play his Xbox 360 all day. Little does he know, with-out organization and stability, that Xbox wouldn't exist in the first place. Nor would other great things like roads, hospitals, technology, protection, ect.

[Rebelnerd]

TheSovereign Wrote:Honestly, anyone with a basic understanding of politics will realize anarchism will never work.

Without any form of organization as a society were would we be? Nowhere. With the inception of anarchism, there would be a few honest folk who'd do the honest way of survival; farming or hunting. But most people don't know how to that shit and without rules, they can do whatever the fuck they want. So they could just shoot all the honest people and take their shit to survive. With-in months it'd become a battle between bandits and honest folk. Latter on people who start forming little societies with rules and leaders. Eventually as they grow bigger they'll need more resources so they'll invade other mini societies or merge with them. After awhile we'd just end up with the same shit. Either that, some other country takes over... like Mexico.

if the governments and hierarchal systems of the world suddenly vanished into thin air, then yes that's what would happen, at least initially. an effective transition to an anarchist world would require a significant portion of the population to want it in the first place, and be willing to fight for it. and once it's accomplished and the world is freed, i don't think it's too farfetched to believe that an armed, self-sufficient populace who've developed a comfortable way of life could dispatch a gang or warlord with dreams of taking over the region. the people just have to want freedom, and therein lies the problem. before the governments are removed, the institituions set up to regulate people mentally, such as propaganda and misinformation (institutionalized school, perhaps?) have to be removed first. otherwise the myth that "people need government" will drive them to seek shelter in ordered groups. but the fact is, the only reason we "need government" is because people think they do. if everyone was self-sufficient and capable of defending themselves, then the deterrent of a counterattack would usually be enough to ward off bandits. many anarchists all have different views on what the idea stateless society would look like, so don't take this as a representation of the entire community, but i envision a world where individuals or at least small groups of people all live on their own, with the means to provide themselves with food, water, shelter, defense, etc. (and don't tell me it can't be done, modern technology won't vanish when the governments do) and everyone just minds their own business, living how they see fit. out of this disorderly world would come more social, scientific, and technological diversity that would lead to a greater outpouring of ideas, unsupressed by politics or capitalism. the world would advance slower, yes, but without the threat of a leader's bad decision derailing everyone. look it up in any science book: the strongest ecosystem is the most diverse.

Quote:Fuck, I bet your just another stupid teen anarchist who wishes anarchism so he could smoke pot and play his Xbox 360 all day. Little does he know, with-out organization and stability, that Xbox wouldn't exist in the first place. Nor would other great things like roads, hospitals, technology, protection, ect.

actually, i've never smoked pot or owned an Xbox, or any other game system for that matter. but that's beside the point. so is the fact that if a road were badly needed, people would probably build one anyway, and that human beings tend to develop technology with or without government, through natural innovation and necessity. my point is that you shouldn't label anyone who supports an alternative ideology as a "stupid teen" because you may be cutting yourself off from some potentially good ideas. now, maybe you're right. i could be lying. maybe i am just some wannabe punk stoner who thinks it's cool to draw circled A's on desks. but maybe i'm not. maybe anarchism could work, and maybe it would make a better world. and maybe you should think before you start throwing around the stereotypes, and actually give other people's views a thought. cya.

[thewake]

I think it's cool to draw circled As on desks, sure looks a lot cooler than any monarchist symbol I could think up...

Anyway, I think it was stupid of you, Mr. Sovereign, to say that about anarchism.
It's pretty neat, actually. To think that we could all live without "The Man" to get us down. That would be awesome, but it would be chaos, people would die, human nature insures it. That's why I'm not buying into it. And even if people did want it, it would eventually deteriorate. I mean, look around, do you see anyone really fighting for democracy anymore? Democracy across the world is slowly deteriorating into a beurocracy. Hell, the American people could be ruled by a dictator and it wouldn't matter. The same would happen with the anarchy, except it would not be protected near as well.

