Anarchy

[Sonart]

The only thing I wanted to point out is that anarchy doesn't attempt to rely solely on voluntary interactions between people. Since there is no government to deny force (of course this is largely wishful thinking in assuming government could actually do this job correctly), forced interactions can occur. The only difference under anarchy would be that these wouldn't be considered 'legitimate' or 'legal' uses of force. You couldn't take someones house under anarchy and claim it was legal because of emminent domain without people laughing at the absurdity of the comment ... and likely more people would use force in return to stop this because they wouldn't be brainwashed into thinking this stuff should be tolerated simply because someone says it's legal.

Why can't you all see the absurdity in this? Do you actually believe that if government is denied the authority to enforce laws, that those with the means will not promptly assume it upon themselves, and with a ruthlessness and brutality only your worst nightmares could project on our government? Throughout our history ranchers, mines and corporations have assumed the roles of government unto themselves, hiring thugs to enforce their own interests. Recall the early efforts of American workers to organize for the basic rights we take for granted today? You talk about eminent domain? Don't you recall the railroads of the 1800s - the gilded age of the great robber barons - securing their right of ways by brutally forcing people off their lands? No one was laughing at the absurdity then, Steve. Men of power and ambition will find a way, they always do. When the Soviet Union outlawed capital and the accumulation of wealth, men of power and ambition found a new form of capital... power itself. If you eliminate government, men of power and ambition will simply find a way to create government by some other name... the board room, the town hall, the friggin' homeowners association. Remember in infamous cattlemen's associations in the U.S. territories who became defacto governments unto themselves, and brutal ones at that. Without government, if miners, loggers, developers, ranchers, factory builders or land owners run into conflicts with an existing community, who's going to resolve the issue? I daresay the one with the money to hire impoverished locals as thugs to enforce their will, and they'll do it believing God is on their side. You think history hasn't shown this occurring again and again and again and again?

You may not like government for their faults, but as the world has grown exponentially more crowded, complex, technological and sophisticated, government really is the only thing standing between us and a total chaos of a million and one overlapping and competing interests and ambitions. The presumption that we can step back to some fondly remembered pastoral time is what I keep saying... a navel gazing pipe dream.

.

[SteveA]

Why can't you all see the absurdity in this? Do you actually believe that if government is denied the authority to enforce laws, that those with the means will not promptly assume it upon themselves, and with a ruthlessness and brutality only your worst nightmares could project on our government?

It's only your perspective that government is a benevolent caretaker that leads you to belief this. I don't have as much religious faith in the benevolence of government and I don't think you do either. You're hanging on to a fantasy, wishing it were true. I was thinking everything would turn out fine once Republicans ran the show in 2000. Live and learn.

So who is the ruthless and brutal dictator that would be able to run the show? I see it as a balance. Governments already attempt to push the envelope on what power it has and it's simply the fact that people object when things move too quickly that keeps some government officials from simply declaring the U.S. is a dictatorship but the more people continue to believe that if we just gave them a bit more power everything would turn out great, leaves us even more susceptible to tyrrany.

Throughout our history ranchers, mines and corporations have assumed the roles of government unto themselves, hiring thugs to enforce their own interests. Recall the early efforts of American workers to organize for the basic rights we take for granted today?

Oh yes, this was in my American History textbook in school. Yes, it said government came in to regulate a lot of our industries and save people from working hard. Well it surely won, and the winners get to write the textbooks. As I'm look at my paycheck and the taxes on cigarrettes, gas and the fact that a large part of the work I do is dictated by government I somehow can't see things from the same perspective anymore.

You talk about eminent domain? Don't you recall the railroads of the 1800s - the gilded age of the great robber barons - securing their right of ways by brutally forcing people off their lands?

Yes, government didn't protect the Indians either. So if you're saying government allowed people to be forced off their land by faked land purchases, or allowing private individuals to run roughshod over others, or via. emminent domain, then I'd agree. Look at property taxes. They take a decent percent of almost everyones land/home every year now.

No one was laughing at the absurdity then, Steve.

Ok, so government failed and it's still failing. In fact it's the entity handing the land to these companies now and the Supreme Court says it's just fine and dandy and they don't even have to worry much because people like you feel the sky would fall if we didn't have government prop it up.

Men of power and ambition will find a way, they always do.

And where do they go now when they want power? They lobby Congress because they can't abuse the private sector very easily unless they get government to back the abuse.

When the Soviet Union outlawed capital and the accumulation of wealth, men of power and ambition found a new form of capital... power itself.

So you agree with me that Soviet Union was a perfect example of a government destroying the economy and freedom of a country?

If you eliminate government, men of power and ambition will simply find a way to create government by some other name... the board room, the town hall, the friggin' homeowners association.

And I agree, and even said the same thing. The reason why this is less possible with a more limited government or even anarchy is that people are free to reject these if they don't feel they're legitimate.

