In "The Machinery of Freedom" David Friedman said that we need government against nuklear weapons. His reason is that nuklear weapon owners can blackmail others to accept them as imperator.
His idea is that the nuklear weapon owners use one atomic bomb and make a movie about and then the show the movie others and tell them that this will happen if they aren't obedient.
So Friedman thinks we need a government with nuklear weapon for retaliation.
Would you accept the position that government is inevitable? If it weren't for government, gangs would rise to power and replace the government. We just call the biggest gang "the government".
I just have some questions, I've been reading up on anarchy, but don't understand some of it. The two classes are the working class in a sense and the ruling class (government) right? When it comes down to the moral issue how is it explained that the working class eventually becomes the ruling class? It seems that the ruling class merely used the tools given to them to become a different class. What insures in anarchy that this thing does not happen and another government isn't simply formed?
Because a monopoly cannot naturally arise from a competitive market of governance, especially since the demand for governance is very heterogenous (varied in nature).
Today, to create an off the grid community, I think it would have to be underground (Galt's Gulch). Such communities are beacons of freedom and, thus, compete with the fear-based population controls of oppresive governments. Throughout time, such governments have destroyed these beacons of freedom for simply being that.
Again, Tibet was way off, high in mountains, not bothering anyone...wiped out.
Tibet was definitely not a "beacon of freedom." I don't think you know what you're talking about. And please stop posting messages that are not related to the Challenge.
LOL...they all have been related. In my last message, I was asking for more information about your idea of community...then you delete it.
This goes back to the intention of the challenge. You hope to use people's inability to make any sort of fool-proof argument as evidence of not needing a State. Thus, when it is you that are requested to explain a piece of your argument, you delete the request. ;-)
I am not interested in explaining my own arguments. It's not what the challenge is about. Make your own video if that's what you want to do. The fact that you don't understand my video, however, and keep posting these irrelevant comments, does not obligate me to not delete them.
If you make more off-topic comments, I will block you. My goal on the comments for this video is to get arguments from other people who want to justify the State's existence. If you don't want to do that, then please do not post any more comments.
The illusion of State is the great experiment. At first land owners paid for the money, the legal system, and the military; thus the land owners got special protection, special laws, etc. (class system). Market anarchy is here. Then the international banking cartel and corporate globalists have replaced the land owners. The powers that be protect themselves and use us. Thus, market anarchy is making us, at best, second class citizens.
The tax man will always beat a commune full of hippies.
Go hide on an island? Columbus will find you and enslave you.
Even compounds full of militia get their @ss handed to them.
LOL...The only semi "off the grid" community in the world is slave labor (e.g., illegal Mexican aliens). They have more freedom than a US citizen. Ditto for welfare, which is why so many politicians are on welfare.
All successful movements used the threat of violence. Not only the very premise of a 'march' violent, but every movement has a range of leaders: from saint (MLK) to 'one step from violence'. People think Gandhi worked alone...he didn't...he was part of an organized hydra. Sadly, like all saints (Lincoln, Garrison, McFadden, Jackson, MLK, JFK, RFK), when he turned on the hydra, he was assasinated.
If RP gets elected and starts dismantling the 'system', they will try to murder him.
I consider myself a market anarchist, but I think that market anarchism could also be potentially dangerous, given the amount of complete idiots in society. I don't support the state, but I'm not so sure that it should be abolished, because I can't trust other people to be rational at all times.
In the absence of "safety nets" the stupidity that has become rampant in our society will largely disappear, as it's survival value will decrease to zero. If being stupid once again carries heavy penalties, then it will largely cease. Most people aren't actually stupid, they just have become convinced it's a good idea.
It's all nice to talk about this academically. But how would you dismantle the existing crime-riddled imperialistic government (actually, you'd have to take down most, if not all governments...about at the same time to avoid them taking over).
No one is proposing to "dismantle" them. All we're proposing is to open the eyes of enough people, and to deligitimize the State by refusing to feed it, resisting it non-violently, and forming our own communities that function outside of the grid.
The majority of the State's power lies in its legitimacy. If we can, by our actions, demonstrate that the State is immoral and unnecessary, then it will only be a matter of time.
"forming our own communities that function outside of the grid"
Ah...Rand's solution...and the reason for many asian monestaries. I'm down with that.
But remember what happens to monastaries...see Tibet. Actually the US colonies break from English rule was very much "the outside of the grid" thang. Buuuuut, like most monastary-type states, the USA didn't have a strong enough defense for the ultimate conquerors, the international banking cartel.
Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate saying we need to question the role of the government; that our government is committing crimes; and that is actually voting and working against those crimes and imperialistic government.
Perhaps RP isn't your *perfect* candidate (God-given rights, pushing authority from Fed to State, etc.), but by your own words, he has got to be much closer to your anarchy than any other candidate.
I am not interested in discussing about Ron Paul. The Challenge concerns defending the State, not defending Ron Paul or voting. I already made a video about voting.
Ron Paul is one of the last rare opportunities to dismantle the imperialistic powers that control the USA.
But you don't want to dismantle the evil influences of our State, you want to create an off the grid community. I'd rather fight for the USA for a little while longer, but if I can't stop the NAU, I won't wait for the NWO. I'll probably go off the grid in my own way.
The NAU is already here politically, the nation's peoples are mingling freely, all the plans are set. The powers that be just have pulled some stunt scaring the masses into giving up their nationality for security.
Government is the concrete instantiation of the State, the people, guns and buildings. Randolph Bourne defined the government as "a certain organization of ruling functions, the machinery of lawmaking and law-enforcing." Ayn Rand defined it as this organization which "holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force."
To me, the state isnt needed at all, but it is however needed at this point in time. The reason I believe it is needed as of right now is because most people are too dependednt to function without it. What we need to do is decrease the size of the state gradually, and eventually our society can function without it.
This is my thought as well, but how to do it is where I differ with most. I think this must be done both overtly and subversively, by NON PARTICIPATION and education.
I think I should restate what I mean by that. First, the welfare/SSI recipients. They are directly dependent on the state for their living. Secondly, a great deal of the interstate commerce apparat, and thirdly and largest on the tier, the ENTIRE economy is predicated on the value of the dollar. These things need to be dismantled before they collapse in order to peaceably establish anarchy.
I think that the State is not, obviously, needed, or exigent, or a sine qua non for a functioning society. The very existence of a default state is a testament to this. But, I believe that a government necessarily arises out of this state because of the inherent nature of humans (and of other animal cultures) to feel a need for rule or leadership for the sake of the majority's innate feelings of insecurity.
In this sense, the institution of government--the formation of the state--is very simliar to that of religion. And so I conclude: it is not necessary, but it necessarily arises (for the reasons listed above).
It is not clear at all that this is the case. In fact, Oppenheimer's historical study of States proved that States only arise out of the need for the organization of tribute by a conquering army against a conquered people. People in an Anarchy simply do not form governments, and have never formed governments, voluntarily because it would require far too much agreement to exist. In practice, people's value systems are so different than no single government can do what they want.
I've read similar things from Rothbard and a few others, as well as the history of Switzerland (which is minarchist). Could you put a link to this study you cite?
I think many people would say that the state isn't needed for society to function, but that state is a convenience, something that makes life easier and more peaceful (HA!). Anyone who says government must exist for society to merely function needs their brain lubed.
Entirely true, but it would be hard to justify having a State on that premise. That would be kinda like saying the mafia is needed because we make cool movies about it.
I have a question about nuklear weapons.
In "The Machinery of Freedom" David Friedman said that we need government against nuklear weapons. His reason is that nuklear weapon owners can blackmail others to accept them as imperator.
His idea is that the nuklear weapon owners use one atomic bomb and make a movie about and then the show the movie others and tell them that this will happen if they aren't obedient.
So Friedman thinks we need a government with nuklear weapon for retaliation.
NetzKaiser 3 years ago
Would you accept the position that government is inevitable? If it weren't for government, gangs would rise to power and replace the government. We just call the biggest gang "the government".
Libertarianist 3 years ago
I just have some questions, I've been reading up on anarchy, but don't understand some of it. The two classes are the working class in a sense and the ruling class (government) right? When it comes down to the moral issue how is it explained that the working class eventually becomes the ruling class? It seems that the ruling class merely used the tools given to them to become a different class. What insures in anarchy that this thing does not happen and another government isn't simply formed?
pashrak 4 years ago
Because a monopoly cannot naturally arise from a competitive market of governance, especially since the demand for governance is very heterogenous (varied in nature).
Franc28 4 years ago
Today, to create an off the grid community, I think it would have to be underground (Galt's Gulch). Such communities are beacons of freedom and, thus, compete with the fear-based population controls of oppresive governments. Throughout time, such governments have destroyed these beacons of freedom for simply being that.
