OK, it's interesting to talk about the variety of labels and the related philosophies and tactics, but I am personally very hesistant about the use of labels, especially when some people use it as a form of mind control.
For instance, when people talk about "a democracy" as a noun with static connotations, their existing prejudices often interfere with a meaningful analysis of the process. I think the same thing occurs when some people talk about anarchy.
I reminded of an example of a Swiss town hall meeting where they had to vote on the budget for local spending. There were several immigrants new to the area who voted against several tax proposals. So after the voting, they had a budget lower than usual. Then they discussed what they had to cut, and eventually the immigrants wanted to have the taxes back on the tables. Once they were participating in the process, the taxes weren't as threatening to them and they voluntarily agreed to them.
That is fine as long as it is voluntary by those being governed. If they decide not to fund the programs or come to an agreement with the other people they just cannot use the services.
This was from Fossedal's book. Many people don't feel coerced when they are dealing in equal terms with a non-alien force. I think a lot of anarchists in the U.S. get so "freedom crazy" (as a Libertarian friend I know says), they make up non-existent threats where they don't exist and miss the point entirely.
Well if they agreed to be governed that way and decided with the others to go through with the decision then it is not coercion. So I don't see what you think my problem would be with it. I just reject that people have to be a part of your government if they do not want to be. There is no such idea as being freedom crazy. Only the crazy do not want to be free.
When you yell loudly in a room about being coerced to the point where you have to be escorted out after you asked following a speech if you would like to sign a petition for an independent 911 investigation, then yes, you are "freedom crazy." That's another story of an event not long before that debate. :P
Well I can't control the actions of other people. Yelling is usually not the best way. However, if one truly believes in freedom they should support it, not a different form of state slavery.
I see secession as a serious thing. There is a big difference between being fundamentally opposed to the system and not liking individual results or people within the system.
Well of course. Because that basically is autonomy for the individuals inside the government. As long as it is a voluntary system and does not force people to live under it there is no problem.
Have you heard about the Jura canton secession from Bern in Switzerland in 1979? I think this is an example of the flexibility of the Swiss system to handle disputes through democratic solutions. I agree that there should be provisions for voluntary secession, but I don't think it's a concept that should be taken lightly.
hehe well I certainly don't want to force people to be part of a system, but I think secession is a serious decision to make. Most healthy relationships usually involve cycles of give and take, so I think it's a bit irresponsible for someone to secede on a whim at the slightest inconvenience. It's nice to talk about this in theory, but it takes work! I don't want to give people a false impression because freedom demands vigilance and responsibility, or else it is a short-lived thing.
I hope for a day when no one would feel the need to call themselves an anarchist and the use of vague artificial terms like "the state" would become archaic.
If things move in a positive direction, I think the anarchists of tomorrow will be different from the anarchists of today--that they will have fewer constraints in their thinking and will be more proactive than reactive. Eventually, I hope they will disappear in such a way that anarchy would free itself.
Well all anarchism is, is autonomy for the indiviual. After that you could support communism. direct democracy, Republicanism, facism, theocracy, no system etc. You just do not wish to force it unto others. The state is artificial. Take care.
"Post-Objectivist market anarchist and agorist. And maybe Aristotelian liberal."
I think of terms in an active rather static sense, so I don't often feel a strong desire to pin myself down to a label where there is an existing prejudice of rigid connotations. My political views are always evolving and I try to remain flexible as I learn. I prefer to think of anarchy in the sense that it is a challenge to illegitimate authority.
I was pointing out how people can be crazy in the name of "freedom." Many of these people do not want to carry the responsibilities that actual freedom entails. It just becomes play-acting if you don't take the consequences of your actions seriously.
Well of course. However it is not ones responsiblity to be forced into a government that they do not agree with. They just will more than likely not get to take part in the speical programs the government has.
I think it is possible to focus on the individual so much that it is actually detrimental to protecting individual rights. You may not agree with this, overmind, but I think it is important to understand why someone would think this way. There are many historical reasons to support this view. You might want to look into work by the constitutional scholar Akhil Amar to understand alternative viewpoints on our constitutional rights.
???????? I don't know what you mean by starchild. That is what one is advocating when they advocate statism. It is not something that can just be overlooked. It (coercive backed monopoly) is the main problem.
My understanding was that Starchild had quite a following among the anarchists in the Libertarian Party. You can look him up. I think he was a male stripper in San Francisco IIRC. He sometimes crossdresses at events as the Statue of Liberty. I am not making this up. You can look him up.
Well he sounds a little strange and I don't know what would be the benifit of looking him up. I am doing homework while I am responding to you. But yes pointing weapons at people and throwing them in state cages is a very big issue.
This probably sounds a bit random but I came across an article by Robert Crane on the NI4D website, which mentioned that Norman Kurland was Gravel's economic mentor and apparently he is a descendent of the binary economic school of Kelso. I don't really know much about the details, but I found this interesting because I see many of the core motivations for the NI4D being economic and I am interested in learning more about the history for its motivation.
You'd hear a lot about the Mises Institute around Ron Paul, but I never heard about an existing school of economics along the lines of Gravel's ideas although I knew he had consulted economists. Sorry if this too random.
Well I am for a lot of Gravel's economic/domestic ideas. I like his health care idea with vouchers, his idea of sponsoring education to the PHD level along with compeittion, and his social security investment idea. I do not support forcing people into it.
Yeah, a lot of his ideas give people a choice. I think this is ideal. As Gravel says, government is a tool. You shouldn't use it when you don't have to. But what really got him in trouble with the anarchists was that he advocated using government at all. These people would defend slavery to defend "freedom." It is very frustrating. You sometimes need to be specific and state the context carefully or everything becomes pointing a gun (even when it doesn't make any sense).
Yes his ideas do contain choices but they should still be voluntary. Any group can use a state as a tool to fit their own preferences by forcing others to fund what they want. I don't know how you can shift the opposition to institutionalized coercion as supporting slavery. It is just a complete reversal. Supporting a program under a system that requires everyone living in a given geographic area to fund it is supporting pointing a gun at people. It is hardly an exaggeration.
OK, I advocate that people should be able to determine their government through direct democracy. If you want to be axiomatic, you can call that coercive but that line of reasoning ignores the limitations of pure logic in politics. Ever heard of the mathematical field of fair divisions applied in social science? You can quantify these things if you want, but I doubt you will find anything satisfactory through a game theoretic solution. Call any compromise pointing a gun if you like.
I am for a Constitutional Direct Democracy which participation is voluntary. It is not up to me to tell people what system to live under. The whole notion that you think opposing pointing weapons at people and throwing them in cages is a radical idea is stunning. Tyrannical unchecked direct democracies have achieved problematic results in ancient Greece.
Well you are putting words in my mouth which is how all these arguments go. Talk about public education. Pointing a gun. Public healthcare. Pointing a gun. Fair Tax. Fraud Tax.
Forget everything. I don't care about anyone else. I am the law! Haha!
OK, well say Congress decides not to participate in the laws we enact through the NI4D...
I suppose that infringes on their freedoms if we enforce the law!
I want to people to come to a consensus so they don't have to use guns! Force usually results from power obtained illegitimately. People are not perfect, but I believe in popular sovereignty as a standard in government (be it a constitutional republic or whatever). I think democracy should be used as a tool to improve ourselves.
Not at all if they violate a contract that they agreed to follow when they ran for office. Also, the people can just form it without the Congress. They don't need it. It is just a building with men and women in suits, not a magic building.
you do supporting pointing weapons at people and believe individuals do not own themselves and must submit to the wishes of majorities. How is that not supporting imperialism? You are not supporting Conesus but violence if you reject individual autonomy and advocate forcing people within imaginary lines to submit to majorities. It really isn't that complicated of a concept. There is no dancing around it.
I am not at all sure what you mean now. There are many interactions in society that people hardly talk about, but you could make a big deal out of something if you wanted to take a theoretical approach and single something out. You can make just about anything sound bad with a slippery slope argument.
It is not a slippery slope argument. You are supporting the caging of people if they do not submit. How can you just whitewash that? I understand it is not a likeable truth but that is what you are supporting.
If they do not submit to what? Tell me what I am saying. You know what? I submit to whatever you say I think. You win, overmind.
I believe oldhacks understands a concept that I am beginning to think you won't ever understand. He may not be the most eloquent at times, but the concept is still there.
I am not worried about winning an argument. I am just worried about being honest and others being honest with themselves about their beliefs instead of running to some smokescreen. I understand that it is not easy and I myself made excuse for wanting to impose my preferences unto others.
