...

[trinydex]

We don't need more government just because of specialization...

you still haven't answered my question sir. in the statistical light of modern diversity and specialization how do you "keep everyone happy." is that not done by making sure certain types of bad things dont happen to the "least of us"

your responses are starting to sound like a communist's, i don't need to actually tackle any of the issues proposed because communism is the idealized equality even though it lacks practicality.

Technology is a "problem"? How so? We can be organized without mandatory government.

ok question, what kind of traffic "laws" are there in an anarchocapitalistic world? who puts together the funding for roads? these are really easy questions, please answer.

Well, frankly, those guys are nuts.

they've answered more fundamental philosophical and social questions than you have so far...

Exactly. Name one function of the government that cannot be fulfilled by the private sector.

answer my questions above. also, who does "general research?" once again, without an overarching regulation and enforcement who then prevents coercion?

I don't know what you are talking about "satisfy the 'majority'", anarchism is about the individual. Government may be inevitable, tyranny may be inevitable as well. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots."

and individuals don't make an ipod or a laptop. collections of individuals do that. once you have a collection of people... where does your anarchy go? once again common sense (the book).

If the other company uses incentive to convince an employee to leave they would be free to do so, as they are now. Why would anyone one to interfere with that, certainly an anarchist would not. If they you force you resist with force, again same as now. Just instead of paying the PD through the government, you pay directly. The government loses it's monopoly on force.

the difference is consequence... the government has set up a "third party" system that no one wants to go to (except hard *** anarchist deviants of modern society i.e. gangsters). i already mentioned fiefdoms. so what's to stop companies from having a little war? just to get this one employee? so let them have the war? where are the consequences for them? they don't ever have to stop? when do they have to have consequences for anything? why NOT kill people to make themselves larger and stronger? once again how do you stop coercion on all levels? and once you concede anything you've already relinquished the "anarcho" part of your philosophy.

Yes. Totally wrong. I'm not sure what this appease the majority BS is, but the majority does not need to be "appeased".

they absolutely need to be, if you cannot satisfy them then where do all the cogs in your machine go? where do you get the increases in technology?

And you could open a store to compete with them. If they are charging so much, it should be easy, if the prices are fair than there is no need to compete, do something else. If you work for them, work somewhere else.

coercion again though, bigger means more guns, more guns means squash your enterprising incursion. how do you protect the "least of us" which is what our constitution proposes to do?

[Alaric]

Ok, I'll bite. Why is anarchy such a crazy idea? Really it's just another word for economic and social freedom, but it is the victim of a very effective smear campaign. IF freedom is a crazy idea, well, I guess I'm one crazy dude.

Hmm, where to start? Who's the greatest, most well known modern proponent of anarchy? Maybe Theodore Kaczynski, AKA, The Unabomber?

What "great" societies are generally accepted as examples of anarchy? Try the Bushmen, Tiv and the Piaroa? All tremendously successful modern societies, to be sure. Ever heard of more than maybe one of them?

Anarchy in all modern examples has just been a shallow excuse to blow up buildings and people. It's a weak quasi-political justification for anti-social behavior.

Read up on it in all it's glory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

[trinydex]

Hmm, where to start? Who's the greatest, most well known modern proponent of anarchy? Maybe Theodore Kaczynski, AKA, The Unabomber?

What "great" societies are generally accepted as examples of anarchy? Try the Bushmen, Tiv and the Piaroa? All tremendously successful modern societies, to be sure. Ever heard of more than maybe one of them?

Anarchy in all modern examples has just been a shallow excuse to blow up buildings and people. It's a weak quasi-political justification for anti-social behavior.

Read up on it in all it's glory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

you should actually read the unabomber manifesto, it's quite logical. no surprise since kaczynski is a mathematician. i hope this is all a discussion of philosophy and not terrorism associated with extremism. the philosophies have merit. the terrorism hasn't any.