Again, Tibet was way off, high in mountains, not bothering anyone...wiped out.
BoruJudasDedrich 4 years ago
Tibet was definitely not a "beacon of freedom." I don't think you know what you're talking about. And please stop posting messages that are not related to the Challenge.
Franc28 4 years ago
LOL...they all have been related. In my last message, I was asking for more information about your idea of community...then you delete it.
This goes back to the intention of the challenge. You hope to use people's inability to make any sort of fool-proof argument as evidence of not needing a State. Thus, when it is you that are requested to explain a piece of your argument, you delete the request. ;-)
BoruJudasDedrich 4 years ago
I am not interested in explaining my own arguments. It's not what the challenge is about. Make your own video if that's what you want to do. The fact that you don't understand my video, however, and keep posting these irrelevant comments, does not obligate me to not delete them.
Franc28 4 years ago
If you make more off-topic comments, I will block you. My goal on the comments for this video is to get arguments from other people who want to justify the State's existence. If you don't want to do that, then please do not post any more comments.
Franc28 4 years ago
The illusion of State is the great experiment. At first land owners paid for the money, the legal system, and the military; thus the land owners got special protection, special laws, etc. (class system). Market anarchy is here. Then the international banking cartel and corporate globalists have replaced the land owners. The powers that be protect themselves and use us. Thus, market anarchy is making us, at best, second class citizens.
Block away if you can't handle the truth.
BoruJudasDedrich 4 years ago
Yea, okay. You're a crackpot.
Franc28 4 years ago
He's worth ignoring.
Elhan2005 4 years ago
The tax man will always beat a commune full of hippies.
Go hide on an island? Columbus will find you and enslave you.
Even compounds full of militia get their @ss handed to them.
LOL...The only semi "off the grid" community in the world is slave labor (e.g., illegal Mexican aliens). They have more freedom than a US citizen. Ditto for welfare, which is why so many politicians are on welfare.
BoruJudasDedrich 4 years ago
If you can name me one civil rights or freedom movement predicated on violence that worked, please do so. Otherwise you are just blowing hot air.
Franc28 4 years ago
All successful movements used the threat of violence. Not only the very premise of a 'march' violent, but every movement has a range of leaders: from saint (MLK) to 'one step from violence'. People think Gandhi worked alone...he didn't...he was part of an organized hydra. Sadly, like all saints (Lincoln, Garrison, McFadden, Jackson, MLK, JFK, RFK), when he turned on the hydra, he was assasinated.
If RP gets elected and starts dismantling the 'system', they will try to murder him.
BoruJudasDedrich 4 years ago
"All successful movements used the threat of violence."
And yet you can't name one. Typical.
Franc28 4 years ago
Basically, if there are Decepticons (evil States that use force to rule over others), you need Autobots (good States that fight for our freedom).
BoruJudasDedrich 4 years ago
I consider myself a market anarchist, but I think that market anarchism could also be potentially dangerous, given the amount of complete idiots in society. I don't support the state, but I'm not so sure that it should be abolished, because I can't trust other people to be rational at all times.
DemonzLunchBreak 4 years ago
In the absence of "safety nets" the stupidity that has become rampant in our society will largely disappear, as it's survival value will decrease to zero. If being stupid once again carries heavy penalties, then it will largely cease. Most people aren't actually stupid, they just have become convinced it's a good idea.
Kbiomech 4 years ago
It's all nice to talk about this academically. But how would you dismantle the existing crime-riddled imperialistic government (actually, you'd have to take down most, if not all governments...about at the same time to avoid them taking over).
BoruJudasDedrich 4 years ago
No one is proposing to "dismantle" them. All we're proposing is to open the eyes of enough people, and to deligitimize the State by refusing to feed it, resisting it non-violently, and forming our own communities that function outside of the grid.
The majority of the State's power lies in its legitimacy. If we can, by our actions, demonstrate that the State is immoral and unnecessary, then it will only be a matter of time.
Franc28 4 years ago
"forming our own communities that function outside of the grid"
Ah...Rand's solution...and the reason for many asian monestaries. I'm down with that.
But remember what happens to monastaries...see Tibet. Actually the US colonies break from English rule was very much "the outside of the grid" thang. Buuuuut, like most monastary-type states, the USA didn't have a strong enough defense for the ultimate conquerors, the international banking cartel.
BoruJudasDedrich 4 years ago
You are an Anarchist who thinks the State should not be abolished. Then what exactly do you think Anarchy means?