Anyway you are free to clarify your position and if you do not support caging or pointing weapons at people who will not submit to a majority ruling in some declared area then go ahead and let me know. Otherwise there is nothing else for me to state.
Maybe there is a misunderstanding. I have gotten very emotional here. Well I am very frustrated.
I remember someone in college who gave a hypothetical example and said, "What if I pointed a gun at you?" and pointed a finger in this guy's face. At that point, the guy he was pointing at just wanted to get the finger away from his face. I don't even remember what it was about.
You are asking me about pointing guns and putting people in cages. I kind of feel the same way right now.
Well that is probably because you understand that is what you are basically stating should be done if they disagree and will not submit to some artificial majorities decree.
I don't think I have ever stated what should be done. Personally, I am more in favor of rehabilitative approaches to crime rather than punitive ones. I personally don't like to dehumanize people.
Well that is good and I agree with you on that but we are talking about people not submitting to a majority (not a murderer) that claims to rule a given area of people. So if someone or a group of individuals want to form their own organization with others and refuses to submit to a majority of some area that they live in then they should be allowed to do so?
If not what should be done if they claim the land they live off of and property they have acquired through voluntary trade as well as themselves are not under the domain of some arbitrary majority?
Probably not. Well I could not say if I did not know the full situation. Many situations in society are rarely that simple. If there are two disparate internally homogenous groups, you are bound to have problems. I think this separation would be different to maintain within a constitutional republic with a functioning direct democracy but of course anything can be theoretically possible. If there's any plausibility to this, the smaller group would probably have outside support through trade.
I think you are suggesting a dysfunctional situation where succession would be a strong consideration.
People often talk about two wolves and a sheep to discredit democracy, but I don't think it has much foundation in reality. What makes a functioning democracy work is that the differences in society crosscut each other. Many people are both majorities and minorities at the same time, so minorities would likely be treated better than in an authoritarian state.
Authoritative rule is usually maintained by creating artificial divisions within society to maintain a heirarchal structure. I think many people make the mistake of projecting these deficiences to alternative solutions. (And I support solutions involving direct democracy because I see no better alternative towards peace.)
What is individual autonomy? People use that as an excuse to exploit other people to rationalize injustices all the time. All our social interactions are relative. An abusive person who makes demands of other people on the basis of his "autonomy" is implicitly initiating violence. What is the limit here when antisocial behavior becomes an injustice that must be addressed? I don't think these problems are as simple as you are making them out.
Well depending on how he/she was abused, punishment is warranted. No, not every case will be crystal clear about one violating the autonomy of another such as land usage for instance. In involuntary direct democracy it is crystal clear however. You are supporting pointing guns at those who don't agree with a majority in an imaginary zone.
I don't know what I am supporting honestly! You can make up some dystopian fantasy where people can do no good I suppose. Ultimately, I think the people should decide and the decisions should be respected. Hopefully, people will learn to be respectful of each other but I cannot say! Maybe we are all doomed, but I think we could do much better than we are now. I think it is a lack respect for humanity that is leading us down this path. All I can do is try my best to make things better.
I believe in proportionality of response to injustices. This is not always easy to define when there is an imbalance of power. People are not perfect, but ultimately I think the major decisions should be decided by the people. You can do your best to improve the democratic process and elect responsive representatives, but at the end to me, it is what it is. I can state my case for what I think should be done, but I feel decisions by the people should be respected.
Well I don't know what else to say. It is frightening that you support a coercive power to rule over people who did not even agree to be ruled over. Just don't say you support freedom because that clearly is not the case. That is all I ask because currently you would completely bastardizing the word. You support majority rule, not consensus and not liberty.
Personally, I am a libertarian and very anti-authoritarian. And I don't like the mind control games you anarchists play. I have not said anything about cages and guns in my personal political beliefs. You are the one who brought that up. What can you do when people do not do what you want them to do? Past a certain point, I don't think you should interfere (and that would require force btw). You can have constitutional rights as safeguards, but... at the end, it is what it is.
What can you do when the people can do no good? Appeal to a higher power? Ron Paul? Seriously. This is beyond my personal political beliefs. Call me a statist all you want.
I never stated people could do not good. I have no idea where you are getting this from. I am not an advocate of Ron Paul's platform. In fact I support Gravel more but it is not up to me to impose a system on someone against their will. You current position is very much statist. You can try to blame me for you own statements but it is you who made them. I will not entertain the idea that you are somehow supporting liberty when you advocate majority rule.
You refused to directly answer the question but have side stepped it the whole way and have basically implied you support the caging of those who refuse to submit to majority rule. I never said anything about a dystopian fantasy. You act as if the idea of being abhorred by your remarks that majorities should have the final ruling on matters dealing with other individuals is somehow absurd.
You can place checks and have a deliberative process, but in the end who has a higher power? I am not a religious person and I don't have anything else in mind. What do I if I am not happy at that point? If it's unbearable, I suppose I have no choice but to live in the wilderness or control other people and sacrifice my principles within a terrible system.
You cannot count on others to make you happy. You must find that yourself. Others can help make you happy but it is up to you to find it. Those are not even close to being your only two options. You do not have to take part in ruling over others. You can still interact with people without taking part in the coercive elements of society as well as mention your ideas to others.
I can be happy with myself and a small group of friends, but be unhappy with the decisions made in society. Respecting a decision does not mean you support it. I can't personally say, "These people are violating God's law!" I believe there is a point where I cannot challenge the legitimacy of a system no matter how I am opposed to its practices. This is outside my personal political beliefs, yet it is a fundamental principle in dealing with people. Does that make sense?
Yes that makes sense except for the part about respecting it. I don't see how someone could respect an imperial action because it was done by a majority.
I think it would be very difficult to construct a plausible imperial action that I would respect. As a mathematician accustomed to precise language, I cannot deny its existence. Such a world would not be very peaceful, but maybe that will become reality. :/
My view is that things would be far beyond hope before that happened.
You know what asshole. You can try me as an enemy combatant of liberty or whatever you want to call me.
You know what? I am very concerned about "mob rule" and violence as these injustices continue and if we don't do anything about it, it will happen whether you like it or not. I'm not going to live in some dream world and pretend every man is an island to himself. The day I lose faith in humanity, I'll be long gone and my hope is dwindling.
I never stated people were islands unto themselves. I did not and have not advocated the isolation of individuals. I have just stated they are themselves and you and no majority own them or the land they live off of. People should be free to interact with each other on a voluntary basis concerning both sides, not just one.
In other words, I believe there is a maturation process that depends on the participants in society. Anarchism may be the ultimate goal, but it will depend on the participants. Idealistically this is how I feel, but I am a pragmatist and I realize the work involved that is required to approach these ideals. I don't this think will occur by people just talking about it. I think people will have to learn by doing. This will mean making laws.
Aggression is not different if it is done by a majority, minority, corporation, monarch, representative, or by a common criminal. It is an invasion. It is imperialism.
If you get hung up on coercion, you see every social institution as coercive and you get nowhere because you start to ignore the relativistic aspects of society.
Coercion violates the non aggression principle which is supposedly the bedrock of libertarianism. You will have to be more specific about what social institutions. And you do get somewhere by recognizing them as coercive if they are.
This axiomatic approach to politics seems rather silly to me. You can have guiding principles, but a big part of government is making things work. Otherwise, you wouldn't need government. In any relationship among a group of people, someone usually agrees to something that they are not completely happy with. If you get hung up on one thing, often everything else will apart. This is how I feel about several anarchists.
There is no service that those in the state can provide that people outside of it cannot. If it is a needed service it will be provided. People can weigh the opitions themselves. If it is nothing major to them they can still choose to be governed by that government but if they do not agree with it they should be allowed to secede.
OK, this is always the big question I have about anarchy:
How do you get there?
I can understand the anarchosyndicalists and the history of the movements that justify their thinking. Market anarchists--not so much. Every tactic used to achieve these ideals seems to involve destruction or dissolution of existing popular institutions by force. Where do you start?
e.g. Neoconservatives may talk about spreading freedom and democracy all day, but their methods betray their rhetoric.
Well there are many ideas like starting black market (agorism) to compete with the state and education people about voluntarism so eventually the state is ignored and crumbles. I don't know what you mean by taking down institutions by force.
Can you name any recent or historical relevant examples of this? I know a lot of anarchocapitalists that talk about changing people's attitude, but it sounds a bit limp when the free market ideologues with power have oppressed other nations through the austerity measures they have imposed through funding requirements by the IMF. I know examples of anarchosyndicalists who have actually taken constructive actions towards a collective autonomous organization. Is there something comparable?