[Alaric]

you should actually read the unabomber manifesto, it's quite logical. no surprise since kaczynski is a mathematician. i hope this is all a discussion of philosophy and not terrorism associated with extremism. the philosophies have merit. the terrorism hasn't any.

I'll admit I haven't read it, but I seem to remember that his trip was that technology was ruining the world. Thus he was targeting mathematicians, computer scientists and similar types with his bombs.

I can come up with logical arguments to support all sorts of wacked-out theories. It's the totality of the argument taken in context with moral and social responsibilities that's the real litmus test for such theories. This is where Kaczynski failed.

[trinydex]

I'll admit I haven't read it, but I seem to remember that his trip was that technology was ruining the world. Thus he was targeting mathematicians, computer scientists and similar types with his bombs.

I can come up with logical arguments to support all sorts of wacked-out theories. It's the totality of the argument taken in context with moral and social responsibilities that's the real litmus test for such theories. This is where Kaczynski failed.

kaczynski spent minimal amount of time discussing his revolutionary behaviors. he spent most of his discussing why revolution is necessary. he also said there were alternatives to what he was proposing to do, but that he personally was only interested in expediance. he actually didn't murder people to create a revolution directly but he did so as a publicity stunt so more people would be exposed to the "message"

you could say he was a bit of a doomsdayer and as such acted in an extreme way (as many times doomsdayers do).

your summation of his argument is kind of right, it's not so much that technology is ruining the world so much as it contaminates liberty. he does a decent job a showing this. in fact it's pretty historically accurate even. however much liberating technology seems to be it also enslaves. in fact technology and society are a symbiotic oragnism, feeding off each other. societal structure keeps and nurtures and generates new cogs, the technology machine makes it possible to sustain, entertain and bring value to more cogs and they feed on each other.

i don't at all admire kaczynski's philosophies, but i do acknowledge that he accurately describes reality at least in this narrow case. it is also worth knowing that these thoughts are not purely his own but an amalgamtion of thoughts and philosophies from many others, of course with his revolutionary twist on top.

anyway, everyone should be familiar with the unabomber's manifesto even without directly reading it. just watch fight club, it's based on the unabomber manifesto.

[Matt C]

you still haven't answered my question sir. in the statistical light of modern diversity and specialization how do you "keep everyone happy." is that not done by making sure certain types of bad things dont happen to the "least of us"

It's not the responsibility of anyone else to make you happy. That falls on each individual.

your responses are starting to sound like a communist's, i don't need to actually tackle any of the issues proposed because communism is the idealized equality even though it lacks practicality.

Every form of government is impractical because human beings are full of flaws. That said, this seems to be the least restrictive system possible. Communism also works against human nature, anarchism works with it (to an extent).


ok question, what kind of traffic "laws" are there in an anarchocapitalistic world? who puts together the funding for roads? these are really easy questions, please answer.

All roads that you generally think of as "public" would simply become toll roads. Rules would be set by the toll road operators and I think you would find that they would be similar, if more logically thought out, to the rules on the highways we have now.

they've answered more fundamental philosophical and social questions than you have so far...

Ask away.

answer my questions above. also, who does "general research?" once again, without an overarching regulation and enforcement who then prevents coercion?

Can you define general research? And who are you saying is being coerced?


and individuals don't make an ipod or a laptop. collections of individuals do that. once you have a collection of people... where does your anarchy go? once again common sense (the book).

A collection of people working together voluntarily for their own interests is certainly not incompatible with anarchy, you could even define anarchy as such.


the difference is consequence... the government has set up a "third party" system that no one wants to go to (except hard *** anarchist deviants of modern society i.e. gangsters). i already mentioned fiefdoms. so what's to stop companies from having a little war? just to get this one employee? so let them have the war? where are the consequences for them? they don't ever have to stop? when do they have to have consequences for anything? why NOT kill people to make themselves larger and stronger? once again how do you stop coercion on all levels? and once you concede anything you've already relinquished the "anarcho" part of your philosophy.

