The Anarchy thread - Page 4

If government is good then there should be one world government.
If government is bad there should be no government.
Centralization of power through force is the nature of human civilization, not because it's good but because it survives at the expense of all those it rules over.
Jesus tried to show ppl anarchy was the way, he failed miserably.
Roman government adopted Christianity.

How can you, baal, a mere peon change anything? By changing the minds on lp? Humans don't respond to reason, they respond to incentives and that's the same exact reason why governments can exist in the first place because of fear and in any given anarchy state government is inevitable.

You can eliminate government if you can create a revolution of love. But personally all I've ever experienced is the FEAR.

On March 09 2010 22:24 Liquid`Drone wrote: what floofy said. internet communities can be compared to countries, they consist of large and different groups of people with different interests and some people are selfish and don't care if they fuck up things for other people in fact sometimes people deliberately try to do so for fun. this happens both on the internet and in real life. laws certainly aren't flawless, but unfortunately they are, at least in some countries, much better than not having any. the belief that norway or sweden would be the heavens on earth they are without laws is just silly.. the defining characteristics of norway and sweden is that we have a ridiculously large amount of laws and governmental intervention in our lives, that most of the laws and actions done by the government makes sense, and that almost all people follow most of the laws and to some degree adhere to advice given by government organs. it is not that we have superior moral compasses that enable us to do the right thing just because. basically, it wouldn't be possible to have the sort of educational system we have in scandinavia without a government. it wouldn't be possible to have a strong enough social security system that made everyone feel safe economically which is one of the strongest contributors to our low crime rates.. there's no doubt that we have some retarded laws, in particular regarding drugs, but most of the really dumb ones are hardly enforced and I'll gladly take them to ensure that there's a capable organ able to enforce the truly important ones.

No the internet its not like the wold and sites countries because you choose to go to a site if you were forced to stay in one random site that will start charging you money with threats of violence to use it, and that site has moderation then yes, it would be a world-country analogy, but thats not how it works, so the internet is an anarchic system with corporations in it, what you said is totally wrong.

Also about Scandinavians not having a higher moral compass well its not that you intrinsically have it, but as a society you are many years ahead of the rest of the world, this has thus producing better living standards overall which provides more knowledge in general which by logic produces a society with better moral compass, hence the high atheism % for example.

I am aware that yo live under a bloated relatively functional government, but if you believe that your society couldnt prosper without it you then are clueless why your society is in that stage in the first place, also i dont get why you say that you couldnt have a good healthcare system or educational one without a government, you are running many steps back into this discussions, i can go into detail why they would be better than in a pseudo-socialist system like yours.

from another thread:

On September 01 2011 14:38 RiKD wrote: Show nested quote + On September 01 2011 13:41 Baalim wrote:   On September 01 2011 12:34 RiKD wrote: you guys have been debating the anarchy thing here so just wanted to post some things i've been thinking about on that topic or someone can start a new thread. it might motivate me to read some books i've been meaning to read as well. baal v palak. anarchy v government. it comes down to this. rawls original position to determine morality/ethics/social contract summarized (personally i feel it's the best one) everyone goes into a room under a veil of ignorance. no biases, everyone is equal. they agree on what is fair. nature is going to be nature. the genetic lottery is going to be the genetic lottery. the government side thinks there should be a minimax strategy to account for nature and the genetic lottery. that's what humanity would agree is most fair. the anarchy side thinks the government side is too risk averse and flawed. behind the veil of ignorance humanity would come to the conclusion that gambling for their spot in a 100% meritocracy is the most fair and best for humanity. i'm w/ baal and believe humanity would come to the second conclusion. i don't have time to go into all the reasons why government, voting, and the utility of a minimax strategy for the world we live in is deeply flawed but it's a decent start. thats not really the main argument between anarchy, its not a stance against wealth distribution. Its a stance against immorality, we believe that the "social contract" is immoral, no contract can exist without the approval of both parties, therefore taxation is theft, if you fight this theft you are killed. We are also aware of human nature and know that power corrupts, and corrupt ones seek power therefore government is doomed to fail, it simply empowers corruption. If you want to see it in a simple way, both sides agree that human nature is vicious and greedy... so their solution is to give a small group of people insane power and the monopoly of violence so they keep us from "killing each other", but who on the fuck is going to stop that corrupt powerful group of violence?.. nobody. it is the main argument though. if you agree with rawl's test of morality/ethics/justice if everyone is under the veil of ignorance and agrees to a social contract that social contract will be fair and moral. if there was worldwide anarchy you'd surely have plenty of lazy crybabies complaining that they were born into THAT "social contract" and had no say and would then probably spend more time trying to viva revolution the "immoral" world w/ socialism instead of improving their position in life. except they wouldn't have an unavoidably flawed government to subsidize their laziness so they would either hold themselves accountable and work harder and make better choices/decisions or suffer/die. also, besides some scandinavian countries, the first scenario in my original post is far from anything we have today. i am not that familiar w/ government anywhere outside of the US but there certainly was no veil of ignorance or 100% moral motive when a bunch of rich, white, powerful landowners got together and drew up the declaration of independence. that position is still flawed for a number of reasons but i just wanted to make that distinction clear. anyways, unless anyone wants to bump the anarchy thread we can leave this at agree to disagree w/ palak and agree w/ baal besides maybe some minor semantics and move on.

