The anarchists are the realists, not the utopian dreamers.

[Kraig]

Just a thought I wanted to share. Government does not work and history has proven this. Even a government with such a wonderful start as the US constitution has now been proven as a failure, anarchists are not the ones ignoring history. The real Utopian dreamers are those who wish and believe in something that cannot exist for anything longer than a short period of time - limited government.

I believe limited government should be the goal for now, but never the end goal. If we, or someone, was to somehow create an ideal form of government - lets say it is even better than the US constitution - to remain ideal after it's creation it would have to work towards anarchy, not big government. I don't think a stand still is possible, I'm not even sure if a limited government working towards anarchy would be possible. Perhaps if the original enlightened men who created it worked towards this goal and set a trend it could last until government grew so small it did not exist.

Once an ideal limited government grows one inch bigger, it's days are numbered and it's path to tyranny is short.

 

[acptulsa]

Yeah, but all people--notice I said all people--living in harmony is as unrealistic a goal as honest government that always knows its place. It's all the same problem, isn't it? Either the biggest becomes a bully (anarchy) or the most charismatic becomes a bully (democracy) or the one whose parent was the biggest bully retains the family tradition (monarchy) or...

 

[Theocrat]

Put Up, or Shut Up

Can you provide one example of an anarchical society in history which flourished as a nation, even greater than the United States?

 

[Truth Warrior]

Atheists "get" Church.
Anarchists "get" State.

Very few "get" both.

I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
George Carlin

 

[sailor]

Also on a similar note you could say that the statists are the real anarchists if by anarchy you mean absence of law.

Because if you observe closely every coercive government is outside of law and outside of decency.

You can`t have law by delegating all the judicial powers to the one entity that is actually by definition outside of law. Law must be there for all. State is negation of the rule of law. Because the state claims to be exempt from the laws that govern the rest of us. We can not rightfuly steal, but the state claims that she can!

 

[Kraig]

Can you provide one example of an anarchical society in history which flourished as a nation, even greater than the United States?

Palestine was a good example until the states entered the picture. I don't think it is fair to compare an anarchist society to a government society like that and expect them to compete, the United States was created on violence. Maybe the United States pre-1913, but even before then a large amount of their success was at the direct expense of the native Americans.

 

[sailor]

Can you provide one example of an anarchical society in history which flourished as a nation, even greater than the United States?

LOL. Thats rather hubristic defining greatness as something synonymous to the USA.

What did Jesus say about pride?

 

[acptulsa]

Also on a similar note you could say that the statists are the real anarchists if by anarchy you mean absence of law.

Because if you observe closely every coercive government is outside of law and outside of decency.

You can`t have law by delegating all the judicial powers to the one entity that is actually by definition outside of law. Law must be there for all. State is negation of the rule of law. Because the state claims to be exempt from the laws that govern the rest of us. We can not rightfuly steal, but the state claims that she can!

You have a point. But, of course, the theory is that the state is the great equalizer...

I think the greatest danger to the rule of law is to have too many. How can ignorance of the law be no excuse if there are so damned many of them that not even a bar-certified L.L.D. can sort them all out?

 

[Truth Warrior]

Also on a similar note you could say that the statists are the real anarchists if by anarchy you mean absence of law.

Because if you observe closely every coercive government is outside of law and outside of decency.

You can`t have law by delegating all the judicial powers to the one entity that is actually by definition outside of law. Law must be there for all. State is negation of the rule of law.

Thought experiment: Imagine each "nation" as one individual each, where's the "government"?
( The bogus NWO U.N. government "template" doesn't count.<IMHO> )

 

[Kraig]

Because if you observe closely every coercive government is outside of law and outside of decency.

That is the nature of all governments. All governments are coercive and all governments are above the law because they create and enforce it.

In people's ideology government is the rule of law, in the real world it is the rule of a few men and always will be.

 

[ARealConservative]

history proves that government is inevitable.

It works poorly, but government exists in every nook and cranny of this planet. To say it doesn't work is sticking your head in the sand.

The sad truth is it works a little too well at controlling the masses.

 

[Kraig]

Thought experiment: Imagine each "nation" as one individual each, where's the "government"?
( The bogus U.N. doesn't count.<IMHO> )

Exactly my friend. Governments (which is a few men, not some mystical entity) enjoy anarchy while the rest of us are forced to be under them.

 

[sailor]

Yeah, but all people--notice I said all people--living in harmony is as unrealistic a goal as honest government that always knows its place. It's all the same problem, isn't it? Either the biggest becomes a bully (anarchy) or the most charismatic becomes a bully (democracy) or the one whose parent was the biggest bully retains the family tradition (monarchy) or...

But you fail to see one thing.

In a democracy there is propaganda that legitimises the bullying.

In a monarchy there is propaganda that legitimises the bullying.

But anarchy is a state where nobody accepts propaganda for the bullying.

There will always be people who want to be bullies. But bullies suceed only because many people are duped into believing that bullying is perfectly OK or that it is neccesary and legitimate. If nobody bought into their legitimacy they could never suceed no matter how much violence they used and how strong they were. The society would always be stronger.

 

[Xenophage]

Atheists "get" Church.
Anarchists "get" State.

Very few "get" both.

I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
George Carlin

Appealing to my atheism, I see.

But the comparison is different, even as attractive as the idea might sound.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

history proves that government is inevitable.

It works poorly, but government exists in every nook and cranny of this planet. To say it doesn't work is sticking your head in the sand.

The sad truth is it works a little too well at controlling the masses.

IMHO, saying that government doesn't work is an honest assessment based on thousands of years of history-not "sticking your head in the sand". On the other hand, saying that government works better than autarchy is sticking your head in the sand. There's plenty of empirical and rhetorical evidence on these threads and in voluminous "anarchist" literature to back this assertion. Go have a looksee at the previous threads dedicated to this subject to see for yourself.

 

[Original_Intent]

Atheists "get" Church.
Anarchists "get" State.

Very few "get" both.

Just because atheists "get" church does not mean there is no God. It just means that religions are screwed up, no that unbelief is "correct"

Just because Anarchists "get" the state does not mean that NO givernment is the "correct" answer to the problem. Leviathan government came to America because the population was not vigilant in making sure the "chains of the Constitution" properly kept the elected officials in check.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be.

The ends do NOT justify the means.

 

[sailor]

It works poorly, but government exists in every nook and cranny of this planet. To say it doesn't work is sticking your head in the sand.

The sad truth is it works a little too well at controlling the masses.

It works but who does it work for? The society at large, or for itself? It works for itself, to the detriment of the people. Everywhere and always.

But if you call that "working" you can also say that malaria works. Yes malaria works! It works great for malaria!

 

[Truth Warrior]

Just because atheists "get" church does not mean there is no God. It just means that religions are screwed up, no that unbelief is "correct"

Just because Anarchists "get" the state does not mean that NO givernment is the "correct" answer to the problem. Leviathan government came to America because the population was not vigilant in making sure the "chains of the Constitution" properly kept the elected officials in check.

Reading BETWEEN the lines of what I post will ONLY get you into trouble.<IMHO>

 

[ARealConservative]

It works but who does it work for? The society at large, or for itself? It works for itself, to the detriment of the people. Everywhere and always.

But if you call that "working" you can also say that malaria works. Yes malaria works! It works great for malaria!

Works is a pretty open ended label to use. Government is clearly working, otherwise it wouldn't be so prevalent.

So your malaria comparison may not be too far from the truth.