Why Everyone Should Be an Anarchist

#126
#126
PKT_VOL said:
You could just shorten this by saying there will inevitably be societal structure that has the same telos (end function) as historic government. Whether you want to call these other forms of governance "government" is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I could, but what is the fun in that?
 
#127
#127
n_huffhines said:
No offense, but this is fallacious thinking. You don't want to live in most parts of Mexico WITH government.
Click to expand...

True, because Mexico has had a corrupt, unstable government for most of its existence. Corruption abounds everywhere though, just not in government. The problem, or one of the main problems with government corruption is the lack of checks and balances. Our government is operating nothing like the framers of the constitution intended. You have the executive branch using executive orders to circumvent the system of checks and balances and the judiciary essentially writing legislation or overturning legislation and referenda based on a judge's political leaning. The system is definitely broken but ultimately we have no one to blame but a dumb electorate.

Rant over, point I want to make is that corruption will always exist and the stronger will always exert their will over the sheep.
 
#128
#128
therealUT said:
I think all this comes out of an understanding of the question at the heart of the Gyges myth. We don't need to get rid of self-interest, we need it to be proper self-interest, as that is all that is necessary in this world we are given.
Click to expand...

I think this ignores the conditional properties needed for anarchy, including temperance, altruism (which is what you are getting at), and plentiful resources.
 
#129
#129
PKT_VOL said:
I think this ignores the conditional properties needed for anarchy, including temperance, altruism (which is what you are getting at), and plentiful resources.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can get those in anarchy, or retain them in anarchy.
 
#130
#130
Godfatha said:
True, because Mexico has had a corrupt, unstable government for most of its existence. Corruption abounds everywhere though, just not in government. The problem, or one of the main problems with government corruption is the lack of checks and balances. Our government is operating nothing like the framers of the constitution intended. You have the executive branch using executive orders to circumvent the system of checks and balances and the judiciary essentially writing legislation or overturning legislation and referenda based on a judge's political leaning. The system is definitely broken but ultimately we have no one to blame but a dumb electorate.

Rant over, point I want to make is that corruption will always exist and the stronger will always exert their will over the sheep.
Click to expand...

We agree on all of this, we just differ in that I think government ensures the worst kind of corruption.

We are so scared of what the rich and powerful might do to us in the absence of law that we give them lawful reign over us. It makes no sense to me.
 
#131
#131
PKT_VOL said:
I think this ignores the conditional properties needed for anarchy, including temperance, altruism (which is what you are getting at), and plentiful resources.
Click to expand...

I should have asked the first time you mentioned this, but why do you think this is a required condition?
 
#132
#132
n_huffhines said:
You don't even understand how the theory is supposed to work, nor do you try to understand. How can we get anywhere?

And before you answer "I do understand", tell me how anarcho capitalism would safeguard against pollution, child sex enslavement, etc. I'm not saying you have to accept the safeguards as plausible. I just want to verify that you know what they are. If you don't then you do not understand anarcho capitalism.
Click to expand...

This is funny. We've both agreed that the car has no engine, so your debate about whether it'll get you to California or not depends on whether I understand how it's AC system works.

I gave you a pretty much line by line refutation of the video link provided, which you didn't even bother responding to. Your defenses became "murder is bad", "we don't know because it's never been tried", and "oh yah? Well how would anarchy deal with pollution?"

Again. What we really agree on is that this is a wasted discussion.
 
#133
#133
n_huffhines said:
We agree on all of this, we just differ in that I think government ensures the worst kind of corruption.

We are so scared of what the rich and powerful might do to us in the absence of law that we give them lawful reign over us. It makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

I don't think government per se does. Governments, throughout history, have been all kinds of terribly corrupt, though.
 
#135
#135
Orange_Crush said:
This is funny. We've both agreed that the car has no engine, so your debate about whether it'll get you to California or not depends on whether I understand how it's AC system works.

I gave you a pretty much line by line refutation of the video link provided, which you didn't even bother responding to. Your defenses became "murder is bad", "we don't know because it's never been tried", and "oh yah? Well how would anarchy deal with pollution?"

Again. What we really agree on is that this is a wasted discussion.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what video link you are talking about. I didn't post a video.

You're disingenuous. If you don't understand how anarcho-capitalism works, yet completely willing to write it off, then there is no point in discussing this topic with you.
 
#139
#139
#140
#140
therealUT said:
If the resources are scarce, they will inevitably go to the most powerful and least altruistic.
Click to expand...

Which basically amounts to a feudalistic type of "government." The haves and have nots with the powerful controlling the weak.

Marx got that one right.
 
#141
#141
PKT_VOL said:
Why? I do think those are necessary conditions for prolonged anarchy.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are necessary for prolonged anarchy; however, I do not think that anarchy can provide those conditions, nor do I think anarchy can sustain those conditions.

Those conditions require resource intensive and constant effort. I do not think that anarchy can provide such an effort for all, even in theory.
 
#142
#142
therealUT said:
Yes, they are necessary for prolonged anarchy; however, I do not think that anarchy can provide those conditions, nor do I think anarchy can sustain those conditions.

Those conditions require resource intensive and constant effort. I do not think that anarchy can provide such an effort for all, even in theory.
Click to expand...

I think we are talking past one another. I am talking about truly unlimited resources. You are talking about maximizing existing/finite resources to have plentiful resources for everyone.
 
