I am an anarchist - ask me anything.

#276
#276
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Of course the strongest and smartest will rule the weak. That's the way of the world, you cannot stop that. What you can do is abolish a system that has a monopoly of violence in a given territorial area, to somewhat level the playing field, so to speak.

As for your second point, I'm not into comparing cages. No offense.
Click to expand...

Again, your first paragraph is a complete contradiction. If the strong dominating the weak is the way of the world wouldn't that just be exacerbated in an anarchy system?

I don't consider this country a cage, I can leave anytime I choose.
 
#277
#277
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Basically the government is a myth. They promise to do all these great things, yet fall flat at every turn. Unless the goal is starting wars, of course they are exceptional in that respect. All government really does is take stuff from us. Anything a government can do, a free people, acting of their own volution can always do much better.

As I examine my life, and my daily routine, I can see anarchy everywhere. I don't need the government to wake me up, I don't need government to take me to work, I don't need government in relationships I have with people. Yet, they always seem to want to stick their noses in our buisness don't they? The true definition of anarchy is to not have rulers. We still want rules, just no "ruling class"

Government stifles innovation and production. We have no true idea of what an actual free market would bring, as we've never lived under absolute freedom.
Click to expand...

in an anarchistic society do you have any elected officials? while i don't agree with our lobby based government system the fact of the matter is no group of people are going to know whats best. look at sustainable tech and how much of a push back that gets from people, because there are a few spouting nonsense that convinces everyone else. you need experts. and eventually these experts start spending so much time reasoning with people or explaining things to them, why we do need this new piece of legislation, that they lose their role as worker and become the ruling class. your system is just the start of a new system of government. no way a group of widely uneducated people can govern themselves successfully, they simply don't know enough. and depending on the mob to get things right is more terrifying than our current system imo.
 
#278
#278
hog88 said:
Again, your first paragraph is a complete contradiction. If the strong dominating the weak is the way of the world wouldn't that just be exacerbated in an anarchy system?

I don't consider this country a cage, I can leave anytime I choose.
Click to expand...

It's not. You would take away the largest player, the government. You would limit the authoritative abuse.

Will there be problems? Of course. No system (although you cannot call anarchism a system) is perfect.

"Free" to leave? You better check the laws on that one.

Expatriation Tax
 
Last edited:
#279
#279
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
It's not. You would take away the largest player, the government. You would limit the authoritative abuse.

Will there be problems? Of course. No system (although you cannot call anarchism a system) is perfect.

"Free" to leave? You better check the laws on that one.
Click to expand...

Explain you leap of logic that removing government would limit authoritative abuse. It may localize authoritative abuse, but you have no data to prove that it would limit authoritative abuse. By the following quote, I surmise that you are blurring the lines between "authoritative abuse" and "rules of law".

I don't know if anarchy would be better over time, all I want is to live my life exercising my own talents to be exactly what I want to be, without interference from an overblown bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

The problem with anarchy is that, whereas the rules disappear for you, they also disappear for everyone else. So, you *may* have the opportunity to be anything you want, but you probably won't because the bigger/stronger/better armed/meaner guy/group will get to be anything he/they wants to be, and there's little there to stop him/them from being exactly what he/they wants to be.

In a truly anarchistic society, you will either become abused, or the abuser. You will either lose your autonomy or take someone else's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#280
#280
LouderVol said:
in an anarchistic society do you have any elected officials? while i don't agree with our lobby based government system the fact of the matter is no group of people are going to know whats best. look at sustainable tech and how much of a push back that gets from people, because there are a few spouting nonsense that convinces everyone else. you need experts. and eventually these experts start spending so much time reasoning with people or explaining things to them, why we do need this new piece of legislation, that they lose their role as worker and become the ruling class. your system is just the start of a new system of government. no way a group of widely uneducated people can govern themselves successfully, they simply don't know enough. and depending on the mob to get things right is more terrifying than our current system imo.
Click to expand...

No, an anarchist society wouldn't have elected officials. Although, if a community wanted to do that, they could do as they'd want. There would probably even be communist communities, who knows. There would likely be competing communities, catering to your specific lifestyle, once again, who knows.

So you don't trust people, yet people run our government. Hmm
 
#281
#281
Orange_Crush said:
Explain you leap of logic that removing government would limit authoritative abuse. It may localize authoritative abuse, but you have no data to prove that it would limit authoritative abuse. By the following quote, I surmise that you are blurring the lines between "authoritative abuse" and "rules of law".



The problem with anarchy is that, whereas the rules disappear for you, they also disappear for everyone else. So, you *may* have the opportunity to be anything you want, but you probably won't because the bigger/stronger/better armed/meaner guy/group will get to be anything he/they wants to be, and there's little there to stop him/them from being exactly what he/they wants to be.

In a truly anarchistic society, you will either become abused, or the abuser. You will either lose your autonomy or take someone else's.
Click to expand...

You are correct, I was referring to the so called "rule of law" and the governments ability to make the law.

At this point, I could speak on market supplied protection agencies, as well as arbitration firms being set up to settle disputes, but it's a conversation we've all had before.
 
#282
#282
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
You are correct, I was referring to the so called "rule of law" and the governments ability to make the law.

