Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-12-2016, 07:51 AM
 
Location: Madison, WI
5,298 posts, read 2,336,873 times
Reputation: 1227

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
"Freedom" as you describe it may have a few minor drawbacks that you hadn't planned on. You have described a situation with no laws, no regulations, and no government. Without those restrictions in place, the cost of goods would be prohibitive because everything would have to travel over privately maintained toll roads built across land whose ownership could be disputed by anyone who could pick up a heavier rock or club with which to dispatch the current claimant. Not a problem - there would be no money in existence to pay for the goods, anyway.

So - that leaves you making a living with the raw materials at hand, either hunting with crude stone-tipped spears and arrows or attempting some sort of primitive agriculture consisting of stomping on a few seeds and coming back in six months to see what grew. The entire time you would need to be looking over your shoulder to make sure some other enterprising anarchist wasn't standing there waiting on your attention to wander so he could relieve you of your stash of nuts and berries or your hapless bunny. It would be a situation of "might makes right" as the order of the day for survival, and since there is always someone who will be either stronger or luckier than you, your chances of long-term survival into adulthood would be drastically curtailed.

Your "neighbors" would be living under the same conditions, and the constant struggle to find enough calories for daily existence, much less enough fat to store in your paunch for lean times, would in all likelihood rapidly become wearying. Eventually someone would approach someone else with the idea of banding together for the common welfare and protection of all and a more efficient system of dividing and sharing the production that would allow all to prosper. Someone would need to decide who got which task, because if everyone picked berries no one would have skins for clothes, and if everyone stood guard against attack everyone would starve.

At that point there would be meetings to make these critical life decisions, and there would be disagreements about who participated to what end in the division of labor. Without some sort of ground rules (read:laws) the final decisions would come down to whoever could wield the biggest rock or club the fastest, at which time everyone else would become his subjects by default and provide for him because, well, POWER. He would prevail in all disputes until such time as someone came along who could swing a bigger club or got lucky enough to catch the potentate in an unguarded moment.

Doggone it! Those silly societies just seem to create themselves when youre not watching, don't they...?
Just a couple quick points...

There can be societal rules without a centralized "authority" imposing them from the top down.

We always live in a state of existence where the strongest can defeat the weakest...with or without government.

People can organize to accomplish goals without a central authority forcing them to.

We (the voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalist version of anarchists) are only against the initiation of force - key word initiation. The first person to bring force and violence into the situation is the bad guy. Apply that to any situation and you'll know where we stand on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-12-2016, 08:52 AM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
36,942 posts, read 18,885,575 times
Reputation: 14748
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E View Post
Just a couple quick points...

There can be societal rules without a centralized "authority" imposing them from the top down.

We always live in a state of existence where the strongest can defeat the weakest...with or without government.

People can organize to accomplish goals without a central authority forcing them to.

We (the voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalist version of anarchists) are only against the initiation of force - key word initiation. The first person to bring force and violence into the situation is the bad guy. Apply that to any situation and you'll know where we stand on it.
In community "discussions" like I described, there will always be multiple viewpoints, and there will be disagreements. Please explain how those are resolved withour at least the threat of force or some other sanctions without a moderator who has power to make a decision.

Even if the group as a whole makes the decision, somebody is going to get his knickers in a twist because he didn't get his way. And when the group makes a decision, they are acting in the place of an appointed figurehead, and their power is necessarily given by consent. To believe in the altruism of those competing with you for their very existence is not a real terrific idea, do you think...?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2016, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Madison, WI
5,298 posts, read 2,336,873 times
Reputation: 1227
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
In community "discussions" like I described, there will always be multiple viewpoints, and there will be disagreements. Please explain how those are resolved withour at least the threat of force or some other sanctions without a moderator who has power to make a decision.

Even if the group as a whole makes the decision, somebody is going to get his knickers in a twist because he didn't get his way. And when the group makes a decision, they are acting in the place of an appointed figurehead, and their power is necessarily given by consent. To believe in the altruism of those competing with you for their very existence is not a real terrific idea, do you think...?
The community doesn't necessarily need to agree on everything. I guess it would help if there was a specific example...

Another point I want to make quickly: a stateless society can only exist if a critical mass of people reject the idea of "authority" in the first place (by authority, I'm talking about the "right" of someone to rule over others...someone/a group who makes up rules that everyone must obey). So in a society that rejects that idea, there's no power vacuum that someone will fill. That only happens when people believe they need someone to rule them.

As for believing in the altruism of others, that wouldn't be the case. Defensive force is obviously fine and necessary. Organizing to prevent crime is even more important than simply defending when it happens. So yes, people will never always get along, so you need to prepare for that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2016, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
36,942 posts, read 18,885,575 times
Reputation: 14748
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E View Post
The community doesn't necessarily need to agree on everything. I guess it would help if there was a specific example...

