Anarchy the only good government.

Since foraging grasslands chimps began to transition into social beings, the aggression and dominance of the ego has curtailed efforts to build a balanced society. There have been utopian exceptions, but overall, the rich get richer.

Pride wants to feel sure and in control. Aggression baits the attack wherever change, lack of familiarity, is encountered. A hierarchy of dominance and submission simply isn't necessary for a society to function efficiently, effectively, and happily, and it actually inhibits all three categories.

Only governing should be governed or deterred. Attempts to coerce others to follow the territorial rules established by the subjective opinions of tyrants and well-meaning bigots, except in the instance where the only thing coerced into being is ceased coercion, are counter-productive to the foundations of a perfect society.

It is only necessary to inhibit inhibition, to govern governance. Attempts to control other psychologically independent adults into following any territorial rule other than no controlling others is largely pointless.

However, society may not yet be selfless enough to function efficiently without being beaten into submission. I could understand a social outcry that it is too much coercion to force people to stop driving gas-powered cars, stop running emissions-producing factories, and attempt to work together to reverse the damage of global warming. In my book, no one has the right to inhibit (govern) all sentient beings on the face of the planet, and it is not in violation of anarchy to force the peoples to stop polluting.

Common arguments against anarchy include that some amount of coercion is necessary to be a parent. Children are born into a psychologically dependent state wherein they have yet to evolve the capacity to fend for themselves. It is the responsibility of a good parent to induce the child to become, by age 18, psychologically and physically autonomous, to minimize the probability of the transitioning psyche to be vulnerable to environmental coercing factors away from autonomy.

Science has established that abusive spanking worsens behavior later in life, and occurs at a threshold of suffering that would seem minimal and appropriate to many modern adults. Non coercive parenting tactics may be best, but it is understandable if some amount of control is taken from children - so long as one's intent and hopefully educated opinion is that it will increase their overall margin of self control and autonomy.

My main point is that once autonomy is achieved, even if eye for an eye was one's strict and only law, eye for an eye is violated if that autonomy is taken away unless to prevent the individual from doing exactly that to someone else.

There is such a thing as system stuckness. If one's efforts unhinge an unweildy machine that is by its very nature incapable of avoiding some margin of coercion until unhinged, I have no problem with this seemingly-hypocritical working with the system to defeat the system. I define this attitude as Libertarian Anarchy: minimal coercion necessary to induce least coercion.

Ethics are subjective to what the individual, the whole of the individual's psyche, wants. Selfless or sociopath, if fairness is converted to mathematically precise dimensions, the individual is defended by its adherents to within the mathematically available threshold according to the most objective motivations of the majority. Fairness embraces the broadest category of sentient life, defending them all so that all have a motivation to defend it.

s = suffering induced versus a = suffering absolved, f = free will inhibited versus e = free will enabled, p = pleasure stolen versus d = pleasure provided. Those whom absolve more suffering than they contribute should be provided pleasure according to how over the line they are, as well as if they provide more pleasure than they steal from others. Free will enabled grants the safety of the enabler's autonomy.

Loyalty is the second place most important factor in determining the objective motive of all sentient life to fairness. Fairness is loyalty as applied to the whole. Loyalty to lesser quantities of people can prove one's value to amoral hierarchies. Disloyalty is objective evidence of a probability you would betray those hierarchies, given a chance. Loyalty is more difficult to scale than fairness because new numbers would have to evolve according to the hierarchy dealt with.

It is possible to work together according to the maths of fairness and loyalty, achieving based upon one's contributions. An authoritarian hierarchy is not necessary for the general population to consent to go along with the most experienced and otherwise qualified person for the job at hand, the decision to be made. Society would benefit if mathematically precise loyalty and fairness replaced currency.

It is also a common justification of government, and literally true, that What actually works out most effectively is what works. But how do you tell?

It is also true that the purpose of punishment is deterrence. If more suffering results, less pleasure, and less free will, overall, than without the punishment, the punishment is unjust, even tyrannical.

a reply to: WalkingHolic

I lean toward a minarchist paradigm, myself. The problem is the same with that as with every other, though; eventually those who wield a little bit of power want more.

I've often noticed; The dream of those under some sort or form of monarchy... To incline towards anarchy as a political ideal.

A democracy could be seen as a controlled anarchy, however; With so many different groups all vying for power? It doesn't often make the democratic situation appear that great.

maybe this is possible with machines as its not possible with humans on any scale.

IMO governments use the same tactics as narcissists. My ex was a narc and the US goverment (and others) use many of the same tactics: gaslighting, fear , coercion, the need for control and more power ,corruption, lies off course , the list is endless.
Governments need to be governed themselves or they run amok , like has been happening.
There is no independent oversight.
The less government in peoples lives the better. Minimal , just for border protection , police/military , infrastructure .
These bloated goverments are just self-serving obviously which leads to endless corruption .

a reply to: WalkingHolic

I've been an Anarchist at heart for as long as I can remember.
I passionately believe its the purest form of social integration.

Unfortunately there's one big problem with Anarchy; Human beings.
There will always be some who will seek to use, abuse and seek advantage of others for their own personal advancement and betterment. A minority who will always seek to manipulate and control others.

Unless there is a step-change in the human psyche I'm afraid Anarchy can only be an unrealistic ideological ideal.

anarchism is the noblest forms of social order. also it suprisingly has alot of rules. if you dont follow them you are shunned. also the urge to destroy is a creative urge.....because you have to build something better in its place. these antifa pukes arent anarchists at all. also in a college study way back, a blind study. 70+% scored as anarchists. you might be an anarchist and not know it

Anarchy at its finest1
Enjoy.
www.youtube.com...

