@mythhealer because wishing for an all-powerful protector isn't insane? i am saying that because the all-powerful protector (state) can turn around and sell you out to people who offer him more power (financial institutions, corporations, banks, etc.). Your life can be ended also in a society with state power. The state has to justify EVERY action it undertakes and if it can't justify it then it should not exist in THAT form. ANY form of hierarchy is objectionable.
When you remove state power, you remove the Bill of Rights... you revert back to the days of Socrates, and smart people such as your self get voted to death by Democracy.... you sir are an idiot!
We've always had anarchy. whether you believe it or not through history a certain group of people get to have anarchy and the rest of us obey. Structure is an illusion becuase if something as empty as the word "no" can crumble structure then that means structure is only perceptive. Thats whats funny about humans; they treat these laws as absolutes so they can hide from the reality of anarchy. You live under someone elses anarchy.
my question stands. It is of course to CS + ReasonTV, and while rhetorical I do wonder, if these viewers are living the life they describe... in other words are they fish, or are they fishing.
If you can discuss this, then respond, please.
richard, who skipped school for months at a time to read through the anarchist books and pamphlets held by the Library of Congress... before 1960 -- I didn't see you there
He's speaking of the very basic traditional view of everyone who considers her or himself as Anarchist or Mother Anarchias child.You can read them everywhere from Proudhon,Bakunin,Kropotkin,Tolstoi,Malatesta,Goldman,Weil,Berkman,Landauer,Rocker,Bookchin,etc.
Anarchy isn't an Ideology like Marxism.It's more of a basic attitude that's ready to evolve & cooperate with equality minded ones against any coercion & in this sense non violent,until the moment of selfprotection.
To go back to the days of no state power would be the stone age. Without some state power there is no system of justice, hence no real freedom. Freedom must be expressed as a concern and defended, it doesn't just fall out of the sky.
Anyway, to admit it is an impractical perspective deflates it immediately. We need solutions not doomed conjectures. If you want to see what doesn't work pick up a history book. They are loaded with wrong turns.
Also, if the future is so bleak then why have kids?
"To go back to the days of no state power would be the stone age."
Have you even bothered to read a normative discourse of anarchism? Because anarchists are not opposed to governance, they argue for SELF-governance through participatory democracy, and anarchists are not opposed to rules, just statutory law and instead desire customary law (which 'governs' relations between individuals and will so follow the harm principle, in all probability).
@GlobalAlternateMedia I've read about the various mainstream schools of anarchism if that's what you mean, have you ever bothered to read anything else? SELF-governance is a good thing. We must have some degree of self-rule (as much as possible, to the extent it still adds benefit), but without a strong central government to protect universal rights and face problems requiring mass organization, we would be less capable. Bottom line, I see value in a centralized government, anarchism does not.
"but without a strong central government to protect universal rights and face problems requiring mass organization, we would be less capable." = begging the question.
You think self-governance is a good thing yet propose a central government, I hope you realize those run contrary to each other.
@GlobalAlternateMedia Absolutely, without question they do, just as justice and freedom run contrary to each other. The object is to find the ideal balance between them, the extent to which both function to the highest degree. Either could become excessive and do great harm. Local as well as national challenges must be met with as efficient a response as we can manage. In my opinion even global challenges will require mass organization, universal rights, ideal governmental procedures, and so on.
I'm sorry but... you're just a nuttjob rambling about some bullshit... justice and freedom run contrary to each other....? yet we should have a balance in which they can function to the highest degree...?
@GlobalAlternateMedia Way to sell your point of view. I'm rambling about a concept that's held up a hell of a lot better than anarchism ever will. All laws restrict freedom in the name of doing some good, so there has to be a balance between their extents and what matters are best left up to society.
Own guns??? Who's the fucking anarchist here? You're going to need some guns if you do away with centralized government dumbass. Try being open-minded and objective you childish arrogant jack off.
He didn't make a good case for anarchism. I would love to be an anarchist, but in the end anarchists are communists. You have to submit to the will of the community in order to protect yourself as an individual.
His argument that no one ever 'consents' to a government isn't one that attacks the idea of a state, but only how they are in practice today. It is totally possible for people to consent to a government, despite what he says.
@kamikazee55 Anarchists are not communists. You don't have to do anything. If you don't want to submit to the community ideals or whatever, then you can do your own thing, as long as you don't infringe upon others. The community has no right to force you to do anything. That's what the state does. The point of anarchism is that you have the freedom to make whatever choices you want as long as they don't hurt anyone else or their property.
@nurktwin1960 Anarchy is a system in which natural rights must be upheld by everyone, instead of a designated authority. There is no guarantee that your rights will not be violated, and if they are, there is no system of pursuing justice.
And yes you are right it is immoral to govern those who have not consented.
@kamikazee55 I agree with this. Yet this doesn't follow from your assertion that anarchy would logically entail a world where only the strongest survive.
@nurktwin1960 Big guy vs. small guy. = No independent, unbiased third party to go after the big guy. A business owner has no guarantee that his business will not be destroyed by a stronger competitor. Innocence does not protect you in anarchy.
@kamikazee55 Not sure where you got the idea the state is an independent, unbiased third party. Judges hand down biased rulings and sentences all the time.
In anarchy there would be no business, since forcing people at gunpoint to use money to pay for things would go against the very idea of anarchy. Also, without bosses you can't even organize a business, not to mention the fact there would be no need for business in a world where people are able to access resources freely themselves.
@nurktwin1960 Your comment just goes beyond all stupid anarchist ideas I've heard. There would be no business? And simply having anarchy does not mean that people wont 'go against its idea'. People would still use the force of the gun. Just because that goes against the idea doesn't mean people wouldn't do it.
@kamikazee55 Depends on how many people "go against" the idea and principles of anarchy. If a lot of people do, then obvously what you have is no longer anarchy, but something else. If a lot of people are forcing each other at gunpoint to protect ownership of property, and to buy and sell using money, that's capitalism, not anarchy. Not sure why you think that "goes beyond all stupid anarchist ideas". That's just a fact of conceptual analysis.
Market anarchism does not equate to primitivism. It doesn't mean that no court or defense services should exist, but rather that those services should be provided on the same competitive, voluntary basis as all other services. It is, thus far, the least dissatisfactory answer I've heard to the unsolved problem of the abuse of power - radical decentralization, no presuppositional, unearned moral legitimacy and the natural, healthy tendency for people to distrust guys with guns.
@PanzerDivisionBOM The problem with your argument is that law cannot be subject to the market. My rights are not subject to private businesses competing. Punishment cannot be subject to a private business. Why? Private businesses do not have authority to use force. I agree that any government system that does not directly have authority from each citizen does not have this right either, BUT a private business springing up absolutely cannot have the right of force.
Not quite. More accurately, a private business does not have the presuppositional authority to use force. If it wants legitimacy and funds to use force, then it's going to have to make appeals to the self-interest of its customers.
@PanzerDivisionBOM And would customers use force against themselves? Obviously not. You can't use force against yourself. So a private company does not have the right to do anything to people who have not given it authority over them. This would not stop criminals. Me shopping at walmart does not give walmart the authority to charge my neighbors.
So you're saying that victims of aggression ought not extract restitution from their assailants? Yeah, no, I'm not gonna go for that. Property is meaningless if just anyone can take it from you, and you don't get to defend yourself.
I'm perfectly fine with victims of crime forcing their assailants to pay damages, and with them discharging that service to others as per division of labour.
@PanzerDivisionBOM Of course they should extract restitution. Problem is that a private company does not have the right to do that. Private companies are motivated by the dollar while the law simply represents the law. Secondly, these same private companies do not have to obey any proclaimed law.
"Private companies are motivated by the dollar[...]"
