Why Everyone Should Be an Anarchist

#26
#26
Orange_Crush said:
You're not much for history, I see-- beyond meme statistics. The Roman government invented and built their road systems to expand their empire and move their troops. They developed and built their fresh water systems, in large part to keep their soldiers healthy for battle, as well as trying to negate diseases in their cities.
Click to expand...

What makes you think I didn't know this about Rome?

So because 2,000 years ago a government came up with a nice road system we have to endure oppression today? Makes sense.
 
Last edited:
#27
#27
n_huffhines said:
Romans =/= government. Government didn't invent wine or medicine. Without government there would water, roads, education, etc. I believe that transportation and education would be better without government. Government resists innovation. They've invested too much in our educational structure nor do they have an incentive to pursue something better.
Click to expand...

Oh, and the internet? That mysterious ether you're using to spread your skateboard philosophy?

Yep.

The US Department of Defense awarded contracts as early as the 1960s for packet network systems, including the development of the ARPANET (which would become the first network to use the Internet Protocol.)
Click to expand...

History of the Internet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
#28
#28
So without government roads, clean drinking water, and internet would have never happened. Is that your thesis?
 
#29
#29
n_huffhines said:
What makes you think I didn't know that?
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know, except the fact that your post made it obvious.

n_huffhines said:
So because 2,000 years ago a government came up with a nice road system we have to endure oppression today? Makes sense.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was just using a classic movie to make fun of you. But it was a good example to show your claim that governments 'resist innovation' as disingenuous.

I'll also take pause to state that you are basing your entire premise on the fallacy of the excluded middle. Now, run off and look that up so you understand what I mean.
 
#32
#32
Orange_Crush said:
Oh, I don't know, except the fact that your post made it obvious.

Actually, I was just using a classic movie to make fun of you. But it was a good example to show your claim that governments 'resist innovation' as disingenuous.
Click to expand...

So 3 data points disprove my claim that government resists innovation? 2 of the data points being related to government's ability to wage long distance war?

I know what Rome did. What we don't know is what the world would look like had there never been government. Maybe the internet would have been invented 100 years ago. Maybe 10 years from now. All I know is that there aren't 262,000,000 murdered in the 20th century in the absence of government.

If the internet as it exists is worth 262 million deaths to you, then...I don't know what to say.
 
#33
#33
bamawriter said:
Anarchy would be wonderful if everyone was truly capable of getting along and living in concert with one another.
Click to expand...

It doesn't require that. There are consequences to your actions with or without law.

In fact, the dark side of man is exactly why I oppose government. There are evil people out there. Why allow them to take positions of authority over us?
 
#34
#34
bamawriter said:
Anarchy would be wonderful if everyone was truly capable of getting along and living in concert with one another.
Click to expand...

Yep, and there is the rub. He states the stats for # of unarmed people killed by governments without having access to the stats of how many people would kill others without the order mandated by government. His stats do not include a breakdown of what types of governments kill more or less people. His argument is "of all governments, governments have killed a lot of people, so there should be no governments." It ignores the excluded middle that perhaps the best recourse is a good government with an armed population to keep it in check.
 
#35
#35
n_huffhines said:
It doesn't require that. There are consequences to your actions with or without law.

In fact, the dark side of man is exactly why I oppose government. There are evil people out there. Why allow them to take positions of authority over us?
Click to expand...

Who will enforce these "consequences"?
 
#37
#37
n_huffhines said:
If they sided with communists then they aren't really anarchists, now are they? As someone mentioned before, they are just the punks with the A on their shirt.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist. Markets and technology result in order without central leadership.
Click to expand...

The CNT was a Spanish Anarcho-Syndicalist Labor union that played a major role fighting with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War.

Confederación Nacional del Trabajo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





So much for researching something and having somebody give a darn! I wonder how you delete a post on here?:censored::angry::sad::question:
 
Last edited:
#38
#38
n_huffhines said:
It doesn't require that. There are consequences to your actions with or without law.

In fact, the dark side of man is exactly why I oppose government. There are evil people out there. Why allow them to take positions of authority over us?
Click to expand...

A lack of authority allows "the survival of the fittest", which allows anyone stronger than you to have authority over you. It is obvious you have never lived in an anarchistic environment. You wouldn't like it nearly as much as you think you would, because it would not be what you imagine it to be. I am fairly positive YOU would not be what you think you would be. You would be crying for a police officer to protect you the first time a horny, brutal oaf took a liking to you.