While obviously force would be met with force (without government no one has a monopoly on force) I think that the overuse of force is simply bad for business, most businesses would figure that out immediately and the rest would not survive. After all, the same could be said about nations, there is good reason we do not go to war for trivial causes. As nations do, businesses would form guilds and organizations to regulate (voluntarily) and help settle differences peacefully.


they absolutely need to be, if you cannot satisfy them then where do all the cogs in your machine go? where do you get the increases in technology?

People will create for the same reasons they do now, for the same reason they always have, to gain advantages in trade and labor. No one needs to "satisfy them" in order to make this happen, they will do it because it is in their own interest to do it.

coercion again though, bigger means more guns, more guns means squash your enterprising incursion. how do you protect the "least of us" which is what our constitution proposes to do?

So you think that Wallmart will just arm up attack and kill anyone who opens a store to compete as soon as there are no cops to stop them? I don't really see this happening, that does not even happen in Somalia, let alone in the US (say during the western expansion period where you had trading outposts and no law enforcement). The only way we would be in that position is if we eliminated our current government (which I'm not advocating at this time). You think we could pull that off, but somehow Wallmart would be too powerful to resist?

[Matt C]

Hmm, where to start? Who's the greatest, most well known modern proponent of anarchy? Maybe Theodore Kaczynski, AKA, The Unabomber?

What "great" societies are generally accepted as examples of anarchy? Try the Bushmen, Tiv and the Piaroa? All tremendously successful modern societies, to be sure. Ever heard of more than maybe one of them?

Anarchy in all modern examples has just been a shallow excuse to blow up buildings and people. It's a weak quasi-political justification for anti-social behavior.

Read up on it in all it's glory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

Classic straw man argument and not valid. I don't know or care what Theodore Kaczynski thought, he was a cowardly terrorist. If he favored republicanism or democracy it would not make him any less evil and it would not diminish those ideas either.

[Pvt. Cowboy]

Ok, I'll bite. Why is anarchy such a crazy idea? Really it's just another word for economic and social freedom, but it is the victim of a very effective smear campaign. IF freedom is a crazy idea, well, I guess I'm one crazy dude.

What's intellectually the problem here is that as an anarchist, you would logically be in favor of overthrowing the present system of government of the United States of America. You'd throw out the US Constitution and the foundation of our republic described in it.

That's if you know what the word 'anarchy' means. Sure, anarchism has been the victim of a coordinated smear campaign ever since the anarchist Leon Czolgosz assassinated President McKinley.

I think you're also confusing the meaning of the word 'freedom' with 'liberty'.

[Alaric]

So you think that Wallmart will just arm up attack and kill anyone who opens a store to compete as soon as there are no cops to stop them? I don't really see this happening, that does not even happen in Somalia, let alone in the US (say during the western expansion period where you had trading outposts and no law enforcement). The only way we would be in that position is if we eliminated our current government (which I'm not advocating at this time). You think we could pull that off, but somehow Wallmart would be too powerful to resist?

What is happening in Somalia, in their current state of anarchy, is pro-western secular democratic types ("the government") are fighting a war against Islamic fundamentalists and warlords. A lot of innocents are being killed, civil society has all but vanished, and a cottage industry in piracy has taken root. Is this the anarchy you dream of or another straw man argument?

Imagine if the US government disappears in an anarchic rebellion. In the midwest and mountain states Christian fundamentalists of every ilk (Mormons, Evangelicals, etc.) rise up to impose theocracy. In the former western states, a new "ecologically sensitive" eco state arises, bans guns. In the southeast and southwest, the new Mexico/Cuba/Venezuela alliance invades and creates "Nuevo Mexico". In the Northeast, a small band of secular minutemen organizes with the purpose of establishing democracy...and history repeats itself.

At it's root, anarchy is the absence of government. It's a vacuum that will suck in any organization available to fill the role. It's a temporary state of being that can not last. People will band together for mutual preservation and impose government upon themselves.