Another point I want to make quickly: a stateless society can only exist if a critical mass of people reject the idea of "authority" in the first place (by authority, I'm talking about the "right" of someone to rule over others...someone/a group who makes up rules that everyone must obey). So in a society that rejects that idea, there's no power vacuum that someone will fill. That only happens when people believe they need someone to rule them.

As for believing in the altruism of others, that wouldn't be the case. Defensive force is obviously fine and necessary. Organizing to prevent crime is even more important than simply defending when it happens. So yes, people will never always get along, so you need to prepare for that.
Precisely why laws in our current society are more of a necessity than ever. You will never eliminate greed, envy, covetousness, and anger from the human psyche, and those will almost always lead to violence if left unchecked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2016, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Madison, WI
5,298 posts, read 2,336,873 times
Reputation: 1227
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
Precisely why laws in our current society are more of a necessity than ever. You will never eliminate greed, envy, covetousness, and anger from the human psyche, and those will almost always lead to violence if left unchecked.
They'd be checked by defensive force and disincentivizing crime. That doesn't require anyone having permission to initiate force.

For example, if you're on an island with someone else, you don't need any type of King in power to stop the other person from attacking you, stealing your stuff, etc... Let's say there are 10 people. You don't need one of those 10 people to have power over the rest for that community to order itself and deal with someone who would try to do harm to the others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2016, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Santa Monica
36,857 posts, read 17,259,498 times
Reputation: 14459
Every conversation I've ever had with a statist...


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JGDHQpM_qYg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2016, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Santa Monica
36,857 posts, read 17,259,498 times
Reputation: 14459
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Alright my potential friend, this is me being honest & straightforward (no sarcasm & lame attempts at humor).

When you bring up an analogy, similar to the fence one, I think to myself, hhhmmm, yeah I could be No_Recess' neighbor. In fact, maybe I AM his neighbor. Yeah I wouldn't mind his humongous fence, in fact, it may not be a bad idea considering his nosiness when it comes to how I live my life, including my thoughtviews on philosophy, science, politics, religion et cetera. (not to mention (alright I'm gonna) the inevitable & inordinate amounts of 'Tom peepery' that very often comes along with nosiness.)

This is all without considering the various labels, custom-made definitions suitable only for very particular ideologies, axiomatic statements also rigidly defined, & so on. This is just you & me being neighbors & neighborly. I say g'morning, g'day or good evening when we meet. I'm starting to like the idea!

Then you start accusing me of fining & caging you & I don't know what the heck you're talking about. I thought you & I were neighbors? If you & I cannot get along living as neighbors, how are all those grand ideas about living in a stateless utopia gonna take off?
The fining & caging come into play when we willingly accept a centralized authority over us to enforce involuntary edicts.

I use the fence or any other private property matter as an example because the State loves to enact rules on how you use your property even minus force initiation on your neighbors.

My elderly mom lives in a suburban community. It's not a HOA.

The community is made up of elderly and upper class working folks who like to sic the government on each other all day long.

There's an ordinance saying you can't put your trash to the curb until 6 pm the night before. These people call the State on each other when someone wheels their can out at 5:45. One guy even got fined.

This is what I'm talking about. Instead of cooperation and communication we have been programmed to isolate ourselves and use the State against one another.

It's vile, juvenile, and immoral.

I'm just showing you how statist logic is applied in every day life at every turn. That's my whole "you'll fine & cage me" routine. If you don't specifically call the cops on me for my trash being at the curb "early" you are still defending a system that does.

Passively watching the State ruin lives isn't cool.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2016, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,858 posts, read 8,161,470 times
Reputation: 4590
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101 View Post
If you want to live within a society it necessitates an organized structure in Americas case the government is responsible for the cohesive nature of that society. Your negative opinions of the American government sounds like you would prefer anarchy. While your idea of no government,no laws,no taxes may sound good to you be aware America would no longer be the great nation it is under such circumstances and would be akin to something akin to a larger version of Somalia or Syria where gangs of armed thugs would rule any given area.
My reply was the result of me scanning over several pages of people in this thread making two erroneous arguments.

1) That this is a free country. And at the very least, the government does not limit them in any meaningful way.
2) That if they don't like this country, they can just move to another.


In my post, I never said anything about our government being bad. I never even said I disagreed with anything the government is doing. I merely stated that we aren't free. And I gave a rather simple rebuttal to those who have deceived themselves into believing otherwise.


As for Somalia, it is not in a state of anarchy, at least not in the real sense of the world. Somalia is in a state of Civil War. And it has the United States arming and supplying various factions within the country. The Federal government of Somalia has been internationally-recognized by a majority of UN members. And I'm sure you are aware of the American, and UN intervention in Somalia. And what is their goal? To provide stability to the UN recognized government, which will have the power to exercise its authority over the entire territory.


