What is Anarchy?

[Anonymouse]

What Is Anarchy?
by Butler Shaffer

I have mixed feelings about the use of labels to describe philosophical views, whether of myself or others. It is difficult to avoid doing so because our efforts to understand and communicate about the world necessarily involve the use of words and words are, as Alfred Korzybski warned us, abstractions that never equate with what they are meant to describe. His oft-quoted statement that "the map is not the territory" offers a caveat whose implications for confusion are further compounded when addressing such abstract topics as political philosophy.

One philosophical abstraction that seems to befuddle most people is "anarchy." To those challenged by complexity – such as radio talk show hosts and cable-TV "newscasters" who are convinced that all political opinions can be confined to the categories of "liberal" and "conservative" – the word anarchy evokes an unfocused fear of uncertain forces. Images of bomb-throwing thugs who smash and burn the property of others are routinely conjured up by politicians and the media to frighten people into an extension of police authority over their lives. "Disorder" and "lawless confusion" are common dictionary definitions of this word.

That there have been some, calling themselves "anarchists," who have engaged in violence on behalf of their political ambitions, is not to be denied. Nor can we overlook the provocateuring occasionally engaged in by undercover policemen – operating under the guise of "anarchists" – to justify harsh reprisals against political protests. But to condemn a philosophic viewpoint because a few wish to corrupt its meaning for their narrow advantage is no more justifiable than condemning Christianity because a man murders his family and defends his acts on the grounds "God told me to do it!"

As long as a president continues to rationalize war against the Iraqi people as "operation freedom"; as long as the Strategic Air Command insists that "peace is our profession"; and as long as police departments advertise that they are there "to serve and protect," intelligent minds must be prepared to look behind the superficiality and imagery of words to discover their deeper meaning. Such is the case with the word "anarchy."

The late Robert LeFevre made one such effort to transcend the popular meaning of the word when he declared that "an anarchist is anyone who believes in less government than you do." But an even better understanding of the concept can be derived from the Greek origins of the word (anarkhos) which meant "without a ruler." It is this definition of the word that members of the political power structure (i.e., your "rulers") do not want you to consider. Far better that you fear the hidden monsters and hobgoblins who are just waiting to bring terror and havoc to your lives should efforts to increase police powers or budgets fail.

Are there murderers, kidnappers, rapists, and arsonists in our world? Of course there are, and there will always be, and they do not all work for the state. It is amazing that, with all the powers and money conferred upon the state to "protect" us from such threats, they continue to occur with a regularity that seems to have increased with the size of government! Even the current "mad cow disease" scare is being used, by the statists, as a reason for more government regulation, an effort that conveniently ignores the fact that the federal government has been closely regulating meat production for many decades.

Nor can we ignore the history of the state in visiting upon humanity the very death and destruction that its defenders insist upon as a rationale for political power. Those who condemn anarchy should engage in some quantitative analysis. In the twentieth century alone, governments managed to kill – through wars, genocides, and other deadly practices – some 200,000,000 men, women, and children. How many people were killed by anarchists during this period? Governments, not anarchists, have been the deadly "bomb-throwers" of human history!

Because of the disingenuous manner in which this word has been employed, I endeavor to be as precise in my use of the term as possible. I employ the word "anarchy" not as a noun, but as a verb. I envision no utopian community, no "Galt’s Gulch" to which free men and women can repair. I prefer to think of anarchy as a way in which people deal with one another in a peaceful, cooperative manner; respectful of the inviolability of each other’s lives and property interests; resorting to contract and voluntary transactions rather than coercion and expropriation as a way of functioning in society.

I am often asked if anarchy has ever existed in our world, to which I answer: almost all of your daily behavior is an anarchistic expression. How you deal with your neighbors, coworkers, fellow customers in shopping malls or grocery stores, is often determined by subtle processes of negotiation and cooperation. Social pressures, unrelated to statutory enactments, influence our behavior on crowded freeways or grocery checkout lines. If we dealt with our colleagues at work in the same coercive and threatening manner by which the state insists on dealing with us, our employment would be immediately terminated. We would soon be without friends were we to demand that they adhere to specific behavioral standards that we had mandated for their lives.

Should you come over to our home for a visit, you will not be taxed, searched, required to show a passport or driver’s license, fined, jailed, threatened, handcuffed, or prohibited from leaving. I suspect that your relationships with your friends are conducted on the same basis of mutual respect. In short, virtually all of our dealings with friends and strangers alike are grounded in practices that are peaceful, voluntary, and devoid of coercion.

A very interesting study of the orderly nature of anarchy is found in John Phillip Reid’s book, Law for the Elephant. Reid studied numerous diaries and letters written by persons crossing the overland trail in wagon trains going from St. Joseph, Missouri to Oregon and California. The institutions we have been conditioned to equate with "law and order" (e.g., police, prisons, judges, etc.) were absent along the frontier, and Reid was interested in discovering how people behaved toward one another in such circumstances. He discovered that most people respected property and contract rights, and settled whatever differences they had in a peaceful manner, all of this in spite of the fact that there were no "authorities" to call in to enforce a decision. Such traits went so far as to include respect for the property claims of Indians. The values and integrities that individuals brought with them were sufficient to keep the wagon trains as peaceful communities.

Having spent many years driving on California freeways, I have observed an informal order amongst motorists who are complete strangers to one another. There is a general – albeit not universal – courtesy exhibited when one driver wishes to make a lane change and, in spite of noncooperative drivers, a spontaneous order arises from this interplay. A major reason for the cooperative order lies in the fact that a driving mistake can result in serious injury or death, and that such consequences will be felt at once, and by the actor, unlike political decision-making that shifts the costs to others.

One may answer that freeway driving is regulated by the state, and that driving habits are not indicative of anarchistic behavior. The same response can be made concerning our behavior generally (i.e., that government laws dictate our conduct in all settings). But this misconceives the causal connections at work. The supervision of our moment-to-moment activities by the state is too remote to affect our actions. We are polite to fellow shoppers or our neighbor for reasons that have nothing to do with legal prescripts. What makes our dealings with others peaceful and respectful comes from within ourselves, not from beyond. For precisely the same reason, a society can be utterly destroyed by the corruption of such subjective influences, and no blizzard of legislative enactments or quadrupling of police forces will be able to avert the entropic outcome. Do you now understand the social meaning of the "Humpty-Dumpty" nursery rhyme?

The study of complexity, or chaos, informs us of patterns of regularity that lie hidden in our world, but which spontaneously manifest themselves to generate the order that we like to pretend authorities have created for us. There is much to discover about the interplay of unseen forces that work, without conscious direction, to make our lives more productive and peaceful than even the best-intended autocrat can accomplish. As the disruptive histories of state planning and regulation reveal, efforts to impose order by fiat often produce disorder, a phenomenon whose explanation is to be found in the dynamical nature of complexity. In the words of Terry Pratchett: "Chaos is found in greatest abundance wherever order is being sought. Chaos always defeats order because it is better organized."

"Anarchy" is an expression of social behavior that reflects the individualized nature of life. Only as living beings are free to pursue their particular interests in the unique circumstances in which they find themselves, can conditions for the well-being of all be attained. Anarchy presumes decentralized and cooperative systems that serve the mutual interests of the individuals comprising them, without the systems ever becoming their own reasons for being. It is this thinking, and the practices that result therefrom, that is alone responsible for whatever peace and order exists in society.

Political thinking, by contrast, presumes the supremacy of the systems (i.e., the state) and reduces individuals to the status of resources for the accomplishment of their ends. Such systems are grounded in the mass-minded conditioning and behavior that has produced the deadly wars, economic dislocations, genocides, and police-state oppressions that comprise the essence of political history.

Men and women need nothing so much right now as to rediscover and reenergize their own souls. They will never be able to accomplish such purposes in the dehumanizing and dispirited state systems that insist upon controlling their lives and property. In the sentiments underlying anarchistic thinking, men and women may be able to find the individualized sense of being and self-direction that they long ago abandoned in marbled halls and citadels.

[loseyourname]

I don't suppose you have another essay that describes a process by which such a state can be brought into effect, do you?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname I don't suppose you have another essay that describes a process by which such a state can be brought into effect, do you?

Okay. While we are at it, I believe it is imperative to state that no State or government has come about by peaceful means. Contrary to the "Social Contract", all States come about as a result of violence and coercion, and not the other way around. Even the United States was founded upon violence, so that popular thesis is down the tube.

[Arvestaked]

I consider anarchy to only be a transitional period. Humans are pack animals. It cannot be more than that.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Arvestaked I consider anarchy to only be a transitional period. Humans are pack animals. It cannot be more than that.

That has nothing to do with the State. Apparently you are not familiar with the Mises Institute.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Okay. While we are at it, I believe it is imperative to state that no State or government has come about by peaceful means. Contrary to the "Social Contract", all States come about as a result of violence and coercion, and not the other way around. Even the United States was founded upon violence, so that popular thesis is down the tube.

You could always buy an uninhabited island and start your own nation. That would be peaceful.

Anyway, violent or not, I just asked if you had any ideas.

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by Anonymouse That has nothing to do with the State. Apparently you are not familiar with the Mises Institute.


No I am not familiar with the Mises Institute. Enlighten me a bit.

However, my response was tangential and I was addressing anarchy as it is defined and expressing my opinion on that concept.

[loseyourname]

I could see it working in a small enough state. But I could not see that state defending itself against say, a dictatorship with nuclear capability. Anarchism is best left to non-government institutions.

[Anonymouse]

Actually if big governments are in possession of nuclear weapons than one can expect smaller governments and entities moving to possess nuclear weapons to protect themselves. History has already shown that only when one side is in possession of a great weapon it will not deter in using it, but when two sides such as during the Cold War, it will provide deterrance. The more we proceed into the future technological progress will make possible the miniaturization of these weapons, and more smaller organizations will have access to them.

Part of the problem is exactly that, when one side possesses weapons. Imagine if citizens themselves possessed nuclear weapons, and imagine further that they can threaten governments with them, highlighting displeasure with the fact they they pay taxes.

If there is one armed party, imagine the temptation for aggressive behavior.

Now take the argument further. The framers believed that all had the right to bear arms, and the Constitution allowed State militia's so not as to allow the central government to get too big. Part of the reason why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland is the fact that the citizens are required to bear arms.

The cardinality theorom has shown the correlation between those in nuclear possession and the aggressiveness and one can only deduce that the more parties that possess nuclear weapons reduce the possibility of armed conflicts.

I am wondering if indeed you read the article carefully, for the author pointed out something interesting. How many millions have been killed by government, and how many by anarchists?

[loseyourname]

Ideally, there would be no governments in existence, then we wouldn't have to worry about being killed by one. But as it is, if we abolished our own, another one would come in and take over. So unless you have some plan for the simulataneous abolition of every government on the planet, good luck finding some means of protection without any tax base.

[Anonymouse]

So you believe government protects you? That is a fallacy.

By the way, I don't destroy governments. All systems naturally move towards disorder, towards chaos, as the second law informs us.

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by Anonymouse So you believe government protects you? That is a fallacy.

The government protects you from other governments.

l.y.n.: It is my belief that even if we abolish our government and another existing one does not take over, another one will be created over time. It is human nature to group together and work off the protection of eachother for personal survival. That being said, it can be argued that any existing group, regardless of size, that collectively makes decisions for the better of the group is a government, or is at least the gestation of one.

[loseyourname]

So when one nation aims a missile at me, and the only thing preventing it from firing is my government, I'm somehow not being protected? If you're going to claim this is fallacy, you better have some twisted-ass logic to back it up. Come on, mouse man, give me something to tear apart.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Arvestaked The government protects you from other governments.

l.y.n.: It is my belief that even if we abolish our government and another existing one does not take over, another one will be created over time. It is human nature to group together and work off the protection of eachother for personal survival. That being said, it can be argued that any existing group, regardless of size, that collectively makes decisions for the better of the group is a government, or is at least the gestation of one.

Certainly. I agree with Mouse ideologically, but I'm not foolish enough to believe that this ideal is even possible to achieve. I would much rather discuss something more relevant, such as what should we do with the government we have? Let's quit talking in abstraction, and get xxxx done.

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by loseyourname Certainly. I agree with Mouse ideologically, but I'm not foolish enough to believe that this ideal is even possible to achieve. I would much rather discuss something more relevant, such as what should we do with the government we have? Let's quit talking in abstraction, and get xxxx done.

My entire statement is based on the opinion that true anarchy is an ideal or is only possible during a transitional period. But the point of the thread is to discuss what is allegedly an abstraction. By not discussing it you are not allowing yourself the time to improve our government. Discuss. :)

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Arvestaked The government protects you from other governments.

l.y.n.: It is my belief that even if we abolish our government and another existing one does not take over, another one will be created over time. It is human nature to group together and work off the protection of eachother for personal survival. That being said, it can be argued that any existing group, regardless of size, that collectively makes decisions for the better of the group is a government, or is at least the gestation of one.

Ahh, you are referring to the Hobbesian myth that men if left to themselves would be at each others throat, but this ignores the fact that even States are in a state of anarchy at war with each other, and it makes the situation no different.

The argument that the State provides protection from others, whether States or not, is moot, since it is a failure. The idea of taxing its citizens and using acts of coercion to supposedly protect us from others, is a contradiction in itself. After all, Sept.11 showed the failure of government as only government can.

The Declaration of Independence clearly lays out the purpose of the America: to protect life and property. The Statists would argue that we are mor secure and better protected now than ever before. We are protected from extinction of animals, plants, from abuses of husbands and wives, parents, employers, poverty, disease, ignorance, prejudice, racism, sexism, homophobia, and many many other public enemies.

Reality is otherwise. In order to "protect" us the government coercively takes taxes from private producers and people, and government debt and liabilities have increased nonetheless, and no thanks to substituting paper money for gold. The argument against a State is purely from an economic standpoint for politics and economics contradict. So debt increases, money is depreciated, we are constantly regulated by the State in our private life, in our property, trade, with legislation after legislation, thereby living in a constant state of legal uncertainty.

We cannot sell or buy from whom we want, only those parties the State as okayed us to. We are forced to have illegal immigrants legalized by the millions simply because the State says so. If I own a resteraunt or a bar, I have to accomodate unwelcome customers.

In short, the more the State has gone to "protect" the more we have suffered in our private lives. Does that sound familiar? "For the greater good"? In that degree, every political system, whether it is democracy, fascism, or communism, is socialistic, since they all rely on mass mindedness, and the violation of our individual property rights and lives, which are the basis of all societies.

In the name of "national security" it "defends" us armed with the biggest weapons of mass destruction and technology, by bullying every new "Hitlers". The belief in a protective state is an error. The American experiment in protective Statism is a failure for it turned into the exact thing George Washington spoke of in his Farewell Address. I bet 90% of "Americans" haven't even read it. It should be required reading for it precisely describes the conditions right now. There exists no greater danger to ourlives than this very government, which has become a life of its own. So long as institutions are made by humans to serve human interests, I would say fine, but when they spawn into institutions having a life of their own in which people become their subjects, then there is a problem.

The U.S., not Iraq, is the worlds biggest and most armed danger. The U.S. is the only one in history to ever use a nuclear weapon, twice, on a Japan already offering a surrender.

[Arvestaked]

It was a nice essay but I think you have strayed from the topic and confused yourself....

Originally posted by Anonymouse Ahh, you are referring to the Hobbesian myth that men if left to themselves would be at each others throat, but this ignores the fact that even States are in a state of anarchy at war with each other, and it makes the situation no different.

I feel that people would be at eachothers throats, yes, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. People do not need to be at eachothers throats so extremely, to be encouraged by their selves to seek a group. To think that everyone in an anarchic condition will be entirely respective of others' property and rights is as idealistic as communism feeling that everyone will be satisfied in his given place. Do not forget the idea of a bell curve. And your argument about nations versus nations is completely irrelevant. You are ignoring that there are governments currently intact and this is what the focus is. Anarchy is relative to the governments as we know it. If you want to argue that we are in a constant state of anarchy because the world as a whole is not under one government, then you are masturbating and it makes all the concepts completely void of meaning.

The argument that the State provides protection from others, whether States or not, is moot, since it is a failure. The idea of taxing its citizens and using acts of coercion to supposedly protect us from others, is a contradiction in itself. After all, Sept.11 showed the failure of government as only government can.

Here you are saying that if you are not constantly protected to an idealistic degree then your governments entire purpose is altered. That is not true. Having the intent to protect does not guarantee constant success.

The Declaration of Independence clearly lays out the purpose of the America: to protect life and property. The Statists would argue that we are mor secure and better protected now than ever before. We are protected from extinction of animals, plants, from abuses of husbands and wives, parents, employers, poverty, disease, ignorance, prejudice, racism, sexism, homophobia, and many many other public enemies.

People can say what they want but none of those things have anything to do with the purpose of government or the results of a lack thereof. And our discussion is not one discussing statism versus capitalism, but it is about government or the complete lack thereof. Capitalism is not anarchy.