Exactly. Private companies are subject to profit and loss signals, and therefore able to adjust their activities to suit the preferences of their customers. A standard of justice that emerges from customers choosing which agencies to sign up with can be said to represent consumer preference, whereas all state law is necessarily arbitrary and potentially destructive.
@PanzerDivisionBOM Dollar motivated does not = justice motivated. A private company looking to make profit and please its customers does not mean that they will uphold any law or do justice. A customer claiming that their non-customer neighbor stole from them is certain to commit injustice.
A private company would likely find through the 'profit and loss signal' that doing injustice would result in more profits.
"nd therefore able to adjust their activities to suit the preferences of their customers."
And only their costumers. What about sick African children? Or hungry kids from India? why don't they get fed? Because of the profit system that is capitalism.
The main problem with the more anti-statist (as opposed to more anti-corporatist) anarchists is that without a "state" or some sort of legal leviathon, how can even anarchist values be upheld? In other words, they may as well forget about activism because they can't change the system at all without being slightly statist.
@Floridanon407 Call it what you will, you need some sort of abstract order to make anything possible, even your mystical markets. Whether we call it the leviathon, the state, the "general will" etc.. it's still a centralized authority.
The locus of power is still with the people. Even though we have representatives that doesn't mean we don't have power. Do you vote, can you run for election, can you campaign, write letters, write newspaper columns, etc...
@forrestcrow the use of society acceptance and denial while incorporating true ethicals and morals(people aren't stupid they know what is right and what is wrong, a murderer won't just run free) without state interference or anything but society's norms since they will punish the murderer rightly(even without prison, pre-state societies had forms of punishment and what not, we forget this). So the acceptance of the state is nothing but a mere illusion that we'd all go crazy without it.
This is such bulshit. It is only natural that states exist. They destroy all that is not a state, or a weaker state. This is nature, reality. We can moralise all we want. But it´s not going to change.
The social contract argument is not about actually being able to opt-out of the contract, but only that reasonable people would consent to the contract.
Obviously the reasoning abilities of Crispin can be called into question at this point.
Sartwell is a terrible philosopher. He took his grad school under Rorty and learned nothing from him.
"No justification for state power"??? You're a moron Sartwell. "Philosophical rather than practical"??? That's an oxymoron. Anarchists are a waste of time. They have no impact on politics in the US or anywhere else, except to make people completely disillusioned about politics and not vote.
Anarchism is impractical in that no sensible state will/would adopt it, and in that if they did all would go to hell. No security, no economic stability, etc...
Any political philosophy which is impractical in those two ways is not worth discussing; never mind defending.
Therefore, Anarchism is not worth discussing or defending.
Argument form:
B follows from C and C follows from B, therefore C follows from A.
ABC are represented in the context of the above article. I could spell it out for you. A = Anarchism is impractical...
You should be able to figure out the rest. Also, libertarians - in the American sense of the word - at least in some minor way, in the political system of every major western democracy.
The reason they don't get into power is because PEOPLE don't think they're sensible. In a lot of ways a anarchistic gov't would be good for those who already have great wealth....
It's not worthless if you're an American anarchist, if you're not, tell me what your version is and I'll argue against it.
I know Chomskys somehow would like to put the economy in the gov't hands, but that anarcho-syndicalism doesn't make too much sense to me when there really is no gov't.
And indeed someone like Ron Paul got a lot of support - financially - but oddly very few people voted for him. From this I deduce that he got funding from very few, very rich people.
If you care about national security, economic stability, any of a number of gov't programs from the library to social security, than anarchism is very sensibly not an appealing theory to you.
I'm one of these people. Therefore, why should I be an anarchist.
Sartwell and the rest of them use to defend the fact that state power is illegit is Kant. If we follow Kants logic so is a white lie.
"In itself" a state is not bad. It is at least possible (theoretically) for a fairly decent standard of freedom and autonomy within a state system.
That this is not enough for Sartwell or you, is not my problem. I live in Canada. We have a bunch of ice up north, and we would gladly give it to all you anarchists to live on, state control free! Have fun.
That Cassavetes must be a genius huh? Explains something about his country.
b.t.w. the term "Stormtroopers" was coined by German soldiers to describe Canadian Soldiers fighting them in WWII, where as, americain soldiers currently refer to themselves as rapists so...
There will always and always has been a national security threat and no amount of government protection will ever stop someone determind enough to do damage.
Your arguemnet is mute people will always kill people in this case over ideologies.
So, if you know that "people will always kill people" and you're deciding whether or not it is worth it to form a state to form an army, you'd be against forming a state and therefore an army?
It seems that if you have that negative a view of human nature a state (any state) is better than no state.
People will always kill people is exactly why there should not be state (saying that the state protects its people is a fallacy they pick up the pieces afterwards and prosecute this is not protection). If i decide to go out today and kill someone becuase my views are different to theres i have murdered one person if a state decides to kill people with different views thats potentially millions the problem isnt nessesarily the idea of a state the issue is actually that man should not govern man.
That's why we live in a democracy. Ideally there is self-governance. People just have to inform themselves enough as to what they think is best for... Canada, the US and not merely for themselves and vote that way.
If this were to happen I think there would be far fewer state inflicted deaths.
Also, prosecuting criminals deters them. What do you want the state to do? Convict people of thought crimes so that they "really" protect people?
"Prosecuting criminals deters them" this is a common misunderstood idea that non criminals often asume. The physcology of a criminal is someone (similar to a gambler) that wieghs risk and reward differently to non criminals and for a criminal the reward from commiting a crime greatly outways the potential of being porosecuted. In a nut shell punishment is never a deterent no matter how severe therefore the state offers no actual protection only a form consolidation be it in the form of a court.
You just said that criminals decide whether or not to commit crime as a gamble. If the odds of getting caught and the stake they have to put up is upped, presumably it would be a bad gamble to commit crime at some point.
On paper democracy as you say is probably one of the best systems of government but there is still the issue that once elected a politician is pretty much immune from national and international laws and effectively becomes more of an elected dictator were the public have no power of say until the end of the term. At this point we have the issue of hieracy were Man is governing Man thus the age old problem of "i was only following orders".
@bahramf We don't live in a democracy, the only people who live in a democracy in this country are the people in Congress, the rest of us live in a republic.
The state doesn't prevent crime except through the rare instances of a presence of authority figures at the scene of impending criminality, excluding those instances, all government does is exact measured vengeance in our names.
Affording people the freedom to defend themselves prevents more crime than Laws do, on a regular basis.
So, you suggest we have no cops because punishment doesn't actually deter criminals. Do you have any figures that would actually support that proposition?
@bahramf Every statistic on murder rates in regards in capital punishment states versus states without government sanctioned killings for starters. The presence of even the most severe punishment is no deterrent at all.
On the other hand, when you give private citizens access to the means to defend themselves from crime (rather than police swinging in to clean up the mess afterwards) crime rates go down, this is the case time and again
That's just not true. In civilized countries where they keep record of crimes,crime rates drop when punishments are more severe. The best example is Canada.
Canada doesn't have very severe penalties for non-violent crimes and so its crime rate is high for property crimes. Even higher than in the US.
The only reason is because there aren't severe enough punishments.
@bahramf Switzerland REQUIRES it's citizens to participate in the armed forces so they get experience with weapons and personal protection. It then gives it's weapons and what not to the citizens, actually ARMING THEM and this country has a very very small actual police force(it's nearly nonexistent). Switzerland has some of the lowest crime rates in the WORLD, I believe the lowest in Europe. What more proof do you need?
@emightis I have sources which back me up, but I can't seem to copy paste them in this space. nationmaster (.) com has the information. Wikipedia does as well.
