Edward Snowden: American Hero

[volprof]

Agreed the media is the reason for the misconception, but in terms of body count, the world has definitely become a lot less violent. It's not even close.

Indeed, as states become much more stable and the system much less anarchic, until now. We're currently undergoing another great epochal upheaval. Better hope it comes out in our favor. Fortunately, I think it will. And, after all is said and done, I think it will return to another period of American hegemony again. A period of peace and security that we will hopefully not screw up again, like this last time.

 

[n_huffhines]

Way to short of a time frame to claim the world has gotten less violent.

Plus violence isn't always limited to state actors.

The 2nd point is a fair point, but not understanding the first point. The time frame wasn't specified. If we are comparing the world now to the world 50 years ago, then the time frame is not short. It's just right.

Wanna go back another 50 years and get WWI data in there?

Wanna go back another 50 years and get Civil War Data?

Wanna count genocides by Stalin, Mao, and Hitler (which aren't counted in the graph)?

The world and the US is less violent today than it has been in the past. No doubt.

 

[volprof]

Where are you getting that it's less violent than the 1990s? According to that Smithsonian graph, there is less death due to war.

I know for a fact the murder rate is down in the US, compared to the 1990s.

Yes, the murder rate is down, and perhaps less people are dying from warfare today than in the 90s. But where they're dying today is far more significant than in the 90s. Where they are dying today, or are likely to be dying soon, has a far better chance of producing a major war than where they were dying in the 90s.

I think a major war is against the odds, but I fail to see how anyone can argue that the world system is less chaotic today than it was in the 90s. It's still pretty good, relative to the decades before the 90s, but I don't think it's necessarily better, if, by "better," we mean "less likely to produce a major conflict."

 

[n_huffhines]

Indeed, as states become much more stable and the system much less anarchic, until now. We're currently undergoing another great epochal upheaval. Better hope it comes out in our favor. Fortunately, I think it will. And, after all is said and done, I think it will return to another period of American hegemony again. A period of peace and security that we will hopefully not screw up again, like this last time.

In any case where government doesn't work, you can just claim it was unstable and blame your idea of anarchy.

It's BS and intellectually dishonest.

Government doesn't usually work very well. Look at history. Instability is a common theme with government.

 

[hog88]

In any case where government doesn't work, you can just claim it was unstable and blame your idea of anarchy.

It's BS and intellectually dishonest.

Government doesn't usually work very well. Look at history. Instability is a common theme with government.

And in areas with weak or non-existent governments.

 

[Grand Vol]

Agreed the media is the reason for the misconception, but in terms of body count, the world has definitely become a lot less violent. It's not even close.

Battle deaths. I don't think that chart takes into account the survivability rate these days with modern medicine.

Not being argumentative, just adding another perspective.

 

[n_huffhines]

Battle deaths. I don't think that chart takes into account the survivability rate these days with modern medicine.

Not being argumentative, just adding another perspective.

Good point. War is a lot more faceless now, especially for the west. We can significantly reduce our casualties with technology outside of medicine. Doesn't mean we are less violent, though.

I think it does reflect the idea that as a society, the US wouldn't stand for another Vietnam. We may not be too concerned with Iraqi death counts, but we damn sure care about US*.

*not to say that in the 1960s people didn't care, but just saying we are less willing to stomach it today.

 

[volprof]

In any case where government doesn't work, you can just claim it was unstable and blame your idea of anarchy.

It's BS and intellectually dishonest.

Government doesn't usually work very well. Look at history. Instability is a common theme with government.

You think states are less stable today than in their incipience?

You anarchists beat all I've ever seen. I'm not claiming that governments make everyone want to smoke pot with one another, which seems to be your notion of humans in a state of nature, but what evidence do you have that all we want to really do is just smoke pot with one another, if not for those meddling governments?

As I told DTH, a perfect example of what your world would look like would be the streets of drug dealers. I just don't understand you all. You never read and/or watched "The Road," or something? The impulse of humanity is to establish governance anyhow, so we may as well be concerning ourselves with what kind of governance is best, rather than whether or not anarchy will work.

Anarchy might have a chance the moment humans stop being herd animals, but that isn't likely to occur anytime soon.

 

[volprof]

And in areas with weak or non-existent governments.

Good god, Saddam Hussein is preferable to the current state of anarchy Iraq is in. I just don't understand these anarchist utopianists. I think they're more concerned about purity than they are about how people actually live.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

At what point do you want to recognize democide?

