What is Anarchy?

[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.