Most of the anarchists (and there haven't been many) I've dealt with have been incredibly caustic. It's all "liberals this, and bourgeoisie that" , and a weird fetish for wrecking people's shit. One friend of mine was all about that until he came back from basic, and then he was a regular dude. I didn't even bother asking what changed or if what he believed before still applied.
Also from what I can tell there's not much to it other than the last scene from Fight Club.
And all the Libertarians I know believe Dr. Ron Paul is Jesus, and that His ideas will fix the world full stop.
You know. The movie Fight Club is enjoyable, but it always drives me nuts how they ended it. Deliberately or not, it leads people to thinking the author originally intended to reveal some great anarchist motive. The book, though, makes it clear that the confusion over masculine identity is really just an isolating factor in men's lives. It's about loneliness and an inability to connect with others. It's not some disestablishment manifesto, it comments on how lonely men in the modern world can end up. In fact, I think the whole book and movie clearly demonstrate the NEED for government, as Project Mayhem escalates beyond the control of the semi-benevolent fascist leader.
Not that it matters, but this is what Palahniuk has said about the book. People will misinterpret as they will.
It may have already been confronted, but I wouldn't mind Ray (or any libertarian) answer the inevitable Superpower Dilemma--namely, the United States is the world superpower, and it didn't get there through magnetism, clever diplomatic ruses, and smoke screens: it got there by having the largest economy in the world, and funneling a huge chunk of it for things like trying to make satellites that could shoot down ICBMs, and having ten super gigantic aircraft carriers.
You can't really have that in a libertarian state. And America has been a superpower for a very long time. And like most superpowers, it seems fairly opposed to the notion of not being a superpower. So...do what? Tell all those militarists "Go fuck yourselves," and resort to threatening people with nuclear weapons and not being able to kill whoever we want when we want? That seems like a hell of a thing to give up.
And you can believe that there are many, many countries in the world--China, India, Russian Fed.--that do not give a shit about libertarianism and will very happily fill that gap.
I think a number of Libertarians would prefer to simply leave the US behind and found a new nation somewhere else. Rayofash mentioned the Free State Project and the purchase of private islands as options, and some fancy-pants Facebook investor wants to pay people to make artificial islands for this purpose.
I think that's wise, and not just because dismantling US power is going to be harder than making a free energy source to power their Gulch. Hypothetically speaking: Leaving the US intact as a superpower, and stocking your fledgling nation with US expats with strong political/business ties, could help you to lean on them for favors and protection you would inevitably require.
Most of the anarchists (and there haven't been many) I've dealt with have been incredibly caustic. It's all "liberals this, and bourgeoisie that" , and a weird fetish for wrecking people's shit. One friend of mine was all about that until he came back from basic, and then he was a regular dude. I didn't even bother asking what changed or if what he believed before still applied.
Makes sense. Libertarianism seems to be an expression of a crisis in masculinity. The privilege you used to get for being young, white and male is much reduced these days, which leaves young men feeling powerless in comparison to previous generations of the same. When a five foot nothing woman can be your boss and make you feel like dirt for screwing up, those with might (young, strong men) feel a yearning for the days when might meant right.
When your friend found a purpose in life, that angst went away.
0
Options
Lord_SnotЖиву за выходныеAmerican ValhallaRegistered Userregular
They may also be payed in time cards or something which they can use to buy luxury goods, there are different ideas for that.
Like coal miners getting paid in scrip. That idea worked out beautifully.
That was very different. That was a means of slavery. The coal miners didn't own the mine, and the goods were priced to keep them starving and indentured.
>Who makes sure that they minimize pollution?
There are different ideas. There could be an organization that monitors businesses, the community can do it themselves, all kinds of things.
I'm curious, what is an example of a large scale libertarian ideology in the real world, at any point in history? The closest I can think of is several failed African states.
Iceland used to have a libertarian capitalist society. The Hutterites currently live a libertarian socialist lifestyle here in the US, Spain had an anarchist society for a little while and Sweden did as well (though that was more of a large hippy commune). Madagascar's government stays out of its country side and the people live with no government oversight.
What? There were anarchist factions during the civil war, but Spain has never been anarchist.
Ron Paul style Libertarianism, or anarcho-capitalism is absolutely vile.
Anarcho-socialism/libertarian socialism will probably work one day, in a post-scarcity society, but not for many hundreds, if not thousands of years.
They may also be payed in time cards or something which they can use to buy luxury goods, there are different ideas for that.
Like coal miners getting paid in scrip. That idea worked out beautifully.
That was very different. That was a means of slavery. The coal miners didn't own the mine, and the goods were priced to keep them starving and indentured.
>Who makes sure that they minimize pollution?
There are different ideas. There could be an organization that monitors businesses, the community can do it themselves, all kinds of things.
I'm curious, what is an example of a large scale libertarian ideology in the real world, at any point in history? The closest I can think of is several failed African states.
Iceland used to have a libertarian capitalist society. The Hutterites currently live a libertarian socialist lifestyle here in the US, Spain had an anarchist society for a little while and Sweden did as well (though that was more of a large hippy commune). Madagascar's government stays out of its country side and the people live with no government oversight.
What? There were anarchist factions during the civil war, but Spain has never been anarchist.
Ron Paul style Libertarianism, or anarcho-capitalism is absolutely vile.
Anarcho-socialism/libertarian socialism will probably work one day, in a post-scarcity society, but not for many hundreds, if not thousands of years.
In true internet anarcho-tradition I present you a 10 minute video with little to no explanation.
Except I conveniently picked out a relevant section dealing with what the anarchist groups turned into in Spain. I'd hate to have ended up in the anarcho group that says no dancing.
Malkor on
0
Options
Lord_SnotЖиву за выходныеAmerican ValhallaRegistered Userregular
They may also be payed in time cards or something which they can use to buy luxury goods, there are different ideas for that.
Like coal miners getting paid in scrip. That idea worked out beautifully.
That was very different. That was a means of slavery. The coal miners didn't own the mine, and the goods were priced to keep them starving and indentured.
>Who makes sure that they minimize pollution?
There are different ideas. There could be an organization that monitors businesses, the community can do it themselves, all kinds of things.
I'm curious, what is an example of a large scale libertarian ideology in the real world, at any point in history? The closest I can think of is several failed African states.
Iceland used to have a libertarian capitalist society. The Hutterites currently live a libertarian socialist lifestyle here in the US, Spain had an anarchist society for a little while and Sweden did as well (though that was more of a large hippy commune). Madagascar's government stays out of its country side and the people live with no government oversight.
What? There were anarchist factions during the civil war, but Spain has never been anarchist.
Ron Paul style Libertarianism, or anarcho-capitalism is absolutely vile.
Anarcho-socialism/libertarian socialism will probably work one day, in a post-scarcity society, but not for many hundreds, if not thousands of years.
In true internet anarcho-tradition I present you a 10 minute video with little to no explanation.
