The Anarchy thread

well to not keep derailing the other thread here i continue the discussion:

On March 04 2010 15:58 Funktion wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2010 08:12 Baal wrote: i said that in their lapse of anarchy Somalia showed a HUGE unprecedented growth like nothing seen before not only in that country but in the whole region proving that anarchy worked way way better than any government in Somalia. I think you mean any PREVIOUS government and not just "any government" (which I thought was a dictatorship?). The quote from Leeson doesn't really support your arguement. He is just saying that it's still crap, just not as crap as before, which is not hard. Also is it possible to show what you base your "HUGE" growth statement on? I think you are making some huge leaps in conclusions without enough evidence to base those conclusions on. Feel free to start that new thread up.

As i said, it was chaotic anarchy, it wasnt a planned functional anarchy in the 1st world, it was in the middle of struggle for power etc, and it still showed growth, higher than any country near Somalia.

This basically says that Anarchy can work, you have to accept it, we can discuss if democratic capitalism is better, but most people think that anarchy is the end of everything and absolute chaos, while Somalia proved it is not.

Somalia is not a representation of an ideal anarchy for obvious reasons, but if you took a country like Finland that decided to embrace anarchy, where their level of civility is really high then you would see a true working anarchy.

jesus do you ever give up?

ban baal

i'll argue with you because im bored.

Anarchy isnt even worth discussing because it's theoretically impossible. Someone somewhere IS going to be in charge, there is a reason there has never been an ararchy because it's impossible.

The whole time I thought you were saying it was better/best model not that it simply works. If the proposition is that it can work then yes I agree with you.

However "showed growth, higher than any country near Somalia" I don't think you can directly attribute that to anarchy with out right certainty. Ethiopia and Kenya have tumultuous histories and are hardly stable yard sticks for solid comparison. More than likely they were in further decline during that period.

Is it a prerequisite to have "high civility" for "working anarchy" to work?

On March 04 2010 18:47 CrownRoyal wrote: jesus do you ever give up? ban baal

He was moving/making the thread in General as requested...

On March 04 2010 19:01 Funktion wrote: The whole time I thought you were saying it was better/best model not that it simply works. If the proposition is that it can work then yes I agree with you. However "showed growth, higher than any country near Somalia" I don't think you can directly attribute that to anarchy with out right certainty. Ethiopia and Kenya have tumultuous histories and are hardly stable yard sticks for solid comparison. More than likely they were in further decline during that period. Is it a prerequisite to have "high civility" for "working anarchy" to work?

its a prerequisite for any model to work, we (mexico) are a democratic capitalist country rotten in corruption to the core, we are non functional, violent and in chaos, our system clearly does not work, and its also proof that democratic capitalism isnt the keystone to economic models.

Yes my proposition is that anarchy is the best option, you aknowledge that it works, as you can see CrownRoyal believes it doesnt work at all ignoring Somalias evidence.


And yes, south africa is no example of economic models but the thing is, Somalia adopted a very shitty form of anarchy and even in those conditions it worked better than any other form of government around, so in their own african micro cosmos, Anarchy has proven (with a small sample yes) that it works better.

What makes you believe it just wont work on stronger economies with a higher level of civility?

On March 04 2010 18:53 CrownRoyal wrote: i'll argue with you because im bored. Anarchy isnt even worth discussing because it's theoretically impossible. Someone somewhere IS going to be in charge, there is a reason there has never been an ararchy because it's impossible.

So you deny its possibility of existence?

Funktion thinks it works but its not the best model, others think its not functional, you believe it simply cannot exist.

Well you are wrong, there has been long and successful anarchies in our history:

Like Iceland, and many islands lived in anarchy and multiple communities around the world.

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

is mexico in africa?

On March 04 2010 19:17 rozyboy wrote: is mexico in africa?

If you are gonig to make a retarded post just post it instead of waiting for an actual reply to your senseless question.

i think anarchy wont work with the how sick man has evolved in the recent 20 years and with the internet showing people that "deviant" behavior is "acceptable" is some parts of the world, this just reinforces some really disturbing beliefs or practices sickos have. i think anarchy now would just mean total , well anarchy lol

Baal excuse me , but you're dunb.
You try to talk about anarchy with people who have no clue what the fuck it is.
Seriously , why ? WHY ?

you may choose to attribute somalias growth to them being an anarchist society
you could also argue that it certainly didnt help bring stability.. security is the original reasoning behind the existance of states, if you fail there then well, the rest doesn't really matter. you can certainly argue that some democracies also fail at maintaining security, but there are also multiple examples of it succeeding. but no large society with surrounding states without a completely homogenous population has ever succeeded in maintaining security for its citizens and the state.

On March 04 2010 19:30 whamm! wrote: i think anarchy wont work with the how sick man has evolved in the recent 20 years and with the internet showing people that "deviant" behavior is "acceptable" is some parts of the world, this just reinforces some really disturbing beliefs or practices sickos have. i think anarchy now would just mean total , well anarchy lol

Actually the internet is one example of functional anarchy, there is no oversight or control in the internet yet it works.

On March 04 2010 20:07 Liquid`Drone wrote: you may choose to attribute somalias growth to them being an anarchist society you could also argue that it certainly didnt help bring stability.. security is the original reasoning behind the existance of states, if you fail there then well, the rest doesn't really matter. you can certainly argue that some democracies also fail at maintaining security, but there are also multiple examples of it succeeding. but no large society with surrounding states without a completely homogenous population has ever succeeded in maintaining security for its citizens and the state.

You mean that there is no example of big anarchy society surrounding with states taht have provided stability?.

So are you saying that the only threat to a anarchy are foreign states that will try to overtake it?

On March 04 2010 19:56 waga wrote: Baal excuse me , but you're dunb. You try to talk about anarchy with people who have no clue what the fuck it is. Seriously , why ? WHY ?

because its our duty to raise awareness

i make waffles in the toaster, they are anarchy waffles

On March 04 2010 20:51 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2010 20:07 Liquid`Drone wrote: you may choose to attribute somalias growth to them being an anarchist society you could also argue that it certainly didnt help bring stability.. security is the original reasoning behind the existance of states, if you fail there then well, the rest doesn't really matter. you can certainly argue that some democracies also fail at maintaining security, but there are also multiple examples of it succeeding. but no large society with surrounding states without a completely homogenous population has ever succeeded in maintaining security for its citizens and the state. You mean that there is no example of big anarchy society surrounding with states taht have provided stability?. So are you saying that the only threat to a anarchy are foreign states that will try to overtake it?

im not saying that's the only threat. internal security is also a problem, but that CAN be avoided through the population being small and "equal minded". however, any state with a small population historically will have had quite significant problems with external security..

I was about to craft an elaborate argument, but just got my fucking shit pushed in at the poker tables so I'm going to try to make it short and go play GTA. I would simply like brother Baal to respond to the problem of factions with respect to Anarchy. Before the Constitutional Convention James Madison spent several weeks furiously reading and studying about Ancient governments. What he discovered is that factions commonly destroyed Republics. He defines a faction as:

"a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

Anarchy on a scale as large as a country is going to leave people seriously fucked up. Because what i found extremely fascinating when studying American Government is that I believe Ancient Republics were governed and formed on the premise that you would be good to your neighbor and do what is best for your community. People are "ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious," said James Hamilton, and to structure a government on the belief that people are good is foolish.

Getting longer than I wanted but I will leave one more quote by Madison:

"The lesson we are to draw from the whole is, that where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a republican government, the majority, if united, have always an opportunity. The only remedy is, to enlarge the sphere, and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties, that, in the first place, a majority will not be likely, at the same moment, to have a common interest separate from that of the whole, or of the minority; and in the second place, that in case they should have such an interest, they may not be so apt to unite in the pursuit of it. It was incumbent on us, then, to try this remedy, and, with that view, to frame a republican system on such a scale, and in such a form, as will control all the evils which have been experienced."

If someone responds, I will come back and participate.

I think the main "problem", except the obvious in that there's always a bunch of faggots fucking everything up and that a system without a way to deal with them (ie: use of force) will be fucked up really fast, is that people would just turn into groups and create small "communities" with their own rules etc (anarcho capitalism?) and from there on it would be survival of the fittest and say what you want about industrialists and commerce; but they bring on growth and they need a basic system of property rights and then you'd sooner or later have a capitalistic system of some kind anyway.

Basically; a system without a way to defend itself and force itself upon the individuals will only survive if it's inherently stronger then any other system AND not threatened by some outside force (ie: invading army). In my opinion anarchy fails the first point since after a certain point of population you'll need the incentive private ownership gives for hard work etc.

here are some good links for starters:

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=760184

On March 05 2010 00:50 DustySwedeDude wrote: I think the main "problem", except the obvious in that there's always a bunch of faggots fucking everything up and that a system without a way to deal with them (ie: use of force) will be fucked up really fast, is that people would just turn into groups and create small "communities" with their own rules etc (anarcho capitalism?) and from there on it would be survival of the fittest and say what you want about industrialists and commerce; but they bring on growth and they need a basic system of property rights and then you'd sooner or later have a capitalistic system of some kind anyway. Basically; a system without a way to defend itself and force itself upon the individuals will only survive if it's inherently stronger then any other system AND not threatened by some outside force (ie: invading army). In my opinion anarchy fails the first point since after a certain point of population you'll need the incentive private ownership gives for hard work etc.

yes... faction

It's funny that 'teh mod' is so excited with the idea of anarchy. How about we do it here, just for one day so i can temp-ban you as you did to me (for repost in rofl thread).

And internet has nothing to do with anarchy (from Greek: anarchía, "without ruler" ). There's always someone in charge. If you still think so: how about www.liquidpoker.net 'shows finger' to Internic/ICANN and/or doesn't pay for the domain. Can you guess what'll happen?

On the other hand if you think of 'internet anarchy' in terms of (figure of speech) 'mass confederation' as opposed to totally centralized power typically in hands of one man, then I'll agree with you that the former is ton better.

