Anarchism is more of a complaint than a solution.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm on my phone and can't see the entire thread, but I believe I saw some people asking why Ireland/Iceland came to an end after 100s of years.

How many libertarian, constitutionalist, or minarchist societies lasted that long?

+rep for an excellent point!

 

[Christian Liberty]

You know, I find this whole debate rather amusing because the question is rarely ever defined. If the question is, "Is anarchy ideal?", then I think everyone is an anarchist. I don't think you could find a single person that doesn't think it would be great if we could all live peaceably without government. If the question is, "Is anarchy possible?" then I believe anyone who's being honest with themselves knows that it's not possible to have a society without a state. The question, "Do we need government?" is completely moot because we can't get rid of it. No sane person would argue that government is an ideal. At best, it's a necessary evil. Even the most hardcore statists operate under the assumption that more government is not necessarily a good thing, but it is necessary. Whether or not this is true, anarchy is simply a willingness to outwardly express that you believe the absence of government is an ideal condition, but it makes no claims as to the viability of achieving that.

Really I think only minarchists feel this way. Most want to use the state to control others

It really is, I see anarchists bash voting and such things all the time. But never give solutions, it's all complaining and whining all the time. Don't get me wrong, I would shed no tears if the Gov disappeared tomorrow, but anarchists for the most part are not working towards that in any practicable way.

not all anarchists say voting is wrong. Just because you prefer overseer soft over mr harsh doesn't mean supporting slavery.

Abolitionists complained about slavery without ever providing a solution to the cotton picking problem

That.

Agreed. I also like to see an anarchistic society field a fighting force strong enough to fend off organized outside forces. No leaders and rulers right? Let's see how that affects military tactics on the battlefield. Could they even muster a fighting force? I have my doubts, but for sake of argument say they could. What happens when person A wants person B to perform a flanking maneuver on the enemy and that person(s) refuse? Roman armies conquered numerous peoples because they lacked cohesion and discipline on the battlefield. Do anarchists even bother to read history?

 

[William Tell]

Do you agree with the principles though

I would shed no tears if the Government totally went away.

Maybe taxation cant 100 percent eliminated, but do you agree that it's wrong and that the closer to zero the better?

I agree that taxation is negative, a curse if you will. God warned his people about it through the prophet Samuel. Zero is my favorite percentage of Taxation as well.

Or is there some degree of taxation that you want and accept?

I don't want any taxation, but I think our elected officials following the Constitution would be a great thing. Perhaps things would become even better after that happens. Supply and demand, demand liberty!

Do you agree that the statist legal monopoly is immoral, even if unavoidable?

Hmmmm.... Depends what you mean by that. I think the wronged have a right to justice, whether they are wronged by common criminals, this justice system or any other entity. I think murderers etc should not be tolerated, however, I have no problem with anyone escaping so called justice if they truly repent. So my views do not fit into a typical legal mindset. Restitution should be required, but some crimes can not be repaid with money. I do not know what is the best solution in such cases from a perspective of worldly justice. I support Justice and second chances. I guess I am to theological on it...

What is your ultimate goal?

I think the best thing would be a moral society where most of this is irrelevant.

im not against all political efforts, as long as they move us closer to a stateless society, even if the guy in question is a minarchist o r constituionalist

Good, because the anarchists are not making progress outside of the internet right now.

 

[William Tell]

not all anarchists say voting is wrong. Just because you prefer overseer soft over mr harsh doesn't mean supporting slavery.

I know some of those guys, and get along with them just fine. I view voting as another arena to fight for liberty. The main one in my view at this point, beyond the minds of the people that is.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I know some of those guys, and get along with them just fine. I view voting as another arena to fight for liberty. The main one in my view at this point, beyond the minds of the people that is.

I'll answer the rest when I'm not on a iPod that s hard to use. But I guess I'm slightly different from you in that I see voting as the secondary method and educational efforts as primary. I also think voting for Cruz/Le e types is a tactical error, the will stab us in th back,

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Missing the point, so you may say anarchism works, GREAT! Now how are you trying to implement it?

I'm not trying to implement anything. I just want people to leave each other the fuck alone and engage others peacefully, rationally, and voluntarily. This is, unfortunately, a major challenge for most people. I have no dog in the minarchist/anarchist duel-I just prefer the latter if the choice is limited so narrowly.

 

[William Tell]

I'll answer the rest when I'm not on a iPod that s hard to use. But I guess I'm slightly different from you in that I see voting as the secondary method and educational efforts as primary.

I did say education is the main thing, uneducated people are a harder sell from a political perspective. And if the current system collapses, we need an informed public to stay away from the rising tyrants.