@bahramf You just linked Wikipedia. Don't trust everything you read on that like a prophecy. You should back it up, which you managed to do: good for you. However your source is flawed. 2 murders to everyone 100,000 people, 6 rapes, and 3347 thefts. These are low by INTERNATIONAL standards, they dominate the playing field in low crime rate. Every year since 1999 the crime rate has DROPPED more than the previous year(that's one source).
@bahramf Crime Rate is UNHEARD OF and so low the country receives tourists just for it's security and safety(that's another source). Gun groups of America IDOL around Switzerland's model, which lacks military and enforcement. There are NO to few restrictions on weapons availability and the crime rate is so low that the nation actually stop keeping track of it in recent years(a third source).
@emightis Are you retarded or something? Do you actually think that arming a nation of people will help keep people safe. Canada still has a lower murder rate (by far). I can't find a single source which says differently.
Wikipedia tends to be accurate unless you have reason to believe they are not on this one issue.
@bahramf Retarded...WOW that is horrible argument skills. You just FLIPPED ENTIRELY and said: This is the reason that country that had the high crime rate from MY SOURCES has low crime rate. This means your sources ARE FLAWED and you're still trying to tell me about their validity(this argument has went down the tube at that point). Here's the facts I'm not sure you're aware of: Crime is a product of OUTLAWWING THINGS.
Switzerland has a low crime rate relative to every other country in the world. It doesn't relative to the Western world. I'm thinking specifically of North America and Western Europe.
@bahramf When you outlaw weaponry and firearms, crime rate goes UP because you just made it so ONLY OUTLAWS have weaponry and firearms. When only outlaws have weaponry they are more likely to commit crime because the person is unable to defend themselves. Outlaws aren't stupid, they don't give a shit how severe the punishment is, they'll still do it. Know what makes them do it less? When there is the possibility of them ALSO DYING.
@bahramf Criminals and outlaws are not unhuman, therefore they are subject to human instinct. Human instinct tells you: I have a handgun, he also has a handgun or I have a handgun, he has a shotgun. I'm not going to attack him, because I might die. Criminals are pussies, the majority of them said if they priorly knew the person they're attacking is armed THEY WOULDN'T DO IT.
@bahramf I love how we still think bans work in this country(Prohibition not do it for you people?), if everyone has a weapon and KNOWS HOW TO USE IT, criminals are going to be scared shitless to attack people. Please PLEASE PLEASEEEEE learn your argument before you do this weird flipflop technique where you agree with me yet call me retarded, AGAIN.
@bahramf That fact stands there, you can go to imaginationland and pretend that outlawwing something will make outlaws do it less, but you're only fooling yourself.
@emightis This is one country where all the citizenry are trained to handle deadly weapons. Even if it were replicable (which is is not) you're wrong that their murder rates are lower than places like Canada and the US.
I guess you have a strange definition of "capitalist". From what I can tell, capitalism is a system of VOLUNTARY CONTRACT.
You don't like your job, walk away. You think something is to expensive, don't buy it. You don't like credit cards, don't use them. I don't see how this constitutes "slavery" in any way shape or form. Besides, what is the alternative?
The "birth" of Capitalism 500 years ago (Republics of Florence, Venice and so on)was the birth of modern Statepower....!
So...there is and never was a power struggle between our political system and the economy.
Who owns Washington? Thats the real question! Answer: "The Lobby" alias "Big Money" alias "Multinational Corporations" alias "Weaponindustry", "Oilindustry", "Drugindustry", "Foodindustry", "Banksters" and so on.
The State is a Monster but who is the Master of it?
What are masters without monsters? They are you and I.
Corporations get away with their crimes not because they have resources, but because there are a select few who can be bribed. Without judges, police officers, generals, politicans that can be bribed corporations would face the wrath of the people if they stepped out of line.
There is nothing inherently coercive about private property and free exchange of goods and services. Except in the deranged mind of Marxists like you. No one is being forced to do anything.
Markets are composed of people. I say you're failing to see the forest for the trees.
Free people engage in free transactions. Any outside force coercing them is unjustified. But coercion has to mean violence. A force or coercion of anything other than violence opens up this response to being coercive, since I'm attempting to influence the way you act by the arguments I make.
Violence is what is wrong. Government's use violence. Corporations, without the state, are just salesmen.
Salesman? You are unaware of how riddled history is with examples of corporate/state collusion. Suggesting that they are merely offering choices is intellectually dishonest.
Individual/State collusion would be no better. It's not about corporations or individuals. It's about the state violence. Without the state, corporations are just salesmen. There probably wouldn't even be corporations, since they are legal fictions. Corporations aren't the problem. They are a symptom of the problem.
You are conflating vulgar anti-statism with anarchism as well as avoiding the underlying issue.
Individuals, or in the case of corporations - groups, with consolidated resources would be be advantaged under "anarcho-capitalism" and eventually give rise to a series of states competing for resources. Essentially, neo-fuedalism.
How am I to suspect democratic control of the means of production and free access to tools and information? Especially when I have to answer to a modern shogunate?
Yes, certain people have certain advantages. No, they wouldn't give rise to a series of states. States only exist because of taxation and ideological support. Have you ever argued with a statist? You know how quick they are to say, "No one would pay taxes if they didn't have to," making that an argument for forced taxation?
Taxation and ideology are the only reasons states exist. In anarcho-capitalism you have neither, and you have philosophies abound that are ardently against them.
Libertarians confuse these terms because they are still subjectively bourgeois liberals and have not been interpellated toward the revolution yet: they have not conceptualized the location of the coordinates of power and where the event of emancipation may appear.
Libertarian types have hard time distinguishing "negative liberties" from "positive liberties", and as a result make no arguments about markets being coercive or destructive, or of course CORPORATIONS BEING EQUIVALENT to governments themselves.
He rejects "Marxism" yet mentions nothing about employer-employee relations, labor, and the working class.
Focusing completely on "the state" and rejecting it wholesale even when it does good is just rightwing nonsense, class struggle and solidarity are as just as important features of anarchism as freedom is.
i find it interesting that you people cite the fact that there are no anarchaic societies as being proof that they cannot work. The truth is we all live in an anarchaic society. We just choose to follow arbitrary laws imposed by our "superiors." In reality every time you do something without someone else forcing it upon you, you are operating in an anarchaic society. A group of friends coming to a consensus without needing to coerce eachother. That is anarchy.
I have more of a right to be in my country than the state does. Also, if we use your reasoning, there is no practical way to withdraw agreement with the state without entering into an agreement with another state. That amounts to a choice of prisons, not freedom.
Would you say the same about buying a DVD? Does the fact that if you don't want to buy a DVD from Walmart you would have to buy it from someone else equal a choice of prisons?
I could be wrong, but I have never heard of a prisoner being able to choose what prison he gets to go to.
This is a total distortion of my argument. Of course you can't walk out with the DVD. The point is, Walmart does not have a right to force you to purchase their goods, even if you happened to live near a Walmart and would rather not move. You don't HAVE to purchase anything from Walmart if you choose not to. The people calling themselves "government" do not have the right to force you to purchase their services. "Buy my service/product or go to prison." is not a legitimate business practice.
The US government does not force you to use it's services. If you don't like it you can do what I did and move to Korea. Since I have been living in Korea, pretty much 0% of my money has gone towards supporting the US government.
elzoog; I really think both parties here are in disagreement over property rights. Please clarify; is it your position that governments are acting as private owners of geographical territories?
i.e. Do you believe the US government is a legitimate private owner of the territory called the United States?
If so, can you please answer a question I posed to you earlier as to whether you believe conquer is a valid way to acquire private ownership - If yes; what is your concept of theft?
1) There are no absolute property rights. Property is theft because you need force to obtain property.
2) The US is a legitimate owner over of it's territory. Otherwise, you would have to say that there is no such thing as legitimate ownership of territory.