Reality is otherwise. In order to "protect" us the government coercively takes taxes from private producers and people, and government debt and liabilities have increased nonetheless, and no thanks to substituting paper money for gold. The argument against a State is purely from an economic standpoint for politics and economics contradict. So debt increases, money is depreciated, we are constantly regulated by the State in our private life, in our property, trade, with legislation after legislation, thereby living in a constant state of legal uncertainty.

Again none of that has to do with the protection that government provides. Even the libertarians believe that the goverment is there to protect you from other nations and from those who try to infringe on your rights, and I mean the latter in a domestic sense.

We cannot sell or buy from whom we want, only those parties the State as okayed us to. We are forced to have illegal immigrants legalized by the millions simply because the State says so. If I own a resteraunt or a bar, I have to accomodate unwelcome customers.

You are still arguing for capitalism as opposed to statism. Your arguments must be accomodating for the idea that even Capitalism is a government.

In short, the more the State has gone to "protect" the more we have suffered in our private lives. Does that sound familiar? "For the greater good"? In that degree, every political system, whether it is democracy, fascism, or communism, is socialistic, since they all rely on mass mindedness, and the violation of our individual property rights and lives, which are the basis of all societies.

Same stuff.

In the name of "national security" it "defends" us armed with the biggest weapons of mass destruction and technology, by bullying every new "Hitlers". The belief in a protective state is an error. The American experiment in protective Statism is a failure for it turned into the exact thing George Washington spoke of in his Farewell Address. I bet 90% of "Americans" haven't even read it. It should be required reading for it precisely describes the conditions right now. There exists no greater danger to ourlives than this very government, which has become a life of its own. So long as institutions are made by humans to serve human interests, I would say fine, but when they spawn into institutions having a life of their own in which people become their subjects, then there is a problem.

The U.S., not Iraq, is the worlds biggest and most armed danger. The U.S. is the only one in history to ever use a nuclear weapon, twice, on a Japan already offering a surrender.

This is all tangential.


None of that disproves the fact that the goverment tries to protect us. You are only saying that it "protects" us too much in some areas and not enough in others.

And my position about the lack of the possiblity of anarchy still stands and is based in my view of human nature. If the government is abolished and, as I said before, no other government takes over, then our nation no longer exists. At that time, all the individual groups that will form out of necessity will be, by definition, individual nations. It is all gradient and a matter of time.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Arvestaked [B]It was a nice essay but I think you have strayed from the topic and confused yourself....

I know what I am talking about, thus you have missed the point entirely, resorting to assumptions.

Originally posted by Arvestaked [B]I feel that people would be at eachothers throats, yes, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. People do not need to be at eachothers throats so extremely, to be encouraged by their selves to seek a group. To think that everyone in an anarchic condition will be entirely respective of others' property and rights is as idealistic as communism feeling that everyone will be satisfied in his given place. Do not forget the idea of a bell curve. And your argument about nations versus nations is completely irrelevant. You are ignoring that there are governments currently intact and this is what the focus is. Anarchy is relative to the governments as we know it. If you want to argue that we are in a constant state of anarchy because the world as a whole is not under one government, then you are masturbating and it makes all the concepts completely void of meaning.

People will be at each others throat regardless. That also depends on the view of the world you take. What about all the cooperation. There is little use quarreling with the Hobbesian myth, and whether or not man is as bad and wolf like as Hobbes supposes, except to note that man is not just driven by aggressive instincts. If this were the case, mankind would have died out long ago. The fact that mankind did not demonstrates that man also possess reasons and is capable of constraining his impulses. This part of "human nature" is rarely even looked at or argued.

As for everyone respecting everyones property rights, I never said that. That is an idealism. If you had read the essay you would have understood this, but leave it to human mind to warp things and make them fit to his preconceived notions. Society can and has existed without a central ruling entity. The alternative you say? Privatize everything.

Here you are saying that if you are not constantly protected to an idealistic degree then your governments entire purpose is altered. That is not true. Having the intent to protect does not guarantee constant success.

That is not what I am saying at all, but you assume that. I am saying that there was a purpose in which the government erected to protect the citizens, in other words serve the citizens for their life and property. That is not so now. The fact that one must give up all civil liberties for "protection" is why it has failed. Once again, you approach this with the assumption that I am speaking of an idealism. That is a gross error on your part.

People can say what they want but none of those things have anything to do with the purpose of government or the results of a lack thereof. And our discussion is not one discussing statism versus capitalism, but it is about government or the complete lack thereof. Capitalism is not anarchy.

My discussion is precisely what the government is, in relation to life and property. To "protect" it has concocted all the public enemies listed, and in the process has become bigger and bigger, a life unto itself, using coercive tactics to get its ends. Government can steal in the form of taxation, zoning laws, eminent domain, but we would never dare call it theft since our political conditioning won't allow us to. However if I steal your water gun, you would call me a thief. We cannot kill people, yet government is allowed to essentially do the same thing, while it criminalizes those that engage in the exact same behavior it itself engages in. And yes, capitalism as we know it under the free market system is anarchy. You should actually read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises to understand what the free market is really about.


Again none of that has to do with the protection that government provides. Even the libertarians believe that the goverment is there to protect you from other nations and from those who try to infringe on your rights, and I mean the latter in a domestic sense.

The government infringes on your rights for more than do other 'nations', if you haven't noticed this then you really are the type of people Statists depend on to pass such odious things as the Federal Reserve Act, and all the New Deal socialistic legilsation under Roosevelt, and then the odious Patriot Act. In fact what I said has exactly to do with governments alleged protection since it takes taxes for the "national defense" which is in itself a myth. By you stating that that has nothing to do with government protection shows how much you understand the dynamics of the American Leviathan.

You are still arguing for capitalism as opposed to statism. Your arguments must be accomodating for the idea that even Capitalism is a government.

I shouldn't even have to address such trivial remarks but since you bring it up, that all depends on how one defines government. Even your family is a form of government. You obviously have no idea what your discussing here nor what I am arguing for.


Same stuff. This is all tangential.

Which shows to me you have no idea what you're doing in this discussion.

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by Anonymouse I know what I am talking about, thus you have missed the point entirely, resorting to assumptions.

First of all I made no assumptions. I directly addressed exactly what you wrote. And if you do not see that, then you did not attempt to understand what I wrote as a response and probably do not even understand what you are typing.

People will be at each others throat regardless. That also depends on the view of the world you take. What about all the cooperation. There is little use quarreling with the Hobbesian myth, and whether or not man is as bad and wolf like as Hobbes supposes, except to note that man is not just driven by aggressive instincts. If this were the case, mankind would have died out long ago. The fact that mankind did not demonstrates that man also possess reasons and is capable of constraining his impulses. This part of "human nature" is rarely even looked at or argued.

I am not talking about a Hobbesian myth. Between you and I, you are ignoring the meat of the responses the most. I made a reference to the bell curve which is where my arguement lies. Wolf-like behavior is presumptuous, unfounded, and irrelevant and sounds more like social satire. When judging the characteristics of a population, statistically, you will always have a bell curve. Governing is based on moderation and what is moderated are the extremes. And they are moderated by the interests of that portion of the bell curve that is most populous. That ability to constrain impulses is something you can only count on the population in the most populous portion of the bell curve to follow. And all of that is exactly why I feel anarchy is not possible; all the common people will work together to moderate for the best interest of the most number of people.

As for everyone respecting everyones property rights, I never said that. That is an idealism. If you had read the essay you would have understood this, but leave it to human mind to warp things and make them fit to his preconceived notions. Society can and has existed without a central ruling entity. The alternative you say? Privatize everything.

I did read the essay. If you were not an inconsiderate moron you would see that I would not have been able to respond point by point to what you were saying, if I had not.

You were suggesting, and did again, that peoples self moderation will be enough to not infringe on eachother in an anarchic condition. And, therefore, this touches on the idea of infringing on peoples rights, as I mentioned. Of course it is idealistic; I agree with you on that point. However you went and supported the idealism again by mentioning individual restraint. People will always try and protect themselves from those who are trying to infringe on "life and property" as you mentioned earlier. And if you believe, as you suggested, that there is no reason to do so, then you are denying the idea of the bell curve in a population and that denial is absurd.

That is not what I am saying at all, but you assume that. I am saying that there was a purpose in which the government erected to protect the citizens, in other words serve the citizens for their life and property. That is not so now. The fact that one must give up all civil liberties for "protection" is why it has failed. Once again, you approach this with the assumption that I am speaking of an idealism. That is a gross error on your part.

You cannot argue for anarchy and against government by pointing out the flaws in an existing government. We are discussing government in general, not America.

Government:
(1)The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
(2)The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.

Those are the first two dictionary definitions and it does not suggest what the public policy is; only that there is a public policy. You cannot argue against government as an idea but arguing the policies of an individual government. That is improper logic.

My discussion is precisely what the government is, in relation to life and property. To "protect" it has concocted all the public enemies listed, and in the process has become bigger and bigger, a life unto itself, using coercive tactics to get its ends. Government can steal in the form of taxation, zoning laws, eminent domain, but we would never dare call it theft since our political conditioning won't allow us to. However if I steal your water gun, you would call me a thief. We cannot kill people, yet government is allowed to essentially do the same thing, while it criminalizes those that engage in the exact same behavior it itself engages in. And yes, capitalism as we know it under the free market system is anarchy. You should actually read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises to understand what the free market is really about.

Again, you are doing what I mentioned above by arguing against the idea of government in general by addressing the policies of individual government.

capitalism:
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

It is an economic system. It does not suggest that there is no government. It is possible to have a capitalistic society with a government, therefore what you said hold not weight.

And I do not need to have read Mises to understand what economic natural selection is. And I definately do not need to read his work for the context of this discussion because of what I said in the previous paragraph. You are trying to intimidate me with nonsense.

The government infringes on your rights for more than do other 'nations', if you haven't noticed this then you really are the type of people Statists depend on to pass such odious things as the Federal Reserve Act, and all the New Deal socialistic legilsation under Roosevelt, and then the odious Patriot Act. In fact what I said has exactly to do with governments alleged protection since it takes taxes for the "national defense" which is in itself a myth. By you stating that that has nothing to do with government protection shows how much you understand the dynamics of the American Leviathan.

Again, the whole logic thing. The biggest assumption that has been made in this discussion is that I do not see the infringement by the government. Take your head out of your ass and read what I am writing. All of this discussion came from this, my post:
The government protects you from other governments.

l.y.n.: It is my belief that even if we abolish our government and another existing one does not take over, another one will be created over time. It is human nature to group together and work off the protection of eachother for personal survival. That being said, it can be argued that any existing group, regardless of size, that collectively makes decisions for the better of the group is a government, or is at least the gestation of one.

You have taken this on a completely unrelated tangent because you are not able to comprehend my opinion.

I shouldn't even have to address such trivial remarks but since you bring it up, that all depends on how one defines government. Even your family is a form of government. You obviously have no idea what your discussing here nor what I am arguing for.

Empty of anything worth addressing.

Which shows to me you have no idea what you're doing in this discussion.

Oh I know very well. I am making you look like a fool.

[Arvestaked]

Also, I admit to the fault of my referring to Capitalism as a government. But if you alter that concept to "Even capitalism can exist within government," all points remain valid.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Arvestaked First of all I made no assumptions. I directly addressed exactly what you wrote. And if you do not see that, then you did not attempt to understand what I wrote as a response and probably do not even understand what you are typing.

The fact that you assumed something that I did not state is an assumption. You assumed some sort of idealism, where there was none. That in itself is an assumption. You don't have to like it, but that is the way it goes. You did somewhat try to address what I had stated, but in the processes confounded things with your own preconceived notions of what I was saying in the first place.

I am not talking about a Hobbesian myth. Between you and I, you are ignoring the meat of the responses the most. I made a reference to the bell curve which is where my arguement lies. Wolf-like behavior is presumptuous, unfounded, and irrelevant and sounds more like social satire. When judging the characteristics of a population, statistically, you will always have a bell curve. Governing is based on moderation and what is moderated are the extremes. And they are moderated by the interests of that portion of the bell curve that is most populous. That ability to constrain impulses is something you can only count on the population in the most populous portion of the bell curve to follow. And all of that is exactly why I feel anarchy is not possible; all the common people will work together to moderate for the best interest of the most number of people.

The whole "bell curve" argument you are throwing is essentially the majority rule, or mob rule, or democracy, mass mentality. Now if you want to address democracy we can gladly have a seperate thread to address its failures. The ability to be both aggressive and constrain impulses is exactly what human nature is. Too often do people assume human nature is either all bad or all good. Anarchy is possible, whether it is probably or not is another story. But as one can argue we are always in a constant state of anarchy. Government inevitably move towards disorder. The more ordered they get, the more centralized, the bigger, the more they will move towards chaos. You assume that all the common people will work for the best interest of "everyone" that is what Karl Marx assumed, although now you will try to legitimize your definition it nonetheless remains ipso facto tied to collectivized thinking. Humans are pack animals, no one denies that, but it is their nature to seek their self interest and pursuit over others, that is what characterizes them more than their willingness to work for the benefit of all. Political conditioning taught us that we are convinced that the protection of our life and liberty is contingent upon what others do and think and our well being depends upon our securing the support of at least 51% of our neighbors. Because we are social beings who affect one another in various ways, whether or not we respect one another’s inviolability is obviously very important in how we live. But because we have been conditioned to think in political, majoritarian terms, we cling to the view that only some kind of collective response to statist policies will be effective.


I did read the essay. If you were not an inconsiderate moron you would see that I would not have been able to respond point by point to what you were saying, if I had not.

You were suggesting, and did again, that peoples self moderation will be enough to not infringe on eachother in an anarchic condition. And, therefore, this touches on the idea of infringing on peoples rights, as I mentioned. Of course it is idealistic; I agree with you on that point. However you went and supported the idealism again by mentioning individual restraint. People will always try and protect themselves from those who are trying to infringe on "life and property" as you mentioned earlier. And if you believe, as you suggested, that there is no reason to do so, then you are denying the idea of the bell curve in a population and that denial is absurd.


I never suggested peoples self moderation would suffice and usher in an anarchic condition. The argument can be made that we are constantly in a state of anarchic condition. That has no bearing upon peoples' having self moderation or not. I only mentioned that all political systems are socialistic because they inevitably violate the property rights of individuals, which like I said, is the basis of all society. That is all I said, but you make gross assumptions about idealisms and what not, which leave me wondering what you're doing, again, in this discussion, turning around and telling me that I'm the one that is lost. As for the bell curve, it is not holy law, for that is the kind of thing democracy is based on, and democracy, is a failure if measured by the amount of human blood it has spilled and how much property it violates in its redistributive efforts. Essentally all governments start with that thesis, they are there to protect the life and property of its people. That is how the America started. However, now it is nothing more than a redistributive welfare state that only violates property rights of its individuals. If you can't see this on its face value, then you are trying too hard believe.



You cannot argue for anarchy and against government by pointing out the flaws in an existing government. We are discussing government in general, not America.

You cannot argue for anarchy and against government by pointing out the flaws in an existing government. We are discussing government in general, not America.

Government:
(1)The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
(2)The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.

Those are the first two dictionary definitions and it does not suggest what the public policy is; only that there is a public policy. You cannot argue against government as an idea but arguing the policies of an individual government. That is improper logic.

The topic was anarchy, and government is secondary to the discussion, only a point led to, not begun with, by the discussion, therefore it is imperative and essential that one point out flaws in government, mind you, contradictions, and things that the government claimed it would do upon its creation, which it has failed to do and in fact has done the opposite.

As for you running to the dictionary to define "government", like I said, even family is a form of government, you don't see me advocating the abolition of family do you? However, the discussion is about anarchy, in relation to an omnipotent central ruling government. The fact that public policy is assumed and not defined, in the fact itself suggests that they assume societies individuals all think alike that there must be an inherent public policy, which the government does not cook up, but rather simply takes the reigns of and is handed these "policies", in other words public policy exists prior to govenment itself existing. That is silly at best. Policies and laws only filter out from a government, not the other way around. Talk about improper logic.


Again, you are doing what I mentioned above by arguing against the idea of government in general by addressing the policies of individual government.
capitalism:
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

It is an economic system. It does not suggest that there is no government. It is possible to have a capitalistic society with a government, therefore what you said hold not weight.

And I do not need to have read Mises to understand what economic natural selection is. And I definately do not need to read his work for the context of this discussion because of what I said in the previous paragraph. You are trying to intimidate me with nonsense.


All governments tax do they not? All governments have a central bank do they not? All governments are a monopoly of violence in a given territory are they not? Once again, of course capitalism is a government, if looked at from the businesses it has which are organized hierarchically, well so is a family. Actually capitalism is an economic system, not a political one. You posted the laymens graph which brilliantly argued for this point, that the free market has the least amount of government, meaning it is more chaotic than anything else. Business and the free market are voluntary exchanges. The free market is not coercive and no one forces you to work for anyone. Government is coercive. Those are two different things. How can you even compare the two? Apparently you really do need to read Mises. In the free market, there is no regulator to tell you what you can or can't buy, and no one to issue fiat money. It is precisely because of the central bank and fiat money that we have inflation and the "business cycle". You think your paper money is worth anything? Oh wait, a tangential point, I forgot.



