# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Already Anarchy!

## Proph

I sent this to Being Libertarian, but they take too long to publish -- if they ever decide to publish this at all.

I'm posting this here, though -- sans formatting -- because I think it's important and needs to be said/heard/seen:




> Elections are glorified polls that proponents of the State use to justify dominance.  The outcome is binding and everyone must adhere to the results, regardless of individual participation; presumably.  Statists  essentially, authoritarians  often ignore the absurdity of establishing and supporting such a system, opting to stress the supposed importance of participating in said politics instead.  Untangling those convoluted thought processes requires more than words, and attempting to do so via this medium would likely be a waste of time, at this point.  Instead, this article is directed at the like-minded, who understand that government in its current incarnation is immoral and wrong, but havent broken out of the traditional way of nation-state thinking, yet.
> 
> 	Can governments exist within anarchy?  Initially, the question might appear as a rhetorical oxymoron.  By definition, anarchy consists of *no government*; or, more accurately, *no rulers*, but more on that later.  Most people stop there, without thinking about the concept itself.  We all know that words can be deceptive, though.  Just as renaming theft or extortion to something else  say, taxation?  does not change the nature of the action; neither does the costume one wears.  (But, dont we all wear costumes, in some form or another?  Sorry, I dont mean to turn this into one of THOSE!)
> 
> 	Any newbies that are still hanging around?  Excellent.  Thank the desired 500 word minimum for this brief interlude.  Lets discuss rights.  Life, liberty, property?  Sure.  A better way:  As long as your actions dont harm another, consider it a right.  Do you have a right to healthcare?  Sure.  Do you have a right to forcefully take others money to accomplish it?  No!  Lather, rinse, repeat for anything that is subsidized sans voluntary transactions.
> 
> 	Sending others to intervene in a situation where you, yourself, would hesitate is dastardly; but, who is more culpable in the resulting action:   the person who sends the collector, or the one who collects?  Both are culpable, but the one committing the action is most reprehensible of all; for, without committing the deed, no one would have been wronged.
> 
> 	But, back to anarchy!  Lets be practical.  Without militaries or physical impediments of some sort, national borders are as illusory as the security these provisions proclaim to provide.  Regions within a national border are further classified into states, counties, and municipalities.  Through these jurisdictions  the individuals working within those departments, rather  the law of the land is enforced.  The plots shrink, and fences replace borders.  Thats the generally accepted conception, at least.
> ...


Also, there's no need to wait with the internet!

----------


## jkr

it is the truth

----------


## Proph

> it is the truth


Is it, though?

Truth is rarely popular, but I thought these ideas might gain more traction on here.  (I was wrong about that!)

----------


## Superfluous Man

I think I agree with you.

But I can't see where you tell us what claim you are arguing for, like a thesis statement.

----------


## Proph

> I think I agree with you.
> 
> *But I can't see where you tell us what claim you are arguing for, like a thesis statement.*


It's in the title.  We already live in anarchy.

The goal was to be as comprehensive as possible, as concisely as possible.  (Without making it read like a boring research paper.)

----------


## Superfluous Man

> It's in the title.  We already live in anarchy.
> 
> The goal was to be as comprehensive as possible, as concisely as possible.  (Without making it read like a boring research paper.)


OK, well then why don't you actually say that in the post that's supposedly arguing for that conclusion, and show how the claims you make help support that?

I thought that was what you were getting at until I realized that you never said so.

----------


## jkr

I got it...figured it out in Rons 08 run

----------


## Proph

> OK, well then why don't you actually say that in the post that's supposedly arguing for that conclusion, and show how the claims you make help support that?
> 
> I thought that was what you were getting at until I realized that you never said so.


I thought it was unnecessary, because it was self evident.




> I got it...figured it out in Rons 08 run


That was when I first got started.

Years later, I came to understand that voting won't fix anything and that government itself was the problem.  The purpose of this article is to encourage the reader to seek freedom constantly -- regardless of their current situation -- instead of waiting every 2 to 4 years on solutions that will never come.

----------


## Proph

> It's in the title.  We already live in anarchy.
> 
> The goal was to be as comprehensive as possible, as concisely as possible.  (Without making it read like a boring research paper.)


Also, violence begets violence.  There's too many people itching for rebellion.  Granted, they're all likely keyboard warriors; but, they are no different than people who still participate in the political process expecting change:  *They do not know what they clamor for.*

I like to hope the most recent court ruling is just a first step in the right direction, bringing some legitimacy back to the courts.

----------


## Proph

> Also, violence begets violence.  There's too many people itching for rebellion.  Granted, they're all likely keyboard warriors; but, they are no different than people who still participate in the political process expecting change:  They do not know what they clamor for.
> 
> I like to hope *the most recent court ruling* is just a first step in the right direction, bringing some legitimacy back to the courts.


That court case being Timbs v. Indiana.

I also think it's important to have a nonviolent message out there in the wake of terrorist attacks like in New Zealand.