[Matt C]

What's intellectually the problem here is that as an anarchist, you would logically be in favor of overthrowing the present system of government of the United States of America. You'd throw out the US Constitution and the foundation of our republic described in it.

That's if you know what the word 'anarchy' means. Sure, anarchism has been the victim of a coordinated smear campaign ever since the anarchist Leon Czolgosz assassinated President McKinley.

I think you're also confusing the meaning of the word 'freedom' with 'liberty'.

That's all pretty much correct. I'm still a defender of the Constitution though, to the end. To the extent which that conflicts with my anarchist philosophies, I error on the side of the Constitution.

[trinydex]

It's not the responsibility of anyone else to make you happy. That falls on each individual.

happy was in quotes. i'm not saying it's the role of government or ruling body to make someone happy. i'm saying that a ruling body must enact consequential actions when the people express dissatisfaction. we know this is a flawed system but it also enables people to be the little cogs in the machine, stay highly specialized without having to "worry" about other things that they're not specialized in. anyway, i'm thinkin' you're just going to say that any number of private entities can come together and cooperate and run the world run as it does now. concerns will just have to be addressed in a case by case basis... i imagine people in such a world just as confounded by the diffusion of "responsibilities" just as much as modern government today. i also think that such a cooporation of private entities is called government. the fact that they don't take money out of your paycheck is rather inconsequential since they'll end up taking it in some other way when they provide you with "services."

Every form of government is impractical because human beings are full of flaws. That said, this seems to be the least restrictive system possible. Communism also works against human nature, anarchism works with it (to an extent).

see, you appreciate that it's almost an impossibility to organize and rule people perfectly. so why not advocate balance? why throw out the ruling system and replace it for yet another ruling system? humans find the flaws regardless, there'll always be detractors.

All roads that you generally think of as "public" would simply become toll roads. Rules would be set by the toll road operators and I think you would find that they would be similar, if more logically thought out, to the rules on the highways we have now.

in which way is it different than now? are you saying there would be better efficiency evaluation of which roads are used and which need repair more? the funding seems to be almost the same. then how do you address enforcement? and without the monopoly of force again, what does one do? what does a private sector entity do? in fact what gives a company the right to enforce? and if it's private property then what and where does it say it's private? i thought this was anarchy? take your deed and shove it? or is anarchistic capitalism different?

Can you define general research? And who are you saying is being coerced?

general research, the type that has not a necessarily profitable end goal but COULD possibly lead to breakthroughs that either have profitable end goals or revolutionize technological prospects.

who, anyone. what if it's the enforcement body that is coerced? what if it's a gang member? then does it become whoever has more clout gets to have the private contractors remove their enemies, nuisances, etc. who investigates crime? what even gives them the authority to investigate. why would anyone ever need to cooporate with them? so they're given incentives by money... then how can you determine the truth? there's a lot of questions brought out by this line of thinking...

A collection of people working together voluntarily for their own interests is certainly not incompatible with anarchy, you could even define anarchy as such.

you've evaded your initial point which was:

I don't know what you are talking about "satisfy the 'majority'", anarchism is about the individual.

if anarchy is about the individual then how can you "manage" the individuals coming together and once you apply that to a large scale then even anarchy is no longer just about individuals. my initial point was that in light of anarchy being about individual and independant liberty, how can that be reconciled with the societal and collective nature of technology? which you'll probably just say, anything that can be done under government can be done under anarchy right?

While obviously force would be met with force (without government no one has a monopoly on force) I think that the overuse of force is simply bad for business, most businesses would figure that out immediately and the rest would not survive. After all, the same could be said about nations, there is good reason we do not go to war for trivial causes. As nations do, businesses would form guilds and organizations to regulate (voluntarily) and help settle differences peacefully.

how is punishment enacted? also in such a system how do you guard intellectual property? how do you even ensure that the people who developed and put capital and time into a product are the ones who are rewarded. in an anarchist scenario, where would laws be? and as soon as there's laws would you not be encountering government?

