State vs. Government

At 5/16/2012 12:27:45 AM, socialpinko wrote:

At 5/16/2012 12:22:39 AM, M.Torres wrote:

At 5/16/2012 12:19:41 AM, socialpinko wrote:

At 5/16/2012 12:15:12 AM, M.Torres wrote:

At 5/16/2012 12:13:02 AM, socialpinko wrote:

At 5/16/2012 12:01:00 AM, M.Torres wrote:

At 5/15/2012 11:59:21 PM, socialpinko wrote:

At 5/15/2012 11:48:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I don't think anybody advocates that government is this wonderful great thing. And surely you don't believe that anarchy is a utopian society. So the question remains which are the lesser of the two evils. I maintain the government is the lesser of the two evils.

I maintain tha giving one institution all the power opens it up to measurable levels of violence and corruption and that decentralized defense agencies can perform their respective functions while leaving power decentralized enough to ward off chaos.

But those decentralized agencies can be bought, and bam. You have monopoly of force all over again. I can only see anarchy as being a gateway to totalitarian regimes. The only things that can oppose that are other organized governments, or other totalitarian regimes, but suddenly it looks just like statism.

*explains the safeguards of decentralism on the ability to acrue large amounts of power again but M.Torres is too busy jacking it to ampicture of Chairman Mao to read through*

You have proven no points Spinko, and the ad hom/ad absurdum just makes you look like you have no response. So I'm assuming you don't.

You decentralize power, so what stops people from "re-centralizing" it? Are you saying it's absolutely impossible? How do you enforce decentralization of power?

You don't. That's the whole point. I'm which scenario is it harder to accrue power over everyone in society? In a society where everyone has equal power (coverage of defense agencies, personal defense, etc.) or a society in which this one criminal organization is simply GIVEN all the power because they're scared that other criminal organizations MIGHT brain power over them? At least decentrslism doesn't purposely create the conditions it purports to keep from occurring.

I don't buy it. Decentralizing power to everyone does not keep power from people. Power can and would still be obtained and enforced on others. It's all out war between whoever wants to be a part of it. Your paradise is not even close to what you think it is.

You can say "yes yes yes" or "no no no" all you want, but the fact remains that your anarchy solves for nothing.

You know it gets tiring repeating myself to someone who I really can't expect to listen. Explain to me why decentralizing power among everyone will yield a more totalitarian society then one in which we gve all that power outright to a criminal organization with a track record for genocide, totalitarianism, etc.

You know it gets tiring repeating myself to someone who I really can't expect to listen.

I already have. Security firms are a good example. People will let them amass powers in their interest until that firm decides it is not in their interest to keep serving those people, or they are paid by rich resource owners to murder their economic opponents for example.

The only way to solve for this is with other security firms and bam. You have all out war that is the same violence you apparently detest. It's on a smaller scale, according to you, but I don't believe it so. In comparison to that anarchic society, it'd be small scale but high amount. MULTIPLE groups of enforcers of their own might.

This also ignores the entire problem of how property rights are to be enforced without breaking the non-agression principle.

At 5/16/2012 12:07:01 AM, socialpinko wrote:

At 5/15/2012 11:55:40 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Gimme one example of a successful, thriving, benevolent State, Oberherr.

I'm trying to show to show you that people are always stupid so it's ridiculous to give a small group of them all powe over everyone else. If an average Joe with a Glock can't be trusted, how can a politician with an arsenal of nuclear weapons? Show me what changes when you become part of the government and why the State isn't simply an exasperation of the problem we both recognize by making the amount o power to exploit exponentially larger for one institution?

North America, Parts of South America, most of Europe, Various Asia countries, I suppose some African countries, Australia.

Ouch. So much stupid in this thread.

At 5/16/2012 7:08:57 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Ouch. So much stupid in this thread.

Ikr? SP needs to get a life. XD

At 5/16/2012 7:13:26 AM, OberHerr wrote:

At 5/16/2012 7:08:57 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Ouch. So much stupid in this thread.

Ikr? SP needs to get a life. XD

Heh, mate, unfortunately, you were the main source. I take it you've never discussed anarchy before? And to be completely fair to you, your errors are pretty common.

At 5/16/2012 7:18:31 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

At 5/16/2012 7:13:26 AM, OberHerr wrote:

At 5/16/2012 7:08:57 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Ouch. So much stupid in this thread.

