Am I A "Conspiracy Theorist"?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Morality Games I really don't have anything to add, except that people who say "lesser of two evils" usually aren't the most informed on politics and are just going along with the popular sentiments of culture. If both options are evil, then it is only because the observor is determined to see it that way, and no amount of reasoning is going to persuade them otherwise.

Taken alone, what you've said here is difficult to address. Obviously, I could say the same thing about you; if you don't think both options are evil, it's only by your determination. But the point is: No individual should be in a powerful enough position where their "evil" is formed into policies. If they will be evil, it'll be us they are evil against, and most likely some "outside" population. It goes beyond the encroachment
of "American culture." These are fundamental concerns about power in general. Anarchism is our only fundamental alternative to gambling with such power.

Grandpa h.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: grandpa of "American culture." These are fundamental concerns about power in general. Anarchism is our only fundamental alternative to gambling with such power. Grandpa h.

Anarchism isn't the only solution.

Anarchism assumes people ought NOT to have a functional government system. It only assumes that since there is no divine or moral right to government then everyone has the natural right to do whatever they please and accept the actions of everyone else.

All it does it build a hateful watch everyone else with your gun in hand society. May he who has the most guns and best aim win when it comes to a dispute with a neighbor.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa No, anarchism is not entirely the same concept state-communists have (just to be clear, there are state communists and libertarian communists). State communists advocate the "dictatorship of the proletariat," a view anarchists tend to oppose very, very strongly. I must make another point: None of this is intended to be my solution. I'm not trying to play dictator here, nor is it my job to come up with a blueprint to solve every potential problem that comes along. The fact anyone thinks so indicates the great lack of understanding of basic libertarian principles. An egalitarian society is hated by authoritarians and of interest to anarchists. That is clear. Anarchism is NOT the same concept (or set of concepts) that constitutional republics advocate. Their ideal is subordination. As for people not cooperating, it depends on the issue and the people you are talking about. In an authoritarian society, people certainly won't embody anarchist principles. They'll carry out orders, cooperating either because they're under the legal blackmail system of wages or because they've been brainwashed. Peoples' need to access food and shelter are obvious things authorities can take advantage of, and they do. The big and even not-so-big banks can dominate resources otherwise available relatively freely, and we'll have to pay them for this subordination. Consider the words of Josiah Charles Stamp, the British civil servant, industrialist, economist, statistician, director of the Bank of England and chairman of the London Midland and Scottish Railway: Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money . Consider this: What is the source of the problem here? Authority! It's standard, and I feel no guilt or shame whatsoever about locating the main source of the problem. Grandpa h.

I did not say the concepts were the same, I said the aims were the same. Let's not confuse the issue. Communism, in it's initial conception, figured that the interests of the workers would bind them in harmonious lock-step towards an end where management would not be necessary. Just substitutute the word "citizen" for "worker" and the words "ruling elite" for "management" and you have, at core, the same ideal. The problems are still the same. And it does not matter that you did not invent anarchism, you are advocating it. Defend what you advocate. More later on your other points.

[grandpa]

Quote by: HelioPrime Anarchism isn't the only solution.

But authority is a constant problem. Yes, political privilege allows one to invest
productively if one so wishes, but this assumes that political privilege should have existed to begin with. It's too much of a gamble to leave important decisions in the hands of a few people.

Quote by: HelioPrime Anarchism assumes people ought NOT to have a functional government system.

This is a misrepresentation of anything to do with standard anarchist theory. Virtually all of its schools of thought propose a "system" of some kind (even the so-called "anarcho-primitivists" offer some general ideas). But the major aim is to get rid of the dysfunctional features of state government and private monopoly, transforming a fascist, hierarchical and dehumanizing system to a functioning eglitarian one.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 I did not say the concepts were the same, I said the aims were the same. Let's not confuse the issue.

I wasn't the one adding to the confusion. And again, the aims of anarchism and state communism are dramatically different. Yes, one can point out some basic similarities, but no sensible person would advocate a dictatorship of the proletariat and call his/her self an "anarchist." In a state communist system, anarchists would in all likelihood be murdered and branded as outlaws. In fact, that's something that has happened. Again, I'm not confused here.

