Robert Anton Wilson on Anarchism

[sanitydotorg]

"I am not an Anarchist in your sense of the word: your brain is too dense for any known explosive to affect it." - Aleister Crowley

[ykui1]

check out the channel called Stefbot

[DerrEinzige]

@ykui1

no thank you

[Fathoms2004]

Old Bob, you have inspired us all.

[Bodhidharma1986]

Illuminatus, Cosmic Trigger, Prometheus Rising, Principia Discordia, SuBGenius.....Thx Bob Dobbs, Thx R.A.W :D

[Edgrot]

I like how you read the def of Anarchy and compair it to what is used today you find stark contrast. Anarchy as Jefferson put it, a relative of mine, is UNsustainable and individuals should lead life through contracts. Also further though he stated this structure instantly kills Anarchy because structure is government. Then the inforcement there of. There fore gov is enevitable but should be based souly on the one and NEVER the many. Stop lieing about my Jefferson blood line please.

[ouluvme2]

Henry David Thoreau was spot on! Read Civil Disobedience and see for yourselves if you disagree with ANYTHING he said.

[Crabbensmasher]

I don't understand where some people are going when they talk of Anarchism. Some act as if they are solely anti-state, yet others stick true to the meaning and demand complete individual liberties. It's like anarcho-capitalism for example; Would that really give us more liberty than what we already have? Large corporations will always find a way to keep us down. Like of course they do provide us great services, but they are also just as capable of victimizing people as governments are.

[Dirge987]

@Crabbensmasher "Large corporations will always find a way to keep us down. Like of course they do provide us great services, but they are also just as capable of victimizing people as governments are."

Unfortunately there is a commonly accepted myth that without government, corporations would rule. The problem is that people don't understand that governments create the corporations, and without government, corporations would not exist at all.

[Crabbensmasher]

@Dirge987, That makes a lot of sense. It may be a bit off topic, but I often hear theories about the government sending in agents to kill the head of state in some third world countries. After the leader is dead, the next head of state is usually more submissive so large american corporations can head in, make deals, put the country into debt, exploit them etc. So obviously corporations and governments are closely linked. I suppose it's all over money but I'm not certain.

[ThePatcam]

@Crabbensmasher chile, nicaragua, el salvador, iran, indonesia...

[tonyfalca]

@Crabbensmasher I suppose it is more along the lines of the IMF and or world bank that put countries into debt to exploit them. But you are definitely right about the US implanting arranged governments unto third world world countries.

[tonyfalca]

@Crabbensmasher oh, it is definitely about money, definitely about leverage and advantage. unfortunately, we are the ones whom apply value to money..lol

[tonyfalca]

@Dirge987 That is all speculation. If government was dismantled and the currency still stood, corporations would likely "run" the world. And that is simply because people have been conditioned, or manipulated, to buy into materialism, consumerism, excessive unnecessary consumption. Now if all the currencies of the world also fell, then there is definitely a chance corporations would fall, but then again, the idea of materialism, consumerism, et cetera would need to be defused.

[Dirge987]

@tonyfalca Actually, corporations are created by the government, by a government granted charter, and limited liability under the law. With the government gone, there would be no working corporations because no government would be there to sustain and protect them.

[tonyfalca]

@Dirge987

(1) Sorry, you are right. There would be no law that would allow those corporations to assume the title of corporations, however, and yes there is a however, the corporations would remain in similar form simply with another title. They may not be called corporations, but they would look like corporations, seem like corporations, and feel like corporations. The only difference would be that those corporations are now existing without the law, beyond law. ---

[tonyfalca]

@tonyfalca

(2) Yes, corporations are nourished by the current government in the present situation, but corporations do not wholly depend on the government. The corporations existence depends wholy on your attitude, wholly on your necessity for a particular service or goods.

[Dirge987]

@tonyfalca I don't think corporations exist on atitude. Corporations exist because they have limited liability privileges which shield them from certain lawsuits that keep their competition back, while getting loopholes special licensing laws which burden their competition, and not them. Because of massive overhead costs and a labor force inefficiently micromanaged, they can only competitively exist because of state privileges, and would most likely disappear without such.