I'm saying, if we want any freedom we need to find something that will last, and that will take a charter far greater than the Constitution, and enough intellectuals to fill Yankee Stadium.
Not to mention an uprising to undo all uprisings.

Anarchy won't cut it, we do need government to hold things together, but government is a dangerous thing in itself. All I know is that we need something better than government or anarchy, I just don't see how that's possible.

[Rebelnerd]

that's a good point, although i disagree that anarchy couldn't work. it would be difficult, yes. but i think it's possible. also, one point i want to make is that one key factor is deciding what it means for a society to "work." if your goal is to ensure order and safety for the people, then yeah a government could probably handle that well. but, and again a lot of others, including other anarchists, will probably disagree, i think that the purpose of a system is to ensure the survival of the species. and while government may keep all the people safe at a given time, there is always that possibility that it could either kill them all through a bad decision (genocide, failure of institutions we're dependent on, nuclear war, etc.) or suppress ideas and free thought to the point where even if people are alive, they are unable to innovate and invent for the good of humanity, essentially destroying their humanity. in an anarchist world, yes some people would die, there would be some chaos, and life would not be as comfortable and convenient as it is under a government. but the essential point is that these people would be free to express themselves and would explore new ways of thought simply because human personalities are so diverse. innovation would happen, humanity would advance, and we'd be divided and self-sufficient enough so that one leader's bad move couldn't drag everyone down, and people would be self-sufficient enough so that they wouldn't need to form governments. of course, as i said before, it would be necessary for more people to be un-brainwashed before the revolution so that they wouldn't form hierarchal societies out of sheer habit.some people would argue that humanity wouldn't advance without the help and funding of large governments. i agree that they wouldn't progress as fast, but it would be safer in the long run because they wouldn't be dependent on a supporter that could fail at any moment.
i thought of a metaphor, i may have used it before but i'm to lazy to search. you're trying to drive down a steep, windy mountain road covered in ice in the middle of the night. the destination represents progress, technology, and survival of humanity. the cliff is extinction. what kind of vehicle do you choose? a Ferrari or a tank? the sports car will get you there faster, and it will be nicer and more comfortable. and maybe you will make it. but the unavoidable fact is that it could slide off the road anytime along the journey. the tank, on the other hand, is cold, ugly, and slow. but it't tougher and better equipped, and is almost certain to get you there. the tank is anarchism, the Ferrari is government. anarchy will be a hard path to follow, but if we do it then humanity will be soscattered, individualistic, diverse, and creative that they will be almost impossible to eradicate using anything except a giant meteor, and even then it may be hard once some band of scientists figures out how to build a rocket to shoot it down without the feds cutting their funds for an oil war.

[thewake]

You're thinking of a non libertarian government though.
What I'm talking about is a government that helps keep militias(because armies, not militias, are dangerous) funded, supplies police, firefighting, and maybe sanitation. It could also, maybe, mint money.

You know, a minarchist government. Mabe you should stop thinking in shades of black and white.
"A little wine is good for the stomach."

[Ahab]

The whole idea of the Austian and Chicago school of economics seems far more sensible than anarchism, for one reason: Military. The idea of a lawless society won't matter. People and private companies can always do justice, regardless of whether theyre poor or not. We don't really need laws. But we do need some sort of unification. It doesnt have to be nationalism, no, but we do need something to be a stable country. Other governments aren't going to just look at an anarchist society and say "Well, OK, all good." If anything has power, there will be a tendency to want to grasp it, and if you create such a society where only militias (which arent funded by anyone other than themselves) are the defense, you end up with a disaster waiting to happen...obviously its a slippery slope argument as most will excuse it, but if there isnt a way for anarchy to have a military thats well strong, then i cant support it, despite my fascination with anarcho-capitalism (which people will claim isnt anarchy but the hirearchies are voluntary so shut up.)