Again, the whole logic thing. The biggest assumption that has been made in this discussion is that I do not see the infringement by the government. Take your head out of your ass and read what I am writing. All of this discussion came from this, my post:

Apparently you do not, for if you did, you would be able to see the difference between an economic system, and a political system. That you do not, shows you have your head up your ass, not I. How is the view of your intestines by the way?

[surferarmo]

You miss me dont you, anon?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by surferarmo You miss me dont you, anon?

Yes, I admit. I do!

HAHAHA!

Where did you rear from?

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by Anonymouse The fact that you assumed something that I did not state is an assumption. You assumed some sort of idealism, where there was none. That in itself is an assumption. You don't have to like it, but that is the way it goes. You did somewhat try to address what I had stated, but in the processes confounded things with your own preconceived notions of what I was saying in the first place.

This little paragraph of yours proves you are not reading my posts. I addressed what you said about people having the ability of self-restraint and continued to say that I believe the idea of there being enough self-restraint to make a lack of government work was idealistic. I supported my point by bringing up the bell-curve idea. This means that I was not making assumptions about your being idealistic; I went through a logical thought process to come up with that opinon, so whether you agree with my justification or not, you can know that I was not assuming. If you do not understand this already, you are an imbecile. I do not want to discuss something with you if you are going to ignore what I write. Furthermore, when somebody truly believes in their ideas, they feel they are being realistic; nobody is idealistic with conviction. That is a label given by an opposing party which means I was not accusing you of feeling that you were idealistic; I was accusing you of being idealistic. Therefore it is not possible for me to assume that you are being idealistic. You should go yell at your parents for having xxxxty genes and cursing you with a meager IQ.

The whole "bell curve" argument you are throwing is essentially the majority rule, or mob rule, or democracy, mass mentality. Now if you want to address democracy we can gladly have a seperate thread to address its failures. The ability to be both aggressive and constrain impulses is exactly what human nature is. Too often do people assume human nature is either all bad or all good. Anarchy is possible, whether it is probably or not is another story. But as one can argue we are always in a constant state of anarchy. Government inevitably move towards disorder. The more ordered they get, the more centralized, the bigger, the more they will move towards chaos. You assume that all the common people will work for the best interest of "everyone" that is what Karl Marx assumed, although now you will try to legitimize your definition it nonetheless remains ipso facto tied to collectivized thinking. Humans are pack animals, no one denies that, but it is their nature to seek their self interest and pursuit over others, that is what characterizes them more than their willingness to work for the benefit of all. Political conditioning taught us that we are convinced that the protection of our life and liberty is contingent upon what others do and think and our well being depends upon our securing the support of at least 51% of our neighbors. Because we are social beings who affect one another in various ways, whether or not we respect one another’s inviolability is obviously very important in how we live. But because we have been conditioned to think in political, majoritarian terms, we cling to the view that only some kind of collective response to statist policies will be effective.

I am not addressing this because it is a mess of presumptions and misunderstandings. If you understood what I have written, I would not have had to read that ridiculous paragraph. You are making non-existent connections between ideas. Anybody with half a mind would see how what I have said before has nothing to do with what you said here. I am not going to address because you will ignore my points.


I never suggested peoples self moderation would suffice and usher in an anarchic condition. The argument can be made that we are constantly in a state of anarchic condition. That has no bearing upon peoples' having self moderation or not. I only mentioned that all political systems are socialistic because they inevitably violate the property rights of individuals, which like I said, is the basis of all society. That is all I said, but you make gross assumptions about idealisms and what not, which leave me wondering what you're doing, again, in this discussion, turning around and telling me that I'm the one that is lost. As for the bell curve, it is not holy law, for that is the kind of thing democracy is based on, and democracy, is a failure if measured by the amount of human blood it has spilled and how much property it violates in its redistributive efforts. Essentally all governments start with that thesis, they are there to protect the life and property of its people. That is how the America started. However, now it is nothing more than a redistributive welfare state that only violates property rights of its individuals. If you can't see this on its face value, then you are trying too hard believe.

Again, this is feces from top to bottom. You are making a non-existent connection between democracy and probability/statistics and are then telling me that probability and statistics are not to be relied on. And I know you will say that is an assumption because you have no other defenses. But before you do, read what you wrote.

And no, if you go by the definitions of the subjects we are discussing, we are not in a constant state of anarchy. I hope you are not confusing anarchy with entropy because that would be xxxxing stupid.

The topic was anarchy, and government is secondary to the discussion, only a point led to, not begun with, by the discussion, therefore it is imperative and essential that one point out flaws in government, mind you, contradictions, and things that the government claimed it would do upon its creation, which it has failed to do and in fact has done the opposite.

Nope. This discussion started by you responding to my tangential thought on anarchy. There for we are talking about whether anarchy can exist or not. Not whether you like government or not. This is all a matter of possibility. You have confused the crap out of yourself.

As for you running to the dictionary to define "government", like I said, even family is a form of government, you don't see me advocating the abolition of family do you? However, the discussion is about anarchy, in relation to an omnipotent central ruling government. The fact that public policy is assumed and not defined, in the fact itself suggests that they assume societies individuals all think alike that there must be an inherent public policy, which the government does not cook up, but rather simply takes the reigns of and is handed these "policies", in other words public policy exists prior to govenment itself existing. That is silly at best. Policies and laws only filter out from a government, not the other way around. Talk about improper logic.

Unnecessary to address.

All governments tax do they not? All governments have a central bank do they not? All governments are a monopoly of violence in a given territory are they not? Once again, of course capitalism is a government, if looked at from the businesses it has which are organized hierarchically, well so is a family. Actually capitalism is an economic system, not a political one. You posted the laymens graph which brilliantly argued for this point, that the free market has the least amount of government, meaning it is more chaotic than anything else. Business and the free market are voluntary exchanges. The free market is not coercive and no one forces you to work for anyone. Government is coercive. Those are two different things. How can you even compare the two? Apparently you really do need to read Mises. In the free market, there is no regulator to tell you what you can or can't buy, and no one to issue fiat money. It is precisely because of the central bank and fiat money that we have inflation and the "business cycle". You think your paper money is worth anything? Oh wait, a tangential point, I forgot.

This is where my half-a-brain theory comes into play. Anybody with half a brain who has read what I said, will understand that this is not worth addressing. Especially since you will ignore me again anyway.


Apparently you do not, for if you did, you would be able to see the difference between an economic system, and a political system. That you do not, shows you have your head up your ass, not I. How is the view of your intestines by the way?

This is where you point out a mistake I made in haste which I already pointed out. I am shivering in my steel-toes from your intellectual prowess. Stop sniffing your anus.

I will not reply to this thread anymore because nobody seems to be able to comprehend the ideas I am employing.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Arvestaked I will not reply to this thread anymore because nobody seems to be able to comprehend the ideas I am employing.

Suit yourself for lacking the capacity to get into a discussion and blaming others for not "responding to you" when someone points out flaws in your thinking, for what is initially your ineptitude in a discussion.

This little paragraph of yours proves you are not reading my posts. I addressed what you said about people having the ability of self-restraint and continued to say that I believe the idea of there being enough self-restraint to make a lack of government work was idealistic. I supported my point by bringing up the bell-curve idea. This means that I was not making assumptions about your being idealistic; I went through a logical thought process to come up with that opinon, so whether you agree with my justification or not, you can know that I was not assuming. If you do not understand this already, you are an imbecile. I do not want to discuss something with you if you are going to ignore what I write. Furthermore, when somebody truly believes in their ideas, they feel they are being realistic; nobody is idealistic with conviction. That is a label given by an opposing party which means I was not accusing you of feeling that you were idealistic; I was accusing you of being idealistic. Therefore it is not possible for me to assume that you are being idealistic. You should go yell at your parents for having xxxxty genes and cursing you with a meager IQ.

Once again, people having the ability for self-restraint would ensure a lack of government, is your assumption, for I never said that. In fact I can sit here and whine at you all day and accuse you of "not responding to the meat of my response", but I am merely saying you are assuming things, and you don't like that. Once again, for the slow ones, all I said was that political systems are based on violating the property rights of individuals, and property rights are the basis of society. We all own property, do we not? No one ever said there is going to be a utopian world here, thus that is your assumption regarding what I have said. It is from this assumption that you then attempt to present your argument a priori and come off as some how being logical in your progression.

I am not addressing this because it is a mess of presumptions and misunderstandings. If you understood what I have written, I would not have had to read that ridiculous paragraph. You are making non-existent connections between ideas. Anybody with half a mind would see how what I have said before has nothing to do with what you said here. I am not going to address because you will ignore my points.

When I point out a flaw in your reasoning and once again highlight your assumptions, I am making "non-existent connections between ideas". Was it not you that presented the bell curve model, which is another cozy term for majority, in other words what the majority of society dictates? The bell curve model, like all statistics, is misleading, for it assumes all individuals will think alike and that all will sacrifice themselves for the greater good. That is silly, for like I said, that is what Marx assumed. Your assumption is thus what comes back to bite you, for I am left wondering why you make such assumptions and then turn around and tell me that I have "misunderstandings".

Again, this is feces from top to bottom. You are making a non-existent connection between democracy and probability/statistics and are then telling me that probability and statistics are not to be relied on. And I know you will say that is an assumption because you have no other defenses. But before you do, read what you wrote.

Your probabilty and statistics are based on what democracy is based on, the majority. Majoritarianism. It assumes that everyone will think alike, and that people will place the greater good of the "public" the "people" ( a holistic entity ), ahead of their own. That is a gross assumption, however you wish to argue this. One churn out all sorts of statistics and probabilities to support whatever claim one wants to support, all you have to do is start from whatever claim you seek to support, your rallyiong point, your argument hangs by a thread.

And no, if you go by the definitions of the subjects we are discussing, we are not in a constant state of anarchy. I hope you are not confusing anarchy with entropy because that would be xxxxing stupid.

To quote the author:

Having spent many years driving on California freeways, I have observed an informal order amongst motorists who are complete strangers to one another. There is a general – albeit not universal – courtesy exhibited when one driver wishes to make a lane change and, in spite of noncooperative drivers, a spontaneous order arises from this interplay. A major reason for the cooperative order lies in the fact that a driving mistake can result in serious injury or death, and that such consequences will be felt at once, and by the actor, unlike political decision-making that shifts the costs to others.

One may answer that freeway driving is regulated by the state, and that driving habits are not indicative of anarchistic behavior. The same response can be made concerning our behavior generally (i.e., that government laws dictate our conduct in all settings). But this misconceives the causal connections at work. The supervision of our moment-to-moment activities by the state is too remote to affect our actions. We are polite to fellow shoppers or our neighbor for reasons that have nothing to do with legal prescripts. What makes our dealings with others peaceful and respectful comes from within ourselves, not from beyond. For precisely the same reason, a society can be utterly destroyed by the corruption of such subjective influences, and no blizzard of legislative enactments or quadrupling of police forces will be able to avert the entropic outcome. Do you now understand the social meaning of the "Humpty-Dumpty" nursery rhyme?

This is where my half-a-brain theory comes into play. Anybody with half a brain who has read what I said, will understand that this is not worth addressing. Especially since you will ignore me again anyway.

This is where you point out a mistake I made in haste which I already pointed out. I am shivering in my steel-toes from your intellectual prowess. Stop sniffing your anus.

I will not reply to this thread anymore because nobody seems to be able to comprehend the ideas I am employing.

xxxx for brains, stop whining about people not comprehending you. There are no "people" here, just me. And if you feel I don't understand you, why bother letting the discussion go this far? Initially it is you that makes gross assumptions yet I am the one that doesn't understand your warped mind. I can see that you are flirting with intelligence but getting the cold shoulder in return.

[loseyourname]

I'd like to point out here that you still have yet to suggest a way in which every governing body currently in existence on this planet might be done away with without being replaced by others.

[surferarmo]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Yes, I admit. I do!

HAHAHA!

Where did you rear from?

Where else does one rear from? The back of course!

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname I'd like to point out here that you still have yet to suggest a way in which every governing body currently in existence on this planet might be done away with without being replaced by others.

That's where Hans-Hermann Hoppe comes in. Essentially, instead of the centralized government of "the people", or "the public" ( a holistic entity, for there is no "people", and that is the error of democracy) there is comparitive government, or ordered anarchy.

I really do recommend you all look into "Democracy: The God That Failed". Really an excellent book for Hoppe does a far better job at explaining this, than anyone else can.

[sleuth]

anarchy=xxxs

[PASAMONSTER]

sleuth i'm liking you more and more

[sleuth]

smae here.. hehehhe

[sleuth]

** blushes** same here

[PASAMONSTER]

*blushes*?

sleuth you a female?

[sleuth]

lol aha :: P::

[PASAMONSTER]

ok let me rephrase my last post then

I love you LOLLLL

Ok don't let anyone else see the post

I'm not suppose to love you know i'm the moster and all and the forums most hated and avoided person LOL

[sleuth]

yummmmmmmmm monster lol

[PASAMONSTER]

ok this is freakky

you're suppose to be afraid terrified
not yummmmmm monster.

look at my pic that should scare you in your tracks hehehheh

try to look slowly so the shock doesnt settle at once

[sleuth]

lol its really freaky... it's more dialog than a debate...well lets stay in breath of forum lol

[PASAMONSTER]

thank you, but i debated earlier

you can call me master debater.

[sleuth]

master monster xoxo

[PASAMONSTER]

ehhh atleast one person appreciates me LOL

thank you i'm touched!

anarchy is anarchy

ehhhhh let the smart, have nothing to do, but write book lenght post people yap about this one.

[sleuth]

unwanted touch is harassment lol

[PASAMONSTER]

Am I complaining no. touch all you want LOLLL


mousy is gonna be complaining tommorow about his anarchy thread


ehhh thats what anarchy is all about right

messing up other peoples xxxx so there you go

[sleuth]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL hahah

[PASAMONSTER]

viva revolution

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by sleuth anarchy=xxxs

I don't follow.

[Anonymouse]

Slug and Monster, you two turds have been messing threads up driving them off-topic into the realm of God knows what.

Stop being dunces.

[PASAMONSTER]

just trying to get my post count as high as yours so i can be deserving of a cool avatar like that.

hey this is anarchy isnt it

[loseyourname]

Where the xxxx is Emil? Bring these idiots into line.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by PASAMONSTER just trying to get my post count as high as yours so i can be deserving of a cool avatar like that.

hey this is anarchy isnt it

Every action is anarchic, not just this. To be able to express intelligent thought, well, that is outside of the realm of anarchy. You better pray for a miracle then.

[PASAMONSTER]

hey wtf I've been calm and xxxx supressing myself and counting to ten and all this bullxxxx and theese little xxxxxes starting to grow balls wtf.

i'm still gonna calm downnn and vasuuuuuuuuu



Dont ever open your xxxxin mouth without thinking of the consequences.

in this case the damage to your pretty face. don't even attemp to grow balls you understand!!!

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by PASAMONSTER hey wtf I've been calm and xxxx supressing myself and counting to ten and all this bullxxxx and theese little xxxxxes starting to grow balls wtf.

i'm still gonna calm downnn and vasuuuuuuuuu



Dont ever open your xxxxin mouth without thinking of the consequences.

in this case the damage to your pretty face. don't even attemp to grow balls you understand!!!

Oh no, the gun nut is threatening me. If you're taking the internet THAT seriously, maybe you should shoot yourself in the balls.

[PASAMONSTER]

'm not threatening you jack ass

infact you are one of the few people here whos mind i actually admire, because it isnt all the big words you know, its whats behind the words and your ideas are quiet interesting.

this is for the one who called me an idiot, the one who believes he is inteligent and knows a whole lot about the world, when infact he is blind and can't even understand half the xxxx he is saying on here.

[loseyourname]

You better have something to back that up with, my friend.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by PASAMONSTER 'm not threatening you jack ass

infact you are one of the few people here whos mind i actually admire, because it isnt all the big words you know, its whats behind the words and your ideas are quiet interesting.

this is for the one who called me an idiot, the one who believes he is inteligent and knows a whole lot about the world, when infact he is blind and can't even understand half the xxxx he is saying on here.

I told you before in my Stupid People thread, I am stupid. I only know some stuff, but mostly I like to present questions and rile xxxx up so I can get some folks to think. There are quite a few here who are superior to me I would add.

[PASAMONSTER]

you just pretend so... don't worry you're secret is safe with me.

there are few that can match you're mind and besides it takes a more smarter person to ask the question

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by PASAMONSTER you just pretend so... don't worry you're secret is safe with me.

there are few that can match you're mind and besides it takes a more smarter person to ask the question

It has nothing to do with smartness. It's curiosity that killed the cat, hence why I'd choose death and answers, over life any day, per the thread of CkBejug.

[sleuth]

why I'd choose death and answers, over life any day,

because death the only certainity :) death is an answer...