[tonyfalca]

@Dirge987 (1)I'm not too sure about that. To assume that they would simply disappear seems like speculation to me. Sure, with those extreme advantages that you have pointed out resulting from the current system of law and 'justice' all of a sudden gone, the corporations may suffer and even struggle to survive, but I highly doubt that they would simply disappear. ---continued

[tonyfalca]

@tonyfalca (2)Personally, I feel as if they would manage, and probably, with ease because of the head-start, if you would like to call it that, which they are receiving. Not only that, but a lot of these giant corporations have a large portion of public finance through the stock markets thus if government all of a sudden ceased to exist, what would stop them from seizing that money as their own, or rendering the stocks valueless? There would be no law for the public to sue them and reacquire ---

[tonyfalca]

@tonyfalca But may be that I'm missing something here, just maybe...

[Dirge987]

@tonyfalca True, it is speculation. Though I'd say that if the state disappeared, the investors of these massive corporations would be well aware that the competitive advantages they once had are now gone. The smaller firms, being more efficient, would be much more appealing to investors. I'd predict, though I may be wrong, that investors would leave the corporate structure to rot and invest in more efficient, smaller scale production.

[tonyfalca]

@Dirge987 Hmmmm..it's definitely possible. I would predict that those whom invest in the massive corporations shall go wherever the capital goes. I would also predict that corporations may still make quite a bit of money, as the governments operations, probably, have no affect on how efficient the worker bees are.. We will just have to abandon government and see what happens :)

[donnachadelong]

@Dirge987 The problem with this analysis is that it's completely wrong. Governments didn't create the original corporations - monarchs did. The original corporations were medieval, however, the origin of capitalist corporations is in the mercantalist period and the British royal charter. Modern government was created by the bourgeoisie to defend themselves against monarchs and charters - and they ended up copying them. Capitalism will recreate government, it's more efficient.

[Dirge987]

@donnachadelong Monarchs were governments, and they indeed created businesses or granted exclusive rights to a market. Modern government may or may not have been created by powerful elites, but your last sentence that capitalism will recreate government is not just an assertion without any justification, but it does not follow from any of the points you previous made, nor have you even defined capitalism. Seeing how you used the term bourgeoisie, I assume you mean the marxist definition.

[Dirge987]

@donnachadelong The problem with using capitalism, socialism, liberal, conservative, even anarchist is that all of those words have different meanings at different stages of time. Free market capitalism is as far from modern corporatism as it is from Marx's view of capitalism. Many of the socialists in the early 1900's had problems with "capitalism" because of how the state granted privileges to other elites which is not part of the free enterprise, free market (aka capitalist) system.

[maria610421]

I think this guy make a soild point, what are people afraid of living their own life. As the man said all Government is dangerous. Its time for people to satrt doing their own thing and enjoy life abit, forget the Pope he is a Dope, for get religion, and have your own concept on things, create your own fun, and live your own life.

[slyman928]

he said we should have a contractual associations. the problem with that is you don't decide where the money goes once it's out of your hands. that entire hypothetical police force could be sending their money to be turned into nuclear missiles.

[Audiofalcon7]

@slyman928 Well, then, as expensive as that would be, you'd think in today's age of information, where Anonymous can destroy private defense agencies in Egypt because of finding out secret ties with the U.S., and people wanting to have a company they can trust, that they wouldn't be so inclined to shift their money into nuclear missiles. Chances are, as well, if everyone did that, nobody would bother firing at each other. Why? Because everyone has it - retaliation is thus imminent/immediate.

[slyman928]

@Audiofalcon7 The point was that the money could be going to something that you don't agree with not specifically nuclear missiles. For example say I don't support farms that use genetically modified seeds or chemical fertilizers. Now if I'm going to be giving my money to a police force, each officer would be paid and they could go and spend their money on food from those farms that I don't support... [continued in reply to dirge987]

[Dirge987]

@slyman928 "the problem with that is you don't decide where the money goes once it's out of your hands."

But you can ask where your money goes in accordance with the contract. If they don't tell you, then leave and find another protection provider. Also if you explicitly say that you will not agree to a contract that funds nuclear defense, and the protection firm does fund it without telling you, then they would brake their end of the contract. You could also sue them for fraud.

[slyman928]

@Dirge987 [continued from reply to audiofalcon7] In this system of contractual associations I would have to depend on people to make informed decisions on where their money is going. You can already see in our current system that you can't depend on the majority of people to do that. Dirge, you talk about how the contract would say where the money would go but that would only control how the organization could spend the money, it couldn't control all of the individual purchases of each officer

[Dirge987]

@slyman928 "it couldn't control all of the individual purchases of each officer"

Nor should it. Just as you would not want others to make you pay for things you don't want, you cannot force others to pay for things you DO want. The only person you can control in the entire world is you, and only YOU can control YOUR monetary exchanges. You cannot control where others spend their money because once you give your dollar to someone else, it stops being your dollar.