Self defense does serve a purpose, though.  (Unfortunately, civil disobedience in the form of open carrying is likely to get you shot in some places.)

Minimizing soft targets doesn't happen via more policing, but by a more armed and informed public.

----------


## TheTexan

We definitely do not live in an anarchy currently.

Otherwise our roads would have disappeared a long time ago.

----------


## TheTexan

> Also, violence begets violence.  There's too many people itching for rebellion.  Granted, they're all likely keyboard warriors; but, they are no different than people who still participate in the political process expecting change:  *They do not know what they clamor for.*
> 
> I like to hope the most recent court ruling is just a first step in the right direction, bringing some legitimacy back to the courts.


The key problem with anarchy is there would be nothing to stop bands of roaming marauders.  They could kick in people's doors for just about any reason they choose and shoot anyone inside with basically zero accountability.  And I imagine they would set up checkpoints where your choice is to either comply or receive violence.

I wouldn't want to live in that kind of world.

----------


## Proph

> That court case being Timbs v. Indiana.
> 
> I also think it's important to have a nonviolent message out there in the wake of terrorist attacks like in New Zealand.
> 
> Self defense does serve a purpose, though.  (Unfortunately, civil disobedience in the form of open carrying is likely to get you shot in some places.)
> 
> Minimizing soft targets doesn't happen via more policing, but by a more armed and informed public.


A nonviolent, *non-collectivist* message.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

I don't see the purpose of redefining "anarchy" in this way.

 In the context of the debate between minarchists and anarcho-capitalists, for example, redefining anarchy in such a way that both minarchism and anarcho-capitalism qualify as "anarchy" doesn't change the substance of the debate at all; the real differences between minarchism and anarcho-capitalism don't disappear because they are both placed under the same label (this redefined "anarchy"). Similarly, in the context of a libertarian criticizing some aggressive action on the part of the state, nothing of substance in that criticism changes because, according to this novel definition, there is "anarchy" whether the state takes that action or not. 

What am I missing?

----------


## Proph

> I don't see the purpose of redefining "anarchy" in this way.
> 
>  In the context of the debate between minarchists and anarcho-capitalists, for example, redefining anarchy in such a way that both minarchism and anarcho-capitalism qualify as "anarchy" doesn't change the substance of the debate at all; the real differences between minarchism and anarcho-capitalism don't disappear because they are both placed under the same label (this redefined "anarchy"). Similarly, in the context of a libertarian criticizing some aggressive action on the part of the state, nothing of substance in that criticism changes because, according to this novel definition, there is "anarchy" whether the state takes that action or not. 
> 
> What am I missing?


Rather than getting hung up on definitions -- which are incredibly important -- concepts can be discussed instead.  The term "anarchy" generally has negative connotations associated with it, undeservedly so.  Once proponents of the State understand that the enforcers of their ideologies are the very "warlords" they were taught to fear, perhaps their opinions on governments -- monopolies on violence, separated via jurisdiction, which often cooperate unless they are warring -- and ensuing conflicts will change.

My intent was not redefinition, but reconciliation.  Regardless of the words, definitions, concepts, ideas -- whatever you want to call it -- reality still exists, relatively unperturbed.  (All we can do is attempt to describe it.)

----------


## Proph

Most people can agree that aggression is "bad."

They just disagree on who the aggressor is, sometimes.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Rather than getting hung up on definitions -- which are incredibly important -- concepts can be discussed instead.  The term "anarchy" generally has negative connotations associated with it, undeservedly so.  Once proponents of the State understand that the enforcers of their ideologies are the very "warlords" they were taught to fear, perhaps their opinions on governments -- monopolies on violence, separated via jurisdiction, which often cooperate unless they are warring -- and ensuing conflicts will change.
> 
> My intent was not redefinition, but reconciliation.  Regardless of the words, definitions, concepts, ideas -- whatever you want to call it -- reality still exists, relatively unperturbed.  (All we can do is attempt to describe it.)


I can appreciate that reasoning, but it isn't going to persuade minarchists (such as myself). The minarchist view is that anarcho-capitalism will devolve into warlords fighting over control of territory. When a warlord establishes control of a particular piece of territory (as one sooner or later inevitably will), a state is born. 

We can think of an experiment in anarcho-capitalism in four distinct phases:

1. the status quo (the state exists)

2. the experiment begins (anarcho-capitalism exists)

3. break-down (anarcho-capitalism devolves into warlords fighting for territory)

4. return to where we began (the state reemerges when warlords consolidate their controls over their respective territories)

Now, what's the point going through the unpleasantness of phase #3 only to return to our starting point?

----------


## Proph

> I can appreciate that reasoning, but it isn't going to persuade minarchists (such as myself). The minarchist view is that anarcho-capitalism will devolve into warlords fighting over control of territory. When a warlord establishes control of a particular piece of territory (as one sooner or later inevitably will), a state is born. 
> 
> We can think of an experiment in anarcho-capitalism in four distinct phases:
> 
> 1. the status quo (the state exists)
> 
> 2. the experiment begins (anarcho-capitalism exists)
> 
> 3. break-down (anarcho-capitalism devolves into warlords fighting for territory)
> ...