On March 05 2010 04:44 anheway wrote: It's funny that 'teh mod' is so excited with the idea of anarchy. How about we do it here, just for one day so i can temp-ban you as you did to me (for repost in rofl thread). And internet has nothing to do with anarchy (from Greek: anarchía, "without ruler" ). There's always someone in charge. If you still think so: how about www.liquidpoker.net 'shows finger' to Internic/ICANN and/or doesn't pay for the domain. Can you guess what'll happen? On the other hand if you think of 'internet anarchy' in terms of (figure of speech) 'mass confederation' as opposed to totally centralized power typically in hands of one man, then I'll agree with you that the former is ton better.

Except that this is a private corporation with hierarchy in it, it is not a form of government, if it were a government you would have to give us money, if you refused we had the right to kidnap you, and then we would use that money as we see fit.

On March 04 2010 21:15 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2010 20:51 Baal wrote:   On March 04 2010 20:07 Liquid`Drone wrote: you may choose to attribute somalias growth to them being an anarchist society you could also argue that it certainly didnt help bring stability.. security is the original reasoning behind the existance of states, if you fail there then well, the rest doesn't really matter. you can certainly argue that some democracies also fail at maintaining security, but there are also multiple examples of it succeeding. but no large society with surrounding states without a completely homogenous population has ever succeeded in maintaining security for its citizens and the state. You mean that there is no example of big anarchy society surrounding with states taht have provided stability?. So are you saying that the only threat to a anarchy are foreign states that will try to overtake it? im not saying that's the only threat. internal security is also a problem, but that CAN be avoided through the population being small and "equal minded". however, any state with a small population historically will have had quite significant problems with external security..

Because anarchy is usually set in the midst of chaos and not a chosen method, also about risk of external invasion, well your country is totally unable to defend itself against a big military force, like germany.

On March 05 2010 00:35 noface wrote: I was about to craft an elaborate argument, but just got my fucking shit pushed in at the poker tables so I'm going to try to make it short and go play GTA. I would simply like brother Baal to respond to the problem of factions with respect to Anarchy. Before the Constitutional Convention James Madison spent several weeks furiously reading and studying about Ancient governments. What he discovered is that factions commonly destroyed Republics. He defines a faction as: "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Anarchy on a scale as large as a country is going to leave people seriously fucked up. Because what i found extremely fascinating when studying American Government is that I believe Ancient Republics were governed and formed on the premise that you would be good to your neighbor and do what is best for your community. People are "ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious," said James Hamilton, and to structure a government on the belief that people are good is foolish. Getting longer than I wanted but I will leave one more quote by Madison: "The lesson we are to draw from the whole is, that where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a republican government, the majority, if united, have always an opportunity. The only remedy is, to enlarge the sphere, and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties, that, in the first place, a majority will not be likely, at the same moment, to have a common interest separate from that of the whole, or of the minority; and in the second place, that in case they should have such an interest, they may not be so apt to unite in the pursuit of it. It was incumbent on us, then, to try this remedy, and, with that view, to frame a republican system on such a scale, and in such a form, as will control all the evils which have been experienced." If someone responds, I will come back and participate.

Heh funny that you mention it, but thats is exactly why anarchy is not only the best method but its necessary, and that is based on the fact that mankind is evil, there are many naturally twisted men in seek of personal gain at any cost.

And here comes the failure of your system which the only thing it does is to make these people more powerful! who do you think its going to seek a spot in a privileged power position? an easy going relaxed man of good, or a money hungry ruthless man?

So in the end all democracy do is actually provide evil with power, for fucks sake just open your eyes and see the world and tell me im wrong, seriously tell me that so many world leaders are the representation of the darkest and most evil people in their respective countries

good and evil Baal? seriously? O_o
On another note,
anarcho capitalism is so different from the other forms of anarchism that most of the "other" anarchists consider it even more repulsive than capitalism.
That's also one of the sad little details about anarchism... There's no real plan,there are major differences between those labeled as anarchists to the extent that they fight each other,there's no visible way of stabilization (applying such a new model in a national scale would mean failure due to external factors so the whole world would have to wake up in anarchy one day for this to work). At some time I started wondering wtf so many anarchists don't care about having a more social attitude,why aren't they struggling with the unsolved theoretical problems of what they fight for,why some of them haven't even bothered to think of the consequences of their general mottos... It doesn't take long to figure out some ugly shit about the motivations of many of the people who endorse anarchy/ism.
The psychological pleasure of throwing negativity at the rest of the world,the explicit pleasure of pointing a finger at everyone with the stance of a cardinal (very similar in what they promise too),the aspect of transforming from a social reject to an enlightened evil fighter- the peak of stroking your own cock- apparently are more than enough reasons to blindly accept the following rules
a)no state
b)no god
c)let's go after the cops

of course cops suck balls very often and the chances of a god existing are really slim,but that is no real reason to behave like a monkey every time you see a dude wearing a uniform. The implications of no god existing don't even seem to introduce the concept of skepticism to many anarchists... it's just another way to point a finger to the rest of the society and become zealots for another kind of utopia, re-baptizing good and evil according to what your new set of friends believe.
Anarchist groups are no truth-worshipers too. Just like any other political movement they will manipulate information in their own benefit,they will fight over trivialities against each other,they will not care that people with the mindset of hooligans have entered their ranks,because they believe they're stronger that way. Help make the world a better place? They'll have to sort out their own problems first ( or resort to the ol' "fire brings cleansing and a new start" )

Could the world operate without a state mechanism (+would it be a better place)? that's a subject of a huge debate and multiple conflicting answers. My point is that the people who genuinely search for the truth will not rush into taking sides/pointing fingers and the fact that the anarchist movement isn't composed by scholars in a way speaks by itself.

Baal, I actually agree with your premise. In fact, I quoted this in another thread I made recently and I think it applies perfectly here.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

However, based on that same premise, I come to an entirely different conclusion which is that instead of advocating an elimination of government, we should be working towards better government.

You advocating anarchy as a solution to corruption and the evils of power is in many ways similar to the tea partiers and the austrian school's advocating smaller government and eliminating regulation and government oversight. This approach actually makes some sense since I am also a firm believer that it is human nature for power to corrupt.

However, that line of thinking overlooks another source of power other than government and that is wealth. Wealth also produces power and the evils of greed by private citizens and corporations is in many ways similar to the evils of power by government officials. In a power vaccum of an anarchy, it will be the wealthy members of society that step in to seize much of that power.

Government agencies often get much heat for being inept at their mission which is often true. The SEC has gotten a lot of criticism for failing to uncover the Bernie Madoff scam. But how many more Bernie Madoffs would be out there if there were no SEC at all? The SEC shuts down countless number of fraudulent operations, boiler rooms and pyramid schemes. The mere presence of the SEC also discourages countless more would be scams from occuring in the first place.

I recently created a thread about the airline industry and the safety issues at regional airlines where I criticized the FAA for lax standards. While I feel as though the FAA can do a lot better, I also think that we would be a lot worse off without any agency at all looking out for public safety. How many more corners would profit driven corporations make if there were no standards and no regulations?

Free markets are generally good and they work remarkably well. However, there are undeniable failings of free markets which is rooted in human greed and is explained best by the tragedy of the commons.

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

The problem is that the governments setup to protect society from that greed oftentimes end up being a bigger problem. While there is no perfect government, there are some governments that work better than others. The following link is a list of the corruption index:

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

Baal, you made a legitimate point in that Somailia is probably better off in anarchy than under government. Somailia also happens to be dead last in terms of corruption so that isn't so much a proof to the qualities of anarchy as it is a testament to how god awful Somailia's government is. If you were to ask people in New Zeland, Denmark, Singapore, Switzerland and the other countries that rank high on that list if they would prefer anarchy over their current form of government, they would surely say no. All the countries that rank below a 3 or a 4 might be better off in anarchy than under their existing corrupt governments. However, that does not mean that they should strive for anarchy, rather they should work towards improving the system and transparency of their governments so they rise to the top of the list. I know that is easier said than done, but anarchy is definitely not the long term answer.

this is an example of a current anarchist community getting together to evict hard drugs after the police had failed to do so for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania#Eviction_of_.27hard_drugs.27

also paragraph below also gives an example of them evicting a bike gang that came into the community to overtake the cannabis market.

"Around 1984 a Copenhagen-resident biker gang called Bullshit arrived in Christiania and took control of a part of the cannabis market. Violence in the neighborhood increased and many Christianites felt unsafe and unhappy with the new residents. This resulted in sabotage acts directed towards the bikers as well as the publication of several provocative manuscripts urging the Christianites to throw out the powerful and armed bikers. This tension culminated when the police found a murdered individual who had been sliced to pieces and buried beneath the floor of a building. Christiania reacted with two colossal community meetings—one outside the building—where it was agreed that the bikers had to leave." -- hmm it actually doesnt say whether they had police help them out or not. But I think its clear that all the community was against the bike gang and would evict them with or without the police help anyway.


They use people power!!!!