Ikr? SP needs to get a life. XD

Heh, mate, unfortunately, you were the main source. I take it you've never discussed anarchy before? And to be completely fair to you, your errors are pretty common.

I haven't discussed it much. Care to point them out?

At 5/16/2012 7:21:50 AM, OberHerr wrote:

At 5/16/2012 7:18:31 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

At 5/16/2012 7:13:26 AM, OberHerr wrote:

At 5/16/2012 7:08:57 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Ouch. So much stupid in this thread.

Ikr? SP needs to get a life. XD

Heh, mate, unfortunately, you were the main source. I take it you've never discussed anarchy before? And to be completely fair to you, your errors are pretty common.

I haven't discussed it much. Care to point them out?

Sure thing. Give me a moment.

Remember - government is nothing more than a monopoly on land and law. It is not special or different from any other group or body except in this respect.

At 5/15/2012 11:10:21 PM, OberHerr wrote:
could you tell me how criminals would be less dangerous, successful under an anarchist society?

Do you realize how much a incredible job our law enforment does currently, what with tracking people down, finger prints, and how safe we really are?

Bizarre assumption anarchy will have no law enforcement. It would have no monopoly on law enforcement, but competition. Bizarre assumption that technology disappears.
Ignores the large amount of aggression current law enforcement commits (legal crimes as it were - things which would be illegal for others if they were not performed by the monopoly on law)

At 5/15/2012 11:26:14 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Anarchist always sound like "Fight the Power, just cause its the Power, I'm a rebel, yeah!" sorta people.

What? On DDO alone the list of the top 10 most intelligent people (within the political forums) would be 9/10 anarchist. They provide consistent logical justifications for anti-statism. How on earth have they ever sounded like that?

At 5/15/2012 11:28:50 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Tell me, what in anarchy stops me from going around killing peoeple?

My neighbors?

What if I'm better equip than all of them?

SP's point here about there being a current anarchy between states is legitimate. In addition; anarchy does not mean no laws. It means no monopoly on law. People desire protection and laws. It will be provided - but with competition. Demand and supply baby.

At 5/15/2012 11:53:18 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 5/15/2012 11:47:11 PM, socialpinko wrote:

At 5/15/2012 11:34:03 PM, OberHerr wrote:
And SP, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question on what happens if I decide to go on a killing spree.

Cause, EVERYONE having access to the ability to "make their own laws" is a better idea than a centralized government doing it. Right.

Everyone is allowed to make their own laws. You may make your own car right now. With competitive laws, the better creaters and enforcers will be more profitable.
A government does not inherently do it better (in fact with no competition it does it worse!).
Just as anyone can create their own car, and not everyone does, any could create a set of laws, try to get an insurance firm to uphold them, it does not mean they will, or that anyone will value them.

Slight tangent

It is fairly clear you have not heard of the concept of polycentric law before, which is the probable way the legal system would function in an ancap society.
Here are the essentials: Insurance firms create a set of laws. People who desire the protection of these laws pay the insurance company. Now if someone breaks one of these laws against the individual, such as stealing something of theirs, the insurance company now has the incentive to track down the thief and seek recompense on the individuals behalf equal to whatever was lost. Should there be a dispute, it would be taken to a third party - a private court.
The reputation of these courts, and thus their success, will be dependent on how fair they are.
This is a quick and dirty explanation. I wouldn't be surprised if you had more questions. If so, just shoot me a pm.

At 5/15/2012 11:55:40 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Gimme one example of a successful, thriving, benevolent anarchy SP.

1. Does not mean it wouldn't work
2. There are no examples of the same for states.

At 5/16/2012 7:50:24 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Remember - government is nothing more than a monopoly on land and law. It is not special or different from any other group or body except in this respect.

In anarchy property owners create and enforce the rules on their property. A federation of property owners can thus govern the community, by agreeing on laws which effects their collective property.

Anarcho-communism does not have private property, so they need a public entity to establish law and order; if a democracy is established for this purpose, they would have a democratic state.

I just discovered this thread, and I didn't bother reading most of it, because it seems like the same old stuff you hear in every thread that discusses anarchy.

The anarchists on this site are anarcho-idealists. They look at anarchy as something to aspire to. I am an anarcho-realist, meaning I see anarchy as being the current state of the world.

