Extreme Left is COMPLETE TOTALITARIAN/ Extreme Right is COMPLETE ANARCHY

reply to post by NoHierarchy

Some of the MOST SUCCESSFUL AND PROSPEROUS countries are partially socialist. Look at the Scandinavian countries... they have the highest marks on just about every test of a country's well-being, happiness, prosperity, crime, etc. etc. and they all have very socialized social programs- universal health-care, free/cheap schooling, paid maternity leave, mandatory vacations, living wages, etc.

For someone who is impatient with ignorance, you really should pay attention to your own.

You cannot sustain the kind of lifestyle you mention here forever. They will pay SEVERELY for it in the near future.

I know it's not quite perfect and it sort of takes the humanity out of things....... but just try to play Sim City and see how far in debt you go providing the perfect lifestyle for people. Go ahead. Enjoy thoroughly.

And if you do choose to play, remember that you're not there to be popular. You're just there to do the right thing for them...

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
You cannot sustain the kind of lifestyle you mention here forever. They will pay SEVERELY for it in the near future.

Source.

I know it's not quite perfect and it sort of takes the humanity out of things....... but just try to play Sim City and see how far in debt you go providing the perfect lifestyle for people. Go ahead. Enjoy thoroughly.

"Go and play a computer game with little basis in reality and you'll see how right I am!"

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
You cannot sustain the kind of lifestyle you mention here forever. They will pay SEVERELY for it in the near future.

Source.

I know it's not quite perfect and it sort of takes the humanity out of things....... but just try to play Sim City and see how far in debt you go providing the perfect lifestyle for people. Go ahead. Enjoy thoroughly.

"Go and play a computer game with little basis in reality and you'll see how right I am!"

Apparently you've never played the game or you would realize the number crunching itself is based on basic economics.

Do I need a source to understand the logic - that if you keep running up your credit card in order to have lots of awesome stuff, that you are not actually wealthy, but in debt? Do you know that there is a point at which those to whom you are indebted will stop giving you free money and will start wanting it back?

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
Apparently you've never played the game or you would realize the number crunching itself is based on basic economics.

Very basic, yes.

Do I need a source to understand the logic - that if you keep running up your credit card in order to have lots of awesome stuff, that you are not actually wealthy, but in debt? Do you know that there is a point at which those to whom you are indebted will stop giving you free money and will start wanting it back?

I'd like you to relate your credit card analogy back to the previous example given of the Scandinavian nations, so I can clearly understand your line of reasoning.

reply to post by TarzanBeta


Social democracy does not imply you have to go to debt, or overly big debt (since every country has public debt). Optimalize spending, raise taxes (always better than borrowing in the long run)..

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
Apparently you've never played the game or you would realize the number crunching itself is based on basic economics.

Very basic, yes.

Do I need a source to understand the logic - that if you keep running up your credit card in order to have lots of awesome stuff, that you are not actually wealthy, but in debt? Do you know that there is a point at which those to whom you are indebted will stop giving you free money and will start wanting it back?

I'd like you to relate your credit card analogy back to the previous example given of the Scandinavian nations, so I can clearly understand your line of reasoning.

So basic that it is easier to make people happier in Sim City than in reality. That is just -how- basic.

If you cannot understand the analogy I gave you, then here it is plainly.

The more that you spend, the more indebted to someone else you are. The more time you use spending, the less time you have to earn. If everyone is doing more spending and less earning, then who is doing the giving? When there is more spending and less earning, there is debt. If the process continues, this generates more debt. Who is giving? To whom are they indebted? How much are they in debt? When will the loaners finally decide to take back (AND MORE, considering this is the wonderful world of usury) what they have given? Will the people be able to survive living without their embellishments?

Who is the one who is so blind as to believe that any economic system will solve humanity's problems?? Healthcare for everyone? At the expense of what?
Education for everyone? At the expense of what?
Security for everyone? At the expense of what?


You see, in an economy, in this world, that is somewhat balanced, you will be lacking severely in other areas if you provide for everyone one of these.