Consider why slavery was ended in the U.S. Was it due to government or due to a large number of people feeling it wasn't a legitimate institution? Now what if slavery of all forms was considered illegal, would be people be more or less supportive of such institutions? Of course they'd be less supportive. The same thing goes for anarchy. If people desired to have little or no government at all and then some thugs came along and wanted to run the show, it seems almost by definition that few people wouldn't feel this was legitimate and submit to being ruled by them, so there'd be little such want-to-be rulers could gain by even trying in the first place. That doesn't mean people wouldn't want to organize in various endeavors but under anarchy there'd be no way a person could simply say thuggery was 'legal' and I'd still assume people would want to assure they had some security or method of defense against attempts at it.

Remember in infamous cattlemen's associations in the U.S. territories who became defacto governments unto themselves, and brutal ones at that. Without government, if miners, loggers, developers, ranchers, factory builders or land owners run into conflicts with an existing community, who's going to resolve the issue? I daresay the one with the money to hire impoverished locals as thugs to enforce their will, and they'll do it believing God is on their side. You think history hasn't shown this occurring again and again and again and again?

And Bush believes God is on his side and has people stripped searched and is spending our savings via. inflation. Government controls half the GDP in the country and half the aerospace contracts I worked on (before I quit) were about better ways of blowing up houses instead of building them ... I happen to want a house, not a better way to blow them up. My best friend had his children taken from him by government. I've known other people who have been harrassed or had their future economic prospects ruined by government etc. and yet people sit around and think it's all fine because they're too brainwashed and apathetic to try to fix these.

You may not like government for their faults, but as the world has grown exponentially more crowded, complex, technological and sophisticated, government really is the only thing standing between us and a total chaos of a million and one overlapping and competing interests and ambitions. The presumption that we can step back to some fondly remembered pastoral time is what I keep saying... a navel gazing pipe dream.

.

Most the government created problems I've seen seem to have simple solutions, or at least they become simpler to resolve once it's clear that no magic genie government is going to save the day. Again, I'd prefer to see a limited government over none at all and most my complaints are regarding the highly centralized and overgrown federal government, not as much local and state governments, but to me, if there was no realistic possibility of seeing the federal government returned to a limited role, I'd prefer to see no government at all than a continuation of what we currently have. People have been without government before, and the world wouldn't end if it happened again. I even remember at least once when the federal government 'shut down' LOL I can't remember even noticing a difference. The world went on for most everyone. Too bad we didn't close the doors, take their keys, and stop payment on the checks.

[grandpa]

It's only your perspective that government is a benevolent caretaker that leads you to belief this. I don't have as much religious faith in the benevolence of government and I don't think you do either.

Actually, I think Sonart made some really good points. With what he said, I'm reminded of the general need of society to become smarter and less coercive--regardless of how much or how little government it has. If people are smart, I think they will realize that there are degrees of coercion and that people can act terribly independently of government as well.

Grandpa h.

[SteveA]

Actually, I think Sonart made some really good points. With what he said, I'm reminded of the general need of society to become smarter and less coercive--regardless of how much or how little government it has. If people are smart, I think they will realize that there are degrees of coercion and that people can act terribly independently of government as well.

Grandpa h.

Thank you. Yes, we should be less tolerant of people trying to dominate forcibly/coercively over others and have a greater respect for individual liberty and voluntary associations. Whether such forced associations come from government or elsewhere doesn't matter much.

[Sonart]

Dang, keep getting double posts

[grandpa]

Thank you.
Yes, we should be less tolerant of people trying to
dominate forcibly/coercively over others and have a greater respect
for individual liberty and voluntary associations.
Whether such forced associations come from government or elsewhere doesn't
matter much.

We've reached something approaching consensus, which is good.
We both at least pay lip service to voluntary organizations, which is a start.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

I have a hell of a lot more faith in
the benevolence of government in a democratic republic then I
do in the whims of feudalism.

Ultimately, we should challenge the legitimacy of EVERYTHING.
That doesn't mean nothing is legitimate, but if something should stand its merits should be challenged.

So child labor, company stores, unsafe working conditions and the
like were all just myths perpetrated by the victors?
How convenient for you.

And that's the problem with so many conservatives and Libertarians. They go one and on about how business owners are unfairly penalized, but never seem to care that labor is unfairly penalized by being treated as machines who lack their own interests.
I don't like that.
Labor laws exist for some good reasons. And until we get rid of THEIR dog eat dog attitude, people will be better off with minimal standards.

Grandpa h.

[Sonart]

It's only your perspective that government is a benevolent caretaker that leads you to belief this. I don't have as much religious faith in the benevolence of government and I don't think you do either.

I have a hell of a lot more faith in the benevolence of government in a democratic republic then I do in the whims of feudalism.

You're hanging on to a fantasy, wishing it were true.

You're going on about a world that doesn't exist, and I'M hanging on a fantasy?????????????

So who is the ruthless and brutal dictator that would be able to run the show?

If you're thinking in terms of running the United States, there would be no United States. Nothing the size and complexisty of this country could possibly be run without a government. And the ruthless and brutal dictators would be any ambitious, power-hungry thugs willing and cunning enough to fill the local power vacuums left in the absense of govenment authority.