The main point I guess I want to get across is:  We're at so-called "Phase 4" already!  (And, this "territory" only extends to the amount of control over a peoples.  Imagine how different things would be without the 3rd amendment being taken for granted...)

I wanted to link something about the Nightwatchman State earlier, but never got around to it.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The main point I guess I want to get across is:  We're at so-called "Phase 4" already!  (And, this "territory" only extends to the amount of control over a peoples.  Imagine how different things would be without the 3rd amendment being taken for granted...)


I know. 

_So_, why undertake this experiment only to end up back in the same place again, with the added bonus of having lived (or not) through a civil war?

It's like burning down your house for the pleasure of spending the money to rebuild it exactly as it was.  




> I wanted to link something about the Nightwatchman State earlier, but never got around to it.


That's the minarchist ideal.

----------


## Proph

> I know. 
> 
> *So, why undertake this experiment only to end up back in the same place again, with the added bonus of having lived (or not) through a civil war?
> 
> It's like burning down your house for the pleasure of spending the money to rebuild it exactly as it was.  
> *
> 
> 
> That's the minarchist ideal.


Where is this civil war nonsense coming from?  Advances in technology allow us other, peaceful avenues of resistance.  (Video, nearly instant communication, cryptocurrencies...)

There are a plethora of ways to segregate individuals via classifications -- cops and mundanes; Democrats and Republicans; liberals vs conservatives; statists vs anarchists; bureaucrats and voters and illegals and government and... the list goes on! -- which often are used to demonize said groups.  (The narrative of which the Media controls.   But, oops!  There's that lumping of individuals again!  Individuals whom often label themselves, but, crap, that lumping!)

Demonization -- seeing other human beings as demons essentially, deserving of punishment; not just lesser beings that happen to be a nuisance -- generally allows us to permit certain abuses that we otherwise wouldn't.

We're living in anarchy -- per the original post -- now.  (Phase 4.)

----------


## Todd

Great post Proph.  Something sorely lacking around here these days is an actual philosophical discussion.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Where is this civil war nonsense coming from?  Advances in technology allow us other, peaceful avenues of resistance.  (Video, nearly instant communication, cryptocurrencies...)
> 
> There are a plethora of ways to segregate individuals via classifications -- cops and mundanes; Democrats and Republicans; liberals vs conservatives; statists vs anarchists; bureaucrats and voters and illegals and government and... the list goes on! -- which often are used to demonize said groups.  (The narrative of which the Media controls.   But, oops!  There's that lumping of individuals again!  Individuals whom often label themselves, but, crap, that lumping!)
> 
> Demonization -- seeing other human beings as demons essentially, deserving of punishment; not just lesser beings that happen to be a nuisance -- generally allows us to permit certain abuses that we otherwise wouldn't.
> 
> We're living in anarchy -- per the original post -- now.  (Phase 4.)


The abolition of the state would result in a civil war (between would be state-builders), out of which would emerge a new state. 

Power cannot be abolished; if once scattered, it would be only a matter of time until it reappeared. 

The process by which this occurs is aptly called civil war.

----------


## Proph

> The abolition of the state would result in a civil war (between would be state-builders), out of which would emerge a new state. 
> 
> Power cannot be abolished; if once scattered, it would be only a matter of time until it reappeared. 
> 
> The process by which this occurs is aptly called civil war.


I think most of us can agree -- to some degree, at least -- that the law has been converted into plunder.

"When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor."

Social media can be an effective tool, and there are plenty of other ways to dissuade someone from persisting with this occupation than resorting to violence.

Pragmatically, everyone should occupy as much of an enforcer's time as possible during each interaction, limiting their number of victims every shift in the process.  (This takes more courage than most people possess, though.)

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I think most of us can agree -- to some degree, at least -- that the law has been converted into plunder.
> 
> "When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor."
> 
> Social media can be an effective tool, and there are plenty of other ways to dissuade someone from persisting with this occupation than resorting to violence.
> 
> Pragmatically, everyone should occupy as much of an enforcer's time as possible during each interaction, limiting their number of victims every shift in the process.  (This takes more courage than most people possess, though.)


Absent a New Libertarian Man, the result of any experiment in anarcho-capitalism (or any kind of anarchism) is going to be as I described.

----------


## Proph

> Absent a New Libertarian Man, the result of any experiment in anarcho-capitalism (or any kind of anarchism) is going to be as I described.


And why not as I described?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> And why not as I described?


For reasoned explained; there will be civil war (and the winners won't be Rothbardians).

----------


## Proph

> I can appreciate that reasoning, but it isn't going to persuade minarchists (such as myself). The minarchist view is that anarcho-capitalism will devolve into warlords fighting over control of territory. When a warlord establishes control of a particular piece of territory (as one sooner or later inevitably will), a state is born. 
> 
> We can think of an experiment in anarcho-capitalism in four distinct phases:
> 
> 1. the status quo (the state exists)
> 
> 2. the experiment begins (anarcho-capitalism exists)
> 
> 3. break-down (anarcho-capitalism devolves into warlords fighting for territory)
> ...