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by sleuth because death the only certainity :) death is an answer...

Hopefully, they have oreo milkshakes in hell.

[sleuth]

lol you drive too fast

[sleuth]

shut your sense of humor right to hell ,,would you?lol

[Anonymouse]

A good article again on "Anarchy" and the utilitarian arguments against it for "impracticality".

What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist
by N. Stephan Kinsella

Butler Shaffer’s recent LRC article, What is Anarchy?, prompted discussion on the Reason blog and inspired me to set down a few ideas I’ve also had along these lines.

Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy won’t work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It’s quite simple, really. It’s an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians.

Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression.

Proposition (b) is plainly false. States always tax their citizens, which is a form of aggression. They always outlaw competing defense agencies, which also amounts to aggression. (Not to mention the countless victimless crime laws that they inevitably, and without a single exception in history, enforce on the populace. Why minarchists think minarchy is even possible boggles the mind.)

As for (a), well, socialists and criminals also feel aggression is justified. This does not make it so. Criminals, socialists, and anti-anarchists have yet to show how aggression – the initiation of force against innocent victims – is justified. No surprise; it is not possible to show this. But criminals don’t feel compelled to justify aggression; why should advocates of the state feel compelled to do so?

Conservative and minarchist-libertarian criticism of anarchy on the grounds that it won’t "work" or is not "practical" is just confused. Anarchists don’t (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved – I for one don’t think it will. But that does not mean states are justified.

Consider an analogy. Conservatives and libertarians all agree that private crime (murder, robbery, rape) is unjustified, and "should" not occur. Yet no matter how good most men become, there will always be at least some small element who will resort to crime. Crime will always be with us. Yet we still condemn crime and work to reduce it.

Is it logically possible that there could be no crime? Sure. Everyone could voluntarily choose to respect others’ rights. Then there would be no crime. It’s easy to imagine. But given our experience with human nature and interaction, it is safe to say that there will always be crime. Nevertheless, we still proclaim crime to be evil and unjustified, in the face of the inevitability of its recurrence. So to my claim that crime is immoral, it would just be stupid and/or insincere to reply, "but that’s an impractical view" or "but that won’t work," "since there will always be crime." The fact that there will always be crime – that not everyone will voluntarily respect others’ rights – does not mean that it’s "impractical" to oppose it; nor does it mean that crime is justified. It does not mean there is some "flaw" in the proposition that crime is wrong.

Likewise, to my claim that the state and its aggression is unjustified, it is disingenuous and/or confused to reply, "anarchy won’t work" or is "impractical" or "unlikely to ever occur."1 The view that the state is unjustified is a normative or ethical position. The fact that not enough people are willing to respect their neighbors’ rights to allow anarchy to emerge, i.e., the fact that enough people (erroneously) support the legitimacy of the state to permit it to exist, does not mean that the state, and its aggression, are justified.2

Other utilitarian replies like "but we need a state" do not contradict the claim that states employ aggression and that aggression is unjustified. It simply means that the state-advocate does not mind the initiation of force against innocent victims – i.e., he shares the criminal/socialist mentality. The private criminal thinks his own need is all that matters; he is willing to commit violence to satisfy his needs; to hell with what is right and wrong. The advocate of the state thinks that his opinion that "we" "need" things justifies committing or condoning violence against innocent individuals. It is as plain as that. Whatever this argument is, it is not libertarian. It is not opposed to aggression. It is in favor of something else – making sure certain public "needs" are met, despite the cost – but not peace and cooperation. The criminal, gangster, socialist, welfare-statist, and even minarchist all share this: they are willing to condone naked aggression, for some reason. The details vary, but the result is the same – innocent lives are xxxxxled by physical assault. Some have the stomach for this; others are more civilized – libertarian, one might say – and prefer peace over violent struggle.

As there are criminals and socialists among us, it is no surprise that there is a degree of criminal-mindedness in most people. After all, the state rests upon the tacit consent of the masses, who have erroneously accepted the notion that states are legitimate. But none of that means the criminal enterprises condoned by the masses are justified.

It’s time for libertarians to take a stand. Are you for aggression, or against it?

Notes

1. Another point: in my view, we are about as likely to achieve minarchy as we are to achieve anarchy. I.e., both are remote possibilities. What is striking is that almost every criticism of "impracticality" that minarchist hurl at anarchy is also true of minarchy itself. Both are exceedingly unlikely. Both require massive changes in views among millions of people. Both rest on presumptions that most people simply don't care much about.

2. Though the case for anarchy does not depend on its likelihood or "feasibility," any more than the case against private crime depends on there never being any acts of crime, anarchy is clearly possible. There is anarchy among nations, for example. There is also anarchy within government, as pointed out in the seminal and neglected JLS article by Alfred G. Cuzán, "Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy?" Cuzán argues that even the government itself is in anarchy, internally – the President does not literally force others in government to obey his comments, after all; they obey them voluntarily, due to a recognized, hierarchical structure. Government's (political) anarchy is not a good anarchy, but it demonstrates anarchy is possible – indeed, that we never really get out of it. And Shaffer makes the insightful point that we are in "anarchy" with our neighbors. If most people did not already have the character to voluntarily respect most of their neighbors’ rights, society and civilization would be impossible. Most people are good enough to permit civilization to occur, despite the existence of some degree of public and private crime. It is conceivable that the degree of goodness could rise – due to education or more universal economic prosperity, say – sufficient to make support for the legitimacy of states evaporate. It’s just very unlikely.

[patlajan]

Your skills of copy and paste are as developed as ever. From now on just inlcude the link in your post and save the webspace for original posts.
http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/003234.html

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by patlajan Your skills of copy and paste are as developed as ever. From now on just inlcude the link in your post and save the webspace for original posts.
http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/003234.html

The link doesn't contain the full article from the Blog. Thus I felt the urge to copy and paste it in its entirety. My thread Mr. Eggplant.

[Anonymouse]

Then they will likely appoint themselves. The offices will need to be filled somehow, and believe me, they will be. The people will be ruled whether they like it or not. The only way your idea could even possibly work is if every person in the world simultaneously agreed to not recognize any leaders nor have any desire to be a leader themselves. I'll give you two guess as to whether or not that's ever going to happen. If that isn't idealism, I don't know what is.

That's a bit like saying legitimizing the existence of God negates any sense of individuality, as all of His children are necessarily subordinate to him and ruled over with the threat of eternal damnation. What is more tyrannical than that?


First of all, we must make a distinction between God and State. God is not physical. The State is a physical entity comprised of people, so this analogy is already flawed from the onset. I may believe in God, but I also believe that God is outside time and space and good and evil, and the belief that he has ordained us with free will and it is precisely because each of us are different that the your analogy does not hold, and every persons relationship to God ( those who believe in God ) is different from one another, based on different experiences and convictions that each individual has for themselves experienced.

The State on the other hand, is a real entity on the physical world comprised of men and its basic existence is in conflict with the individual. To the extent that a State exists, it relies on collective thinking and mass mindedness, the greater the individualism in society, the more danger to the State since this promotes free thinking and even critical of the State. To quote Murray Rothbard:

If men were like ants, there would be no interest in human freedom. If individual men, like ants, were uniform, interchangeable, devoid of specific personality traits of their own, then who would care whether they were free or not? Who, indeed, would care if they lived or died?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse First of all, we must make a distinction between God and State. God is not physical. The State is a physical entity comprised of people, so this analogy is already flawed from the onset. I may believe in God, but I also believe that God is outside time and space and good and evil, and the belief that he has ordained us with free will and it is precisely because each of us are different that the your analogy does not hold, and every persons relationship to God ( those who believe in God ) is different from one another, based on different experiences and convictions that each individual has for themselves experienced.

Now that you made your distinction, allow me to make my comparison. The state gives you rules, tells you how to live your life, and threatens you with punishment if you don't comply, up to and including death. If you suscrive to Christianity, as you have said you did, then you believe that God has given us commandments to live by, and guidelines as to what we should do with our lives, and threatens us with eternal damnation if we do not.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Now that you made your distinction, allow me to make my comparison. The state gives you rules, tells you how to live your life, and threatens you with punishment if you don't comply, up to and including death. If you suscrive to Christianity, as you have said you did, then you believe that God has given us commandments to live by, and guidelines as to what we should do with our lives, and threatens us with eternal damnation if we do not.

Let me make a further distinction. The State may make laws. but these are human laws, and the State is comprised of men. Thus, to those that are superstitious in your eyes, and believe in God, see an order higher than man, see natures rigid laws, inviolable, whereas most secularists and Statists, see man as God. Indeed that is perhaps the whole philosophy from the Ancient Mystery Schools of Egypt, to xxxish Mysticism, down to the Knights Templar, all the way up to the Freemasons, and other societies like the Skull and Bones, which have produced the present neo con leader.

The analogy between State and a belief in God, are mutually exclusive for the two are not even in the same field. And at some point, there are rules, not necessarily man made, but even a walk in nature's field will show you that things move by rules. God is not a State, nor can God committ acts of genocide or murder or theft, the State, being comprised wholly of men, can. Thus whereas God is God, the State is an entity comprised of men, making its own laws, claiming it is setting up rules for you to follow, you cannot kill, you cannot steal, etc., and like we've pointed out already, the State itself engages in the same behavior, yet criminalizes individuals for doing the same thing. If the State is there to check over us, who is there to check over the State? God does not xxxxxle over the individuals development, the State does.

That the West is now the apogee of prosperity is due precisely to the individualism and the capitalist revolution which ushered in the division of labor and specialization, when there was little to no regulation harping on the free enterprise, and we are riding out the last breaths of it, as society becomes more and more centralized and regulated. But eventually all man made States dissolve, per the second law of thermodynamics, since they all move towards disorder and chaos, the more ordered they get. Of course science calls it thermodynamics, but one can also see this as a product of God. However you see it, no matter what man made system comes and goes, certain laws remain unchanged and above man.

I suggest you read that last article I posted about anarchy, to have a better understanding of what it is about. Scroll up.

[loseyourname]

I know what anarchy is about, and I have no issue with it. I agree with you that it's the ideal way for a world to run. I just don't think it's viable. I suppose we will never know, as there is no way it will ever happen.

Getting back to the distinction between state law and God's laws. I suppose if you believe God is really all that great and has every right to impose his will upon us, then you shouldn't have any problem with his doing so. But that is not the God of the bible. He calls Himself petty and jealous and vindictive, hardly admirable traits. Furthermore, modern Christians, including yourself, seem to place free will as the most important and virtuous of all of the characteristics that God has imbued us with. In fact, it is such a wonderful good that it justifies the existence of innumerable evils and massive suffering. That being said, "do as you please but suffer eternal damnation if you don't do as I please" hardly seems my idea of free will. That's a bit like putting a gun to your neighbor's head, asking for his wallet, then telling the jury later that he gave it to you of his own free volition and you are not responsible.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Furthermore, modern Christians, including yourself, seem to place free will as the most important and virtuous of all of the characteristics that God has imbued us with. In fact, it is such a wonderful good that it justifies the existence of innumerable evils and massive suffering. That being said, "do as you please but suffer eternal damnation if you don't do as I please" hardly seems my idea of free will. That's a bit like putting a gun to your neighbor's head, asking for his wallet, then telling the jury later that he gave it to you of his own free volition and you are not responsible.

Well, I know what you're saying, but I don't want to stray too much off topic, for we are somehow getting back into God and free will when we were really talking about the State. I know that if we really wanted to drag this, we can eventually make a connection, but I want to avoid that, and instead keep them separate. I would like to add that yes, having free will, in order to be free for man to do good, he must also be free to do evil. It is because of our desires, our needs as individuals and our unique personalities that we have certain aspirations, spiritual, that I believe there is a soul, with a free will, and the latter is evidence of the former. Of course, this all depends on what view you take. Marx believed that you are a product of the society, in other words, being determines consciousness. Or do you believe that consciousness determines being?

To quote Albert Pike, "What is it in us that thinks? Is thought the merit result of material organization; or is there in us a soul that thinks, separate from the resident in the body?"

Lastly, it is important to note that the Bible has lost some of its original writings and it was comprised of many and it was just a part of the whole Torah, as well as having been gone through many translations, and tampering, one can only guess at how much changes whether conscious or otherwise have happened by the time it has come to us through the ant hills of time.

[Anonymouse]

Going back to what I stated earlier about the capitalist revolution and how it went hand in hand with specialization and individualism, it was precisely because now people didn't have to worry about producing for subsistence that they were able to concentrate their greater energies and surpluses into specializing in one area, heightening and developing their individual skills which reflecting themselves. This is why the West surpased most of the world at a tremendous pace.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Well, I know what you're saying, but I don't want to stray too much off topic, for we are somehow getting back into God and free will when we were really talking about the State. I know that if we really wanted to drag this, we can eventually make a connection, but I want to avoid that, and instead keep them separate. I would like to add that yes, having free will, in order to be free for man to do good, he must also be free to do evil. It is because of our desires, our needs as individuals and our unique personalities that we have certain aspirations, spiritual, that I believe there is a soul, with a free will, and the latter is evidence of the former.

What determines the character of this soul? Surely it must be something whose existence precedes that of the soul, undermining free will at a very crucial point. So that you don't mistake me again as arguing against free will, I don't have a disbelief in the idea. I'm just making a point that I hope can contribute to both of us understanding this idea better. That means I'm listening to and taking note of your points as well, believe it or not.

[Anonymouse]

What determines the character of the soul can be answered several ways. One can make the argument that since the soul is immaterial, it is something ethereal , that which gives us our unique personality, that no two people in nature are alike. And if throughout time as far back as we can trace the human we know as homosapien, that is able to think, and we recognize he is in possession of a soul, then we can say that the soul has alawys been, and has always determined being. The reverse would be the position that Marx took, that being determines consciousness. So when Marx stated in the Communist Manifesto that all our thoughts and ideas are a product of our class, then if you believe in free will, this conflicts with free will. If you believe that indeed our thoughts and ideas are a product of what our surroundings are, then this makes perfect sense.

I see this from another point, since Marx relied heavily on this, as do most Statists. If our thoughts and ideas are the product of our class, and we have no free will, meaning we can't think for ourselves, this then gives those people a chance to do the things they do, and justify it. Of course when certain ideas cost millions of lives, you wonder just how people can't see that ideas have consequences, and at any point people had the ability the will to turn away from it.

[loseyourname]

As I said before, Marx was an idiot. The worst kind, too, in that he was extremely intelligent and articulate.

Getting back to the eternality of the soul: As I said before, all things whose existence is determined must be determined by some other thing whose existence preceded their own. I was under the impression that the Christian belief is that God's existence preceded that of all other things, including our souls. If all he created were the bodies, and as you claim, we are primarily spiritual beings, then he isn't even our creator. What right does he now have to tell us how to live our lives? What right does he have to sentence us to anything at all, much less eternal damnation.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname As I said before, Marx was an idiot. The worst kind, too, in that he was extremely intelligent and articulate.

Getting back to the eternality of the soul: As I said before, all things whose existence is determined must be determined by some other thing whose existence preceded their own. I was under the impression that the Christian belief is that God's existence preceded that of all other things, including our souls. If all he created were the bodies, and as you claim, we are primarily spiritual beings, then he isn't even our creator. What right does he now have to tell us how to live our lives? What right does he have to sentence us to anything at all, much less eternal damnation.

First of all, I never said that God didn't create the soul. I said God is responsible for everything. God preceded all. As for Marx, well, an idiot or not, look what his ideas led to, since ideas have consequences. His ideas are still around today, largley influencing the social sciencies and humanities, and even the greens, or the Left, socialists, even our resident Shahumyan, who is a Marxist from Manchester.

I suggest you resurrect your God thread since this is clearly gone far off our topic in relation to the State and Anarchy.

[loseyourname]

I think this belongs in free will. I'll resurrect that.

[Anonymouse]

ttt

[loseyourname]

You'll be at 5000 in no time.

[Anonymouse]

The board is subject to anarchy.

[Anonymouse]

A very interesting study of the orderly nature of anarchy is found in John Phillip Reid’s book, Law for the Elephant. Reid studied numerous diaries and letters written by persons crossing the overland trail in wagon trains going from St. Joseph, Missouri to Oregon and California. The institutions we have been conditioned to equate with "law and order" (e.g., police, prisons, judges, etc.) were absent along the frontier, and Reid was interested in discovering how people behaved toward one another in such circumstances. He discovered that most people respected property and contract rights, and settled whatever differences they had in a peaceful manner, all of this in spite of the fact that there were no "authorities" to call in to enforce a decision. Such traits went so far as to include respect for the property claims of Indians. The values and integrities that individuals brought with them were sufficient to keep the wagon trains as peaceful communities.

[loseyourname]

Not to mention the fact that they had no choice but to cooperate or die out on the frontier. Besides, not all people share their values and sense of moral obligation. Shahumyan, for instance, would be out beating the xxxx out of half the people he encountered if there were no laws or law-enforcement personnel in place to dissuade him.