[slyman928]

@Dirge987 Yea, I know. I was just pointing out that your suggestion of guidelines in the contract wouldn't make any difference.

[rickyclay32]

I think he would not be so up for Anarchy when he does not have electricity, or the ability to go to the 7-11 for a slurpee. Without Laws, we are in a free for all, and the one with the biggest guns wins.

[tonyfalca]

@Dirge987 Man oh man, I really detest when people ASSUME and SPECULATE that the world would fall into a free-for-all chaotic mess if government were to be dismantled. It seems absolutely nobody has ever stopped to ponder, THE FACT, that the great majority of people are heavily affected by the present conditions, or a nasty environment full of war, violence, et cetera. Not to mention, people are subjected to a government full of government officials who set probably the utmost worst examples...

[FoxKnightJ07]

@rickyclay32 People would organize themselves in a manner that best suits their needs, would you be stupid enough to let civilization fall apart around you? Do you need a state to nanny you? The collective wisdom of human beings would always overcome that of the bunch of old farts you usually see in charge.

The future of civil planning aught to be the utilization of an open source approach that also places an emphasis on technical ways of thinking, rather than financial or politics based.

[tonyfalca]

@rickyclay32 "I think he would not be so up for Anarchy when he does not have electricity, or the ability to go to the 7-11 for a slurpee. Without Laws, we are in a free for all, and the one with the biggest guns wins. " Clearly that is ALL SPECULATION... How do you know NECESSARY things, such as electricity, would not continue to function? How do you know for sure that people are not acting the way they are now because of what they have been subjected to, such as never-ending war upon war, etc

[mingushead19]

Thank you for upload. Some interesting debate here. Misunderstanding QM seems inevitable. However, Im struggling to make sense of what you mean by the source is peripheral. It lacks clarity. The source of which information, how is its significance peripheral and what relevance has that to knwthyslf's comment? I think RAW rated himself too highly,he once claimed he was one of the smartest people alive. Interesting guy though.

[discordian420]

@mingushead19 He's attacking the speaker personally for trivial reasons rather than what RAW is actually saying. Read KnwThyslf's last comment.

[mingushead19]

@discordian420

Ahh, the source of his grievance is peripheral. Gotcha. That made very little sense as an isolated quote. fnord

[discordian420]

@KnwThyslf I didn't realize you were a troll until I saw your last comment.

[discordian420]

@KnwThyslf In short, I agree with your opinion of RAW's misunderstanding of QM. On the other hand, I agree with some of his perspectives on other issues, which is something to take into consideration. The source of information has peripheral significance.

[TheRedAnarch]

@KnwThyslf You're right. He's not an educator. He's Robert Anton Wilson.

[discordian420]

@KnwThyslf A person wiser than myself once told me the source is peripheral.

[badsign1980]

anarchism dosent work, its just a phse its like going backwards in time, its a happy wish, a positive wish not something real, dosent work because people would had to fix that mode when the mode should fit the people, its bullshit like many other socialistic communism theorys made by or mainly by jews that never actually worked in hard conditions, or work at all just use ppl desires and say what they wanted to ear and be and live like, mainly to live of them like chomski, emma goldman etc

[discordian420]

@badsign1980 statism dosent work, its just a phse its like going backwards in time, its a happy wish, a positive wish not something real, dosent work because people would had to fix that mode when the mode should fit the people, its bullshit like many other capitalist theorys made by or mainly by jews that never actually worked in hard conditions, or work at all just use ppl desires and say what they wanted to ear and be and live like, mainly to live of them like gingritch, smith etc

[chrisold97]

@badsign1980 so do you prefer national socialism?



[ttobin77]

And while Anarchism has a great literary and philosophical history, it has little to no practical history in practice as a system of any kind... and why is that? Because people that are into Anarchism spend too much time deliberating over the subtle differences in approach as opposed to taking any meaningful action in any way to implement it. I don't mean to poke a well-read hornet's nest here, but is Anarchism just a clever way of keeping yourself from getting involved in an existing system?

[discordian420]

@ttobin77 I've been to too many infoshops to believe your claim about anarchists not actively participating in changing the system.