Medieval Iceland. I don't see how bringing nations and the IMF has anything to do with anarchism. IMF has no authority to tell someone what they must do.
No. If you mean economics and not social freedom then Hong Kong is about the closest example. Really even if there were no anarchist (collectivist or individualist) groups of people then it wouldn't be a sufficient argument against them if they could be backed up. All forms of coercive government and voluntary organizations didn't exist at one time or another.
I have a friend whose father worked for the World Bank. He is an avid anarchocapitalist, but he was very unhappy working in other countries. Chile was considered a testing ground for Friedman's economic ideas. My point is that these people often have trouble reconciling their methods with their ideology when they gain power. You can't ignore the imbalances of power, or you'll sound irrelevant to most people. I think this is where many Libertarians become ineffective reaching the public.
Milton Friedman was not an anarchist but a statist. I do not advocate a Libertarian state. I am advocating no state. It sounds like you are talking about state capitalism.
Yeah, I know that, but how do you convince these people to voluntarily give away their power? I don't see a realistic way of doing this through a black market. How would we counteract the existing imbalances of power that undermine attempts at competitive viability?
You have to recognize that they on exist because people currently support them directly or indirectly. In reality they are just people in costumes. A black market is a way to dry up the states funds. You simply like every revolution of thought or action have to work at it through education and action. There is no magic answer.
How would you handle attempts to subvert the integrity of a new black market? This seems like it would be a very natural response by a state if it showed any viability. This seems like a recipe for a covert outgrowth of government when the people cannot control the existing laws.
By more people joining. Like I said it takes accually people. There is no magic answer. In most revolutions only around a third (if that) heavily supported the revolution. Another third were against it and another third could go either way. There is no way to predict how everything would turn out. It has to be done step by step and adjusted from there.
we shouldn't have to start black markets if the government was just protecting legitimate small business' look at france. if you want to start a business then you apply for a grant and its yours. you give some of your proceeds back to the government and everyone's happy. you get to run your business and the government keeps big business from interfering with your ability to produce and market your product.
What I don't fully understand is why anarchists are not more sympathetic to this cause. This would directly challenge the existing hierarchal structures in society. A lot of anarchists at the LNC (largely of the anarcho-capitalist variety) showed disdain towards Gravel. Perhaps this was because they saw him as an authority figure who challenged their exclusivity. My impression is that people with cliqu'ish attitudes about politics have great difficulty appreciating the NI4D.
I appreciate the NI4D even though I am not for making it rule over every American without their consent. However, it is better than our current structure.
You were one of the exceptions that came to mind. I would never classify myself as an anarchist in large part due to the stigma associated with the label. I think that people will have to actively learn concepts of reciprocity through direct democracy before society will willingly adopt some of the ideals of anarchists. Most of the anarchists I see who ridicule direct democracy are hypocrites who want to impose their political ideologies on others.
Most of what makes the Swiss system work are the unwritten agreements that have developed through a long history of participatory democracy. Majorities show greater consideration to minorities than most societies due to the reciprocal relationships that have developed through the democratic process. The people who seek perfection through some personal ideal while the abuses of broken representative government persist discredit themselves and insult the efforts of others who fight injustices.
Well thanks. I don't know of very many or accually any (though I would think they are some) that want to impose any system on anyone. Anarchism should be a lack of a coercive system and based on voluntarism.
voluntarism. did we voluntarily abolish slavery? did we voluntarily end jim crowism? did we voluntarily end child labor? did we voluntarily begin the new deal?
Oldhacks I don't even think you know what voluntarism is. Slavery is violating someone else autonomy and is aggression so it is an invalid action needing to be punished. Jim Crow laws were propped up by state governments through coercion. We have not ended child labor and the New Deal is another overrated program that prolonged the depression.
I don't know what you mean by ungly trend. No slavery was not voluntarily abolished. That is not what I or any of the anarchist I know advocate. Enslaving someone else is a form of oppression and is not voluntary therefore actions against the oppressor are needed.
whats you solution? just doing away with the dollar and trading rabbits like my grandma did? no regulations on business'? no regulation on farming or social issues?
No not trading rabbits (unless that is what you want to trade in). Allowing people to choose a currency they want to use and purchase. One may end up dominating (especially if it is managed well) but people will always have the opition if the currency is managed poorly like overprinting to swtich their currency over to something else. Regulations are fine as long as they are done by the purchaser either through himself or a government/organization he/she decided to join into.
thats ridiculous. all we need to stabilize our currency is to have a national bank. isn't it telling that the person that fought that the hardest was Jackson who launched the offensive against the natives and caused the greatest embarissment in all of our founding policies?
Yes we need to have a stable currency. And we can achieve that by putting a check on those who print the money that we are not their slaves and we can change over to other currencies if they are managed better without being put in a state cage. Yes Jackson committed crimes against the Native Americans (in my home state Florida). He was against central banks in the US but was fine with state monopolized banks so I do not completely agree with him.
You are mixing two different issues anyway which is actions against natives and actions against the national bank. Just because he committed genocide against the Natives does not automatically make all his other positions illogical. Hitler ordered the slaughter of millions but thought Berlin was the capital of Germany. Does his hideous crimes against non National Socialist Germans mean his was wrong about Berlin being the capital of Germany?
not at all. the reason why he was against a centralized banking system was so that him and his buddies in the railroad could commit those atrocities because it stayed privatized which made it unaccountable to regulations or fair practice.
ahaha...I don't know about that but if I remember correctly he was for state banks. "Private" companies are more accountable because they can not be funded if they provide a poor service unlike monopolized states (that is not to say all are accountable because they get stolen money from the state).
without government business is free to kill us all.
when the railroad laid down its tracks it did it with chinese slaves and if you lived on the path that it was laying down they'd give you 10% of what your land was worth or they'd blow up our house in the middle of the night. the state isn't the agent of corruption. It is Now but thats because They're not accountable to US. the state are simply agents of business. not the other way around. and thats the problem.
No they are not free to kill us all. Both businesses and governments have killed but they can be stopped. It is just up to people to stop them. Many of the Chinese that came over were not slaves and made a better living than what they would have made in China. They were discriminated against and paid less but in the end they were better off. That doesn't mean it was fair but people were much more racist than they are today.
I have never heard of them blowing up people's houses but they did use the state to take the land people were living off of. You should be allowed to have a government along with others but you should not be allowed to mandate your view or preferred laws unto people who do not want to live under them.
Well the state is their tool. You are moving the burden. The state and others are the ones who want to use force, aggression, imperialism against me. It is them who should leave me and other alone who do not want to be ruled under them. They do not own land and property that they do not use or produce.
Btw, I hope you are kidding about hating America etc. It sounds like you are taking a phrase from the authortarian right aka submit to my preferences or get out of the area I claim Ito control.
It depends how you define America. If you mean the government and some of its history then yes. If you mean the basic ideas it was founded on such as liberty and equality under the law then no. I do not trust the management of my own life to others and I do not trust myself to manage others lives. I do not support involuntary direct democracy.
Mike Gravel is the most patriotic mother fucker that ever lived. He believes in America. He believes in the individual. Individuals working together to stimulate progress and make life on Earth more inhabitable for everyone.
Just because republicans say something is unamerican doesn't mean that there's no such thing as "un-American"
Well firstly I believe you are just using a bullshit term. It is just a cover for people to use when they don't have an argument. I don't think we should be constrained by what the Founders wanted. However, for your sake since you like the term, the Founding Fathers hated direct democracy. The only one who wanted something remotely similar to it was Jefferson but of course you hate him.
But in reality I am not concerned with your definition of unAmerican or a Republicans definition. I just do not want to be coerced under the guise of either. I do not reject individuals working together for progress. It fact I strongly support it. I just reject that individuals should be able to rule over other individuals without their consent. It is in people's interest to work together. They do not need and should not be coerced.
You may want to expand upon that so I know what you mean. If someone didn't like the way the majority set up the health care system and thought another system is better then they wouldn't have to pay into the system?
no they have to pay just like everybody else. because you live in a country and part of maintaining a healthy society is by insuring that All Americans can see a doctor when they need to. It's part of your patriotic duty. which you have.
Well it really isn't up to tell me what my duties are. If I find a health care system to be poorly run and structured I shouldn't have to fund it and of course wouldn't be able to use it.
so you'd rather just turn your back on the people that are forced to use it rather then fight with them to make it more efficient? not everyone has the same choices you do friend.
what would be the difference? no matter what kind of organization you start its gonna need management and thats all government is. or all its supposed to be anyways.
what you're missing is there's nothing wrong with the way things are set up except for the very generic problem that we're not allowed a say in how business is conducted. If we could vote for or against the governments proposals then 99.9% of our problems could be addressed if not solved completely.