I also think voting for Cruz/Le e types is a tactical error, the will stab us in th back,

I think Lee is fine, he's not perfect obviously, but I think you are wrong if you think we would be better off without him in the Senate. I don't trust Cruz for a number of reasons, but he is an odd one, I support people who are sort of his type. I think if he and Rand had been running for the same Senate seat they would have sounded about the same. So it's really a smell test thing. I live in Texas and did not vote for Cruz, I voted for other candidates in the Primaries and Runoffs. But overall I am glad Dewhurst lost.

 

[William Tell]

I'm not trying to implement anything. I just want people to leave each other the fuck alone and engage others peacefully, rationally, and voluntarily. This is, unfortunately, a major challenge for most people. I have no dog in the minarchist/anarchist duel-I just prefer the latter if the choice is limited so narrowly.

Gotcha' but we are in serious dog dung right now, I wanna get as far out of it as possible right now. The short term is my issue, I wanna be left alone too.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I did say education is the main thing, uneducated people are a harder sell from a political perspective. And if the current system collapses, we need an informed public to stay away from the rising tyrants.



I think Lee is fine, he's not perfect obviously, but I think you are wrong if you think we would be better off without him in the Senate. I don't trust Cruz for a number of reasons, but he is an odd one, I support people who are sort of his type. I think if he and Rand had been running for the same Senate seat they would have sounded about the same. So it's really a smell test thing. I live in Texas and did not vote for Cruz, I voted for other candidates in the Primaries and Runoffs. But overall I am glad Dewhurst lost.

I'm not saying better, but I don't tink people like him are different enoughg for it to mater. Frankly, even Rand is probably closer in absolute terms to the status quo than to. He ideal. Politics only really works if the candidates object to the status quo on principle, a nd mos t of today's so called liberty candidates just
dont.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Gotcha' but we are in serious dog dung right now, I wanna get as far out of it as possible right now. The short term is my issue, I wanna be left alone too.

Fair enough. As long as you can distinguish short term necessities and long term goals like that, you'll fare well and we'll get along quite well. ~hugs~

 

[Madison320]

I'm having a very hard time picturing some invading force occupying the (used to be) USA. 300,000,000 privately owned firearms in guerrilla hands could make for a very expensive and bloody occupation.

The invading force can just drop a few bombs.

 

[Madison320]

What I'm saying is that competing privately owned armies would be the best and most economical way for an Anarchist society to defend itself from government, with insurgency as a backup option incase private companies fail.

Who's going to pay for the army? Are you going to have a vote? Who's going to hold the election? Who's going to certify the vote? Who's going to decide which army to hire? What happens if the army you hire starts raiding people's stuff? Don't you see that as soon as a you decide to do any of these things you have a GOVERNMENT?

You're making the mistake of applying free market principles to force. Force doesn't work that way. You can't shop for an army like you shop for a car. You can freely pick your car. You can't freely pick the army, the army picks you.

 

[Pericles]

Who's going to pay for the army? Are you going to have a vote? Who's going to hold the election? Who's going to certify the vote? Who's going to decide which army to hire? What happens if the army you hire starts raiding people's stuff? Don't you see that as soon as a you decide to do any of these things you have a GOVERNMENT?

You're making the mistake of applying free market principles to force. Force doesn't work that way. You can't shop for an army like you shop for a car. You can freely pick your car. You can't freely pick the army, the army picks you.

If mercenaries are any good at what they do, they have already figured out that there is no point in working for peanuts in pay when they can have everything.

 

[William Tell]

If mercenaries are any good at what they do, they have already figured out that there is not point in working for peanuts in pay when they can have everything.

Yep, anarchy is just the transition phase before military dictatorship is established, traditionally.

 

[Madison320]

Yep, anarchy is just the transition phase before military dictatorship is established, traditionally.

That's why I think it's far more realistic to try to figure out a way to keep government in check, vs trying to establish an anarchy. The former is extremely difficult but the latter is impossible.

 

[Ronin Truth]

The invading force can just drop a few bombs.

I'm talking after that. Occupation not decimation.

 

[Madison320]

I'm talking after that. Occupation not decimation.

Yeah, it would be difficult to occupy the US even without an army. But it would suck BADLY to be living here trying to fend off an invading army. I'd rather pay a little to have an army and not have to worry about my house getting bombed or raided.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Yeah, it would be difficult to occupy the US even without an army. But it would suck BADLY to be living here trying to fend off an invading army. I'd rather pay a little to have an army and not have to worry about my house getting bombed or raided.