Except I conveniently picked out a relevant section dealing with what the anarchist groups turned into in Spain. I'd hate to have ended up in the anarcho group that says no dancing.
Thanks for the link, that's a damn interesting video.
I knew there were anarchist communes in Spain, and there are all around the world, but I thought he meant the actual society of Spain was anarchist/libertarian.
I must have missed the day in school where we learned that Sweden once was an anarchistic hippie commune.
Unless your definition of hippie of commune includes people named Röd-Balle (meaning: Red Balls), raping, pillaging, slavery and human sacrifice.
EDIT: wait, did I read it wrong? Is ray saying that anarchist communes existed at some point inside sweden and spain etc or is he saying that the countries were anarchist? If the later my post is a bit pointless.
What I find hilarious about this thread is that Rayofash knew precisely what would happen when he started it, but did it anyway.
You are all angry. So, so angry. Furious, that someone would think to question the presence and dominance of a government. Do you know why people with our viewpoint post videos without any explanation? Because we understand that if we say anything ourselves, all that will happen is that we will be endlessly and viciously attacked.
The only defense against this is to put forward the best arguments made by other people, first. Talking about self governance.. 'anarchism' in this day and age is like attempting to talk about atheism 50 years ago in America. Conclusions are immediately made. The rage button is immediately pushed. We know this, yet we want to share the knowledge with the communities we care about, and the people we know are intelligent, forthright individuals. I'm going to take this opportunity to ask that you please act like intelligent, forthright individuals. Thank you.
What I find hilarious about this thread is that Rayofash knew precisely what would happen when he started it, but did it anyway.
You are all angry. So, so angry. Furious, that someone would think to question the presence and dominance of a government. Do you know why people with our viewpoint post videos without any explanation? Because we understand that if we say anything ourselves, all that will happen is that we will be endlessly and viciously attacked.
The only defense against this is to put forward the best arguments made by other people, first. Talking about self governance.. 'anarchism' in this day and age is like attempting to talk about atheism 50 years ago in America. Conclusions are immediately made. The rage button is immediately pushed. We know this, yet we want to share the knowledge with the communities we care about, and the people we know are intelligent, forthright individuals. I'm going to take this opportunity to ask that you please act like intelligent, forthright individuals. Thank you.
Do you have a better solution?
One that isn't "Everything would be perfect if everything was perfect?"
Because uh, that isn't a solution. That's wishful thinking.
MechMantis on
0
Options
Andy JoeWe claim the land for the highlord!The AdirondacksRegistered Userregular
Governments are emergent phenomena that come into being, naturally and inevitably, when sufficiently large numbers of people try to live together.
You may try to eliminate government, but even if you succeed it will spring up again.
What I find hilarious about this thread is that Rayofash knew precisely what would happen when he started it, but did it anyway.
You are all angry. So, so angry. Furious, that someone would think to question the presence and dominance of a government. Do you know why people with our viewpoint post videos without any explanation? Because we understand that if we say anything ourselves, all that will happen is that we will be endlessly and viciously attacked.
The only defense against this is to put forward the best arguments made by other people, first. Talking about self governance.. 'anarchism' in this day and age is like attempting to talk about atheism 50 years ago in America. Conclusions are immediately made. The rage button is immediately pushed. We know this, yet we want to share the knowledge with the communities we care about, and the people we know are intelligent, forthright individuals. I'm going to take this opportunity to ask that you please act like intelligent, forthright individuals. Thank you.
rayofash has a disability, cannot work, and lives entirely off of government assistance
I'm a libertarian socialist some days, but on others trend toward a more Marxist perspective.
Basically while I fully (naively, foolishly, stupidly yadda yadda) believe in a future whereby we are free from bourgeois exploitation, there are some days that I feel you need some form of centralized - but democratic - authority (or a dictatorship of the proletariat, to coin a completely original phrase) around to make sure "shit does not go whack" (Mikhail Bakunin - 'Straight Outta Pryamukhino').
Other days I get all Kropotkinny and believe in the possibility of spontaneous organisation and the implementation of an economy based on mutual aid, society working co-operatively to end its ills without the need of hierarchical governments or an oppressive police force.
I think the fact that most people (not a comment on the ladies and gents here, I admit I've yet to read the 12 pages of scintillating debate) are taught "Communism (or everything not capitalism) = USSR, China and North Korea = Endless toiling and oppression under the watchful eye of a faceless, distant bureaucrat (also gulags)" is pretty sad. Socialism is the extension of genuine (non-bourgeois) democracy into the most important spheres of human life. I don't object to people disagreeing with me (they do it all the time), but I'd like them to do so based on a knowledgeable argument.
So, uh, yeah. That's my perspective on libertarianism. Sorry for the rambling (and probably completely irrelevant to whatever debate is currently taking place) post.
What I find hilarious about this thread is that Rayofash knew precisely what would happen when he started it, but did it anyway.
You are all angry. So, so angry. Furious, that someone would think to question the presence and dominance of a government. Do you know why people with our viewpoint post videos without any explanation? Because we understand that if we say anything ourselves, all that will happen is that we will be endlessly and viciously attacked.
The only defense against this is to put forward the best arguments made by other people, first. Talking about self governance.. 'anarchism' in this day and age is like attempting to talk about atheism 50 years ago in America. Conclusions are immediately made. The rage button is immediately pushed. We know this, yet we want to share the knowledge with the communities we care about, and the people we know are intelligent, forthright individuals. I'm going to take this opportunity to ask that you please act like intelligent, forthright individuals. Thank you.
I'm not angry.
I just don't think it would work. If I saw an example that did work I would probably change my mind about it. If it was all about self governance then maybe I wouldn't associate 'anarchism' with smashing windows and setting fire to things. Anarchists need better PR, or all the intelligent, forthright individuals you all know will be lumped in with the assholes constantly wearing black masks and stealing gasoline.
Unless that's a central tenet to anarchism and wearing the masks is like a communion of sorts, I dunno!
What I find hilarious about this thread is that Rayofash knew precisely what would happen when he started it, but did it anyway.
You are all angry. So, so angry. Furious, that someone would think to question the presence and dominance of a government. Do you know why people with our viewpoint post videos without any explanation? Because we understand that if we say anything ourselves, all that will happen is that we will be endlessly and viciously attacked.
The only defense against this is to put forward the best arguments made by other people, first. Talking about self governance.. 'anarchism' in this day and age is like attempting to talk about atheism 50 years ago in America. Conclusions are immediately made. The rage button is immediately pushed. We know this, yet we want to share the knowledge with the communities we care about, and the people we know are intelligent, forthright individuals. I'm going to take this opportunity to ask that you please act like intelligent, forthright individuals. Thank you.
Do you have a better solution?
One that isn't "Everything would be perfect if everything was perfect?"
Because uh, that isn't a solution. That's wishful thinking.
