So. I think I'm an anarchist

[powerofreason]

Any system -- constitutional limited government, anarchy, anything can be abused. There is no system you can devise which will withstand a lazy and uneducated populace unwilling to protect their freedoms.

No ones saying the absence of government will bring everyone eternal peace and prosperity. Socialists are utopians, not free marketeers.

 

[powerofreason]

I'm talking about Government Anarchy.

err what? me confused.

Government=leaders

anarchy=no leaders

 

[MGreen]

I'm talking about Government Anarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron

 

[FrankRep]

err what? me confused.

Government=leaders

anarchy=no leaders

A leader like Ghengis Kahn will always rise to take power and try to build an empire.

 

[FrankRep]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron

"No Government" is a type of Government.

 

[tremendoustie]

No ones saying the absence of government will bring everyone eternal peace and prosperity. Socialists are utopians, not free marketeers.

Yes, I was responding to your statement:

I would be perfectly fine with a limited government that stayed that way. But we tried that, and it didn't work. The American republic was established under the best possible circumstances but it still didn't work out in the end.

You state that limited government "didn't work", yet I am pointing out the fault was not in the form of government, but in our vigilance in the preservation of our rights. I think it's fairly obvious that a lazy, uneducated populace unwilling to protect their rights would also lead to very poor government (perhaps even worse) if we had started from anarchy.

 

[powerofreason]

Yes, I was responding to your statement:



You state that limited government "didn't work", yet I am pointing out the fault was not in the form of government, but in our vigilance in the preservation of our rights. I think it's fairly obvious that a lazy, uneducated populace unwilling to protect their rights would also lead to very poor government (perhaps even worse) if we had started from anarchy.

You don't think apathy is inevitable?

 

[powerofreason]

A leader like Ghengis Kahn will always rise to take power and try to build an empire.

Ghengis Khan? Get real man this is the 21st century.

 

[tremendoustie]

err what? me confused.

Government=leaders

anarchy=no leaders

Yet, there would be leaders of the "security" providers, the militias, etc. This goes to my earlier question (real difference between anarchism and small government). I've got to go now, but if someone's up for it, please look back a page or two, and answer my questions (since I still don't really get it) . Thanks!

 

[powerofreason]

Your neighborhood won't be overrun by axe-wielding bloodthirsty barbarians. I promise.

 

[tremendoustie]

You don't think apathy is inevitable?

I don't, actually.

Or, if it is, perhaps this is what the founders meant when they said the tree of liberty had to be watered from time to time ...

 

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Someone said if a powerful, militaristic nation rolled into the "Anarchy States of America," with an organized military invasion, we'd be "wiped off the map."

The fallacy, of course, is that there is no "Anarchy States of America" in a stateless society. So if the Chinese or Russians roll into, say, the eastern coast of the American continent, there's no specific building, i.e. the White House, that they can just lay seige to and claim the whole country. There's no governmental system that they can just hijack to take over everything. They'd have to put soldiers on the ground everywhere, a logistical impossibility.

Where natural resources are particularly high, defense business would also be high.

The Chinese would take America from us like the U.S. took America from the Natives, slowly over time.

They would build forts and force us west until we were on "reservations".

 

[powerofreason]

Yet, there would be leaders of the "security" providers, the militias, etc. This goes to my earlier question (real difference between anarchism and small government). I've got to go now, but if someone's up for it, please look back a page or two, and answer my questions (since I still don't really get it) . Thanks!

One of the main criticisms of anarcho-capitalism is that the largest provider of private defense will become the new state. This could happen, but then we're back to where we started from, right?

 

[RonPaulVolunteer]

How will it not? The only way you can prevent something like this is to organize some form of defense. Which is government.

There is NO POINT in arguing with an anarchist. It's the same as arguing with a Communist.

 

[powerofreason]

The Chinese would take America from us like the U.S. took America from the Natives, slowly over time.

They would build forts and force us west until we were on "reservations".

Sounds better than the Chicoms marching into D.C. and declaring communist rule over the nation with the apparatus and infrastructure in place to control everything.

 

[powerofreason]

There is NO POINT in arguing with an anarchist. It's the same as arguing with a Communist.

orly

 

[FrankRep]

Ghengis Khan? Get real man this is the 21st century.

Adolph Hitler then.

 

[Conza88]

The Chinese would take America from us like the U.S. took America from the Natives, slowly over time.

They would build forts and force us west until we were on "reservations".

Good luck any nation on earth attempting to occupy the Bronx, or 5 Boroughs....

Did the anarcho-communists (Indians have guns? Private property rights?) You've got a flawed analogy / situation there.... Those tribes, i.e the aboriginals / Indians, failed because they contained socialism.

In an anarcho-capitalistic society... think free market defence people fighting for their lives & property, who are able to form coalition, militia's, organizations FREELY & voluntarily to defend against the imposing collective menace. The demand for weaponry and guns in the local country would increase; there would be profit incentive to manufacture the best new weapons etc to defend your property with. The entrepreneur would respond.

Free market vs the state apparatus? The state always loses. Which is why it legislates against the free market. Tries to regulate it... The ULTIMATE regulation? The Federal Reserve / Central bank.... 5th plank of the communist manifesto.

Point being there would be no current apparatus to just waltz in and take over, like Washington. If the society / people don't recognize the law / authority... that presumes to be in charge and has taken over... then they are in for a long, rough, ride... which will inevitably fail. They won't be collecting taxes, getting benefits from the occupation, if they are continually getting jibbed by revolutionaries within the populace costs are going to keep on going up, expenses etc will become to high..

See: The FIRST American Revolution....

 

[Conza88]

There is NO POINT in arguing with an anarchist. It's the same as arguing with a Communist.

Well sure... because most anarchists are anarcho-socialists / communists... Makes sense.. they have a flawed ideology / perspective on human nature and economic / political systems...

 

[powerofreason]

I don't, actually.

Or, if it is, perhaps this is what the founders meant when they said the tree of liberty had to be watered from time to time ...

People will never become politically complacent or apathetic? Where is this utopia at? And yes, that is what they meant. Was it Jefferson that said if the people truly cared about their freedoms there would be a revolution every 20 years?