Often the invading army just comes in and takes over the existing government infrastructure, functions and resources and VIOLA, bigger army.

 

[erowe1]

Yep, anarchy is just the transition phase before military dictatorship is established, traditionally.

Source?

 

[ProIndividual]

Anyway the reason I said anarchism is more of a complaint is because I think "no government" is basically an impossible condition.

Then how did we have law, roads, trade, charity, defense, etc. for at least 8,000 years before the state came into existence? Having "no govt" is equivalent to the following: "having no legalized criminal organization of murderers and extortionists who yet outlaw all competitors while extolling their own need and virtue", and alternatively "crime is illegal for everyone, not just everyone except the parasitical political priest caste".

The state is not society. It did not invent society or civilized behavior. Statelessness predates the state by thousands of years, it lasted longer on average (despite nonsense, ahistorical claims it was incapable of law or defense), and it didn't legalize crime for a minority group called "politicians" and their thug enforcers. The state is not only unethical...which is inarguable using any logic whatsoever...but it is also an unnecessary evil.

As Benjamin Tucker once said "The State is said by some to be a necessary evil; it must be made unnecessary."

How much time and money have you, or the state, spent on trying to make the state's necessity unnecessary? As technology, anthropological knowledge, and human intelligence has increased over the last 200,000 years of our anatomically modern existence, how much time and resources have been dedicated to this task? How is that the govt is claimed to be MORE necessary than ever, yet common sense would stipulate the changes over the last 200,000 years would make the markets MORE capable and govt LESS necessary to perform these tasks for society?

How is govt NOT antisocial? Antisocial behavior is generally understood to be behavior which violates the right of others repeatedly, is parasitic, and is directly and measurably harmful, defrauding, and endangers imminently. How is that not exactly what the state does?

And the word "govt" started off as a VERB, not a noun. "No govt" is statelessness if used as a noun (as you used it)...but as a verb (the original use) it is indeed impossible to have "no govt"...as you need to govern yourself in order not to violate the autonomy (or rights) of others (an act which is illegal in stateless societies). It matters how you use the word.

Anarchists aren't against you governing yourself, or you governing those incapable of consent (if you have kids, or a severely mentally disturbed or handicapped adult family member, etc.). We aren't even against you governing those who create victims (self defense, for example). We are against you coercively monopolizing governance, or cartelizing it, or turning certain markets into a monopsony, in order to threaten possible competitors in the markets of defense and nonviolent dispute resolution services (law) from better serving consumers with lower prices than the state provides, better quality service than the state gives, or with more accountability to the consumers that the state can't provide. We also are against you threatening consumers with the same rape cages and property seizure the state threatens competitors with to keep them away from consumers...in other words, we're against ALL taxes (extortion legalized), as that is forcing consumers to buy your product/services on the threat of violent reprisal (same as when you try to compete against the state).

Which markets do you think cease to exist when they aren't coercively cartelized, monopolized, or turned into monopsony? Which of these markets do you think DO NOT run on consumer demand purely (in the absence of the state), but instead exist only because coercion can make them exist? Why is it you think people don't demand defense and nonviolent dispute resolution on the markets? If they don't demand them on the market, why would the state feel it politically necessary to provide them? Why do they use them ("law and order" and "heroes" and "defense") as memes to sell other things they do if they aren't market demanded by the people at large?

What other markets require legalized organized crime (cartel, monopoly, monopsony) to run, and do not simply require market demand to create incentive for market supply?

The state is more of a complaint than a solution. It says "we can't have things the way we want, because of that damn Free Will thing, so we'll use coercion to get it, even if it sucks worse than the alternative - which we'll brainwash kids to believe is an untenable solution". Want wars you can't convince soldiers to fight of their own Free Will, and can't convince citizens are justified enough to fund? No problem...just form a state monopsony on "defense" (which usually is actually offensive, not defensive, more times than not). Don't have the ability to persuade people not to do things you deem objectionable (but are not victimizing non-consenting people capable of consent)? No problem...coercively cartelize the legal market, and eventually monopolize it therefore, and you can make them do as you say.

Just pretend the individuals cease to exist when the word "society" and "civilization" are used to describe masses of individuals....then you can claim someone or some group "harm society" without proving it by pointing out individuals who were actually victimized, and then you can also claim to do things for the "good of society" while trampling the rights of, and being a parasite on, individuals within that collective label. Then you can use Orwellian doublespeak and doublethink, and the cognitive dissonance necessary to fuel them, to claim antisocial behavior like the state is necessary to protect and preserve society. Nothing, of course, could be more absurd.