Its not up to me to find a solution. Its not up to you, either. The point is not to look for the perfect solution to every problem. It's to look for something better than what we have. One thing that makes explaining concepts in this particular area of interest so difficult is that its never been attempted before. There are systems like it... these forums, for example, are an example of a largely self correcting, emergent community. Reddit is a better example.
Point being, those of us who see the benefits of utter freedom must start explaining things from first principles, not by answering every single what-if question thrown at us. I know that stealing is wrong. I know that murder is wrong. I know that putting a human in a cage is wrong. Why is it suddenly right when a policeman or a soldier does it? These are the sorts of questions you begin with.. not "How will everyone not turn into bandits."
There are those that attempt to give answers to those what if questions.. but they are just making educated guesses. We do not and cannot know.
What I find hilarious about this thread is that Rayofash knew precisely what would happen when he started it, but did it anyway.
You are all angry. So, so angry. Furious, that someone would think to question the presence and dominance of a government. Do you know why people with our viewpoint post videos without any explanation? Because we understand that if we say anything ourselves, all that will happen is that we will be endlessly and viciously attacked.
The only defense against this is to put forward the best arguments made by other people, first. Talking about self governance.. 'anarchism' in this day and age is like attempting to talk about atheism 50 years ago in America. Conclusions are immediately made. The rage button is immediately pushed. We know this, yet we want to share the knowledge with the communities we care about, and the people we know are intelligent, forthright individuals. I'm going to take this opportunity to ask that you please act like intelligent, forthright individuals. Thank you.
Ray himself said he was glad everyone was so polite to him. But getting rid of government and then hoping it totally works out despite literally every large scale example in the past failing horribly is not an argument. One needs to demonstrate how it would actually work differently. Which he has yet to do.
Point being, those of us who see the benefits of utter freedom must start explaining things from first principles, not by answering every single what-if question thrown at us. I know that stealing is wrong. I know that murder is wrong. I know that putting a human in a cage is wrong. Why is it suddenly right when a policeman or a soldier does it? These are the sorts of questions you begin with.. not "How will everyone not turn into bandits."
Preventing people both from turning in to and being attacked by bandits is a very relevant question when a complete lack of government leads to it every time. And it's not as if people are arguing that will happen just because there'd be no one preventing it. It'd mainly be happening due to a lack of reliable, regulated services that we need in order to function as a society.
I'm a libertarian socialist some days, but on others trend toward a more Marxist perspective.
Basically while I fully (naively, foolishly, stupidly yadda yadda) believe in a future whereby we are free from bourgeois exploitation, there are some days that I feel you need some form of centralized - but democratic - authority (or a dictatorship of the proletariat, to coin a completely original phrase) around to make sure "shit does not go whack" (Mikhail Bakunin - 'Straight Outta Pryamukhino').
Other days I get all Kropotkinny and believe in the possibility of spontaneous organisation and the implementation of an economy based on mutual aid, society working co-operatively to end its ills without the need of hierarchical governments or an oppressive police force.
I think the fact that most people (not a comment on the ladies and gents here, I admit I've yet to read the 12 pages of scintillating debate) are taught "Communism (or everything not capitalism) = USSR, China and North Korea = Endless toiling and oppression under the watchful eye of a faceless, distant bureaucrat (also gulags)" is pretty sad. Socialism is the extension of genuine (non-bourgeois) democracy into the most important spheres of human life. I don't object to people disagreeing with me (they do it all the time), but I'd like them to do so based on a knowledgeable argument.
So, uh, yeah. That's my perspective on libertarianism. Sorry for the rambling (and probably completely irrelevant to whatever debate is currently taking place) post.
PS. fuck Rand, Rothbard and Marxism-Leninism.
Your ideas are cute but wrong and naive, and you know it. You can play pretend with them all you want, but in reality people will not operate that way.
Its not up to me to find a solution. Its not up to you, either. The point is not to look for the perfect solution to every problem. It's to look for something better than what we have. One thing that makes explaining concepts in this particular area of interest so difficult is that its never been attempted before. There are systems like it... these forums, for example, are an example of a largely self correcting, emergent community. Reddit is a better example.
Reddit is kind of a shit example, since they recently had to be forced by the something awful forums into closing some subreddits about pedophilia.
So it's not a self correcting community.
Unless you try to backpedal and consider the internet as a whole as self correcting, or try to defend pedophilia.
Point being, those of us who see the benefits of utter freedom must start explaining things from first principles, not by answering every single what-if question thrown at us. I know that stealing is wrong. I know that murder is wrong. I know that putting a human in a cage is wrong. Why is it suddenly right when a policeman or a soldier does it? These are the sorts of questions you begin with.. not "How will everyone not turn into bandits."
Preventing people both from turning in to and being attacked by bandits is a very relevant question when a complete lack of government leads to it every time. And it's not as if people are arguing that will happen just because there'd be no one preventing it. It'd mainly be happening due to a lack of reliable, regulated services that we need in order to function as a society.
Point being, those of us who see the benefits of utter freedom must start explaining things from first principles, not by answering every single what-if question thrown at us. I know that stealing is wrong. I know that murder is wrong. I know that putting a human in a cage is wrong. Why is it suddenly right when a policeman or a soldier does it? These are the sorts of questions you begin with.. not "How will everyone not turn into bandits."
Preventing people both from turning in to and being attacked by bandits is a very relevant question when a complete lack of government leads to it every time. And it's not as if people are arguing that will happen just because there'd be no one preventing it. It'd mainly be happening due to a lack of reliable, regulated services that we need in order to function as a society.
How do you know? Do you have any proof that supports these claims? Or are you just regurgitating what is commonly 'known' and 'understood' by most people?
You *have* to question these assumptions. Otherwise you will just go in circles. If, to you, freedom means danger, than you are just asking to be put in chains.
What I find hilarious about this thread is that Rayofash knew precisely what would happen when he started it, but did it anyway.
You are all angry. So, so angry. Furious, that someone would think to question the presence and dominance of a government. Do you know why people with our viewpoint post videos without any explanation? Because we understand that if we say anything ourselves, all that will happen is that we will be endlessly and viciously attacked.
The only defense against this is to put forward the best arguments made by other people, first. Talking about self governance.. 'anarchism' in this day and age is like attempting to talk about atheism 50 years ago in America. Conclusions are immediately made. The rage button is immediately pushed. We know this, yet we want to share the knowledge with the communities we care about, and the people we know are intelligent, forthright individuals. I'm going to take this opportunity to ask that you please act like intelligent, forthright individuals. Thank you.
rayofash has a disability, cannot work, and lives entirely off of government assistance
So you assume that if the government dissapeared, suddenly no one would care about the sick and needy? Do you need a government to tell you to be generous? Do you really want to admit to lacking that much empathy? Charities would still exist in this brave new world, you know.
Interdependence would not vanish. It would instead become more genuine.
Shurakai on
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
That is not how it works. The burden of proof is not on us to prove that society needs these services; the burden of proof is for you to prove that they don't, that civilization won't crumble without government.