[loseyourname]

By the way - you already posted that.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Not to mention the fact that they had no choice but to cooperate or die out on the frontier. Besides, not all people share their values and sense of moral obligation. Shahumyan, for instance, would be out beating the xxxx out of half the people he encountered if there were no laws or law-enforcement personnel in place to dissuade him.

And that is precisely it, they had to cooperate, the same as on the market. Shahumyan is a Marxist, what does that tell you about Statist ideologies? They rely on beating to exist.

[loseyourname]

Do you really think Sam Walton and Bill Gates would cooperate with anyone they weren't forced to by legislation? Don't get the impression that I support all the market regulation taking place, but let's get real here. Ideals work perfectly fine in small groups. You take a world of 6 billion people that largely hate each other, and things get a little more complicated. Oftentimes, a beating here can avert a much larger beating elsewhere.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Do you really think Sam Walton and Bill Gates would cooperate with anyone they weren't forced to by legislation? Don't get the impression that I support all the market regulation taking place, but let's get real here. Ideals work perfectly fine in small groups. You take a world of 6 billion people that largely hate each other, and things get a little more complicated. Oftentimes, a beating here can avert a much larger beating elsewhere.

Why do they buy legislation? Because Government exists. Big Businesses sees government as a means to an end. Of course, Microsoft is just another Government created monopoly. Where it serves its purpose they are allowed to get big, where it doesn't they are crushed, all thanks to the dubious Sherman Anti Trust Act, which gives government the power to do all this.

[loseyourname]

The only way Microsoft would not have attained a monopoly is either if no action was taken to break up their attempts or if patent laws had never existed in the first place. Refer back to Standard Oil, when nobody gave a xxxx about regulating or legislating any market forces. If you think that's better, something's a little off.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname The only way Microsoft would not have attained a monopoly is either if no action was taken to break up their attempts or if patent laws had never existed in the first place. Refer back to Standard Oil, when nobody gave a xxxx about regulating or legislating any market forces. If you think that's better, something's a little off.

It's believed by many today that Standard Oil was a stronger monopoly than Microsoft. Standard Oil became a near monopoly by bringing down the price from 58 cents to 8 cents per gallon at which it could sell kerosene to the consumer. Soon enough oil companies around the world matched Standard’s efficiency. Rockefeller then resorted to underhanded tactics to sustain monopoly power in the US which he never had (since government legislation exists why not use it right?) Even at its peak, Standard had competitors who were constantly reducing their own costs and prices, though they were usually a step behind. The only efforts that had any effect were his activism in getting enacted laws that would hamstring the competition. By the way, Microsoft’s share of the operating system market has been decreasing steadily to Apple, Linux, and others, and was decreasing even before the big government antitrust attack.

[loseyourname]

I never said Standard Oil was stronger. What difference does it make what "many people" believe? My only point is that the competition certainly wasn't fair, and if competition was fair for Microsoft, they would have at least temporarily gained a near complete monopoly. Whether or not it would have lasted isn't the point. The point is that competition is being stifled, and the market ceases to operate the way it is intended to.

I will admit that regulation can be even worse. Good examples are rent caps and cigarette taxes.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname I never said Standard Oil was stronger. What difference does it make what "many people" believe? My only point is that the competition certainly wasn't fair, and if competition was fair for Microsoft, they would have at least temporarily gained a near complete monopoly. Whether or not it would have lasted isn't the point. The point is that competition is being stifled, and the market ceases to operate the way it is intended to.

I will admit that regulation can be even worse. Good examples are rent caps and cigarette taxes.

The free market isn't fair, that is what you cannot understand, for you have a socialistic, egalitarian statist bias. I just explained how Standard Oil fostered more competition. Without government licensing, trade restrictions, centrally imposed regulations, and other barriers to entrepreneurs, there would be more companies able to offer services, not fewer. Any innovator who approached monopoly power would enjoy profits that attract intense competition. Thus, any firm that approaches monopoly power and profits in a free market produces the seeds of its own destruction. No business can approach monopolyunless everybody wants that firm’s product at the price the firm offers. And no powerful corporation will ever be free from the continuous, nagging oversight of customers and consumer interest agencies.

[loseyourname]

You're being a little simplistic, don't you think? We're living on the planet earth, not in an Econ 101 textbook.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname You're being a little simplistic, don't you think? We're living on the planet earth, not in an Econ 101 textbook.

You don't understand economics apparently I am forced to explain the basics to you.

[loseyourname]

If you insist.

[patlajan]

Now if we can figure out how to use your perpetual crap for energy, humanity will be well served.

[Anonymouse]

In the land of the witless, the half-wit is king.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Sorry, eggplant, I can't top your rendering of my avatar, but I can always post this one-liner I heard in a Farrelly brothers film the other day.

You just do the best you can, Mousy. Keep your head up.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Yes Anonymouse, I'm threatened by your presence. When I came to the forums, I expected to coast through it and have everyone bow to me, I didn't anticipate your existnece to hinder my advance.

[Anonymouse]

We Need the State… Otherwise, Something Bad Might Happen!

by Gene Callahan

I have noticed that people often attempt to justify the existence of the State by bringing up some place or some activity where there was little or no government at work and pointing out that, at some point, something bad happened. For example, in reviewing The Outlaw Sea by William Langewiesche, in Sunday's (5/16/2004) NY Times, Nathaniel Philbrick offers a couple of examples of such "reasoning." He describes the sea as a zone of "anarchy" with "almost no regulation" by governments. Then he describes two severe mishaps suffered by ocean-going vessels, one of which "released 26,000 tons of molasses into the Bay of Biscay." (Can you imagine how much trouble those fish had getting their mouths unstuck?) "There you are," the reader is clearly supposed to conclude, "not enough government involvement, and next thing you know, something bad happened."

One of the incidents cited by Philbrick occurred in 1994, the other in 2001. I suppose the reader should be imagining that they were two of the, oh, ten or twenty ships to venture out to sea during that period. And surely, while absorbing Philbrick's sage lesson, he is not supposed to think of transportation by motor vehicle, an arena where the government builds and maintains the roads, regulates the construction of the vehicles, licenses the operators, creates tomes of laws as to how the activity is to be conducted, and sends out swarms of its agents to ensure its dictates are followed, but that is characterized by daily carnage, horrible traffic snarls, terrible road conditions, and frequent, unanticipated delays costing travelers many hours.

Philbrick also warns of "the notion that terrorists are learning to exploit the opportunities offered by the sea." In 2001, he mentions, it was suspected "that a ship containing a large chemical bomb was on its way to London." Nothing happened and no such ship was tracked down, so here we have a case where there was not enough government involvement, and something bad might have happened. Again, I assume we aren't supposed to recall that when something really, really bad did happen, it involved the extensively regulated airline industry.

But Philbrick is hardly alone in forwarding such arguments. When I mentioned to a friend of mine that I am an anarchist, he brought up the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire of 1911, which killed 146 women: not enough government, and something bad happened. Certainly it was a horrible event, making any of the tragedies caused by governments, such as the Armenian genocide, the Ukrainian famine, the rape of Nanking, the Bataan death march, the Holocaust, the fire-bombing of Dresden, the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Vietnam War, and the killing fields of Cambodia, pale in comparison. The logic is flawless: when a private business accidentally kills 146 people, we need to increase the power of the government, an entity that deliberately kills millions.

I have sometimes encountered a variation on the "something bad might happen" argument that is even more puzzling than the standard form: the government was involved in some events, and something bad happened, so we need the government or else that bad thing might happen. You might think that no one could even formulate such an obvious absurdity, so I will give you two real examples.

The first one came up when a friend of mine mentioned that he was skeptical that the American entry into World War II was justified. The person to whom he said that sputtered in response: "And what? We were supposed to just let six million xxxs die?" My friend was stopped dead in his tracks, utterly unable to grapple with a line of reasoning that seemed to run: "The US government entered World War II, and six million xxxs died, so the US government had to enter the war, or else six million xxxs would have died, who did die anyway."

Similarly, when I told a person with whom I was conversing that I believe government is unnecessary, he asked me, "Well, would you rather have governments or terrorists?" He really seemed to believe he had presented me with a stark alternative: do away with government, as I was suggesting, and we'll have a world where people fly airplanes into skyscrapers, bring down large buildings with car bombs, and strap explosives to their bodies, then blow themselves up on a bus, killing scores of innocent passengers. Jeez, when you put it that way, I guess we'd really better keep government around, so we can live in a nice, safe world where none of those things ever happen.

The fact that otherwise intelligent people put forward such nonsense demonstrates just how thoroughly the State has done its job of brainwashing – oops, I mean educating – its subjects as to the dire consequences they will face should they try getting along without it.

[dusken]

I would like to him to describe his vision of what things would be like. All he did was break down the logic of analogies; that is not support for a position.

[Anonymouse]

I would like to him to describe his vision of what things would be like. All he did was break down the logic of analogies; that is not support for a position.

What do you mean by "his vision"? You are stating the same problem you did initially. I refer you to the article on page 5.

http://forum.armenianclub.com/showthread.php?t=1662&page=5&pp=15

[dusken]

What do you mean by "his vision"? You are stating the same problem you did initially. I refer you to the article on page 5.

http://forum.armenianclub.com/showthread.php?t=1662&page=5&pp=15

By "his vision" I mean how he feels the world would be without government and why it would be better.

I am not stating anything I had before; I am responding directly to this article and am not stating any of my opinions on anarchy. This article does nothing more than show that those specific arguments by those specific individuals were not enough to support the idea of government. But you cannot win support for a position by merely saying why someone elses single argument or analogy is logically fallible. I completely agree with him in that the individuals who posed those arguments were not correct in doing so. This does not mean I will immediately support anarchy.

[Anonymouse]

By "his vision" I mean how he feels the world would be without government and why it would be better.

I am not stating anything I had before; I am responding directly to this article and am not stating any of my opinions on anarchy. This article does nothing more than show that those specific arguments by those specific individuals were not enough to support the idea of government. But you cannot win support for a position by merely saying why someone elses single argument or analogy is logically fallible. I completely agree with him in that the individuals who posed those arguments were not correct in doing so. This does not mean I will immediately support anarchy.

First of all, why do you assume this is about winning support? This is not about winning anyone to any position, it is about stimulating thought and confronting a conventional worldview that you "need" the State. In the article the author draws examples of why people believe they need a State, and holds it up against the State is eternal aggressor. Indeed, I'm sure you all here believe that every company in the free market system needs to be regulated under the State so as to not have bad things happen. Yet, mind you, this is the same State that is responsible for many bads things such as deaths of millions. The author only tries to show the fallacy in this thinking, the thinking being that, the same State that creates wars, acts of coercion, conscription, taxation and genocide, is the same entity to which people look for protection to make sure to not have bad things happen. That is in essence what is behind all government regulation. That is not law and justice, it is simply regulation by the State, creating 10,000 commandments to punish people and regulate peoples' lives even before a crime or an act of injustice has been committed.

[dusken]

First of all, why do you assume this is about winning support? This is not about winning anyone to any position, it is about stimulating thought and confronting a conventional worldview that you "need" the State. In the article the author draws examples of why people believe they need a State, and holds it up against the State is eternal aggressor. Indeed, I'm sure you all here believe that every company in the free market system needs to be regulated under the State so as to not have bad things happen. Yet, mind you, this is the same State that is responsible for many bads things such as deaths of millions. The author only tries to show the fallacy in this thinking, the thinking being that, the same State that creates wars, acts of coercion, conscription, taxation and genocide, is the same entity to which people look for protection to make sure to not have bad things happen. That is in essence what is behind all government regulation. That is not law and justice, it is simply regulation by the State, creating 10,000 commandments to punish people and regulate peoples' lives even before a crime or an act of injustice has been committed.

Why is it about winning support? Because publishing an article to show that some guy you met in a coffee shop is wrong is otherwise pointless.

Yes, and I see the fallacy of the arguments he addressed. But "so bad things won't happen" is only one possible argument. It can also boil down to principle, which cannot be argued. Again, I am not agreeing or disagreeing. I just have nothing to take away from this article because he has not given me anything. There is nothing to think about because he only stated what would be obvious to many and took no risks by making assertions. My thoughts cannot be provoked if an assertion was not made.

[Anonymouse]

Why is it about winning support? Because publishing an article to show that some guy you met in a coffee shop is wrong is otherwise pointless.

Well, contrary to your view of an endless conflict between converts and outsiders, there is no need to win support. Perhaps he is, perhaps he is not, we don't know, but we can try playing psychic. He's only pointing out the obvious fallacy in what most people use to justify the regulation of the State, and that is perhaps the most important reason. What possible reason based on "principle" do you propose? Essentially it boils down to aggression versus nonaggression, with the State representing aggression.

[dusken]

Pointing out the obvious is masturbation. I am sure he had a great time.

A matter of principle: If a person feels more comfortable with the general predictability of government, you cannot argue it, especially since there has been no true manifestation of anarchy to such a degree that one can point out the possible misconceptions.

There is also the idea that I had put forth before, which is that government is a natural consequence of human nature.

I am not going to argue either of these points because it is unnecessary. I only mentioned them to show that he focused on specific representations of one possible arguement and proposed no alternative viewpoint in depth. Again, there is nothing to take away from this article. If it was not his intention to "give" in that respect, that is fine. But he cannot also expect to gain the respect of thinking individuals. Now, you may want to say I am just assuming that he wants to gain respect from this article. My response to that would be (1) that I never said he expected to but that he should not, and (2) expressing an opinion about something or showing an intellectual breakdown of something is usually motivated by the gaining of some sort of notoriety.

[Anonymouse]

Pointing out the obvious is masturbation. I am sure he had a great time.

A matter of principle: If a person feels more comfortable with the general predictability of government, you cannot argue it, especially since there has been no true manifestation of anarchy to such a degree that one can point out the possible misconceptions.

Did you not read the article I linked? It is a trivial matter that there has never been "anarchy" or there never was "anarchy" in the literal sense of the word. However, our actions with our neighbors are anarchic, nation-states in the world act anarchically, the marketplace is anarchic, so anarchy is possible. This is similar to the "it is impractical" or "it can't work" bromide. The article brought up a good point. We believe murder is wrong and should not exist, that doesn't mean it will happen, nor does that mean we shouldn't try to lessen it.

Since a State is an aggression and employs coercion, then that means people who abide by it also agree with aggression. Since a criminal doesn't justify his behavior, why should the State? In fact, they do not, no one ever justifies aggression against innocents. Unless people who support it can show that it is somehow okay and justifed, then they would have a case.

There is also the idea that I had put forth before, which is that government is a natural consequence of human nature.

I have already explained this that the term "government" is misleading. That term can apply to individuals since it can be argued that an individual itself is a government. A family surely is a form of government. When I use "government" I often mean the "State" or the "Government". What I am specifically referring to is the State, and yes the State did not exist under feudalism, nor for example during the "Old West".

[dusken]

Did you not read the article I linked? It is a trivial matter that there has never been "anarchy" or there never was "anarchy" in the literal sense of the word. However, our actions with our neighbors are anarchic, nation-states in the world act anarchically, the marketplace is anarchic, so anarchy is possible. This is similar to the "it is impractical" or "it can't work" bromide.

You are going off on a tangent. What you are doing here is what I expected the article to do. I said I did not want to argue the points. I mentioned them because he did not. Why is it that you still think I was asserting an opinion on anarchy?

By the way, you are biting yourself in the ass because you are nearing the argument that government is anarchic, which negates the purpose of supporting anarchy as opposed to government. Either you say that we are in a state of anarchy or you argue state/anarchy within the confines of the country.

The article brought up a good point. We believe murder is wrong and should not exist, that doesn't mean it will happen, nor does that mean we shouldn't try to lessen it.

Since a State is an aggression and employs coercion, then that means people who abide by it also agree with aggression. Since a criminal doesn't justify his behavior, why should the State? In fact, they do not, no one ever justifies aggression against innocents. Unless people who support it can show that it is somehow okay and justifed, then they would have a case.

First, innocence is relative. Second, believing murder is wrong is not universally true; it is often conditional and it will always be that way regardless of government or anarchy. Anarchy will just, theoretically, make the conditions relative to the individual.

I have already explained this that the term "government" is misleading. That term can apply to individuals since it can be argued that an individual itself is a government. A family surely is a form of government. When I use "government" I often mean the "State" or the "Government". What I am specifically referring to is the State, and yes the State did not exist under feudalism, nor for example during the "Old West".

You keep saying this but you fail to see that the formation of government, as I suggest it, is a process that begins with the most basic manifestations of government. If you feel that is a family, so be it. But when I said "government is a natural consequence of human nature" I did not suggest it would occur over night. It will build up from what would now be considered microcosmic.


See what you did? You dragged me off on your tangent.

[Anonymouse]

You are going off on a tangent. What you are doing here is what I expected the article to do. I said I did not want to argue the points. I mentioned them because he did not. Why is it that you still think I was asserting an opinion on anarchy?

By the way, you are biting yourself in the ass because you are nearing the argument that government is anarchic, which negates the purpose of supporting anarchy as opposed to government. Either you say that we are in a state of anarchy or you argue state/anarchy within the confines of the country.