You are making the same mistake that religious people call atheistm also another religion or belief.

If the world goes into anarchy people wouldnt bitch about the "social contract", because there simply isnt any, you are not forced at gunpoint to do anything, unlike our current society, you are forced to pay taxes or die.

In anarchy you want somebody to lead you and represent you, you are free to do so, however nobody can impose a leader onto you.

Also an anarchic society isnt more voracious thowards the poor since there are no subsidies, the government only funnels the money into the rich creating more poor, then they throw them crums and they act as if they were protecting them and they would die on their own, they wouldnt.

U have an annoying habit of asserting opinions as if they were facts.

Fact is, if "the anarchic way" would be implemented right now, it would only be fair to give EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET an Ak47, about 10 full clips and at least a year's worth of combat/survival training because let's face it, it would be war out there. So ye..

mod edit - dont link torrents

On September 01 2011 17:25 palak wrote: U have an annoying habit of asserting opinions as if they were facts.

On March 04 2010 20:46 Baalim wrote: Actually the internet is one example of functional anarchy, there is no oversight or control in the internet yet it works.

you cant be serious, comparing internet with a society.

And internet is not a complete anarchy.

1.

You are making the same mistake that religious people call atheistm also another religion or belief.

By definition Atheism is a religion, deal with it. If you want to get into the whole idea of the lack of belief being the scientific initial position until proven wrong then that's agnosticism. As richard dawkins says "I'm agnostic about god the same way I'm agnostic about faries in my garden." Technically science can only stay agnostic on the issue, once u cross into saying atheist then u've crossed into a religion.

2.

If the world goes into anarchy people wouldnt bitch about the "social contract", because there simply isnt any, you are not forced at gunpoint to do anything, unlike our current society, you are forced to pay taxes or die.

Opinion asserted as a fact.
My friends were forced at gunpoint to withdraw all the money out of an atm. People are robbed at gunpoint all the time. You act as if an anarchy would always be peaceful. The only country I know of where tax evasion is punishable by death is China.

No fewer than 68 crimes are punishable by death in China, including tax evasion, fraud and bribery.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/art...a-shot-tax-evasion.html#ixzz1WlBtNoBG

3.

In anarchy you want somebody to lead you and represent you, you are free to do so, however nobody can impose a leader onto you.

Not possibly provable, again is an opinion of what a utopian society would be like.
What's to actually stop someone from imposing their will on you forcefully? I'm not saying it would happen, but what's to stop the formation of a tribal warlord society?

4.

Also an anarchic society isnt more voracious thowards the poor since there are no subsidies, the government only funnels the money into the rich creating more poor, then they throw them crums and they act as if they were protecting them and they would die on their own, they wouldnt

Demonstrably false, countries with strong government (democratic republic) involvement in economics have a far lower average Gini coefficient then countries which have less government involvement in economics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
Sweden/Norway lowest income inequality, Central African republic/Sierra Leone/Nambia among the highest.

United states heavy government involvement in economics from the 1930s-1970s and income inequality dropped, since then it has risen again as government involvement has become less.