No, the southerners were committing aggression against blacks.
Yes it would be wrong to have the state bail us out because it would require stolen money.
As long as people can drop out of a system then there is really no problem. I do not just boycott the system and use that as an excuse. If I did I wouldn't bother talking to people about anarchism, US policy, and the violence of statism. Just because I do not agree with institutionalized violence doesn't mean I don't care.
Education. Tell people about voluntarism and let them form their own governments if they wish with other like minded people. The governments could even intermix on the issues more people agree on.
so you believe that if everyone was comepletly left to their own devices that everything would turn out fine? you wouldn't have roaming gangs and militias going around terrorizing people and stealing their goods? you wouldn't have certain sections prospering while the vast majority falls into poverty? deregulation caused wal mart/ deregulation caused inflated drug prices, de regulation caused the war in iraq.
is there no issue that you feel this country should UNITE on?
You are just using the term regulation loosely. It is the state that props up Wal-Mart with corporate welfare. Overall government intervention hurts price competitiveness through corporate subsidizes, patents, and barriers to entry. There would probably be gangs just like there are gangs today. The state is the biggest gang.
However, people can defend themselves better when they have more control over their own lives. There are plenty of issues people can unite on. However, they should not be force into submission.
even if its to save millions of lives? even if that means destroying the planet? just no rules no matter what?
what I don't get is how you can claim to be proud to be an American but yet not want to live by what the majority of Americans believe to be just. Anarchism is idealistic. but its not realistic. thats what I wish you'd try to understand. Not everyone is as non violent nor as thoughtful as you are. in fact Most aren't
Governments kill millions. Government monopolies are some of the biggest polluters. Governments cover for corporate pollution. Heavily polluting the environment is a form of aggression against other people and should be punished. Anarchism does not advocate no rules. You really need to study anarchism. DROs (Dispute Resolution Organizations) are one of the many ideas put forth about how to resolve disputes and deal with aggressors such as murderers, thieves, polluters etc..
exxon mobile kills millions. they coerce the state into doing their dirty work for them..
I know true anarchism and it aint as pretty as the idealistic anarchist would lead you to believe. My grandmother and my great grand father were both anarchist. no running water. living off of animals that you raise and vegetables that you raise. sounds ideal but if you're not willing to dedicate your entire life to it then it doesn't work. why should we have to go back to a barbaric way of living
No you do not understand anarchism at all. If you even had the slightest clue you would know it does not advocate no rules. It does not automatically advocate going back to a hunting gathering society. Those are anarcho primitivist and they are only one school of thought.
There are anarcho-syndicalists and free market anarchists. Anarchism is voluntarism. It does not advocate living like those in 3000BC, tribalism, etc. It is just for individual autonomy.
from what I gather your understanding of anarchism is that you don't want to pay taxes or have police or have hospitals or have transportation systems. we should all just be on foot carrying baskets on our head and toting water from the local creek.
I was an anarchist all my life so dont tell me I dont understand anarchism. I was every bit as skeptical of governance as you were until Mike Gravel came to the scene and showed me that there is a way that we can have sound governance.
Oldhacks, I am just going to be blunt. You have no understanding of anarchism. It is obvious you have a very slight understanding of it. I have never stated I didn't want any of those items. That is insane. I stated I didn't want the state to have a monopoly on those services and to be able extract funds even if it does a poor job.
If you believe in the non aggression principle there is no way you could support state monopolies over given geographic areas. There is no such idea as good governance if it involves coercion. And it is not that I even oppose Constitutional Direct Democracy. In fact it is the system I favor myself and would wish to partake in it as long as it is voluntary. I do not want to force people into it that like different forms of government .
governance IS coercion. but if its mandated by the majority of people that are living by said governance then it's just. It's just the generic flaw in our constitution that barred us from the process that leaves it vulnerable to corrupting elements.
No, majority decisions do not equal truth or rational. You are making a logical fallacy. Oldhacks, no it is not fine to put weapons at people if they disagree with you or throw them in a state. cage.
I don't know exactly what that means. I think certain people will be happier in different forms of government and they should be allowed to live under those forms with other people if they so choose. I don't think there is a one size fits all approach to government. People should have control of their own lives as long as they do not commit aggression against others.
Ah ok. Yeah, I think that's where you probably differ with several anarchocapitalists. In social sciences, I feel strongly that truth is relative. For instance, I think it was very difficult to say whether a democratic decision is correct in isolation, because the process itself is educational.
I think many of the problems in American politics can be traced to interference with the integrity of the process. I think this is more important the "correctness" of individual decisions. This is often where I differ with many purists.
Well that is mainly why I support people taking part in governments that they wish to take part in. I don't see an absolute truth when ti comes to what structure of government works the best for people. Btw, I don't call myself an anarcho cap.
OK, it's interesting to talk about the variety of labels and the related philosophies and tactics, but I am personally very hesistant about the use of labels, especially when some people use it as a form of mind control.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
For instance, when people talk about "a democracy" as a noun with static connotations, their existing prejudices often interfere with a meaningful analysis of the process. I think the same thing occurs when some people talk about anarchy.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
LOL! That is Xominverse lol!
overmind25 3 years ago
I reminded of an example of a Swiss town hall meeting where they had to vote on the budget for local spending. There were several immigrants new to the area who voted against several tax proposals. So after the voting, they had a budget lower than usual. Then they discussed what they had to cut, and eventually the immigrants wanted to have the taxes back on the tables. Once they were participating in the process, the taxes weren't as threatening to them and they voluntarily agreed to them.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
That is fine as long as it is voluntary by those being governed. If they decide not to fund the programs or come to an agreement with the other people they just cannot use the services.
overmind25 3 years ago
This was from Fossedal's book. Many people don't feel coerced when they are dealing in equal terms with a non-alien force. I think a lot of anarchists in the U.S. get so "freedom crazy" (as a Libertarian friend I know says), they make up non-existent threats where they don't exist and miss the point entirely.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Well if they agreed to be governed that way and decided with the others to go through with the decision then it is not coercion. So I don't see what you think my problem would be with it. I just reject that people have to be a part of your government if they do not want to be. There is no such idea as being freedom crazy. Only the crazy do not want to be free.
overmind25 3 years ago
*those that are crazy
overmind25 3 years ago
When you yell loudly in a room about being coerced to the point where you have to be escorted out after you asked following a speech if you would like to sign a petition for an independent 911 investigation, then yes, you are "freedom crazy." That's another story of an event not long before that debate. :P
babbarr2008 3 years ago
*you are asked
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Well I can't control the actions of other people. Yelling is usually not the best way. However, if one truly believes in freedom they should support it, not a different form of state slavery.
overmind25 3 years ago
There is a quote I found by the Swiss National Council member Andreas Gross:
"You don't believe in direct democracy unless you believe in it when you don't like the results."
I think there is some truth to this, and I was wondering how you felt about this statement.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
I don't believe in direct democracy that is forced unto people who do no like that system of government or how those in direct democracy operate.
overmind25 3 years ago
Would it be ok with you if there was an option of non-violent secession?
babbarr2008 3 years ago
I see secession as a serious thing. There is a big difference between being fundamentally opposed to the system and not liking individual results or people within the system.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Well of course. Because that basically is autonomy for the individuals inside the government. As long as it is a voluntary system and does not force people to live under it there is no problem.
overmind25 3 years ago
Have you heard about the Jura canton secession from Bern in Switzerland in 1979? I think this is an example of the flexibility of the Swiss system to handle disputes through democratic solutions. I agree that there should be provisions for voluntary secession, but I don't think it's a concept that should be taken lightly.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Why not? Why do people want others to be part of their system if they don't want to be in it? Let them choose.
overmind25 3 years ago
hehe well I certainly don't want to force people to be part of a system, but I think secession is a serious decision to make. Most healthy relationships usually involve cycles of give and take, so I think it's a bit irresponsible for someone to secede on a whim at the slightest inconvenience. It's nice to talk about this in theory, but it takes work! I don't want to give people a false impression because freedom demands vigilance and responsibility, or else it is a short-lived thing.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Just want to clear this up: So people should have the option to opt out of governments if he/she wishes and didn't make an agreement to the contrary?
overmind25 3 years ago
Yeah I think so.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Welcome to anarchy. Now we can discuss the best policies that we think humans should pursue.
overmind25 3 years ago
shhh, that's a secret ;)
I hope for a day when no one would feel the need to call themselves an anarchist and the use of vague artificial terms like "the state" would become archaic.