I was aiming to establish a relationship between entities such as nations dealing with each other, no different than you dealing with your neighbors. These are all anarchic. A State in itself is regulatory, or socialistic. It is imperative that you understand what is meant by "anarchy", the absence of a State or central authority. There is no "world government" that is why Nation-States dealing with each other are anarchic.


First, innocence is relative. Second, believing murder is wrong is not universally true; it is often conditional and it will always be that way regardless of government or anarchy. Anarchy will just, theoretically, make the conditions relative to the individual.

My example on murder was hypothetical, it was to aim to compare to the view of anarchy. That we believe there shouldn't be murder, doesn't mean murder doesn't exist, but we shouldn't try not to lessen it. That we believe the State shouldn't exist, doesn't mean that it doesn't. It does, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to lessen it. The main thrust was the aggression axiom, that is not only in the form of murder. This whole idea of relativism is misleading. If everyone believed murder was right, then we would be murdering each other at each others throats and civilization would end. That murder is wrong, is why less people do it, and why people cooperate, but this part of human nature is rarely ever mentioned. There are correct ideas and incorrect ideas, and how we know which one is correct is because it works. Murder doesn't work, that is why it is wrong ( please don't attempt to state that since individual A wanted to murder individual B, it is right because it got "rid" of "his problem", that is what not I'm arguing for ). Aggression on innocents is not justified, whether it be murder, taxation, coercion, theft, etc. By your logic, the Turks were justified in whatever they did to Armenians.


You keep saying this but you fail to see that the formation of government, as I suggest it, is a process that begins with the most basic manifestations of government. If you feel that is a family, so be it. But when I said "government is a natural consequence of human nature" I did not suggest it would occur over night. It will build up from what would now be considered microcosmic.

This is irrelevant to the discussion for it is nothing but a non-issue. We are not concerned with the supposed transition of humans from hunter-gatherers, to which then it is alleged that "government" formed. Clearly my intention when I use the word "Government" is synonymous with "State", interchangeable. Obviously a family is a form of government which I support, contrary to the "State" under a "democracy", in which we are supposed to all believe we are a big "family" and we really run the show. Were you consulted by your selfless public servants before the war on Iraq?

See what you did? You dragged me off on your tangent.

No, sir, you did that, since I subscribe to free will, and not the deterministic worldview.

[dusken]

I was aiming to establish a relationship between entities such as nations dealing with each other, no different than you dealing with your neighbors. These are all anarchic. A State in itself is regulatory, or socialistic. It is imperative that you understand what is meant by "anarchy", the absence of a State or central authority. There is no "world government" that is why Nation-States dealing with each other are anarchic.

I understand what anarchic means, thank you very much. I feel in order for you support a lack of a state governing people you need to address issues within the state. The fact that there is no world government is not supportive of the possibility of teh lack of a state. Anyway, world politics is actually very supportive of my view of government being a logical consequence of human nature. There is more and more worldwide regulation occuring in the form of treaties and coalitions and multinational agencies as time passes.

My example on murder was hypothetical, it was to aim to compare to the view of anarchy. That we believe there shouldn't be murder, doesn't mean murder doesn't exist, but we shouldn't try not to lessen it. That we believe the State shouldn't exist, doesn't mean that it doesn't. It does, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to lessen it. The main thrust was the aggression axiom, that is not only in the form of murder. This whole idea of relativism is misleading. If everyone believed murder was right, then we would be murdering each other at each others throats and civilization would end. That murder is wrong, is why less people do it, and why people cooperate, but this part of human nature is rarely ever mentioned. There are correct ideas and incorrect ideas, and how we know which one is correct is because it works. Murder doesn't work, that is why it is wrong ( please don't attempt to state that since individual A wanted to murder individual B, it is right because it got "rid" of "his problem", that is what not I'm arguing for ). Aggression on innocents is not justified, whether it be murder, taxation, coercion, theft, etc. By your logic, the Turks were justified in whatever they did to Armenians.

It was not my logic. You misunderstand me. The idea was that you will have murder one way or another and you will always have people to oppose it.

However, since you were using murder as an analogy, we will look at it in that light. Via your analogy of murder, if you accept the fact that aggression can only be lessened and not completely eradicated, then it should apply just that way to your idea of state: state can be lessened but not eradicated and if a state of any size exists, it is not anarchy. Did I get my definition of anarchy correct, teacher?

This is irrelevant to the discussion for it is nothing but a non-issue. We are not concerned with the supposed transition of humans from hunter-gatherers, to which then it is alleged that "government" formed. Clearly my intention when I use the word "Government" is synonymous with "State", interchangeable. Obviously a family is a form of government which I support, contrary to the "State" under a "democracy", in which we are supposed to all believe we are a big "family" and we really run the show. Were you consulted by your selfless public servants before the war on Iraq?

Yes, we are concerned with it. You are concerned with it. It is a view point that anarchy cannot exist for more than a fleeting moment. It is a view point expressing that human nature will build government all over again. Regardless of the amount of time. That, even though it may not immediately form what you consider states, eventually it will. You keep arguing as if I am saying that a family is a state. I am not. But I am saying that such groups will grow to form what you now consider a state.


And you have yet to understand that this is tangential to my response to the article you posted.

[Anonymouse]

I understand what anarchic means, thank you very much. I feel in order for you support a lack of a state governing people you need to address issues within the state. The fact that there is no world government is not supportive of the possibility of teh lack of a state. Anyway, world politics is actually very supportive of my view of government being a logical consequence of human nature. There is more and more worldwide regulation occuring in the form of treaties and coalitions and multinational agencies as time passes.

You are misconstruing examples. That anarchy is possible is exactly rooted in those analogies I gave. The marketplace is subject to anarchy. Your relation with neighbors is subject to anarchy. Nation-States are subject to anarchy. The fact that there is no world government is in fact supportive of anarchy, because, DUH, there is no world government. I would have to suspend my logic to try to comprehend that in terms of it meaning something other than what it means. That there is "more and more worldwide regulation occuring in the form of treaties and coalitions and multinational agencies as time passes", is misleading. One can argue the opposite that the world has more violent hot spots now than ever before, and the world stands closer to destruction than ever before with a rogue state such as America being the sole superpower.


However, since you were using murder as an analogy, we will look at it in that light. Via your analogy of murder, if you accept the fact that aggression can only be lessened and not completely eradicated, then it should apply just that way to your idea of state: state can be lessened but not eradicated and if a state of any size exists, it is not anarchy. Did I get my definition of anarchy correct, teacher?

Like the author of the article I linked to, I don't believe that we will have "anarchy" ( in the sense of not having the State ) anytime soon at least, not in my lifetime. Does that mean I am something other than an anarchist? In his words:

Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy won’t work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It’s quite simple, really. It’s an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians.

Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression.

And he goes on to state that (b) is obviously false, and therefore we are left with (a).

From Websters Univeversal Unabridged Dictionary: Anarchism: [from anarch, n. (Greek. anarchos, without head or chief.)] n. 1. the theory that formal government of any kind is uneccessary and wrong in principle; the doctrine and practice of anarchists. 2. anarchy; confusion; lawlessness.

So basically it is private rule. Formal government is uneccessary. That is, we rule ourselves. Each and every one of us, as adults, at least that is what adult means. It is why rulers fear this word because it means they would go out of business. And throughout the centuries they are the ones that have commited wars and genocides and caused lawlessness as in Iraq and Afghanistan, and given the concept a bad name, to the point where anarchy and self rule means lawlessness. Of course anyone familiar knows it means to rule thyself.

Yes, we are concerned with it. You are concerned with it. It is a view point that anarchy cannot exist for more than a fleeting moment. It is a view point expressing that human nature will build government all over again. Regardless of the amount of time. That, even though it may not immediately form what you consider states, eventually it will. You keep arguing as if I am saying that a family is a state. I am not. But I am saying that such groups will grow to form what you now consider a state.

You are, yet again, misunderstanding this concept. Do not try to understand it in terms of "it can exist" or "it can't exist" or "it can work" or "it can't work". That is a fallacious way of understanding it. I refer you to read the initial article on the front of the thread, and the following one.

http://forum.armenianclub.com/showthread.php?t=1662&page=5&pp=15

And you have yet to understand that this is tangential to my response to the article you posted.[/QUOTE]

[dusken]

You are misconstruing examples. That anarchy is possible is exactly rooted in those analogies I gave. The marketplace is subject to anarchy. Your relation with neighbors is subject to anarchy. Nation-States are subject to anarchy. The fact that there is no world government is in fact supportive of anarchy, because, DUH, there is no world government. I would have to suspend my logic to try to comprehend that in terms of it meaning something other than what it means. That there is "more and more worldwide regulation occuring in the form of treaties and coalitions and multinational agencies as time passes", is misleading. One can argue the opposite that the world has more violent hot spots now than ever before, and the world stands closer to destruction than ever before with a rogue state such as America being the sole superpower.

You are misusing "anarchy." First you tell me it is limited to the idea of a state and that I was "misunderstanding" the idea of a state by allegedly applying the term to other things via analogy. Now you say that you can make the analogy to issues not related to state in order to support the lack thereof. Since my relationship with another human being is anarchic and everything is a culmination of individual anarchies, we are then in a constant state of anarchy regardless of whether a cross-section of that anarchy is called a government.

Hot spots? Hot spots are not on the same level of things like NATO, the United Nations, the ABM treaty, Hague, Geneva, BWC, or any of the various human rights and international trade treaties. It can be argued that America being so influential is yet another foreshadowing of international conformity. The way I would look at this is that it is in the middle of may state-creating timeline.

Like the author of the article I linked to, I don't believe that we will have "anarchy" ( in the sense of not having the State ) anytime soon at least, not in my lifetime. Does that mean I am something other than an anarchist? In his words:

Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy won’t work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It’s quite simple, really. It’s an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians.

Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression.

And he goes on to state that (b) is obviously false, and therefore we are left with (a).

From Websters Univeversal Unabridged Dictionary: Anarchism: [from anarch, n. (Greek. anarchos, without head or chief.)] n. 1. the theory that formal government of any kind is uneccessary and wrong in principle; the doctrine and practice of anarchists. 2. anarchy; confusion; lawlessness.

So basically it is private rule. Formal government is uneccessary. That is, we rule ourselves. Each and every one of us, as adults, at least that is what adult means. It is why rulers fear this word because it means they would go out of business. And throughout the centuries they are the ones that have commited wars and genocides and caused lawlessness as in Iraq and Afghanistan, and given the concept a bad name, to the point where anarchy and self rule means lawlessness. Of course anyone familiar knows it means to rule thyself.

"Formal governmnet in unnecessary." All of your argument is based on the idealistic moral principle and there has been no discussion of necessity. The reason there has not is because it cannot be judged that way. If human nature creates it, there is necessity.

You are, yet again, misunderstanding this concept. Do not try to understand it in terms of "it can exist" or "it can't exist" or "it can work" or "it can't work". That is a fallacious way of understanding it. I refer you to read the initial article on the front of the thread, and the following one.

This has nothing to do with fallacy. This is no better than Marxism where everyone is miraculously happy about their predetermined place in society and happy about their lack of possessions and growth. They are both ideals that defeat human nature. And as ideals, they do not deserve to be put into words.

Supporting what cannot exist seems illogical to me. It is a snake eating its own tail.

[Anonymouse]

You are misusing "anarchy." First you tell me it is limited to the idea of a state and that I was "misunderstanding" the idea of a state by allegedly applying the term to other things via analogy. Now you say that you can make the analogy to issues not related to state in order to support the lack thereof. Since my relationship with another human being is anarchic and everything is a culmination of individual anarchies, we are then in a constant state of anarchy regardless of whether a cross-section of that anarchy is called a government.

You must understand that anarchy as a possibility is different than the concept as a whole coming to be as a probability. You also have to understand the difference between "anarchic" and "anarchism". That some things are anarchic does not mean there is anarchism, just like that most "Western Democracies" are socialistic ( in that they interfere in the market and impose regulations ) does not meant they would be classed under "Socialism". But as you point out, it is that cross section of society, the State, that is able to mobilize our fears into mass mindedness, ultimately what is responsible for world wars and genocides. This is not to say there is no violence, but compare the violence under feudal Europe with the absence of the State, or the violence in the Old West, with that of the 20th century when political systems reached their heights.

You see that is the problem, the State is an unnatural institution that has come to represent something that is attempting to bring order out of chaos and it never works, and hence why all states move toward disorder, toward chaos. States try to impose their decisions via coercion on its individuals within its territory since States are a monopoly of power within a given territory. The States rigid structure and regulations do not permit the natural order to continue instead imposing an artificial order. F.A. Hayek, which I'm sure you've never heard of, in his The Road to Serfdom offered a chilling critique of the modern State and all centrally controlled economies. He argued that no government bureaucrat could ever effectively make decisions for other people because it is impossible to process all of the information that goes into other people's decision making, tastes, preferences, experiences. Only the free market, which allows for the greatest flow of information that humans have thus far devised, can even begin to approach the levels of efficiency that a complex economy requires to function smoothly. We can only expect unsatisfactory results when we try make decisions for others, even when acting with their best interests at heart, hence regulations have to go. There will always be those among us, people who wish to manipulate our lives (always, we are assured, for our benefit rather than for the joy they take in the exercise), but the results are seldom salutary and never what the manipulators intended, and Ludwig von Mises would call this result "unintended consequences". Now if you support the "live and let live" dogma ( and I'm not saying you do ), you cannot truly stand for that principle if you support the State. It would be contradictory.


Hot spots? Hot spots are not on the same level of things like NATO, the United Nations, the ABM treaty, Hague, Geneva, BWC, or any of the various human rights and international trade treaties. It can be argued that America being so influential is yet another foreshadowing of international conformity. The way I would look at this is that it is in the middle of may state-creating timeline.

Well, that sure is a fine way of putting it. What is NATO but an alliance of big bullies, akin to the mafia, that bully around others who do not want to partake in the feast? That is what happened in Yugoslavia. That Iraq wouldn't join the Anglo-American-Israeli establishment is another reason why it had to experience the benefits of Operation Iraqi Freedom. And what is the purpose of these illusory ABM treaties or Geneva when you have the example right under your nose of two States, Israel and the United States, which willfully violate them? I don't want to come off as insulting, but if anyone believes that the U.N. or Geneva, or NATO are designed to promote "peace", they are more gullible than a baby believing his parents that he will get a chocolate toy car the size of a truck. Remember who influenced and designed these political institutions and for what purpose. These formal intitiation rites are merely for public relations purposes, to give the credo of Statism and aura of humanity and justness, when in reality they are the worst scum, criminals, murderers, thieves, in suits.


"Formal governmnet in unnecessary." All of your argument is based on the idealistic moral principle and there has been no discussion of necessity. The reason there has not is because it cannot be judged that way. If human nature creates it, there is necessity.

You know, by now I would expect you to already know that what I am espousing is not "idealism". I have repeatedly answered this obvious absurdity, yet you either chose not absorb it, or you are merely throwing that statement to sort of smear my view as "utopian" ergo, no need to pay attention to it, and then stamping with an ambiguoous answer that it was "human nature", a nice answer that effectively saves ourselve from having to discuss it in the first place. "It's human nature, so lets not even worry about it, lets just let it be". The State did not always exist, nor did it exist in feudal Europe or the Old West, yet these societies got along fine. You speak of "human nature creating it" as if everyone sort of got together and expressed admiration and cooperation for creating it. Do not forget that States are created by violence and imposed by violence and exist because we suspend our ability to differentiate and give ourselves to the State. They are never created peacefully. And why do you take on an ominous view of human nature as if it's something bad? You apparently equate "human nature" with badness, as if, humans, left to themselves, cannot be, and ignoring what I said initially about cooperation and if humans would truly be at each others throats then civilization would end, and the fact that in Stateless societies that did not happen, shows humans can get by without a State.



This has nothing to do with fallacy. This is no better than Marxism where everyone is miraculously happy about their predetermined place in society and happy about their lack of possessions and growth. They are both ideals that defeat human nature. And as ideals, they do not deserve to be put into words.

This is not Marxism, nor is it about ideals. This sort of tautological responses save ourselves of having to question our own prisms of thought. Did you see me say everyone will be happy? Did you see me say there will be equality? Did you see me say there will be no violence? This is not about an idealism, this is an ethical view, and I'm afraid I agree with the author, no wonder utilitarians, or others cannot comprehend it. Essentially you believe individuals themselves are dangerous and society will be in "chaos", yet you believe that these same individuals will be "selfless public servants" if cloaked with the mantle of the State. The "human nature" is a straw man, and I will avoid it. What is a natural form of government for example is the family.

Supporting what cannot exist seems illogical to me. It is a snake eating its own tail.

I'm afraid this does not make sense. Perhaps you can clarify.

[loseyourname]

One can argue the opposite that the world has more violent hot spots now than ever before, and the world stands closer to destruction than ever before with a rogue state such as America being the sole superpower.

