Principles

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Refusing to vote would not be a revolution. There are contingencies in place for that. As I said before, legislative bodies would appoint officeholders. Same system, same rules, no input from the mass of people. Where's the revolution?

If there is no government by the "people" ( i.e. no centralized ruling authority that uses coercion), there wouldn't be "voting" or "appointing".

You are really missing the point, for government, as defined by most anarchists, and me, is a coercive territorial monopoly of force.

Instead of it serving the "people", an abstract entity, it is a life unto its own, in which the people serve the government. If you remember your history lesson, government was created to "serve the people", yet somehow has dilineated from that role.

"Comparative government", wouldn't be that, since all will be privatized, from legislation, to police, to firemen, in other words there is choice, it is not compulsory nor is there coercion to participate in one system, you are free to leave since all exchanges, as in the market economy, are voluntary, and in order to gain in the market, you cooperate.

[sleuth]

i love anon he is a master of screw up any theory lol

[loseyourname]

Refusing to vote would not be a revolution. There are contingencies in place for that. As I said before, legislative bodies would appoint officeholders. Same system, same rules, no input from the mass of people. Where's the revolution?

[patlajan]

Originally posted by Anonymouse If no one wished to partake in the holiday of fools and be a part of the system, who would there be to rule? Then you would have what we call a revolution.

Yet another post that's gone off course thanks to your agenda of talking about the same thing in every thread.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname You're going to change the system by ignoring its existence? If every single citizen of the nation refused to vote, then legislative assemblies will be forced to appoint officeholders. Want to see some real tyrrany?

If no one wished to partake in the holiday of fools and be a part of the system, who would there be to rule? Then you would have what we call a revolution.

[loseyourname]

You're going to change the system by ignoring its existence? If every single citizen of the nation refused to vote, then legislative assemblies will be forced to appoint officeholders. Want to see some real tyrrany?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname You're beating around the bush again. Show me a way to bring your mythical state into being and keep it in being.

I'm not beating the Bush. Change comes first from individuals. For starters, you can begin by not voting. Second of all, it's not mythical nor is it a state, if you refer to state of condition, well like I said, your everyday actions are anarchistic.

[loseyourname]

You're beating around the bush again. Show me a way to bring your mythical state into being and keep it in being.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Now, as I said before, show us some way in which this privately run, competitive state can exist viably for an extended period of time without being taken over by a more cohesive and coercive state. Or heck, just show us a way in which this state might be brought about in the first place.

By the way, it took an awful lot of beating around the bush for you to finally say this - what I've been asking of you for two weeks now.

Competition doesn't need to be proven, for it already has. Whether in the market place, or in your every day lives.

How would society function without an all powerful central entity? Simply the way it did with it.

In the world of ideas people all desire for evading taxes, more freedom and liberty, and more wealth, the same for statists except they want more power.

The only idea that respect these human needs is the free market enterprise, the need to pursue ones own interests, since man places that over the many.

The free market adjusts and fix itself, so too would competitive institutions. Competitive State is an oxymoron for a State cannot be competitive, a State is a monoply.

Our allegiance to mass mindedness and attaching ourslves to external institutions and the State has only made blood shed and destruction ever more increasing and total, hence "total war".

Prior to the rise of nation-states, society was more politically fragmented and it corresponded with this in the amount of destruction it unleashed. Thus the more centralized a society has gotten, and tyranny is the absolute from of a cohesive organized entity, the more destruction it has unleashed. Yet always systems move towards disorder for the second law of thermodynamics and a look into chaos theory reveals that too many variables grow for that single central entity to be able to control events.

To further quote Lew Rockwell:

The notion of liberation in Afghanistan lasted only several weeks before those who were still paying attention realized that it had been a myth cooked up by US war planners. Today the country is rife with violence, poverty, criminal gangs, and the Taliban forming to stop the enormous rise of drug production that began only weeks after the Taliban was thrown out of the capital. As for Iraq, with bombings, killings, human suffering all around, and nothing in sight but the bad choices of continued military dictatorship or fundamentalist Islamic rule, everyone but the war planners now regards Iraq as a disaster.

The war planners believed that their will alone was enough to make and remake a country (whether Iraq or Afghanistan) and the world, simply because they operated the levers of state power. State power sees people as pliable, all events as controllable, and all outcomes as the inevitable working out of a well-constructed plan. Being the top dogs of the world's only superpower, they never doubted their ability to dictate the terms and so they had no plan for what to do if things went wrong.

What went wrong? They forgot several essential components of the structure of reality. People's free will is often backed by the willingness to undertake enormous sacrifice. Most especially it overlooks certain underlying laws that limit what is possible in human affairs. In the scheme of how the world works, even the largest state is only a bit player. It is capable of creating enormous chaos and transferring huge amounts of wealth, but not of controlling events themselves. This is why government action often generates results the opposite of those the policy is constructed to create.

Donald Rumsfeld's famous memo gives the whole game away. He admits that he does not know whether the US is winning or losing, but he is suspicious that it is losing. He admits that he lacks any means to discover whether the government is winning or losing. He admits that the private armies are doing better with millions than he and his government armies are doing with billions. He goes so far as to contemplate whether the government is capable of beating its enemies or whether another organization is needed.

If these comments don't strip away the façade of the warfare state, I don't know what would. Indeed, the entire apparatus of the warfare state is defeated by this fact: Human beings don't respond well to being treated like prisoners in someone else's central plan. If the desire is to wholly manage the future, the mega-planner is always a mega-failure, if not always in the short term certainly always in the long term. The Bush administration had bigger dreams than Wilson or FDR. But the group that began believing that it could reshape the world is now merely responding to events.

[loseyourname]

Now, as I said before, show us some way in which this privately run, competitive state can exist viably for an extended period of time without being taken over by a more cohesive and coercive state. Or heck, just show us a way in which this state might be brought about in the first place.

By the way, it took an awful lot of beating around the bush for you to finally say this - what I've been asking of you for two weeks now.