You cannot feasibly provide Healthcare for everyone under a combined budget system in a world where health are professionals are some of the highest paid in the world, where pharmaceuticals are insanely expensive (and possibly largely a part of the problem), where everyone goes to the doctor for a cold, where everyone requires to get check-ups for work and during work, where everyone goes to the doctor even more to get the most out of their insurance because now it is provided them no matter what and personal responsibility is not a factor because ... if others aren't using it at all, "why shouldn't I use it if it's being paid for anyway?"...

Unless you take away from peoples' education... which in turn makes them less able to understand the processes under which they have gone to be a part of this healthcare system which puts them into bondage with a system which they have no idea what effect this system its working parts actually play on the world of people in the long term.

And thereby reducing their security because now people are relying on an entity such as the government to provide everything for them which means they are expendable because they are not providers, they are takers - and when excess use has become rampant, anyone can be cut off due to their inability to get sick... and then they get hit by a truck.

I don't know how to put it more plainly for people.

The arguing about the whole systems thing is relatively pointless anyway because there are always flaws in our systems.

Why? Because all of our systems claim that people are not capable of personal responsibility. All of our systems claim that people have no honor and integrity.

The reality is that those who would put those systems into place are those who are lacking honor and integrity. It is those people who use the small crimes as an excuse for their larger crimes. It is those that would claim that humanity, if given the opportunity to show up to work the next morning without clocking in, receive a lunch without exchanging promissary notes, doing their job without a supervisor to micromanage their every movement (which is ironic, because one gets paid to watch the other who gets paid to DO), then walk out without clocking out, go and receive food for their family without exchanging notes, take it to their family that lives in a house that was built by people who like to build houses - all the life revolving around a person whose favorite pasttime is to unload and load trucks because the workout is fun and healthy and the real-life tetris-like challenge makes for a good mental work-out sometimes as well, - is incapable of such simplistic living.

But humanity is not incapable of that - take the stupid market and promissary note out of the picture and people could go on as normal. Why?

Because peoples' #1 motivation is actually family...

But all of the misinformed and most of us born into these systems believe that life never existed without these systems. Life has its OWN system. Man, in an attempt to reroute power to himself, created the system and the system USES dishonesty and evil as its power source! The reason why those who are in power now are in power is because of peoples' lack of personal responsibility! A lack of personal responsibility becomes inherent in those who feel entitled to everything. Much like it sounds the Scandinavians believe.

We could never survive without healthcare!

We could never survive without education!

We could never survive without security!

Oh.. well, I guess we could, but then what would be the quality of life...?

Quality!?

How selfish! To seek quality for one's self and not respect your descendants who will be paying for everything you took in your time.

No one is asking that people do the work for the descendants... but that we just don't put off our work on them.

But alas, why is there even this point? See, if people were wise enough to understand THIS, then people should be wise enough to understand that economics is phony in the first place. That and politics and the whole gauntlet of humanity's blunders.

Vanity, sweet vanity - Oh... what was that? I hear Al Pacino as Lucifer somewhere, "Vanity is my favorite sin!"

I think more geared towards me considering I just realized the vanity in typing out this entire rant. Would it be vanity to go ahead and hit reply or should I just hit "x"? Shucks.

To only post about failed states due to investing into the US scams is not really looking at this fairly. What about checking out Austria, Finland, Denmark and Luxemburg which are in your view crazy liberal/communist/socialist and are better off then the United States at the moment.

To slander from the beginning is really the sticking point, you are not understanding the words you use or their meanings. In a round about way I agree with you that looking at the parties today, the Dem in United States are wanting to tow the line of the Prez which is a DEM, and the REPs are wanting to stop anything they do. If you look at Bush Jr. as prez, they parties changed roles, the DEMs didnt want the REPs to do anything and the REPs towed the line of the Prez. The difference here is how the DEM and REP go about blocking, DEMs cry for a piece of the pie, get it and then vote for it, and the REPs at the moment just filibuster everything, good or bad....

reply to post by coolhanddan

To only post about failed states due to investing into the US scams is not really looking at this fairly. What about checking out Austria, Finland, Denmark and Luxemburg which are in your view crazy liberal/communist/socialist and are better off then the United States at the moment.

Exactly, QFT

Majority of social democracy countries which have problems now were not indebted too much - they were indebted rationally given the monetary conditions at the time. If the FED did not decide to fool the whole world by flooding it with cheap money creating credit bubbles (compliced by reality market policy), and then violently busting them by raising interest rates, their debt would be easily manageable.
If the whole market is a victim of a fraud, even rational and liable participants can have problems and losses.