But it's nice to see that you have dropped the facade. You don't so much have a problem with government as much as you have a problem with authority.
 
#40
#40
Orange_Crush said:
Yep, and there is the rub. He states the stats for # of unarmed people killed by governments (1) without having access to the stats of how many people would kill others without the order mandated by government. (2) His stats do not include a breakdown of what types of governments kill more or less people. His argument is "of all governments, governments have killed a lot of people, so there should be no governments." It ignores the excluded middle that perhaps the best recourse is a (3) good government with an armed population to keep it in check.
Click to expand...

(1) How could I have that? I'm aware that I don't have the stats for an alternate universe, but I also believe that it's likely impossible to kill on the scale that government does.

(2) Actually, if you had read the article you would have seen statistics (not entirely complete) that attribute the deaths to idnividual governments

(3) Where do you find good government? Where ever you find "good" government, how do you know people wouldn't be better off without it?
 
#42
#42
n_huffhines said:
So 3 data points disprove my claim that government resists innovation? 2 of the data points being related to government's ability to wage long distance war?
Click to expand...

Uh. Yes. That's exactly what it does.

n_huffhines said:
I know what Rome did.
Click to expand...

You didn't even know that Rome was a government.

n_huffhines said:
What we don't know is what the world would look like had there never been government.
Click to expand...

We do know what it looks like now. It has internet, which proves your assertion wrong.

n_huffhines said:
Maybe the internet would have been invented 100 years ago. Maybe 10 years from now. All I know is that there aren't 262,000,000 murdered in the 20th century in the absence of government.
Click to expand...

Let's try your logic. We don't know what the world would look like without world would look like without government. Perhaps there would have been 500,000,000 people raped, pillaged and murdered without government oversight to give order.

n_huffhines said:
If the internet as it exists is worth 262 million deaths to you, then...I don't know what to say.
Click to expand...

Nice play to emotion, but it doesn't make your fallacies logical or claims true.
 
#43
#43
There will always be a government of some sort. If the government went away, some person or group, whoever proved to be the most powerful, would fill the power vacuum.

Anarchy is like the communist theory to me. Both if we lived in a perfect world, have some appealing aspects. But we don't live in a perfect world, and those that desire power and are stronger, end up ruling.

Believe me, I wish there was no government, I certainly wish there was no massive federal government. But government is a necessary evil, although I would like to see more federal power shifted to the state and local levels where one is better represented.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#45
#45
hog88 said:
Who will enforce these "consequences"?
Click to expand...

Well, we do as a society, but I think what you're asking about is law enforcement and a justice system. We have private courts and private security, even in the face of government. Instead of paying taxes for subpar police protection, you pay a monthly premium to a protection agency and they'll actually treat you like you're the boss.
 
#46
#46
Orange_Crush said:
You didn't even know that Rome was a government.
Click to expand...

Rome was not a government. Rome was and is a city that has/had a government. I think you meant that Rome was the center of an empire. Either way it's semantics that you're hammering me on.

Honestly man, I love to talk this stuff out, but I don't think you and I can communicate well. This is not what I said at all. The implication was that Romans invented or were responsible for the existence of wine (among other things). Rome the government did not invent wine. I don't even think Romans did.
 
#48
#48
n_huffhines said:
Well, we do as a society, but I think what you're asking about is law enforcement and a justice system. We have private courts and private security, even in the face of government. Instead of paying taxes for subpar police protection, you pay a monthly premium to a protection agency and they'll actually treat you like you're the boss.
Click to expand...

Anarcho-capitalism depends on a legal code that everyone agrees upon. It relies upon paid judicial systems and hired law enforcement. So, you've added "richest" to the list of "strongest", and done little else. So, when you're held down by the not-so-horny oaf so that the rich old man can rape you, you'll be crying for a government-run police officer to come save you.
 
#49
#49
n_huffhines said:
Rome was not a government. Rome was and is a city that has/had a government. I think you meant that Rome was the center of an empire. Either way it's semantics that you're hammering me on.

Honestly man, I love to talk this stuff out, but I don't think you and I can communicate well. This is not what I said at all. The implication was that Romans invented or were responsible for the existence of wine (among other things). Rome the government did not invent wine. I don't even think Romans did.
Click to expand...

Heh... And you claim I'm harping on semantics? You're a funny guy.
 
#50
#50
Anarchy simply means no rulers.

Government is an institution of coercion, theft, and violence. Anything, and I do mean anything the government can do, the market could do it better.
I would love to see the government go away, but I don't think it will ever happen as statism is practically the worlds largest religion.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top