On December 31 2014 10:46 chris wrote:
baal all you have done is insult me, but havent offered any counter points, whatsoever, and you didnt send me links, and i know a little bit about how the roads were built in NJ, at least.
also, do you mind minding your manners please? i thought this was a discussion, not for you to hurl insults.
anarchy is by definition a chaotic environment. if you mean an absence of government, please explain, with examples, how society would continue to function in a well adjusted manner without any form of government.
also, when i made the point about vigilante justice, you say i am stupid and then go on to make a point to counter me, USING MY EXACT SAME POINT!
I not wish to insult you, but you seem incapable of communicating anything without insulting me. i think this is perhaps why a good chunk of the community does not like you (i am not among them).
i think it is great we can discuss philosophical ideas about not having a government and the merits of one existing or not existing, but jesus, show your intelligence instead of hurling faeces.
lastly, i will ask again - can you provide A SINGLE EXAMPLE of people functioning well in a society with out any form of government?
If you and I were alone, no government, etc, you would, as you have here, try to have me adhere to your views. The stronger of the two of us would impose his beliefs on the other, and voila, we have a power based structure, winner became the chief. even with animals this is true (and i can point out examples - mating among lions, bucks locking horns for mating rights, etc. and large cats protecting and marking their territory over others, on and on).
Sorry if I insulted you, its a habit hard to get rid of, for that I apologize.
could you try to focus on one or two points or questions in your post because otherwise its really hard to reply without a wall of text.
An example of a working anarchic society? Yes I can show many examples but on very small scale, many people did it in the 60s living outside of the system but usually this ideology is very threatening to the state so they are swift in crushing it.
There are some places like Christiana in Norway, its an anarchic society with no form of government, since it has no drug laws it a haven for all the drug trade so its not the best of examples, but as a anarchy it works fine the problem its the situation on drugs.
The best example of anarchy if actually Somalia, a few years ago Somalias government was overthrown with nobody to take over and they lived in a chaotic and anarchic state, and to the surprise of everyone the country fluorished in almost every single area, and it has the biggest economy growth any african country has seen in history.
And this is the worst for anarchy, sudden and violent and the country went into chaos after the organization collapsed, but after a while people started to build energy plants, ports and everything privately: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia_(1991%E2%80%932006)
Read that article and see how in most cases the governments and regulations were actually a hindrance to progress.
On December 31 2014 10:53 chris wrote:
again, with anarchy, there is no authority to uphold any type of law. there is no money, we are on a barter system. there is little to no tech development, because there is no incentive - no money or reward, anything can be stolen.
no one has to do shit.
if you say "oh, anarchy is just the absence of government, everything else stays the same" i would love some example or reasoning outside of "haha you are stupid because you do not agree with me! i have a huge internet penis!"
I would love to read something that could sway my opinion.
and to follow up - just because i, personally, have not had 'justice' through the court system, and some innocents have been punished, or there have been unfair sentences, it does not mean that many others haven't had justice served or harmful criminals locked up. i think you should look at the larger picture....
also, if i may ask, why not libertarian vs anarchy? kind of a neat thread so far, if you can remove some trolling and insults
Money has absolutely nothing to do with government, for example... what government has to do with Bitcoin?
In fact governments are terrible for money since they control its supply through central banks they can do whatever they want... print some bills, give it to your corrupt buddies, devaluating everybody elses money, just like it happened in the USA with the bailouts and that is one tiny example of thousands of times government abuse this power to control the money supply.
On December 31 2014 11:50 Romm3l wrote:
but in that case to live in a 'free' society is to build your own shelter and hunt/scavenge/barter for stuff you need because larger communities aren't sustainable without a credible and stable system of rules in place. unfortunately for those billions they don't live in places that have had stable institutions with well-designed rules in place over a long period. the proof is out there: look at the correlation between countries with strong legal institutions stable over time and some level of defence spending, and their prosperity. strong correlation.