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
The more that you spend, the more indebted to someone else you are. The more time you use spending, the less time you have to earn. If everyone is doing more spending and less earning, then who is doing the giving? When there is more spending and less earning, there is debt. If the process continues, this generates more debt. Who is giving? To whom are they indebted? How much are they in debt? When will the loaners finally decide to take back (AND MORE, considering this is the wonderful world of usury) what they have given? Will the people be able to survive living without their embellishments?

The taxpayers pay for it with their taxes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your analogy doesn't seem to deal so much with macroeconomics as with microeconomics and thus doesn't seem applicable to the governments of the Scandinavian nations.

Who is the one who is so blind as to believe that any economic system will solve humanity's problems??

All of them? No. Some? Yes, various economic systems fix various problems and in turn create more problems of their own.

Healthcare for everyone? At the expense of what?
Education for everyone? At the expense of what?
Security for everyone? At the expense of what?

Taxes.

You cannot feasibly provide Healthcare for everyone under a combined budget system in a world where health are professionals are some of the highest paid in the world, where pharmaceuticals are insanely expensive (and possibly largely a part of the problem), where everyone goes to the doctor for a cold, where everyone requires to get check-ups for work and during work, where everyone goes to the doctor even more to get the most out of their insurance because now it is provided them no matter what and personal responsibility is not a factor because ... if others aren't using it at all, "why shouldn't I use it if it's being paid for anyway?"...

Demonstrate how the Scandinavian countries have not managed to provide universal healthcare.

Unless you take away from peoples' education... which in turn makes them less able to understand the processes under which they have gone to be a part of this healthcare system which puts them into bondage with a system which they have no idea what effect this system its working parts actually play on the world of people in the long term.

People from the various Scandinavian education systems would likely disagree.

And thereby reducing their security because now people are relying on an entity such as the government to provide everything for them which means they are expendable because they are not providers, they are takers - and when excess use has become rampant, anyone can be cut off due to their inability to get sick... and then they get hit by a truck.

What are you even trying to say here? That the governments of the Scandinavian nations kill off any of their own people who take too much?

The arguing about the whole systems thing is relatively pointless anyway because there are always flaws in our systems.

It's a process of weighing up the pros and cons of various systems until we find one that works reasonably well in a given area.

Why? Because all of our systems claim that people are not capable of personal responsibility. All of our systems claim that people have no honor and integrity.

Source.

But humanity is not incapable of that - take the stupid market and promissary note out of the picture and people could go on as normal. Why?

At the cost of civilisation as we know it, perhaps.

Because peoples' #1 motivation is actually family...

Some people's, maybe.

But all of the misinformed and most of us born into these systems believe that life never existed without these systems. Life has its OWN system. Man, in an attempt to reroute power to himself, created the system and the system USES dishonesty and evil as its power source! The reason why those who are in power now are in power is because of peoples' lack of personal responsibility! A lack of personal responsibility becomes inherent in those who feel entitled to everything. Much like it sounds the Scandinavians believe.

What are you talking about?

We could never survive without healthcare!

We could never survive without education!

We could never survive without security!

Oh.. well, I guess we could, but then what would be the quality of life...?

We could, but as you say yourself, what would be the quality of life? I'd argue that it wouldn't be nearly as high as today.

Quality!?

How selfish! To seek quality for one's self and not respect your descendants who will be paying for everything you took in your time.

And will be reaping the benefits themselves.

But alas, why is there even this point? See, if people were wise enough to understand THIS, then people should be wise enough to understand that economics is phony in the first place. That and politics and the whole gauntlet of humanity's blunders.

What?

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Some of the MOST SUCCESSFUL AND PROSPEROUS countries are partially socialist. Look at the Scandinavian countries... they have the highest marks on just about every test of a country's well-being, happiness, prosperity, crime, etc. etc. and they all have very socialized social programs- universal health-care, free/cheap schooling, paid maternity leave, mandatory vacations, living wages, etc.

For someone who is impatient with ignorance, you really should pay attention to your own.

You cannot sustain the kind of lifestyle you mention here forever. They will pay SEVERELY for it in the near future.