Anarchy is the dumbest idea for how a people should be governed. With no central Govt, who stops an invading army from taking your sh!t? Who makes it illegal to kill you for your belongings? Who appoints the organization that would chase down and bring to justice the people who just took your things? Who regulates large corporations from just dumping glowing sludge into the waterways? Why would those powerful companies even listen to a bunch of anarchists?

The military is a good example of why anarchy wouldn't work in that people on their own f'n program would cause an unsurmountable problem with logistics, readiness, and deployment of assets. Everyone has to be on the same path for the same goal for a government to be effective.

originally posted by: WalkingHolic
Since foraging grasslands chimps began to transition into social beings, the aggression and dominance of the ego has curtailed efforts to build a balanced society. There have been utopian exceptions, but overall, the rich get richer.

You entire thesis is based on the ass-u-me-ption that we are ... chimps???

originally posted by: inspector42
Anarchy is the dumbest idea for how a people should be governed. With no central Govt, who stops an invading army from taking your sh!t? Who makes it illegal to kill you for your belongings? Who appoints the organization that would chase down and bring to justice the people who just took your things? Who regulates large corporations from just dumping glowing sludge into the waterways? Why would those powerful companies even listen to a bunch of anarchists?

The military is a good example of why anarchy wouldn't work in that people on their own f'n program would cause an unsurmountable problem with logistics, readiness, and deployment of assets. Everyone has to be on the same path for the same goal for a government to be effective.

ya man. big yikes my guy. lets put this in perspective....Spain 1936-1939. The Communist's and the Fascist's were at war, but not an ordinary war, you see they feared the anarchist's so much that they stoppped fighting eachother, and crushed the anarchist's. When that was done, they went back to fighting eachother. Im not sure what that means, but I vcan tell ya the good ole boys still put up a good fight, against two enemies. The fruit was picked, the children were reared, and there were lots of @ soldiers going to the front. They were not compelled to go, they just did. Unlike those two other regimes. Funny how that goes, all of a sudden authority didnt mean much and yet everyone was fed and had a great standard of living with plenty of free time to spare. hmmmmm

a reply to: AnrkE

Cool story, bro

So the two sides feared a bunch of selfish dirt bags who wanted to end all government and just govern themselves? I doubt it, where's the proof either side said they feared a bunch of whiny anarchists? So, you make my point that anarchists are useless when an actual army is on the field. They cant govern anything larger than a sex cult without force.

First they were Federalized. Syndicates but not in the tradirional way. They were so good between Corporate and STATE, that war still isnt over. FASCISTS AND COMMUNISTS rule you now. Throw in power and money and you got any current day leaders. the way they built their soiety that FACSISM and COMMUNISM joined forces because they couldnt understand how beaucracy and dictatorship couldnt rule every aspect of life. If the anarchists had their way the stupid mass wouldnt bleat out wait!!! They needed power as a function. They give themselves a really good deal in the end too. They won't forget friends and family along the way. There is only one place that they would never get away with it, you guessed it! among the mob. people that hold no real power suddenly find themselves in charge because nobody has anything but an opinion. Now the NAZIS and the COMMIES split the wares dont they? The ended hostilitiess. Agree to an untold truce, shake hands over battlefields and bodies but dont worry....all the same men are in charge and we will divvie up the gold. Then they team up and dont wear the same badge. They do lunches like the civilized, but they draw the line in the locker room. Every body is naked their, and we agreee not to mention down below....I wont tell if you don't tell!!! Nope. ITS a little harmless secret betweeen friends!!!They just tip a hat across tthe aisle, a wink. Clever foxes and snakes. They have convinced us all that we are not equal, some are unequal and some are more equal than others. Both clownshows wear the same badge. wear the same badge. Colour. Something as dumb as colour. Not only that, but you should find youre badge too!!! fInd you're colour!! Don't get left behind. Isn't it funny how rich white men, taught us to hate, rich white men?. wish I could send you something You see FACSISM is the marriage between Corporate, State and now more things that bolster this protracted war by the Nazis and the Communist. Look at you two staring down in the locker room, and pretending not to smirk. THATS a cool story bud. one more time? Are you sure the nazis didnt win? but did the communists?. They will never tell Those spineless pukes spilled everyone else's blood, then shook hands. The only good they could agree on, is making sure people can never rule themselves. They will crush any ideas like that by pooling their resources. Anyone caught thinking for themselves is now an enemie of both the those little rascals, then they just go back and shoot off a few rounds and tee time at 9.

originally posted by: inspector42
a reply to: AnrkE
Cool story,

So the two sides feared a bunch of selfish dirt bags who wanted to end all government and just govern themselves? I doubt it, where's the proof either side said they feared a bunch of whiny anarchists? So, you make my point that anarchists are useless when an actual army is on the field. They cant govern anything larger than a sex cult without force.

i dont think you understand. ive been in a room full af @'s. Nothing sucks the air out of the room faster than saying F@G, eating meat, not pulling your weight, or any number ofwrongthink. Full of Aholes. But our assjoles show themselves, then the room tells them they are. You don't last long with pure, public srutiny. Thats a tough room.


come on....that story

now about that army. imagine a group of men trying to kill your nazis and communist's so that neither should win if it means they both win. Didnt they? Then call it democracy. Then go try and pull that # in that room.

if only we knew

originally posted by: AnrkE
i dont think you understand. ive been in a room full af @'s. Nothing sucks the air out of the room faster than saying F@G, eating meat, not pulling your weight, or any number ofwrongthink. Full of Aholes. But our assjoles show themselves, then the room tells them they are. You don't last long with pure, public srutiny. Thats a tough room.


come on....that story

now about that army. imagine a group of men trying to kill your nazis and communist's so that neither should win if it means they both win. Didnt they? Then call it democracy. Then go try and pull that # in that room.

if only we knew