[ttobinupinit]

@discordian420 This is the same person that wrote the one you replied to. First, what is an infoshop? And I'm being serious, since I've never heard that term before. My comment was about the lack of any Anarchist governments, versus Governments being infuenced by Anarchistic philosophy. And if Anarchism is a philosophy primarily, how would it work as a government? Minimal Governmental stucture is great on paper, with everyone being equal, but how would it function? Not trying to piss anyone off.

[discordian420]

@ttobinupinit (1/2)

An infoshop is an anarchist bookstore and community center. An infoshop typically holds meetings wherein direct action and civil disobedience are planned. I've been to anarchist communes and autonomous collectives that serve a similar function.

Your comment on anarchistic governments and governments influenced by anarchistic philosophy do not make sense. You seem to be alluding to minarchism, but I don't consider that anarchism... (continues)

[discordian420]

@discordian420 (2/2)

(continued) Anarchism is a negative. Thus, it is easier to understand what anarchism is *not* than to understand what it is. Traditionally, it encourages decentralization of power and popular sovereignty. Historical examples of anarchism in practice include the Spanish Revolution of 1936. This included the means of production being collectivized. We cannot base the success of a nation on mere subsistence or lifespan because it would be a fallacy.

[discordian420]

@discordian420 We cannot base the success of a nation on mere subsistence or lifespan because it would be a fallacy. Thus, the victory of Fransisco Franco and the nationalists in the Spanish Civil War does not prove that their fascist government is more desirable than anarchy, but rather, it proves that anarchy is transient in practice.

[songdiver]

@ttobin77

Maybe you've been sleepwalking through life, but the only reason this system "exists" is because people are sold the lie through years of conditioning and have no ability to think for themselves. This system is now merely a commercial sold to people through its institutions. What system is it you're referring to in which we can be involved? This system has no room for people who want to be involved...only those who are willing to read the scripts written by corporations. Awaken!

[ttobin77]

I find that the biggest problem with modern-day 'Anarchistic Philosophy' is that while it's a sound idea, people tend to get into these long-winded diatribes going back and forth over this dead philosopher versus another philosopher's approach to this point or another. It all boils down to this: Everyone is looking at the same wall and seeing something slightly different... and then arguing incessantly over the color of the mortar or how many cracks there are, instead of agreeing it's a wall.

[proliteriate]

Freedom for Dogs!!!

[platinum014]

i use to believe in anarchy, but i now think a limited goverment with a capitalist system would be a more civilized way to go.

[proliteriate]

@platinum014 We tried that

[platinum014]

@proliteriate ik.... *sigh*



[TDKjim8]

rabble.

[Fathoms2004]

The state is the god of atheists. 

[not2tees]

A wonderful voice had RAW - his conversational nimbleness and gentle humour always come through, and make lovely patterns over what is a profound vision and an immovable intellectual courage. I miss him.

[slowlybutfasholy]

anarchy should be anybody with any common sense's end goal(by my definition put below) it would be very shaky to attempt to bring the fucked up system the world is working under to that state at least in this lifetime in the next 20-30 years but should most definitely should be the end goal.

[slowlybutfasholy]

new world order(one world government under the guise of self-independence) vs. Anarchy(independent of the needs of necessities and voluntary participation in community)

p.s. off watching a couple vids i think this guy is illuminati...jus sayin.....and no....no i am not christian though i like some of the guys(jesus') quotes and feel him on going against the power of his day.....and getting fucked up for it.....

[UnluckyGambler]

if u like anarchy, learn about the venus project, its a wonderful proposition for a new world order.

[gnowave]

@UnluckyGambler

anarchy? new world oder? are you taking the piss? ha ha, new world ORDER, anarchy, yeh, funny

[UnluckyGambler]

@gnowave i dont understand what the hell ur talking about.

[gnowave]

@gnowave

i would expect you not to understand! how the hell has anarchy got ANY connection or anything in common with the "new world order". they are by nature completly INCOMPATIBLE! the new world order is created for global trade! and despite the grants for NGO's etc, (which were snaffled up by conglomerates anyway) it is NOT FOR COMMON PEOPLE! so it is i who dont understand what you meant.

[rea1001]

You are missed RAW...