Why do you insist relating anarchy with huts and scavenging, how would anarchy destroy our technology and infrastructure?.
There is a strong correlation between defense spending and prosperity? Here is a list of the biggest defense spenders per %GDP
1 Oman 11.4
2 Qatar 10
3 Saudi Arabia 10
4 Iraq 8.6
5 Jordan 8.6
6 Israel 7.3
7 Yemen 6.6
8 Eritrea 6.3
9 Macedonia 6
10 Syria 5.9
if you want to participate in large-scale coordination of activity within a large society then there has to be a well-designed, credible and enforceable system of rules in place for it to be sustainable. if you want to call playing by the rules being a slave then go ahead, but in that case to live in a 'free' society is to build your own shelter and hunt/scavenge/barter for stuff you need because larger communities aren't sustainable without a credible and stable system of rules in place. unfortunately for those billions they don't live in places that have had stable institutions with well-designed rules in place over a long period. the proof is out there: look at the correlation between countries with strong legal institutions stable over time and some level of defence spending, and their prosperity. strong correlation.
i dont see how bank bailouts, corrupt politicians, illusion of democracy, and propensity of people to be fooled by PR invalidates any of this common sense. no govt is perfect because perfection is impossible. we only need govt to be good enough to enforce stable, reasonably designed rules which people have confidence will be enforced, so peoples' behaviour can be changed/naturally selected over time in such a way that the magic happens: extreme specialisation of labour, efficient trade and finance, incentives for innovation, welfare safety net, etc etc. bam, everyone's better off.
Once again please start reading about this by people that have spent a good amount of their lives researching this topic, then you ll see how all those things are connected and how it has nothing to do with hunt/scavenge. Don't expect me a 23yo that has read a few thousand pages about it to shift your perception
Edward Bernays, Russel Brand, Noam Chomsky, David Gruber you can start off with them
or at least think about the things Baal has written, he might be capable to do so
Last edit: 31/12/2014 20:33
0
Gnarly United States. Jan 01 2015 02:04. Posts 1723
On December 31 2014 03:59 fira wrote:
so essentially the government protects ppl from companies who are willing to use violence for profit. at the same time the government itself is kind of a 'company' willing to use 'violence' for profit if ppl are disobedient. not as bad as like, a total dictatorship though, since it needs to be not super evil or it'd get overthrown?
i guess the current government exists in order to keep something worse from taking over? like in an anarchic society, cant some evil geniuses come together, secure a massive amount of power (money, land, whatever) and start doing really bad things and no one would be able to stop them because they have too much power? in a sense, they'd become the new government?
A total dictatorship IS a form of government, dont equate government to a democratic 1st world country state, because that is the less vicious form through out history, but only because it has adapted to more civilized times dont think that its not the root of most of worlds problems.
So the government prevents evil geniues from taking power and do terrible things right?
No my friend, the government does exactly the opposite, the state only puts evil people hungry of power in positions of undeserved enormous power
The jews declared "war" on Germany in the 30s, baal. You really, really, desperately need to do your own research. Germany was raped by ww1, they were being forced to pay out money that was killing their own people every single day. You don't think there would be a national hero to rise up during their dark times? Hitler was a reaction to what germany was facing.
Diversify or fossilize!
0
Gnarly United States. Jan 01 2015 02:10. Posts 1723
On December 31 2014 11:50 Romm3l wrote:
but in that case to live in a 'free' society is to build your own shelter and hunt/scavenge/barter for stuff you need because larger communities aren't sustainable without a credible and stable system of rules in place. unfortunately for those billions they don't live in places that have had stable institutions with well-designed rules in place over a long period. the proof is out there: look at the correlation between countries with strong legal institutions stable over time and some level of defence spending, and their prosperity. strong correlation.
Why do you insist relating anarchy with huts and scavenging, how would anarchy destroy our technology and infrastructure?.