Income inequality in the United States has not worsened steadily since 1915. It dropped a bit in the late teens, then started climbing again in the 1920s, reaching its peak just before the 1929 crash. The trend then reversed itself. Incomes started to become more equal in the 1930s and then became dramatically more equal in the 1940s. Income distribution remained roughly stable through the postwar economic boom of the 1950s and 1960s. Economic historians Claudia Goldin and Robert Margo have termed this midcentury era the "Great Compression." The deep nostalgia for that period felt by the World War II generation—the era of Life magazine and the bowling league—reflects something more than mere sentimentality. Assuming you were white, not of draft age, and Christian, there probably was no better time to belong to America's middle class. The Great Compression ended in the 1970s. Wages stagnated, inflation raged, and by the decade's end, income inequality had started to rise. Income inequality grew through the 1980s, slackened briefly at the end of the 1990s, and then resumed with a vengeance in the aughts. In his 2007 book The Conscience of a Liberal, the Nobel laureate, Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman labeled the post-1979 epoch the "Great Divergence."

http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026

Sure the poor wouldn't die without government, but evidence is there that governments help the poor, not hurt them.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

Required reading for any participant in a debate about Anarchy.

spoilered parts of the book.
+ Show Spoiler +

Problem I and a ton of ppl (as he admits) have is what happens if say Tannahelp decides that it's more profitable to go to war and wipeout Dawn Defense. He doesn't really every address this possibility from what I've read.

But he does admit that his ideas are just speculation.

I have described one particular set of anarcho-capitalist institutions, not because I am certain that they are the ones that will evolve if our government is slowly reduced to nothing, but in order to show that it is at least possible for voluntary institutions to replace government in its most essential functions. The actual arrangements by which the market provides an economic good, be it food or police protection, are the product of the ingenuity of all the entrepreneurs producing that good. It would be foolish for me to predict with any confidence what will turn out to be the cheapest and most satisfactory ways of producing the services now produced by government.

His thing on Iceland is cool, fail to see it being possible at all on a global expanse. + Show Spoiler +

And of course the link to the wiki cuz it's me and if someone is actually to lazy to read through the 2.5 pages of the book pdf i just copy pasted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth

From the wiki

The social anarchist authors of An Anarchist FAQ took issue with Friedman's portrayal of the period, arguing that the Icelandic system was pre-capitalist in nature with numerous communal institutions.[7] Friedman accused them of misconstruing his position and not caring whether what they published was true.[8] The authors of the FAQ admitted to making mistakes, but rejected the notion that they were uninterested in the truth, and maintained their analysis that Iceland was a communal system. [9]

His chapter "The rich get richer and the poor get richer" seems like an exact statement of things u (fudyann) said in some thread I can't remember the title to where it ended up derailing into talks about the money supply of the gilded age and an eventual conclusion that neither of us could find evidence on it enough to come to an exact conclusion but the gdp per capita favored my side that the wealth could have been distributed better. However w/ no good evidence or numbers, it's unprovable either way .

The monopoly chapters are just standard free markets arguments against the formation of monopolys being a natural event. Examples though of natural monopolies occurring during the gilded age are easy though. Western Union, Standard Oil (which friedman discusses and says was losing power anyway, unknowable what they could/would have been able to do if given free reign to do it before being broke up), US steel (wasn't broken up but did eventually lose monopoly status), United Aircraft and Transport Corporation, formed in 1929 (well after the gilded age) but was forced to break up in '34.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Historical_monopolies

Also this for current US law

One of the more well known trusts was the Standard Oil Company; John D. Rockefeller in the 1870s and 1880s had used economic threats against competitors and secret rebate deals with railroads to build what was called a monopoly in the oil business, though some minor competitors remained in business. In 1911 the Supreme Court agreed that in recent years (1900–1904) Standard had violated the Sherman Act (see Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States). It broke the monopoly into three dozen separate companies that competed with one another, including Standard Oil of New Jersey (later known as Exxon and now ExxonMobil), Standard Oil of Indiana (Amoco), Standard Oil Company of New York (Mobil, again, later merged with Exxon to form ExxonMobil), of California (Chevron), and so on. In approving the breakup the Supreme Court added the "rule of reason": not all big companies, and not all monopolies, are evil; and the courts (not the executive branch) are to make that decision. To be harmful, a trust had to somehow damage the economic environment of its competitors. United States Steel Corporation, which was much larger than Standard Oil, won its antitrust suit in 1920 despite never having delivered the benefits to consumers that Standard Oil did. In fact it lobbied for tariff protection that reduced competition, and so contending that it was one of the "good trusts" that benefited the economy is somewhat doubtful. Likewise International Harvester survived its court test, while other trusts were broken up in tobacco, meatpacking, and bathtub fixtures. Over the years hundreds of executives of competing companies who met together illegally to fix prices went to federal prison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#History_of_anti-trust

So if they arn't harming the market (as Friedman argues they don't) then the government will leave them alone. Seems like everyone gets along w/ that rule in place, no?