[vigil]

LOL @ the retards that think an Anarchist is a hypocrite for having a computer! People really need to educate themselves rather than just assume they are smart. You aren't. Anarchy is not destruction and chaos like you have been forced to believe. Anarchy is the only truly sensible way to run the world, but they are to many fanatics and usurps who abuse other, like they already do. Ignore the Hot Topic bred punk, they don't know anything and will continue to support big Government n corporations

[thebudgod420]

@vigil WELL now hang on, to believe that self governance is best is probably true but, i think that could easily fall apart quickly, but I have read alot of Wilson's theory and especially his books on Hedonic Engineering. Look that up, its fascinating, and I think Wilson hits the nail on the head, squarly

[Tarvoc]

Wilson says he is against the state, but fails to give account to why states exist in the first place. He says nothing about the very problem states were installed to solve in the first place: the antagonism between means of production anf productive forces, that is, the problem of ownership of the means of production. From a Marxist or left-wing Anarchist point of view, every state is not just a thing that just somehow happens to be there, but a failed attempt to mediate in class antagonism.

[SanieClaws]

Thanks for posting this. Your videos are great!

[sleepingtao]

Right on, discordian420. Don't waste your time arguing with teenagers about anarchism in a place like this; you will just depress yourself while drowning in an ocean of techno-hicks. Anarchism has always and will always be the best way for humans to live together peacefully.

[enemyartistkristofeR]

Free-Market Anarchism = Voluntarism

Excellent Audio / Video

peace. love. anarchy

[AClarke2007]

Where`s he get drugs?

[ronaldneil]

Ok, Larson Rose and you have in just the last ten minutes convinced me that I am an anarchist. Thank you.

Ron

OneDollarDVDProject (com)

[Aeon135]

His vice is sooo..relaxed...

[timeruin]

I for one am for mass population control, if it has to be in the name of religion than so be it, as long as people are constantly being terminated. There should be a mandatory IQ test u must take to continue living on this earth. It's way to easy now for genetic FAILURES to continue breeding and destroying the chance for continued evolution of man. PEOPLE HAVE TO DIE! Plain and simple. it's a sad fact but true none the less.

[timeruin]

@timeruin I know it sounds real harsh, I definitely don't approve of genocide but this world is too small to support more than 12 million, it will simply hamper our evolution. Without clean water, air, and food humans devolve into golem like creatures.

[CosmosPrivateer]

@timeruin

You can give everyone on this planet a half acre of land and they would all fit in Australia. The problem is consumption and how we build things not over population. We consume way too much and much of what we make is made to break so we have to buy another one.

[sleedolfine15]

@CosmosPrivateer There is no problem with consumption. Those societies with the most capitalism in the world have no problem producing more than enought for everyone to consume. Poverty is the result of government interference in the free market.

[discordian420]

Since you know so much about anarchists, perhaps you can enlighten us? I mean, surely you could name ten anarchists of the top of your head without doing a google search because you know so much about the philosophy of anarchism as it is espoused by anarchists, right?

[NOmeansnoFAN]

@discordian420 I can. Me and my 9 closest friends!

[lpbmartialarts]

@discordian420 Oh, oh let me try. 10 anarchist from the top of my head.

1. Mikhail Bakunin

2. Peter Kropotkin

3.Emma Goldman

4.Alexander (sasha) Berkman

5.Allen Moore

6.Joseph Prodhoun... thats all, i guess u can't cound kropotkin or berkman on the list since he mentions their names. Oh well i tried.

[shantih433]

@discordian420 Just for fun, and WITHOUT doing a search: Zhuanzi, Lao-Tse (possibly), Diogenes of Sinope (possibly), Peter Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin, Leo Tolstoy, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Stirner, Alexander Berkman, Emma Goldman, Voltairine De Cleyre, Benjamin Tucker, Murray Rothbard, Rudolph Rocker, Robert Anton Wilson, Terence McKenna, Black, Jensen, Zerzan, Chomsky, Watson, Bey/Wilson, Clastres, Perlman, Sale, Vaneigem, May, Newman... I'll stop there because I'm running out of room... =-)

[johnnycaboosehead]

@TheWordOfBod You are a moron beyond description.

[kwalk30]

@TheWordOfBod Anarchy in the hands of anarchists?? hahahah

[pazomblez]

'anarchist' capitalism is a joke. private security firms would become de facto state powers.

read 'Warmaking and Statemaking' by Charles Tilly. In it, he makes the connection between the way protection rackets extort money (which is what security firms in an anarchist society would likely do) and the way that states collect taxes. Same deal. This I think would simply lead to a new sort of statism, with these security firms as the new authorities to submit to.

[pazomblez]

@pazomblez

I should note that this is also Chomsky's

position on the question. Thought about this many years

ago and I can't remember whether I got

it from him or came to the same

conclusion looking at other sources

anyhoo...