I hope you realize this is an argument against anarchism. You are saying the US has grown too powerful and is bullying the rest of the world. This is exactly why we need some form of accountable oversight, to keep individuals from growing too powerful and bullying the rest of us.

I don't want to come off as insulting, but if anyone believes that the U.N. or Geneva, or NATO are designed to promote "peace", they are more gullible than a baby believing his parents that he will get a chocolate toy car the size of a truck.

NATO is designed to ensure the defense of the US and its allies. It never claimed it was designed to promote peace, which is a word you needn't put in quotations, given that you are using it in its literal sense.

This is not to say there is no violence, but compare the violence under feudal Europe with the absence of the State, or the violence in the Old West, with that of the 20th century when political systems reached their heights.

People wage war on each other. You act like it's something that has become worse since the inception of political systems. Warfare has become larger-scale with the invention of better weapons, that's it. The death tolls these days are a lot lower than they were in WWI and WWII, mostly because of the elaborate treaty systems and mutual deterrence keeping large nations from warring with each other. If these didn't exist, what would stop some crazy powerful individual from firing nukes at everyone?

Besides, are you honestly trying to tell me that feudal lords and kings treated their subjects better than the US government treats me? Hell, if I'm ever a successful runner of a large business, they'll treat me like a king. What peasant ever had that opportunity?

[Anonymouse]

I hope you realize this is an argument against anarchism. You are saying the US has grown too powerful and is bullying the rest of the world. This is exactly why we need some form of accountable oversight, to keep individuals from growing too powerful and bullying the rest of us.

This thinking is deeply flawed. How is that an argument "against anarchism"? If you don't know by now I am arguing within your standards, within your framework of "peace" and "UN" and "Geneva" and "Conventions" or "world government". It was only meant to highlight how a superstate causes more damage, than say an individual. Can you seriously compare your analogy? Governments int he 20th century kill roughly 200 million people, yet it's individuals you fear? You don't trust individuals acting within themselves, because they might "have too much power and bully you", yet you trust these same individuals to be selfless public servants if cloaked in the mantle of State authority? You would want to criminalize an individual for committing murder, yet you would support the State which sponsors wholesale murder? Your logic is indeed twisted if you reside with such fallacies. The difference between individuals bullying one another and States, is statistics and millions of deaths.

NATO is designed to ensure the defense of the US and its allies. It never claimed it was designed to promote peace, which is a word you needn't put in quotations, given that you are using it in its literal sense.

That's a good point, NATO was designed only to resist the threat of Communism. Now that the Iron Curtain is down, what is the point of this organization? Why was it not dismantled? Instead, it took on a monolithic form of its own, which helps prove all the more why it is a mafia like bully organization.

People wage war on each other. You act like it's something that has become worse since the inception of political systems. Warfare has become larger-scale with the invention of better weapons, that's it. The death tolls these days are a lot lower than they were in WWI and WWII, mostly because of the elaborate treaty systems and mutual deterrence keeping large nations from warring with each other. If these didn't exist, what would stop some crazy powerful individual from firing nukes at everyone?

People wage war on each other? I don't know which definition you are using, prehaps metaphorical, but war is used to signify armed conflict between nations or states or governments, holistic entities. Wars have become worse with the inception of political systems, and States, not only with the rise of technology, but of the mass-mindedness nature that accompanies a State. This was the age of conscription, mass armies, and total war. You no longer meet armies against each other, and fight them, you fight against "everyone" such as women and children, en masse, because this is no longer a "gentlemans war" as in feudal Europe, it is total war. Why would a crazy powerful individual fire nukes? You know loser, sometimes I wonder at the responses you muster. Such statements lack all base in reality. The only time nuclear weapons were used, was by a State, on an already defeated country, and why people shouldn't fear Iran or North Korea obtaining nukes, since they only want to deter the United States. During the Cold War, two sides had it, and it created deterrance, just like if everyone was armed, crime would be committed less. Statism has done a thorough job of brainwashing people to the point where they fear individuals more than the State. Again, lets compare, States have killed roughly 200 million people with political systems in the 20th century alone. How many have individuals killed, acting alone, without influence from a State or political system?

[dusken]

I am through with this again. All of your arguments are "you don't understand this...you don't understand that," when it is perfectly clear that I do, while you evade the points of my posts by repeating yourself even though I addressed your ideas. First you say that it is fallacious to think about it in terms of "can't," then you spend useless paragraphs tell me that it can. Phuck that. I will just go back to what I said before, Callahan's article is completely useless. Period.

[loseyourname]

This thinking is deeply flawed. How is that an argument "against anarchism"? If you don't know by now I am arguing within your standards, within your framework of "peace" and "UN" and "Geneva" and "Conventions" or "world government". It was only meant to highlight how a superstate causes more damage, than say an individual.

You argued that interactions between nations are anarchic and that the US has become too powerful within that lack of a world government structure. That shows the trouble with anarchy - the strongest individual (in this case, the strongest individual state) becomes too powerful and imposes itself on other individuals (in this case, other individual states).

Can you seriously compare your analogy? Governments int he 20th century kill roughly 200 million people, yet it's individuals you fear? You don't trust individuals acting within themselves, because they might "have too much power and bully you", yet you trust these same individuals to be selfless public servants if cloaked in the mantle of State authority?

I certainly don't trust our government, not any other government in existence. But you can't argue that just because the ones we have wage war and commit atrocities that none should exist. I've used the same argument to say that because the churches we have are responsible for so much evil, we should not have churches. You did not accept the argument then. Why do you accept it now?

You would want to criminalize an individual for committing murder, yet you would support the State which sponsors wholesale murder?

When did I say I would support a state that commits murder? If you extend your argument, you must conclude that because some individuals murder, we should abolish all individuals.

Your logic is indeed twisted if you reside with such fallacies. The difference between individuals bullying one another and States, is statistics and millions of deaths.

You act like there would be no warfare if there were no states. People group with like people. There was widespread warfare well before the existence of political states. The xxxs committed genocide on the native people of Canaan. Muslims invaded and plundered large portions of the Indian subcontinent. Catholics destroyed many Islamic cities. Whether people group because of religion, politics, or economic status, they will group, and then they will kill each other.

That's a good point, NATO was designed only to resist the threat of Communism. Now that the Iron Curtain is down, what is the point of this organization? Why was it not dismantled? Instead, it took on a monolithic form of its own, which helps prove all the more why it is a mafia like bully organization.

And? You've only proven that the current system is a bad one. You'll get no argument from me there. It doesn't follow logically that all political systems and nation-states are necessarily bad.

People wage war on each other? I don't know which definition you are using, prehaps metaphorical, but war is used to signify armed conflict between nations or states or governments, holistic entities.

No it isn't. Bloods and crips war with each other on the streets of Los Angeles. Neither is a state.

Wars have become worse with the inception of political systems, and States, not only with the rise of technology, but of the mass-mindedness nature that accompanies a State.

So Ghenghis Khan and Richard the Lionheart were more civilized? Where are you getting this reasoning? Wars became worse with the inception of elaborate treaty systems and entangling alliances and with the technological capability to wage more widespread warfare. This is why I favor an isolationist foreign policy and non-aggressive national defense.

This was the age of conscription, mass armies, and total war. You no longer meet armies against each other, and fight them, you fight against "everyone" such as women and children, en masse, because this is no longer a "gentlemans war" as in feudal Europe, it is total war.

That is a change in military strategy due to the breakdown of codes of honor. It has nothing to do with politics.

Why would a crazy powerful individual fire nukes?

I have no idea why he would. That is rather beside the point. It is only an illustration. The point is that someone could. Believe or not, if you have the money, a nuclear weapon is not difficult to build. If not for the paranoia of the state, someone could. People do some crazy things.

You know loser, sometimes I wonder at the responses you muster. Such statements lack all base in reality. The only time nuclear weapons were used, was by a State, on an already defeated country, and why people shouldn't fear Iran or North Korea obtaining nukes, since they only want to deter the United States.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's ever happened before. The point is whether or not it can happen. You can't deny that it's a possibility. I'm not a nuclear physicist, but I do know how to build a nuclear bomb. All I would need is the right amount of weapons-grade plutonium. I'm sure I'm not the only person out there with this knowledge. If not for deterrence from homeland security, if I was insane, I just might do it.

Statism has done a thorough job of brainwashing people to the point where they fear individuals more than the State. Again, lets compare, States have killed roughly 200 million people with political systems in the 20th century alone. How many have individuals killed, acting alone, without influence from a State or political system?

You know damn well that isn't a fair statement to make. There is no way you can say the death-toll would have been less if not for the existence of states. You can only bemoan those states that actually perpetrated the atrocities, not all possible theoretical states.

This is all quite beside the point anyway, as I do not favor any political system that is currently in existence or had been in existence at any point in the 20th century. You have no quarrel with me there.

[Anonymouse]

You argued that interactions between nations are anarchic and that the US has become too powerful within that lack of a world government structure. That shows the trouble with anarchy - the strongest individual (in this case, the strongest individual state) becomes too powerful and imposes itself on other individuals (in this case, other individual states).

That nations are anarchic has nothing to do with the U.S. being a superstate. That the marketplace is anarchic, or your relations with your neighbors are anarchic has nothing to do with the U.S. The U.S. perhaps is not as powerful as it seems, and as the case with Iraq, it is no longer in control of events. That is the whole point of vertically organized systems, the ability to regulate, and control; the idea that central planning is good. But as we see in Iraq, the U.S. had no exit strategy, and instead of being in control of events, it is only responding to them, that is the result of "unintended consequences" as Mises would say, which all vertically integrated systems are subjected too, per the theory of complexities and chaos. In other words, the bigger systems get the more they will move to chaos, the same applies any other thing. The more the any system grows, the more there are variables and events that the system of central planning cannot control. Your analogy in reference to the State and the individual makes no sense, for I already addressed it. States in the form of political systems, have killed 200 million people in the 20th century. How many have individuals killed, acting alone, without the influence of any political system or State? The answer is most glaring, and we can refer only to feudal Europe or the Old West as examples of such.

I certainly don't trust our government, not any other government in existence. But you can't argue that just because the ones we have wage war and commit atrocities that none should exist. I've used the same argument to say that because the churches we have are responsible for so much evil, we should not have churches. You did not accept the argument then. Why do you accept it now?

Why should States exist, period? They are a monopoly of power in a given territory, and as with all monopolies they tend to be corrupt, break down in moral order, and abusive. I'm afraid that I can argue that because something such as the State is based on coercion and aggression, and that it is not justified, unless you are arguing that somehow coercion and aggression are justified. Just because there exists murder, does not mean it is justified, it is the same thing as the State. Your argument that the Churches are responsible for so much evil does not equate with the State, even at the apogee of its power.

When did I say I would support a state that commits murder? If you extend your argument, you must conclude that because some individuals murder, we should abolish all individuals.

You do support a State that committs murder. All States committ murder. States are legalized murder. We criminalize individuals for murder, yet the State is perfectly fine to committ murder, in the form of war, in the name of "the people". We criminalize individuals for stealing, yet the State can steal in the form of taxation, or eminent domain, and our political conditioning would not allow us to call it so. On the contrary, we must conclude that if we criminalize individuals for these crimes, we must hold the State to the same standards. Your analogy that we should rid of individuals makes no sense, for that is already what is the case, we criminalize only individuals, and therefore your analogy is flawed. I don't expect you to admit this.

You act like there would be no warfare if there were no states. People group with like people. There was widespread warfare well before the existence of political states. The xxxs committed genocide on the native people of Canaan. Muslims invaded and plundered large portions of the Indian subcontinent. Catholics destroyed many Islamic cities. Whether people group because of religion, politics, or economic status, they will group, and then they will kill each other.

You see, this is the misconception. Most of you, in an ardent zeal to defend the State, jump to erroneous conclusions that lack all base in reality. No one said there will be no violence ( war being defined only between States here ). It is the degree to which we are speaking of. If we can lessen it, we should. Your examples are not relevant to the warfare unleashed by the State. How would those deaths, compare to the ones incurred by the State? I am not even talking of the anything before the 20th century, for in that century alone, the amont of deaths unleashed by the State is enough to surpass the whole medieval period. That there will be violence is not denied, but to what degree can we lessen it. If the State has proven to be more destructive than anything else, it surely must not be a correct idea.

And? You've only proven that the current system is a bad one. You'll get no argument from me there. It doesn't follow logically that all political systems and nation-states are necessarily bad.

All nation-states are not necessarily bad, but most tend to be, and those that aren't will gradually move to be, as that is in the nature of the State system itself, for its survival it will become abusive, expansionist, and resort to diminishing liberties, taxation, regulation, and on a scale that only grows more and more.

No it isn't. Bloods and crips war with each other on the streets of Los Angeles. Neither is a state.

You see loser, I am extending war to only signify the State. Bloods and crips have nothing to do in this discussion, and they are, quite frankly if anything, a result of the State system, which has created an atmosphere and reasons for such people to rise, in fact, most criminals are a result of the State system.



So Ghenghis Khan and Richard the Lionheart were more civilized? Where are you getting this reasoning? Wars became worse with the inception of elaborate treaty systems and entangling alliances and with the technological capability to wage more widespread warfare. This is why I favor an isolationist foreign policy and non-aggressive national defense.

This has nothing to do with the example of warfare becoming 'total war', and I urge you to stop making erroneous assertions that are not related to the discussion. Kahn of Richard the Lionheart did not destroy populations after they had surrendered, States do. Stop bringing up silly examples, which have no bearing on the discussion, nor the theory.


That is a change in military strategy due to the breakdown of codes of honor. It has nothing to do with politics.

You clearly display your lack of knowledge regarding history, warfare, and politics. Now you have forced me to demonstrate how the change in the nature of political systems and States, changed the idea of warfare. The idea of consription is the result of the French Revolution. Since then, nothing has been the same. It radically changed the nature of war as we know it because of consription. The difference between armies in the past that fought for loyalty or mercenaries for money, and the conscripted soldier was for the conscripted soldier there was no incentive to fight. They were unwilling civilians whose enthusiasm for fighting and killing was limited at best. What they had to do now, was they had to be taught to hate the enemy, propaganda. Soon you had trained soldiers under arms and a reserve capacity. So when one power adopted this system, as the French, it forced the other countries to adopt it as well, such as Germany, and so on and so forth, in order to not be outnumbered. In the words of the American author, Hoffman Nickerson:

During the last century and a half civilization has recreated the armed horde. Previously a rarity, it has become the accepted instrument of any great military effort. It has not however come alone. Exactly a hundred fifty years ago in 1789-shortly after the United States had sought to protect themselves against democracy by their Federal Constitution-the French Revolution began. From that time to our day democratic ideas have come to dominate politics just as the mass army has dominated war. It is the thesis of this book that the two are inseparably connected with each other and with a third thing, barbarism

And States assumed an increasingly "national" character, in which mass mindedness and collectivization were the norm, so too the military was affected by this radical change. So you had Pan Germanism, or Pan Slavism or Pan Italianism. And in tandem one can track the rise of collective armies in amss marches and synchronized marches and rallies and movements. This is one of the psychological roots of national socialism and communism, for they loved uniformed mass performances. It is important to understand that this idea of Democracy and the State system, nationalism went hand in hand. Terms like "The National Peoples Army" were all over.

And since the conscripted soldiers had to be taken from the populace at large, they had to be indoctrinated with propaganda, and they were made to hate the enemy collectively, since the enemy was that of the other State. Now individuals associated themselves with their State. These days the mass media plays in on the 'evilness' of the enemy, by stressing the evilness of the enemy, and the crimes commited by this enemy, sound familiar?

So with World War I the "world had to be made safe for democracy", and World War I, was no longer a war between monarchs or lords, it was a war between entire nations, and an ideological crusade. After WWII the mass surrendered Germans were treated not as war prisoners protected by the Hague, but as "Disarmed Enemy Forces" and suffered roughly a million. So now war was not about outmaneuvering your enemy to just win the battle, it was a war between peoples and ideologies, to kill as many people from the other side as possible, and became wars of extermination, as we call "total war" in which towns, women, children, were destroyed. So we can see how wars evolved from clashes between crowns or lords, to clashes between entire peoples. A mercenary of the past belonged to different nationalities and once signed up and paid for, could fight for anyone. That wars became State institutions and democratic mass minded, you could destroy civilians. And since technology had progressed, all the better. Curiously enough, it was the Third Reich that wanted to ban aerial warfare except on well defined battle fronts. So with WWII you had entire cities such as Dresden, Frankfurt, Munich, destroyed except for the industrial factories, strangely enough.

I have no idea why he would. That is rather beside the point. It is only an illustration. The point is that someone could. Believe or not, if you have the money, a nuclear weapon is not difficult to build. If not for the paranoia of the state, someone could. People do some crazy things.