3) Theft is defined in the dictionary as the wrongful taking of someone else's property. The key word in a phrase like that is "wrongful". Who decides what is wrongful and how do they enforce it?
Well there are places on Earth where there's no state agreement.You can go to places like Namibia and become a bushman ,but guess what?Even if there you wouldn't be forced to enter in a agreement with the state,you'd be forced to obey the rules of nature and their habitants (tigers,lions & other predators).Since there's no bill of rights there,no police and no state to build some hospital,i don't what would happened to you'd get assaulted by a tiger or maybe some other tribe for example.
That is precisely why I wrote that there is no PRACTICAL way to withdraw agreement with the state without entering into an agreement with another state. Citizenship is something aquired through the geography of birth and through parentage. It may be recognized by the State (or not), but but citizenship was not GRANTED by government. I have the right to live where I was born and raised without having my money and liberty stolen by a gang of thieves writ large.
Not true. You could have a more comfortable living in North Korea (especially if you don't mind working for the government) than you can in a primitive tribe in the Amazon (which is the closest you have to somewhere that doesn't have a state).
If you are really careful minding your Ps and Qs, your life in North Korea would be better than living with the primitives in the Amazon.
Of course there are options better than North Korea, but they all involve being in a state.
and if I was a south Korean? You know damn well that the vast majority of family members wanting to visit their relatives in North Korea are South Korean. Besides, there's a huge difference between a recognized right to visit and permission to visit.
South Koreans are allowed to visit their family living in North Korea. In fact a few years ago, that was a major news item.
As far as your claim "You know damn well that the vast majority of family members wanting to visit their relatives in North Korea are South Korean" I don't know that.
I have actually met a guy who was from North Korea. Have you? I have actually been to the border of North Korea. Have you?
Really? Then why was it a major news article? Common occurrences are not news.
Also King Jung Il only grants the privilege of visitation. A license that can be taken away at any time. He does not recognize the right to visit.
No, I haven't been to the DMZ. I was Navy, not Army.
If you don't acknowledge that the vast majority of Korean relatives are other Koreans then you have to be an idiot or arguing in bad faith and I am done talking to you.
So I guess you believe that the only people who live in North Korea are Koreans therefore people like Charles Jenkins and James Dresnok don't exist.
The thing is, if you are a relative of James Dresnok, you could theoretically visit him assuming you are willing to be totally obedient to the North Korean state and are willing to only meet him under conditions the North Korean government agree to.
James lived in a room with no running water, but you wouldn't have that in the Amazon either.
Crispin.....your mind is myopic...at best
energyvortex1000 17 hours ago
"Rather a philosophical than a practical approach.... " Insane people make these comments....
mythhealer 3 months ago in playlist Philosophy
@mythhealer As a nurse that takes care of psychotic patients, I have to disagree.
johnosmeltzer 2 months ago
@johnosmeltzer - the discussion about anarchy, no law? Irrationality is associated with insanity.
mythhealer 2 months ago
@mythhealer because wishing for an all-powerful protector isn't insane? i am saying that because the all-powerful protector (state) can turn around and sell you out to people who offer him more power (financial institutions, corporations, banks, etc.). Your life can be ended also in a society with state power. The state has to justify EVERY action it undertakes and if it can't justify it then it should not exist in THAT form. ANY form of hierarchy is objectionable.
Regenmacher175 4 days ago
When you remove state power, you remove the Bill of Rights... you revert back to the days of Socrates, and smart people such as your self get voted to death by Democracy.... you sir are an idiot!
mythhealer 3 months ago in playlist Philosophy
We've always had anarchy. whether you believe it or not through history a certain group of people get to have anarchy and the rest of us obey. Structure is an illusion becuase if something as empty as the word "no" can crumble structure then that means structure is only perceptive. Thats whats funny about humans; they treat these laws as absolutes so they can hide from the reality of anarchy. You live under someone elses anarchy.
paradoxparody 4 months ago
my question stands. It is of course to CS + ReasonTV, and while rhetorical I do wonder, if these viewers are living the life they describe... in other words are they fish, or are they fishing.
If you can discuss this, then respond, please.
richard, who skipped school for months at a time to read through the anarchist books and pamphlets held by the Library of Congress... before 1960 -- I didn't see you there
rickbster 8 months ago
marxism calls for the deletion of the state....
SuperiorRobot 9 months ago
@SuperiorRobot that is the final state of marxism, but he is right fulfilling alot of marxist goals calls for a totalitarian regime
meskuzi301 8 months ago
I can't help but see the argument that you can't withdraw from the social contract as just being awkward
niriop 9 months ago
He's speaking of the very basic traditional view of everyone who considers her or himself as Anarchist or Mother Anarchias child.You can read them everywhere from Proudhon,Bakunin,Kropotkin,Tolstoi,Malatesta,Goldman,Weil,Berkman,Landauer,Rocker,Bookchin,etc.
Anarchy isn't an Ideology like Marxism.It's more of a basic attitude that's ready to evolve & cooperate with equality minded ones against any coercion & in this sense non violent,until the moment of selfprotection.
agnostoatomo 10 months ago
I was reading his book and decided to put his name into google. this is awesome. His book is great.
greenghost2008 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you like this check out the americanphilosopher channel at vimeo.com.
phillipmcreynolds 10 months ago
Do you live life as an anarchist?
How?
Or is this as-if you were describing the life of a fish?
rickbster 11 months ago
@rickbster run to the woods and stay there, it's pretty simple
meskuzi301 8 months ago
To go back to the days of no state power would be the stone age. Without some state power there is no system of justice, hence no real freedom. Freedom must be expressed as a concern and defended, it doesn't just fall out of the sky.
Anyway, to admit it is an impractical perspective deflates it immediately. We need solutions not doomed conjectures. If you want to see what doesn't work pick up a history book. They are loaded with wrong turns.
Also, if the future is so bleak then why have kids?
killer3596 11 months ago
@killer3596
"To go back to the days of no state power would be the stone age."
Have you even bothered to read a normative discourse of anarchism? Because anarchists are not opposed to governance, they argue for SELF-governance through participatory democracy, and anarchists are not opposed to rules, just statutory law and instead desire customary law (which 'governs' relations between individuals and will so follow the harm principle, in all probability).
GlobalAlternateMedia 11 months ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia I've read about the various mainstream schools of anarchism if that's what you mean, have you ever bothered to read anything else? SELF-governance is a good thing. We must have some degree of self-rule (as much as possible, to the extent it still adds benefit), but without a strong central government to protect universal rights and face problems requiring mass organization, we would be less capable. Bottom line, I see value in a centralized government, anarchism does not.
killer3596 11 months ago
@killer3596
"but without a strong central government to protect universal rights and face problems requiring mass organization, we would be less capable." = begging the question.
You think self-governance is a good thing yet propose a central government, I hope you realize those run contrary to each other.
GlobalAlternateMedia 11 months ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia Absolutely, without question they do, just as justice and freedom run contrary to each other. The object is to find the ideal balance between them, the extent to which both function to the highest degree. Either could become excessive and do great harm. Local as well as national challenges must be met with as efficient a response as we can manage. In my opinion even global challenges will require mass organization, universal rights, ideal governmental procedures, and so on.
killer3596 11 months ago
@killer3596
I'm sorry but... you're just a nuttjob rambling about some bullshit... justice and freedom run contrary to each other....? yet we should have a balance in which they can function to the highest degree...?
I hope you don't own any guns.
GlobalAlternateMedia 11 months ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia Way to sell your point of view. I'm rambling about a concept that's held up a hell of a lot better than anarchism ever will. All laws restrict freedom in the name of doing some good, so there has to be a balance between their extents and what matters are best left up to society.