> The main point I guess I want to get across is:  We're at so-called "Phase 4" already!  (And, this "territory" only extends to the amount of control over a peoples.  Imagine how different things would be without the 3rd amendment being taken for granted...)
> 
> I wanted to link something about the Nightwatchman State earlier, but never got around to it.





> I know. 
> 
> _So_, why undertake this experiment only to end up back in the same place again, with the added bonus of having lived (or not) through a civil war?
> 
> It's like burning down your house for the pleasure of spending the money to rebuild it exactly as it was.  
> 
> 
> 
> That's the minarchist ideal.


You sidetracked me with that "civil war" guff before.  All of those "phases" you supplied in the first quoted response are happening around us now, already, depending on where you look.  War usually isn't in anyone's best interests, and technology -- like the internet -- provides avenues to counter propaganda which were unavailable in the past.  (Granted, these often are also dissemination points of propaganda itself -- everything is a double-edged sword -- in the battle of ideas, the libertarian philosophy will undoubtedly win.)




> The abolition of the state would result in a civil war (between would be state-builders), out of which would emerge a new state. 
> 
> Power cannot be abolished; if once scattered, it would be only a matter of time until it reappeared. 
> 
> The process by which this occurs is aptly called civil war.


Power never wrests with the individual, even when they are alone?  (Though, "No man is an island...")

----------


## Proph

Government usually represents unilateral violence, but not when there are multiple.  The point I'm trying to get across is that these factions are splintered down to the very individual.  Pompeo deciding not to do anything about Iran seizing a British oil tanker prompted this post.


* *




An Iranian oil tanker was seized on July 4th, presumably over sanctions.  A day after, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander said they would seize a British oil tanker if the UK refused to return theirs.  (They followed through, apparently.)



I was wondering how Pompeo could make the statement that US sanctions were not to blame:



> The responsibility in the first instance falls to the United Kingdom to take care of their ships, Pompeo said, adding, *This isnt because of US sanctions, this is because of the theocracy of the leadership in Iran, the revolutionary zeal to conduct terror around the world, for now four decades, continues.*


When Iran obviously did this in retaliation:



> Iran has said that all 23 crew members on the Stena Impero are safe and in good health, and that it seized the tanker in response to the UKs seizure of one of its own tankers on July 4.


But then it occurred to me that Pompeo is a politician, speaking half-truths.  The two little letters that let him get away with the aforementioned statement are "US" instead of "EU".  All sanctions are awful and unnecessarily escalate conflict.  It's not every day you see a warmonger shy away from an opportunity to go to war, though!  Hopefully the trend will continue and lives will continue to be spared, on all sides.  (Long enough for everyone to figure out what on Earth is happening.)

If you guys haven't heard of Mark Passio, he's great.

----------


## Proph

One of these days, I'll eventually get around to re-posting the original text outside of quotes and with links to ease referencing.  I have multiple reasons for writing all of this and persistently bumping, but the biggest one is this:  *do what you can in the here and now,* because really, that's all you've got.

Sometimes, governments serve the correct purpose.  Actual criminals -- not merely dissidents -- are apprehended.  Corrupt and fraudulent institutions are occasionally investigated.  ("Even a broken clock is right twice a day.")

Too often, political and philosophical discussions devolve into hypotheticals.  Straw-man arguments help no one.  Rather than waiting for ideal conditions, work with what you've got.

Case in point:  Medical Marijuana legalization.  Relatively recent hemp legislation has made current methods for testing inadequate, as most of Texas' facilities are unable to determine the amount of THC on suspected contraband.  (Being interrogated and potentially punished for a substance that you choose to put in your body is absurd, but it still happens.)

Why does any of this matter?  Per the original post, we're living in anarchy and governments exist within it.  There are a myriad of ways to handle entanglements with the State, but reciprocating violence is the most dramatic.  Pulling a trigger is easy, but few heed the consequences of hurting -- if not outright killing -- another human being.  Why take such drastic action when the "law" suddenly shifts in the favor of the persecuted?


* *




Well, if someone kidnaps you, then you're at the mercy -- or lack thereof -- of your captor.  
* *




(I want to discuss Nazi Germany -- and in a very specific way relating to the exacerbating effects of war -- but, I'm not sure how to transition.  I can't just leave the rest unposted, though, because it might serve as a foundation for better discussions in the future.  I'll stop here for now.)

----------


## Proph

> [UNHIDE]Well, if someone kidnaps you, then you're at the mercy -- or lack thereof -- of your captor.  [UNHIDE](*I want to discuss Nazi Germany -- and in a very specific way relating to the exacerbating effects of war -- but, I'm not sure how to transition*.  I can't just leave the rest unposted, though, because it might serve as a foundation for better discussions in the future.  I'll stop here for now.)[/HIDE][/HIDE]


Would Nazis still have felt the urge to gas and incinerate those held captive, had there not been a war at the time?  (That's the crux of this currently non-existent debate.)