I know it's not quite perfect and it sort of takes the humanity out of things....... but just try to play Sim City and see how far in debt you go providing the perfect lifestyle for people. Go ahead. Enjoy thoroughly.

And if you do choose to play, remember that you're not there to be popular. You're just there to do the right thing for them...

First let me ask- regardless of any general parallels with the real world... why are you basing socio-political theory on Sim City?

Second, the Scandinavian countries have sustained their lifestyles for quite awhile AND with very prosperous economies. There is no law of the universe which says that decent social programs must be paid for "SEVERELY"... the key to sustainable social programs is keeping balanced budgets, and it seems those countries have done a pretty decent job of that.

Remember... every single government in existence provides some degree of social assistance for its populace, it's one of the ONLY humane/decent things a government can do, amongst the many evils government creates.

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Anarchy is defined as a stateless society, ie a society where no person or entity posseses the ability to initiate force.

Without a government people suddenly lose the ability to initiate force?

edit on 13-9-2010 by LeftWingLarry because: (no reason given)

No, of course not. Just as today humans have not lost the ability to enslave others openly.

The difference is that now our slightly more enlightened society almost universally rejects slavery outright as a moral evil, not to mention a practical one. Ask anyone of the 6+ billion people on Earth and 99%+ will tell you that slavery is evil. Yet slavers of the past could have been regarded as 'progressive' in their day. Slavery was upheld as virtuous and necessary, just as the government is today.

The same will happen with the State. Its evils are plain to see to anyone who knows the basic playground rule that hitting and stealing is wrong. As the Statist world unwinds and collapses upon itself, a new generation of thinkers will grow up around the seeds that are being planted now and realize that killing and stealing is indeed wrong, not just for you and I but for anyone, regardless of the stripes on their costumes or the height of their hat. When our basic morality come into line with the wider and universal morality that applies to all men, army costume or no, people will reject your reasoning as barbaric and outdated. When this finally happens, (and its not likey to in our lifetimes) the generations of the future will regard you and your ilk with bewilderment and contempt, knowing that you were offered the chance to reject evils but instead followed the herd into near oblivion. Those of us who spoke out against violence and force in all its forms will be venerated as the early trailblazers of a once fringe but then universal ethic that simply condems coersion as both evil and inpractical.

Theyll wonder what the hell you were thinking, just as I wonder how human ownership could have ever been considered all good.

So no, Statelesness does not negate human free will. It simply puts it in its proper context. Those who wish to murder and steal will simply be shunned and exposed for the broken humans that they are. We will not participate with them. And then your zombie ideologies will be put to the grave and used as a lesson on how not to run human affairs.

So, enjoy your fleeting dominance.

reply to post by saabacura


Absolutely not. I'm a libertarian, so take what I say as being from an unbiased observer. Libertarians love to trot out their 'smallest political quiz' that rates the political spectrum from anarchy to totalitarianism. But there's a flaw in their reasoning. The test makes a fundamental assumption about the relationship of individuals to government, as opposing parties, that liberty is the bench mark by which to judge individual issues.

Politics is the relationship of human beings to their government. To say that the political spectrum is this or that, at all already presupposes elements of that relationship. The spectrum from most free to least free is a spectrum of freedom, not politics, its a tautology. The only way that its not a tautology is if you've already bought into the classical-liberal notions of the relationships between yourself and your government.

A classical-liberal/libertarian says that negative liberty is a good in and of itself, like some philosophers say that pleasure if a good in and of itself. They also say that freedom is man's natural state absent a political state. Therefore the creation of a government is to be judged upon what effect it has on that natural state of negative liberty.

But, a Marxist will tell you a different history of the human race. A Marxist will tell you that a man's relation to his government and politics is to be judged by how it fits into his view of determinism and inevitable march toward communism. Similarly, a christian evangelical will tell you a third view of man's natural state and therefore the relationship between him and his government.

The statement that the political spectrum goes from most free to least free makes the political inquiry based on the libertarian's story of man and history. You could just as easily draw a marxist political spectrum that goes from most unequal to least unequal, or a christian spectrum that goes from most godly to least godly.