I want to add a spiritual quote

“God don’t care about you. Don’t care about me. In all of everything we don’t mean nothing. He don’t know us. We be. And that’s the onliest thing He did. But that’s good, that’s why we’re free. But free ain’t easy. Free is real. And real’s a motherfucker."
-drew bundini brown (a black jewish man with a bald scalp hooked on heroine) LOL

On March 05 2010 06:14 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2010 00:35 noface wrote: I was about to craft an elaborate argument, but just got my fucking shit pushed in at the poker tables so I'm going to try to make it short and go play GTA. I would simply like brother Baal to respond to the problem of factions with respect to Anarchy. Before the Constitutional Convention James Madison spent several weeks furiously reading and studying about Ancient governments. What he discovered is that factions commonly destroyed Republics. He defines a faction as: "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Anarchy on a scale as large as a country is going to leave people seriously fucked up. Because what i found extremely fascinating when studying American Government is that I believe Ancient Republics were governed and formed on the premise that you would be good to your neighbor and do what is best for your community. People are "ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious," said James Hamilton, and to structure a government on the belief that people are good is foolish. Getting longer than I wanted but I will leave one more quote by Madison: "The lesson we are to draw from the whole is, that where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a republican government, the majority, if united, have always an opportunity. The only remedy is, to enlarge the sphere, and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties, that, in the first place, a majority will not be likely, at the same moment, to have a common interest separate from that of the whole, or of the minority; and in the second place, that in case they should have such an interest, they may not be so apt to unite in the pursuit of it. It was incumbent on us, then, to try this remedy, and, with that view, to frame a republican system on such a scale, and in such a form, as will control all the evils which have been experienced." If someone responds, I will come back and participate. Heh funny that you mention it, but thats is exactly why anarchy is not only the best method but its necessary, and that is based on the fact that mankind is evil, there are many naturally twisted men in seek of personal gain at any cost. And here comes the failure of your system which the only thing it does is to make these people more powerful! who do you think its going to seek a spot in a privileged power position? an easy going relaxed man of good, or a money hungry ruthless man? So in the end all democracy do is actually provide evil with power, for fucks sake just open your eyes and see the world and tell me im wrong, seriously tell me that so many world leaders are the representation of the darkest and most evil people in their respective countries

you just need to alter politics. for example give politicians non-extravagant salaries, give pretty long quarantenes for politicians after they quit politics so they can't work with anything they directly influenced, don't appoint too much power to individual politicians. basically make it an unattractive position for power and moneyhungry evildoers and make it an attractive position for idealists who genuinely want to make the world a better place.

I think most norwegian politicians belong in that group.

baal sounds christian

On March 06 2010 05:41 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2010 06:14 Baal wrote:   On March 05 2010 00:35 noface wrote: I was about to craft an elaborate argument, but just got my fucking shit pushed in at the poker tables so I'm going to try to make it short and go play GTA. I would simply like brother Baal to respond to the problem of factions with respect to Anarchy. Before the Constitutional Convention James Madison spent several weeks furiously reading and studying about Ancient governments. What he discovered is that factions commonly destroyed Republics. He defines a faction as: "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Anarchy on a scale as large as a country is going to leave people seriously fucked up. Because what i found extremely fascinating when studying American Government is that I believe Ancient Republics were governed and formed on the premise that you would be good to your neighbor and do what is best for your community. People are "ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious," said James Hamilton, and to structure a government on the belief that people are good is foolish. Getting longer than I wanted but I will leave one more quote by Madison: "The lesson we are to draw from the whole is, that where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a republican government, the majority, if united, have always an opportunity. The only remedy is, to enlarge the sphere, and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties, that, in the first place, a majority will not be likely, at the same moment, to have a common interest separate from that of the whole, or of the minority; and in the second place, that in case they should have such an interest, they may not be so apt to unite in the pursuit of it. It was incumbent on us, then, to try this remedy, and, with that view, to frame a republican system on such a scale, and in such a form, as will control all the evils which have been experienced." If someone responds, I will come back and participate. Heh funny that you mention it, but thats is exactly why anarchy is not only the best method but its necessary, and that is based on the fact that mankind is evil, there are many naturally twisted men in seek of personal gain at any cost. And here comes the failure of your system which the only thing it does is to make these people more powerful! who do you think its going to seek a spot in a privileged power position? an easy going relaxed man of good, or a money hungry ruthless man? So in the end all democracy do is actually provide evil with power, for fucks sake just open your eyes and see the world and tell me im wrong, seriously tell me that so many world leaders are the representation of the darkest and most evil people in their respective countries you just need to alter politics. for example give politicians non-extravagant salaries, give pretty long quarantenes for politicians after they quit politics so they can't work with anything they directly influenced, don't appoint too much power to individual politicians. basically make it an unattractive position for power and moneyhungry evildoers and make it an attractive position for idealists who genuinely want to make the world a better place. I think most norwegian politicians belong in that group.

There are some obvious serious flaws in your proposals. For example with low salaries you lose the smartest/brightest individuals to industry. Another problem is the people who are passionate about a subject may not be the best people to have in government despite being smart. So idealist are a majority of who you end up with after taking away decent salary and benefits. This creates obvious problems like I said.

On March 05 2010 07:55 TenBagger wrote: Baal, I actually agree with your premise. In fact, I quoted this in another thread I made recently and I think it applies perfectly here. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. However, based on that same premise, I come to an entirely different conclusion which is that instead of advocating an elimination of government, we should be working towards better government. You advocating anarchy as a solution to corruption and the evils of power is in many ways similar to the tea partiers and the austrian school's advocating smaller government and eliminating regulation and government oversight. This approach actually makes some sense since I am also a firm believer that it is human nature for power to corrupt. However, that line of thinking overlooks another source of power other than government and that is wealth. Wealth also produces power and the evils of greed by private citizens and corporations is in many ways similar to the evils of power by government officials. In a power vaccum of an anarchy, it will be the wealthy members of society that step in to seize much of that power. Government agencies often get much heat for being inept at their mission which is often true. The SEC has gotten a lot of criticism for failing to uncover the Bernie Madoff scam. But how many more Bernie Madoffs would be out there if there were no SEC at all? The SEC shuts down countless number of fraudulent operations, boiler rooms and pyramid schemes. The mere presence of the SEC also discourages countless more would be scams from occuring in the first place. I recently created a thread about the airline industry and the safety issues at regional airlines where I criticized the FAA for lax standards. While I feel as though the FAA can do a lot better, I also think that we would be a lot worse off without any agency at all looking out for public safety. How many more corners would profit driven corporations make if there were no standards and no regulations? Free markets are generally good and they work remarkably well. However, there are undeniable failings of free markets which is rooted in human greed and is explained best by the tragedy of the commons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons The problem is that the governments setup to protect society from that greed oftentimes end up being a bigger problem. While there is no perfect government, there are some governments that work better than others. The following link is a list of the corruption index: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index Baal, you made a legitimate point in that Somailia is probably better off in anarchy than under government. Somailia also happens to be dead last in terms of corruption so that isn't so much a proof to the qualities of anarchy as it is a testament to how god awful Somailia's government is. If you were to ask people in New Zeland, Denmark, Singapore, Switzerland and the other countries that rank high on that list if they would prefer anarchy over their current form of government, they would surely say no. All the countries that rank below a 3 or a 4 might be better off in anarchy than under their existing corrupt governments. However, that does not mean that they should strive for anarchy, rather they should work towards improving the system and transparency of their governments so they rise to the top of the list. I know that is easier said than done, but anarchy is definitely not the long term answer.

about eh part that if you ask a 1st world country if they chose anarchy they would say NO it means absolutely nothing you have to agree that the vast majority of people are absolutely ignorant about true anarchy, also the vast majority of people are scared shitless of really radical changes such at this when they are in a stable condition.

For example, again ill use my shitty country, if u ask a mexican (where our corruption levels are close to somalia) if they would choose anarchy everybody would say NO, so it really doesnt mean much.


Your main argument against capitalist anarchy is that it will turn into corporativism but i have two comments for you:

- Dont you agree that is our current situation? corporations rule the world and now they are even so powerful that they can manipulate (lobbing ftw) governments into doing their bidding making them even stronger than they would be in a free market society.


- If you fear corporativism and also agree that power corrupts then logic would dictate that your ideal economic model should be something like a socialist-anarchist yet i dont think you are.

On March 06 2010 05:41 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On March 05 2010 06:14 Baal wrote:   On March 05 2010 00:35 noface wrote: I was about to craft an elaborate argument, but just got my fucking shit pushed in at the poker tables so I'm going to try to make it short and go play GTA. I would simply like brother Baal to respond to the problem of factions with respect to Anarchy. Before the Constitutional Convention James Madison spent several weeks furiously reading and studying about Ancient governments. What he discovered is that factions commonly destroyed Republics. He defines a faction as: "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Anarchy on a scale as large as a country is going to leave people seriously fucked up. Because what i found extremely fascinating when studying American Government is that I believe Ancient Republics were governed and formed on the premise that you would be good to your neighbor and do what is best for your community. People are "ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious," said James Hamilton, and to structure a government on the belief that people are good is foolish. Getting longer than I wanted but I will leave one more quote by Madison: "The lesson we are to draw from the whole is, that where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a republican government, the majority, if united, have always an opportunity. The only remedy is, to enlarge the sphere, and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties, that, in the first place, a majority will not be likely, at the same moment, to have a common interest separate from that of the whole, or of the minority; and in the second place, that in case they should have such an interest, they may not be so apt to unite in the pursuit of it. It was incumbent on us, then, to try this remedy, and, with that view, to frame a republican system on such a scale, and in such a form, as will control all the evils which have been experienced." If someone responds, I will come back and participate. Heh funny that you mention it, but thats is exactly why anarchy is not only the best method but its necessary, and that is based on the fact that mankind is evil, there are many naturally twisted men in seek of personal gain at any cost. And here comes the failure of your system which the only thing it does is to make these people more powerful! who do you think its going to seek a spot in a privileged power position? an easy going relaxed man of good, or a money hungry ruthless man? So in the end all democracy do is actually provide evil with power, for fucks sake just open your eyes and see the world and tell me im wrong, seriously tell me that so many world leaders are the representation of the darkest and most evil people in their respective countries you just need to alter politics. for example give politicians non-extravagant salaries, give pretty long quarantenes for politicians after they quit politics so they can't work with anything they directly influenced, don't appoint too much power to individual politicians. basically make it an unattractive position for power and moneyhungry evildoers and make it an attractive position for idealists who genuinely want to make the world a better place. I think most norwegian politicians belong in that group.

give politicians non extravagant salaries? who... who should give them that if they get to decide their own fucking salaries? why would they sabotage themselves? why havent USA done than then?


And yeah in Norway corruptions levels are extremely low and government is relatively efficient however but that is not a government's success, its as a whole society, your society is way way ahead of the rest of the world, so basically if you removed your government even if its not corrupt you would have a much higher living standard and all the personal freedom you do not enjoy today.