By all means, question these assumptions, but provide actual examples that support your conclusions.
Also these forums are a dictatorship. They tried to have an unmodded forum and it was terrible and shut down IIRC in a number of hours. It is also not constructive for you to come in here and basically tell us we are all being jerks and then saying you don't actually have to provide any arguments or reasons why, like do you have an example of anyone getting mad in this thread?
I'm a libertarian socialist some days, but on others trend toward a more Marxist perspective.
Basically while I fully (naively, foolishly, stupidly yadda yadda) believe in a future whereby we are free from bourgeois exploitation, there are some days that I feel you need some form of centralized - but democratic - authority (or a dictatorship of the proletariat, to coin a completely original phrase) around to make sure "shit does not go whack" (Mikhail Bakunin - 'Straight Outta Pryamukhino').
Other days I get all Kropotkinny and believe in the possibility of spontaneous organisation and the implementation of an economy based on mutual aid, society working co-operatively to end its ills without the need of hierarchical governments or an oppressive police force.
I think the fact that most people (not a comment on the ladies and gents here, I admit I've yet to read the 12 pages of scintillating debate) are taught "Communism (or everything not capitalism) = USSR, China and North Korea = Endless toiling and oppression under the watchful eye of a faceless, distant bureaucrat (also gulags)" is pretty sad. Socialism is the extension of genuine (non-bourgeois) democracy into the most important spheres of human life. I don't object to people disagreeing with me (they do it all the time), but I'd like them to do so based on a knowledgeable argument.
So, uh, yeah. That's my perspective on libertarianism. Sorry for the rambling (and probably completely irrelevant to whatever debate is currently taking place) post.
PS. fuck Rand, Rothbard and Marxism-Leninism.
Your ideas are cute but wrong and naive, and you know it. You can play pretend with them all you want, but in reality people will not operate that way.
Okay, first of all, thanks for replying.
Second, please don't address me and my opinions like they are the idle fantasies of a 5 year old. I know you probably didn't mean to insult me, but I (I think understandably) bristled when my personal beliefs were dismissed as nothing more than "cute".
Third, "human nature" is a glib dismissal of the argument. If you have a genuine point to make against my ideals, please provide some form of evidence for me to consider!
What I find hilarious about this thread is that Rayofash knew precisely what would happen when he started it, but did it anyway.
You are all angry. So, so angry. Furious, that someone would think to question the presence and dominance of a government. Do you know why people with our viewpoint post videos without any explanation? Because we understand that if we say anything ourselves, all that will happen is that we will be endlessly and viciously attacked.
The only defense against this is to put forward the best arguments made by other people, first. Talking about self governance.. 'anarchism' in this day and age is like attempting to talk about atheism 50 years ago in America. Conclusions are immediately made. The rage button is immediately pushed. We know this, yet we want to share the knowledge with the communities we care about, and the people we know are intelligent, forthright individuals. I'm going to take this opportunity to ask that you please act like intelligent, forthright individuals. Thank you.
rayofash has a disability, cannot work, and lives entirely off of government assistance
So you assume that if the government dissapeared, suddenly no one would care about the sick and needy? Do you need a government to tell you to be generous? Do you really want to admit to lacking that much empathy? Charities would still exist in this brave new world, you know.
Interdependence would not vanish. It would instead become more genuine.
Why? Why would someone provide the same level of comfort that lets you sit around all day watching children's cartoons, playing videogames, and complaining on the Internet, while everyone else has to go out and work?
What I find hilarious about this thread is that Rayofash knew precisely what would happen when he started it, but did it anyway.
You are all angry. So, so angry. Furious, that someone would think to question the presence and dominance of a government. Do you know why people with our viewpoint post videos without any explanation? Because we understand that if we say anything ourselves, all that will happen is that we will be endlessly and viciously attacked.
The only defense against this is to put forward the best arguments made by other people, first. Talking about self governance.. 'anarchism' in this day and age is like attempting to talk about atheism 50 years ago in America. Conclusions are immediately made. The rage button is immediately pushed. We know this, yet we want to share the knowledge with the communities we care about, and the people we know are intelligent, forthright individuals. I'm going to take this opportunity to ask that you please act like intelligent, forthright individuals. Thank you.
rayofash has a disability, cannot work, and lives entirely off of government assistance
So you assume that if the government dissapeared, suddenly no one would care about the sick and needy? Do you need a government to tell you to be generous? Do you really want to admit to lacking that much empathy? Charities would still exist in this brave new world, you know.
We have history. Before social security a lot of old people just starved/froze to death, after social security the average lifespan increased and old people froze to death less. We already tried things your way and they didn't work out well.
Preventing people both from turning in to and being attacked by bandits is a very relevant question when a complete lack of government leads to it every time. And it's not as if people are arguing that will happen just because there'd be no one preventing it. It'd mainly be happening due to a lack of reliable, regulated services that we need in order to function as a society.
How do you know? Do you have any proof that supports these claims? Or are you just regurgitating what is commonly 'known' and 'understood' by most people?
You *have* to question these assumptions. Otherwise you will just go in circles. If, to you, freedom means danger, than you are just asking to be put in chains.
Okay, first point: We have governments now. We certainly didn't have them when we were coming out of Africa as a new species. Unless governments are a different form of life, one that suddenly takes hold of innocent utter freedom loving humans and makes them hate utter freedom, occasionally beaten back by brave libertarians a la Ghostbusters, only to have the Governments once more start brainwashing the newly free humans... it can be logically assumed that humans made governments. That is the ur-example, as it were.
And we don't need regulated services? Really? Might I point to pre-Pure Food and Drug Act America as a glorious example of what happens WITHOUT those?
I'm a libertarian socialist some days, but on others trend toward a more Marxist perspective.
Basically while I fully (naively, foolishly, stupidly yadda yadda) believe in a future whereby we are free from bourgeois exploitation, there are some days that I feel you need some form of centralized - but democratic - authority (or a dictatorship of the proletariat, to coin a completely original phrase) around to make sure "shit does not go whack" (Mikhail Bakunin - 'Straight Outta Pryamukhino').
Other days I get all Kropotkinny and believe in the possibility of spontaneous organisation and the implementation of an economy based on mutual aid, society working co-operatively to end its ills without the need of hierarchical governments or an oppressive police force.
I think the fact that most people (not a comment on the ladies and gents here, I admit I've yet to read the 12 pages of scintillating debate) are taught "Communism (or everything not capitalism) = USSR, China and North Korea = Endless toiling and oppression under the watchful eye of a faceless, distant bureaucrat (also gulags)" is pretty sad. Socialism is the extension of genuine (non-bourgeois) democracy into the most important spheres of human life. I don't object to people disagreeing with me (they do it all the time), but I'd like them to do so based on a knowledgeable argument.
So, uh, yeah. That's my perspective on libertarianism. Sorry for the rambling (and probably completely irrelevant to whatever debate is currently taking place) post.
PS. fuck Rand, Rothbard and Marxism-Leninism.