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa I wasn't the one adding to the confusion. And again, the aims of anarchism and state communism are dramatically different. Yes, one can point out some basic similarities, but no sensible person would advocate a dictatorship of the proletariat and call his/her self an "anarchist." In a state communist system, anarchists would in all likelihood be murdered and branded as outlaws. In fact, that's something that has happened. Again, I'm not confused here. Grandpa h.

I never said that an anarchist (as conceptually imagined) would advocate a dictatorship of the proletariat. I said both Communism and Anarchism expect results based on the concept that people will behave themselves. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat was an idea that evolved in "state" communism specifically because the "behaving" failed to materialize. I said that the ideals had similar expectations in the conceptual stage and that anarchism will fail for the same reason communism, as originally conceived, failed. BECAUSE the "behaving" will not happen. Both systems aim to mitigate the problems of "power" by "trusting" the people (or workers) to behave in ways that further their own, collective, interest. The similar aim is the aim of mitigating the abuse of power. The similar concept is that individuals can be trusted to see, and behave in accordance with, the "greater universal good". But individuals do not. People need state control because they do not behave. People are the problem in ANY system. The reason I back the concept of Constitutional Democracy is because it accepts the truth that government is necessary AND attempts to limit the ways in which people will muck up the works through the amassing of power. I do not say it perfectly solves the problems because I am not stupid enough to believe there is a perfect solution. I am pragmatic and expect only to find a solution that mitigates, as much as possible in the real world, the same problems of power and greed and selfishness that we all see and understand.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 I never said that an anarchist (as conceptually imagined) would advocate a dictatorship of the proletariat. I said both Communism and Anarchism expect results based on the concept that people will behave themselves.

Just as I said before: The major aim is to get rid of the dysfunctional features of state government and private monopoly; transforming a fascist, hierarchical and dehumanizing system into a functioning eglitarian one. This doesn't mean people will "always behave themselves." It means not letting any person rise into a position of overwhelming power, thus preventing the bad ideas of a few from becoming policies for the many.

Grandpa h.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: grandpa But authority is a constant problem. Yes, political privilege allows one to invest productively if one so wishes, but this assumes that political privilege should have existed to begin with. It's too much of a gamble to leave important decisions in the hands of a few people.

No authority at all is just as much a problem. Millions will die as people fight for resources worldwide in a authority free world. Many more will die because the institution that bring them food, power, and medical care are gone. It will literally become dog eat dog.

This is a misrepresentation of anything to do with standard anarchist theory. Virtually all of its schools of thought propose a "system" of some kind (even the so-called "anarcho-primitivists" offer some general ideas). But the major aim is to get rid of the dysfunctional features of state government and private monopoly, transforming a fascist, hierarchical and dehumanizing system to a functioning eglitarian one. Grandpa h.

Anarchy would require the same teaching concept as basic government. People will not feel safe or secure or desire a free society. So you would have to instruct them into wanting such a society. Basically your doing the same indoctrination as the current system.

[grandpa]

Quote by: HelioPrime No authority at all is just as much a problem. Millions will die as people fight for resources worldwide in a authority free world.

But what you describe has nothing to do with anarchism. Liberty isn't only the freedom to do without. It can be a very positive social order to get rid of monopolistic and coercive institutions. It's not about looking at a starving person and saying "'tain't MY problem." It is our problem. Without authorities to dominate resources there would be no need to fight for them. Obviously, someone's having authority over you does not mean no one will fight over resources. In fact, it overwhelmingly tends to make it more likely.

Grandpa h.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: grandpa But what you describe has nothing to do with anarchism. Liberty isn't only the freedom to do without. It can be a very positive social order to get rid of monopolistic and coercive institutions. It's not about looking at a starving person and saying "'tain't MY problem." It is our problem. Without authorities to dominate resources there would be no need to fight for them. Obviously, someone's having authority over you does not mean no one will fight over resources. In fact, it overwhelmingly tends to make it more likely. Grandpa h.

People will always choose to form unions where power is nested in a few individuals. In a "free" society natural resources still need to be gathered, processed, and dispersed across sometimes great distances. This is not an action the average person can undertake on their own.