On March 06 2010 06:23 Funktion wrote: Show nested quote + On March 06 2010 05:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:   On March 05 2010 06:14 Baal wrote:   On March 05 2010 00:35 noface wrote: I was about to craft an elaborate argument, but just got my fucking shit pushed in at the poker tables so I'm going to try to make it short and go play GTA. I would simply like brother Baal to respond to the problem of factions with respect to Anarchy. Before the Constitutional Convention James Madison spent several weeks furiously reading and studying about Ancient governments. What he discovered is that factions commonly destroyed Republics. He defines a faction as: "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Anarchy on a scale as large as a country is going to leave people seriously fucked up. Because what i found extremely fascinating when studying American Government is that I believe Ancient Republics were governed and formed on the premise that you would be good to your neighbor and do what is best for your community. People are "ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious," said James Hamilton, and to structure a government on the belief that people are good is foolish. Getting longer than I wanted but I will leave one more quote by Madison: "The lesson we are to draw from the whole is, that where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a republican government, the majority, if united, have always an opportunity. The only remedy is, to enlarge the sphere, and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties, that, in the first place, a majority will not be likely, at the same moment, to have a common interest separate from that of the whole, or of the minority; and in the second place, that in case they should have such an interest, they may not be so apt to unite in the pursuit of it. It was incumbent on us, then, to try this remedy, and, with that view, to frame a republican system on such a scale, and in such a form, as will control all the evils which have been experienced." If someone responds, I will come back and participate. Heh funny that you mention it, but thats is exactly why anarchy is not only the best method but its necessary, and that is based on the fact that mankind is evil, there are many naturally twisted men in seek of personal gain at any cost. And here comes the failure of your system which the only thing it does is to make these people more powerful! who do you think its going to seek a spot in a privileged power position? an easy going relaxed man of good, or a money hungry ruthless man? So in the end all democracy do is actually provide evil with power, for fucks sake just open your eyes and see the world and tell me im wrong, seriously tell me that so many world leaders are the representation of the darkest and most evil people in their respective countries you just need to alter politics. for example give politicians non-extravagant salaries, give pretty long quarantenes for politicians after they quit politics so they can't work with anything they directly influenced, don't appoint too much power to individual politicians. basically make it an unattractive position for power and moneyhungry evildoers and make it an attractive position for idealists who genuinely want to make the world a better place. I think most norwegian politicians belong in that group. There are some obvious serious flaws in your proposals. For example with low salaries you lose the smartest/brightest individuals to industry. Another problem is the people who are passionate about a subject may not be the best people to have in government despite being smart. So idealist are a majority of who you end up with after taking away decent salary and benefits. This creates obvious problems like I said.

wrong the smartest and brightest individuals in the industry in the area of GOVERNING OTHERS care not about money, also a honest hard working government with ideals is million times better than the most intelligent one with perverse goals.

classic logic
governement sucks, lets get rid of it

Well the governement does suck, it does a lot. people are getting fucked so bad its like modern slavery

People are always getting paid less than what they "produce"
People pay more for goods than what they're truly worth
People pay huge taxes, big parts of these taxes are given back to the richs business mens who get taxe credits, subventions etc. When people realize this, they ask to lower the taxes, and governement just compensate by reducing every services which is even worse
When you deposit money, your interest rate is low, while people who needs loans needs to pay big interest rate..... no wonder banks are so rich lol

We are getting fucked in so many ways its not funny

Its possible anarchy would be better than capitalism.... its not really hard to do better than capitalism. But i doubt it would be the ideal system.

I think the best thing that can be done is "sharing" the ways of productions. doesn't have to be communist, but just make sure people get paid properly for their work.

On March 08 2010 19:13 Floofy wrote: classic logic governement sucks, lets get rid of it Well the governement does suck, it does a lot. people are getting fucked so bad its like modern slavery People are always getting paid less than what they "produce" People pay more for goods than what they're truly worth People pay huge taxes, big parts of these taxes are given back to the richs business mens who get taxe credits, subventions etc. When people realize this, they ask to lower the taxes, and governement just compensate by reducing every services which is even worse When you deposit money, your interest rate is low, while people who needs loans needs to pay big interest rate..... no wonder banks are so rich lol We are getting fucked in so many ways its not funny Its possible anarchy would be better than capitalism.... its not really hard to do better than capitalism. But i doubt it would be the ideal system. I think the best thing that can be done is "sharing" the ways of productions. doesn't have to be communist, but just make sure people get paid properly for their work.

"sharing" is socialistm and u fail in general.

yea it is. so what?
Social countries ALL suffer much less from economic crisis than capitalism ones.

Instead of just saying you fail, why dont you point out where "i fail". this is just stuff i learned at university and u can't say its wrong, its just so true the way we are getting exploited by rich corporations

On March 08 2010 19:26 Floofy wrote: yea it is. so what? Social countries ALL suffer much less from economic crisis than capitalism ones. Instead of just saying you fail, why dont you point out where "i fail". this is just stuff i learned at university and u can't say its wrong, its just so true the way we are getting exploited by rich corporations

this thread will not discuss socialism its a complex issue but its clearly not the ideal economic model as u can see a list of socialist countries:

-Cuba
-China
-North Korea
-Laos
-Vietnam
-Venezuela
-Nicaragua

Nobody ever implemented real socialism
These are just poor attempts

Even if it was, its just like poker, its not because AA loose a few times that its not a good hand

Also, these countries were horrible in the first place. Cuba actually somewhat improved.... but it was shit in the first place. and it is not real socialism.

Anyways what i am advising is not rock hard socialism, its just sharing the ways of production

instead of rich business mens exploiting the workers, workers would share their benefits. theres nothing wrong with this.

i am not going to derail the thread talking with somebody with very basic understanding of socialism, if you want to discuss anarchy then please do so.

As far as I can tell from the news and stories like this one: http://www.drum-cussac.com/piarcy , Somalia's growth is actually mostly attributed to them making a lot of money from hijacking ships and receiving large ransoms.

Is this not the case? I'm not sure then that Somalia is such a good example of anarchy working since it seems like you're saying having no goverment to control the piracy there is a good thing. Unless perhaps you claim that those two things are not related?

Well, yes this thread is about anarchy, but i see nothing wrong with comparing it to other systems. Capitalism is clearly horrible there is not much to discuss about it
anarchy > capitalism

So thats why i wanted to compare it with socialism

BTW im currently doing studies at university and i have a lot of courses about socialism and i suceed them very well so i don't think my knowledge is as basic as you think.

On March 08 2010 19:59 R_I wrote: As far as I can tell from the news and stories like this one: http://www.drum-cussac.com/piarcy , Somalia's growth is actually mostly attributed to them making a lot of money from hijacking ships and receiving large ransoms. Is this not the case? I'm not sure then that Somalia is such a good example of anarchy working since it seems like you're saying having no goverment to control the piracy there is a good thing. Unless perhaps you claim that those two things are not related?

Yes i claim they are not related, Somalia has a established government now since 2006, the growth has stopped yet the piracy incidents kept increasing.

Plus i dont see the co-relation with wealth acquired by criminals and the overall betterment of a country, especially in areas like education and others, if they were related, then Mexico or Colombia would be very rich because we have many drug dealers who make billions a year.

On March 08 2010 20:26 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On March 08 2010 19:59 R_I wrote: As far as I can tell from the news and stories like this one: http://www.drum-cussac.com/piarcy , Somalia's growth is actually mostly attributed to them making a lot of money from hijacking ships and receiving large ransoms. Is this not the case? I'm not sure then that Somalia is such a good example of anarchy working since it seems like you're saying having no goverment to control the piracy there is a good thing. Unless perhaps you claim that those two things are not related? Yes i claim they are not related, Somalia has a established government now since 2006, the growth has stopped yet the piracy incidents kept increasing. Plus i dont see the co-relation with wealth acquired by criminals and the overall betterment of a country, especially in areas like education and others, if they were related, then Mexico or Colombia would be very rich because we have many drug dealers who make billions a year.

Oh I see, I looked up the article and sure enough there was growth recorded during the years when Somalia had no government.

As for positive effects of the current piracy in Somalia, I googled and found this article:
http://backinbeirut.blogspot.com/2009...a-piracy-ransom-and-wads-of-cash.html

I had also read this article over here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10619829

What I'm curious to know is, if there was still no government in Somalia now with the piracy going on, would this still be a working example of anarchy? Working for who exactly? Would it perhaps be "better" to have an effective government? By effective I mean one that could actually do their job of governing/controlling the piracy.

Never mind guys the US is about to stop all this "growth".


"US-Backed Somali Troops Prepare Major Offensive

In news from Africa, the New York Times reports the US is helping the Somali government prepare a major offensive to take the capital of Mogadishu from Islamist militants. Over the past six months, Somalia has farmed out young men to Djibouti, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya and Sudan for military instruction, and most are now back in the capital, waiting to fight. So far, most of the US military assistance to the Somali government has been focused on training, but a US official told the Times he expects US covert forces will get involved in the offensive. The official said, “What you’re likely to see is air strikes and Special Ops moving in, hitting and getting out."

On March 09 2010 01:50 spets1 wrote: Never mind guys the US is about to stop all this "growth". "US-Backed Somali Troops Prepare Major Offensive In news from Africa, the New York Times reports the US is helping the Somali government prepare a major offensive to take the capital of Mogadishu from Islamist militants. Over the past six months, Somalia has farmed out young men to Djibouti, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya and Sudan for military instruction, and most are now back in the capital, waiting to fight. So far, most of the US military assistance to the Somali government has been focused on training, but a US official told the Times he expects US covert forces will get involved in the offensive. The official said, “What you’re likely to see is air strikes and Special Ops moving in, hitting and getting out."

So the US is about to overthrow a government in a country in another continent that doesnt fit its interests once again.. sigh will this ever stop?

