Why Everyone Should Be an Anarchist

#76
#76
darkgable said:
So if this anarchy is so much better, why isn't there a major society or area or people somewhere significant around the world functioning? Is there any anarchical society with all the technological and monetary things we have now? Waiting...
Click to expand...

I would say it's because the world isn't quite ready to accept the idea yet. Here's an example:

Take a time machine back to the year 1000 AD and try to explain democracy to people. They are going to act like you are bat **** insane (much like most people look at me in this thread probably). Their response would be: "You mean to tell me that a ruler who loses an election is just going to hand over power peaceably? No way that would ever work in a million years."

That would be their response because all they've ever known is despotic rule. All we've ever known is invasive government rule. We have a hard time seeing outside our own reality.
 
#77
#77
Orange_Crush said:
They treat the highest bidder as boss. Justice goes to the highest bidder. It's market-driven "justice". Sounds dreamy...
Click to expand...

No. They treat LONG TERM PROFIT as boss.

If a protection agency doesn't behave then the other protection agencies will go after it. This would put them in a horrible situation. War is costly. Governments do it because they don't face budget constraints. Businesses do, so the last thing they want to do is go to war.

No matter how wealthy the richest man in the world is, he cannot outbid the rest of the world.

Acting badly might make for a short gain, but you're doomed in the long run.
 
#78
#78
Also, I would like to point out that virtually every concern or objection you might have to anarchy exists in the face of government.

Whether your concern is violence, crime, evil corporations, pollution, etc. we experience all this under government and government is in part (or completely) responsible for their existence.
 
Last edited:
#79
#79
Orange_Crush said:
I thought it would be obvious that I don't believe a utopia is possible. The best we can hope for is a system that continues less badly. With the inherent flaws in human nature, we need organized oversight.

I just don't suffer from the fallacy of the excluded middle, nor do I build my outlook on obviously flawed premises. (1) Our best bet is to continue striving for a government that does not promote the things that you listed. (2) I recognize that human nature is inherently damaged, and thus can't be blindly trusted as the fix in and of itself.

But please feel free to dissect my dissection of the link provided that was supposed to explain my concerns away, as opposed to just falling back to an emotional, excluded-middle ploy.
Click to expand...

By claiming that human beings need "organized oversight" that in itself tells me that you support the status quo. Statist gonna state right?
 
#80
#80
n_huffhines said:
Also, I would like to point out that virtually every concern you might have to anarchy exists probably exists in the face of government.

Whether your concern is violence, crime, evil corporations, pollution, etc. all these things exist under government and government is in part (or completely) responsible for their existence.
Click to expand...

Of course it is a concern in government. I said that it is a concern in government. Because people implement governments. The problem you seem to ignore is that by getting rid of the government, you are not getting rid of the root problem-- people. Unless you want to get rid of people, you will have to deal with these issues.

You've just failed to convince me that "self-interest" is a better safeguard than government oversight. You could start convincing me by speaking more definitively to my points than just lobbing idealistic promises around and falling back on emotional ploys.

For instance, please speak to the fallacy that I mentioned, which appears to be a foundationally flawed premise-- i.e. that government has a monopoly on violence. This is demonstrably false. We see non-government violence all the time. Additionally, government violence at its root is self-interest people violence, so we see far more that it is actually people violence 100% of the time.

Tell me again how removing organized oversight from people violence will fix people violence when people violence at its root is 100% of the time executed by people.
 
#82
#82
McDad said:
I searched for a local anarchy group to join. Couldnt find one with any structure or leadership.
Click to expand...


n_huffhines said:
That's kind of the point, but if you need a leader to guide you through life, then anarchy isn't for you.
Click to expand...

i
 
#86
#86
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Haha says the guy who does not believe the United States government does not have a monopoly on violence.
Click to expand...

Are you really that dense, or just too lost in your ideals to think about what you are saying?

This is the first listing I found for 'man kills wife' in Google:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-newlywed-1m-life-insurance-article-1.1765452

That wasn't the US gov't. It wasn't any government. It was individual human nature, and self-interest that expressed itself as violence and oppression.

Do you know what 'monopoly' means?

"A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#87
#87
Orange_Crush said:
Of course it is a concern in government. I said that it is a concern in government. Because people implement governments. The problem you seem to ignore is that by getting rid of the government, you are not getting rid of the root problem-- people. Unless you want to get rid of people, you will have to deal with these issues.

You've just failed to convince me that "self-interest" is a better safeguard than government oversight. You could start convincing me by speaking more definitively to my points than just lobbing idealistic promises around and falling back on emotional ploys.

For instance, please speak to the fallacy that I mentioned, which appears to be a foundationally flawed premise-- i.e. that government has a monopoly on violence. This is demonstrably false. We see non-government violence all the time. Additionally, government violence at its root is self-interest people violence, so we see far more that it is actually people violence 100% of the time.

Tell me again how removing organized oversight from people violence will fix people violence when people violence at its root is 100% of the time executed by people.
Click to expand...

They are the only ones authorized to engage in violence. A monopoly doesn't mean they are the only actor in any sense. Even in a market where the government grants one business license, there would still be a black market alternative. I would still call the authorized business a monopoly. I guess you wouldn't?

People violence will never completely go away. People violence without a government as a vehicle will be far preferable.

Who in your life do you know that would just go start killing people if there were no government? Even if you know someone that evil, you don't think there would be consequences to their actions? Say a neighbor of yours kills another neighbor. The rest of the neighborhood is just going to say "Oh I wish we still had government?" or are they going to police their own neighborhood?

