Attention Surfer

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by TigranJamharian Democracy is fine if it doesnt develop party divisions and doesnt slowly morph into a socialist state. Every aspect of life is slowly being subsidized. If there was not a party system than i think all of democracies problems would be solved. but the party system evolves naturally and there is no practical way to prevent it.

"Anarchy of production" hasn't been even employed for you to know what problems will arise.

The problem with your assessment is that you blame the party divisions, and overall divisions democracy creates, but not the system itself. Democracy is the problem.

All political systems are based on collectivism, and a violation of property rights of individuals. That is what no one understands in politics, that all prosperty is based on private property, and production from individuals, not what political system they espouse.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe actually has a very interesting alternative system based on privatization that could serve as a model for society which seems to be logically consistent with the free market, and the property rights of individuals.

You should read his books, The Myth of National Defense, and Democracy: The God That Failed.

[surferarmo]

I read the article and love it. Absolutely love it. The first two paragraphs I am in total concurrence with. Welfare dependency is an issue that I am very motivated by. Aristotle thought the same way, and on this I can agree with him.

Everything else I am pretty much for, except a government is necessary to do what an individual can not. Even if property was ruled over in an anarchist fashion, what you might end up with is plots of land that is controlled by the home owner. His/her farm hands can be used as a militia to wage war on other farm hands. It still does not eliminate the problem, it only leads to another. Since people will form into these little societies, they will undo the very fabric of anacrchism, and round and round the circle of history goes.

[Anonymouse]

Not according to the model Hans-Hermann Hoppe has devised. You should read the books mentioned, you will learn alot. You will see that a central State is unnecessary.

I don't want to take the liberty of having to summarize his views as I might pervert them, since a slight change might mean something else, but you yourself can read the books.

Another point surfer, if you agree with the first part, then how can you then go on to say you need a government? The first part already sums up that government is contradictory with principles of economics.

[TJ]

whoa whoa whoa. i seem to remember this. Please dont start an argument with anon about the neccesity of govt he will torture you. there was another thread just about this you can read it if you want. i also think we need a government but i know better than to start this argument with anon.

[Anonymouse]

Are you just catching on now? What do you think this whole thread was about? If democracy is illogical and inconsistent with the principles of economics, then modern government is as well.

You just got to that idea?

Here let me help you by giving you the lightbulb so you can look like you catch on to ideas fast.

[TJ]

anonymouse why do you constantly feel inclined to insult my intelligence.

waht i meant was that the thread was goin good before because you were focusing on something other than whether or not we need government in a practical world, but i just got reminded of the last thread about htis and the arguments which were extremely excruciating so i wanted to keep it from degenerating into that. by the way i have to finish typing up my physics lab so im gonna try no to come back to this website. if i post again please ask my why i am such an idiot and dont realize that finishing my physics lab is unimaginably more important than posting on this damn addicting site.

[Anonymouse]

I shouldn't be asking you that question, you should ask yourself that, and eventually you should also have the answer...for your sake.

Hopefully.

[surferarmo]

Originally posted by TigranJamharian whoa whoa whoa. i seem to remember this. Please dont start an argument with anon about the neccesity of govt he will torture you. there was another thread just about this you can read it if you want. i also think we need a government but i know better than to start this argument with anon.

Anon and I have been going at it since I birthed my existence on this forum. Believe me, nothing will stop us...nothing.

And yes Anon, government is necessary. In a anarchal state, who will build our freeways? What about trade? California would be well off for agriculture, but what about other states? There probably wouldnt even be "California," but you get the point, the western region or something of that sort. You have to remember that theory and practice are two different things.

Any form of government would quickly re-establish. Some person would live by a set of rules that they live by. Others would agree to these rules and join in a society which has "signed" a contract to abide by these rules. What the article lacks is a logical order of structures. It is people first...then government. We made it under voluntary conditions, plain and simple.

Maybe I sounded like an extreme "liberatarian" who wishes to have absolutely NO government at all. I just want no government in business. And when I say government, I mean central or federal government. I want more power to states, and I want a lot more power to be alotted to local governments and secondary offices.