The question of course is, "Why does America, or any other country, care about what is happening in Somalia anyway?"

The truth is, America doesn't care about what is happening in Somalia based on some kind of sympathy for the people there. America supports a federal government in Somalia, because it serves the national interests of the United States. We don't arm, and supply, and train foreign fighters/Armies, and provide direct military and intelligence support, merely because we are such nice people.


So why is it in the interests of the United States to intervene either directly, or indirectly in Somalia? Two reasons...

1) Our goal is to anchor it into the international trade system. Our most-common method, is to offer assistance to one of the factions within a country, offering to either provide them the advanced weapons and support they need to take control of the country, or by loaning them the money first, and then selling them the advanced weapons with that money.

As a general rule, whichever faction receives our weapons, training, and money, will be able to defeat the other factions and take control of the entire country. We choose the faction we believe we can control.


After we help them establish federal control of the territory. We then need them to begin extracting the mineral wealth of the country, and to sell it to world markets. To achieve this, we make a deal, whereby we will loan them money to build "infrastructure"(such as roads, bridges, dams for electricity, etc). And this new infrastructure will be used as a way of moving the resources from where they are, to the coasts, to be put onto boats, and sold to global markets. Part of the proceeds of the sale of these natural resources will be used to pay off the loans provided to the government. Which they need, not only for the infrastructure, but also the purchase of increasingly better weapons technology from the United States, to make sure they can maintain their power.


If the newly-installed government refuses to do what we tell them to do, we can either overthrow them directly, or we can just arm and support some other aggrieved faction, in their bid for power.


"If it be said that the consent of the strongest party, in a nation, is all that is necessary to justify the establishment of a government that shall have authority over the weaker party, it may be answered that the most despotic governments in the world rest upon that very principle, viz: the consent of the strongest party. These governments are formed simply by the consent or agreement of the strongest party, that they will act in concert in subjecting the weaker party to their dominion." - Lysander Spooner


2) We want to make sure these countries are also "growing" pro-America citizens. More-specifically, America is into "nation-building". And the primary ingredient for all nation-building, is a national education system. The actual purpose of every national education system, is to create obedient citizens. Especially obedient workers and soldiers.

Without a powerful central government, and the indoctrinating powers of state education, these people grow up to hate America, to want to fight America, and to even fight their own governments.

America's interests, are in shaping the entire world into nation-states, which are held in place by strong central authority, and are completely dependent on international trade, and on loans from international bankers.


As a general rule, nations must do what is in their "national interests" at all times. If we look over the history of colonialism, it wasn't the byproduct of racism or bigotry. It was merely the European empires doing what was in their national interests. And at the time, it was in their national interests to acquire as much territory as possible, and by whatever means necessary.


This is part of the reason I have largely given up on my opposition to the state. I realized that all governments are the same, it doesn't matter what form they take, monarchy or democracy, or communist dictatorship. All of them exist only for power and self-preservation. And since governments must do what is in their national interests at all times, it is illogical to believe that any government can be limited or otherwise constrained, regardless of its form.

In short, you will either be the colonizer, or you will become colonized. The idea that men could ever be free is a complete delusion.


As I've said countless times, men are only as free, as their freedom is useful to their government. The moment their freedom stands in the way of the interests of the nation(especially if it inhibits economic growth), their freedom will cease to exist.


I always love this quote by Milton Friedman...

"People go around complaining about waste in government. Well, I say thank God for government waste. If government is doing bad things, it’s only the waste that prevents the harm from being greater. If government were now spending the amount it spends, which equals 40% of total national income, we’d be slaves now."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2016, 12:44 PM
 
100 posts, read 40,846 times
Reputation: 30
Anarchist merely prefer following a Jim Jones type of leader, they enjoy kool aid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2016, 12:45 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,858 posts, read 8,161,470 times
Reputation: 4590
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
Doggone it! Those silly societies just seem to create themselves when youre not watching, don't they...?
I don't want to address your entire post, but let me just leave you with this.


Men have NEVER come together except by force and necessity. If the government didn't have its boot firmly on our necks, our society would collapse overnight.


There are certainly quite a few benefits to having a government, but your portrayal of governments as some sort of voluntary association of men, is simply wrong. No government on Earth was established voluntarily. All governments were established by force, and only maintained by the rule of the strongest party.


Not even America was established through some sort of voluntary association. A great many Americans didn't want to ratify the Constitution(including Thomas Jefferson). And of course, about half of the country tried to secede from the union, but were prevented from doing so, because Abraham Lincoln killed them by the hundreds of thousands, and burned everything to the ground.


If you like government, fine. You can call it a necessary evil if you want. But don't pretend for a moment that it is, or ever was, voluntary.


"That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support." - Lysander Spooner
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top