See?

reply to post by Neo_Serf


I'm confident that future history will disagree. Humans have a social hierarchy by our very nature - one which inevitably implies (and arguably requires) government of some sort when applied to any large (say, national) scale. Slavery, while expedient at the time, is not in-built in quite the same way and was demonstrated to actually be quite inefficient in terms of economics.

reply to post by LeftWingLarry


Since slavery and government are basically different variations of the same thing, ie a tiny group of individuals who claim a monopoly of force and ownership of humans, i find it strange that you would somehow divide the two evils into different, arbitrary classes. (actually i dont) If we define aggression as a universal evil for all men, then slavery and socialism are simply variations on the theme. And afterall, the classical definition of a slave is one who is robbed of half of his earnings by his master, while an indentured servant gives up only 25%. In Canada over half my earnings are stolen from me without my consent or approval, technically classifying me as a slave.

Its pretty simple really. Hitting = baaaad. Future generations, if they survive the coming social cataclysm, will look at your comments in horror. That or we will be totally enslaved by an ultra powerful and evil world government that will stamp out any resistance to it forever.

Melodramatic? Maybe. Pay attention and youll see thats exactly the track were headed down. And its our fault for clinging to the outdated notion that violence and coersion can solve problems.

But again, you win, for now.

reply to post by Neo_Serf

Since slavery and government are basically different variations of the same thing, ie a tiny group of individuals who claim a monopoly of force and ownership of humans, i find it strange that you would somehow divide the two evils into different, arbitrary classes.

Slavery posesses ceratin distinct characteristics that good government does not: there is no freedom of movement, master takes all the fruits of your work, not just a part defined in %, master does not have to respect laws and cannot be voted out and prosecuted if does not fulfill the will of his slaves.

And afterall, the classical definition of a slave is one who is robbed of half of his earnings by his master, while an indentured servant gives up only 25%. In Canada over half my earnings are stolen from me without my consent or approval, technically classifying me as a slave.

I agree, the governments have overgrown and their taxes are innapropiatelly high. But that is not argumnet against the concept of government, I can easily imagine government without these flaws. That is argument only against the current instance of government and financial system (main reason why all states are indebted).

Its pretty simple really. Hitting = baaaad. Future generations, if they survive the coming social cataclysm, will look at your comments in horror. That or we will be totally enslaved by an ultra powerful and evil world government that will stamp out any resistance to it forever.

You failed to provide how hitting ceases to exist in anarchistic society. Instead of one entity that has monopoly on force and can be at least partially controlled by the people, we would have temporarily many entities, battling for domination, not respecting any laws at all (who forces them?). See for example Somalia. And when one entity gains enough power to overthrow the others, we would arrive at the only natural system - military dictatorship (or monarchy). Anarchy cannot exist for long.

You seem to base your analogy of monopoly on force on free market idea - given enough variety of competing products, comsumers always choose the best, so given enough variety of competing groups, people will choose the best government, but thats not quite correct. The main difference, which is not present in free market is FEAR. When organisation becomes sufficiently powerful, people will join them and support them not because they think they are the best for the society, but because they are afraid to stand in their way (for example Taliban). All dictatorships work this way. And I fail to see what would prevent the inevitable transformation of anarchistic society to military dictatorship if there is not government or something like it.

Melodramatic? Maybe. Pay attention and youll see thats exactly the track were headed down. And its our fault for clinging to the outdated notion that violence and coersion can solve problems.

There is one problem which cannot be solved without violence - other violence. And in reality, the question of the eistence of government boils down to question if we want one violent entity which is controlled by people and subjected to their laws, or in the beggining more, then one violent entity which is controlled by few richest and most powerful people in the society, other people have absolutely no say in it and doesnt have to respect any laws - military dictatorship.

Slavery posesses ceratin distinct characteristics that good government does not: there is no freedom of movement, master takes all the fruits of your work, not just a part defined in %, master does not have to respect laws and cannot be voted out and prosecuted if does not fulfill the will of his slaves.