On September 01 2011 22:10 palak wrote: 1. Show nested quote + You are making the same mistake that religious people call atheistm also another religion or belief. By definition Atheism is a religion, deal with it. If you want to get into the whole idea of the lack of belief being the scientific initial position until proven wrong then that's agnosticism. As richard dawkins says "I'm agnostic about god the same way I'm agnostic about faries in my garden." Technically science can only stay agnostic on the issue, once u cross into saying atheist then u've crossed into a religion.

Uh, I think you misunderstand what is implied by Dawkins here... He is basically making fun of agnosticism and ridiculing it as a logical position. He's saying he knows that there is no God just like he knows fairies are not in his garden.

I'm not an atheist, but to just call it a religion is laughable. I want to say that it's possible to be dogmatic as an atheist, which is different from saying "it's a religion all atheists are religious!" some are dogmatic and self-righteous like the religious fundamentalists, and others aren't, i.e., existential atheists.

Anyway, the problem with religion has always been the dogma, not the virtues espoused by one.

In general we should strive for individual liberty and autonomy, for reducing coercion in society. I regard taxation as theft, and war as mass murder - I don't think a special moral standard should apply to government, rebranding coercion as things that sound more legitimate. I see taxation not as a moral good but as a necessary evil: for the society that we presently live in, taxes are clearly necessary to keep it running, so we should have taxes. For me, this does not in any way diminish the fact that taxation is morally wrong.

I would like to move to a society where we are as free from coercion as is possible as a practical matter. What is practical and what is not is of course open to interpretation. I certainly would not want the poor to starve, say.

By the way, if you find yourself arguing over whether atheism is a religion or not, one way to resolve the debate is to both agree not to use the world religion any more.

palak: Atheism is a belief about the existence of a god.
Loco: Atheism is not a belief in the existence of a god.

On September 02 2011 05:25 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On September 01 2011 22:10 palak wrote: 1.   You are making the same mistake that religious people call atheistm also another religion or belief. By definition Atheism is a religion, deal with it. If you want to get into the whole idea of the lack of belief being the scientific initial position until proven wrong then that's agnosticism. As richard dawkins says "I'm agnostic about god the same way I'm agnostic about faries in my garden." Technically science can only stay agnostic on the issue, once u cross into saying atheist then u've crossed into a religion. Uh, I think you misunderstand what is implied by Dawkins here... He is basically making fun of agnosticism and ridiculing it as a logical position. He's saying he knows that there is no God just like he knows fairies are not in his garden. I'm not an atheist, but to just call it a religion is laughable. I want to say that it's possible to be dogmatic as an atheist, which is different from saying "it's a religion all atheists are religious!" some are dogmatic and self-righteous like the religious fundamentalists, and others aren't, i.e., existential atheists. Anyway, the problem with religion has always been the dogma, not the virtues espoused by one.

I agree with most of these, but I don't see a way in which a dogma can generate a healthy moral compass and even if it did, the person who had it would be extremely lucky because he wouldn't know any way to figure out if it's any better than any other option,being dogmatic and all.

I knew this thread was made by Baal. If you like anarchy so much why not live in Somalia?

On September 02 2011 05:25 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On September 01 2011 22:10 palak wrote: 1.   You are making the same mistake that religious people call atheistm also another religion or belief. By definition Atheism is a religion, deal with it. If you want to get into the whole idea of the lack of belief being the scientific initial position until proven wrong then that's agnosticism. As richard dawkins says "I'm agnostic about god the same way I'm agnostic about faries in my garden." Technically science can only stay agnostic on the issue, once u cross into saying atheist then u've crossed into a religion. Uh, I think you misunderstand what is implied by Dawkins here... He is basically making fun of agnosticism and ridiculing it as a logical position. He's saying he knows that there is no God just like he knows fairies are not in his garden. I'm not an atheist, but to just call it a religion is laughable. I want to say that it's possible to be dogmatic as an atheist, which is different from saying "it's a religion all atheists are religious!" some are dogmatic and self-righteous like the religious fundamentalists, and others aren't, i.e., existential atheists. Anyway, the problem with religion has always been the dogma, not the virtues espoused by one.

