[quote]Varqanir wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Anarchists of the world, unite!!
Just so long as we don’t form a club and elect officers . . . .I’ll be pissed if this starts getting organized - LMAO!!!
Can you imagine the Anarchist Party platform? “If elected, I promise to do… NOTHING!”[/quote]
Of course. Every voluntary organization needs rules to function. The difference between a government and an association with rules is that the government has a monopoly on force. Schools and private businesses are orderly.
(I wouldn’t call myself an anarchist, exactly – I’m more interested in seeing if there are any incremental changes we can make in the direction of less government – but I’m in the ballpark. I’m a big fan of Roderick T. Long.)
Anyone have thoughts on Douglas Rushkoff’s idea of alternative currencies? (Described here:http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/dual-perspectives/2009/04/13/DIY-Currencies) I think it’s potentially plausible. (Yes, he’s a “lefty,” but in his case I’m not even sure how meaningful the term is. When somebody likes free commerce but opposes corporatism, is he all that much more “left” than Rothbard?)
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Anarchists of the world, unite!!
Just so long as we don’t form a club and elect officers . . . .I’ll be pissed if this starts getting organized - LMAO!!!
Where is it written that anarchists are unorganized? Anarchists are unruled. There is a difference. We can organize without a power structure in place.[/quote]
I know you are pulling my leg again, but how can you organize with out structure?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
However, with humans being the social animals we are, in desperate need of a hierarchy…
Prove it.
The history of all humanity proves this.
No. This is not proof.
[/quote]
Ahh… yea. yea it is.
Possibly the stupidest thing you’ve ever seen.
Say whatever you want bro. I know the big conspiracy machine is responsible for all things evil, but there is certainly an inherent alpha and beta status among people, and it plays out consistently.
You could start making sense sometime too. That’d be nice.
[quote]
Instead of fighting it out, we have elections.
I know you like fighting because you use it as part of your handle but it isn’t always necessary to “fight it out” to solve problems. Consider the following examples that show how problems can be solve which require peaceful human cooperation rather than fighting:
Language – With out human cooperation this would never have been possible. Let’s not also forget that multilingualism also requires the same kind of cooperation. Think of how much better we solve problems with language than with swords and bombs.
Trade – fighting hinders this. In stead of pillaging we can exchange our skills to bring about greater wealth for everyone willing to work. Consider also that most wars are started over economic reasons and are not just struggles for power.
The mere idea that people can even come together to form a government proves that they can cooperate peacefully enough to agree upon rules – government did not bring itself about.
The advancement of society, what we might call “progress” is only possible when people are peaceful, free, and prosperous. Government does not enable these in man but rather man does in himself: in his ideas and his actions.
If anything history proves that Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity must be defended as one idea.[/quote]
Yea… but people are killing each other pretty consistently.
Thinking that human beings aren’t violent and that no alpha system exacts is naive. Your philosophy sucks.
In August 1914 Germany attacked Russia, to whom she sold more goods than any other nation, and Britain declared war on a Germany that was Britian’s greatest Continental customer. In the thirties Japan’s principal overseas trade was with China and the United States. Tokyo attacked both. When Hitler turned on Stalin, he was attacking Germany’s principal source of food, oil and raw materials.
FightingIrish26 is correct. “Language”. LMFAO.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Anarchists of the world, unite!!
Just so long as we don’t form a club and elect officers . . . .I’ll be pissed if this starts getting organized - LMAO!!!
Where is it written that anarchists are unorganized? Anarchists are unruled. There is a difference. We can organize without a power structure in place.
I know you are pulling my leg again, but how can you organize with out structure?[/quote]
The key word is “power”. Anarchy only exists outside a coercive authority.
Anarchist society would be no more structured than where you work. Your boss is not your “leader” but he is understood to be above you in a chain of “command”. You are free to leave whenever you want. That is how voluntary society works. You are beholden to none but your own best interests.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Thinking that human beings aren’t violent and that no alpha system exacts is naive. Your philosophy sucks.[/quote]
Your understanding sucks.
Please find me some scientific proof of the existence of “alpha” and how I would go about making a precise measurement of it – as well as give me the units to do so.