Lot of assumtions here, Lemme take a swing, and correct me if Im wrong.
a) freedom of movement - unlike in the 19th century when no passports or identifacation was required to travel or immigrate (move), today travel over one imaginary line to the next is heavily controlled and regulated. Having to ask for permission from some authority to do anything changes a right into a privilege. If I allow you to leave your house, but only if i say so, can you truly claim freedom of movement? If I can deny you that privilege on a whim can you really claim to be free to travel?
b)fruits of work - in practice slaves usually were allowed to retain some income, not because their masters were benevolent, but instead because micromanagement is hugely inefficient and drains any productive output the slaves might produce. Slaves, like hookers, were often allowed to keep enough of their earnings to provide for their own unkeep, but not much else.
c) accountability - it is a matter of public record that the war in Iraq was waged based on fabrications and outright lies. The highest crime, aggression, under nuremburg. By every definition both Tony Blair and JWB jr are war criminals of the highest order. Their punishment? Speaking tours, pensions paid for by their subjects and book deals. If the crimes of the highest order, meaning senseless mass murder on an epic scale, are not charged against these scoundrels, how can anyone claim these governments are accountable to anyone? The list of crimes committed by governments without any sort of consequences could fill the pages of literally thousands of books. (and does)

When I use the word slavery I do not mean in the cotton picking, chain and shackle sense. That mode is outdated and recognised by all to be abhorent. What I mean by slavery is any individual being forced against their will to do things they normally would not do, under the threat of force, for the benefit of the party doing the forcing. If the mafia demands protection money from you under the threat of your knees being broken, clearly you are not a free man and thus you belong, at least partially, to another. This is slavery.

I agree, the governments have overgrown and their taxes are innapropiatelly high. But that is not argumnet against the concept of government, I can easily imagine government without these flaws. That is argument only against the current instance of government and financial system (main reason why all states are indebted).

Plato also imagined an ideal form of government in the Republic. The founding fathers crafted the most beautiful attempt at a self constrained and self regulating government that the world has ever seen. And now? From one of the most limited forms of government ever attempted to the all powerful potential world killer that it is today. From smallest to largest. Even if you set in place a more perfect union as envisioned by some of the most brilliant philosophers to even walk the Earth, it would still grow, corrupt and decay because the essential function of government, as is true for any parasite, is to grow. No magical piece of paper can restrain humans from being corrupted when they get their hands on the unlimited violence that is the state. To quote the war criminal JWB jr 'the consitution is just a god damned piece of paper!'

Violence itself is the essential problem, not who weilds it against who, and who will use it the least.

You failed to provide how hitting ceases to exist in anarchistic society. Instead of one entity that has monopoly on force and can be at least partially controlled by the people, we would have temporarily many entities, battling for domination, not respecting any laws at all (who forces them?). See for example Somalia. And when one entity gains enough power to overthrow the others, we would arrive at the only natural system - military dictatorship (or monarchy). Anarchy cannot exist for long.

Im not proposing that tomorrow all systems of governments would cease to exist. If that were to happen, the widely held and incorrect definition of anarchy would surly ensure, and the result would be complete chaos and widespread death. Not only that, but the surivors of this apocolypse would surely clamber for another central authority to save them from the mess. No, true freedom is a generational goal only achived by educating the youth in self reliance and non aggression that we are not likely to see in our lifetimes. The current collapse of Statism (that may very well result in widespread *chuckle* anarchy) will provide a shocking but needed lesson to future generations that violence is not only evil fundamentally, but inpractical and prone to destruction.

Hitting does not ceace to exist of course. Violence is part of our nature. Anarchism fully accounts for this by recognising that a monopoly of violence cannot be allowed to exists precisely because some humans will use violence. Since a government is better termed a monopoly of violence, and a government is made up of humans who will use violence to achive their ends, the last thing in the world we should allow is a playgroud of ultimate force to be captured and used by said violent humans.

So hitting is still around. Its just put in its proper context as evil, just as slavery was, and shunned by the majority of us good people, just as slavery has been. Since the State is the all time title holder when it comes to bodycount, violence in a free sociey would be reduced proportionatly by the factor that the State contributes to it. Which is almost all violence.

It will take an philisophical revolution, just as the abolition of slavery did. All the peices are in place, (ie hitting is wrong), it will just take a steady and generational education to deprogram people from their superstition that somehow putting on leather boots and some camo magically allows some people to commit henious crimes, and not only be allowed to do this, but to be worshiped by society at large. You cant build a new home without first laying the foundations and clearing away the rubble.