The result would be agreements between people where division of labor is used to process and transport goods and food. Leaders will emerge who will use promises and sweet talk to gather support and soon dominate these new organizations. And on a civilian level person disputes will lead to people seeking judgement from third parties to settle things. New courts and governments will form in towns and expand into cities and states.

And you still forgot the basic point. Few people in today's society desire such a system or would desire it even if they believed all our current leaders corrupt. You would have to indoctrinate people in accepting the massive authority reduction and lose of dependence on a government.

On a national level we are more likely to embrace a national socialist state before and kind of reduction of government powers.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa But what you describe has nothing to do with anarchism. Liberty isn't only the freedom to do without. It can be a very positive social order to get rid of monopolistic and coercive institutions. It's not about looking at a starving person and saying "'tain't MY problem." It is our problem. Without authorities to dominate resources there would be no need to fight for them. Obviously, someone's having authority over you does not mean no one will fight over resources. In fact, it overwhelmingly tends to make it more likely. Grandpa h.

That is what you conceive to be true, but there is no evidence that it is true. Humans did not spring into being with large centralized governments. If people were going to just naturally find this happy, cooperative existence, don't you think at least some of the disparate populations would show some evidence of this? The lack of any long term, viable examples of the system you seem to be saying is the natural state man would seek (if it weren't for nasty "ruling elites") is powerful and convincing evidence that your assumptions are wrong. It's like saying lions would prefer to live solitary lives but the power of the pride keeps them from doing so or that social pressure makes people predominantly heterosexual. You are coming at it all backwards. All of the evidence points to the fact that humans are most successful when they surrender a certain level of autonomy to centralized power and that given the choice between no leadership and dictatorial leadership, they will pick the dictator. I am not saying that dictators are good. I am saying people are most successful when they cooperate and that absolutely requires some level of coercive authority.

[grandpa]

Quote by: HelioPrime People will always choose to form unions where power is nested in a few individuals. In a "free" society natural resources still need to be gathered, processed, and dispersed across sometimes great distances.

In virtually any society, power is not truly "nested in a few individuals." It's just that the masses are deceived into believing those few individuals deserve to rule them. Sometimes they are ruled in a most vicious and calloused manner, but quite often the ways of ruling are more subtle, done by indoctrination and implied coercion.

You apparently haven't noticed, but is often average people who see to it that resources are "gathered, processed, and dispersed across sometimes great distances."

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 That is what you conceive to be true, but there is no evidence that it is true. Humans did not spring into being with large centralized governments.

Are you really telling me that rulers make fights over resources less likely? If so, just pick up a history book. The most anti-social societies tend to be the more authoritarian ones.

And of course people didn't emerge with large, centralized governments. You also weren't born with
what you are experiencing right now. Experience -- even collective experience -- is conditional. But your idea that people are destined to have powerful states is ultimately an argument for your own subordination. It's ultimately an insult to yourself.

Grandpa h.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: grandpa You apparently haven't noticed, but is often average people who see to it that resources are "gathered, processed, and dispersed across sometimes great distances." Grandpa h.

You continue to miss the basic point.

Anarchism is impossible as an ideal reduction of power. Companies produce the major products and these companies are in turn ruled by men or women with power.

You can never have a society where the people own their own production because people will always seek to gain powers over others and others will give them power in return for a smaller share or other gains. Government and structured society will always exist because no civilization has ever been able to achieve otherwise.

That being said argument for a free society is a moot point since you'd rather to use your own methods of propaganda and sublime education to instruct people into wanting such a society.

[grandpa]

Quote by: HelioPrime You continue to miss the basic point. Anarchism is impossible as an ideal reduction of power.

And I think you're greatly overvaluing the hand that authority has in shaping a functional society -- to the point of absurdity. Anarchism doesn't mean "anyone who can
punch your lights out gets to take what you have." That's an incredibly erroneous and simplified interpretation of it, trumpeted by authorities themselves. The fundamental idea of anarchism is to minimize coercion and exploitation as much as possible. To make wins for such a world is not only possible, it is practical.

