Originally posted by inimalist
the other reason is probably because I try to be more of a pragmatist than a radical. I'm way of the scale to the right, and advocating the disassembling of the state because it doesn't have the right to rule people does little to promote human standards of living.
Originally posted by inimalist
I guess since I'm already in the rant: On the extremes, the rhetoric of the right and the left can become very similar. The distinction I prefer is that of individual vs collective rights. One of the best examples might be the legalization of marijuana. From my experience, liberals are more likely to make arguments referring to the health effects and potential social and economic bonuses from legalizing the drug (I would almost characterize it as asking permission for something from the government, thereby empowering a central authority) whereas conservatives more often make arguments about the rights of the state to prevent people from doing something (which I would characterize as restricting the power of a central authority), the former using rhetoric of society, the latter of the individual.
Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
It is, but it's not sarcastic. I can't think of a single place on Earth that isn't run by a collective.
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.
Originally posted by King Kandy
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.
For a chosen operational definitions of "standard of living".
Originally posted by King Kandy
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.
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.
Originally posted by King Kandy
From my experience, liberals are more likely to argue in favor of marijuana in the first place.
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.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
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.
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.
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but name me a government that has ever tried to give up powerThe 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.
Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
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.
Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
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.
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.
Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Free markets and cooperation can exist outside the boundries of the established and possibly coercise law of a given state.
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.
Originally posted by King Kandy
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.
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.
Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
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.
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.
Originally posted by King Kandy
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.
alright, so are you satisfied then that I pass the test as a conservative?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which describes anarchy perfectly well if you remove "imprisonment".
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.
Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
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.
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.
Originally posted by inimalist
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.
😂 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.