At this point, I could speak on market supplied protection agencies, as well as arbitration firms being set up to settle disputes, but it's a conversation we've all had before.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, and it would also end with the 'survival of the fittest' moral code. Sorry. It just would.

The problem I see with anarchy is that it calls out a very real thing (our broken human nature), but seeks to rectify its effects by ignoring it and wishing it didn't exist.

Because of humanity's inherent human nature, we will always need government. But also, because of humanity's inherent human nature, human government will always be imperfect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#283
#283
82_VOL_83 said:
It's more a lack of political ideology
Click to expand...

No it's not. You're trying to equate political ideology with govermental systems. They are different. Conservatism is an ideology. Conservatives tend to support some sort of constitutional republic...that's the system. Anarchy is the political ideology. No government is the system they support.

Try to accept the 599th explanation. You aren't saving face. It's worse each time you refuse to accept this simple explanation.
 
#285
#285
LouderVol said:
you know why governments the world over provide those services? because no private entity would
Click to expand...

This doesn't follow logic if you are aware of the fact that government is constantly trying to provide us with goods and services we don't need. If there was ever a need for a post office, there isn't now. For some reason government insists on providing it.

So there goes that theory.
 
#286
#286
n_huffhines said:
This doesn't follow logic if you are aware of the fact that government is constantly trying to provide us with goods and services we don't need. If there was ever a need for a post office, there isn't now. For some reason government insists on providing it.

So there goes that theory.
Click to expand...

i am sorry how is there not a need for a post office? just because email exists? sounds like you are telling me how to run my life and limiting my choices. and yeah i may not need the interstate system in california because i have never/will never use it. the government works for more people than just you or me. unless you know everything there is no way you can say there is no need for a post office.
 
#287
#287
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
No, an anarchist society wouldn't have elected officials. Although, if a community wanted to do that, they could do as they'd want. There would probably even be communist communities, who knows. There would likely be competing communities, catering to your specific lifestyle, once again, who knows.

So you don't trust people, yet people run our government. Hmm
Click to expand...

oh i don't trust them either. i am just saying they are the best system out there. no some of the things that have come to be from that system straight suck but has nothing to do with the system. i believe we can change and fix the problems from within the system just no one with the power to do so has wanted to do so and we the people allow it to continue. yet you want those same lazy people to make your choices for you in a system where it doesn't matter what happens down the street because i am not effected.
 
#288
#288
LouderVol said:
i am sorry how is there not a need for a post office? just because email exists? sounds like you are telling me how to run my life and limiting my choices. and yeah i may not need the interstate system in california because i have never/will never use it. the government works for more people than just you or me. unless you know everything there is no way you can say there is no need for a post office.
Click to expand...

You will NEVER use the interstate?
 
#289
#289
SamRebel35 said:
News flash: the only monopolies that have ever lasted are the ones that are supported by or run by the government.

The way to kill monopolies is by opening up competition, not regulating an industry to such an extent that only the most powerful company can survive.

Quit regurgitating the mindless spew you learned in middle school and do some of your own damn research.
Click to expand...

One question. Who owns the cell transmission towers?
 
#293
#293
hog88 said:
Can but wont. At least not to everyone, same with the internet. That's why the post office is still needed.
Click to expand...

That's not true. Speak on things you know. The government has passed a law that UPS and FedEx can't deliver courier mail, because that would make the USPS completely obsolete.

The market wants to supply courier service. It's not allowed. :p
 
#294
#294
LouderVol said:
in california. (just a guess) would Minnesota or North Dakota make you feel better?
Click to expand...

I just don't see how anyone in CA can NOT use the interstate unless they stay withing a few miles of their house all the time.
 
#295
#295
all that money you are saving on taxes would not cover the cost of private institutions doing the same thing. but then i guess you get to pick and choose which you use. which still limits your "freedom" based on how much money you have. no better than the system we have.
 
#296
#296
n_huffhines said:
No it's not. You're trying to equate political ideology with govermental systems. They are different. Conservatism is an ideology. Conservatives tend to support some sort of constitutional republic...that's the system. Anarchy is the political ideology. No government is the system they support.

Try to accept the 599th explanation. You aren't saving face. It's worse each time you refuse to accept this simple explanation.
Click to expand...

Same argument as the pseudo atheists on this site. Maybe you should go back and study some of my posts and TRY to understand the actual definition. You might understand..... I don't it. You have proven yourself time and again infallible.
 
#297
#297
hog88 said:
I just don't see how anyone in CA can NOT use the interstate unless they stay withing a few miles of their house all the time.
Click to expand...

i am saying I personally will not use the interstate in California (or whatever random state) yet my federal tax dollars go just as much to them (whatever state) as it does mine.
 
#298
#298
n_huffhines said:
That's not true. Speak on things you know. The government has passed a law that UPS and FedEx can't deliver courier mail, because that would make the USPS completely obsolete.

The market wants to supply courier service. It's not allowed. :p
Click to expand...

There are places FedEx and UPS will not deliver to. Speak to things you know of. Try sending a parcel to BFE Alaska.
 
#299
#299
hog88 said:
There are places FedEx and UPS will not deliver to. Speak to things you know of. Try sending a parcel to BFE Alaska.
Click to expand...

This all you got? I don't have to tell you how pathetic this is, right?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top