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

Grandpa -

And by "definition" Communism does not mean "some evil mad man will become absolute ruler and be able to kill at will any person he deems worthy of death" yet that is what happened. You must deal, not with what anarchism means conceptually, you have to deal with what practical reality makes likely. You are not doing that. You keep retreating into defenses based on the ideal and ignoring all the evidence that points you towards an understanding of why the ideal is never likely to exist.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Grandpa - And by "definition" Communism does not mean "some evil mad man will become absolute ruler and be able to kill at will any person he deems worthy of death" yet that is what happened. You must deal, not with what anarchism means conceptually, you have to deal with what practical reality makes likely.

Look, I will not be living in guilt for my refusing to defend authority. You apparently don't ralize it, but you are making the basic argument state Communists would make: "We need ruling authority in order to have order." If you want to understand why "some evil made man will become absolute ruler," it can be explained by looking at your view here.
If you give anyone significant power, you're giving them a chance to be corrupt -- and they most likely will be. Anarchism is about taking that gamble away, and not just "conceptually."

We have states because, as Thomas Paine once said, "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right."

I've studied ideology enough to realize each form has historical justifications on its
side. However, anarchism is only an ideology in the loosest sense of the word. It is about seeing these historical justifications not as fate, but as conditional. If the conditions change, people can better control their own destinies. That's "practical reality," is it not?

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa Look, I will not be living in guilt for my refusing to defend authority. You apparently don't ralize it, but you are making the basic argument state Communists would make: "We need ruling authority in order to have order." If you want to understand why "some evil made man will become absolute ruler," it can be explained by looking at your view here. If you give anyone significant power, you're giving them a chance to be corrupt -- and they most likely will be. Anarchism is about taking that gamble away, and not just "conceptually." We have states because, as Thomas Paine once said, "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." I've studied ideology enough to realize each form has historical justifications on its side. However, anarchism is only an ideology in the loosest sense of the word. It is about seeing these historical justifications not as fate, but as conditional. If the conditions change, people can better control their own destinies. That's "practical reality," is it not? Grandpa h.

Then tell me what path you would have people take to make "conditions change"? What "conditions" need to change? How do you overcome people's desire to have and follow leaders? How do you avoid all of the pitfalls that have been pointed out? Don't say, "Because that isn't the way anarchism works." Explain how and why people will be different for an anarchist system than they have been for any other. Answer the issues, do not pretend they will magically answer themselves because you just say it will be. Defend and explain. I'm happy that you have studied ideology. I understand that you see authority as the root of all evil. But you have not explained how you will avoid authority when Charles Manson convinces 40 kids that Helter Skelter is comming down and creeps into someone's house at night. You have not explained how John Deere tractors are going to be sold when the factory is in West Place, California and the majority of the market is in Every Place Else, USA without some kind of regulations that can be made to apply to a community of millions, when millions do not have the time, nor the knowledge to address John Deere's technical issues along with Ford's, Boeing's, ADM's, Burger King's and thousands of other large and small companies. Address the practical limitations of your plan or admit that it is not really viable. Or, just admit that what you really believe is that what needs to happen is that the population of the planet needs to drop by billions and that the collective economies of the world need to retrogress. Then, I want you to explain to all those people who have to be dead why this is better for them.

[Morality Games]

But authority is a constant problem.

1. Lack of authority would also be a problem.

2. If #1 is true, then authority from lack of authority is most likely a necessary part of socialization, in the same way brain from spinal cord / nervous system is a necessary part of biological evolution.

One of the defenses is that you have employed is that "people will have to think anarchically" in order for the system to work (anarchy is a system in the sense it operates in a way that can be explained systematically). I dismiss this argument out of hand because the same can be said of every other system -- if only everyone thought like communists, laissez-faire capitalists, Christians, Muslims, atheists, etc in the 'proper sense' of the ideologies -- then things would be perfect. However, given that it appears personality-type is a massive influence on the type of ideology which suits us and seeing as how personality-types depend very much on genetics, I would conjecture it is genetically impossible for everyone to think anarchically -- there will be many people genetically predisposed to wield authority and many who wish to be ruled by authority.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Morality Games 1. Lack of authority would also be a problem.

In an authoritarian system, yes.

Grandpa h.