There is a strong correlation between defense spending and prosperity? Here is a list of the biggest defense spenders per %GDP
1 Oman 11.4
2 Qatar 10
3 Saudi Arabia 10
4 Iraq 8.6
5 Jordan 8.6
6 Israel 7.3
7 Yemen 6.6
8 Eritrea 6.3
9 Macedonia 6
10 Syria 5.9
>how would anarchy destroy our tech and infrastructure
Well, first off, no one would be paid to maintain things like bridges or tunnels or pipelines or internet infrastructure. Buildings would dilapidate and eventually start collapsing.
The question I ask you is: how would our tech and infrastructure NOT be destroyed by anarchy?
Diversify or fossilize!
0
Gnarly United States. Jan 01 2015 02:12. Posts 1723
if you want to participate in large-scale coordination of activity within a large society then there has to be a well-designed, credible and enforceable system of rules in place for it to be sustainable. if you want to call playing by the rules being a slave then go ahead, but in that case to live in a 'free' society is to build your own shelter and hunt/scavenge/barter for stuff you need because larger communities aren't sustainable without a credible and stable system of rules in place. unfortunately for those billions they don't live in places that have had stable institutions with well-designed rules in place over a long period. the proof is out there: look at the correlation between countries with strong legal institutions stable over time and some level of defence spending, and their prosperity. strong correlation.
i dont see how bank bailouts, corrupt politicians, illusion of democracy, and propensity of people to be fooled by PR invalidates any of this common sense. no govt is perfect because perfection is impossible. we only need govt to be good enough to enforce stable, reasonably designed rules which people have confidence will be enforced, so peoples' behaviour can be changed/naturally selected over time in such a way that the magic happens: extreme specialisation of labour, efficient trade and finance, incentives for innovation, welfare safety net, etc etc. bam, everyone's better off.
Once again please start reading about this by people that have spent a good amount of their lives researching this topic, then you ll see how all those things are connected and how it has nothing to do with hunt/scavenge. Don't expect me a 23yo that has read a few thousand pages about it to shift your perception
Edward Bernays, Russel Brand, Noam Chomsky, David Gruber you can start off with them
or at least think about the things Baal has written, he might be capable to do so
what kind of response is this? "oh, well, you need to read these specific personally authoritative figures cause you don't have the right mindset as baal." Try to actually reason shit out yourself and quit resorting to appeals to authority.
Gnarly don't bother replying to my posts, as i've already said i wont reason with narcissistic dumbasses that live in their dream world. Its no wonder you would put such reply too, you d rather have something that takes thousand of pages to explain to be shortened to a forum post, at least you amuse me with your stupidity
On December 31 2014 11:50 Romm3l wrote:
but in that case to live in a 'free' society is to build your own shelter and hunt/scavenge/barter for stuff you need because larger communities aren't sustainable without a credible and stable system of rules in place. unfortunately for those billions they don't live in places that have had stable institutions with well-designed rules in place over a long period. the proof is out there: look at the correlation between countries with strong legal institutions stable over time and some level of defence spending, and their prosperity. strong correlation.
Why do you insist relating anarchy with huts and scavenging, how would anarchy destroy our technology and infrastructure?.
There is a strong correlation between defense spending and prosperity? Here is a list of the biggest defense spenders per %GDP
1 Oman 11.4
2 Qatar 10
3 Saudi Arabia 10
4 Iraq 8.6
5 Jordan 8.6
6 Israel 7.3
7 Yemen 6.6
8 Eritrea 6.3
9 Macedonia 6
10 Syria 5.9
doesn't make sense to isolate defence spending as you have and in this case % of gdp measures don't make sense either.
reason i mention defence spending is that to deter other countries from messing with you is necessary for stable institutions over time. this condition is necessary but not sufficient for prosperity. for sake of illustration imagine a country with tiny gdp and 10 inhabitants spending 90% on defence. The big % of gdp measure doesn't change the fact the country is at the mercy of larger powers.