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

 

[n_huffhines]

You think states are less stable today than in their incipience?

Which state? In what way? I would say the US is stable in terms of national security, but completely unstable in terms of financial health.

You anarchists beat all I've ever seen. I'm not claiming that governments make everyone want to smoke pot with one another, which seems to be your notion of humans in a state of nature, but what evidence do you have that all we want to really do is just smoke pot with one another, if not for those meddling governments?

Huh? Not sure what you are talking about. Sounds like you already smoked pot.

As I told DTH, a perfect example of what your world would look like would be the streets of drug dealers. I just don't understand you all. You never read and/or watched "The Road," or something? The impulse of humanity is to establish governance anyhow, so we may as well be concerning ourselves with what kind of governance is best, rather than whether or not anarchy will work.

You're talking about a result of government when you say "streets of drug dealers" and claiming it's anarchy. The visual you have in your mind was created by government overreach.

Then you're bringing up a fictional book and saying that's anarchy. I don't know how to respond to data points steeped in fiction.

Anarchy might have a chance the moment humans stop being herd animals, but that isn't likely to occur anytime soon.

Are we herd animals? Maybe we act like herd animals because that's how government treats us. Maybe we wouldn't be herd animals if we had the freedom to be something else.

Why could democracy work if we are nothing more than herd animals? How could we possibly choose good leaders?

 

[Grand Vol]

Good point. War is a lot more faceless now, especially for the west. We can significantly reduce our casualties with technology outside of medicine. Doesn't mean we are less violent, though.

I think it does reflect the idea that as a society, the US wouldn't stand for another Vietnam. We may not be too concerned with Iraqi death counts, but we damn sure care about US*.

*not to say that in the 1960s people didn't care, but just saying we are less willing to stomach it today.

Estimated 1,000,000 North Vietnamese casualties during that conflict. And they kept coming...

Sheer will and determination to a cause if anyone ever saw such a thing.

 

[volprof]

Which state? In what way? I would say the US is stable in terms of national security, but completely unstable in terms of financial health.



Huh? Not sure what you are talking about. Sounds like you already smoked pot.



You're talking about a result of government when you say "streets of drug dealers" and claiming it's anarchy. The visual you have in your mind was created by government overreach.

Then you're bringing up a fictional book and saying that's anarchy. I don't know how to respond to data points steeped in fiction.



Are we herd animals? Maybe we act like herd animals because that's how government treats us. Maybe we wouldn't be herd animals if we had the freedom to be something else.

Why could democracy work if we are nothing more than herd animals? How could we possibly choose good leaders?

Drug dealers are violent because of the absence of government. Sure, legalizing drugs in our culture would probably lead to less violence, but that's because they would now be within the system, not without it. The current state of drug violence (and perhaps even drug culture) is precisely the result of it being outside the government - in other words, anarchic.

Yes, humans are herd animals. This is the reason why astronauts train so long for isolation. They aren't training for these things because volprof says so; they're training for these things because they're real.

Just because you may be a superior human being who has whooped petty human identifications and emotions doesn't mean the unwashed masses of places like the Middle East have.

 

[Vol8188]

Drug dealers are violent because of the absence of government. Sure, legalizing drugs in our culture would probably lead to less violence, but that's because they would now be within the system, not without it. The current state of drug violence (and perhaps even drug culture) is precisely the result of it being outside the government - in other words, anarchicl.

Odd, because before government regulation created modern drug dealers, your neighborhood pharmacy was a nice place to purchase amphetamine, opium, or cocaine. You could even buy a milkshake or soda while you were there.

 

[volprof]

Odd, because before government regulation created modern drug dealers, your neighborhood pharmacy was a nice place to purchase amphetamine, opium, or cocaine. You could even buy a milkshake or soda while you were there.

You're only confirming my point, not de-legitimizing it. Regulation is another matter, but it was legal to sale and was presumably accounted for within the legal system that protected merchants and buyers. Once it was "regulated," it became anarchic. So, yes, the government is unnecessarily causing its own problems, but it is only because the government foolishly thinks it can ban it out of existence. Were the government to ever get wiser, this would quickly change and no longer even become a problem. The same reason why less people get killed trading and purchasing light bulbs than they do illegal drugs - because light bulbs are within the system and drugs are without.

