But, the countries with the highest standard of living are socialist and have high government control... I don't see how this follows logically at all.
From my experience, liberals are more likely to argue in favor of marijuana in the first place.
Gender: Male Location: al-Jumhuuriyya al-Yamaniyya
I'd point out that that is a strike against your version of anarchy. Collectives have formed all over the world in totally unconnected places. The few groups that were anything close to anarchic quickly got their asses kicked by collective groups. The free market itself has been seen to fail on the free market. Now that's poetic justice.
For a chosen operational definitions of "standard of living".
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
yes, but name me a government that has ever tried to give up power
The reality of the human condition means that some form of social network is necessary in some way. I don't feel that the government is necessarily the best or moral choice, but given the fact it has, with threat of violence, granted itself the sole power to provide such things, yes, it has made itself necessary.
indeed, but you do understand my point?
else, ya, you are preaching at the choir. Its very hard to find any way to get politically involved. The "conservatives" are basically authoritarians.
__________________ He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Are you familar with Agorism at all? What you are referring to, I assume, are the one of many anarchist communes that tried to be self sufficient. While it's true that they got their asses kicked, you still have to provide evidence for why taxation is justifiable. Free markets and cooperation can exist outside the boundries of the established and possibly coercise law of a given state.
I don't think so. All government is a social contract, anyway. I doubt that all governments are only keeping themselves in power through reigns of terror. Hell a lot only have tiny militaries.
Ever since the dawn of governments, taxation has had to exist. Communities without governments can only ever exist on small scales, that's the reason why they were developed in the first place.
Gender: Male Location: al-Jumhuuriyya al-Yamaniyya
To provide for the defense of the people against outside threats and to ensure that opportunity at a minimum begins at an equal state for everyone.
An anarchy cannot provide for the common defense because everyone's pointing their weapons at everyone else (which ensure a "perfect" state of internal security) and won't ensure a basic level of equal opportunity because it isn't in the short term interest of the individuals who have money.
What does coercise mean?
And no, they really can't. Once people begin to cooperate anarchy collapses into government unless there is a magical force that destroys them when they get "too" large.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
I agree with you that large scale communities need order, but that doesn't justify taxation. Voluntary organization and government exists, and is reasonable beyond a shadow of a doubt. If an over arching entity calling itself a legitimate goverenment deserving of funding in the form of taxation(Theft), they are commiting an act of aggression against an already recognized state.
an involuntary contract enforced with violence and imprisonment
__________________ He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Nonsense. It is a voluntary contract which is why governments collapse or have a revolution. Governments don't pop out of thin air, society developed them because they perform a vital function.
Nope. Let me give you an example. If a government exists in a farming society, it's workers will be doing their jobs instead of farming. They'll need food of course, as we can't have all government workers starving. So, these crops will have to come from (you guessed it) other people. This is taxation.
That's a silly example. If it is true, then who initially provided the food? I presume that you were thinking of the United States and it's subsidized farming.
On another note, while anarchy may bring violence, government is guaranteed to deliever violence via the military or other branchs of law enforcement.
alright, so are you satisfied then that I pass the test as a conservative?
why wouldn't people put one another in captivity?
we are assuming that people are just going ape shit bananas, because, without government around, I know that is how I would act. Government, literally, at all times of the day, is preventing me and you from being violent and evil. fact.
__________________ He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
What? That example was designed to take place in a pre-industrial farming society. It was simple, because it took money out of the equation. The food is provided by the farmers who produce surplus, which allows government workers to do government work rather than subsistence farming. It is a perfectly legit example.
Governments barely ever run the "reigns of terror" you and inimalist are going on about. Governments are employed by people to serve a purpose. They exist because they do a valuable service, not because some assholes just decided to enslave anyone else.
Gender: Male Location: al-Jumhuuriyya al-Yamaniyya
It wouldn't be me or you I'd worry about.
Also not my point. To maintain anarchy there must be no government, to maintain that people have to be prevented from making one. Thus bringing back your "involuntary contract enforced by violence or imprisonment".
If you don't force people to be anarchists eventually some of them will organize for personal defense against their (presumably not suicidally pacifist) neighbors. Such defense works best through top down authority, groups cannot make snap decisions at all. Some one will realize that "hey we'd be idiots not to do this before our neighbors try it" which later leads to "hey this can lead to profit" yadda yadda yadda and anarchy collapses into militarism.
Pure anarchy is a house of cards at the best of times. The simple ability to cause harm (the act is unneeded) eventually forms military tribes out of the people who have even a few emotions. Sure, if we assume that everyone is rational anarchy is great, but at that point so is communism.
Or for the TL;DR folks, I'd argue that "prisoner's dilemma" type problems would ultimately (but not immediately) force people into alliances that would grow into governments.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 8th, 2009 02:17 AM
It wouldn't be me or you I'd worry about.