Scarcity -- particularly food shortages, which would have been caused by disruptions in supply lines from the war -- can influence people to do things that they otherwise couldn't even imagine.  (Though, this shouldn't be construed as an argument against capitalism, because price signals in the free market help to mitigate this lack of resources.)

Now that I think about it:  *Has intervention by government ever solved anything?*


* *




France helping the colonists during the American Revolution, perhaps?  (But, look at the size of the Leviathan, now!)



You can't escape natural law or economics.

----------


## Proph

This will be my last self-bump.  (Though, I would love if others joined in!)

Ultimately, no one cares.  A handful might, but what can you do besides attempt to educate others?  Those most receptive to the message of liberty are those who have already been directly impacted by the current political system.  What better place to find them than in jails and prisons?  


* *




Of course, there -- in those places -- you must navigate via a different set of politics; and, the stakes become much higher!



Everyone inadvertently commits civil disobedience, some just don't realize it.




> One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ' an unjust law is no law at all. ' 


Violence generally begets violence, but does love necessarily beget love?  Any type of armed conflict will ultimately fail, because the root of the problem is lack of respect for one another, and no weapon will fix that.

----------


## Proph

> One of these days, I'll eventually get around to re-posting the original text outside of quotes and with links to ease referencing.  I have multiple reasons for writing all of this and persistently bumping, but the biggest one is this:  *do what you can in the here and now,* because really, that's all you've got. [...]



Elections are glorified polls that proponents of the State use to justify dominance. The outcome is binding and everyone must adhere to the results, regardless of individual participation; presumably. Statists  essentially, authoritarians  often ignore the absurdity of establishing and supporting such a system, opting to stress the supposed importance of participating in said politics instead. Untangling those convoluted thought processes requires more than words, and attempting to do so via this medium would likely be a waste of time, at this point. Instead, this article is directed at the like-minded, who understand that government in its current incarnation is immoral and wrong, but havent broken out of the traditional way of nation-state thinking, yet.

Can governments exist within anarchy? Initially, the question might appear as a rhetorical oxymoron. By definition, anarchy consists of *no government*; or, more accurately, *no rulers*, but more on that later. Most people stop there, without thinking about the concept itself. We all know that words can be deceptive, though. Just as renaming theft or extortion to something else  say, taxation?  does not change the nature of the action; neither does the costume one wears. (But, dont we all wear costumes, in some form or another? Sorry, I dont mean to turn this into one of THOSE!)

Any newbies that are still hanging around? Excellent. Thank the desired 500 word minimum for this brief interlude. Lets discuss rights. Life, liberty, property? Sure. A better way: As long as your actions dont harm another, consider it a right. Do you have a right to healthcare? Sure. Do you have a right to forcefully take others money to accomplish it? No! Lather, rinse, repeat for anything that is subsidized sans voluntary transactions.

Sending others to intervene in a situation where you, yourself, would hesitate is dastardly; but, who is more culpable in the resulting action: the person who sends the collector, or the one who collects? Both are culpable, but the one committing the action is most reprehensible of all; for, without committing the deed, no one would have been wronged.

But, back to anarchy! Lets be practical. Without militaries or physical impediments of some sort, national borders are as illusory as the security these provisions proclaim to provide. Regions within a national border are further classified into states, counties, and municipalities. Through these jurisdictions  the individuals working within those departments, rather  the law of the land is enforced. The plots shrink, and fences replace borders. Thats the generally accepted conception, at least.

I posit that these enforcers are the true rulers, whether they purport to be or not. But, this doesnt stop with governments. Everywhere  school, work, home  there are hierarchies; especially in the animal kingdom. How, then, can I plausibly state that you live in anarchy, without rulers? Unless youre actively being coerced, youre free. Even while being harassed or threatened, you can still choose how you handle the situation.

This is where Im supposed to talk about self defense, relate it all back to anarchy, and close with Solzhenitsyn; but violence usually isnt the answer. Sometimes its easy to forget that those perpetuating these systems sincerely believe that they are helping, even as they jeopardize the lives of both their victims and themselves via their unnecessary interventions.

Viewing the world through this lens removes some of the abstraction from government, and allows you to see it for what it really is. Topics from sanctions down to speeding tickets become more fungible, but outside of the regular pattern of personal interactions  it becomes clear that other mechanisms are employed. (Control over financial institutions and killer robots come to mind.)

A piece of paper wont prevent abuse. People have a better chance, but not without communication and education. Without respect, logic becomes muted. (That is to say, no one wants to listen to a smart ass.)

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Sorry it took such a ridiculously long time to respond, I lost track of this thread.