Limited government…yes… NO government…NO. No government would be a bloodbath in major cities and probably the suburbs that border them with gangbangers and other assorted wild animals killing, pillaging and raping everything in sight. In fact, if you want to taste a bit of anarchy just go to some random parts of NYC where people do drugs in public, sell drugs in public, robe and rape people in allies and abandoned houses, shoot or stab people over drugs or petty shit,etc.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Of course. Every voluntary organization needs rules to function. The difference between a government and an association with rules is that the government has a monopoly on force. Schools and private businesses are orderly.
(I wouldn’t call myself an anarchist, exactly – I’m more interested in seeing if there are any incremental changes we can make in the direction of less government – but I’m in the ballpark. I’m a big fan of Roderick T. Long.)
Anyone have thoughts on Douglas Rushkoff’s idea of alternative currencies? (Described here:http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/dual-perspectives/2009/04/13/DIY-Currencies) I think it’s potentially plausible. (Yes, he’s a “lefty,” but in his case I’m not even sure how meaningful the term is. When somebody likes free commerce but opposes corporatism, is he all that much more “left” than Rothbard?)[/quote]
Be still my beating heart…
Welcome to PWI, may the force be with you.
[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:
In August 1914 Germany attacked Russia, to whom she sold more goods than any other nation, and Britain declared war on a Germany that was Britian’s greatest Continental customer. In the thirties Japan’s principal overseas trade was with China and the United States. Tokyo attacked both. When Hitler turned on Stalin, he was attacking Germany’s principal source of food, oil and raw materials.
FightingIrish26 is correct. “Language”. LMFAO.[/quote]
“They” did no such thing.
The Japanese government attacked other nations, hurting their own producers.
The Japanese merchants would not have even dreamed to kill off their customers.
Bad for business.
I must point you all in the direction of http://www.freedomainradio.com
I’m in no way affiliated with this site but it has immensely benefitted me and the following should sum up just about everything being discussed here -
“The Stateless Society - An Examination of Alternative Life without government? Really? Here’s how it works - and why it is so crucial!”
http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/stateless_society_take_2_320.mp3
“Caging the Devils The Stateless Society and Violent Crime Can a society without a government deal with violent crime…?”
http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/caging_the_beasts32.mp3
“These Cages are Only for Beasts The DRO debate continues…”
http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/cages_only_for_beasts.mp3
(From: http://www.freedomainradio.com/navigation/FDR_Filter_One_Page.aspx?Category=* )
Also free e-books “Everyday Anarchy” and “Practical Anarchy” available in audio and text formats.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
Of course. Every voluntary organization needs rules to function. The difference between a government and an association with rules is that the government has a monopoly on force. Schools and private businesses are orderly.
(I wouldn’t call myself an anarchist, exactly – I’m more interested in seeing if there are any incremental changes we can make in the direction of less government – but I’m in the ballpark. I’m a big fan of Roderick T. Long.)
Anyone have thoughts on Douglas Rushkoff’s idea of alternative currencies? (Described here:http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/dual-perspectives/2009/04/13/DIY-Currencies) I think it’s potentially plausible. (Yes, he’s a “lefty,” but in his case I’m not even sure how meaningful the term is. When somebody likes free commerce but opposes corporatism, is he all that much more “left” than Rothbard?)
Be still my beating heart…
Welcome to PWI, may the force be with you.[/quote]
Aw thanks.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Has anarchy successfully demonstrated itself anywhere? [/quote]
It demonstrates itself everywhere there is not state mandated coercion or violence; for example, in commerce, private education, religious worship, and most importantly the family.
[quote]El Sonido wrote:
I must point you all in the direction of http://www.freedomainradio.com
I’m in no way affiliated with this site but it has immensely benefitted me and the following should sum up just about everything being discussed here -
“The Stateless Society - An Examination of Alternative Life without government? Really? Here’s how it works - and why it is so crucial!”
http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/stateless_society_take_2_320.mp3
“Caging the Devils The Stateless Society and Violent Crime Can a society without a government deal with violent crime…?”
http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/caging_the_beasts32.mp3
“These Cages are Only for Beasts The DRO debate continues…”
http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/cages_only_for_beasts.mp3
(From: http://www.freedomainradio.com/navigation/FDR_Filter_One_Page.aspx?Category=* )
Also free e-books “Everyday Anarchy” and “Practical Anarchy” available in audio and text formats.
http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/[/quote]
Wow!! Thank you!