The problem with their model of complete anarchal regime is that it requires everyone to care. It requires everyone to participate in the betterment of themselves. With low political participation these days I doubt people want to have those worries as they are busy already providing for their families and themselves in a fast paced society. This is another reason for creating government. People elect officials to do what they might not have time to fully particpate in.

I agree that government jobs are not substantial to the growth of society. People in government jobs are hired and then protected whether or not they perform. They are not subject to the consequences of the market and as a result are allowed leniency.

And anarchy, by the way, is an extreme form of right wing doctrine. Though I am strong in my right wing beliefs, I shun extremes of any doctrine.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by surferarmo And yes Anon, government is necessary. In a anarchal state, who will build our freeways? What about trade? California would be well off for agriculture, but what about other states? There probably wouldnt even be "California," but you get the point, the western region or something of that sort. You have to remember that theory and practice are two different things.

You don't need government to build freeways, just like you don't need government to administer laws or produce security. Government has convinced the masses in our political conditioning, that only IT can be responsible for public works, or security production, or the enforcement of law. What Hans-Hermann Hope has proposed is a privatization of everything and the establishment of private insurance companies. Ergo, law and security would be privatized. Of course insurance companies shouldn't be confused with the insurance companies who exist now and are menaces largely due to government meddling and regulation in the first place.

Of course you do realize what this means, don't you, that there would be no political systems. It is thus actually ideologies and isms that keep our thinking shackled and tied to the 'central-State' more than anything else.

Originally posted by surferarmo Any form of government would quickly re-establish. Some person would live by a set of rules that they live by. Others would agree to these rules and join in a society which has "signed" a contract to abide by these rules. What the article lacks is a logical order of structures. It is people first...then government. We made it under voluntary conditions, plain and simple.

You see, this is the problem with the Social Contract theory. It assumes the decisions of individuals and goes on to state that all States come into existence by the mutual agreement of the people involved to benefit their aims, but that is not the case, all States have come and continue to come into existence via violence and coercion.

However under the system proposed Hans-Hermann Hoppe, contracts and agreement between the individual with his private property, and the insurance company, would be on an individual and voluntary basis, if the indivdual is unhappy with the laws and protection of his particular insurance company he would be able to seek another, thus competition and quality are not succumbed to the monopolization which is characteristic of modern governments.

Originally posted by surferarmo Maybe I sounded like an extreme "liberatarian" who wishes to have absolutely NO government at all. I just want no government in business. And when I say government, I mean central or federal government. I want more power to states, and I want a lot more power to be alotted to local governments and secondary offices.

Of course, this is exactly what this is all about, how government, a.k.a. the State, interferes with the free market economics, and hence the private property of individuals. That this is happening is not even open for debate, it is a matter of to what degree is it happening? The worthless fiat money that we believe in ( the Dollar ), which is pumped into society by the Federal Reserve, is ofcourse, worthless and at all points in history, all paper money have been an instrument of the State. No freemarket has ever been shown to work with the baseless paper money instead of real commodity like gold, or silver. Of course, the problem with your proposal is that all the States and local governments eventually answer to Big Brother.

Whether you vote for democrat or republican matters not as the government always gets elected. The idea is that government "provides security" and "protects our property rights" is a fallacy, since government is a monopoly of force in a given territory, therefore from the point of view of the consumer, this is bad, since any monopoly is bad, and so the consumer has no other alternative and can't go to any other agency to seek "security" or "property protection". All conflicts whether inter-state or within the state that exist are because one group refuses to acknowledge the property rights of individuals. That is the whole reason of government interference in our property rights. So our "democracy" is no more protective of our basic tenets of property ownership, than is traditional socialism.

Whether it be Marxists or any other men representing their political systems, they all are premised on intruding the property rights of individuals, since all political systems are based on collectivism, even democracy, with its chants of redistribution and welfarism. Whether its environmental pollution, public schools, affirmitive action, inflation, taxation, zoning laws, eminent domain, terrorism, gun control, you name it, in each instance problems are created and maintained by government policies. In other words the people have no choice but to comply with government policies, for if they did not they will be reprimanded, and this is coercion at its finest. We seem to think that if I steal your water gun its "theft" but government can clearly come and take my property in the form of eminent domain or taxation and we would never dare call that "theft".

