Listen everybody, people are entitled to their opinions and beliefs. So theres no need to bash people over political, religious, ect. I for one support any one who stands up against an oppressive government of any sort. That's the beauty of Anarchy. Every one is on the same level socialy and economicaly so there are no synical tyrants barking orders at us. I'm proud to be a Anarchist.
So it sounds like this "DRO" concept would just evolve into modern day GOVERNMENT..... If you truly believe if Anarchy then you have to be willing to say "FUCK THE WORLD, FUCK EVERYTHING, I AM FREE!!!!!!!!"
if the only punishment is monetary, and doesn't get people out of the society so long as they pay, bill gates could just go around raping and murdering people lol, no?
Once you have saved up a lot of money and retired, just go start raping people lol
unless you think that at a certain point they would say no more regardless of the money.
@darris321 The problem with a rich person constantly committing crimes is that all these insurance companies will have to constantly pay out claims. They will probably receive no complaints from the public if they use physical force to stop this person. Then you throw in the fact that he risks a bullet to the face every time he commits a crime, and his days of criminality are numbered.
There are some public goods that I think wouldn't be covered. Like space travel or something lol stuff that has such a high chance to fail that business-wise, it would make no sense to invest in it.
In Ireland, did they have a jury system? I think they did, i haven't read on that in a while. I think now, in the age of media, when a case like Casey Anthony's comes out, the insurance company might just off her because the people get so enraged and convinced of her guilt.
@darris321 Space travel already exists in the private market. Space tourism is emerging as a market. Of course it's in very early stages. Only seven clients have taken private orbital spaceflights, and they were all with a company called Space Adventures. Virgin Galactic is expected to start passenger flights into space soon as well.
All of you that want to defend Stefan's conception of DRO's need to read his column "Caging the Devils" about how DRO's will handle "criminals." It's certainly not a "voluntary" system as he imagines it.
i'm not sure how i've missed this video for so long. most epic.
also funny story, while watching this video i was suddenly interrupted by an over-bearing, protestant-raised... and angry mother. i think your well reasoned and logical method helped me neutralize the situation, heh. perhaps proves logic is an international language. combined with some open honesty, she was left speechless... the argument ended in silence, and calm. :)
@themadhatter114 This is where competition steps in. These DRO's are not compulsory as you say, you'd just be crippled if you choose not to use one, same as if you'd one day decide, "Hey, I'm giving all this oxygen and energy to my left arm! If I just cut it off, I'll have to breathe less and eat less!" This is a ridiculous example, but so is forfeiting the DRO's. If a DRO is working unjustly, you can simply "subscribe" to another DRO, which would protect you. The Profit lies in the masses.
@TheNathan148 In anarchy, everyone would own a gun. If someone would kill you, you die, and they might get caught and go to prison. In anarchy, you would protect yourself, and not have to wait for cops to show up too late. You could act immediately and shoot them. You could still have your life.
I've seen a few of his videos, and aside from his views on economic theory, he's full of it.
And i'd love to see anyone disprove that some people are predisposed to psychopathy. What, aside from the inevibility of genetics, how on earth can we as people make sure that every human being is brought up with intellectual integrity and rational inclinations for the species as a whole? Who will "convince" the powerful elite NOT to delude their offspring with yearnings for power?
But riddle me this. If this guy is TRULY an anarchic, why is he still here? Maybe he knows in his heart, his philosophy is bullshit, and that he'll get gang banged in Somalia LOL.
THANK YOU! I have a perfect response to this, something I just wrote about my IDEAL Anarchy world and how it would function and it matches what you are saying so well.
The DRO handles policing, the courts, and insurance. And they're compulsory. My goodness if you don't call that "government" you are truly a moron. They'll be bursting into your home to search whenever they want, enforcing contracts in such a way to favor the rich, screw you out of your insurance claims, manufacture evidence against you, and they'll tell you what you have to eat in order to keep your DRO health insurance.
@themadhatter114 Thumbs down. The entire point behind it is that DROs are NOT compulsory. If people can do business and live peacefully without them, then they certainly have that option. They will just not use DROs. No one is advocating the forcible imposition of such a system on people. If you think that's what Stef is suggesting, given everything else he says about government, it would appear that you are not paying enough attention.
@eulercircles Why don't you actually read Stefan's article "Caging the Devils" and then tell me that it's not exactly as I've described. His idea of them IS compulsory. DRO's might be good, but not as Stefan peddles them. He's a statist masquerading as an anarchist.
@themadhatter114 I've read plenty of Stef's stuff on DROs - maybe not that particular article, but he does have a lot of material on this. I gotta think that if he spends so much time and effort repudiating obligations of that kind, he's not going to then go and advocate DROs that operate the same way. That would be a big contradiction, easy enough for anyone to see. Do you think perhaps you are misrepresenting him just a little? Or at least not taking everything he's said into consideration?
@themadhatter114 yes, but the free market would discourage that sort of action. If DRO #1 engages in that sort of activity, you would simply switch to DRO #2. What he's describing is a state run society, except the state has competition.