what a prosperous country needs is for the right incentives to be in place for good, productive behaviour that creates prosperity over time. these incentives have to be stable over time and people have to have confidence in their stability going forward. you talk about people in western countries being 'morally better' but this is just a consequence of stronger institutions with the right incentives over time. people who behave undesirably are selected out of the population over time in such an environment. none of the countries in your list have had much stability or good incentives.
tolstoy seems to have it right that a moral revolution could solve the bad incentives problem and reduce the need for state. but since humans would clearly not act ideally under anarchy, a state remains pretty necessary. even if such a moral revolution miraculously happened and we could do without a lot of what govt is necessary for, we would still need a smaller govt to address market failures like public goods and missing markets.
On January 01 2015 06:13 Spitfiree wrote:
Gnarly don't bother replying to my posts, as i've already said i wont reason with narcissistic dumbasses that live in their dream world. Its no wonder you would put such reply too, you d rather have something that takes thousand of pages to explain to be shortened to a forum post, at least you amuse me with your stupidity
in general the clearest sign that someone doesn't really understand well what they're talking about is if they're unable to distil their thoughts and arguments in simple, concise language.
arguments like "too complicated and too many pages for me to explain" or "you have to read these works by other people to get it" is just about the clearest way to auto-lose an argument by not being able to even participate in it
1
sniderstyle United States. Jan 01 2015 14:39. Posts 2046
Genginho: lose today 100 dollar only because of fishs they called and had luck on river
On January 01 2015 06:13 Spitfiree wrote:
Gnarly don't bother replying to my posts, as i've already said i wont reason with narcissistic dumbasses that live in their dream world. Its no wonder you would put such reply too, you d rather have something that takes thousand of pages to explain to be shortened to a forum post, at least you amuse me with your stupidity
in general the clearest sign that someone doesn't really understand well what they're talking about is if they're unable to distil their thoughts and arguments in simple, concise language.
arguments like "too complicated and too many pages for me to explain" or "you have to read these works by other people to get it" is just about the clearest way to auto-lose an argument by not being able to even participate in it
and responses like this one is the easiest ways of staying ignorant although someone clearly shows you how to widen your perception of the system we live in, i'm not here to argue at all, i didn't write any of the posts in order to get a bigger internet penis, i'm simply showing you a different point of view
I understand that i might come off weak, I don't give a fuck though since i've pointed the way to legitimate sources that are far more capable than me, I'd rather come off weak than try to explain things in a silly way and not in full depth. Point is I've given you a way, its your own decision if you want to follow it or continue to "win" arguments on the internet
Edit: Tbh I've explained the core of the problem pretty well
cute and holds for a lot of stuff but you just need a single counterexample to disprove any "this always holds" statement.
you see someone dying of thirst and take the action of deciding not to give him your bottle of water. no force or fraud is committed.
0
Gnarly United States. Jan 01 2015 15:03. Posts 1723
On January 01 2015 06:13 Spitfiree wrote:
Gnarly don't bother replying to my posts, as i've already said i wont reason with narcissistic dumbasses that live in their dream world. Its no wonder you would put such reply too, you d rather have something that takes thousand of pages to explain to be shortened to a forum post, at least you amuse me with your stupidity
>muh appeal to authority
Keep riding that special high horse of yours and keep thinking you're smarter than everyone else here.
Diversify or fossilize!
0
Gnarly United States. Jan 01 2015 15:06. Posts 1723
On January 01 2015 06:13 Spitfiree wrote:
Gnarly don't bother replying to my posts, as i've already said i wont reason with narcissistic dumbasses that live in their dream world. Its no wonder you would put such reply too, you d rather have something that takes thousand of pages to explain to be shortened to a forum post, at least you amuse me with your stupidity
in general the clearest sign that someone doesn't really understand well what they're talking about is if they're unable to distil their thoughts and arguments in simple, concise language.