If things move in a positive direction, I think the anarchists of tomorrow will be different from the anarchists of today--that they will have fewer constraints in their thinking and will be more proactive than reactive. Eventually, I hope they will disappear in such a way that anarchy would free itself.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Well all anarchism is, is autonomy for the indiviual. After that you could support communism. direct democracy, Republicanism, facism, theocracy, no system etc. You just do not wish to force it unto others. The state is artificial. Take care.
overmind25 3 years ago
Btw, if you hate the labe anarchists many people call themselves voluntarists.
overmind25 3 years ago
*label anarchist
overmind25 3 years ago
heh, I just don't want to sound like this:
"Post-Objectivist market anarchist and agorist. And maybe Aristotelian liberal."
I think of terms in an active rather static sense, so I don't often feel a strong desire to pin myself down to a label where there is an existing prejudice of rigid connotations. My political views are always evolving and I try to remain flexible as I learn. I prefer to think of anarchy in the sense that it is a challenge to illegitimate authority.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
*"dynamic rather than static" may be better wording
babbarr2008 3 years ago
I was pointing out how people can be crazy in the name of "freedom." Many of these people do not want to carry the responsibilities that actual freedom entails. It just becomes play-acting if you don't take the consequences of your actions seriously.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Well of course. However it is not ones responsiblity to be forced into a government that they do not agree with. They just will more than likely not get to take part in the speical programs the government has.
overmind25 3 years ago
I think it is possible to focus on the individual so much that it is actually detrimental to protecting individual rights. You may not agree with this, overmind, but I think it is important to understand why someone would think this way. There are many historical reasons to support this view. You might want to look into work by the constitutional scholar Akhil Amar to understand alternative viewpoints on our constitutional rights.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
And why is everything about pointing a gun?
This anarchist (Starchild if you heard of him) was doing that to Gravel at the convention on the subject of public education of all things.
Geez, this is where everything breaks down.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
???????? I don't know what you mean by starchild. That is what one is advocating when they advocate statism. It is not something that can just be overlooked. It (coercive backed monopoly) is the main problem.
overmind25 3 years ago
My understanding was that Starchild had quite a following among the anarchists in the Libertarian Party. You can look him up. I think he was a male stripper in San Francisco IIRC. He sometimes crossdresses at events as the Statue of Liberty. I am not making this up. You can look him up.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Well he sounds a little strange and I don't know what would be the benifit of looking him up. I am doing homework while I am responding to you. But yes pointing weapons at people and throwing them in state cages is a very big issue.
overmind25 3 years ago
This probably sounds a bit random but I came across an article by Robert Crane on the NI4D website, which mentioned that Norman Kurland was Gravel's economic mentor and apparently he is a descendent of the binary economic school of Kelso. I don't really know much about the details, but I found this interesting because I see many of the core motivations for the NI4D being economic and I am interested in learning more about the history for its motivation.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
You'd hear a lot about the Mises Institute around Ron Paul, but I never heard about an existing school of economics along the lines of Gravel's ideas although I knew he had consulted economists. Sorry if this too random.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Well I am for a lot of Gravel's economic/domestic ideas. I like his health care idea with vouchers, his idea of sponsoring education to the PHD level along with compeittion, and his social security investment idea. I do not support forcing people into it.
overmind25 3 years ago
Yeah, a lot of his ideas give people a choice. I think this is ideal. As Gravel says, government is a tool. You shouldn't use it when you don't have to. But what really got him in trouble with the anarchists was that he advocated using government at all. These people would defend slavery to defend "freedom." It is very frustrating. You sometimes need to be specific and state the context carefully or everything becomes pointing a gun (even when it doesn't make any sense).
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Yes his ideas do contain choices but they should still be voluntary. Any group can use a state as a tool to fit their own preferences by forcing others to fund what they want. I don't know how you can shift the opposition to institutionalized coercion as supporting slavery. It is just a complete reversal. Supporting a program under a system that requires everyone living in a given geographic area to fund it is supporting pointing a gun at people. It is hardly an exaggeration.
overmind25 3 years ago
OK, I advocate that people should be able to determine their government through direct democracy. If you want to be axiomatic, you can call that coercive but that line of reasoning ignores the limitations of pure logic in politics. Ever heard of the mathematical field of fair divisions applied in social science? You can quantify these things if you want, but I doubt you will find anything satisfactory through a game theoretic solution. Call any compromise pointing a gun if you like.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
I am for a Constitutional Direct Democracy which participation is voluntary. It is not up to me to tell people what system to live under. The whole notion that you think opposing pointing weapons at people and throwing them in cages is a radical idea is stunning. Tyrannical unchecked direct democracies have achieved problematic results in ancient Greece.
overmind25 3 years ago
Well you are putting words in my mouth which is how all these arguments go. Talk about public education. Pointing a gun. Public healthcare. Pointing a gun. Fair Tax. Fraud Tax.
Forget everything. I don't care about anyone else. I am the law! Haha!
Now I just need to buy a gun...
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Well then you don't support forcing people within what is deemed the United States to fund/take part in programs enacted by a direct democracy?
overmind25 3 years ago
OK, well say Congress decides not to participate in the laws we enact through the NI4D...
I suppose that infringes on their freedoms if we enforce the law!
I want to people to come to a consensus so they don't have to use guns! Force usually results from power obtained illegitimately. People are not perfect, but I believe in popular sovereignty as a standard in government (be it a constitutional republic or whatever). I think democracy should be used as a tool to improve ourselves.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Not at all if they violate a contract that they agreed to follow when they ran for office. Also, the people can just form it without the Congress. They don't need it. It is just a building with men and women in suits, not a magic building.
overmind25 3 years ago
you do supporting pointing weapons at people and believe individuals do not own themselves and must submit to the wishes of majorities. How is that not supporting imperialism? You are not supporting Conesus but violence if you reject individual autonomy and advocate forcing people within imaginary lines to submit to majorities. It really isn't that complicated of a concept. There is no dancing around it.
overmind25 3 years ago
*So you do support
overmind25 3 years ago
I am not at all sure what you mean now. There are many interactions in society that people hardly talk about, but you could make a big deal out of something if you wanted to take a theoretical approach and single something out. You can make just about anything sound bad with a slippery slope argument.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
It is not a slippery slope argument. You are supporting the caging of people if they do not submit. How can you just whitewash that? I understand it is not a likeable truth but that is what you are supporting.
overmind25 3 years ago
If they do not submit to what? Tell me what I am saying. You know what? I submit to whatever you say I think. You win, overmind.
I believe oldhacks understands a concept that I am beginning to think you won't ever understand. He may not be the most eloquent at times, but the concept is still there.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
I am not worried about winning an argument. I am just worried about being honest and others being honest with themselves about their beliefs instead of running to some smokescreen. I understand that it is not easy and I myself made excuse for wanting to impose my preferences unto others.
overmind25 3 years ago
Anyway you are free to clarify your position and if you do not support caging or pointing weapons at people who will not submit to a majority ruling in some declared area then go ahead and let me know. Otherwise there is nothing else for me to state.
overmind25 3 years ago
Maybe there is a misunderstanding. I have gotten very emotional here. Well I am very frustrated.
I remember someone in college who gave a hypothetical example and said, "What if I pointed a gun at you?" and pointed a finger in this guy's face. At that point, the guy he was pointing at just wanted to get the finger away from his face. I don't even remember what it was about.
You are asking me about pointing guns and putting people in cages. I kind of feel the same way right now.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Well that is probably because you understand that is what you are basically stating should be done if they disagree and will not submit to some artificial majorities decree.
overmind25 3 years ago
I don't think I have ever stated what should be done. Personally, I am more in favor of rehabilitative approaches to crime rather than punitive ones. I personally don't like to dehumanize people.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Comment removed
overmind25 3 years ago
Comment removed
overmind25 3 years ago
Well that is good and I agree with you on that but we are talking about people not submitting to a majority (not a murderer) that claims to rule a given area of people. So if someone or a group of individuals want to form their own organization with others and refuses to submit to a majority of some area that they live in then they should be allowed to do so?
overmind25 3 years ago
If not what should be done if they claim the land they live off of and property they have acquired through voluntary trade as well as themselves are not under the domain of some arbitrary majority?
overmind25 3 years ago
Probably not. Well I could not say if I did not know the full situation. Many situations in society are rarely that simple. If there are two disparate internally homogenous groups, you are bound to have problems. I think this separation would be different to maintain within a constitutional republic with a functioning direct democracy but of course anything can be theoretically possible. If there's any plausibility to this, the smaller group would probably have outside support through trade.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
*difficult to maintain
I think you are suggesting a dysfunctional situation where succession would be a strong consideration.