 

[n_huffhines]

Drug dealers are violent because of the absence of government. Sure, legalizing drugs in our culture would probably lead to less violence, but that's because they would now be within the system, not without it. The current state of drug violence (and perhaps even drug culture) is precisely the result of it being outside the government - in other words, anarchic.

What absence? There is no absence. I can guarantee you there are more cops on "streets of drug dealers" than on my street.

The law and policing is what creates the profitable black market.

Look at prohibition...alcohol was tied to so many murders. It was not due to an absence of government. It was due to the existence of a law. It's the same thing today with the war on drugs. It has nothing to do with anarchy and everything to do with government.

 

[hog88]

In any case where government doesn't work, you can just claim it was unstable and blame your idea of anarchy.

It's BS and intellectually dishonest.

Government doesn't usually work very well. Look at history. Instability is a common theme with government.

And in areas with weak or non-existent governments.

Good god, Saddam Hussein is preferable to the current state of anarchy Iraq is in. I just don't understand these anarchist utopianists. I think they're more concerned about purity than they are about how people actually live.

Umm, you might need to review or I may need to clarify.

Instability is a common theme and almost universal with a weak government or in the absence of one. I'm not an anarchist but would be a very good one. That is how I know it would not be a good system for the weak or timid.

 

[Danl]

Umm, you might need to review or I may need to clarify.

Instability is a common theme and almost universal with a weak government or in the absence of one. I'm not an anarchist but would be a very good one. That is how I know it would not be a good system for the weak or timid.

I think this is a good point and a major reason anarchy wouldn't work. The few very aggressive, very well moneyed entities would dominate almost everyone else. Their "protection services", i.e. private armies, would be better manned, better trained, better provisioned and better compensated than others.

 

[hog88]

I think this is a good point and a major reason anarchy wouldn't work. The few very aggressive, very well moneyed entities would dominate almost everyone else. Their "protection services", i.e. private armies, would be better manned, better trained, better provisioned and better compensated than others.

Exactly.

 

[volprof]

I think this is a good point and a major reason anarchy wouldn't work. The few very aggressive, very well moneyed entities would dominate almost everyone else. Their "protection services", i.e. private armies, would be better manned, better trained, better provisioned and better compensated than others.

Prepare for a barrage of posts that counter that the only thing that creates such power blocs in the first place is government.

 

[volprof]

What absence? There is no absence. I can guarantee you there are more cops on "streets of drug dealers" than on my street.

The law and policing is what creates the profitable black market.

Look at prohibition...alcohol was tied to so many murders. It was not due to an absence of government. It was due to the existence of a law. It's the same thing today with the war on drugs. It has nothing to do with anarchy and everything to do with government.

So why is selling light bulbs so much easier and less dangerous than selling alcohol on the black market? By your definition, both are being regulated and managed by the government. What explains the difference?

I'll go ahead and help. The difference is that alcohol actually wasn't being regulated by the government; it was simply illegal. There's a difference there. Once it was actually regulated by the government, like today, the murdering stops.

Look, I'm not claiming that governments are perfect. It is likely that in many cases governments can be (and are) more dangerous than states of anarchy or weak governance. However, while that may ebb and flow, I think the state of anarchy and/or weak governance is one of perpetual violence and chaos.

You obviously trust others more than I do, and you are to be commended for that. You're far less the cynic than I am. I just don't trust the masses though, and I never will. They'll beat your ass half senseless and leave you for dead over something as dumb as an insult at least as much as any government or regime ever will.

 

[MercyPercy]

What is going on in this thread

 

[apevol]

I think we're winning

 

[Godfatha]

The results of anarchy can be seen after the fall of the Roman Empire when barbaric strongman seized lands and became kings. In anarchy there is a power vacuum and there will always be men who look to fill that vacuum.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

"It is true that there can be no absolute guarantee that a purely market society would not fall prey to organized criminality. But this concept is far more workable than the truly Utopian idea of a strictly limited government, an idea that has never worked historically. And understandably so, for the State’s built-in monopoly of aggression and inherent absence of free- market checks has enabled it to burst easily any bonds that well- meaning people have tried to place upon it. Finally, the worst that could possibly happen would be for the State to be reestab- lished. And since the State is what we have now, any experimen- tation with a stateless society would have nothing to lose and everything to gain."

The above is from Murray Rothbard's Power and Market. While there is certainly no blueprint as to how things might work, we can read and learn about possibilities.