[vteam02]

@pazomblez

If I can choose whether or not to pay a private security firm, than they can't become de facto states. If I can't choose whether or not to pay private security firms, than its not anarcho-capatalism. Therefore, either way, its not a critique of anarcho-capitalism

[pazomblez]

@vteam02

How can you refuse to pay a private security firm if it coerces you into paying it? Like the state would coerce you into paying taxes? See the analogy? (Taxation, monopoly on violence). Actually I think state capitalism is preferable to so-called 'anarchist' capitalism because at least it isn't a daily bloodbath (in some parts of the world). In 'anarchist' capitalism, there's no monopoly on violence-security firms would vie with each other for supremacy, likely leading to constant war.

[pazomblez]

@pazomblez

I should add too, that I consider myself an anarchist too. And it's partly for that reason that I'm strongly opposed to a capitalist system - I think such an economic system is inherently tyrannical, for reasons I've sketched in previous comments here. I think a collectivist approach is the more humane one.

[vteam02]

Anrcho-capitalism does not approve of the initiation of force,and likewise, any company forcing anyone to pay for anything.

I think you're misrepresenting anarcho-capitalism. The initiation of violence is not approved of in an anarcho-capitalist society. Its a contradiction to say that a certain society supports violence and at the same time, say its anarcho-capitalist. A society with security firms going to war is not prescribed nor condoned by anarcho-capitalism.

[pazomblez]

@vteam02

I'm not saying initiation of violence is approved. I'm saying that that is going to be the end result, whether it's approved or not. Obviously 'anarchist' capitalists don't positively advocate constant war.

Who is going to guard against security firms abusing their power in this fashion? If everything is decided by the market, I think a Hobbesian war of 'all against all' would be the result. Please show me where I'm wrong, I'm genuinely interested in the debate. Not trying to bash.

[Jcolinsol]

@pazomblez

Well, we are already in that scenario with the state. You have one monopoly, they take your tax money by force, in order to pay for social services like the police, who then pull you over and fine you.

People naturally gravitate towards the service providers who best serve their customers. If a private defense company starts abusing it's own customers, competing defense firms will steal those customers away. Voluntarism creates order by allowing individuals to ally willingly.

[chrisold97]

@pazomblez

anarchism is against constant war, that is chaos, anarchism is an idealized state of cooperation without a structured hierarchy, once war begins anarchy is over

[ReX342]

I meant: Let's say you and I agree that I will give you food this winter if you give me food this summer. Or if you give your (excess money/) food to Haiti now, I'll give you everything you want/need in the summer. Let's say time goes by and I flip the bird instead. Do you have an old fashioned lynching?

[Valerian1]

@ReX342 - he spoke of having a local police force.. something you pay money into to protect the community.. as opposed to paying taxes to build nuclear bombs to blow up people who gave your government the bird -- probably for good reason.

[ReX342]

who or what 'enforces' the contract?

You should be free etc, but doesn't that include the freedom to COMMIT yourself to a contract?

[Rand33Appl3]

of course it includes that freedom.

[cujo131]

and you have to be enforced if you commit yourself? he's talking about not having to be enforced at all, since you'd only be there IF YOU WANTED TO.

sorry, couldnt resist the caps.

[Nederlandac]

(A).

[anarksee]

@Nederlandac (A).

[TDKjim8]

Easily, an anarchist with a computer obviously had to buy it, he had to pay certain taxes on it, he pays for electricity provided by public utilities. In order to have enough money to buy a computer he had to have a decent job, ergo a decent education most likely a public one. In order to keep his possessions he has to obey the laws put forth by governments.

Isn't it also true that most if not all religions act as governments, much stricter and close-minded ones?

[discordian420]

Everything you just said was answered by the points Wilson made in THIS video you commented on. I decided not to delete your comment despite the fact they did not by any means do anything to further a discussion of anarchism in the first place.

[asperin]

You are talking as that way of life was the only way of life.

As if time will not pass and humans wont evolve.

That is pessimistic, inconsistent, incorrect, superstitious, self-harming.