arguments like "too complicated and too many pages for me to explain" or "you have to read these works by other people to get it" is just about the clearest way to auto-lose an argument by not being able to even participate in it
and responses like this one is the easiest ways of staying ignorant although someone clearly shows you how to widen your perception of the system we live in, i'm not here to argue at all, i didn't write any of the posts in order to get a bigger internet penis, i'm simply showing you a different point of view
I understand that i might come off weak, I don't give a fuck though since i've pointed the way to legitimate sources that are far more capable than me, I'd rather come off weak than try to explain things in a silly way and not in full depth. Point is I've given you a way, its your own decision if you want to follow it or continue to "win" arguments on the internet
Edit: Tbh I've explained the core of the problem pretty well
On January 01 2015 06:13 Spitfiree wrote:
Gnarly don't bother replying to my posts, as i've already said i wont reason with narcissistic dumbasses that live in their dream world. Its no wonder you would put such reply too, you d rather have something that takes thousand of pages to explain to be shortened to a forum post, at least you amuse me with your stupidity
in general the clearest sign that someone doesn't really understand well what they're talking about is if they're unable to distil their thoughts and arguments in simple, concise language.
arguments like "too complicated and too many pages for me to explain" or "you have to read these works by other people to get it" is just about the clearest way to auto-lose an argument by not being able to even participate in it
and responses like this one is the easiest ways of staying ignorant although someone clearly shows you how to widen your perception of the system we live in, i'm not here to argue at all, i didn't write any of the posts in order to get a bigger internet penis, i'm simply showing you a different point of view
I understand that i might come off weak, I don't give a fuck though since i've pointed the way to legitimate sources that are far more capable than me, I'd rather come off weak than try to explain things in a silly way and not in full depth. Point is I've given you a way, its your own decision if you want to follow it or continue to "win" arguments on the internet
Edit: Tbh I've explained the core of the problem pretty well
Meanwhile
i dont want to resort to ad hominem attacks but your citing russell brand as a legitimate and highly capable source is kind of embarassing and doesn't give me confidence engaging with you any further is going to lead to any kind of productive outcome
Stop embarrassing yourself, you obviously don't know anything about the guy. You see this is were I would've been if I tried to do what you are doing. Russel Brand himself is just the face of the whole idea at this point. However he s talking to the brightest minds on the planet which makes him more than highly capable. He s helping promote a very important idea and its working. The fact that he was able to "win" an interview against Paxman, Paxman being able to push every mistake, every spot that wasn't quite clear or came off as weak and having 25 years of experience in that field only shows how capable Brand is. And the fact that you wrote such a hilarious post only shows how little you've read on the subject. In fact you're right this wont lead to anything productive since you're refusing to open your eyes, one can do only so much to help another.
P.S. I bet this "argument " seems weak too since you're uneducated on the topic, but try to argue about it, such a lovely situation you've put yourself in
0
Gnarly United States. Jan 02 2015 13:09. Posts 1723
On January 02 2015 12:04 Spitfiree wrote:
Stop embarrassing yourself, you obviously don't know anything about the guy. You see this is were I would've been if I tried to do what you are doing. Russel Brand himself is just the face of the whole idea at this point. However he s talking to the brightest minds on the planet which makes him more than highly capable. He s helping promote a very important idea and its working. The fact that he was able to "win" an interview against Paxman, Paxman being able to push every mistake, every spot that wasn't quite clear or came off as weak and having 25 years of experience in that field only shows how capable Brand is. And the fact that you wrote such a hilarious post only shows how little you've read on the subject. In fact you're right this wont lead to anything productive since you're refusing to open your eyes, one can do only so much to help another.
P.S. I bet this "argument " seems weak too since you're uneducated on the topic, but try to argue about it, such a lovely situation you've put yourself in
Dude, Russell Brand isn't going to take you to bed tonight. Your "argument" which is really riding the dick of another man is weak because you've provided not a single original thought of your own. You need to appeal to authority and you don't even realize how closed your eyes are.