#143
#143
PKT_VOL said:
I think we are talking past one another. I am talking about truly unlimited resources. You are talking about maximizing existing/finite resources to have plentiful resources for everyone.
Click to expand...

It would still require distribution, unless you are speaking of a world in which one simply desires and receives.
 
#144
#144
If you go to 3rd world places where resources are scarce the aristocracy is totally fine and the people suffer. I don't get what's different when there is no government.
 
Last edited:
#145
#145
n_huffhines said:
If you go to 3rd world places where resources are scarce the aristocracy is totally fine and the people suffer. I don't get what's different when there is no government.
Click to expand...

Nobody is arguing that bad governments do not exist. Hell, I would argue that good governments have rarely existed throughout history. The argument is that theoretically, government can deal with issues that anarchy cannot. This stance is even taken by one of the closest friends of anarchy: Robert Nozick.

The problem with anarchy is that anarchy necessitates that those with material resources will wield all the power. Yes, they have the power to be altruistic, but it is still them that will always wield all the power. Under certain forms of government, power can be evenly distributed and does not rely on material resources. That is, one who is absolutely impoverished still holds the power to vote in and, thus, influence the government. This cannot happen in anarchy.

Further, since many (this does not mean a majority) living under a government structure will want those voting to be decently educated so they are not swayed so easily, they will work to distribute resources in order to provide for such an education (and, this will necessarily also entail certain subsistence allotments, since one is is starving cannot be educated).

On the flip-side, anarchy will push the powerful to retain their own material resources, since material resources is power in such a setup. This will mean less for those already without. In many places around the world lacking adequate government structure, child labor abounds (and has throughout history in such places). Yet, child labor creates a cycle in which those without power become even worse off. Child labor drives wages down for both children and adults. Thus, it forces even more families to enroll their children in the labor force, and that deprives such children of education. This means their future will be spent toiling away and sending their children into the labor force. Moreover, since the goods they are producing tend, in such a system, to be luxury items (by this I mean merely not life necessities) for the powerful, the price of the necessities they need does not drop at the same precipitous rate as their own wages. It's a vicious cycle. And, I would argue, it is a cycle that only government can break, since it ultimately reduces to a severe collective action problem in which their is no reason for a single laboring family to deviate and not throw their child into the labor force, and their is not reason for the wealthy to independently deviate and not purchase products produced by child labor.

Now, one could argue that education can solve this problem and individuals, especially those in power, will come to be more altruistic through education. But, first that seems like a pipe-dream. Second, it would require compulsory education of a certain kind, correct? How will such a compulsory education that speaks against the norms and mores of the powerful be instituted without some type of governance structure?
 
#146
#146
therealUT said:
Nobody is arguing that bad governments do not exist. Hell, I would argue that good governments have rarely existed throughout history. The argument is that theoretically, government can deal with issues that anarchy cannot. This stance is even taken by one of the closest friends of anarchy: Robert Nozick.

The problem with anarchy is that anarchy necessitates that those with material resources will wield all the power. Yes, they have the power to be altruistic, but it is still them that will always wield all the power. Under certain forms of government, power can be evenly distributed and does not rely on material resources. That is, one who is absolutely impoverished still holds the power to vote in and, thus, influence the government. This cannot happen in anarchy.
Click to expand...

You can vote on good police protection and nice schools, but if you live in the hood it ain't happening. It's a farce. In the free market, you vote with your dollars. Poorer people obviously can't have everything the wealthy have, but if your priority is a good education or home and family protection you would be able to get that. In the absence of government there would be more demand for private suppliers of these services, thus there would be a multitude of options that cater to different target markets (meaning options that are affordable to the poor). A poor person could band together with his/her neighbors and pool their money and get some semblance of security in their neighborhood.

Under government they call 911 and wait...and wait...and wait...no matter how many votes they have.
 
#147
#147
n_huffhines said:
You can vote on good police protection and nice schools, but if you live in the hood it ain't happening. It's a farce. In the free market, you vote with your dollars. Poorer people obviously can't have everything the wealthy have, but if your priority is a good education or home and family protection you would be able to get that. In the absence of government there would be more demand for private suppliers of these services, thus there would be a multitude of options that cater to different target markets (meaning options that are affordable to the poor). A poor person could band together with his/her neighbors and pool their money and get some semblance of security in their neighborhood.

Under government they call 911 and wait...and wait...and wait...no matter how many votes they have.
Click to expand...

Again, you are taking contingent examples of bad governments to make your argument. The best case for government is the best argument for government; likewise, the best case for anarchy is the best argument for anarchy. In comparing best cases, I can't even conceive of anarchy remaining an even somewhat pleasing option.

Yes, anarchy might be better than some specific and historical factual governments. That doesn't demonstrate that we ought to aim at anarchy, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#148
#148
n_huffhines said:
In the free market, you vote with your dollars. People obviously can't have everything the wealthy have, but if your priority is a good education or home and family protection you would be able to get that. In the absence of government there would be more demand for private suppliers of these services, thus there would be a multitude of options that cater to different target markets (meaning options that are affordable to the poor). A poor person could band together with his/her neighbors and pool their money and get some semblance of security in their neighborhood.

Under government they call 911 and wait...and wait...and wait...no matter how many votes they have.
Click to expand...
Yeah, about this whole "free market" thing...it's not going to stay free for very long if there isn't someone to regulate it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top