Push: we don’t have a working model. That doesn’t make the idea stupid. We’re in the position of a 17th century Englishman toying with democratic ideas, and planting a few of the seeds in his own society; he’s never seen a working modern democracy either.
I don’t think we have any way of knowing whether anarchy will “work” at this point. To say anarchy won’t work, if that’s a meaningful statement, is to say that a minimal state is okay but the absence of the state is a problem. But today we don’t even know what a minimal state looks like, let alone anarchy. That people can organize quite complex things without coercive authority (sometimes without any authority) – well, that’s all around us. Open source code, for one. Wikipedia. Every manufactured product (thanks, “I, Pencil.”) Burning Man, if you want something with an intentionally anarchistic bent. I’m interested to see how the seasteads turn out. But, no, I don’t know what happens when you take away the state. Maybe we should first see what happens if you try some school vouchers.
I have a few doubts about the anarchist project myself – I’m not convinced that we shouldn’t be allocating some resources (through taxes) to the least well-off. I’ve never been happy with “screw the poor.” I like the earned income tax credit. It’s possible to have a limited government (in the sense of “less intrusive,” both in private and commercial life) that is not a small government (in terms of revenue). Denmark by most measures is a very free country, socially and economically, and quite unregulated, despite having a generous, northern European-style welfare system. Everybody has some public good they’re scared of losing – mine is the social safety net, and I don’t know how we’d replace it.
And FightingIrish: anarchy doesn’t imply believing that people aren’t violent. People are very violent. They do their worst violence with state support. Think of the genocides of the present and the past ten years. Sudan, Burma, Kosovo, Rwanda. All government-supported. Not to speak of the 20th century’s totalitarian movements. One could argue that states legitimize violence and make it easier to commit on a vast scale.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
And FightingIrish: anarchy doesn’t imply believing that people aren’t violent. People are very violent. They do their worst violence with state support. Think of the genocides of the present and the past ten years. Sudan, Burma, Kosovo, Rwanda. All government-supported. Not to speak of the 20th century’s totalitarian movements. One could argue that states legitimize violence and make it easier to commit on a vast scale.[/quote]
I never said that it did.
What I said is that even though I like the idea, it would never work. Anarchists are not at the stage of English philosophers in 17th century- that’s pure bullshit. They’re more like in the stage of the communist today- no one wants the system, no one believes it will work, and the philosophy is all but dead except in the eyes of the irrational and the camo-wearing survival junkies.
As someone else said, it would be a TREMENDOUS step backwards for mankind.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Or do we just have the Utopian hopes and dreams of the LIFITCs, Crowleys, et al?[/quote]
Pretty much. It’s another bullshit Utopian scheme.
Ohh I see why this forum proves addictive. You start to want to argue.
Irish, okay, maybe it was a weak analogy. Look, I’m not cheerleading for anarchy. I’m cheerleading for some tentative experimentation in that direction. You know, on the order of cutting the corn subsidy (and even that is a huge political risk.) And I’m all for entertaining bullshit utopian schemes if they inspire people to make things incrementally better, or even if they’re merely harmless. You can’t stop people from getting utopian, especially in this country. (Margaret Fuller, anyone?)
“Will anarchy work?” is a speculative question, and the only serious answer is that we don’t know. There’s some tentative evidence that Somalia was less violence after their government collapsed, but I’m not convinced. The interesting questions, I think, are whether we can do without certain traditional functions of government. Can private roads work? Can DIY currencies work? What would happen if there were no zoning? What would happen if there were no NSF to fund research? (Oh, it chills my heart!) Those are questions we can try to answer, and often the evidence shows that we don’t really need government to do X.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Ohh I see why this forum proves addictive. You start to want to argue.
[/quote]
That’s the name of the game.
I couldn’t stop them, no. I wouldn’t want to. But it doesn’t mean that I’ll respect them.
The quick answer is no. It would be a de-evolution.
Your anarchist states would work fine… until my anarchist state runs out of food and comes and kills you and everyone in your anarchist state so we can eat.
Why? Because even though lifti naively thinks otherwise, people are animals. Territorial, nationalistic, prideful animals.