Own guns??? Who's the fucking anarchist here? You're going to need some guns if you do away with centralized government dumbass. Try being open-minded and objective you childish arrogant jack off.
killer3596 11 months ago
@killer3596
I said "i hope you don't own any guns" not because I oppose gun ownership because you come across like a lunatic.
GlobalAlternateMedia 11 months ago
Those beautiful blue eyes speak the truth!
amanuscar 1 year ago
He didn't make a good case for anarchism. I would love to be an anarchist, but in the end anarchists are communists. You have to submit to the will of the community in order to protect yourself as an individual.
His argument that no one ever 'consents' to a government isn't one that attacks the idea of a state, but only how they are in practice today. It is totally possible for people to consent to a government, despite what he says.
kamikazee55 1 year ago
@kamikazee55 Anarchists are not communists. You don't have to do anything. If you don't want to submit to the community ideals or whatever, then you can do your own thing, as long as you don't infringe upon others. The community has no right to force you to do anything. That's what the state does. The point of anarchism is that you have the freedom to make whatever choices you want as long as they don't hurt anyone else or their property.
amanuscar 1 year ago
@amanuscar Where is the protection when someone does infringe on anothers rights? It becomes a world where only the strongest survive.
kamikazee55 1 year ago
@kamikazee55 The protection comes from yourself, your friends and your neighbors That doesn't entail that only the strongest survive.
nurktwin1960 1 year ago
@nurktwin1960 Well, yes actually it does. There is a reason people chose to adopt a government, and it is not immoral to do so.
kamikazee55 1 year ago
@kamikazee55 How does anarchy logical entail "a world where only the strongest survive?"
Oh and yes, It is immoral to inflict authority on another without their consent.
nurktwin1960 1 year ago
@nurktwin1960 Anarchy is a system in which natural rights must be upheld by everyone, instead of a designated authority. There is no guarantee that your rights will not be violated, and if they are, there is no system of pursuing justice.
And yes you are right it is immoral to govern those who have not consented.
kamikazee55 1 year ago
@kamikazee55 I agree with this. Yet this doesn't follow from your assertion that anarchy would logically entail a world where only the strongest survive.
nurktwin1960 1 year ago
@nurktwin1960 Big guy vs. small guy. = No independent, unbiased third party to go after the big guy. A business owner has no guarantee that his business will not be destroyed by a stronger competitor. Innocence does not protect you in anarchy.
kamikazee55 1 year ago
@kamikazee55 Not sure where you got the idea the state is an independent, unbiased third party. Judges hand down biased rulings and sentences all the time.
In anarchy there would be no business, since forcing people at gunpoint to use money to pay for things would go against the very idea of anarchy. Also, without bosses you can't even organize a business, not to mention the fact there would be no need for business in a world where people are able to access resources freely themselves.
nurktwin1960 1 year ago
@nurktwin1960 Your comment just goes beyond all stupid anarchist ideas I've heard. There would be no business? And simply having anarchy does not mean that people wont 'go against its idea'. People would still use the force of the gun. Just because that goes against the idea doesn't mean people wouldn't do it.
kamikazee55 1 year ago
@kamikazee55 Depends on how many people "go against" the idea and principles of anarchy. If a lot of people do, then obvously what you have is no longer anarchy, but something else. If a lot of people are forcing each other at gunpoint to protect ownership of property, and to buy and sell using money, that's capitalism, not anarchy. Not sure why you think that "goes beyond all stupid anarchist ideas". That's just a fact of conceptual analysis.
nurktwin1960 1 year ago
@kamikazee55
Market anarchism does not equate to primitivism. It doesn't mean that no court or defense services should exist, but rather that those services should be provided on the same competitive, voluntary basis as all other services. It is, thus far, the least dissatisfactory answer I've heard to the unsolved problem of the abuse of power - radical decentralization, no presuppositional, unearned moral legitimacy and the natural, healthy tendency for people to distrust guys with guns.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM The problem with your argument is that law cannot be subject to the market. My rights are not subject to private businesses competing. Punishment cannot be subject to a private business. Why? Private businesses do not have authority to use force. I agree that any government system that does not directly have authority from each citizen does not have this right either, BUT a private business springing up absolutely cannot have the right of force.
kamikazee55 1 year ago
@kamikazee55
Not quite. More accurately, a private business does not have the presuppositional authority to use force. If it wants legitimacy and funds to use force, then it's going to have to make appeals to the self-interest of its customers.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM And would customers use force against themselves? Obviously not. You can't use force against yourself. So a private company does not have the right to do anything to people who have not given it authority over them. This would not stop criminals. Me shopping at walmart does not give walmart the authority to charge my neighbors.
kamikazee55 1 year ago
@kamikazee55
So you're saying that victims of aggression ought not extract restitution from their assailants? Yeah, no, I'm not gonna go for that. Property is meaningless if just anyone can take it from you, and you don't get to defend yourself.
I'm perfectly fine with victims of crime forcing their assailants to pay damages, and with them discharging that service to others as per division of labour.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM Of course they should extract restitution. Problem is that a private company does not have the right to do that. Private companies are motivated by the dollar while the law simply represents the law. Secondly, these same private companies do not have to obey any proclaimed law.
kamikazee55 1 year ago
@kamikazee55
"Private companies are motivated by the dollar[...]"
Exactly. Private companies are subject to profit and loss signals, and therefore able to adjust their activities to suit the preferences of their customers. A standard of justice that emerges from customers choosing which agencies to sign up with can be said to represent consumer preference, whereas all state law is necessarily arbitrary and potentially destructive.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM Dollar motivated does not = justice motivated. A private company looking to make profit and please its customers does not mean that they will uphold any law or do justice. A customer claiming that their non-customer neighbor stole from them is certain to commit injustice.
A private company would likely find through the 'profit and loss signal' that doing injustice would result in more profits.
kamikazee55 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PanzerDivisionBOM
"nd therefore able to adjust their activities to suit the preferences of their customers."
And only their costumers. What about sick African children? Or hungry kids from India? why don't they get fed? Because of the profit system that is capitalism.
GlobalAlternateMedia 11 months ago
I love the way this guy explains his point.
Sanchoblade83 1 year ago
Fantastic explanation!
androgenousanarchist 1 year ago
Can an establishment such as a university really teach such a philosophy?
Gettinghitonattheban 1 year ago
The main problem with the more anti-statist (as opposed to more anti-corporatist) anarchists is that without a "state" or some sort of legal leviathon, how can even anarchist values be upheld? In other words, they may as well forget about activism because they can't change the system at all without being slightly statist.
forrestcrow 2 years ago
@forrestcrow What your saying is true if you accept the process of using political means to reach the stateless ends.
ex. Agorism advocates the use of Grey and Black markets to move the state into obsolescence and starve it do death
far too general and simple an explanation but those would be non-political and non-violent means.
Floridanon407 1 year ago
@Floridanon407 Call it what you will, you need some sort of abstract order to make anything possible, even your mystical markets. Whether we call it the leviathon, the state, the "general will" etc.. it's still a centralized authority.
forrestcrow 1 year ago
The locus of power is still with the people. Even though we have representatives that doesn't mean we don't have power. Do you vote, can you run for election, can you campaign, write letters, write newspaper columns, etc...
bahramf 1 year ago
@forrestcrow the use of society acceptance and denial while incorporating true ethicals and morals(people aren't stupid they know what is right and what is wrong, a murderer won't just run free) without state interference or anything but society's norms since they will punish the murderer rightly(even without prison, pre-state societies had forms of punishment and what not, we forget this). So the acceptance of the state is nothing but a mere illusion that we'd all go crazy without it.
emightis 1 year ago
This is such bulshit. It is only natural that states exist. They destroy all that is not a state, or a weaker state. This is nature, reality. We can moralise all we want. But it´s not going to change.
AtheistRightWing 2 years ago
The social contract argument is not about actually being able to opt-out of the contract, but only that reasonable people would consent to the contract.
