I am intellectually honest and open to reason. If you would like to fix my unrealistic political philosophy, I eagerly await your enlightenment! I'm so sick and tired of being wrong. You see, somewhere down the road I got the idea that .... whether Anarchy/Voluntarism/Self Government is morally correct or justified doesn't really matter. Because, how in the hell will it ever actually work?
A valid question in the context of a world of "empire" that knows nothing else but "state".
However, I will turn the table on you by asking you how well is what we currently have working out? Do you believe this system of one mob telling the rest what to do is going along smoothly and equitably?
One other point: there have been many anarchic societies and they have worked rather well on the whole. There are even still a few that yet remain, though they are dying out rapidly now. How is it that they survived for perhaps tens of thousands of years? Given the common view of ruler-less societies, one should not be able to reconcile what is viewed as their fundamentally flawed nature with the incredible longevity they have demonstrated. How can this be explained?
Empire is relatively new to humanity... maybe ten thousand years worth, and over most of that time it was confined to those regions that could materially support it. Technological evolution enabled empire to expand into areas where only ruler-less societies existed and proceeded to systematically wipe them out as such, converting the indigenous populations to empire of flavor X, or murdering them. This is the nearly universal pattern and it tells you much (perhaps enough) about the fundamental nature of empire. Given this, ask yourself just how well has empire (AKA "the state") worked out for people? To my eyes, not so very well. In fact, it has amounted to nothing better and nothing less than a catastrophic plague that has ravaged the face of the planet.
The single, sole, and so very lonely advantage that empire holds over free society is that of raw, brute power. People working in concert constitute what becomes functionally indistinguishable from a super-organism. Much as the power of a single cell of a human body pales in comparison with that of the larger organism, so the power of the individual similarly and generally pales in comparison with that of a large population of individuals acting as one. The power of the concept of the division of labor and of workforce management cannot be denied. We experience its effects every moment of every day of our lives. That this cannot be denied, it does not of necessity follow that such an arrangement is superior to that of greater material weakness in other terms.
Human beings are almost universally fascinated with power. It tickles and titillates them endlessly. They allow themselves to seduce themselves with the illusions that arise in power's presence. This is all well and good in terms of individual choice for oneself, but it tends to fail spectacularly in practice because of the overwhelming tendency for a materially more powerful individual to impress his will upon others regardless of whether it is wanted. Welcome to Empire.
It has been endlessly argued in justification of Empire that it has provided us with "more" than freedom ever could. Technologies that improve our health, enable us to travel to the moon, computer networks, and so forth would not have been possible without the cooperation of many. This is arguable, but even if we accept it for the sake of argument, it is a great presumption to assert that these things have made our lives better. By what standard are we improved? By that of what was? Perhaps so, but that was still empire and as it stood, it brought much suffering, death, and misery. But this is all well beside the point, which is that empire always employs force in some form - whether directly or through having imposed such an environment that allows for nothing better than misery and death for those who exercise their "freedom" to decline participation in "the system". One would have to be able to go back to a time prior to empire, to a time where small societies of truly free people lived and, apparently, flourished. Those people, so it seems, were not living in misery despite the dearth of technologies that today so many regard as absolutely essential to survival. How, pray tell, did those ancient people manage without them? How miserable their lives must have been! The point here is that the provisions of empire have been often used to justify its imposition upon those who preferred not to participate. This is a cornerstone of empire - of the thought process that underpins the concept and the consequent practical implementation.
So that is essentially what your "state" is. That is all it has ever been. That is all that it ever CAN be. The "state" is non-existent, yet functions within the confines of peoples' skulls as the somehow credible cover, justification, and excuse for one group of human beings exercising arbitrary power over the rest. The exercise of this power invariably leads to, and in fact depends upon, the application of force to obtain compliance with the will of that mob, AKA "the state".
Given all this, perhaps you can now explain to us how this is superior to free society? Note that I very intentionally refrain from using "anarchy" because of the gross ways in which the meaning of the word has been misused and beaten into something that it ought not be.
So this thread is for those of you that engage in the endless, tiresome debates day-after-day about how your Anarchy is so much more justified than my State. You talk about morals, ethics, philosophy and all that. But who here has the ability to prove that it can all actually work, practically!?
If they are tiresome, why do you participate in them? Who forces you? Are you pulling our collective leg?
For this particular thread there will be a few reasonable guidelines under which the application must occur:
-The setting is America.
-The time is now, including the future.
-All factors must be taken into account.
Arbitrary and unreasonable. People are people no matter where you go. I responded above in the general.
1. How will we go from the oppressive State we have in America now, to Anarchy?
(<---- No Hollywood/Fairy-Tale shit, be realistic)
We won't, most likely. The only opportunity I see for this happening, and even then it is a slim chance, is in the wake of a truly monumental catastrophe that completely unhinges the current power structure such that it does not recover. In such a wake, the most likely result in the majority of smaller populations will be a return to some form of feudalism. It may not be nightmarish, but it will still see a "strong man" taking control of things, probably "saving the day" and thereby being elevated to "chief", which in time may come to mean absolute ruler.
There may, however, arise a few pockets of survivors who will establish free societies. How long they can survive against what will almost certainly and inevitably be encroaching empire from other corners is anyone's guess. Our state of technology would, I suspect, give a well managed free society at least even odds at maintaining itself. But the more insidious threat will always come from within. The mentality of empire is powerful and the lure of power that it dangles before the eyes of all is enormously compelling. Couple that with the endless varieties of highly compelling, if wholly fallacious and untruthful, arguments that have been used to gain the acceptance of tyrannies of all flavors throughout human history, I would be very surprised to find that such a free culture and society could last even three or four generations. In the presence of empire, freedom stands in the shadows of a great and almost endlessly powerful, not to mention tireless, enemy. As I reflect on my studies of human culture and history, it becomes clear to me that the two are inherently incompatible and that those free societies that have survived did so precisely because they have been insulated from empire. The moment empire steps in, freedom is eradicated at every level.
2. How long do you suppose it will take?
Forever, all else equal. People do NOT want real freedom. They want pretty slavery - the gilt cage - something for nothing. This is the overwhelming human proclivity for most. Real freedom requires three things. Firstly, it requires courage because while it is exhilarating on the one hand, it is shit-scary on the other. Secondly, it requires respect for oneself and for others, assuming that longer-term survival is one of the goals. Thirdly, it requires responsibility for oneself and, minimally, toward others (cause no harm) - accountability for one's actions particularly in how they effect others. Without these, without the unstinting intent and application of them in every action of every moment of every day of our lives, freedom becomes impossible in the longer term - doomed to fail at the hands of morbid greed and lassitude. How many people do you know who are so inclined?
3. If you are waiting for the State to be overthrown by the people ... what makes you think the gangs/mobs won't grab power? The National Guard?
In a violent revolution of such proportions we will likely pass from one form of tyranny to another. I cannot readily recall a single example from human history where this has not been the case. Anyone?
4. What's to stop the elite and bankers from buying people out?
This is a truly ridiculous question, but to give an answer: there is perhaps nothing to stop them from trying and if they do, there is a great statistical certainty that some non-trivial proportion of a given population will take the bait. This is virtually guaranteed. Empire has almost everything in its favor and almost nothing against it. It preys on every weakness that humans hold. That is a pretty sad truth.
Now where's my rep?