People often talk about two wolves and a sheep to discredit democracy, but I don't think it has much foundation in reality. What makes a functioning democracy work is that the differences in society crosscut each other. Many people are both majorities and minorities at the same time, so minorities would likely be treated better than in an authoritarian state.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Well gn. Cya later.
overmind25 3 years ago
good night.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Authoritative rule is usually maintained by creating artificial divisions within society to maintain a heirarchal structure. I think many people make the mistake of projecting these deficiences to alternative solutions. (And I support solutions involving direct democracy because I see no better alternative towards peace.)
babbarr2008 3 years ago
What is individual autonomy? People use that as an excuse to exploit other people to rationalize injustices all the time. All our social interactions are relative. An abusive person who makes demands of other people on the basis of his "autonomy" is implicitly initiating violence. What is the limit here when antisocial behavior becomes an injustice that must be addressed? I don't think these problems are as simple as you are making them out.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Well depending on how he/she was abused, punishment is warranted. No, not every case will be crystal clear about one violating the autonomy of another such as land usage for instance. In involuntary direct democracy it is crystal clear however. You are supporting pointing guns at those who don't agree with a majority in an imaginary zone.
overmind25 3 years ago
I don't know what I am supporting honestly! You can make up some dystopian fantasy where people can do no good I suppose. Ultimately, I think the people should decide and the decisions should be respected. Hopefully, people will learn to be respectful of each other but I cannot say! Maybe we are all doomed, but I think we could do much better than we are now. I think it is a lack respect for humanity that is leading us down this path. All I can do is try my best to make things better.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
I believe in proportionality of response to injustices. This is not always easy to define when there is an imbalance of power. People are not perfect, but ultimately I think the major decisions should be decided by the people. You can do your best to improve the democratic process and elect responsive representatives, but at the end to me, it is what it is. I can state my case for what I think should be done, but I feel decisions by the people should be respected.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Well I don't know what else to say. It is frightening that you support a coercive power to rule over people who did not even agree to be ruled over. Just don't say you support freedom because that clearly is not the case. That is all I ask because currently you would completely bastardizing the word. You support majority rule, not consensus and not liberty.
overmind25 3 years ago
*be bastardizing
overmind25 3 years ago
Personally, I am a libertarian and very anti-authoritarian. And I don't like the mind control games you anarchists play. I have not said anything about cages and guns in my personal political beliefs. You are the one who brought that up. What can you do when people do not do what you want them to do? Past a certain point, I don't think you should interfere (and that would require force btw). You can have constitutional rights as safeguards, but... at the end, it is what it is.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
What can you do when the people can do no good? Appeal to a higher power? Ron Paul? Seriously. This is beyond my personal political beliefs. Call me a statist all you want.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
I never stated people could do not good. I have no idea where you are getting this from. I am not an advocate of Ron Paul's platform. In fact I support Gravel more but it is not up to me to impose a system on someone against their will. You current position is very much statist. You can try to blame me for you own statements but it is you who made them. I will not entertain the idea that you are somehow supporting liberty when you advocate majority rule.
overmind25 3 years ago
*no
overmind25 3 years ago
You refused to directly answer the question but have side stepped it the whole way and have basically implied you support the caging of those who refuse to submit to majority rule. I never said anything about a dystopian fantasy. You act as if the idea of being abhorred by your remarks that majorities should have the final ruling on matters dealing with other individuals is somehow absurd.
overmind25 3 years ago
You can place checks and have a deliberative process, but in the end who has a higher power? I am not a religious person and I don't have anything else in mind. What do I if I am not happy at that point? If it's unbearable, I suppose I have no choice but to live in the wilderness or control other people and sacrifice my principles within a terrible system.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
You cannot count on others to make you happy. You must find that yourself. Others can help make you happy but it is up to you to find it. Those are not even close to being your only two options. You do not have to take part in ruling over others. You can still interact with people without taking part in the coercive elements of society as well as mention your ideas to others.
overmind25 3 years ago
*and still mention your ideas to others.
overmind25 3 years ago
I can be happy with myself and a small group of friends, but be unhappy with the decisions made in society. Respecting a decision does not mean you support it. I can't personally say, "These people are violating God's law!" I believe there is a point where I cannot challenge the legitimacy of a system no matter how I am opposed to its practices. This is outside my personal political beliefs, yet it is a fundamental principle in dealing with people. Does that make sense?
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Yes that makes sense except for the part about respecting it. I don't see how someone could respect an imperial action because it was done by a majority.
overmind25 3 years ago
I think it would be very difficult to construct a plausible imperial action that I would respect. As a mathematician accustomed to precise language, I cannot deny its existence. Such a world would not be very peaceful, but maybe that will become reality. :/
My view is that things would be far beyond hope before that happened.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
You know what asshole. You can try me as an enemy combatant of liberty or whatever you want to call me.
You know what? I am very concerned about "mob rule" and violence as these injustices continue and if we don't do anything about it, it will happen whether you like it or not. I'm not going to live in some dream world and pretend every man is an island to himself. The day I lose faith in humanity, I'll be long gone and my hope is dwindling.
I'm not sure why I still even try. hehe
babbarr2008 3 years ago
I never stated people were islands unto themselves. I did not and have not advocated the isolation of individuals. I have just stated they are themselves and you and no majority own them or the land they live off of. People should be free to interact with each other on a voluntary basis concerning both sides, not just one.
overmind25 3 years ago
In other words, I believe there is a maturation process that depends on the participants in society. Anarchism may be the ultimate goal, but it will depend on the participants. Idealistically this is how I feel, but I am a pragmatist and I realize the work involved that is required to approach these ideals. I don't this think will occur by people just talking about it. I think people will have to learn by doing. This will mean making laws.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Aggression is not different if it is done by a majority, minority, corporation, monarch, representative, or by a common criminal. It is an invasion. It is imperialism.
overmind25 3 years ago
If you get hung up on coercion, you see every social institution as coercive and you get nowhere because you start to ignore the relativistic aspects of society.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Coercion violates the non aggression principle which is supposedly the bedrock of libertarianism. You will have to be more specific about what social institutions. And you do get somewhere by recognizing them as coercive if they are.
overmind25 3 years ago
This axiomatic approach to politics seems rather silly to me. You can have guiding principles, but a big part of government is making things work. Otherwise, you wouldn't need government. In any relationship among a group of people, someone usually agrees to something that they are not completely happy with. If you get hung up on one thing, often everything else will apart. This is how I feel about several anarchists.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
There is no service that those in the state can provide that people outside of it cannot. If it is a needed service it will be provided. People can weigh the opitions themselves. If it is nothing major to them they can still choose to be governed by that government but if they do not agree with it they should be allowed to secede.
overmind25 3 years ago
OK, this is always the big question I have about anarchy:
How do you get there?
I can understand the anarchosyndicalists and the history of the movements that justify their thinking. Market anarchists--not so much. Every tactic used to achieve these ideals seems to involve destruction or dissolution of existing popular institutions by force. Where do you start?
e.g. Neoconservatives may talk about spreading freedom and democracy all day, but their methods betray their rhetoric.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Well there are many ideas like starting black market (agorism) to compete with the state and education people about voluntarism so eventually the state is ignored and crumbles. I don't know what you mean by taking down institutions by force.
overmind25 3 years ago
*educating people
overmind25 3 years ago
Can you name any recent or historical relevant examples of this? I know a lot of anarchocapitalists that talk about changing people's attitude, but it sounds a bit limp when the free market ideologues with power have oppressed other nations through the austerity measures they have imposed through funding requirements by the IMF. I know examples of anarchosyndicalists who have actually taken constructive actions towards a collective autonomous organization. Is there something comparable?