In this sense, whatever "State" exists is socialistic since to whatever degree it exists it is in conflict with the property rights of individuals. Taxation is the finest example of government violating the property rights of individuals. Every other person has to earn their property and income through labor, only the government does not have to earn its source of income through labor, since it exists on theft, and taxation of its individuals through acts of coercion. Hence the income of politicians and government workers is guaranteed and well again we've been over this, it leads to a debilitating state one wrecked by corruption, lack of quality, etc.

So by the definition that a State is a monopoly of force in a given territory, regardless of technicalities and constitutions, is deficient, since a monopoly dumbs down quality, creates corruption. If government employees depend on their income from the taxpayer then they not need any longer to put in all their effort, since their incomce is already guaranteed, thus stifling incentive, and hence leading to again corruption, lack of quality, etc. But the government has convinced you that only it can be the arbiter of what is right or wrong ( Law ) between conflicts among individuals and if the government were to make mistakes eventually it is also the arbiter of its own actions, and who do you think it is going to side with? Such questions are rarely asked or even thought of.

With the rise of the modern State, the idea of warfare has changed as well. Since the French Revolution you have had conscription in the military and the idea of "nationalism" and total war. Whereas under monarchy you had mercenaries and such who fought because they were paid, now people have to fight because they have to, and in order to whip up and make your soldiers fight you have to bring in indoctrination, ideology, brainwashing, and the enemy is "lesser" than you, hence total war where there is no regard for civilians or the like.

If the modern State was truly an improvement, then you wouldn't have had 200 million people die in the name of political systems in the 20th century alone, and now stand on the brink of nuclear holocaust. Thus from the point of view of humanity, and the consumer, government is bad. But our political conditioning won't allow us to veer off into forbidden territories as such.

Originally posted by surferarmo The problem with their model of complete anarchal regime is that it requires everyone to care. It requires everyone to participate in the betterment of themselves. With low political participation these days I doubt people want to have those worries as they are busy already providing for their families and themselves in a fast paced society. This is another reason for creating government. People elect officials to do what they might not have time to fully particpate in.

That it "requires too much caring" is simply a guess, as it has not been employed, how would you know? The mere fact that in todays "fact paced" society people have no time to have political efficacy or some sort of time to participate in their lives, and be self-guided and self-directed individuals, is indicative of government induced policies. It is government taxes and regulations that have forced people to be little drones seeking transcendence by attaching themselves to external agencies and institutions to seek a good paying job, notoriety, influential friends, etc., to pay bills, taxes, and other worthless xxxx in this never ending and reciprocating process, and the dichotomy between mind and body has split more and more, as the State has become bigger and bigger.

It is precisely that we live in an all encompassing ideological central State that people are assigned their robotic functions to carry out in their vocationally trained jobs, not diverting from the State rubric. And hence such a society is dependent on electing morally depraved people known as 'politicians' to make choices for them. Imagine how fallacious that is. We in our everyday lives do not like being told what to do and make choices for ourselves, yet we go and vote for morally depraved people who get their money through stealing our labor in the form of "taxation" and we vote for them. Such a society is bound to fail, as it always does.

Originally posted by surferarmo I agree that government jobs are not substantial to the growth of society. People in government jobs are hired and then protected whether or not they perform. They are not subject to the consequences of the market and as a result are allowed leniency.

And hence the bigger a government is, the more politicians and government employees you have, the more taxation you have, the more corruption and lack of quality you have, thus ultimately such a state is doomed for peril, as that is reflective of the U.S. Empire.

Originally posted by surferarmo And anarchy, by the way, is an extreme form of right wing doctrine. Though I am strong in my right wing beliefs, I shun extremes of any doctrine.

Strange that there are many left-wing anarchists and Noam Chomsky is one of them, in fact anarchy is something that is prevalent from the left and right of the political spectrum, and even "anarchists" themselves have disagreement as to how they interpret society and alternatives. I am more aligned with those from the Austrian school of economics of Ludwig von Mises.

[surferarmo]

That was a long post.

The fact of the matter is that people would congregate around someone who provided a service. It would be ineffecient for everyone to have their own police force with a farm and their own system of highways. People would specialize, then trade, and there you go, centralized authority arises. The police force house would be the central authoritative body thus the central governing body.

Anarchism fails.