You seem to base your analogy of monopoly on force on free market idea - given enough variety of competing products, comsumers always choose the best, so given enough variety of competing groups, people will choose the best government, but thats not quite correct. The main difference, which is not present in free market is FEAR. When organisation becomes sufficiently powerful, people will join them and support them not because they think they are the best for the society, but because they are afraid to stand in their way (for example Taliban). All dictatorships work this way. And I fail to see what would prevent the inevitable transformation of anarchistic society to military dictatorship if there is not government or something like it.

No, what Im saying is that when the cobwebs and mindtraps are sufficiently removed from a more enlighted populace, they will not only not choose governments, but will oppose any group who claims the right to initiate force. When people simply apply the rules that govern their own lives (dont tie a woman down and rape her, offer her incentives to be with you, dont steal but instead trade, dont fight but negotiate) to all people and society at large, the violent elephant in the room will be exposed for what it really is - naked force and aggression mascerading as our saviors. When a signifigant part of the population realized that the State is not only unnecessary but actually at their detriment, they will lead the others in a peaceful dissolution and deconstruction of the monopolies of violence that have plagued us for so long. The State will fall away as an antiquated system as people realize theyve been lied to all along. And the thoeritical but logically sound framework for a voluntary-ist society will be waiting in the wings, as it already is, to pick up any slack the State leaves, and improve on the outdated design immensely.

But there is a catch to a voluntary-ist society - it has to be voluntary! We as a species, if we are ever to escape the death maw that is the State, must choose, as individuals and as a collective, to abandon the sanction of violence. The government does not actually exist as a physical entity in this world. It is a concept, like math, that has no material basis, and yet it controls almost every aspect of our lives. Government, and the belief that violence can solve problems, exists only in our minds and nowhere else. Since this superstition is embedded deeply in our conciousness, it will truly take another enlightenment for us to not only see the walls that hold us, but to imagine a world without them.

There is one problem which cannot be solved without violence - other violence. And in reality, the question of the eistence of government boils down to question if we want one violent entity which is controlled by people and subjected to their laws, or in the beggining more, then one violent entity which is controlled by few richest and most powerful people in the society, other people have absolutely no say in it and doesnt have to respect any laws - military dictatorship.

Aggressive violence can be opposed by defensive violence, which is totally acceptable and required by all living beings. Again, government is subject only to its own laws that it makes itself, and thus falls to the 'who will watch the watchers?' problem that is unsolvable, If people believe they need masters to keep them in line with the threat of force, then of course they will accept masters. And if a slave can think he will recieve 1 beating a week instead of twice daily, of course he will vote for the master who offers less beatings. The point of Anarchism is to accept not beatings at all! To not vote for the lesser of evils but instead to reject evil and not empower it through coersed sanction.

When the Non Aggression Principal is placed at the center of thinking, the real world comes sharply into focus and new solutions to old problems become not only possible, but inevitable. We all know, deep down, something is seriously wrong with the world. Its not right or left, democrats, socialists, fascists, communists. The problem is the thinking that pointing guns will save us. And this is simply not the case.

Appologies for the wall of text riddled with grammar and spelling errors~

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by LeftWingLarry

 

Since slavery and government are basically different variations of the same thing, ie a tiny group of individuals who claim a monopoly of force and ownership of humans

Ownership? The government doesn't own me.

If we define aggression as a universal evil for all men

I don't.

then slavery and socialism are simply variations on the theme.

That depends entirely on what kind of Socialism you describe.

And afterall, the classical definition of a slave is one who is robbed of half of his earnings by his master, while an indentured servant gives up only 25%.

Who's definition is this?

In Canada over half my earnings are stolen from me without my consent or approval, technically classifying me as a slave.

Why not move to another country, where your levels of taxation don't even reach 'indentured servant' levels?

Its pretty simple really. Hitting = baaaad.

Why?

Future generations, if they survive the coming social cataclysm, will look at your comments in horror.

Maybe. Why should I care what 'future generations' may or may not think, given that we have no real alternative at present?

That or we will be totally enslaved by an ultra powerful and evil world government that will stamp out any resistance to it forever.

What makes you say that? From where I am in the UK the tide has been overwhelmingly toward a freer and more equal society for the last few centuries.

Melodramatic?

Yes.

But again, you win, for now.