Your ideas are cute but wrong and naive, and you know it. You can play pretend with them all you want, but in reality people will not operate that way.
Okay, first of all, thanks for replying.
Second, please don't address me and my opinions like they are the idle fantasies of a 5 year old. I know you probably didn't mean to insult me, but I (I think understandably) bristled when my personal beliefs were dismissed as nothing more than "cute".
Third, "human nature" is a glib dismissal of the argument. If you have a genuine point to make against my ideals, please provide some form of evidence for me to consider!
In your very first statement, though, you acknowledge yourself that your ideas are naive and unworkable. Why hold them? As long as its possible to form a majority (of people or just force) to somehow benefit at the expense of the minority, it will always happen, barring any systems set in place to prevent this.
Reddit is kind of a shit example, since they recently had to be forced by the something awful forums into closing some subreddits about pedophilia.
So it's not a self correcting community.
Unless you try to backpedal and consider the internet as a whole as self correcting, or try to defend pedophilia.
These forums also don't have to deal with actual reality.
Here, when a mod removes a person from the community, there's no consequence. In the real world you either have to spend resources keeping them alive or kill them.
Or you could banish them but then you have a malcontent who now quite possibly has an incentive to break your societ
Point being, those of us who see the benefits of utter freedom must start explaining things from first principles, not by answering every single what-if question thrown at us. I know that stealing is wrong. I know that murder is wrong. I know that putting a human in a cage is wrong. Why is it suddenly right when a policeman or a soldier does it? These are the sorts of questions you begin with.. not "How will everyone not turn into bandits."
Preventing people both from turning in to and being attacked by bandits is a very relevant question when a complete lack of government leads to it every time. And it's not as if people are arguing that will happen just because there'd be no one preventing it. It'd mainly be happening due to a lack of reliable, regulated services that we need in order to function as a society.
Point being, those of us who see the benefits of utter freedom must start explaining things from first principles, not by answering every single what-if question thrown at us. I know that stealing is wrong. I know that murder is wrong. I know that putting a human in a cage is wrong. Why is it suddenly right when a policeman or a soldier does it? These are the sorts of questions you begin with.. not "How will everyone not turn into bandits."
Preventing people both from turning in to and being attacked by bandits is a very relevant question when a complete lack of government leads to it every time. And it's not as if people are arguing that will happen just because there'd be no one preventing it. It'd mainly be happening due to a lack of reliable, regulated services that we need in order to function as a society.
How do you know? Do you have any proof that supports these claims? Or are you just regurgitating what is commonly 'known' and 'understood' by most people?
You *have* to question these assumptions. Otherwise you will just go in circles. If, to you, freedom means danger, than you are just asking to be put in chains.
Point being, those of us who see the benefits of utter freedom must start explaining things from first principles, not by answering every single what-if question thrown at us. I know that stealing is wrong. I know that murder is wrong. I know that putting a human in a cage is wrong. Why is it suddenly right when a policeman or a soldier does it? These are the sorts of questions you begin with.. not "How will everyone not turn into bandits."
Preventing people both from turning in to and being attacked by bandits is a very relevant question when a complete lack of government leads to it every time. And it's not as if people are arguing that will happen just because there'd be no one preventing it. It'd mainly be happening due to a lack of reliable, regulated services that we need in order to function as a society.
Point being, those of us who see the benefits of utter freedom must start explaining things from first principles, not by answering every single what-if question thrown at us. I know that stealing is wrong. I know that murder is wrong. I know that putting a human in a cage is wrong. Why is it suddenly right when a policeman or a soldier does it? These are the sorts of questions you begin with.. not "How will everyone not turn into bandits."
Preventing people both from turning in to and being attacked by bandits is a very relevant question when a complete lack of government leads to it every time. And it's not as if people are arguing that will happen just because there'd be no one preventing it. It'd mainly be happening due to a lack of reliable, regulated services that we need in order to function as a society.
How do you know? Do you have any proof that supports these claims? Or are you just regurgitating what is commonly 'known' and 'understood' by most people?
You *have* to question these assumptions. Otherwise you will just go in circles. If, to you, freedom means danger, than you are just asking to be put in chains.
Why are you assuming these assumptions have not been questioned? Can you point to a single example in human history where it hasn't been the case?
Or are you just going to throw out pointless words of wisdom and stock phrases that aren't very insightful instead of trying to make a real argument?
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
What I find hilarious about this thread is that Rayofash knew precisely what would happen when he started it, but did it anyway.
You are all angry. So, so angry. Furious, that someone would think to question the presence and dominance of a government. Do you know why people with our viewpoint post videos without any explanation? Because we understand that if we say anything ourselves, all that will happen is that we will be endlessly and viciously attacked.
The only defense against this is to put forward the best arguments made by other people, first. Talking about self governance.. 'anarchism' in this day and age is like attempting to talk about atheism 50 years ago in America. Conclusions are immediately made. The rage button is immediately pushed. We know this, yet we want to share the knowledge with the communities we care about, and the people we know are intelligent, forthright individuals. I'm going to take this opportunity to ask that you please act like intelligent, forthright individuals. Thank you.
rayofash has a disability, cannot work, and lives entirely off of government assistance
So you assume that if the government dissapeared, suddenly no one would care about the sick and needy? Do you need a government to tell you to be generous? Do you really want to admit to lacking that much empathy? Charities would still exist in this brave new world, you know.
Interdependence would not vanish. It would instead become more genuine.
You're arguing against 10,000 years of history here. The burden of proof is on you to show that we would maintain caring for the elderly, mentally ill, and disabled.
Point being, those of us who see the benefits of utter freedom must start explaining things from first principles, not by answering every single what-if question thrown at us. I know that stealing is wrong. I know that murder is wrong. I know that putting a human in a cage is wrong. Why is it suddenly right when a policeman or a soldier does it?
How do you know? Do you have any proof that supports these claims? Or are you just regurgitating what is commonly 'known' and 'understood' by most people?
You *have* to question these assumptions. Otherwise you will just go in circles. If, to you, freedom means danger, than you are just asking to be put in chains.
Do we even have to be here or are you just going to offer contradictory grandiose and ill-founded assumptions back and forth for a while?
I recommend reading the thread before you assume that there hasn't been a presentation of a sound philosophical basis for the existence of government, the legitimacy of the government's police powers and the basis for property rights. You're also not going to find much traction by throwing out adolescent wankery like "you are just asking to be put in chains." Most of us are well outside the "Daddy doesn't love me, no one understands, suburban anarchist with nothing but time on my hands" zone.
I would like to see evidence that people would be happy to donate to charities that help non obviously disabled people to the point where scrapping the welfare state is not an insane risk
I've seen enough people telling depressed people to just cheer up and snap out of it for instance that I do not believe that enough people would be willing to aid this person who is just "moping about watching tv all day when they're perfectly fine"
OK, lets look at the example of the Moriori. They were the indigenous people of the Chatham Islands and had a pretty nice society. They were pacifists and lived pretty much in the community based society that you are proposing. They were also almost entirely wiped out by the Maori when the Maori were in turn displaced by Europeans and they were all enslaved or killed. What is going to prevent this from happening to your society?