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Medieval Iceland. I don't see how bringing nations and the IMF has anything to do with anarchism. IMF has no authority to tell someone what they must do.
overmind25 3 years ago
Yeah, I've heard that. Anything current?
babbarr2008 3 years ago
No. If you mean economics and not social freedom then Hong Kong is about the closest example. Really even if there were no anarchist (collectivist or individualist) groups of people then it wouldn't be a sufficient argument against them if they could be backed up. All forms of coercive government and voluntary organizations didn't exist at one time or another.
overmind25 3 years ago
I have a friend whose father worked for the World Bank. He is an avid anarchocapitalist, but he was very unhappy working in other countries. Chile was considered a testing ground for Friedman's economic ideas. My point is that these people often have trouble reconciling their methods with their ideology when they gain power. You can't ignore the imbalances of power, or you'll sound irrelevant to most people. I think this is where many Libertarians become ineffective reaching the public.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Milton Friedman was not an anarchist but a statist. I do not advocate a Libertarian state. I am advocating no state. It sounds like you are talking about state capitalism.
overmind25 3 years ago
Yeah, I know that, but how do you convince these people to voluntarily give away their power? I don't see a realistic way of doing this through a black market. How would we counteract the existing imbalances of power that undermine attempts at competitive viability?
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Comment removed
overmind25 3 years ago
Comment removed
overmind25 3 years ago
You have to recognize that they on exist because people currently support them directly or indirectly. In reality they are just people in costumes. A black market is a way to dry up the states funds. You simply like every revolution of thought or action have to work at it through education and action. There is no magic answer.
overmind25 3 years ago
How would you handle attempts to subvert the integrity of a new black market? This seems like it would be a very natural response by a state if it showed any viability. This seems like a recipe for a covert outgrowth of government when the people cannot control the existing laws.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
By more people joining. Like I said it takes accually people. There is no magic answer. In most revolutions only around a third (if that) heavily supported the revolution. Another third were against it and another third could go either way. There is no way to predict how everything would turn out. It has to be done step by step and adjusted from there.
overmind25 3 years ago
we shouldn't have to start black markets if the government was just protecting legitimate small business' look at france. if you want to start a business then you apply for a grant and its yours. you give some of your proceeds back to the government and everyone's happy. you get to run your business and the government keeps big business from interfering with your ability to produce and market your product.
oldhacks 3 years ago
If only the Chileans had overmind to educate them about voluntarism when Pinochet took over.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Yes the poor Chileans. Pinochet sucked. Another problem created by a CIA coup.
overmind25 3 years ago
this is the toughest part. getting people to actually stop being apathetic anarchists and getting them to Do IT.
oldhacks 3 years ago
What I don't fully understand is why anarchists are not more sympathetic to this cause. This would directly challenge the existing hierarchal structures in society. A lot of anarchists at the LNC (largely of the anarcho-capitalist variety) showed disdain towards Gravel. Perhaps this was because they saw him as an authority figure who challenged their exclusivity. My impression is that people with cliqu'ish attitudes about politics have great difficulty appreciating the NI4D.
ChampionOfTheNI4D 3 years ago
I appreciate the NI4D even though I am not for making it rule over every American without their consent. However, it is better than our current structure.
overmind25 3 years ago
You were one of the exceptions that came to mind. I would never classify myself as an anarchist in large part due to the stigma associated with the label. I think that people will have to actively learn concepts of reciprocity through direct democracy before society will willingly adopt some of the ideals of anarchists. Most of the anarchists I see who ridicule direct democracy are hypocrites who want to impose their political ideologies on others.
ChampionOfTheNI4D 3 years ago
Most of what makes the Swiss system work are the unwritten agreements that have developed through a long history of participatory democracy. Majorities show greater consideration to minorities than most societies due to the reciprocal relationships that have developed through the democratic process. The people who seek perfection through some personal ideal while the abuses of broken representative government persist discredit themselves and insult the efforts of others who fight injustices.
ChampionOfTheNI4D 3 years ago
Well thanks. I don't know of very many or accually any (though I would think they are some) that want to impose any system on anyone. Anarchism should be a lack of a coercive system and based on voluntarism.
overmind25 3 years ago
voluntarism. did we voluntarily abolish slavery? did we voluntarily end jim crowism? did we voluntarily end child labor? did we voluntarily begin the new deal?
voluntarism. HA!
oldhacks 3 years ago
Oldhacks I don't even think you know what voluntarism is. Slavery is violating someone else autonomy and is aggression so it is an invalid action needing to be punished. Jim Crow laws were propped up by state governments through coercion. We have not ended child labor and the New Deal is another overrated program that prolonged the depression.
overmind25 3 years ago
*else's
overmind25 3 years ago
Ha. I'm seeing an ugly trend in people taking to the anarchist movement.
was slavery voluntarily abolished? its a simple question.
oldhacks 3 years ago
I don't know what you mean by ungly trend. No slavery was not voluntarily abolished. That is not what I or any of the anarchist I know advocate. Enslaving someone else is a form of oppression and is not voluntary therefore actions against the oppressor are needed.
overmind25 3 years ago
*ugly
Btw, we are still slaves (not as bad as those under slavery in the 1800s) so it has not been abolished either.
overmind25 3 years ago
whats you solution? just doing away with the dollar and trading rabbits like my grandma did? no regulations on business'? no regulation on farming or social issues?
oldhacks 3 years ago
No not trading rabbits (unless that is what you want to trade in). Allowing people to choose a currency they want to use and purchase. One may end up dominating (especially if it is managed well) but people will always have the opition if the currency is managed poorly like overprinting to swtich their currency over to something else. Regulations are fine as long as they are done by the purchaser either through himself or a government/organization he/she decided to join into.
overmind25 3 years ago
thats ridiculous. all we need to stabilize our currency is to have a national bank. isn't it telling that the person that fought that the hardest was Jackson who launched the offensive against the natives and caused the greatest embarissment in all of our founding policies?
oldhacks 3 years ago
Yes we need to have a stable currency. And we can achieve that by putting a check on those who print the money that we are not their slaves and we can change over to other currencies if they are managed better without being put in a state cage. Yes Jackson committed crimes against the Native Americans (in my home state Florida). He was against central banks in the US but was fine with state monopolized banks so I do not completely agree with him.
overmind25 3 years ago
You are mixing two different issues anyway which is actions against natives and actions against the national bank. Just because he committed genocide against the Natives does not automatically make all his other positions illogical. Hitler ordered the slaughter of millions but thought Berlin was the capital of Germany. Does his hideous crimes against non National Socialist Germans mean his was wrong about Berlin being the capital of Germany?
overmind25 3 years ago
not at all. the reason why he was against a centralized banking system was so that him and his buddies in the railroad could commit those atrocities because it stayed privatized which made it unaccountable to regulations or fair practice.
"politicis is the theater of industry" zappa.
oldhacks 3 years ago
ahaha...I don't know about that but if I remember correctly he was for state banks. "Private" companies are more accountable because they can not be funded if they provide a poor service unlike monopolized states (that is not to say all are accountable because they get stolen money from the state).
overmind25 3 years ago
without government business is free to kill us all.
when the railroad laid down its tracks it did it with chinese slaves and if you lived on the path that it was laying down they'd give you 10% of what your land was worth or they'd blow up our house in the middle of the night. the state isn't the agent of corruption. It is Now but thats because They're not accountable to US. the state are simply agents of business. not the other way around. and thats the problem.
oldhacks 3 years ago
No they are not free to kill us all. Both businesses and governments have killed but they can be stopped. It is just up to people to stop them. Many of the Chinese that came over were not slaves and made a better living than what they would have made in China. They were discriminated against and paid less but in the end they were better off. That doesn't mean it was fair but people were much more racist than they are today.
overmind25 3 years ago
I have never heard of them blowing up people's houses but they did use the state to take the land people were living off of. You should be allowed to have a government along with others but you should not be allowed to mandate your view or preferred laws unto people who do not want to live under them.
overmind25 3 years ago
they used the state... THEY ARE THE STATE.
if you dont like the laws then move. love it or leave it baby
overmid25.. why do you hate america?
oldhacks 3 years ago
Well the state is their tool. You are moving the burden. The state and others are the ones who want to use force, aggression, imperialism against me. It is them who should leave me and other alone who do not want to be ruled under them. They do not own land and property that they do not use or produce.
overmind25 3 years ago
*and others alone
Btw, I hope you are kidding about hating America etc. It sounds like you are taking a phrase from the authortarian right aka submit to my preferences or get out of the area I claim Ito control.
overmind25 3 years ago
im not kidding. anarchists hate america. they dont trust the state whether it be controlled by elected representatives or by the people.
oldhacks 3 years ago
It depends how you define America. If you mean the government and some of its history then yes. If you mean the basic ideas it was founded on such as liberty and equality under the law then no. I do not trust the management of my own life to others and I do not trust myself to manage others lives. I do not support involuntary direct democracy.
overmind25 3 years ago
well then you hate America. it's as simple as that.
don't trust. hate. tit for tat.
you dont trust that the majority of Americans have your interests in mind. so you would rather we all just live like animals then as citizens.
oldhacks 3 years ago
Mike Gravel is the most patriotic mother fucker that ever lived. He believes in America. He believes in the individual. Individuals working together to stimulate progress and make life on Earth more inhabitable for everyone.