The only reason non-anarchists have trouble wrapping their head around it is because they are looking at anarchy as an ideal, not an observation of reality. The anarchists on this site are not likely to make anarchy look any less stupid.

A true anarchist is a game theory magician who channels tge chaos to his/her benefit, not a pouting invalid who can't accept reality the way it is.

Do I deal with the state? Yes, I get hassled by the police all the time. For stupid things that you'd probably scratch your head at.. but I know how to deal with them. The state is like a big dummy with a large stick. Do I pay income tax? No. Do I pay tickets? No. Do I have a valid ID? No. I live on the streets, and I have since 2009, only occasionally staying in places in secret. I'm an anarchist, and if anyone wants to know anarchy, and what it means to be an anarchist, they should skip the others and just talk to me. I will do my best to help you understand it, and see how it is real in society.

Cosmic was who Oberherr was referring to with his ignorant comment about anarchists simply being wannabe rebels.

At least I have the balls to cease supporting an institution that operates in a manner that I am opposed to. I practice civil disobedience.

For a wannabe rebel, I'm pretty damn good at it. I don't define my "level of anarchy" by how many pins I have in my face.

At 5/16/2012 7:03:20 AM, OberHerr wrote:

At 5/16/2012 12:07:01 AM, socialpinko wrote:

At 5/15/2012 11:55:40 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Gimme one example of a successful, thriving, benevolent State, Oberherr.

I'm trying to show to show you that people are always stupid so it's ridiculous to give a small group of them all powe over everyone else. If an average Joe with a Glock can't be trusted, how can a politician with an arsenal of nuclear weapons? Show me what changes when you become part of the government and why the State isn't simply an exasperation of the problem we both recognize by making the amount o power to exploit exponentially larger for one institution?

North America, Parts of South America, most of Europe, Various Asia countries, I suppose some African countries, Australia.

You left out the benevolent part brah. And I didn't know the brink if utter financial collapse is a precondition for Europe to be thriving.

At 5/16/2012 10:46:10 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At least I have the balls to cease supporting an institution that operates in a manner that I am opposed to. I practice civil disobedience.

I'm with you there brah. Though I suppose simply ignoring status and drug laws on my part doesn't compare to the scope with which you pull it. More power to you is all I have to say about that.

For a wannabe rebel, I'm pretty damn good at it. I don't define my "level of anarchy" by how many pins I have in my face.

Whether or not you're actually a rebel wasn't the point hombre. The point was that Oberherr has this preconceived notion of the anarchist as some isolated teenager saying Fvck the government in his basement while totally ignoring the rich philosophical, economic, and activist history of the historical anarchist movement.

At 5/16/2012 10:20:59 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I just discovered this thread, and I didn't bother reading most of it, because it seems like the same old stuff you hear in every thread that discusses anarchy.

The anarchists on this site are anarcho-idealists. They look at anarchy as something to aspire to. I am an anarcho-realist, meaning I see anarchy as being the current state of the world.

The only reason non-anarchists have trouble wrapping their head around it is because they are looking at anarchy as an ideal, not an observation of reality. The anarchists on this site are not likely to make anarchy look any less stupid.

A true anarchist is a game theory magician who channels tge chaos to his/her benefit, not a pouting invalid who can't accept reality the way it is.

Do I deal with the state? Yes, I get hassled by the police all the time. For stupid things that you'd probably scratch your head at.. but I know how to deal with them. The state is like a big dummy with a large stick. Do I pay income tax? No. Do I pay tickets? No. Do I have a valid ID? No. I live on the streets, and I have since 2009, only occasionally staying in places in secret. I'm an anarchist, and if anyone wants to know anarchy, and what it means to be an anarchist, they should skip the others and just talk to me. I will do my best to help you understand it, and see how it is real in society.

I kind of agree with that in the sense that the difference between an "anarchist" society vs. a "state" is a gradient more then anything. There's no concrete definition of a state and no concrete definition of anarchy. The state uses certain means to get one to either abstain from doing action or encourage to do action, but this is just behaviorism that anybody can do, whether a state or not. I suppose a state can stop someone from obtaining the means to obtain one's goal, but then again anybody is capable of doing that as well. And the idea of "voluntary" vs. "involuntary" is kind of fuzzy as well, based on the same analysis I gave above.

The state to me is this.. an institution that cowards use to enforce their will when they are to scared to deal with someone.