Obviously the reasoning abilities of Crispin can be called into question at this point.
bahramf 2 years ago
This episode should be called "lack of reason tv".
bahramf 2 years ago
Why?
Apmhflick 2 years ago
Sartwell is a moron.
bahramf 2 years ago
Again, Why?
Apmhflick 2 years ago
I've explained this elsewhere on this comment space.
bahramf 2 years ago
the reason people want to attack us is because of the fucked up shit our government has done/ is doing all around the world!
6VaLeNtInE6MaSSaCrE6 2 years ago
Sure, but that doesn't mean that the US doesn't do a lot of good around the world as well.
bahramf 2 years ago
"State power cannot be justified." It depends who you ask Crispin.
bahramf 2 years ago
So, the solution is to have no state, or just not to do that "fucked up shit".
bahramf 2 years ago
You can with draw your "agreement" Crispin. There are still, for all intensive purposes, gov't free lands. Go live on the north poll.
Or is Santa an authoritarian dictator?
bahramf 2 years ago
Comment removed
CassavetesHalo 2 years ago
Sartwell is a terrible philosopher. He took his grad school under Rorty and learned nothing from him.
"No justification for state power"??? You're a moron Sartwell. "Philosophical rather than practical"??? That's an oxymoron. Anarchists are a waste of time. They have no impact on politics in the US or anywhere else, except to make people completely disillusioned about politics and not vote.
bahramf 2 years ago
Comment removed
CassavetesHalo 2 years ago
It's not practical. There is no such thing as philosophical rather than practical. If there is, it should be abolished.
bahramf 2 years ago
Comment removed
CassavetesHalo 2 years ago
Anarchism is impractical in that no sensible state will/would adopt it, and in that if they did all would go to hell. No security, no economic stability, etc...
Any political philosophy which is impractical in those two ways is not worth discussing; never mind defending.
Therefore, Anarchism is not worth discussing or defending.
Argument form:
B follows from C and C follows from B, therefore C follows from A.
bahramf 2 years ago
Comment removed
CassavetesHalo 2 years ago
ABC are represented in the context of the above article. I could spell it out for you. A = Anarchism is impractical...
You should be able to figure out the rest. Also, libertarians - in the American sense of the word - at least in some minor way, in the political system of every major western democracy.
The reason they don't get into power is because PEOPLE don't think they're sensible. In a lot of ways a anarchistic gov't would be good for those who already have great wealth....
bahramf 2 years ago
Comment removed
CassavetesHalo 2 years ago
Comment removed
CassavetesHalo 2 years ago
It's not worthless if you're an American anarchist, if you're not, tell me what your version is and I'll argue against it.
I know Chomskys somehow would like to put the economy in the gov't hands, but that anarcho-syndicalism doesn't make too much sense to me when there really is no gov't.
bahramf 2 years ago
Comment removed
CassavetesHalo 2 years ago
Comment removed
CassavetesHalo 2 years ago
And indeed someone like Ron Paul got a lot of support - financially - but oddly very few people voted for him. From this I deduce that he got funding from very few, very rich people.
If you care about national security, economic stability, any of a number of gov't programs from the library to social security, than anarchism is very sensibly not an appealing theory to you.
I'm one of these people. Therefore, why should I be an anarchist.
Also, the philosopher both Chomsky, Wolff....
bahramf 2 years ago
Comment removed
CassavetesHalo 2 years ago
Comment removed
CassavetesHalo 2 years ago
Economic stability means that people won't have to kill each other for food. That there will be some sort of economy and jobs, etc...
bahramf 2 years ago
Comment removed
CassavetesHalo 2 years ago
Comment removed
CassavetesHalo 2 years ago
Sartwell and the rest of them use to defend the fact that state power is illegit is Kant. If we follow Kants logic so is a white lie.
"In itself" a state is not bad. It is at least possible (theoretically) for a fairly decent standard of freedom and autonomy within a state system.
That this is not enough for Sartwell or you, is not my problem. I live in Canada. We have a bunch of ice up north, and we would gladly give it to all you anarchists to live on, state control free! Have fun.
bahramf 2 years ago
Comment removed
CassavetesHalo 2 years ago
Comment removed
CassavetesHalo 2 years ago
There is a national security threat. That's why a GOVERNMENT IS NEEDED.
Don't blame me because anarchist have no answer to "how are we going to protect ourselves.
bahramf 2 years ago
Comment removed
CassavetesHalo 2 years ago
You're not worried about national security under an anarchist state
bahramf 2 years ago
Comment removed
CassavetesHalo 2 years ago
You would not threaten Canada. If you did, an actual working state would crush you.
bahramf 2 years ago
Comment removed
CassavetesHalo 2 years ago
@bahramf
That Cassavetes must be a genius huh? Explains something about his country.
b.t.w. the term "Stormtroopers" was coined by German soldiers to describe Canadian Soldiers fighting them in WWII, where as, americain soldiers currently refer to themselves as rapists so...
4Dmetricology 2 years ago
There will always and always has been a national security threat and no amount of government protection will ever stop someone determind enough to do damage.
Your arguemnet is mute people will always kill people in this case over ideologies.
coconut7joemanji 2 years ago
So, if you know that "people will always kill people" and you're deciding whether or not it is worth it to form a state to form an army, you'd be against forming a state and therefore an army?
It seems that if you have that negative a view of human nature a state (any state) is better than no state.
bahramf 2 years ago
People will always kill people is exactly why there should not be state (saying that the state protects its people is a fallacy they pick up the pieces afterwards and prosecute this is not protection). If i decide to go out today and kill someone becuase my views are different to theres i have murdered one person if a state decides to kill people with different views thats potentially millions the problem isnt nessesarily the idea of a state the issue is actually that man should not govern man.
coconut7joemanji 2 years ago
That's why we live in a democracy. Ideally there is self-governance. People just have to inform themselves enough as to what they think is best for... Canada, the US and not merely for themselves and vote that way.
If this were to happen I think there would be far fewer state inflicted deaths.
Also, prosecuting criminals deters them. What do you want the state to do? Convict people of thought crimes so that they "really" protect people?
bahramf 2 years ago
"Prosecuting criminals deters them" this is a common misunderstood idea that non criminals often asume. The physcology of a criminal is someone (similar to a gambler) that wieghs risk and reward differently to non criminals and for a criminal the reward from commiting a crime greatly outways the potential of being porosecuted. In a nut shell punishment is never a deterent no matter how severe therefore the state offers no actual protection only a form consolidation be it in the form of a court.
coconut7joemanji 2 years ago
You just said that criminals decide whether or not to commit crime as a gamble. If the odds of getting caught and the stake they have to put up is upped, presumably it would be a bad gamble to commit crime at some point.
bahramf 2 years ago
On paper democracy as you say is probably one of the best systems of government but there is still the issue that once elected a politician is pretty much immune from national and international laws and effectively becomes more of an elected dictator were the public have no power of say until the end of the term. At this point we have the issue of hieracy were Man is governing Man thus the age old problem of "i was only following orders".
coconut7joemanji 2 years ago
Actually in Canada where we have a parliamentary democracy, opposing parties can overthrow the Prime Minister. Especially with populace support.
bahramf 2 years ago
@bahramf We don't live in a democracy, the only people who live in a democracy in this country are the people in Congress, the rest of us live in a republic.
The state doesn't prevent crime except through the rare instances of a presence of authority figures at the scene of impending criminality, excluding those instances, all government does is exact measured vengeance in our names.
Affording people the freedom to defend themselves prevents more crime than Laws do, on a regular basis.
Floridanon407 1 year ago
So, you suggest we have no cops because punishment doesn't actually deter criminals. Do you have any figures that would actually support that proposition?
bahramf 1 year ago
@bahramf Every statistic on murder rates in regards in capital punishment states versus states without government sanctioned killings for starters. The presence of even the most severe punishment is no deterrent at all.