> You sidetracked me with that "civil war" guff before.  All of those "phases" you supplied in the first quoted response are happening around us now, already, depending on where you look.  War usually isn't in anyone's best interests, and technology -- like the internet -- provides avenues to counter propaganda which were unavailable in the past.  (Granted, these often are also dissemination points of propaganda itself -- everything is a double-edged sword --


Sometimes states collapse and, when they do, they get rebuilt, yes.

But I don't see how that helps the case for anarcho-capitalism (which is the case you're ultimately trying to make, no?).




> in the battle of ideas, the libertarian philosophy will undoubtedly win.)


The battle of ideas is something of a misnomer.

Which ideas prevail depends on who wins the battle of swords, or guns, or aircraft carriers, not the battle of ideas. 




> Power never wrests with the individual, even when they are alone?  (Though, "No man is an island...")


I'm not sure what you're getting at.

If power means power over others, then there's no such thing on Robinson's island (at least not till Friday appears).

----------


## Proph

> Sorry it took such a ridiculously long time to respond, I lost track of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes states collapse and, when they do, they get rebuilt, yes.
> 
> *But I don't see how that helps the case for anarcho-capitalism (which is the case you're ultimately trying to make, no?).*


The case I'm trying to make is that you're always living in anarchy, regardless of location.  "The State" only manifests itself when enforcers are actively coercing you or others in your vicinity, otherwise you are free.  (Freedom within the mind is a discussion for another time?)




> The battle of ideas is something of a misnomer.
> 
> *Which ideas prevail depends on who wins the battle of swords, or guns, or aircraft carriers, not the battle of ideas.*


Ideas ebb and flow, but are never completely eradicated.  The era of the internet changes this atavistic reliance on physical domination, doesn't it?




> I'm not sure what you're getting at.
> 
> If power means power over others, then there's no such thing on Robinson's island (at least not till Friday appears).


"Power" in that context could be synonymous with liberty; freedom of choice; the ability to do what you want, presuming you don't hurt others of course.  (The "No man is an island" bit was to emphasize voluntarism, which is more plainly spoken in that last descriptor of the previous sentence.)

Don't apologize; thanks for participating!

----------


## Proph

> One of these days, I'll eventually get around to re-posting the original text outside of quotes and with links to ease referencing.  I have multiple reasons for writing all of this and persistently bumping, but the biggest one is this:  *do what you can in the here and now,* because really, that's all you've got.
> 
> Sometimes, governments serve the correct purpose.  Actual criminals -- not merely dissidents -- are apprehended.  Corrupt and fraudulent institutions are occasionally investigated.  ("Even a broken clock is right twice a day.")
> 
> Too often, political and philosophical discussions devolve into hypotheticals.  Straw-man arguments help no one.  Rather than waiting for ideal conditions, work with what you've got.
> 
> Case in point:  Medical Marijuana legalization.  Relatively recent hemp legislation has made current methods for testing inadequate, as most of Texas' facilities are unable to determine the amount of THC on suspected contraband.  (Being interrogated and potentially punished for a substance that you choose to put in your body is absurd, but it still happens.)
> 
> Why does any of this matter?  Per the original post, we're living in anarchy and governments exist within it.  *There are a myriad of ways to handle entanglements with the State, but reciprocating violence is the most dramatic.  Pulling a trigger is easy, but few heed the consequences of hurting -- if not outright killing -- another human being.  Why take such drastic action when the "law" suddenly shifts in the favor of the persecuted?*


This is the post I would like to highlight the most.




> The era of the internet changes this atavistic reliance on physical domination, doesn't it?


And more specifically, discuss the above.

----------


## bv3

So, you are opening the door to the conversation re. the "freedom of the mind"?

The internet is what is accessible on it.  It has a material existence, nebulous perhaps, but I understand that the data available is stored somewhere (on a server, for instance).  This alone makes the internet subject to physical domination, which may be atavistic but will never be archaic.  The era of the internet has modified the reach of physical domination, extending it--rather than challenging it.  I think that the experience of your average Chinese bears this out.  I would even hazard to say that ideological domination is the foundation of physical domination, the latter being exerted only in instance when the former fails.

----------


## Proph

> So, you are opening the door to the conversation re. the "freedom of the mind"?
> 
> The internet is what is accessible on it.  It has a material existence, nebulous perhaps, but I understand that the data available is stored somewhere (on a server, for instance).  This alone makes the internet subject to physical domination, which may be atavistic but will never be archaic.  The era of the internet has modified the reach of physical domination, extending it--rather than challenging it.  I think that the experience of your average Chinese bears this out.  I would even hazard to say that ideological domination is the foundation of physical domination, the latter being exerted only in instance when the former fails.


Wi-fi, Bluetooth, and other forms of communication have become so ubiquitous that controlling them all is impractical, if not impossible.  (So have people!)

I can agree with the notion that ideological domination is the foundation of physical domination; however, attempts at physical domination mean you have already lost.  Really, resorting to outright violence usually isn't necessary, because people police themselves enough already via propagandized fear.  (Better or worse, nothing ever lasts!)