On March 08 2010 20:50 R_I wrote: Show nested quote + On March 08 2010 20:26 Baal wrote:   On March 08 2010 19:59 R_I wrote: As far as I can tell from the news and stories like this one: http://www.drum-cussac.com/piarcy , Somalia's growth is actually mostly attributed to them making a lot of money from hijacking ships and receiving large ransoms. Is this not the case? I'm not sure then that Somalia is such a good example of anarchy working since it seems like you're saying having no goverment to control the piracy there is a good thing. Unless perhaps you claim that those two things are not related? Yes i claim they are not related, Somalia has a established government now since 2006, the growth has stopped yet the piracy incidents kept increasing. Plus i dont see the co-relation with wealth acquired by criminals and the overall betterment of a country, especially in areas like education and others, if they were related, then Mexico or Colombia would be very rich because we have many drug dealers who make billions a year. Oh I see, I looked up the article and sure enough there was growth recorded during the years when Somalia had no government. As for positive effects of the current piracy in Somalia, I googled and found this article: http://backinbeirut.blogspot.com/2009...a-piracy-ransom-and-wads-of-cash.html I had also read this article over here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10619829 What I'm curious to know is, if there was still no government in Somalia now with the piracy going on, would this still be a working example of anarchy? Working for who exactly? Would it perhaps be "better" to have an effective government? By effective I mean one that could actually do their job of governing/controlling the piracy.

Yes if Somalia showed growth then it was working, for whom? for their people, everybody had better living standards in general.

And its silly to say that a working effective government would be better because such thing cannot exist in a country like Somalia, at least not in the next 100 years.

Governments dont form from air, governments are reflections of the society they govern, a reflection even darker than the society itself. so there wont be a working government in somalia, unless you kill all its citizens and replace it with scandinavians, then we can discuss a proper government and a proper anarchy.

On March 09 2010 02:19 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On March 08 2010 20:50 R_I wrote:   On March 08 2010 20:26 Baal wrote:   On March 08 2010 19:59 R_I wrote: As far as I can tell from the news and stories like this one: http://www.drum-cussac.com/piarcy , Somalia's growth is actually mostly attributed to them making a lot of money from hijacking ships and receiving large ransoms. Is this not the case? I'm not sure then that Somalia is such a good example of anarchy working since it seems like you're saying having no goverment to control the piracy there is a good thing. Unless perhaps you claim that those two things are not related? Yes i claim they are not related, Somalia has a established government now since 2006, the growth has stopped yet the piracy incidents kept increasing. Plus i dont see the co-relation with wealth acquired by criminals and the overall betterment of a country, especially in areas like education and others, if they were related, then Mexico or Colombia would be very rich because we have many drug dealers who make billions a year. Oh I see, I looked up the article and sure enough there was growth recorded during the years when Somalia had no government. As for positive effects of the current piracy in Somalia, I googled and found this article: http://backinbeirut.blogspot.com/2009...a-piracy-ransom-and-wads-of-cash.html I had also read this article over here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10619829 What I'm curious to know is, if there was still no government in Somalia now with the piracy going on, would this still be a working example of anarchy? Working for who exactly? Would it perhaps be "better" to have an effective government? By effective I mean one that could actually do their job of governing/controlling the piracy. Yes if Somalia showed growth then it was working, for whom? for their people, everybody had better living standards in general. And its silly to say that a working effective government would be better because such thing cannot exist in a country like Somalia, at least not in the next 100 years. Governments dont form from air, governments are reflections of the society they govern, a reflection even darker than the society itself. so there wont be a working government in somalia, unless you kill all its citizens and replace it with scandinavians, then we can discuss a proper government and a proper anarchy.

Wait, I was asking if anarchy would be considered to be working if people in Somalia were getting better living standards but from the proceeds of crime and suffering of hostages etc. Are you saying that it would be really be considered a working anarchy?

I think the piracy that is happening is an example of the faction thing that other people were talking about. How would Somalia in anarchy with piracy compare with Somalia with a government enforcing anti piracy and reducing it, albeit meaning that their citizens won't have as much money? Is the welfare of that particular place all that matters, at the expense of others?

It's farfetched, but another country could invade somalia and install a government that has the military might to enforce anti piracy. Then other nations might suffer a little less while Somalia might have less growth, but I don't really know how to do a fair comparison in terms of welfare of a place and the means to increase it. And I don't think the new government would have to kill everyone...

In a vacuum with perfectly nice people, sure anarchy would work but fact is we live in a world with a lot of different types of people. I don't really think there can be a true state of lawlessness because others will band together to enforce their will in terms of removing the absolute liberties from certain factions that are acting up, so to speak.

That was a bit of a ramble, and I'd like to know what you think about whether the ends of better living conditions for citizens in a certain place justify the means even if they are illegal and immoral.

Also to check my understanding of anarchy, if someone decided they wanted to kill another person then they are free to do so right if they can get away with it? And no one can really arrest them and put them through a trial and inprisonment because no one can enforce any authority? This is an extreme example but I think it's actually in accordance with the definition of anarchy (according to wikipedia)?

On March 04 2010 18:53 CrownRoyal wrote: Anarchy isnt even worth discussing because it's theoretically impossible.

Please don't become a scientist, ever, please.

i think baal has a different definition of anarchy than you guys, perhaps the than the rest of the world

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/toky...abuse-of-somali-marine-resources.aspx

Somalia piracy is a response to massive illegal fishing by asian/western countries and European countries have been dumping nuclear waste on their coast for some odd reason. The pirates were fishermen who call themselves volunteer coastguard of Somalia. With a stated purpose to tax illegal fishing or end it and to end the dumping going on their coast.

On March 04 2010 20:46 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2010 19:30 whamm! wrote: i think anarchy wont work with the how sick man has evolved in the recent 20 years and with the internet showing people that "deviant" behavior is "acceptable" is some parts of the world, this just reinforces some really disturbing beliefs or practices sickos have. i think anarchy now would just mean total , well anarchy lol Actually the internet is one example of functional anarchy, there is no oversight or control in the internet yet it works.

this is somewhat true. We are actually getting more and more limited every month on the Internet. It's only a matter of time before we are limited to what we can do/download on the Internet

On March 04 2010 20:46 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2010 19:30 whamm! wrote: i think anarchy wont work with the how sick man has evolved in the recent 20 years and with the internet showing people that "deviant" behavior is "acceptable" is some parts of the world, this just reinforces some really disturbing beliefs or practices sickos have. i think anarchy now would just mean total , well anarchy lol Actually the internet is one example of functional anarchy, there is no oversight or control in the internet yet it works.

the internet is just as much an example of why some form of governing is necessary.

if you disagree with this, then please resign from your moderator position asap, because you are essentially an elected government official of this particular internet community.

this allegory actually works really fucking nicely with my other arguements, shame I didnt notice your post and think about this earlier :
internet communities normally form and are rather small from the get-go. moderation is also usually hardly existant from the get-go. as internet communities increase, so does the need for moderation, largely because the more people, the less homogenous of a group you have, and the larger is the chance of people who just want to fuck up shit for others because it amuses them. this happened with tl.net as it grew, this happened with somethingawful.com as it grew, honestly I don't know of a single forum where a larger userbase has not resulted in a) it becoming an uninhabitable shithole, or b) moderation (governing) increasing to make it useable.

it's possible for some internet communities to be thriving without moderation. but these are all small and with groups of people that have known eachother for a long time. (examples, nohunters forum and the old bnet stratforumregs. ) however, even these forums need occasional moderation, because spammers might find the forum (nohunters introduced a phrase you need to type to identify you as a nohunters community member to handle spammers - active governing right there) or some other community might decide to troll it.

i agree

i also agree, well said drone

On March 09 2010 18:38 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2010 20:46 Baal wrote:   On March 04 2010 19:30 whamm! wrote: i think anarchy wont work with the how sick man has evolved in the recent 20 years and with the internet showing people that "deviant" behavior is "acceptable" is some parts of the world, this just reinforces some really disturbing beliefs or practices sickos have. i think anarchy now would just mean total , well anarchy lol Actually the internet is one example of functional anarchy, there is no oversight or control in the internet yet it works. the internet is just as much an example of why some form of governing is necessary. if you disagree with this, then please resign from your moderator position asap, because you are essentially an elected government official of this particular internet community. this allegory actually works really fucking nicely with my other arguements, shame I didnt notice your post and think about this earlier : internet communities normally form and are rather small from the get-go. moderation is also usually hardly existant from the get-go. as internet communities increase, so does the need for moderation, largely because the more people, the less homogenous of a group you have, and the larger is the chance of people who just want to fuck up shit for others because it amuses them. this happened with tl.net as it grew, this happened with somethingawful.com as it grew, honestly I don't know of a single forum where a larger userbase has not resulted in a) it becoming an uninhabitable shithole, or b) moderation (governing) increasing to make it useable. it's possible for some internet communities to be thriving without moderation. but these are all small and with groups of people that have known eachother for a long time. (examples, nohunters forum and the old bnet stratforumregs. ) however, even these forums need occasional moderation, because spammers might find the forum (nohunters introduced a phrase you need to type to identify you as a nohunters community member to handle spammers - active governing right there) or some other community might decide to troll it.

Your analogy fails for many reasons.

For startes, the internet is an anarchic entity, and liquidpoker is a corporation in it.

Nobody rules the internet (to some extent) the first attempt to do so is net-neutrality, something i think every one of us label as fucking crazy and stupid.

I am all for hierarchy system in corporations just as LP.Net.

So while your analogy is totally wrong, you are probably trying to question that if i firmly believe in anarchic systems why am i part of a position of power in liquidpoker, and the answer is very simple:

Moderators in lp.net are not paid, we dont hold a share % of the site, we dont charge you to use this, we are volunteers with very little actual power over you that spend a lot of time trying to selflessly improve and help this site, that is in no way remotely alike than a position in the government.

I mean im not trying to play saint here about being a mod, but i already said that what makes the government fails as a system if that greedy people (of power and money) are drawn to it, if the government benefits were shit, and that they really couldnt steal making crooked deals etc, then the government would be filled with self sacrificing people willing to help their country, the sad thing is such a thing cannot exist.

You could also view the internet as "earth" and various web sites as "countries"

baal = strawman arguments

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.

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.