Franc28 4 years ago
Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate saying we need to question the role of the government; that our government is committing crimes; and that is actually voting and working against those crimes and imperialistic government.
Perhaps RP isn't your *perfect* candidate (God-given rights, pushing authority from Fed to State, etc.), but by your own words, he has got to be much closer to your anarchy than any other candidate.
watch?v=zsLcQiHKhic
watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
BoruJudasDedrich 4 years ago
I am not interested in discussing about Ron Paul. The Challenge concerns defending the State, not defending Ron Paul or voting. I already made a video about voting.
Franc28 4 years ago
Ron Paul is one of the last rare opportunities to dismantle the imperialistic powers that control the USA.
But you don't want to dismantle the evil influences of our State, you want to create an off the grid community. I'd rather fight for the USA for a little while longer, but if I can't stop the NAU, I won't wait for the NWO. I'll probably go off the grid in my own way.
BoruJudasDedrich 4 years ago
"Ron Paul is one of the last rare opportunities to dismantle the imperialistic powers that control the USA. "
No it's not.
Franc28 4 years ago
Sadly, you may be right. It may be too late.
The NAU is already here politically, the nation's peoples are mingling freely, all the plans are set. The powers that be just have pulled some stunt scaring the masses into giving up their nationality for security.
BoruJudasDedrich 4 years ago
Ahh...I got your definition of State. Thus, not only do I not see a need for government, I see a need to destroy such States.
However, there can be benevolent States (like say your parents).
BoruJudasDedrich 4 years ago
The challenge applies to the concept of statism itself, not specific States. You are free to defend a "benevolent State" if you so desire.
Franc28 4 years ago
Define government.
BoruJudasDedrich 4 years ago
Government is the concrete instantiation of the State, the people, guns and buildings. Randolph Bourne defined the government as "a certain organization of ruling functions, the machinery of lawmaking and law-enforcing." Ayn Rand defined it as this organization which "holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force."
Franc28 4 years ago
To me, the state isnt needed at all, but it is however needed at this point in time. The reason I believe it is needed as of right now is because most people are too dependednt to function without it. What we need to do is decrease the size of the state gradually, and eventually our society can function without it.
Thrice13 4 years ago
This is my thought as well, but how to do it is where I differ with most. I think this must be done both overtly and subversively, by NON PARTICIPATION and education.
Kbiomech 4 years ago
I think many people overestimate the number of people who are dependent on the State.
Franc28 4 years ago
I think I should restate what I mean by that. First, the welfare/SSI recipients. They are directly dependent on the state for their living. Secondly, a great deal of the interstate commerce apparat, and thirdly and largest on the tier, the ENTIRE economy is predicated on the value of the dollar. These things need to be dismantled before they collapse in order to peaceably establish anarchy.
Kbiomech 4 years ago
I think that the State is not, obviously, needed, or exigent, or a sine qua non for a functioning society. The very existence of a default state is a testament to this. But, I believe that a government necessarily arises out of this state because of the inherent nature of humans (and of other animal cultures) to feel a need for rule or leadership for the sake of the majority's innate feelings of insecurity.
robshred66 4 years ago
In this sense, the institution of government--the formation of the state--is very simliar to that of religion. And so I conclude: it is not necessary, but it necessarily arises (for the reasons listed above).
robshred66 4 years ago
It is not clear at all that this is the case. In fact, Oppenheimer's historical study of States proved that States only arise out of the need for the organization of tribute by a conquering army against a conquered people. People in an Anarchy simply do not form governments, and have never formed governments, voluntarily because it would require far too much agreement to exist. In practice, people's value systems are so different than no single government can do what they want.
Franc28 4 years ago
I've read similar things from Rothbard and a few others, as well as the history of Switzerland (which is minarchist). Could you put a link to this study you cite?
Kbiomech 4 years ago
It's a book actually. It's called The State, by Franz Oppenheimer.
Franc28 4 years ago
Thank you. I shall obtain it.
Kbiomech 4 years ago
Haha! The last time I ask that question I got vivid reactions. :)
neutrinoide 4 years ago
I think many people would say that the state isn't needed for society to function, but that state is a convenience, something that makes life easier and more peaceful (HA!). Anyone who says government must exist for society to merely function needs their brain lubed.
thebeanses 4 years ago
Entirely true, but it would be hard to justify having a State on that premise. That would be kinda like saying the mafia is needed because we make cool movies about it.
Franc28 4 years ago
Ha, agreed.
thebeanses 4 years ago