He does think a person staying on agnosticism is cowardice. But he does still admit that he cannot actually say that he knows for certain there isn't a god he's just fairly sure about it. When it comes to something like a christian god then sure thats been disproven. But something like the einsteinian god is basically impossible to disprove.
Since i'm to lazy to go hunting around for my copy of god delusion, just quoting the wiki part.

According to Richard Dawkins, a distinction between agnosticism and atheism is unwieldy and depends on how close to zero we are willing to rate the probability of existence for any given god-like entity. Since in practice it is not worth contrasting a zero probability with one that is nearly indistinguishable from zero, he prefers to categorize himself as a "de facto atheist". He specifies his position by means of a scale of 1 to 7. On this scale, 1 indicates "100 per cent probability of God." A person ranking at 7 on the scale would be a person who says "I know there is no God..." Dawkins places himself at 6 on the scale, which he characterizes as "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there", but leaning toward 7. About himself, Dawkins continues that "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."39] Dawkins also identifies two categories of agnostics; Temporary Agnostics in Practice (TAPs), and Permanent Agnostics in Principle (PAPs). Dawkins considers temporary agnosticism an entirely reasonable position, but views permanent agnosticism as "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Atheist_criticism

This is coming down to semantics...the definition under which atheism fits religion is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

this is pretty much just like arguments with Buddhists over whether or not Buddhism is a religion

On September 02 2011 07:56 gororokgororok wrote: I knew this thread was made by Baal. If you like anarchy so much why not live in Somalia?

is dis a troll?

On September 02 2011 05:56 Fudyann wrote: In general we should strive for individual liberty and autonomy, for reducing coercion in society. I regard taxation as theft, and war as mass murder - I don't think a special moral standard should apply to government, rebranding coercion as things that sound more legitimate. I see taxation not as a moral good but as a necessary evil: for the society that we presently live in, taxes are clearly necessary to keep it running, so we should have taxes. For me, this does not in any way diminish the fact that taxation is morally wrong. I would like to move to a society where we are as free from coercion as is possible as a practical matter. What is practical and what is not is of course open to interpretation. I certainly would not want the poor to starve, say. By the way, if you find yourself arguing over whether atheism is a religion or not, one way to resolve the debate is to both agree not to use the world religion any more. palak: Atheism is a belief about the existence of a god. Loco: Atheism is not a belief in the existence of a god.

That is not what I am saying at all, it would be nonsensical for me to hold a position that something we feel we know is not a belief. Belief undergirds everything that we know. But when we say that we don't know, it is epokhé, or suspension of belief. Many atheists are just atheists because they suspend belief, but think it is very unlikely that there is a God or Gods, like Dawkins. They don't call themselves agnostics as such, but skeptics and atheists. All I'm saying is that this doesn't fit any particular definition of religion, including the one palak just stated. It's not a set of beliefs, and not everyone shares the exact same one; some atheists might have different levels of skepticism in regards to the existence of God or the theory of evolution for example. And they don't share any common practices. But I understand where palak is coming from, because I don't find atheism an intelligible position, and because the definition of agnosticism fits so well with the position of many atheists.

Buddhism is a religion, but it's an interesting religion because it doesn't require faith. It advocates knowledge only. It teaches that we are made up of elements, and that these elements dissolve, and have no reality. It demonstrates our non-reality. And then it says: figure out the consequences.

On September 02 2011 10:53 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On September 02 2011 07:56 gororokgororok wrote: I knew this thread was made by Baal. If you like anarchy so much why not live in Somalia? is dis a troll?

comon that was hilarious

I didn't read a lot of the longer posts, but i'm guessing someone is arguing that anarchy in Somalia is a good thing? lol

You cannot walk to the convenience store alone, you need at least 4 of your friends, and each of you has to carry an AK, and if you too small to carry an Ak there's a smaller Korean rifle! When you get off the plane, you are instructed to remove all of your western clothing so you don't become a target for kidnappings!

The majority of people in Somalia do not benefit from the piracy, but rather remittances from Somalians abroad. One Somalia millionaire is the dude who set up a western union type business in Somalia.