Oh yes, this was in my American History textbook in school. Yes, it said government came in to regulate a lot of our industries and save people from working hard. Well it surely won, and the winners get to write the textbooks.

And you believe this? So child labor, company stores, unsafe working conditions and the like were all just myths perpetrated by the victors? How convenient for you.

Yes, government didn't protect the Indians either. So if you're saying government allowed people to be forced off their land by faked land purchases, or allowing private individuals to run roughshod over others, or via. emminent domain, then I'd agree.

I'm saying that without government you could expect it to be a thousand times worse.

Ok, so government failed and it's still failing.

It is?????? We live with one of the highest standards of living on earth, our lifespans increasing, safe from foreign invaders, comparatively free to work, live, travel, speak, write and do as we please. Is government flawless?? No, are you? But failing? I don't see it. Now perhaps in Sudan or Somalia... THAT'S failing.

And where do they go now when they want power? They lobby Congress because they can't abuse the private sector very easily unless they get government to back the abuse.

Jeez, Steve... we live an a democratic republic in which the worst abuses of power are held at bay by a vast array of checks and balances, not the least of which is the fact that politicians have to get their constituents to vote them back in office every few years. Then there's the free press by which you find out all the dirty little secrets for which you condemn government.

For gawd sakes, you think our government is bad???? Go to someplace like Afghanistan where the central government has almost no control of the country outside of Kabul, where whatever local warlord can accumulate the power to control a region has done so and the fate of the people under him depends on whether or not the dood has a benevolent bone in his body or not.

The reason why this is less possible with a more limited government or even anarchy is that people are free to reject these if they don't feel they're legitimate.

NO, THEY'RE NOT!!!! Jeez, how naive can you possibly be? It's only the legitimate authority and power of government that prevents whatever local thug who can put together a gang from making the population under his control his personal bitches! And when that happens, the only way people are going to be "free to reject" them is to leave, only to end up as the bitches of the local thugs in the next county, or the next one or the next one.

Steve, I've asked you and zynner again and again to show me an example of an anarchic society that's worked, and neither of you has offered anything.

Well I can. You want an example of society without government? The friggin' Dark Ages of Europe. Feudalism, a world of local warlords running their little fiefs and constantly fighting each other for more power and wealth, all at the expense of the poor, sorry sunzubitches that grow the crops and make the goodies for the powerful. Welcome to your fantasy world.

.

[Sonart]

Ultimately, we should challenge the legitimacy of EVERYTHING.
That doesn't mean nothing is legitimate, but if something should stand its merits should be challenged.

Challenged, yes, not done away with. If something has a flaw, you seek to improve it. Only if it's failed completely do you do away with it, and as I've pointed out, the U.S. is far from failing. 7 million Chinese dead from famine under Mao, now THAT'S failing. THAT you do away with. The richest, freest, most powerful nation on earth? Sure, there's some room from improvement, but failing?? sheesh!!!

And that's the problem with so many conservative sand Libertarians. They go one and on about how business owners are unfairly penalized, but never seem to care that labor is unfairly penalized by being treated as machines who lack their own interests.
I don't like that.
Labor laws exist for some good reasons. And until we get rid of THEIR dog eat dog attitude, people will be better off with minimal standards.

Exactly! Labor laws, safety and environmental regulations exist because WE - the People - demanded them. Why do Steve or zynner imagine that those evil politicians would pass such laws... to make themselves rich??? That doesn't make any sense. They did it because American voters demanded it or they don't get re-elected.

.

[grandpa]

Challenged, yes, not done away with.
If something has a flaw, you seek to improve it.
.

But some problems are ingrained in the very form of certain institutions, I think.
That's the biggest problem. How do you change some massive things without having everything around it collapse? It's like a social Jenga, isn't it?

Exactly!
Labor laws, safety and environmental regulations exist because WE - the
People - demanded them.

When people call on the WTO to become fully transparent, it also means something.
There are real-life situations here, not only just ideology and a desire to "bitch" (as some people claim sweatshop workers are doing when they demand a higher standard of living).

Grandpa h.

[Sonart]

But some problems are ingrained in the very form of certain institutions, I think. That's the biggest problem. How do you change some massive things without having everything around it collapse? It's like a social Jenga, isn't it?

I suppose so. So the question becomes: how serious are the problems? Folks here seem to be wanking about something that hasn't driven them to defy by armed rebellion. They're simply wanking on a political board. Like I said, a few million people dying of famine, nationwide riots in the streets, thousands dead by government death squads... now THAT strikes me as problems. Being miffed because you think business in the richest nation on earth is over-regulated... that strikes me as something that can be worked on within channels and, considering that we're still talking about the most successful, richest, most powerful society on earth, lived with if necessary.

It's a spoiled child indeed who would kill his wealthy parents because he thinks his curfew is too strict.

.

[grandpa]

I suppose so. So the question becomes: how serious are the problems?

First people need to agree on what the problems are.

Grandpa h.