Now if a cop kills someone in your neighborhood, what are you going to do about it?
 
#88
#88
n_huffhines said:
They are the only ones authorized to engage in violence. A monopoly doesn't mean they are the only actor in any sense. Even in a market where the government grants one business license, there would still be a black market alternative. I would still call the authorized business a monopoly. I guess you wouldn't?
Click to expand...

I'm using the definition of monopoly. There are non-government ordained human violence. Stand-your-ground, self defense, man's castle...

n_huffhines said:
People violence will never completely go away. People violence without a government as a vehicle will be far preferable.
Click to expand...

There goes another of your unsupported assertions.

n_huffhines said:
Who in your life do you know that would just go start killing people if there were no government? Even if you know someone that evil, you don't think there would be consequences to their actions? Say a neighbor of yours kills another neighbor. The rest of the neighborhood is just going to say "Oh I wish we still had government?" or are they going to police their own neighborhood?
Click to expand...

As usual with unproven and un-provable ideals, you vastly oversimplify. I know a few people I suspect. There are an innumerable number of people that I don't suspect but may.

It's not just a matter of "preventing" violence. It's a matter of defining and administering justice. For instance, preventing violence and oppression. Also, defining when violence does not have retribution as a just recourse (i.e. the towns of refuge in ancient Israel.]

Say I live in a close knit community. We all love one another greatly. Maybe we're all family. A drifter comes through. My neighbor tries to mug him in the woods, and the guy shoots him in self defense. I find the body, track down the drifter and apply my justice.

What was the truck driver's name that got his head bashed in during the LA riots? How many stores were looted and burned down? That was policing their own neighborhood.

Not as simple now is it?

You think that a market-driven protection racket will be a better judge of justice. I disagree.

n_huffhines said:
Now if a cop kills someone in your neighborhood, what are you going to do about it?
Click to expand...

Push for an investigation and justice. If there isn't a satisfied justice, rally for change in officials and/or law.
 
#89
#89
n_huffhines said:
They are the only ones authorized to engage in violence.
Click to expand...

I need clarification. By seeking wriggle-room on the definition of monopoly, what point are you trying to make about violence?

Point One? "The government is the only institution that perpetuates violence." I've already demonstrated this as false. It was easy.

Or...

Point Two? "Sure, lots of non-governmental violence happens at the hands of people, but the government is the only one with the authority to do it." I've demonstrated that as false also, but I'm not sure you've thought through the implications of the wriggle-room argument.

You've just admitted that, even with the oversight of authority, people are inherently really bad to each other. And you want us to believe that humanity's good nature will be the saving grace to fill the void when government isn't there to try to augment our base human nature?

That's really the argument you want to go with, just to seem like your "monopoly" claim wasn't a complete wiffle-ball-miss?
 
#92
#92
Orange_Crush said:
What was the truck driver's name that got his head bashed in during the LA riots? How many stores were looted and burned down? That was policing their own neighborhood.
Click to expand...

So policeman unjustifiably beat the living **** out of a man, which results in race riots and you want to use this as an example that we need government?

You're impossible. Good job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#94
#94
PKT_VOL said:
Isn't it? It's amazing that people can spot/understand the realism flaws of communism (great in theory) but not the realism flaws of anarchy (great in theory as well).
Click to expand...

Government is great in theory....but we have literally thousands of years of recorded history where all governments (even today) are oppressive and despotic.

It's amazing that people still believe government is the answer.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#95
#95
n_huffhines said:
Government is great in theory....but we have literally thousands of years of recorded history where all governments (even today) are oppressive and despotic.

It's amazing that people still believe government is the answer.
Click to expand...

Sometimes the alternative is worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#97
#97
n_huffhines said:
So policeman unjustifiably beat the living **** out of a man, which results in race riots and you want to use this as an example that we need government?

You're impossible. Good job.
Click to expand...

I'm using the aftermath as an example of neighborhood self-policing.
 
#99
#99
n_huffhines said:
How would we know? All we've ever known is government.
Click to expand...

There was government hundreds & thousands of years ago. It was just as bad if not worse then & the alternative wasn't any better. Yes our system is very flawed & in some cases corrupt but without it things would be worse. Could it be fixed? Absolutely but it would take a huge culture shock that we aren't ready for. Starting with less government would be a good place to start but it won't happen.
 
#100
#100
n_huffhines said:
But they can't go after the perpetrators, because the perpetrators are government and they lost their damn minds.
Click to expand...

Yes. They did. That's the human nature you're expecting to reconcile with no oversight. But, if you prefer not to use that example, we could turn to this one...

Apparently, the only thing the government did wrong in this case was not be government enough-- i.e. provide good enough crime prevention.

Hundreds of enraged villagers savagely beat and then burned to death a man and two teenage boys who many presumed had come to Huitzilzingo to kidnap, steal or worse.

But this time, prosecutors say, the mob got it wrong.

...

Vigilante justice reigns in much of Mexico as villagers and security forces sidestep a legal system they consider inadequate to deal with rampant crime.

Fueled by fear, Mexico village mob lynches 3 innocents - Houston Chronicle
Click to expand...

The specific example consists of a village hanging and burning a man and two teenagers to death just because they didn't recognize them.

This is the human nature and "self-interest" you trust to govern ourselves.

What was that about government's 'monopoly on violence'?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top