This is a baseless claim. If everyone had a nuclear weapon, no one would use it, for it would mean their own self destruction, hence why in an anarchic system, everyone would be armed. So yes, individuals could get a nuclear weapon, but if they would they would not use it, no different than many States obtaining a nuclear weapon. On the contrary the only time it was used was by the U.S. when no one else had it.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's ever happened before. The point is whether or not it can happen. You can't deny that it's a possibility. I'm not a nuclear physicist, but I do know how to build a nuclear bomb. All I would need is the right amount of weapons-grade plutonium. I'm sure I'm not the only person out there with this knowledge. If not for deterrence from homeland security, if I was insane, I just might do it.

This is silly, of course it is possible. Anything is possible in this world, it's possible for humans to fly. Is it probable? Hardly. The example of individuals obtaining nuclear weapons is a very weak one, for it is no different than States obtaining them. When they all have them, no one uses them. I don't see why you dragged this non-issue into this discussion.

You know damn well that isn't a fair statement to make. There is no way you can say the death-toll would have been less if not for the existence of states. You can only bemoan those states that actually perpetrated the atrocities, not all possible theoretical states.

Of course the death toll would have been less had States not existed, because then there would be no entity that would capitalize on our fears, mobilize our fears and mass mindedness. Take a look at feudal Europe, or the Old West, as an example of where the State was lacking. How do they compare with Statehood?

[loseyourname]

How many have individuals killed, acting alone, without the influence of any political system or State? The answer is most glaring, and we can refer only to feudal Europe or the Old West as examples of such.

Come on, man. You know you can't make that comparison. Entities that are not states have little opportunity to war with each other as long as there are states. Without states, these other entities would be more powerful, and the numbers would go up. Besides, you're again not arguing with me here. I don't support any state that existed in the 20th century. You can't say that just because many of the more powerful ones committed great numbers of murders, that all states are necessarily bad. What did Andorra do that was so evil? What about Morocco?

Why should States exist, period?

I've never said that anything we have now should exist. Something must exist to curtail the power of individuals and to enforce contracts. That is all. Whether or not it would even still be considered a "state" I don't know.

Just because there exists murder, does not mean it is justified, it is the same thing as the State. Your argument that the Churches are responsible for so much evil does not equate with the State, even at the apogee of its power.

I'm afraid that the effects of the church on medieval times was far more deleterious than the effects of the state on the 20th century. Civilization was set back hundreds of years by the church. Forget the number of deaths. The only reason that is the case is that one, there were less people around back then, and two, there was no comparable entity to war with the church, and so the murders were limited mostly to individuals, rather than the murder of large groups.

You do support a State that committs murder. All States committ murder. States are legalized murder. We criminalize individuals for murder, yet the State is perfectly fine to committ murder, in the form of war, in the name of "the people". We criminalize individuals for stealing, yet the State can steal in the form of taxation, or eminent domain, and our political conditioning would not allow us to call it so.

Do you even pay attention to what I type? When did I ever say I support taxation, or eminent domain, or warfare? These are not necessary aspects of a state. Even if every state that has ever existed has committed these crimes, it doesn't mean they have to. Think outside the box a little.

You see, this is the misconception. Most of you, in an ardent zeal to defend the State, jump to erroneous conclusions that lack all base in reality. No one said there will be no violence ( war being defined only between States here ).

Surely you can see that if you define warfare as fighting between states, then the abolition of states will by definition rid us of warfare. That doesn't mean large-scale killing will be gone, or even lessened.

All nation-states are not necessarily bad, but most tend to be, and those that aren't will gradually move to be, as that is in the nature of the State system itself, for its survival it will become abusive, expansionist, and resort to diminishing liberties, taxation, regulation, and on a scale that only grows more and more.

I think you're being a little close-minded and more than a little pessimistic to assume that all states must eventually come to this. I don't think this is the case, provided that very little power is given to the state in the first place. Given that no state of the type that I advocate has ever existed, I don't see how you could possibly say that.

You see loser, I am extending war to only signify the State. Bloods and crips have nothing to do in this discussion, and they are, quite frankly if anything, a result of the State system, which has created an atmosphere and reasons for such people to rise, in fact, most criminals are a result of the State system.

People have fought with each other, as groups, since the days of hunters and gatherers. Tribal groups fought with each other. You can't argue that most fighting is necessarily a result of the state. Even if a lot of it is today, and I agree that it is, that is only because of flaws in our current state, not because of any inherent flaw in the concept of a state.

This has nothing to do with the example of warfare becoming 'total war', and I urge you to stop making erroneous assertions that are not related to the discussion. Kahn of Richard the Lionheart did not destroy populations after they had surrendered, States do. Stop bringing up silly examples, which have no bearing on the discussion, nor the theory.

Then stop bringing up example that have nothing to do with what I advocate. Not all states do these things. Large states with too much power do this. This is not the state that I advocate.

You clearly display your lack of knowledge regarding history, warfare, and politics. Now you have forced me to demonstrate how the change in the nature of political systems and States, changed the idea of warfare. The idea of consription is the result of the French Revolution. Since then, nothing has been the same. It radically changed the nature of war as we know it because of consription.

What the hell does this have to do with anything I've said? Have I ever given any indication that I am in favor of conscription? You are clearly showing your lack of knowledge of what your fellow poster is actually talking about.

This is a baseless claim. If everyone had a nuclear weapon, no one would use it, for it would mean their own self destruction, hence why in an anarchic system, everyone would be armed.

Not everyone could do it. That is exactly my point. It isn't difficult from a technical standpoint, but the money it would take makes it impossible for all but a handful of very powerful people to ever attain one. Besides, you seemingly have agreed with me that mutual deterrence, whether by individuals or by states, is the way to go here. In essence, this issue is the same regardless of whether or not states exist. The issue is with one state becoming too powerful. If the US had no standing army - only a minimal national guard and coast guard - and no powers of taxation, it would never have had the A-bomb.

This is silly, of course it is possible. Anything is possible in this world, it's possible for humans to fly. Is it probable? Hardly. The example of individuals obtaining nuclear weapons is a very weak one, for it is no different than States obtaining them. When they all have them, no one uses them. I don't see why you dragged this non-issue into this discussion.

For exactly this purpose - to show that the situation is not dependent on the existence of states.

Of course the death toll would have been less had States not existed, because then there would be no entity that would capitalize on our fears, mobilize our fears and mass mindedness.

This is where you are wrong. The death toll would have been less had those states in question not existed. Almost all of the murders you cite from the 20th century were committed at the hands of several large, powerful nations. There is no reason to blame all states. You are just scapegoating and oversimplifying the situation.

[Anonymouse]

Come on, man. You know you can't make that comparison. Entities that are not states have little opportunity to war with each other as long as there are states. Without states, these other entities would be more powerful, and the numbers would go up. Besides, you're again not arguing with me here. I don't support any state that existed in the 20th century. You can't say that just because many of the more powerful ones committed great numbers of murders, that all states are necessarily bad. What did Andorra do that was so evil? What about Morocco?

This is basically a nice way of dodging the intended question, namely how States mobilize our fears into mass mindedness and warfare and cause wars and genocides, whereas individuals do not. Your whole response here is basically one blob of resorting to opinionated double talk that has no bearing to the discussion, nor the question posed.

I've never said that anything we have now should exist. Something must exist to curtail the power of individuals and to enforce contracts. That is all. Whether or not it would even still be considered a "state" I don't know.

This statement once again, goes back to the initial question intended, namely that you believe individuals acting alone without involvement with the State are dangerous, yet you trust these same individuals whose power you want "curtailed", as selfless public servants when cloaked with the mantle State authority. The contradiction still pervades, and you have no way of dodging, namely because your stance is not ethical, since I define States as monopolies of aggression, coercion, and violence, and none can ever be justified hence I do not make a contradiction. Your above response namely advocates aggression, coercion, and violence on behalf of the State. Why should a State "curtail power" of individuals?

I'm afraid that the effects of the church on medieval times was far more deleterious than the effects of the state on the 20th century. Civilization was set back hundreds of years by the church. Forget the number of deaths. The only reason that is the case is that one, there were less people around back then, and two, there was no comparable entity to war with the church, and so the murders were limited mostly to individuals, rather than the murder of large groups.

This is simple anti-Christian dogma regurgitated ever since the Enlightenment onwards from the fanatics of the "Age of Reason", and further reflects your lack of historical and cultural profundity. Anyone who argues that the Church in medieval times was far more harmful to civilization, than the political systems and Nation-States of the 20th century, must have uber Church bias. The most liberating political force in history has been Christianity, any anyone familiar with late Roman history and the early medieval period as I am, can attest to this. Christianity shattered the unity of the ancient pagan world, and the source of that unity was the State, hence European civilization went through a period of having no State in the feudal age. The Christians, especially the early Christians in the early feudal period, recognized no earthly authority, and could be dubbed "anarchists" by modern perceptions. You can see why early Christians were savagely persecuted not because they were Christian or believed in Jesus, but they did not recognize the political authority, refused to worship the Roman emperor.

Contrary to your perception of the Church, the Church became the countervailing authority of that society putting checks and limits on the authority of the State. Lord Acton was correct when he stated that the practice of political liberty in Europe largley arose because of the Churhc-State conflict of the medieval world, and it was this period that gave rise evnetually to the individualism and classical liberalism, individualism, etc., etc. because Europe went through a period of being Stateless, contrary to societies like Russia, which explains why instead of going from feudal society to capitalism, went directly into socialism, because it did not go through this period of absence of State, and this is affirmed by the world reknowned historian and former mentor of Bill Clinton, Carroll Quigley who wrote the monumental works, Tragedy and Hope, and The Evolution of Civilizations. However, I only refer the reader to the writings of St. Augustine, or St. Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics.

Further, this medieval fragmentation of the State fostered other human institutions other than the State, many times ignored, such as the family, the guild, the feudal lord, and so forth. This meant that the state had to share its authority with other equally legitimate human institutions. No human institution may exercise ultimate authority, contrary to now, which the State is the ultimate authority. But nowadays there is no unbiased dialogue about the Church, just like about race. Most references about Christianity are simply propaganda and biased, and academia, entertainment, the media, view Christianity as a tyranny standing in the way of the equality and multiculturalism promoted by the State and other bastions of humanity. In doing so, intellectuals in academia, mostly of the Leftist-Statist persuasion have created an intellectual Berlin Wall. Whether the Church is being denounced as homophobic or misogynistic or simply perverted or hindering civilization, the suggested solution is always the same, subject the Church to more control by the more "enlightened" authorities of the state.

Do you even pay attention to what I type? When did I ever say I support taxation, or eminent domain, or warfare? These are not necessary aspects of a state. Even if every state that has ever existed has committed these crimes, it doesn't mean they have to. Think outside the box a little.

They don't have to committ murder, they don't have to steal, they don't have to expand, but they all too often do. All States are coercive, and employ violence and aggression. Now if you maintain the argument supporting the existence of the State, you are in essence justifying aggression, violence and coercion.

Surely you can see that if you define warfare as fighting between states, then the abolition of states will by definition rid us of warfare. That doesn't mean large-scale killing will be gone, or even lessened.

This is a pointless statement since I never denied violence will not exist, but only lessen it, since violence has led man close to extinction thanks to State systems. You seem to prefer State condoned violenced, as opposed to individuals.

I think you're being a little close-minded and more than a little pessimistic to assume that all states must eventually come to this. I don't think this is the case, provided that very little power is given to the state in the first place. Given that no state of the type that I advocate has ever existed, I don't see how you could possibly say that.

Fact: All States employ violence, aggression, and coercion. If you maintain this is wrong and bad when individuals do it, and criminalize them, you don't hold the State to the same standards, and by "you" I don't mean you, but I mean the masses in general think this way, in this contradiction. Now to say that States do not employ violence, aggression and coercion, is untrue, so we are either left with, do you believe violence, aggression, and coercion are justified on innocent people, or not? Obviously in matters of self defense I would justify violence, but never intentionally on innocent people. If you maintain otherwise, you support that.

People have fought with each other, as groups, since the days of hunters and gatherers. Tribal groups fought with each other. You can't argue that most fighting is necessarily a result of the state. Even if a lot of it is today, and I agree that it is, that is only because of flaws in our current state, not because of any inherent flaw in the concept of a state.

You are once again making erroneous statements, ignoring the bulk of my argument, much like the dusken. He upheld the fallacious logic that I am advocating some kind of utopian society where there is no violence or killing. That is untrue. It is to the degree we are speaking, and the degree matters in this case. As I've said before, take a look at feudal Europe and the Old West, to see the scale of violence employed there, versus that employed by the State.

Then stop bringing up example that have nothing to do with what I advocate. Not all states do these things. Large states with too much power do this. This is not the state that I advocate.

All States employ violence, aggression, and coercion. In order to somehow justify a State you must show that they do not necessarily employ violence, aggression, and coercion.

What the hell does this have to do with anything I've said? Have I ever given any indication that I am in favor of conscription? You are clearly showing your lack of knowledge of what your fellow poster is actually talking about.

First of all, don't cherry pick only the part of conscription. I gave a detailed run down of the change of warfare in relation to democracy and the State. I see you did not bother to dispute that, which leaves me wondering, why did you make a baseless claim that it was only technology that changed the nature of warfare? So from the French Revolution, until now, we have developed the welfare-warfare State. Something else has to account for all the mass armies, national armies, conscription, and total war, other than mere "technology" which was your original claim. I addressed that, and I see no disagreement, ergo political systems are responsible.

Not everyone could do it. That is exactly my point. It isn't difficult from a technical standpoint, but the money it would take makes it impossible for all but a handful of very powerful people to ever attain one. Besides, you seemingly have agreed with me that mutual deterrence, whether by individuals or by states, is the way to go here. In essence, this issue is the same regardless of whether or not states exist. The issue is with one state becoming too powerful. If the US had no standing army - only a minimal national guard and coast guard - and no powers of taxation, it would never have had the A-bomb.

It was the State that developed the A-Bomb in the first place. It was the State that used it and still threatens to use it. Yet, it is individuals you fear. Much like up above when you stated the "State" is there to curtail power of individuals, because even though the State has caused genocides and killed 200 million in the 20th century, it is those dangerous individuals you fear. In fact, the propaganda is so thorough one cannot dispute this sort of logic with reason. In fact, reason would tell you that war is wrong, and the only one to employ war, in the full sense of the word, and how we know it, is the State.


For exactly this purpose - to show that the situation is not dependent on the existence of states.

Oh but it is dependent on them. States and individuals are not the same. An individual will question. A State is an amalgamation of individuals forged into a collective whole, that cannot question. The difference is 200 million people. See above on who or what created and used nukes.

This is where you are wrong. The death toll would have been less had those states in question not existed. Almost all of the murders you cite from the 20th century were committed at the hands of several large, powerful nations. There is no reason to blame all states. You are just scapegoating and oversimplifying the situation.

The point is those Stated did exist, and if it were not those said States, then it would be other States. Even then, nothing changes the facts, nor does it make any State's existence justified, since they are a monopoly of power, namely, violence and coercion.

[Gadelius]

Anarchy destroys freedom because it distorts reality. The motivation of work, the stuff out of which bread and circuses are fashioned, the substance of basic life: ARE being destroyed by it – not only in their physical being, but in their spiritual bases.

It is true that authority can corrupt, but so also can anarchy. It is true that power can corrupt, but so also can powerlessness.

Perhaps the most conspicuous error, however, is the folly of conferring power where it is certain to be misused and of weakening in the interest of any political theory, or speculation, those pillars of social order on which all true liberty and all real progress ultimately depend.

Then everything includes itself in power,
Power into will, will into appetite;
And appetite, an universal wolf,
So doubly seconded with will and power,
Must make perforce an universal prey,
And last eat up himself

[ Shakepeare ].

[Anonymouse]

Anarchy destroys freedom because it distorts reality. The motivation of work, the stuff out of which bread and circuses are fashioned, the substance of basic life: ARE being destroyed by it – not only in their physical being, but in their spiritual bases.

It is true that authority can corrupt, but so also can anarchy. It is true that power can corrupt, but so also can powerlessness.

Perhaps the most conspicuous error, however, is the folly of conferring power where it is certain to be misused and of weakening in the interest of any political theory, or speculation, those pillars of social order on which all true liberty and all real progress ultimately depend.

Then everything includes itself in power,
Power into will, will into appetite;
And appetite, an universal wolf,
So doubly seconded with will and power,
Must make perforce an universal prey,
And last eat up himself

[ Shakepeare ].

You have obviously not read the thread in its entirety and thereby have a distorted sense of what anarchy constitutes. I suggest you read the thread because I am curious how it "destroys freedom"? Furthermore, everyone including yourself seem to have misconception that what is advocated here is somehow "utopian", or "everyone running around looting and killing" like in Iraq, nevermind that the latter is precisely because of State induced violence.

As economics shows, it is precisely the present political systems, namely democracy, that is the biggest threat to what you just referred to as liberty, and what we mean by liberty is the private property rights of individuals, which is the basis of society itself. Thereby calling on regurgitated and warped political ideologies, that are all one and the same, except in their veneer, to protect liberty, is akin to believing that limited government works.

In any event, those who advocate anarchy do so from a normative or ethical position, and it is no wonder why utilitarians do not like and do not understand it.