On September 02 2011 14:21 Stat.Quo wrote: 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

Not recently but typically pro-anarchy ppl in the forum either claim that somalia is not really an anarchy, or that somalia has benefited from being an anarchy (usually by referring to this study http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf )

On September 02 2011 13:20 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

Atheists imo all share two common beliefs. At least when someone takes the atheist position they always take the side that.
1. There is no god/higher power
2. There is no afterlife

I have not talked to an atheist who does not accept the 2 beliefs. Just b/c they then differ on things like humanism and such doesn't mean it's not a religion or doesn't share some common beliefs among all of them. Much the same Christianity is a religion, no one will debate otherwise but all christian sects only share 2 beliefs in common.
1. The bible is the word of god.
2. Jesus is gods son who died for humanities sins, through him redemption is possible.

They even differ on that as they have different interpretations of how much of the bible is gods word, and what jesus's mission was etc.

I agree Buddhism is an interesting religion, but have that conversation with 10 buddhists and u'll have at least 1 claim that buddhism is a way of life not a religion.

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. .

The taxation being theft is still idiotic to me. If you insist on viewing it as a monopoly on something then think about it like this. Taxes are the premiums that a government requires in order for you to live in them. Just like you would be required to rent in an apartment building. When you say you don't have a choice about paying taxes, same goes for rent in an apartment if you wanna live there you need to pay the bills. You also (w/ the exception of NK citizens) move to any other country which better suits ur desires tax/living wise. If you exclude NK there are 195 countries for you to choose from ( http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/numbercountries.htm ). The only thing really holding you back from moving to somewhere new is that it's a complete pain in the ass (redoing housing, new friends, may not speak the language, etc). But no one is forcing you to stay in your country and it's unlikely anyone is forcing you to out of one (assuming you have a passport from ur current country and a job).

War=mass murder I'm pretty sure we can compromise on easy enough.
1. Actual combatants killed on either side do not count as murder (both can likely claim acting in self defense from the other side).
2. Civilians killed by either side which are not involved in the war count as manslaughter (r u familiar with the american legal difference between manslaughter and murder?) if done on accident via collateral damage.
3. Civilians killed on purpose by the other side count as war crimes perpetrated by whoever ordered the attack through to the person who actually carried it out. None of the superior orders excuse as stated by the Nuremberg trials principle 4.

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders#Nuremberg_Trials_after_World_War_II

good enough compromise?

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.

QFT

Basically, do you deny the existence of leprechauns living in your closet yes or no? if you say no then you are just "religious" about it... its such a ridiculous point.

1.- Already answered by loco

2.- Its not an opinion, i mean its an opinion that "they wont bitch", it is NOT an opinion that there is no social contract in anarchy, because well anarchy is actually the lack of a social contract by definition.

yes you can still be forced at gunpoint by individuals, i didnt say anarchy is perfect sine humans are flawed, all im saying its that its better.

3.- You mean what would stop people from imposing a government on you while anarchy is archived?, hah i think ur thinking as anrchy as madmax but anyway if such things happens it can be stopped by people organizing and stopping them

4.- Stop mentioning scandinavia as examples of strong governments and not including China, Vietnam, Cuba and Russia and North Korea, i wont listen to arguments supporting strong government that dont also include 3rd world countries.

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?

If you like government so much why not move to North Korea?

do you see how stupid my argument is? well so is yours.

On September 02 2011 18:41 Baalim wrote: 2.- Its not an opinion, i mean its an opinion that "they wont bitch", it is NOT an opinion that there is no social contract in anarchy, because well anarchy is actually the lack of a social contract by definition.

What's to stop someone from signing away their unborn childs life? Just curious. If the person was not consciously able to object to something can they be made to do something?

3.- You mean what would stop people from imposing a government on you while anarchy is archived?, hah i think ur thinking as anrchy as madmax but anyway if such things happens it can be stopped by people organizing and stopping them

So two different groups would organize and fight each other? That sounds familiar.

4.- Stop mentioning scandinavia as examples of strong governments and not including China, Vietnam, Cuba and Russia and North Korea, i wont listen to arguments supporting strong government that dont also include 3rd world countries.

So strong democratic republic form of governments with strong congresses and weaker executive branches eliminates those examples pretty well.

2.- i dont quite understand what is your question, if you are a child you mean? well then yes you are subjected to the will of your parents until you can and want to live on your own means.

3.- Yes they would, we humans are horrible creatures but still its hard that in an anarchy a group would amass enough armament to blow up the world 13 times over

4.- No you cant cherrypick what represents a strong government and what doesnt, all those are examples of strong government presence, scandinavia just happens to have extremely civil societies.

2. So if say ur parents put their child into a 70 yr contract is thd child obliged to do it?

3. Not provable opinon.

4. Im not cherry picking gov't im saying democratic republic governments which r strong r better then an anarchy. Communism, monarchies, dictatorships r a completely different issue. No one arguing strong gov't in any form besides demo-republic.

On September 02 2011 21:20 palak wrote: 2. So if say ur parents put their child into a 70 yr contract is thd child obliged to do it? 3. Not provable opinon. 4. Im not cherry picking gov't im saying democratic republic governments which r strong r better then an anarchy. Communism, monarchies, dictatorships r a completely different issue. No one arguing strong gov't in any form besides demo-republic.

2.- what? im either not understanding where you are going or you are making stupid questions, of course parents cant put children in 70 year contracts... what in the fuck

3.- Well we dont have a "society simulator", the fact its not provable it doesnt mean its quite likely and reasonable to assume.

4.- If im a dick and use your "technique" that you used for #3, its un provable since there isnt a true example of anarchy, see how stupid is to say this? it simply stalls any kind of argument.

Baal I am for anarchy, more specifically socialist anarchy (Chomsky ftw!). Most people have a huge misconception of what anarchy is because the western world threw a lot of propaganda at the term during the ideological wars of the twentieth century. When most people think about anarchy they think about individualist anarchy and a dog-eat-dog system. I don't think it's possible to get to people using such a heavily distorted word.

Anarchists need something else to call it....

There of many examples of successful anarchist societies, including one in south america!

also hilarious misquote by palak hehehe!

edit: another thing people often forget when discussing anarchy is that society does not equal government.

When discussing ideology people often assume a country's success is dependent on their ideology and their government. aka the 'communism sucks cuz communist countries are poorer than western ones' argument (not considering that russia and most of eastern europe lost a ridic amount of population and infrastructure fighting germans during ww2, and that the western world reaped most of the benefit of slavery and the exploitation of africa/south america/pacific islands etc.)

for this reason, you cannot denounce anarchy because somalia is a shit hole, believe me, its a shit hole for a LOT of other reasons.

2. In an anarchy what is there to stop a parent from signing away their children's life? What's to prevent slavery from forming? Is the only thing preventing it the assumption that human society will maintain a level of respect for basic human rights (not a bad assumption, just wanna know if your working off of it).

3. I don't see why its unreasonable to assume oil companies could just buy up entire armories. They easily have the money.

4/3 It is unprovable, the difference is we have evidence that democratic republics work. You have no actual evidence (that i know of) that a company left to it's own wouldn't buy up military force. Shell after all in nigeria bought up armed forces

In the 1990s tensions arose between the native Ogoni people of the Niger Delta and Shell. The concerns of the locals were that very little of the money earned from oil on their land was getting to the people who live there, and the environmental damages caused by Shell's practices.[1] In 1993 the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) organized large protests against Shell and the government, often occupying the refineries. Shell withdrew its operations from the Ogoni areas. The Nigerian government raided their villages and arrested some of the protest leaders. Some of these arrested protesters, Ken Saro-Wiwa being the most prominent, were later executed, against widespread international opposition from the Commonwealth of Nations and human rights organisations.[2] Shell maintained that it asked the Nigerian government for clemency towards those found guilty but that its request was refused. A 2001 Greenpeace report claimed that "two witnesses that accused them later admitted that Shell and the military had bribed them with promises of money and jobs at Shell. Shell admitted having given money to the Nigerian military...".[3] Shell denied these accusations and claimed that MOSOP was an extortionary movement that advocated violence and secession.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Nigeria#Human_rights_controversies
Frick did the same w/ the homestead strikes

After consultations with Knox, Frick in April 1892 had contracted with the Pinkerton National Detective Agency to provide security at the plant. His intent was to open the works with nonunion men on July 6. Knox devised a plan to get the Pinkertons onto the mill property. With the mill ringed by striking workers, the agents would access the plant grounds from the river. Three hundred Pinkerton agents assembled on the Davis Island Dam on the Ohio River about five miles below Pittsburgh at 10:30 p.m. on the night of July 5, 1892. They were given Winchester rifles, placed on two specially-equipped barges and towed upriver.[20] The strikers were prepared for them; the AA had learned of the Pinkertons as soon as they had left Boston for the embarkation point. The small flotilla of union boats went downriver to meet the barges. Strikers on the steam launch fired a few random shots at the barges, then withdrew—blowing the launch whistle to alert the plant. The strikers blew the plant whistle at 2:30 a.m., drawing thousands of men, women and children to the plant.[21] [edit]Pinkertons attempt to land The Pinkertons attempted to land under cover of darkness about 4 a.m. A large crowd of families had kept pace with the boats as they were towed by a tug into the town. A few shots were fired at the tug and barges, but no one was injured. The crowd tore down the barbed-wire fence and strikers and their families surged onto the Homestead plant grounds. Some in the crowd threw stones at the barges, but strike leaders shouted for restraint.[22] The Pinkerton agents attempted to disembark, and shots were fired. Conflicting testimony exists as to which side fired the first shot. According to at least one eyewitness, the unionists shot first. John T. McCurry, a boatman on the steamboat Little Bill (which had been hired by the Pinkerton Detective Agency to ferry its agents to the steel mill) and one of the men wounded by the strikers, said: "The armed Pinkerton men commenced to climb up the banks. Then the workmen opened fire on the detectives. The men shot first, and not until three of the Pinkerton men had fallen did they respond to the fire. I am willing to take an oath that the workmen fired first, and that the Pinkerton men did not shoot until some of their number had been wounded."23] But according to The New York Times, the Pinkertons shot first.[24] The newspaper reported that the Pinkertons opened fire and wounded William Foy, a worker.[24] Regardless of which side opened fire first, the first two individuals wounded were Frederick Heinde, captain of the Pinkertons,[25] and Foy. The Pinkerton agents aboard the barges then fired into the crowd, killing two and wounding 11. The crowd responded in kind, killing two and wounding 12. The firefight continued for about 10 minutes.