On the other hand, when you give private citizens access to the means to defend themselves from crime (rather than police swinging in to clean up the mess afterwards) crime rates go down, this is the case time and again
Floridanon407 1 year ago
That's just not true. In civilized countries where they keep record of crimes,crime rates drop when punishments are more severe. The best example is Canada.
Canada doesn't have very severe penalties for non-violent crimes and so its crime rate is high for property crimes. Even higher than in the US.
The only reason is because there aren't severe enough punishments.
bahramf 1 year ago
@bahramf Switzerland REQUIRES it's citizens to participate in the armed forces so they get experience with weapons and personal protection. It then gives it's weapons and what not to the citizens, actually ARMING THEM and this country has a very very small actual police force(it's nearly nonexistent). Switzerland has some of the lowest crime rates in the WORLD, I believe the lowest in Europe. What more proof do you need?
emightis 1 year ago
@emightis Your facts are way off. Switzerland has lots of crime. Their murder rate is higher than the US and Canada.
bahramf 1 year ago
@emightis I have sources which back me up, but I can't seem to copy paste them in this space. nationmaster (.) com has the information. Wikipedia does as well.
bahramf 1 year ago
@bahramf You just linked Wikipedia. Don't trust everything you read on that like a prophecy. You should back it up, which you managed to do: good for you. However your source is flawed. 2 murders to everyone 100,000 people, 6 rapes, and 3347 thefts. These are low by INTERNATIONAL standards, they dominate the playing field in low crime rate. Every year since 1999 the crime rate has DROPPED more than the previous year(that's one source).
emightis 1 year ago
@bahramf Crime Rate is UNHEARD OF and so low the country receives tourists just for it's security and safety(that's another source). Gun groups of America IDOL around Switzerland's model, which lacks military and enforcement. There are NO to few restrictions on weapons availability and the crime rate is so low that the nation actually stop keeping track of it in recent years(a third source).
emightis 1 year ago
@bahramf Want my sources: bing . com and search Switzerland's crime rate. The FIRST THREE SOURCES.(You were saying?)
emightis 1 year ago
Comment removed
bahramf 1 year ago
@bahramf No it doesn't. It has to do with good social programs.
bahramf 1 year ago
@bahramf Ontop of that there are two youtube videos explaining WHY Switzerland has such a low crime rate.
emightis 1 year ago
@emightis Are you retarded or something? Do you actually think that arming a nation of people will help keep people safe. Canada still has a lower murder rate (by far). I can't find a single source which says differently.
Wikipedia tends to be accurate unless you have reason to believe they are not on this one issue.
bahramf 1 year ago
@bahramf Retarded...WOW that is horrible argument skills. You just FLIPPED ENTIRELY and said: This is the reason that country that had the high crime rate from MY SOURCES has low crime rate. This means your sources ARE FLAWED and you're still trying to tell me about their validity(this argument has went down the tube at that point). Here's the facts I'm not sure you're aware of: Crime is a product of OUTLAWWING THINGS.
emightis 1 year ago
@emightis
Switzerland has a low crime rate relative to every other country in the world. It doesn't relative to the Western world. I'm thinking specifically of North America and Western Europe.
bahramf 1 year ago
@bahramf When you outlaw weaponry and firearms, crime rate goes UP because you just made it so ONLY OUTLAWS have weaponry and firearms. When only outlaws have weaponry they are more likely to commit crime because the person is unable to defend themselves. Outlaws aren't stupid, they don't give a shit how severe the punishment is, they'll still do it. Know what makes them do it less? When there is the possibility of them ALSO DYING.
emightis 1 year ago
@bahramf Criminals and outlaws are not unhuman, therefore they are subject to human instinct. Human instinct tells you: I have a handgun, he also has a handgun or I have a handgun, he has a shotgun. I'm not going to attack him, because I might die. Criminals are pussies, the majority of them said if they priorly knew the person they're attacking is armed THEY WOULDN'T DO IT.
emightis 1 year ago
@bahramf I love how we still think bans work in this country(Prohibition not do it for you people?), if everyone has a weapon and KNOWS HOW TO USE IT, criminals are going to be scared shitless to attack people. Please PLEASE PLEASEEEEE learn your argument before you do this weird flipflop technique where you agree with me yet call me retarded, AGAIN.
emightis 1 year ago
@emightis Criminals are scared shitless, but presumably if the choice is stealing or not having enough money to eat, you'll take your chances.
Less poverty decreases crime (as in Switzerland) not more guns.
bahramf 1 year ago
@emightis Or, alcohol and guns may just be different things.
bahramf 1 year ago
@bahramf That fact stands there, you can go to imaginationland and pretend that outlawwing something will make outlaws do it less, but you're only fooling yourself.
emightis 1 year ago
@emightis This is one country where all the citizenry are trained to handle deadly weapons. Even if it were replicable (which is is not) you're wrong that their murder rates are lower than places like Canada and the US.
bahramf 1 year ago
Comment removed
CassavetesHalo 2 years ago
Comment removed
CassavetesHalo 2 years ago
Anarchy living for freedom from tyrannical capitalist slavery.
AnarchistUprising 2 years ago
I guess you have a strange definition of "capitalist". From what I can tell, capitalism is a system of VOLUNTARY CONTRACT.
You don't like your job, walk away. You think something is to expensive, don't buy it. You don't like credit cards, don't use them. I don't see how this constitutes "slavery" in any way shape or form. Besides, what is the alternative?
fluff125 2 years ago
Anarcho-syndicalism.
fluorogoat 2 years ago
Yah, but that wouldn't work, and no one would implement it.
bahramf 2 years ago
"Fuck free markets, FREE PEOPLE. "
How are they different, or clash?
Victorprossartcom 2 years ago 2
The "birth" of Capitalism 500 years ago (Republics of Florence, Venice and so on)was the birth of modern Statepower....!
So...there is and never was a power struggle between our political system and the economy.
Who owns Washington? Thats the real question! Answer: "The Lobby" alias "Big Money" alias "Multinational Corporations" alias "Weaponindustry", "Oilindustry", "Drugindustry", "Foodindustry", "Banksters" and so on.
The State is a Monster but who is the Master of it?
IgnoranceIsPower 2 years ago
What are masters without monsters? They are you and I.
Corporations get away with their crimes not because they have resources, but because there are a select few who can be bribed. Without judges, police officers, generals, politicans that can be bribed corporations would face the wrath of the people if they stepped out of line.
The freer the market, the freer the people!
Mastikator 2 years ago
Just another "anarcho"-capitalist who fails to understand the inherent coercive and abusive nature of capitalism.
Fuck free markets, FREE PEOPLE.
av949 2 years ago
There is nothing inherently coercive about private property and free exchange of goods and services. Except in the deranged mind of Marxists like you. No one is being forced to do anything.
priapus512 2 years ago
Property is theft undertaken by capitalists and protected by the State.
All this clown, and you, are asking for is the whip to be handed from the Master to the Overseer.
av949 2 years ago
Markets are composed of people. I say you're failing to see the forest for the trees.
Free people engage in free transactions. Any outside force coercing them is unjustified. But coercion has to mean violence. A force or coercion of anything other than violence opens up this response to being coercive, since I'm attempting to influence the way you act by the arguments I make.
Violence is what is wrong. Government's use violence. Corporations, without the state, are just salesmen.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
Salesman? You are unaware of how riddled history is with examples of corporate/state collusion. Suggesting that they are merely offering choices is intellectually dishonest.
av949 2 years ago
Individual/State collusion would be no better. It's not about corporations or individuals. It's about the state violence. Without the state, corporations are just salesmen. There probably wouldn't even be corporations, since they are legal fictions. Corporations aren't the problem. They are a symptom of the problem.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
You are conflating vulgar anti-statism with anarchism as well as avoiding the underlying issue.