----------


## bv3

> Wi-fi, Bluetooth, and other forms of communication have become so ubiquitous that controlling them all is impractical, if not impossible.  (So have people!)
> 
> I can agree with the notion that ideological domination is the foundation of physical domination; however, attempts at physical domination mean you have already lost.  Really, resorting to outright violence usually isn't necessary, because people police themselves enough already via propagandized fear.  (Better or worse, nothing ever lasts!)


I do not think controlling all communications is necessary, not directly--in-any-case. The use of active measures, combining physical domination and ideological domination to varying extents within a spectacle, makes the _proof_ of dominance in a single, or set of, instances sufficient to control the behavior of others in similar circumstances.  The fact that you could share, let's say, "Unpopular opinion A," and likely not suffer any consequences is of little consolation when you've seen other people subjected to any number of unpleasant consequences for sharing that same opinion. 

As you your caveat, yes!  But I think that the "loss" isn't necessary.  If the physical exertion of power is ineffective at addressing, and curtailing, the ideological nature of the transgression then I suppose it could be a loss.  If the exertion is effective at protecting the integrity of a given ideological...aspect...for lack of a better term, or minimizing the damage done to the same, then what could have been a loss becomes a win, of sorts, in that not only has the ideology been maintained but any future would-be transgressors have been given a "prophylactic" lesson. 

Loosely consider the Civil Rights movement.  Sicking dogs on people, etc.  These are instances wherein physical force is exerted by an ideology in extremis, but failed to protect the integrity of that peculiar ideological aspect (segregation) and actually maximized the damage done to it.  There, the attempt at physical domination was a loss (to the prevailing ideological constellation).

Tienanmen square, at least temporarily (as you say, nothing lasts--and true) is a successful attempt at physical domination because it, evidently, protected some/the ideological aspect(s) that is/are totalitarianism.  Its really an interesting thing to talk about, to me, because even the perception of these events is colored by propaganda (the complex of tailored information delivery that is, itself, the foundation of ideology).  Obviously, what happened in Tienanmen Square is as bad as any single event during the so-called Civil Rights movement.  Maybe one of our more educated members could share what they know about it. But since it isn't expedient in the American context to truly explore that event (to 'propagate' or 'inculcate' it), it is cursorily known by many and understood by almost none (including myself).  

I mean, take genocide--a system of violence designed not only to destroy a people physically, but to extirpate their ideological aspects as well--some are well known, and others not.  I had to stumble across the Gukurahundi in a history of Rhodesia.  Not even my highly educated and even handed history professor knew of it.  There are several genocides and ethnic cleansings currently ongoing in the very age of, "never again."

They are not the same things, the former term involving the destruction of a people and the latter term involving their removal from a specific area.  I think that if a people only exist in a single area, then to ethnically cleanse that region is a de-facto genocide.

sorry for the tome. 

TL;DR: Physical domination, as a last resort, does not necessarily indicate that a specific ideological constellation has lost, merely that it has been challenged.  I feel the need to bring this back to the thread topic of already anarchy.  I feel it is ironic justice that I will use a noted Marxist thinker's famous lines to do so.  Ideological domination reconciles people, through hook or crook, to living in a state wherein they are subject to the laws of their rulers, who are themselves subject to none.  Do you have any thoughts on Louis Althusser?  I've only read his treatise on ideology, and much of what he said rings true.

----------


## Proph

> Loosely consider the Civil Rights movement.  Sicking dogs on people, etc.  *These are instances wherein physical force is exerted by an ideology in extremis, but failed to protect the integrity of that peculiar ideological aspect (segregation) and actually maximized the damage done to it.*  There, the attempt at physical domination was a loss (to the prevailing ideological constellation).


This is the crux, and what I want to emphasize.  Unintended consequences from utilizing violence are the normal, not the exception.  Governments aren't exempt from it, and neither are you.  Neither is anyone.  ("Live by the sword; die by the sword.")


* *




Live by the word[s]; die by the word[s]?




It's funny that you mention Tienanmen Square.  I think propaganda is responsible for the Mandela Effect.  (Again, propaganda is not limited to the government sector; arguably, all messages are just advertising.)

I might revisit this post later, when -- if! -- I have more time.  (Honestly, I've never even heard of Louis Althusser.  I'll have to look into him and his works.)

----------


## bv3

If you are interested in Propaganda then I have a book for you: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=..._evTgd9bR5AjxJ Or just google Jaques Ellul Propaganda and click on the ratical books link for a free PDF.

You are correct that propaganda is not limited to the government sector; however, whether all messages are mere advertising is debatable.  Propaganda is much more than advertising.  Successful advertising campaigns, however, do apply the science of propaganda.

Never mind Althusser.  His work on ideology is interesting and I think accurate but if you are interested in the science of propaganda read Ellul, if and when you have time, its a dense book but...well, you'll see.  Besides, Ellul's work both contains and exceeds Althusser.

