doc111
Well-Known Member
Seems pretty idealistic to me. I'll retract my statement that it will never happen but seriously.....we are a long way from anarchy actually working. And I mean a long way!
Who wants bigger gov't??? Please help me understand liberals.
- Thread starter kappainf
- Start date
CrackerJax
New Member
I can assure you, if the supreme court finds Obama to be ineligible to be President.... the time line will compress as you sleep.
doc111
Well-Known Member
Do you seriously think this will happen?
undertheice
Well-Known Member
it is a goal, a path worth traveling. if we must go in one direction or the other, why not chose the one that affords the most freedom for the individual? down the other road lies slavery and i really don't think we need to go there.
I
Illegal Smile
Guest
No court will ever overturn an election for president that was certified by congress, never. They will say the will of the voters trumps eligibility and the objections should have come earlier. Of course they would say he couldn't run again. It's really a moot point because if Obama ever thought the bc would be subpoena'd (which would have to come before any court ruled) he would resign and the bc would remain secret and we still wouldn't know.
ancap
Active Member
A world without slaves probably seemed idealistic to many in the early 1800's. Every necessary social change in history has been met with fear and uncertainty, though it did not make the ideas behind the change any less valid.
I know it can be tempting to dismiss an idea as revolutionary as "social order derived through non-violent solutions", but it deserves rigorous examination in light of the seemingly universal belief in this thread that government is "evil".
The burden of proof is not on the voluntarists who are proposing a "lifeboat" solution. It is on the statist to prove that thier ship isn't sinking. On the other hand, they can feel free to debate us on the practicality of our lifeboat as they stand waist deep in freezing water. By the way, we think our lifeboat is really really solid.
doc111
Well-Known Member
The whole idea of anarchy operates on the assumption that everyone else is as reasonable and civilized as you. They aren't. Unfortunately we need law and a mechanism to enforce these laws. How many times have you been pissed at someone and said "I could kill that person". With no fear of punishment more people would act on these types of impulses and then people would be crying for laws and police and such. I think we need a good balance of freedom and rule of law. Right now we are leaning way to heavily in the direction of the latter.
ancap
Active Member
Your fears on the surface seem reasonable and justified. Is it possible that you don't have a clear understanding of how a voluntaristic society could work? I'm not sure if you are trying to shut the idea out or if you really are curious to understand the principles behind voluntarism (or if you DO understand voluntarism and fundamentally disagree for some reason).
doc111
Well-Known Member
I understand how it works and I respect your opinion. I think it sounds like a wonderful shangri-la. Have you ever heard the saying "A few bad apples spoils the bunch". This is always the problem with these types of utopias. You have someone that wants more and will go to any lengths to get it. Or the guy that gets pissed because his neighbors fence is overlapping onto his property by 1/2 an inch and goes postal. We aren't even close to the point in human evolution where people can be trusted to put the needs of a society before their own desires and needs.Your fears on the surface seem reasonable and justified. Is it possible that you don't have a clear understanding of how a voluntaristic society could work? I'm not sure if you are trying to shut the idea out or if you really are curious to understand the principles behind voluntarism (or if you DO understand voluntarism and fundamentally disagree for some reason).
CrackerJax
New Member
Just an FYI ... there are more slaves today than at the end of the US Civil war. Just thought you might like to know it never ended, it just moved and continued as always.
ancap
Active Member
Sure, I'll accept that. I don't know how that changes the spirit of the analogy though. I guess I could have said "a United States without institutionalized, legal slavery".
ancap
Active Member
I'm not sure who suggested that, but I'd have to disagree with that summary of voluntarism. Anarchism has been bastardized to mean so many things that it's not. It is simply a society without a centralized ruling class that governs through force and manipulation.
So for you the idea of a voluntaristic society that functions on free market ideals, sparks fears of:
A. Unfettered murder rates
B. Explosions in crime rates
You say that you have studied voluntarism and the non-aggression principle (which goes hand in hand). Have you studied any proposed solutions to the problems of criminality in a voluntaristic society enough to make the reasonable determination that these fears you have are all based in reality? What specifically about these proposed solutions do you find unworkable? I'm interested to know so I can determine if we are examining the same solutions.