@themadhatter114 you miss the key point, in that the DRO is a voluntary contract provided on the market. Bursting into properties at a whim would not attract many customers. Medeival Iceland had private defense & law and saw 300+ years of peaceful anarchy, because their chieftans and courts had only the power for which they could voluntarily contract. There is no reason to think the kind of behavior you expect would survive in a true free market setting.
@themadhatter114 You're wrong on two counts, and of course, all your other wrongness springs from two fundamental misunderstandings: 1) DRO's would not be compulsory. 2) There would be competition among them.
@themadhatter114 Funny that you got thumbs up but ok. DRO's is as compulsory as making love to your wife. If SOMEHOW one DRO is compulsory, then find one that isn't. I'm sure everyone here would not want a compulsory DRO which means good things because if there was one, he would surely go out of business because who wants people to tell them what to eat, and search their house anytime.
@themadhatter114 it is government, it's the lack of a state. There are multiple DRO's, if you don't like your DRO, go to another DRO or make your own DRO.
@gusgusthegreat Read Stefan's article "Caging the Devils" where he discusses the glories of DRO crime fighting by killing anyone who steps off his own property without DRO insurance.
Well, I don't think he quite advocates that, but his vision of DROs do seem to be compulsory in the sense that if you don't subscribe with one, you are economically shunned and therefore unable to live outside this system. I've come to a rather similar conclusion on my own, except my "DROs" are truly voluntary in that people are allowed economic productivity outside of the DRO system.
@ultramerton but see the problem with your theory is that it ignores reality. Your "DRO's" do not exist. You see, anyone who picks up a gun to perform tasks for pay is a mercenary, and money and violence will always be the truest language for people like that. Theorizing about what kind of police force would work best is freaking absurd - we are talking about a profession that attracts psychopaths.
I don't quite understand the relevance of your comment. DROs currently don't exist, but that doesn't preclude their existence. Also, I don't want mercenaries to exist: each individual ought to take responsibility for not only his or her individual defense, but the defense of his or her economic interests as well (i.e. their local community). This is a natural responsibility, not a career move.
@ultramerton Let me make it more clear for you: DRO's = mercenaries, i.e., dudes with guns that get paid to bully people are mercenaries, regardless of what they are called.
But that's not how I envision a DRO at all. In fact, anarchism is against the institution of a monopoly of deadly force, which is the primary source of our opposition to the state. It would make absolutely no sense for anarchists to destroy one such monopoly just to create another.
@ultramerton LOL it doesn't matter how YOU envision a DRO at all. You give an ape a gun, prompt him with some cash, and wallah, you got yourself a mercenary. I am not accusing anarchists of replacing one monopoly with another on purpose, rather i see the anarchist community doing so out of extreme naivete.
And again, you are arguing a strawman. Never have I said that we should "give an ape a gun and prompt him with some cash." As I said before, defense is a natural responsibility, not a career move.
@ultramerton Then why use the term DRO if that is how you see it? If you just mean people using guns to defend themselves (without the existence of cops) then i would advise against equivocating your message.
@themadhatter114 Question: how would they get funding for all these despicable activities? They ain't got no tax base to leech off and they can't print money that anyone would simply accept.
A DRO that basically starves people out if they don't buy their services is no less coercive nor immoral than a state which functions through taxation.
The proof doesn't make any sense, because all it proves is that big money wins.
There is not even any clarification of what he means by "works."
Will it work? Of course it will. It will work by turning into a government via DRO which starves people to death if they don't obey the state.
Hey, here's an idea. What if we simply have a Democracy which adheres to its Constitution, enforces its laws, and imprisons the thug Treasonists which inevitably corrupt the power structure?
@tatt2lover Also America was supposed to be a constitutional republic not a democracy. They are different and a democracy is almost if not the worst social structure possible. Check out "Democracy the God that failed" by Hans Hoppe.
@SeabrightTrading Because a piece of paper is just a piece of paper. At the end of the day, it's just people doing stuff. If all people are held to the same moral standards, government would be impossible. Democracy, Constitution - such terms are the talk of magical moral categories for some that are the complete opposite as those for others.
We are always responsible as individuals for our own integrity. I think anarchists tend to cast all the blame on the state, and forget that the mewing masses has a responsibility towards truth and real justice.
Anarchists forget that the "state" is made up of people, the same sort of people that will still exist in a supposed anarchist society. And those very type of people will cheat and steal their way to power, because some people - like it or not - are predisposed towards psychopathy.
@ThinkSkank Stef agrees with what you've said - you'd see if you watch more of his videos. What you've said here is one of the principle reasons why there should be no state.
@eulercircles Stef certainly does not agree with what i've said. See, the difference is i realize that the state is made up of people, it can't just be erased. Believing in anarchy is like believing in world peace or that all humans are warm and fuzzy. Anarchy is a great intention, don't get me wrong, but believing in it is fucking retarded.
I suppose one thing you originally said that Stef would not agree with is, "... the same sort of people that will still exist in a supposed anarchist society. And those very type of people will cheat and steal their way to power, because some people - like it or not - are predisposed towards psychopathy." My apologies for not seeing this at first. However, Stef does offer a lot of reasons why this view is not the case. Would you be willing to look into it further?