OK, lets look at the example of the Moriori. They were the indigenous people of the Chatham Islands and had a pretty nice society. They were pacifists and lived pretty much in the community based society that you are proposing. They were also almost entirely wiped out by the Maori when the Maori were in turn displaced by Europeans and they were all enslaved or killed. What is going to prevent this from happening to your society?
What I find hilarious about this thread is that Rayofash knew precisely what would happen when he started it, but did it anyway.
You are all angry. So, so angry. Furious, that someone would think to question the presence and dominance of a government. Do you know why people with our viewpoint post videos without any explanation? Because we understand that if we say anything ourselves, all that will happen is that we will be endlessly and viciously attacked.
The only defense against this is to put forward the best arguments made by other people, first. Talking about self governance.. 'anarchism' in this day and age is like attempting to talk about atheism 50 years ago in America. Conclusions are immediately made. The rage button is immediately pushed. We know this, yet we want to share the knowledge with the communities we care about, and the people we know are intelligent, forthright individuals. I'm going to take this opportunity to ask that you please act like intelligent, forthright individuals. Thank you.
rayofash has a disability, cannot work, and lives entirely off of government assistance
So you assume that if the government dissapeared, suddenly no one would care about the sick and needy? Do you need a government to tell you to be generous? Do you really want to admit to lacking that much empathy? Charities would still exist in this brave new world, you know.
Interdependence would not vanish. It would instead become more genuine.
Interesting that you manage to both imply yakul is lacking in empathy while simultaneously arguing for a society built only on altruism and goodness.
I'm a libertarian socialist some days, but on others trend toward a more Marxist perspective.
Basically while I fully (naively, foolishly, stupidly yadda yadda) believe in a future whereby we are free from bourgeois exploitation, there are some days that I feel you need some form of centralized - but democratic - authority (or a dictatorship of the proletariat, to coin a completely original phrase) around to make sure "shit does not go whack" (Mikhail Bakunin - 'Straight Outta Pryamukhino').
Other days I get all Kropotkinny and believe in the possibility of spontaneous organisation and the implementation of an economy based on mutual aid, society working co-operatively to end its ills without the need of hierarchical governments or an oppressive police force.
I think the fact that most people (not a comment on the ladies and gents here, I admit I've yet to read the 12 pages of scintillating debate) are taught "Communism (or everything not capitalism) = USSR, China and North Korea = Endless toiling and oppression under the watchful eye of a faceless, distant bureaucrat (also gulags)" is pretty sad. Socialism is the extension of genuine (non-bourgeois) democracy into the most important spheres of human life. I don't object to people disagreeing with me (they do it all the time), but I'd like them to do so based on a knowledgeable argument.
So, uh, yeah. That's my perspective on libertarianism. Sorry for the rambling (and probably completely irrelevant to whatever debate is currently taking place) post.
PS. fuck Rand, Rothbard and Marxism-Leninism.
Your ideas are cute but wrong and naive, and you know it. You can play pretend with them all you want, but in reality people will not operate that way.
Okay, first of all, thanks for replying.
Second, please don't address me and my opinions like they are the idle fantasies of a 5 year old. I know you probably didn't mean to insult me, but I (I think understandably) bristled when my personal beliefs were dismissed as nothing more than "cute".
Third, "human nature" is a glib dismissal of the argument. If you have a genuine point to make against my ideals, please provide some form of evidence for me to consider!
In your very first statement, though, you acknowledge yourself that your ideas are naive and unworkable. Why hold them? As long as its possible to form a majority (of people or just force) to somehow benefit at the expense of the minority, it will always happen, barring any systems set in place to prevent this.
No, I acknowledged how my ideas are generally perceived. Tone is, I suppose, lost in a forum post.
And I simply do not agree with you that that is how humans function. Is that how humans function under a capitalist society? Maybe. Is that how humans function when their primary alternative is crushing poverty? Probably. Would that be how humans function under a system wherein the means of production are owned co-operatively and turned, democratically, toward satisfying the needs of the many and not the wants of the few? I don't think so. There's a good quote that was scrawled on a wall in May '68, it went "Man is neither Rousseau’s noble savage nor the Church’s or La Rochefoucauld’s depraved sinner. He is violent when oppressed, gentle when free". I believe we are oppressed under the material conditions of this society, and free under those of socialism.
What I find hilarious about this thread is that Rayofash knew precisely what would happen when he started it, but did it anyway.
You are all angry. So, so angry. Furious, that someone would think to question the presence and dominance of a government. Do you know why people with our viewpoint post videos without any explanation? Because we understand that if we say anything ourselves, all that will happen is that we will be endlessly and viciously attacked.
The only defense against this is to put forward the best arguments made by other people, first. Talking about self governance.. 'anarchism' in this day and age is like attempting to talk about atheism 50 years ago in America. Conclusions are immediately made. The rage button is immediately pushed. We know this, yet we want to share the knowledge with the communities we care about, and the people we know are intelligent, forthright individuals. I'm going to take this opportunity to ask that you please act like intelligent, forthright individuals. Thank you.
rayofash has a disability, cannot work, and lives entirely off of government assistance
So you assume that if the government dissapeared, suddenly no one would care about the sick and needy? Do you need a government to tell you to be generous? Do you really want to admit to lacking that much empathy? Charities would still exist in this brave new world, you know.
Interdependence would not vanish. It would instead become more genuine.
Why? Why would someone provide the same level of comfort that lets you sit around all day watching children's cartoons, playing videogames, and complaining on the Internet, while everyone else has to go out and work?
Why indeed. .
This demonstrates how convenient it is for us to have decisions made for us. Of course we don't want the *burden* of making these sorts of decisions, so lets all just throw tax money at the problem and claim we care. That is much easier.
If you knew Rayofash personally, would you want him to suffer and die? Of course not. Those in his community, if they lived up to the ideal of decent human beings, would support him. If they did not live up to said ideal, either they would not, or a very few (such as his family, if family he has) would take the reigns.
I shouldn't really be answering what-if questions, but you get that one for free.
It boils down to this: Do you feel like you are a good person? Good. Then you would help. Do you feel afraid that others are not so generous? Good. That means you aren't apathetic. But it doesn't mean you have the right to control their actions if they choose not to be charitable.
What I find hilarious about this thread is that Rayofash knew precisely what would happen when he started it, but did it anyway.
You are all angry. So, so angry. Furious, that someone would think to question the presence and dominance of a government. Do you know why people with our viewpoint post videos without any explanation? Because we understand that if we say anything ourselves, all that will happen is that we will be endlessly and viciously attacked.