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

On September 02 2011 23:12 ShaperofDreams wrote: Baal I am for anarchy, more specifically socialist anarchy (Chomsky ftw!). Most people have a huge misconception of what anarchy is because the western world threw a lot of propaganda at the term during the ideological wars of the twentieth century. When most people think about anarchy they think about individualist anarchy and a dog-eat-dog system. I don't think it's possible to get to people using such a heavily distorted word. Anarchists need something else to call it.... There of many examples of successful anarchist societies, including one in south america!

name the successful societies? Not saying they don't exist, I'm just curious as to what they r.

I'd like to see u and baal hash it out over individualist vs collectivist.

On September 02 2011 18:32 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On September 02 2011 05:25 Loco wrote:   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. QFT Basically, do you deny the existence of leprechauns living in your closet yes or no? if you say no then you are just "religious" about it... its such a ridiculous point.

If someone were to believe in leprechauns would that then make them religious?

Also courts ruled atheism is a religion (not that u'll likely care about what courts have to say)

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion. "Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said. The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895#ixzz1Wrd0VwrQ

Edit: As i've said before, i have no problem with someone saying something like belief the christian god does not exist is not a religion. But saying for certain that u know there is no deity or afterlife is going to be a religious statement.

the bushmen of south africa, this one south american tribe i read about on wiki (forgot the name) doesn't have any murder or concept of murder in their society and they are anarchist, "freetown" in northern europe was successful, but it kinda got fucked with by the government it was ignoring, but before that it even managed to kick out an invading criminal organization (criminal under the government freetown was ignoring, but bad ppl nonetheless)

check out this video, and if you have no life like me read the free book of the site and get chomsky's (havent read them yet!)

if you analyze life and society you find out that a fuckton of it is anarchic in nature. even law (judges decide shit on case by case basis based on the general "morality" of the society, black and white state issued laws actually have a tendency to impede this when you think about it, (like pot laws in cali etc.) and in these cases the state governed law is often ignored or lightened by the executive ppl (police, judges) even if the state governed law is more extreme

eg. ive smoked pot in front of police in vancouver, not even a word from them, this is because state issued law is general "behind the curve" of the real moral zietgiest of society

edit: this is a prime example of anarchy working great, obviously the majority of ppl in vancouver do not think a punishment is required for publicly smoking pot, the moral compass is against punishment, therefore no punishment, even with the existence of coercive authority. most business is also anarchic, ever heard the phrase, all a man has is his reputation? the only reason douchy ppl can even hide now is because of state issued corporations and corporate-influenced law. i doubt the majority of americans think that corporations should have the same rights as human beings without any real drawbacks etc.

#t=122s

paste on current time wont work, but speech startes at 2 min. kinda vague but interest point.

#t=164s

also around 2 min in, talks about the word anarchy

On September 04 2011 18:58 ShaperofDreams wrote: the bushmen of south africa, this one south american tribe i read about on wiki (forgot the name) doesn't have any murder or concept of murder in their society and they are anarchist, "freetown" in northern europe was successful, but it kinda got fucked with by the government it was ignoring, but before that it even managed to kick out an invading criminal organization (criminal under the government freetown was ignoring, but bad ppl nonetheless) check out this video, and if you have no life like me read the free book of the site and get chomsky's (havent read them yet!) if you analyze life and society you find out that a fuckton of it is anarchic in nature. even law (judges decide shit on case by case basis based on the general "morality" of the society, black and white state issued laws actually have a tendency to impede this when you think about it, (like pot laws in cali etc.) and in these cases the state governed law is often ignored or lightened by the executive ppl (police, judges) even if the state governed law is more extreme eg. ive smoked pot in front of police in vancouver, not even a word from them, this is because state issued law is general "behind the curve" of the real moral zietgiest of society edit: this is a prime example of anarchy working great, obviously the majority of ppl in vancouver do not think a punishment is required for publicly smoking pot, the moral compass is against punishment, therefore no punishment, even with the existence of coercive authority. most business is also anarchic, ever heard the phrase, all a man has is his reputation? the only reason douchy ppl can even hide now is because of state issued corporations and corporate-influenced law. i doubt the majority of americans think that corporations should have the same rights as human beings without any real drawbacks etc.

1: whether or not smaller and homogenous tribes can function without a state is not really an issue. they obviously can. but most of the rest of the world experienced the agricultural revolution- with all it entails of resource hoarding (impossible for hunter-gatherers) and thus demand for security. (this is the basic purpose of the state, and the reason for its conception. whether hunter gatherer societies committed murder against fellow tribesmen is wholly irrelevant to whether or not anarchy is plausible for the world today.

2: by freetown in northern europe I assume you are referring to christiania in copenhagen. It's a nice place and I've been there on several occasions. What did I do? bought hash and weed, smoked hash and weed, and drank awesome juice. it's entirely populated by hippies (which I don't mind at all personally), but largely functions as a method for danes and tourists to buy drugs that are illegal in the rest of denmark. Now, it's obviously stupid that hash and weed is illegal in most western countries, but it's very possible to legalize all drugs without abandoning the structure of the state (holland), and judging by the past 10 years, public opinion seems to be swaying in favour of legalization most places, which means politicians will inevitably follow. but anyway, mentioning christiania as a functioning anarchist society is pretty silly, because it doesn't provide anything in terms of jobs or education, but it's rather just a place for artists and self-titled misfits to congregate, and for people who love drugs to hang out. I'm not saying that's a bad thing - just that it doesn't compare, at all, to what is offered by christianias neighbouring country - denmark. There's a very, very small percentage of danes who would prefer living in christiania over living in the rest of denmark.

3: the phrase "all a man has is his reputation" is only valid if people don't move - once again going back to the small homogenous group where people already accept that anarchy can function. (christiania is also very small, and in some key areas, exceptionally homogenous.) If you have no state, what is to stop someone (say a travelling business man) from travelling between cities scamming people? I mean, it's not like doing so is impossible in a state, far from it, but thinking that a scammer would be deterred simply by the threat of hurting his reputation in one area is foolish.

3. not true. i know idra is bm. i know not to trust emails from nigerian princes. i know goldman sachs is a dick

they are all in parts of the world far from mine

also 2. how is freetown not a good example? you said it wouldn't be a good example of a functioning anarchist society right after giving it the characteristics of one. ppl go there by choice, stay there (or not) by choice. it might not be the best place to live, but it doesn't have to be, because you don't have to be there if you don't want to. the economy might be based on drugs and tourism but it is an economy. there are minimal amounts of coercion, which is what anarchy is about.

as for the "but....agricultural revolution...." it doesn't matter. a functioning anarchist society is a functioning anarchist society. just because they had no agricultural revolution does not mean that anarchy is not viable for societies that have had a agricultural revolution. saying so would be like saying:

socrates was a man, therefore all men are socrates.

anyways, even if all you say about examples of anarchist societies is true it doesn't matter. Like i said before, successful examples don't have to exist for for something to be viable, otherwise nothing would ever be invented. great inventors say "invent for the future, invent things for technology that doesn't yet exist, so that once it does you can implement it" the same can be said for anarchy, replacing technology with social atmosphere/variables like education and failure of government etc.

sorry for grammar and organization, multitasking atm.

btw check out wikiquotes of chomsky on anarchist-socialism, apparently he "solves" the issue of agriculture and resource hoarding.

edit: he also spent time in kibbutz, a free society in israel (that obviously has had an agricultural revolution), he said if not for all the religious dogma he may have stayed.

baal what kind of anarchy do you think would work best in wherever you are? capitalist, socialist etc.

You can document this example and document that example of societies that had any form of anarchist ideals existed.. because they did. You can make statements of them doing well . . . in somalia and having better years of economic growth during this supposed state of anarchy... (btw i can't imagine the massive drought they are going through has ANY impact on their economic issues.. its quite clearly the government).. and you can pick apart certain parts of everyones arguments like you have been doing without actually defeating the argument just 1 or 2 points in a 10 to 12 point statement. No matter how you describe it or shape it in any type of anarchist system there will be someone who gets the biggest stick (metaphorically obvious if you can't tell) and they WILL take over. They will create a system which benefits them and their friends at the cost of others. If you don't see this, or think there is some way around it in our world today... well there is nothing anyone here can do and i suggest private help

btw anarchist socialists and anarchist capitalists think the worst of each other

On September 04 2011 21:54 NighTLesS15 wrote: You can document this example and document that example of societies that had any form of anarchist ideals existed.. because they did. You can make statements of them doing well . . . in somalia and having better years of economic growth during this supposed state of anarchy... (btw i can't imagine the massive drought they are going through has ANY impact on their economic issues.. its quite clearly the government).. and you can pick apart certain parts of everyones arguments like you have been doing without actually defeating the argument just 1 or 2 points in a 10 to 12 point statement. No matter how you describe it or shape it in any type of anarchist system there will be someone who gets the biggest stick (metaphorically obvious if you can't tell) and they WILL take over. They will create a system which benefits them and their friends at the cost of others. If you don't see this, or think there is some way around it in our world today... well there is nothing anyone here can do and i suggest private help

"they WILL"? = blanket assumption (unlike states, which treat ppl equal?) conditions are really important, education, global conciseness, resources etc. im not saying anarchy can work worldwide tomorrow. i think anarchy will exist in the far future, long after a singularity between biology and technology, but thats just me

also "i suggest private help" = you sound like a douche

also obv documenting examples is good, but that doesnt make an argument for anarchy without examples (which i did give) impossible. thats what i was saying... citations, though good, are only hueristics. lack of examples does not mean lack of possibility. logic 101

On September 04 2011 21:54 NighTLesS15 wrote: No matter how you describe it or shape it in any type of anarchist system there will be someone who gets the biggest stick (metaphorically obvious if you can't tell) and they WILL take over. They will create a system which benefits them and their friends at the cost of others. If you don't see this, or think there is some way around it in our world today...