CrackerJax
New Member
No, it doesn't change the analogy, but I thought you'd just like to know. It's still going on. It's hard to believe in the 21st century. We talk about faux carbon crisis' and climate change nonsense and ppl across the globe wake up as slaves..... priorities.
Just thought u'd like to know.
ancap
Active Member
I'm very aware slavery exists throughout the world. It's also true on the other hand that real freedom exists almost nowhere. That's why I'm an advocate for throwing our ruling class to the curb and exercising the principles of freedom in your life now.
Ron Paul 2012! ...not really.
CrackerJax
New Member
The thing to do is put Ron Paul on the repub ticket as VP. That's the only way he's got a shot at the top.
doc111
Well-Known Member
The definition of anarchy is: without government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
I think there is a reason that no true anarchies exist. People need some sort of law and order. I assume you are a reasonable and logical person. But I know some people are not. The only way anarchy can be successful is if everyone respects the property and basic human rights of others without fear of reprisal for violation of either. Even reasonable and logical people sometimes violate these principles, we won't even mention those who have no respect for others property or basic human rights. In a society that has no law and no way to enforce laws (which don't exist anyway) what is to stop me from seeing something I want and just taking it? Nothing. At least in societies with governments we are somewhat protected. I think this is why people associate anarchy with chaos. One doesn't have to be a psychologist or a sociologist to understand basic human nature. You brought up fear of unfettered murder rates. I served in the military in Somalia in the early 90's. That is about as close as you can get to true anarchy. I rest my case.
ancap
Active Member
Right, and like I said, government is a centralized ruling class that governs through force and manipulation. Name me a government that has not.
I would agree. My guess... It has taken over 100,000 years to achieve the kind of scientific knowledge we as humans in modern western society have. As scientific advancement one day reaches a new threshold, it will create the social environment where a stateless society could be born. Think of religion as an example. It has taken literally thousands upon thousands of years of scientific advancement to finally begin exposing the idea of "gods" as purely man made. Of course there is a long way to go since there is such a strong social power structure in place, but I have a feeling that one day in the future, the idea that humans worshipped mystical beings will seem silly. In the same way, I believe that one day in the future, we will be shocked and appalled at the way man accepted violent ruling mafias as a "necessary evil" to achieve social order. Again, this isn't proof... just my guess.
We agree that people need order. We disagree that people need laws to establish order.
Not me.
I would restate that as, "The only way anarchy can be successful is if there remains a social mechanism for levying consequences for violations of person, property and contracts that does not involve a violent monopoly of governing force."
We are not talking about the same kind of anarchic environment here. Anarchy in the wake of a violent regime collapse is entirely different. When the social paradigm is changed so rapidly and violently, chaos ensues. It's like what happens when a drug addict is forced off drugs cold turkey. His body reacts negatively to the swift change in the status quo. This is not proof that this man needs drugs. In the same way, Somalian chaos is not proof that man needs governments.
Do I know how a peaceful anarchic society will come about practically? I could guess, but there is absolutely no way of knowing how it would happen. Do I know how a peaceful voluntaristic society would work in practice? Yes, I have theories based on evidence and logic (most are not mine, admittedly). However, these are only guesses. When talking about such a complex social organism, there is no way of predicting how everything will be organized. To rest my case, the only ethical conclusion I need to prove is, "governments are evil", which I am always prepared to prove.
doc111
Well-Known Member
I think we both agree that the U.S. government is way to big and intrusive. I would like to see more personal responsibility and less dependence on government for everything. Unfortunately we seem to be trending in the opposite direction. Humans are, as a whole, a long way off from being able to handle the kind of society you propose. I'm somewhat cynical perhaps but my cynicism exists from years of firsthand experience with the kind of horrible things people are capable of. You say we can achieve an anarchistic society but with rules. That doesn't sound like a true anarchy to me. There has to be someone to enforce the rules. I don't like how the U.S. government ahcieves control either but that doesn't mean we should just dismatle it. I also agree with you that governments "tend" to be evil. Remember that theories are not the same thing as reality. Theoretically we can travel at or near the speed of light. We are a long, long, long way off from that.Right, and like I said, government is a centralized ruling class that governs through force and manipulation. Name me a government that has not.