The only defense against this is to put forward the best arguments made by other people, first. Talking about self governance.. 'anarchism' in this day and age is like attempting to talk about atheism 50 years ago in America. Conclusions are immediately made. The rage button is immediately pushed. We know this, yet we want to share the knowledge with the communities we care about, and the people we know are intelligent, forthright individuals. I'm going to take this opportunity to ask that you please act like intelligent, forthright individuals. Thank you.
rayofash has a disability, cannot work, and lives entirely off of government assistance
So you assume that if the government dissapeared, suddenly no one would care about the sick and needy? Do you need a government to tell you to be generous? Do you really want to admit to lacking that much empathy? Charities would still exist in this brave new world, you know.
Interdependence would not vanish. It would instead become more genuine.
Interesting that you manage to both imply yakul is lacking in empathy while simultaneously arguing for a society built only on altruism and goodness.
Very strange.
On Libertarian Island people like yakul will consensually agree to be beaten to death with coconuts to preserve the purity of altruism
To use the naturalistic fallacy, it seems counter-intuitive to suggest that a group of organisms living together won't inherently develop sets of rules and guildelines for how members in the community they are a part of should act and live.
I don't see how, given that assumption, one would necessarily live in a truly anarchist society. Once you get self organizing communes who police their own members without some sort of central authority....don't you no longer have anarchy? And when those communes get together and interact with one another, any rules of interaction they set up to ease the process along...isn't that a government?
I don't know, I spend a lot of time reading about social animals, particularly eusocial animals (bees, wasps sort of, ants, termites sort of), and I think that their societal organization can be considered a government. In fact, it isn't even a monarchy- the queen doesn't "give orders" as such...but there are strict rules and guidelines each member has to follow on pain of death.
Isn't that a government?
I believe that structured rules of behavior are an emergent property of organisms living in cooperative sociality, and that "government" is the same rules expanded on a larger scale.
That is correct, I just made the argument that government is an evolved social behavior, and that anarchy runs counter to how we have evolved to live for millions of years. For those that know me, feel free to call me a hypocrite all you want*.
*I don't actually take this argument very seriously
Posts
Not that it matters, but this is what Palahniuk has said about the book. People will misinterpret as they will.
The first rule of anarchism is you blow shit up
The first rule of anarchism is you blow shit up
THE FIRST RULE OF ANARCHISM IS YOU BLOW SHIT UP
I think that's wise, and not just because dismantling US power is going to be harder than making a free energy source to power their Gulch. Hypothetically speaking: Leaving the US intact as a superpower, and stocking your fledgling nation with US expats with strong political/business ties, could help you to lean on them for favors and protection you would inevitably require.
Makes sense. Libertarianism seems to be an expression of a crisis in masculinity. The privilege you used to get for being young, white and male is much reduced these days, which leaves young men feeling powerless in comparison to previous generations of the same. When a five foot nothing woman can be your boss and make you feel like dirt for screwing up, those with might (young, strong men) feel a yearning for the days when might meant right.
When your friend found a purpose in life, that angst went away.
What? There were anarchist factions during the civil war, but Spain has never been anarchist.
Ron Paul style Libertarianism, or anarcho-capitalism is absolutely vile.
Anarcho-socialism/libertarian socialism will probably work one day, in a post-scarcity society, but not for many hundreds, if not thousands of years.
Blog
Twitter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwMUMa0cbn8&feature=player_detailpage#t=410s
In true internet anarcho-tradition I present you a 10 minute video with little to no explanation.
Thanks for the link, that's a damn interesting video.
I knew there were anarchist communes in Spain, and there are all around the world, but I thought he meant the actual society of Spain was anarchist/libertarian.
Blog
Twitter
Unless your definition of hippie of commune includes people named Röd-Balle (meaning: Red Balls), raping, pillaging, slavery and human sacrifice.
EDIT: wait, did I read it wrong? Is ray saying that anarchist communes existed at some point inside sweden and spain etc or is he saying that the countries were anarchist? If the later my post is a bit pointless.
You are all angry. So, so angry. Furious, that someone would think to question the presence and dominance of a government. Do you know why people with our viewpoint post videos without any explanation? Because we understand that if we say anything ourselves, all that will happen is that we will be endlessly and viciously attacked.
The only defense against this is to put forward the best arguments made by other people, first. Talking about self governance.. 'anarchism' in this day and age is like attempting to talk about atheism 50 years ago in America. Conclusions are immediately made. The rage button is immediately pushed. We know this, yet we want to share the knowledge with the communities we care about, and the people we know are intelligent, forthright individuals. I'm going to take this opportunity to ask that you please act like intelligent, forthright individuals. Thank you.
Do you have a better solution?
One that isn't "Everything would be perfect if everything was perfect?"
Because uh, that isn't a solution. That's wishful thinking.
You may try to eliminate government, but even if you succeed it will spring up again.
rayofash has a disability, cannot work, and lives entirely off of government assistance
Basically while I fully (naively, foolishly, stupidly yadda yadda) believe in a future whereby we are free from bourgeois exploitation, there are some days that I feel you need some form of centralized - but democratic - authority (or a dictatorship of the proletariat, to coin a completely original phrase) around to make sure "shit does not go whack" (Mikhail Bakunin - 'Straight Outta Pryamukhino').
Other days I get all Kropotkinny and believe in the possibility of spontaneous organisation and the implementation of an economy based on mutual aid, society working co-operatively to end its ills without the need of hierarchical governments or an oppressive police force.
I think the fact that most people (not a comment on the ladies and gents here, I admit I've yet to read the 12 pages of scintillating debate) are taught "Communism (or everything not capitalism) = USSR, China and North Korea = Endless toiling and oppression under the watchful eye of a faceless, distant bureaucrat (also gulags)" is pretty sad. Socialism is the extension of genuine (non-bourgeois) democracy into the most important spheres of human life. I don't object to people disagreeing with me (they do it all the time), but I'd like them to do so based on a knowledgeable argument.
So, uh, yeah. That's my perspective on libertarianism. Sorry for the rambling (and probably completely irrelevant to whatever debate is currently taking place) post.
PS. fuck Rand, Rothbard and Marxism-Leninism.
I'm not angry.
I just don't think it would work. If I saw an example that did work I would probably change my mind about it. If it was all about self governance then maybe I wouldn't associate 'anarchism' with smashing windows and setting fire to things. Anarchists need better PR, or all the intelligent, forthright individuals you all know will be lumped in with the assholes constantly wearing black masks and stealing gasoline.
Unless that's a central tenet to anarchism and wearing the masks is like a communion of sorts, I dunno!
Its not up to me to find a solution. Its not up to you, either. The point is not to look for the perfect solution to every problem. It's to look for something better than what we have. One thing that makes explaining concepts in this particular area of interest so difficult is that its never been attempted before. There are systems like it... these forums, for example, are an example of a largely self correcting, emergent community. Reddit is a better example.