Just because republicans say something is unamerican doesn't mean that there's no such thing as "un-American"
oldhacks 3 years ago
Well firstly I believe you are just using a bullshit term. It is just a cover for people to use when they don't have an argument. I don't think we should be constrained by what the Founders wanted. However, for your sake since you like the term, the Founding Fathers hated direct democracy. The only one who wanted something remotely similar to it was Jefferson but of course you hate him.
overmind25 3 years ago
But in reality I am not concerned with your definition of unAmerican or a Republicans definition. I just do not want to be coerced under the guise of either. I do not reject individuals working together for progress. It fact I strongly support it. I just reject that individuals should be able to rule over other individuals without their consent. It is in people's interest to work together. They do not need and should not be coerced.
overmind25 3 years ago
if a majority of people wanted to be called "blue" and you disagreed then you wouldn't be "blue".
oldhacks 3 years ago
You may want to expand upon that so I know what you mean. If someone didn't like the way the majority set up the health care system and thought another system is better then they wouldn't have to pay into the system?
overmind25 3 years ago
no they have to pay just like everybody else. because you live in a country and part of maintaining a healthy society is by insuring that All Americans can see a doctor when they need to. It's part of your patriotic duty. which you have.
oldhacks 3 years ago
Well it really isn't up to tell me what my duties are. If I find a health care system to be poorly run and structured I shouldn't have to fund it and of course wouldn't be able to use it.
overmind25 3 years ago
*to you to tell
overmind25 3 years ago
so you'd rather just turn your back on the people that are forced to use it rather then fight with them to make it more efficient? not everyone has the same choices you do friend.
oldhacks 3 years ago
No I would rather start or fund a different one. People that wish to can switch over as well.
overmind25 3 years ago
what would be the difference? no matter what kind of organization you start its gonna need management and thats all government is. or all its supposed to be anyways.
what you're missing is there's nothing wrong with the way things are set up except for the very generic problem that we're not allowed a say in how business is conducted. If we could vote for or against the governments proposals then 99.9% of our problems could be addressed if not solved completely.
oldhacks 3 years ago
so when people in the south were hanging people you think it was wrong that they were coerced into not doing that anymore?
or when the government bailed out the banks you think it would be wrong if we coerced them into bailing us out instead?
you just don't want to fight. you want to live in an ideal anarchist haven surrounded by people that are at the table debating policies.
the don't blame me I dropped out of the system excuse
you can boycott them all you want they're not going to go away
oldhacks 3 years ago
Comment removed
overmind25 3 years ago
No, the southerners were committing aggression against blacks.
Yes it would be wrong to have the state bail us out because it would require stolen money.
As long as people can drop out of a system then there is really no problem. I do not just boycott the system and use that as an excuse. If I did I wouldn't bother talking to people about anarchism, US policy, and the violence of statism. Just because I do not agree with institutionalized violence doesn't mean I don't care.
.
overmind25 3 years ago
well how would you confront institutionalized violence then?
oldhacks 3 years ago
Education. Tell people about voluntarism and let them form their own governments if they wish with other like minded people. The governments could even intermix on the issues more people agree on.
overmind25 3 years ago
so you believe that if everyone was comepletly left to their own devices that everything would turn out fine? you wouldn't have roaming gangs and militias going around terrorizing people and stealing their goods? you wouldn't have certain sections prospering while the vast majority falls into poverty? deregulation caused wal mart/ deregulation caused inflated drug prices, de regulation caused the war in iraq.
is there no issue that you feel this country should UNITE on?
oldhacks 3 years ago
You are just using the term regulation loosely. It is the state that props up Wal-Mart with corporate welfare. Overall government intervention hurts price competitiveness through corporate subsidizes, patents, and barriers to entry. There would probably be gangs just like there are gangs today. The state is the biggest gang.
overmind25 3 years ago
However, people can defend themselves better when they have more control over their own lives. There are plenty of issues people can unite on. However, they should not be force into submission.
overmind25 3 years ago
even if its to save millions of lives? even if that means destroying the planet? just no rules no matter what?
what I don't get is how you can claim to be proud to be an American but yet not want to live by what the majority of Americans believe to be just. Anarchism is idealistic. but its not realistic. thats what I wish you'd try to understand. Not everyone is as non violent nor as thoughtful as you are. in fact Most aren't
oldhacks 3 years ago
Governments kill millions. Government monopolies are some of the biggest polluters. Governments cover for corporate pollution. Heavily polluting the environment is a form of aggression against other people and should be punished. Anarchism does not advocate no rules. You really need to study anarchism. DROs (Dispute Resolution Organizations) are one of the many ideas put forth about how to resolve disputes and deal with aggressors such as murderers, thieves, polluters etc..
overmind25 3 years ago
exxon mobile kills millions. they coerce the state into doing their dirty work for them..
I know true anarchism and it aint as pretty as the idealistic anarchist would lead you to believe. My grandmother and my great grand father were both anarchist. no running water. living off of animals that you raise and vegetables that you raise. sounds ideal but if you're not willing to dedicate your entire life to it then it doesn't work. why should we have to go back to a barbaric way of living
oldhacks 3 years ago
No you do not understand anarchism at all. If you even had the slightest clue you would know it does not advocate no rules. It does not automatically advocate going back to a hunting gathering society. Those are anarcho primitivist and they are only one school of thought.
overmind25 3 years ago
There are anarcho-syndicalists and free market anarchists. Anarchism is voluntarism. It does not advocate living like those in 3000BC, tribalism, etc. It is just for individual autonomy.
overmind25 3 years ago
from what I gather your understanding of anarchism is that you don't want to pay taxes or have police or have hospitals or have transportation systems. we should all just be on foot carrying baskets on our head and toting water from the local creek.
I was an anarchist all my life so dont tell me I dont understand anarchism. I was every bit as skeptical of governance as you were until Mike Gravel came to the scene and showed me that there is a way that we can have sound governance.
oldhacks 3 years ago
Oldhacks, I am just going to be blunt. You have no understanding of anarchism. It is obvious you have a very slight understanding of it. I have never stated I didn't want any of those items. That is insane. I stated I didn't want the state to have a monopoly on those services and to be able extract funds even if it does a poor job.
overmind25 3 years ago
If you believe in the non aggression principle there is no way you could support state monopolies over given geographic areas. There is no such idea as good governance if it involves coercion. And it is not that I even oppose Constitutional Direct Democracy. In fact it is the system I favor myself and would wish to partake in it as long as it is voluntary. I do not want to force people into it that like different forms of government .
overmind25 3 years ago
governance IS coercion. but if its mandated by the majority of people that are living by said governance then it's just. It's just the generic flaw in our constitution that barred us from the process that leaves it vulnerable to corrupting elements.
oldhacks 3 years ago
No, majority decisions do not equal truth or rational. You are making a logical fallacy. Oldhacks, no it is not fine to put weapons at people if they disagree with you or throw them in a state. cage.
overmind25 3 years ago
Do you believe in absolute truth in politics?
babbarr2008 3 years ago
I don't know exactly what that means. I think certain people will be happier in different forms of government and they should be allowed to live under those forms with other people if they so choose. I don't think there is a one size fits all approach to government. People should have control of their own lives as long as they do not commit aggression against others.
overmind25 3 years ago
Ah ok. Yeah, I think that's where you probably differ with several anarchocapitalists. In social sciences, I feel strongly that truth is relative. For instance, I think it was very difficult to say whether a democratic decision is correct in isolation, because the process itself is educational.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
I think many of the problems in American politics can be traced to interference with the integrity of the process. I think this is more important the "correctness" of individual decisions. This is often where I differ with many purists.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
And pointing guns at people who disagree and throwing them in a cage is part of a process of intergrity?
overmind25 3 years ago
I went very, very abstract to the point of being intelligible. haha and you got really, really concrete and pointed the gun at me.
babbarr2008 3 years ago
*should be untelligible
and I am talking about the "coercive" democratic process
ballot or the bullet
haha
babbarr2008 3 years ago
*should be unintelligible
lol
babbarr2008 3 years ago
Well that is mainly why I support people taking part in governments that they wish to take part in. I don't see an absolute truth when ti comes to what structure of government works the best for people. Btw, I don't call myself an anarcho cap.
overmind25 3 years ago