I'm not interested in 'winning'. If the world's problems could all be solved in my lifetime without violence and government, I'd sign right up tomorrow. I just don't think they can be.

reply to post by LeftWingLarry


Since you dont know why hitting people is bad, i suggest you go back to kindergarten and relearn basic morality.

Aggression violates personal ownership. I own my body and i also own the consequences of body ownership. If I dont own my body or the effects I will it to have on my enviroment, than I am nothing and can be acted upon by anyone else for whatever reason as I have no claim to myself and also cannot be held responsible for my actions, as none of my effects are mine at all. Without personal ownership there can be no rules besides the rule of force which always degrades and collapses.

If I do own my body than no one else has a right to infringe on my personal ownership. Since what I produce would not have existed without my input, what I produce becomes an extension of my personal ownership. Since body ownership must be applied universally if it is to be a rule, no person can willingly initiate force against anyone or their property if they wish to be an ethical person.

In short, you have no claim to anyone or anything that you yourself have not gained non coersively and voluntarily. Yet this is exactly what you claim as yours, no, ours. Since this cannot be justified logically or ethically you rely on propaganda and force.

reply to post by Neo_Serf

So hitting is still around. Its just put in its proper context as evil, just as slavery was, and shunned by the majority of us good people, just as slavery has been. Since the State is the all time title holder when it comes to bodycount, violence in a free sociey would be reduced proportionatly by the factor that the State contributes to it. Which is almost all violence.

But what if government violence holds other, more brutal forms of violence at bay? If you remove government violence, they would be unleashed and free to do whatever they want. The net effect would be more violence.

It will take an philisophical revolution, just as the abolition of slavery did. All the peices are in place, (ie hitting is wrong), it will just take a steady and generational education to deprogram people from their superstition that somehow putting on leather boots and some camo magically allows some people to commit henious crimes, and not only be allowed to do this, but to be worshiped by society at large. You cant build a new home without first laying the foundations and clearing away the rubble.

So your system requires somehow changing peoples natural and inherent altitudes, ergo it requires social engineering or perfect humans or robots to work. Just like communism. Remember, humans are evil, imperfect and greedy. Thats why Venus, communism, anarcho-libertarianism and other extreme isms (no matter if left or right, collectivist or individualist extremes) have and will bring only suffering with REAL, imperfect and diverse humans. If your Human 2.0 someday becomes a reality, I would be happy to abolish now unneeded government or central authority. Now, and in foreseeable future, is not the time. Classical liberalism is better with REAL society IMHO.

Since you dont know why hitting people is bad, i suggest you go back to kindergarten and relearn basic morality.

Hitting good people is bad. Hitting bad people is good. "Hitting" people, if it causes more good for the society in the future than bad for those people (and no basic human rights are breached) is also good (taxation paying for government infrastructure, rational welfare state..). Utilitarianism, not dogmatism.

reply to post by saabacura


Listen closely. A policy that prevents the government from stealing money using the power of police then giving it to the lazy, ignorant, or those who have made poor decisions is not anarchy. Being "allowed" to make your own choices regarding your retirement planning is not anarchy. Being able to choose your own health insurance that fits your needs, or not to purchase it at all should you have ample funds is not anarchy. Not forcing everyones children into government run indoctrination centers to learn about gay sex is not anarchy. Not providing your financial history to the IRS, and instead paying a reasonable tax at the point of sale is not anarchy. Not having a federal government that confiscates your wealth to support foreign governments is not anarchy. Not having the EPA regulate the co2 we exhale from our lungs is not anarchy. Not having the government control water rights to the pond on my property is not anarchy. It's called freedom. Personal resposnibility. The right to succeed or fail based on the merits of our work and ideals is a god-given right. It's always an abject failure that complains life isn't fair and would prefer the government send him somebody elses money instead of reaching inside himself to work his way out. You libs like Darwinism don't you? Great. That means the strong survive, and the weak eliminate themselves from the gene pool. I like that part of darwinism as well. That way I don't have to drive down the road and watch the irresponsible drink malt-liquor on my hard-earned money. It seems we keep them alive so they can file lawsuits against wal-mart and hospitals, thereby stealing more of our money via increased prices and insurance premiums. You see, over 40 percent of our health-care costs are the direct result of frivilous lawsuits.