[fps0chris]

i dont understand your logic? because the government forces one to pay taxes on items, then you shouldnt buy items? And I mean its common knowledge now that government backed school loans caused the explosion in prices, even my socialist grandpa understands that. I've seen some poor arguements but well, maybe it needs some clarification, thanks. (Btw NH pays no sales tax)

[djdnauk1977]

@TDKjim8 law was actually started privately not by governments, the government just co-opted it when they realized it was profitable in terms of taxation

[blindmanchitlin]

@TDKjim8 No, you're wrong on every account. the computer could easily be stolen tax free,electricity can be generated off grid (or stolen) ,you can steal internet access by mooching a wifi signal off someone else, the public school system rarely ever provides a Decent education, and as long as you're intelligent,hard working and talented, High paying (100% lawful) jobs can be had without even so much as a high school diploma! Also, Don't most governments act as strictly close-minded religions??

[blindmanchitlin]

@TDKjim8 An anarchist would'nt even need to go through all the trouble of stealing, all ya' need to do is walk into a public library an use one of their computers for free, Don't even need a job!!! You're thinking is much to linear... Obviously, you need to learn how to look beyond the obvious...

[TDKjim8]

@blindmanchitlin You completely contradicted yourself in every statement in both of those comments. You advocate theft as a legitimate alternative to the just exchange of goods and services for money or bartering. And if one was to visit the library to use a computer for free they are using a service that is provided by the government and supported by tax payer dollar.

[blindmanchitlin]

@TDKjim8 I don't advocate theft as a legitimate alternative to anything. But anarchist theory advocates the decontrol of society by any means available,legal or not. The Dictionary defines anarchism thusly ; Anarchism n.1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. 2.Active resistance and terrorism against the state,as used by some anarchist. 3.Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority.

[blindmanchitlin]

@TDKjim8 I hope this will help you gain some degree of clarity in regard to the subject of anarchic theory. To anyone who can understand the un-principled principles of anarchic theory it is clear that there is no contradiction to anything i have writen. To use the tools provided for free by the government to over- throw that government is simple guerrilla warfare tactic,why spend your own time & money acquiring weapons to defeat your enemy when you can use your enemies own weapons against them?

[blindmanchitlin]

@TDKjim8 An example of such a guerrilla tactic would be the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001 keep in mind that those where the actions of violent terrorist, not anarchist.The weapons of the anarchist movement are words,ideas and a belief in the ability of people to better govern them-selves by creating a quasi-utopian society, computers are just one tool used to spread these ideas.A recent example of the successful use of such anarchist tactics would be the over-throwing of the government in Egypt

[TDKjim8]

@blindmanchitlin I'm fairly certain those who overthrew their oppressive governments in the middle east are not going to continue on in an anarchist utopia, they are actively looking to install a new form of government that betters the majority and punishes those who supported the previous regime. And you said, " the computer could easily be stolen tax free, you can steal internet access by mooching a wifi signal off someone else." so yes, you did advocate theft. Moron.

[blindmanchitlin]

@TDKjim8 Whether or not Egypt and the rest of the middle east falls further into anarchy or if by some miraculous stroke of luck they do manage to install a new form of government that betters the majority(which is the goal anarchist believe their brand of self governance would bring about) I'm inclined to believe that the two more likely results will be either 1.) a U.S. backed puppet regime will be installed as we have now in Afghanistan and Iraq,or 2.) an...

[blindmanchitlin]

@TDKjim8 ...extreme mono-theocratic Islamic dictatorship will seize control,much like what happened in Iran in 1979.Secondly, to advocate is to recommend,I neither condone nor recommended theft,by saying that a computer "COULD" be stolen, I was simply presenting a theoretical possibility of what an anarchist might do in order to avoid actually paying for things such as computers,internet & etc. if I were to have been advocating theft I would have said it "SHOULD" be stolen.You Indolent Dumb Ass!

[blindmanchitlin]

@TDKjim8 To expound further upon the subject of anarchy I shall quote Jello Biafra, who said(sang). "Ananchy sounds good to me, but then some-one will ask 'Who is going to fix the sewers?' & 'What will keep the gangs & red-necks from playing kings of the neighborhoods'. Well how many liberators really want to be dictators? I guess every theory has it's holes when real life steps in.So how do we feed & make room for all people on our Earth & transfer all the wealth...

[blindmanchitlin]

@TDKjim8 ... from the rich to those who really need it? Where do you draw the line? I'm not telling you,I'm asking you... Where do you draw the line?... Draw the line."

[Audiofalcon7]

@blindmanchitlin I'm not going to go through everything you wrote (my god why I would waste my time). However, understand what David Hume once said: Property and its transition by consent are antecedent to all governments. All States redistribute what is already there. That is all they can do; the sewers, the public utilities, everything, are not on a lifeline with any State. It - like any other good - can be provided by various individuals and communities. Freedom should be presupposed.