People will create for the same reasons they do now, for the same reason they always have, to gain advantages in trade and labor. No one needs to "satisfy them" in order to make this happen, they will do it because it is in their own interest to do it.

i believe you're wrong here. people don't create because they want an advantage. people create because they have an inherent need to satisfy power cycles, accomplishment, goals, satisfaction etc. there are many cultures who have managed to do so WITHOUT embracing technology, WITHOUT "furthering" their civilization. it's a mistake and very western to assume all humans try to move forward with "technological advancement," or trade and labor or money. as such the world does not revolve around money or even efficiency, it revolves around human social will.

So you think that Wallmart will just arm up attack and kill anyone who opens a store to compete as soon as there are no cops to stop them? I don't really see this happening, that does not even happen in Somalia, let alone in the US (say during the western expansion period where you had trading outposts and no law enforcement). The only way we would be in that position is if we eliminated our current government (which I'm not advocating at this time). You think we could pull that off, but somehow Wallmart would be too powerful to resist?

i'm not thinking that walmart will do anything i'm asking what happens when they do? the same for all my questions. you keep saying things will be the same as now but better (answers i don't necessarily find satisfying to my curiosity on this subject). you don't have to look in the past to see it does happen. look at gangs, organized crime, black markets, etc. yes no such thing as a black market in anarchy, but there's no such thing as white market either. only what humans can and eventually will do. how are you addressing these in your philosophy?

[sierratangofoxtrotunion]

Too bad this thread isn't about a guy with warrants and loaded AR getting arrested.

[Matt C]

What is happening in Somalia, in their current state of anarchy, is pro-western secular democratic types ("the government") are fighting a war against Islamic fundamentalists and warlords. A lot of innocents are being killed, civil society has all but vanished, and a cottage industry in piracy has taken root. Is this the anarchy you dream of or another straw man argument?

Somalia sucks because Somalia sucks, not because there is no government. It sucked when it had a government, the countries around it suck, and it will continue sucking when a new government establishes itself there. Not a good example.

Imagine if the US government disappears in an anarchic rebellion. In the midwest and mountain states Christian fundamentalists of every ilk (Mormons, Evangelicals, etc.) rise up to impose theocracy. In the former western states, a new "ecologically sensitive" eco state arises, bans guns. In the southeast and southwest, the new Mexico/Cuba/Venezuela alliance invades and creates "Nuevo Mexico". In the Northeast, a small band of secular minutemen organizes with the purpose of establishing democracy...and history repeats itself.

The only way your theoretical states would survive is if they were the most efficient. The most efficient from of government is the Republic, so you would eventually get that from anarchy, but from time to time going back to anarchy would not be a bad idea. I know I'd certainly like to get the government of this country back to the size it was a few hundred years ago.

At it's root, anarchy is the absence of government. It's a vacuum that will suck in any organization available to fill the role. It's a temporary state of being that can not last. People will band together for mutual preservation and impose government upon themselves.

Yup, they will, but it would be better than an oppressive tyranny.

[Matt C]

Too bad this thread isn't about a guy with warrants and loaded AR getting arrested.

I think we already established that he was stupid and his case was uninteresting, except maybe for the fact that he was NOT charged with AW possession. .

[Pvt. Cowboy]

That's all pretty much correct. I'm still a defender of the Constitution though, to the end. To the extent which that conflicts with my anarchist philosophies, I error on the side of the Constitution.

Well, now I know. Not that I understand the incoherent reasoning even a tiny bit, but at least I know how it generally goes.

I think that I prefer our existing system of government, warts and all, rather than cede the US Constitution to a bunch of twenty-something half-queer shrimps who would probably chase their wind-blown Dungeons and Dragons character sheet into fast moving traffic like the kind I saw attending that anarchy conference in that YouTube video posted earlier.

Eecch. Politically-active adolescents in their twenties. Oh, how I hate them.