[thewake]

Thomas Jefferson believed a well armed militia was the best defender of liberty.
The people would just be defending what matters to them. We don't need a standing army. If anything it's just a temptation to be used for imperialistic purposes by the people in charge, whether elected or not.

I prefer something more like the Articles of Confederacy. Except with a little more power to the central government. With a whole lot more restrictions on government in general, of course.

[Rebelnerd]

but if the government funds the militias, what's to stop them from using that as leverage to manipulate them?

[thewake]

Constitutional restriction.

Bill of Militia:
Article 5: The militia shall always be well funded and not used for offense, but for defensive purposes only.

[Ahab]

Rebelnerd Wrote:but if the government funds the militias, what's to stop them from using that as leverage to manipulate them?

The idea of miniarchism is to shrink government to such a small size that corruption is also minimal, to the point where the proportion between bureaucrats and workers is so massive that they cant do anything. If you have a large government, you end up with a government the people fear. Its the opposite in this ideal system, so the idea of military invasion is absurd.

We managed to do government alright for a little under 150 years. Minus funding railroads, federal reserve failures that caused the depression, and progressive reforms (which weren't horrible), we did ok.

[Rebelnerd]

i don't trust constitutional restriction. what happens when the government decides that the threat is coming from inside the country (terrorism?) and uses the militias against the people, claiming that it is indeed for defense? writing on a piece of paper isn't enough to hold a government in check if they directly influence the moves of the country's armed forces, whatever form they may take. the people themselves need to be capable of direct defense without being dependent on government organization or support.

[thewake]

A militia is a citizen's army. There wouldn't even be a standing militia! Everyone would be called to duty. What is really needed is to keep the militia in supply without the government being in control of the militia itself (to a point).

Not to say a full blown army couldn't be raised if someone like Hitler was running rampant across the planet threatening humanity, but it would have to be restricted so that it couldn't be kept.

And we did a good job of keeping with the Constitution, until the days of mass schooling and stupidity. Now democracy doesn't matter as much because people are more cookie cutter and instilled with loyalty to the Establishment. That would have to be in the Constitution- No public schooling, maybe even no government interaction with schooling at all.

[Rebelnerd]

i like that idea, but they'd never do it for that very reason. governments want to stay in power. school is an excellent way of doing that and they'd find some excuse, hide it in a "it's all just to help the children. you don't hate children do you? do you??" and force it down the country's throat.

[thewake]

That's why we need to have something called: Revolution.

I really don't think the current Establishment, no matter how free it may once have been, would ever go back. We need to get a change that would be brought about by freedom fighters and kept up by a people who have learned to value freedom.

[Ahab]

Rebelnerd Wrote:i like that idea, but they'd never do it for that very reason. governments want to stay in power. school is an excellent way of doing that and they'd find some excuse, hide it in a "it's all just to help the children. you don't hate children do you? do you??" and force it down the country's throat.

Well, its hard, but impossible? Hardly.

Proof? The Czech Republic. Vaclav Klaus has, in the past 15 years, moved the Czech Republic from a socialists nightmare to a capitalists wet dream, and he will continue to increase individual freedom. Sure, its taken a while for people to get out of power there, but progress is excellent.

[.xstrike-anywherex.]

The only anarchism you will realistically win is anarchism of your own mind. You have to free yourself and free your thoughts. After that, you should help others to free themselves.

Don't live outside of authority. Live within it, and manipulate it to take what you want. Authority can't be destroyed, but it can be hijacked for your own purposes.

[Rebelnerd]

but then we'd be the government. and don't lie to yourself, nobody, no matter howgenerous or dedicated they think themselves, is above corruption. nobody's pure.

[thewake]

We aren't pure now, so anarchy can never be attained fully. Why do you think we think government is different? It's not, but it is much safer.

[happy fool called Nigel]

PIMP. Wrote:Each man would be his own king.

I believe that is called pantarchy.