Individuals, or in the case of corporations - groups, with consolidated resources would be be advantaged under "anarcho-capitalism" and eventually give rise to a series of states competing for resources. Essentially, neo-fuedalism.
How am I to suspect democratic control of the means of production and free access to tools and information? Especially when I have to answer to a modern shogunate?
av949 2 years ago
Yes, certain people have certain advantages. No, they wouldn't give rise to a series of states. States only exist because of taxation and ideological support. Have you ever argued with a statist? You know how quick they are to say, "No one would pay taxes if they didn't have to," making that an argument for forced taxation?
Taxation and ideology are the only reasons states exist. In anarcho-capitalism you have neither, and you have philosophies abound that are ardently against them.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
Libertarians confuse these terms because they are still subjectively bourgeois liberals and have not been interpellated toward the revolution yet: they have not conceptualized the location of the coordinates of power and where the event of emancipation may appear.
tmfjones 2 years ago
Libertarian types have hard time distinguishing "negative liberties" from "positive liberties", and as a result make no arguments about markets being coercive or destructive, or of course CORPORATIONS BEING EQUIVALENT to governments themselves.
tmfjones 2 years ago
Libertarianism is not the same as anarchism.
He rejects "Marxism" yet mentions nothing about employer-employee relations, labor, and the working class.
Focusing completely on "the state" and rejecting it wholesale even when it does good is just rightwing nonsense, class struggle and solidarity are as just as important features of anarchism as freedom is.
tmfjones 2 years ago
EMMA!
cultusstultus 2 years ago
change the title...anarchist is spelt wrong
Libertarian800 3 years ago
got it. thanks.
ReasonTV 3 years ago
Spelled is spelled incorrectly.
david14011 2 years ago
i find it interesting that you people cite the fact that there are no anarchaic societies as being proof that they cannot work. The truth is we all live in an anarchaic society. We just choose to follow arbitrary laws imposed by our "superiors." In reality every time you do something without someone else forcing it upon you, you are operating in an anarchaic society. A group of friends coming to a consensus without needing to coerce eachother. That is anarchy.
Jonas1154 3 years ago 3
Blech. This guy seems like an amateur.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
˝i cannot withdraw my agreement [with the state]˝
Yes you can,by moving out of the country.
KladionicaCity 3 years ago
You missed it.
Philosophickle 3 years ago
I have more of a right to be in my country than the state does. Also, if we use your reasoning, there is no practical way to withdraw agreement with the state without entering into an agreement with another state. That amounts to a choice of prisons, not freedom.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
Would you say the same about buying a DVD? Does the fact that if you don't want to buy a DVD from Walmart you would have to buy it from someone else equal a choice of prisons?
I could be wrong, but I have never heard of a prisoner being able to choose what prison he gets to go to.
elzoog 3 years ago
This is a total distortion of my argument. Of course you can't walk out with the DVD. The point is, Walmart does not have a right to force you to purchase their goods, even if you happened to live near a Walmart and would rather not move. You don't HAVE to purchase anything from Walmart if you choose not to. The people calling themselves "government" do not have the right to force you to purchase their services. "Buy my service/product or go to prison." is not a legitimate business practice.
LastTrueLiberal 3 years ago
The US government does not force you to use it's services. If you don't like it you can do what I did and move to Korea. Since I have been living in Korea, pretty much 0% of my money has gone towards supporting the US government.
elzoog 3 years ago
elzoog; I really think both parties here are in disagreement over property rights. Please clarify; is it your position that governments are acting as private owners of geographical territories?
i.e. Do you believe the US government is a legitimate private owner of the territory called the United States?
If so, can you please answer a question I posed to you earlier as to whether you believe conquer is a valid way to acquire private ownership - If yes; what is your concept of theft?
Genowulf 3 years ago
1) There are no absolute property rights. Property is theft because you need force to obtain property.
2) The US is a legitimate owner over of it's territory. Otherwise, you would have to say that there is no such thing as legitimate ownership of territory.
3) Theft is defined in the dictionary as the wrongful taking of someone else's property. The key word in a phrase like that is "wrongful". Who decides what is wrongful and how do they enforce it?
elzoog 3 years ago
Well there are places on Earth where there's no state agreement.You can go to places like Namibia and become a bushman ,but guess what?Even if there you wouldn't be forced to enter in a agreement with the state,you'd be forced to obey the rules of nature and their habitants (tigers,lions & other predators).Since there's no bill of rights there,no police and no state to build some hospital,i don't what would happened to you'd get assaulted by a tiger or maybe some other tribe for example.
KladionicaCity 3 years ago
That is precisely why I wrote that there is no PRACTICAL way to withdraw agreement with the state without entering into an agreement with another state. Citizenship is something aquired through the geography of birth and through parentage. It may be recognized by the State (or not), but but citizenship was not GRANTED by government. I have the right to live where I was born and raised without having my money and liberty stolen by a gang of thieves writ large.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
So? There is no practical way to not buy a DVD from Walmart without buying it from someone else. Unless you want to steal it.
elzoog 3 years ago
But there are ways to get the benefits of DVD ownership without buying one. Flash memory, for example. Download content. Youtube is free and legal.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
I have yet to see a youtube video that has DVD quality. Sure you can download DVDs for free, but it's usually illegal.
If you think that you can find a state that will let you use it's services for free then go ahead and go for it.
elzoog 3 years ago
Don't you find it interesting that the best countries in the world to live in as far as having a comfortable living happen to have a state?
elzoog 3 years ago
Don't you find it interesting that the worst countries in the world to live in as far as having a comfortable living happen to have a state?
geheg3d 3 years ago 2
Not true. You could have a more comfortable living in North Korea (especially if you don't mind working for the government) than you can in a primitive tribe in the Amazon (which is the closest you have to somewhere that doesn't have a state).
If you are really careful minding your Ps and Qs, your life in North Korea would be better than living with the primitives in the Amazon.
Of course there are options better than North Korea, but they all involve being in a state.
elzoog 3 years ago
I'd take living in the Amazon any day over North Korea. At least my family could visit me there and I wouldn't have to march in a May Day parade.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
Your family could visit you in North Korea too. North Korea does in fact, allow Americans to visit their country.
In fact, if I wanted to visit North Korea I have a card in my wallet for a contact in a company that arranges that.
elzoog 3 years ago
and if I was a south Korean? You know damn well that the vast majority of family members wanting to visit their relatives in North Korea are South Korean. Besides, there's a huge difference between a recognized right to visit and permission to visit.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
South Koreans are allowed to visit their family living in North Korea. In fact a few years ago, that was a major news item.
As far as your claim "You know damn well that the vast majority of family members wanting to visit their relatives in North Korea are South Korean" I don't know that.
I have actually met a guy who was from North Korea. Have you? I have actually been to the border of North Korea. Have you?
elzoog 3 years ago
Really? Then why was it a major news article? Common occurrences are not news.
Also King Jung Il only grants the privilege of visitation. A license that can be taken away at any time. He does not recognize the right to visit.
No, I haven't been to the DMZ. I was Navy, not Army.
If you don't acknowledge that the vast majority of Korean relatives are other Koreans then you have to be an idiot or arguing in bad faith and I am done talking to you.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
So I guess you believe that the only people who live in North Korea are Koreans therefore people like Charles Jenkins and James Dresnok don't exist.
The thing is, if you are a relative of James Dresnok, you could theoretically visit him assuming you are willing to be totally obedient to the North Korean state and are willing to only meet him under conditions the North Korean government agree to.
James lived in a room with no running water, but you wouldn't have that in the Amazon either.
elzoog 3 years ago