That being as it may, democratic capitalism swings full-grown trees around. Hardly any use picking up a stick in the firstplace.

Christiana is not a true anarchic society, its under constant state bullying among other regulations (such as no cars), its simply a small haven for hippies.

Its funny that you mentiong how on early civilizations they needed protection so they created the sate... you mean a state like Egypt? that had the biggest slave population i history, with ridiculous society structures and wealth distribution that made look a normal monarchy like fair and equal? that the awesome protection the people got?.

Of couse 6,000 BC societies were brutal... because people were brutal, obviously society its a reflection of the individual in a collective sense and so is the government

So human nature is so nasty that if we are left alone, we are going to throw stones at each other, and your solution is to give another flawed human a huge gun to keep peace?, who protects us from the guy with a gun?, at least when we were throwing stones we could defend ourselves, now we cant

That is the true philosophy why government will always fail and anarchy is the only solution, its because its simply irrational to empower humans to protect us from ourselves.

And fwiw, since state's police in mexico is well a criminal organization, the houses around my house simply pay for private police, it works MUCH better, and its a police you can directly fire and ask for results.

For the people claiming that some group will organize and take control of others (imposing a state on others) are aware that they are saying "The government is indeed evil and shouldnt exist, but it will find a way to keep existing". ?

That is exactly what you are trying to argue, if you disagree please elaborate how it isnt what you are saying, if you are aware that you are saying that, then i can discuss it too.

i was just talking about christiana cause there is very little coercion relatively, which is part of the recipe for anarchy

a democratically elected government is replaceable and it has no more power over its population than the majority of the population wants it to have. government isn't evil by default and it doesn't suddenly become evil by default just because you say it is. nobody is arguing in favour of dictatorships.

honestly though, I'd like to actually hear you state something about what kind of society you envision as an ideal. I've seen you cite lots of examples of why some governments are bad - and here you are correct, many governments are bad. furthermore, if you want to argue that the american government isn't replacable because people only have the choice between two nearly identical options, then that is a valid argument against the american electoral college, lobbyism and various other aspects of american democracy, but not against the principle of governments. but that's a little besides the point; what I want is for you to list properties of your ideal society. I'd like you to detail the following aspects, as in, how will the following be provided for various segments of the population:

1: security (what is to stop the richest and most powerful guy in town from killing that guy who insulted his honour, or even worse, to stop the more powerful town from pillaging/ransoming the neighbouring town?)
2: education (for example, in your ideal anarchic society, is education mandatory for children? can a parent choose to keep children away from school, to help them work in a farm, factory or mine? if not - who enforces this? this point is particularly important, so please don't dodge it; in a stateless society, what saves children who lack the ability to defend themselves from parents that are obviously unfit? )
3: health care (will any health care be provided for someone without the wealth to pay whatever a doctor charges?
4: transportation (should people be responsible themselves for building roads that lead to wherever they want to live? should these roads be maintained with toll, or how?)

I will also humor you by stating what I think is the most ideal society - you may feel free to tell me how it is evil;

a transparent, non-corrupt, democratically elected government where local governance is encouraged as far as it is possible. I want the state to have the monopoly on excerting violence, and for this to happen, it must be a lot more powerful than any other group of people - save a major percentage of the entire population. I want the state to be responsible for providing security for the population, meaningful and relevant education so people become enabled to better their own situation, and so that children are not entirely cursed or blessed at birth. I want health care to be available to and provided for everyone. I want welfare to be in place so that in the event that someone fails to provide for himself, he is not forced to resort to theft / begging to eat, as one option harms everyone, and the other is utterly degrading and dehumanizing. I want to have a reasonably low wealth disparity, because it has been shown that societies with less wealth disparity perform better and provide better lives for their inhabitants.

But even with reasonably low wealth disparity, I still do not mind wealth beind a measure of success and something to strive for - I merely want to avoid both the desperately poor and ridiculously rich. This will be accomplished through a reasonably high and progressive tax rate. In my ideal society, politician's salaries will remain fairly low (not higher than the top 10% cutoff of the population as a whole), ensuring that politicians are motivated by desire to improve the country/world, rather than by desire for personal wealth and power - a competent politician will have skillsets that would be attractive for groups who could pay more. I also want a completely transparent economy, where income and taxes for the entire population is made public - this is important to combat corruption. I want sensible laws that have the support of the population, and reasonable punishments geared towards rehabilitation rather than vengeance.

I don't see how anything I mentioned is evil. but the funny part is, I live in a place remarkably similar to what I have just listed. and, what more is, it could not happen without a state actively encouraging and discouraging different types of behavior.. the longevity of this society, and its ability to self-replicate the better aspects, would be impossible without mandatory, state-provided education.. the fact of the matter is that the dumbest aspect I can find with norwegian society (internally) is the law against pot - and I've been smoking for 11 years without ever running into any problems with the law. essentially, my ideal society has been proven possible.

I agree w/ everything drone just said.

I also wanna add that unless someone cites sources about egypts slave population i call bs. Largest slave population ever is either china or rome or usa south depending on time and definition of slave.

On September 05 2011 15:55 Liquid`Drone wrote: a democratically elected government is replaceable and it has no more power over its population than the majority of the population wants it to have.

That doesn't take away the fact that it imposes itself upon people who want nothing to do to with it.

Now I should write a TLDR but I'm wasted -__

Drone owning this thread imo.

We need a thread about how government could be improved imo, and not just a thread on weather government is better/worse than no government.

On September 06 2011 21:17 brambolius wrote: Show nested quote + On September 05 2011 15:55 Liquid`Drone wrote: a democratically elected government is replaceable and it has no more power over its population than the majority of the population wants it to have. That doesn't take away the fact that it imposes itself upon people who want nothing to do to with it. Now I should write a TLDR but I'm wasted -__

said ppl would be free to leave the country as they wish.

On September 06 2011 21:36 Stroggoz wrote: Drone owning this thread imo. We need a thread about how government could be improved imo, and not just a thread on weather government is better/worse than no government.

There is a new social science, called "Political Economy" who uses economical models on political interactions to determine how to achieve microeconomical prescriptions. Basically, classical microeconomics tells us how things "should be", while Political Economy aims to understand the set of rules (institutions) to obtain optimal social efficiency (what has to happen for markets to work, etc)

It's still on its infancy, but it tries to explain stuff like the formation of property rights, democracy, electoral equilibriums, and a lot whole bunch of things that was mainly speculations (also known as sociology ). It also studies how to make policy enforcers and policy makers different. To do so, most is based that decisions are made by individuals under rational choices, and adds game theory aswell.

One of the concensus seems to be that "impersonal rules" are the ones that produce the better government. Impersonal rules means laws apply to everyone and are the same for everyone. Current papers work on what causes the impersonals rules to emerge, instead of bullies making the rules and having priviliges like basically the rest of human history and current undeveloped countries.

Drone, anarchy (id rather say free society here tbh) is completely democratic that's the whole point. (if done right)

i think noam chomsky has the best "ideal (anarchist) society" just wikiquote him if your interested. the guy is freaking brilliant. >50 honorary degrees + doctorate + a billion written books = #1 cited person alive!

his free society focuses on justifying coercion rather than completely eliminating it. its all about accountability.

you should also check out platos story of the ring of gyges. i think democratic "parties" like in the US (no real difference, false dichotomy of options) and modern corporations basically have rings of gyges. (a ring that destroys all accountability).

On September 05 2011 16:19 palak wrote: I agree w/ everything drone just said. I also wanna add that unless someone cites sources about egypts slave population i call bs. Largest slave population ever is either china or rome or usa south depending on time and definition of slave.

population % wise obv.

Drones wall of text attack was super effective so ill read later when im feeling in the mood to debate

For the people claiming that some group will organize and take control of others (imposing a state on others) are aware that they are saying "The government is indeed evil and shouldnt exist, but it will find a way to keep existing". ?

Nope, because there are different kinds of governments with varying degrees of democracy.

An armed gang taking over is obviously worse option than the oppressive state we now have.

Drone, anarchy (id rather say free society here tbh) is completely democratic that's the whole point. (if done right) i think noam chomsky has the best "ideal (anarchist) society" just wikiquote him if your interested. the guy is freaking brilliant. >50 honorary degrees + doctorate + a billion written books = #1 cited person alive!

Noam Chomsky is not awfully exact on the structure of a better world, he is rather with Rudolph Rocker in the "let's not make a blue brint for a new world" -school. Sure I respect him as the greatest thinker alive but on this issue he is really of no help.



Sort of anarchist view (federalist anarcho-syndicalism afaik) http://infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ section I. Probably close to what old syndicalist Chomsky would advocate.

Classical anarchist communist view from Kropotkin can be found it "Conquest of Bread"

Those of course have nothing to do with Baal's anarchist capitalism, and I'd also like to hear anarchist capitalist society briefly described.

On September 02 2011 18:42 Baalim 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? If you like government so much why not move to North Korea? do you see how stupid my argument is? well so is yours.

Well my goverment gives me the chance to study and even if you dont work you'll still get like 950E a month to sustain a living, in N Korea I would have to work non stop and still be hungry

Obviously my argument is stupid, but it wasn't meant as a serious argument because I feel discussing this is pointless. I like to live in a country where things are regulated and where the goverment support the lower social classes.
There you have it, If you like anarchy then you should live in a country where the goverment has minimum regulations. (such as somalia !!! )

Actually maybe you should like organize all the anarchists out there and fight for your own free country somewhere in mexico. Then you can all live there and be happy about how anarchistic you all are.

Probably doomed to fail since some native indians will probably conquer it fairly easily since there is no goverment and therefore probably no army. (or in your case, drug lords)

I don't mind your theory and I'm happy we all have different opinions about it, but in this _current_ world there is simply no room for anarchy, and I fail to see how that is going to happen any time soon.
I would just let it go if I were you.