Most of the times I deal with the cops, it is because some snitch would rather involve the law than talk to me. Earlier today, I got hassled for sitting in front of a business that I was waiting for to open. Some jack arse across the street called tge cops on me.

That's some preemptive blow up Iraq shyt there. The state will exist so long as there are cowards and those with an authoritarian mindstate. Cowards tend to have an authoritarian mindstate. In most places on the street, that attitude will get your teeth knocked in. In Chicago, you could find yourself at the bottom of the I&M.

Really though, people don't realize how truly anarchistic tge world is until you hit the street level. The law isn't as all pervasive as people think. The government's control is mostly illusion. The state's power is greatly exaggerated. I'd say that well over 70% of all crimes are unreported.

Don't get me started on that NWO magic trick. Hah

At 5/16/2012 11:46:26 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The state to me is this.. an institution that cowards use to enforce their will when they are to scared to deal with someone.

Most of the times I deal with the cops, it is because some snitch would rather involve the law than talk to me. Earlier today, I got hassled for sitting in front of a business that I was waiting for to open. Some jack arse across the street called tge cops on me.

That's some preemptive blow up Iraq shyt there. The state will exist so long as there are cowards and those with an authoritarian mindstate. Cowards tend to have an authoritarian mindstate. In most places on the street, that attitude will get your teeth knocked in. In Chicago, you could find yourself at the bottom of the I&M.

Really though, people don't realize how truly anarchistic tge world is until you hit the street level. The law isn't as all pervasive as people think. The government's control is mostly illusion. The state's power is greatly exaggerated. I'd say that well over 70% of all crimes are unreported.




Don't get me started on that NWO magic trick. Hah

Technically more like 99.9% If you include bullsh!t laws that aren't even enforced anymore but are in the criminal law books anyways. Seriously, there are a lot of freakin' laws out there.

Yeah, I was being a bit generous to the state.

I still see anarchy as just an ideal since I don't believe achieving it with any success is possible.

I still think it's a temporary state of being, not a form of government.

At 5/16/2012 12:08:21 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I still see anarchy as just an ideal since I don't believe achieving it with any success is possible.

I still think it's a temporary state of being, not a form of government.

Anarchy isn't a government, and it isn't something that is achieved. Anarchy is the current state of the world. Even reading an'cap literature, you can interpret this to being the case.

The state is unavoidable. There will always at the very least be microstates that deal out violence and use coercion while claiming sovereignty over land. Anarchy the way you think it is... of course it siunds ridiculous, because you don't understand it. You still think of it as an ideal.

Cosmic, I can always count on you to reveal truth. :)

Basically what I was saying. Spinko is playing semantics, and DanT is only proving it. A government is a system to GOVERN. Even in an anarchy, you require a form to govern and enforce. You can't ENFORCE anarchy without a government (communism anyone? lol)

So yes. DarkKermit and Cosmic are showing different facets of the same point I had.

At 5/16/2012 2:17:41 PM, M.Torres wrote:
Cosmic, I can always count on you to reveal truth. :)

Basically what I was saying. Spinko is playing semantics, and DanT is only proving it. A government is a system to GOVERN. Even in an anarchy, you require a form to govern and enforce. You can't ENFORCE anarchy without a government (communism anyone? lol)

So yes. DarkKermit and Cosmic are showing different facets of the same point I had.

That the world is actually in a perpetual state of superimposed anarchy?

At 5/16/2012 2:17:41 PM, M.Torres wrote:
Cosmic, I can always count on you to reveal truth. :)

Basically what I was saying. Spinko is playing semantics, and DanT is only proving it. A government is a system to GOVERN. Even in an anarchy, you require a form to govern and enforce. You can't ENFORCE anarchy without a government (communism anyone? lol):

That's why I stay a minarchist, because while anarchists make good arguments concerning the travails of statism, there is no practical way to eradicate a state without another one taking its place.

And in my opinion, I don't believe government is bad because it's government. I believe government tends to be bad on account of monopolizing power, rules, and the tendency for human beings to act..... human....

There is only one way to lower the influence of an economic institution you do not like.

Put them out of business. The state is not exempt from capitalism. It is a business like any convenience store. Don't support the state? Quit supporting it! If you hate Walmart, don't shop there! It's the same thing.

Politics and government are just extensions of economics.