Point being, those of us who see the benefits of utter freedom must start explaining things from first principles, not by answering every single what-if question thrown at us. I know that stealing is wrong. I know that murder is wrong. I know that putting a human in a cage is wrong. Why is it suddenly right when a policeman or a soldier does it? These are the sorts of questions you begin with.. not "How will everyone not turn into bandits."
There are those that attempt to give answers to those what if questions.. but they are just making educated guesses. We do not and cannot know.
Ray himself said he was glad everyone was so polite to him. But getting rid of government and then hoping it totally works out despite literally every large scale example in the past failing horribly is not an argument. One needs to demonstrate how it would actually work differently. Which he has yet to do.
Preventing people both from turning in to and being attacked by bandits is a very relevant question when a complete lack of government leads to it every time. And it's not as if people are arguing that will happen just because there'd be no one preventing it. It'd mainly be happening due to a lack of reliable, regulated services that we need in order to function as a society.
Your ideas are cute but wrong and naive, and you know it. You can play pretend with them all you want, but in reality people will not operate that way.
Reddit is kind of a shit example, since they recently had to be forced by the something awful forums into closing some subreddits about pedophilia.
So it's not a self correcting community.
Unless you try to backpedal and consider the internet as a whole as self correcting, or try to defend pedophilia.
How do you know? Do you have any proof that supports these claims? Or are you just regurgitating what is commonly 'known' and 'understood' by most people?
You *have* to question these assumptions. Otherwise you will just go in circles. If, to you, freedom means danger, than you are just asking to be put in chains.
So you assume that if the government dissapeared, suddenly no one would care about the sick and needy? Do you need a government to tell you to be generous? Do you really want to admit to lacking that much empathy? Charities would still exist in this brave new world, you know.
Interdependence would not vanish. It would instead become more genuine.
That is not how it works. The burden of proof is not on us to prove that society needs these services; the burden of proof is for you to prove that they don't, that civilization won't crumble without government.
By all means, question these assumptions, but provide actual examples that support your conclusions.
Okay, first of all, thanks for replying.
Second, please don't address me and my opinions like they are the idle fantasies of a 5 year old. I know you probably didn't mean to insult me, but I (I think understandably) bristled when my personal beliefs were dismissed as nothing more than "cute".
Third, "human nature" is a glib dismissal of the argument. If you have a genuine point to make against my ideals, please provide some form of evidence for me to consider!
Okay, first point: We have governments now. We certainly didn't have them when we were coming out of Africa as a new species. Unless governments are a different form of life, one that suddenly takes hold of innocent utter freedom loving humans and makes them hate utter freedom, occasionally beaten back by brave libertarians a la Ghostbusters, only to have the Governments once more start brainwashing the newly free humans... it can be logically assumed that humans made governments. That is the ur-example, as it were.
And we don't need regulated services? Really? Might I point to pre-Pure Food and Drug Act America as a glorious example of what happens WITHOUT those?
In your very first statement, though, you acknowledge yourself that your ideas are naive and unworkable. Why hold them? As long as its possible to form a majority (of people or just force) to somehow benefit at the expense of the minority, it will always happen, barring any systems set in place to prevent this.
These forums also don't have to deal with actual reality.
Here, when a mod removes a person from the community, there's no consequence. In the real world you either have to spend resources keeping them alive or kill them.
Or you could banish them but then you have a malcontent who now quite possibly has an incentive to break your societ It's called the last six thousand years or so of history. That's how I know. Every time there's a lack of central power people take advantage of that fact for their personal good either from mere desire or because they needed to. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Old_West http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia
Now what's your proof of a large scale country operating competently without a central power? And no, an internet forum is not a country.
Why are you assuming these assumptions have not been questioned? Can you point to a single example in human history where it hasn't been the case?
Or are you just going to throw out pointless words of wisdom and stock phrases that aren't very insightful instead of trying to make a real argument?
You're arguing against 10,000 years of history here. The burden of proof is on you to show that we would maintain caring for the elderly, mentally ill, and disabled.
I recommend reading the thread before you assume that there hasn't been a presentation of a sound philosophical basis for the existence of government, the legitimacy of the government's police powers and the basis for property rights. You're also not going to find much traction by throwing out adolescent wankery like "you are just asking to be put in chains." Most of us are well outside the "Daddy doesn't love me, no one understands, suburban anarchist with nothing but time on my hands" zone.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I've seen enough people telling depressed people to just cheer up and snap out of it for instance that I do not believe that enough people would be willing to aid this person who is just "moping about watching tv all day when they're perfectly fine"
Interesting that you manage to both imply yakul is lacking in empathy while simultaneously arguing for a society built only on altruism and goodness.
Very strange.
No, I acknowledged how my ideas are generally perceived. Tone is, I suppose, lost in a forum post.
And I simply do not agree with you that that is how humans function. Is that how humans function under a capitalist society? Maybe. Is that how humans function when their primary alternative is crushing poverty? Probably. Would that be how humans function under a system wherein the means of production are owned co-operatively and turned, democratically, toward satisfying the needs of the many and not the wants of the few? I don't think so. There's a good quote that was scrawled on a wall in May '68, it went "Man is neither Rousseau’s noble savage nor the Church’s or La Rochefoucauld’s depraved sinner. He is violent when oppressed, gentle when free". I believe we are oppressed under the material conditions of this society, and free under those of socialism.
But that's just my opinion.
Why indeed.
This demonstrates how convenient it is for us to have decisions made for us. Of course we don't want the *burden* of making these sorts of decisions, so lets all just throw tax money at the problem and claim we care. That is much easier.
If you knew Rayofash personally, would you want him to suffer and die? Of course not. Those in his community, if they lived up to the ideal of decent human beings, would support him. If they did not live up to said ideal, either they would not, or a very few (such as his family, if family he has) would take the reigns.
I shouldn't really be answering what-if questions, but you get that one for free.
It boils down to this: Do you feel like you are a good person? Good. Then you would help. Do you feel afraid that others are not so generous? Good. That means you aren't apathetic. But it doesn't mean you have the right to control their actions if they choose not to be charitable.
On Libertarian Island people like yakul will consensually agree to be beaten to death with coconuts to preserve the purity of altruism
I don't see how, given that assumption, one would necessarily live in a truly anarchist society. Once you get self organizing communes who police their own members without some sort of central authority....don't you no longer have anarchy? And when those communes get together and interact with one another, any rules of interaction they set up to ease the process along...isn't that a government?
I don't know, I spend a lot of time reading about social animals, particularly eusocial animals (bees, wasps sort of, ants, termites sort of), and I think that their societal organization can be considered a government. In fact, it isn't even a monarchy- the queen doesn't "give orders" as such...but there are strict rules and guidelines each member has to follow on pain of death.
Isn't that a government?
I believe that structured rules of behavior are an emergent property of organisms living in cooperative sociality, and that "government" is the same rules expanded on a larger scale.
That is correct, I just made the argument that government is an evolved social behavior, and that anarchy runs counter to how we have evolved to live for millions of years. For those that know me, feel free to call me a hypocrite all you want*.