----------


## Proph

> I mean, take genocide--a system of violence designed not only to destroy a people physically, but to extirpate their ideological aspects as well--some are well known, and others not.  I had to stumble across the Gukurahundi in a history of Rhodesia.  Not even my highly educated and even handed history professor knew of it.  There are several genocides and ethnic cleansings currently ongoing in the very age of, "never again."


If legacy -- yet, still somehow mainstream -- media did it's job correctly, such atrocities wouldn't be so obscure.  (Though, if the Eye of Sauron did happen to focus on these tragedies, slanted and biased coverage would almost ensure war to follow.)




> TL;DR: *Physical domination, as a last resort, does not necessarily indicate that a specific ideological constellation has lost, merely that it has been challenged.*  I feel the need to bring this back to the thread topic of already anarchy.  I feel it is ironic justice that I will use a noted Marxist thinker's famous lines to do so.  Ideological domination reconciles people, through hook or crook, to living in a state wherein they are subject to the laws of their rulers, who are themselves subject to none.  Do you have any thoughts on Louis Althusser?  I've only read his treatise on ideology, and much of what he said rings true.


Self-defense is the only justifiable use of violence.  Compartmentalization of injustice -- and legal mechanisms like sovereign immunity -- complicates rectification, but commutation becomes possible with communication.  (My attempt at alliteration reads more like plagiarism from a thesaurus!)

Resorting to preemptive, offensive, physical attacks automatically turns you into an aggressor, and you become no different than any other rights-infringing being.  (Forgiveness is the way out, but only the victim possesses that power; no one else.)


* *




I'd never heard of Ellul, either!  (Christian anarchy seems right down my alley!)

----------


## Proph

> If you are interested in Propaganda then I have a book for you: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=..._evTgd9bR5AjxJ Or just google Jaques Ellul Propaganda and click on the ratical books link for a free PDF.
> 
> *You are correct that propaganda is not limited to the government sector; however, whether all messages are mere advertising is debatable.  Propaganda is much more than advertising.  Successful advertising campaigns, however, do apply the science of propaganda.*
> 
> Never mind Althusser.  His work on ideology is interesting and I think accurate but if you are interested in the science of propaganda read Ellul, if and when you have time, its a dense book but...well, you'll see.  Besides, Ellul's work both contains and exceeds Althusser.


What distinguishes propaganda from advertising, though?  I mean, you could just as easily -- and validly -- say that, "Successful propaganda campaigns [...] apply the science of advertising."  (They both have an end goal to persuade the viewer, but propaganda sells ideologies instead of products or services?)

----------


## Proph

> Elections are glorified polls that proponents of the State use to justify dominance. The outcome is binding and everyone must adhere to the results, regardless of individual participation; presumably. Statists  essentially, authoritarians  often ignore the absurdity of establishing and supporting such a system, opting to stress the supposed importance of participating in said politics instead. Untangling those convoluted thought processes requires more than words, and attempting to do so via this medium would likely be a waste of time, at this point. Instead, this article is directed at the like-minded, who understand that government in its current incarnation is immoral and wrong, but havent broken out of the traditional way of nation-state thinking, yet.
> 
> Can governments exist within anarchy? Initially, the question might appear as a rhetorical oxymoron. By definition, anarchy consists of *no government*; or, more accurately, *no rulers*, but more on that later. Most people stop there, without thinking about the concept itself. We all know that words can be deceptive, though. Just as renaming theft or extortion to something else  say, taxation?  does not change the nature of the action; neither does the costume one wears. (But, dont we all wear costumes, in some form or another? Sorry, I dont mean to turn this into one of THOSE!)
> 
> Any newbies that are still hanging around? Excellent. Thank the desired 500 word minimum for this brief interlude. Lets discuss rights. Life, liberty, property? Sure. A better way: As long as your actions dont harm another, consider it a right. Do you have a right to healthcare? Sure. Do you have a right to forcefully take others money to accomplish it? No! Lather, rinse, repeat for anything that is subsidized sans voluntary transactions.
> 
> Sending others to intervene in a situation where you, yourself, would hesitate is dastardly; but, who is more culpable in the resulting action: the person who sends the collector, or the one who collects? Both are culpable, but the one committing the action is most reprehensible of all; for, without committing the deed, no one would have been wronged.
> 
> But, back to anarchy! Lets be practical. Without militaries or physical impediments of some sort, national borders are as illusory as the security these provisions proclaim to provide. Regions within a national border are further classified into states, counties, and municipalities. Through these jurisdictions  the individuals working within those departments, rather  the law of the land is enforced. The plots shrink, and fences replace borders. Thats the generally accepted conception, at least.
> ...





> Also, violence begets violence.  There's too many people itching for rebellion.  *Granted, they're all likely keyboard warriors;* but, they are no different than people who still participate in the political process expecting change:  *They do not know what they clamor for.*
> 
> I like to hope the most recent court ruling is just a first step in the right direction, bringing some legitimacy back to the courts.


Bump for @BSWPaulsen!

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> Bump for @BSWPaulsen!


Okay. I read both posts. For the sake of politeness, I will just ask one question - what were you trying to achieve?

----------