[blindmanchitlin]

@Audiofalcon7 Out of everything I wrote,the one thing you chose to comment on was my " Quote " from A song written by Jello Biafra,of the Punk band,the Dead kennedy's. As a Punk myself, I (& Mr. Biafra) favor the anarchic doctrine in theory,& I don't disagree that individuals & communities can provide their own public services without being dependent upon the government,That is essentially what the song is about ! I find it hard to belive that anyone could have such difficulty comprehending.

[TDKjim8]

I kinda feel that most anarchists are either hypocrites or not educated enough to fully understand what they are saying. Take this guy for example, he mentions how religions stopped fighting in this part of the world because they came to a truce, fact is, it was acts by certain governments which ceased most religious war. And I'm confronted by the vast majority of anarchists who lack any solutions for there is no precedent to base them on.any anarchist reading this has a computer ergo hypocrite.

[discordian420]

I usually find that governments and their policies are influenced by religious doctrines when it comes to morality. They act on the basis of dogmatic conception when determining foreign policy rather than intervening to stop religious war. I also did not understand what that has to do with owning a computer and how that makes an anarchist a hypocrite. Could you please elaborate on this?

[anarksee]

@discordian420 Statism is a reLIEgion.

[feloniousbutterfly]

How is it hypocritical for an Anarchist to use a computer?

Anarchists are scientists. A scientist looks at animal biology and through observation recognizes and defines the theory of evolution.

Anarchists are simply acknowledging that, no there is no supernatural figure running everything, the system operates under it's own principles.

Society runs itself.

[Jcolinsol]

The reason religions have become so much less destructive is that they are now voluntary associations. Now, you are seeing this as a policy enacted by the state when, in fact, this was simply an evolution in thinking made by the public itself.

The state, just like religion, should only exist on a voluntary basis. If it's voluntary, it's pretty much Anarchy.

[TheBigHo111]

*****

[MachineLegion]

This guy is awesome. I don't agree with him about government though, I don't think government is necessarily bad so long as its voluntary like anarchic Iceland, its only when its forced upon a society that it gets out of hand and becomes the unsung totalitarian regimes we have now. Other than that I completely agree.

[icfnord]

>> I don't think government is necessarily bad so long as its voluntary

If it's voluntary than it isn't government. Government, by definition is the violation of freedom, and what distinguishes government from USEFUL social institutions (e.g. companies, clubs. and charities) is precisely the fact that government overrides choice through brutal acts of terrorism like the income tax.

Government is always "bad". Government and evil are synonomous terms.

[MachineLegion]

Government is just a social construct that governs. It can be voluntary or forced. A company is an example of voluntary government.

[icfnord]

Wrong. Government is by definition, the overriding of choice through coercion. Government is the antithesis of freedom and "Voluntary government" like "voluntary tyrrany" is an oxymoron

Don't take my word for it, consult a dictionary.

[MachineLegion]

I see, whats a better word then so I don't get mixed up?

[icfnord]

There are quite a few good works on voluntary courts, association and defense. I'd start with murray rothbard and walter block. BTW: If you've never read Robert Anton Wilson, you are missing out. Also, there is a wealth of free media regarding anarchism on mises[dot[org]

[MachineLegion]

I already know quite a bit about anarchism, I think even more so then the typical YT "anit-statist". I've read some Proudhon, a little bit of Kropotkin (He got me into anarchism), and stuff like that. What I mean is a word for voluntary organization (I might as well just use that lol) so I don't have to use the word government. Also, sadly I've never read anything by RAW, I'm trying to find some online.

[TehBANN3D]

Rothbard never argued against governance, he argued against "the state". Government by association is necessary and legitimate to a stable society.

[cujo131]

then its not government, as govenrments are inherently 'closed'

[TehBANN3D]

You're redefining government to be synonymous with the state.

[Anon1696]

When he says "government" I believe he is referring to the State, which is a coercive monopoly.

You can't stop government from emerging.

Check out the latest videos on confederalsocialist's youtube channel.

[MachineLegion]

no hes not, hes referring to the government. Also I'm subscribed to confederalsocialist.

[444DeanMachine]

thanks for sharing this man this guy shares my ideas on anarchy exactly :)

[discordian420]

Glad you enjoyed it :)

[bearblaster420]

what do i think of the robert anton wilson videos? this guy just read my mind is what i think :D