I would agree. My guess... It has taken over 100,000 years to achieve the kind of scientific knowledge we as humans in modern western society have. As scientific advancement one day reaches a new threshold, it will create the social environment where a stateless society could be born. Think of religion as an example. It has taken literally thousands upon thousands of years of scientific advancement to finally begin exposing the idea of "gods" as purely man made. Of course there is a long way to go since there is such a strong social power structure in place, but I have a feeling that one day in the future, the idea that humans worshipped mystical beings will seem silly. In the same way, I believe that one day in the future, we will be shocked and appalled at the way man accepted violent ruling mafias as a "necessary evil" to achieve social order. Again, this isn't proof... just my guess.
We agree that people need order. We disagree that people need laws to establish order.
Not me.
I would restate that as, "The only way anarchy can be successful is if there remains a social mechanism for levying consequences for violations of person, property and contracts that does not involve a violent monopoly of governing force."
We are not talking about the same kind of anarchic environment here. Anarchy in the wake of a violent regime collapse is entirely different. When the social paradigm is changed so rapidly and violently, chaos ensues. It's like what happens when a drug addict is forced off drugs cold turkey. His body reacts negatively to the swift change in the status quo. This is not proof that this man needs drugs. In the same way, Somalian chaos is not proof that man needs governments.
Do I know how a peaceful anarchic society will come about practically? I could guess, but there is absolutely no way of knowing how it would happen. Do I know how a peaceful voluntaristic society would work in practice? Yes, I have theories based on evidence and logic (most are not mine, admittedly). However, these are only guesses. When talking about such a complex social organism, there is no way of predicting how everything will be organized. To rest my case, the only ethical conclusion I need to prove is, "governments are evil", which I am always prepared to prove.
ancap
Active Member
Yes we definitely agree here, but there is a problem when it comes to advocating for a small government... it can never happen. All governments, in all times, and in all places, grow until they collapse. That is the natural established lifecycle of a government. It's like buying a puppy and being surprised when it gets bigger, and then trying to reverse its growing process to turn it into a puppy again. Impossible.
The US is a great case study for the experiment of the "small government". In what other time in history have we seen such brilliant liberty loving men convene to create a government designed specifically to stay small and unintrusive? And where is this government today? The US is the largest, most expansive and powerful empire the world has EVER seen... and it's still growing (though I have a strange feeling this government is nearing the end of its lifecycle).
I think you might be a little trigger happy to reach a conclusion wthout really digging into what a stateless society means and looks like. Believe me, it's a hard pill to swallow on the surface, I understand. It's also important to realize though that I am fully aware of man's potential for corruption, and it's need for governance (not govern"ment"). I'm also aware that the idea of governance without government sounds counter-intuitive.
Based on your posts, I'm going to make the assumption that you are a fan of the free market (if not, I don't think you would be arguing for less government). It is vitally important to note that the modern free market is what is responsible for the massive explosions in wealth and technological advancement over the past two centuries. It is also vitally important to note that the free market is widely anarchic in nature, that is, it requires only a miniscule amount of governance to really function. We find this governance in the areas of contract enforcement and dispute resolution. However, though very important, this type of governance amounts to only a tiny fraction of the total operations of the free market. To say in another way, for every 100 transactions that take place, a third party (government) is only needed to assist in maybe 1.
In the same way I am advocating for a change in ONLY 1% of the current system of free market exchange, I am only advocating for a change in a tiny percentage of what we know as society today. Some say, "We need a central government to run our schools, approve our drugs, build our roads and enforce our contracts". I say, "No we don't".
If a government collects its revenue through force or the threat of force, and prevents private industry from competing with its social services in any way whatsoever, it is evil, not tending to be evil.