Cops, DRO's, they both attract more psychopathic people than not. Changing names from cop to DRO, stating how "if only" people changed how they view the world things would work, is akin to wanking without cumming. SIlly.
...ALL of us in order for this utopian fantasy to even have a shot. Again, love teh intention, but this has about as much practical application as Sir Thomas More's Utopia.
I love the spirit of anarchy, but it will never work until people evolve past petty dreams of power.
Nothing in this video demonstrates how we can prevent the few from exploiting human mortality for personal gain. Nothing here demonstrates how small fraternal family lines will automatically take into account the beauty of freedom.
Remember, the whiz of a bullet concurs theories and well intended movements. Something truly evolutionary on a psychological level has to arise within....
@ThinkSkank, and that is why Anarchy is more of a social ideology than a political one. You cannot treat it like you are herding cattle (people) when you talk about theories as shown in this video. For it to become a perfect anarchy, people would have to learn to work together instead of competing for authority, power, money etc.
@ThinkSkank Or maybe it just seems naive from our perspective? We still live in a society which more or less pits us against one another, and although humans are competitive, we are also known to be able to mutually benefit each other. That's what I think anarchy kind of plays off of. No systems overseeing us, just people interacting with people.
@KlumzyThePunk So if you knew someone was a rapist you wouldn't treat them differently or exclude them from your social circle? If so the problem lies not with a non-coercive, voluntary and open society, but with you, "ignorant fuck."
@Marioag0412 Never said I wouldn't ostracize the person, I'm saying it's FUCKING IDIOTIC to think that's good justice/punishment for a person that is a rapist. + It's completely illogical to think a person can be completely ostracized on this planet. This planet has nearly 7 billion people on it and it is fucking MASSIVE. There's no possible way to completely ostracize someone without an organization that is all throughout the planet keeping tabs on everyone, and that is un-orthodox to anarchy.
@KlumzyThePunk First off, what do you define as " good justice/punishment?" Who do you think should decide that? And enforce it? Why should I have to pay for through taxes, at gun point mind you, the "punishing" of criminals in ways that I do not agree with, lets say the death penalty, just because the majority of people think that its justified and because I happen to live in the same country as said people?
@Marioag0412 The only way possible, LOCK THEM UP, that's the only way people can truly ostracize someone from society and keep society safe.
And if the crime is harsh enough, say a man goes on a murdering spree and kills many people, I can tell you now, most people in a society wouldn't want him alive and killing elsewhere, so yes, the death penalty would be a good case of punishment/justice for victims.
PRISON/DEATH IS THE ONLY TYPE OF JUSTICE/PUNISHMENT THAT CAN BE DEALT OUT!
@KlumzyThePunk Secondly, the reason why ostracism works is because its personal, non-coercive, and public. If someone is objectively proved to have committed the act of rape by one or preferably multiple DROs, then he/she is labeled and the information of their action is made public for all to know. Because of this, their ability to trade suffers a huge risk, as people generally do not prefer to deal with rapists. This fact makes the option of committing these actions hugely risky and dangerous
@Marioag0412 Dude, there's no possible way for that to efficiently work out, it's humanly impossible to have a system like that without an authoritarian organization keeping tabs on everyone and hooking them up with this information + you have to make EVERYONE remember his name and face etc. Not everyone's going to do that, THAT'S WHY IT FAILS!
You're a fucking idiot, THINK THESE THINGS THROUGH, BEFORE YOU START BLURTING OUT BULLSHIT.
@KlumzyThePunk So its humanly impossible to have databases owned by private contract enforcement/public information providers/background check agencies with information on people and their actions? How so? Insurance companies do it all the time with their clients' histories and backgrounds. Did you even watch the video before you attempted to discredit it? And please don't stoop to the level of insulting me, I'm merely trying to have a discussion and not an "ALL CAPS CUSS-OUT", thanks.
@KlumzyThePunk Well I'm sorry that you chose to ignore every single one of my questions and simply stated an opinion with absolutely no logical backing, and I fail to see how I was the "troll" when I never once attempted to blindly assault you or your ideas without reasoning or evidence and was not the one constantly typing harsh language in all caps, but If that's your opinion and you are shut to the point of no return then that is fine. Good luck with that attitude and have a nice day.
The terrorist argument fails because "terrorists" are a mental construct created by a government who's sole product is fear. Remove government and it's media mouthpiece and the idea of terrorism dies. Remove the flags behind the politicians and you will only see thuggy businessmen conspiring to take your shit.
By your rationale I could "prove" that anarchy is alive and well within the prison system, because the system (albeit secretly) allows this to occur to the degree that they feel it must. I don't see your worst case scenario as particularly valid, because the illegal lobbying occurs behind several layers of protection to the point of practical impunity. Simply circumventing the law is not in itself anarchy.
@Captain0Newman the reason terrorists don't give a damn about nukes is because they care shit about their countries,terrorists bacically live in basements and small camps,and it would be an overkill to throw a nuke on some terrorists basement and kill a million of other innocent people,and terrorists know that.
@joinusinsong No offence but where would this country be in five, ten, twenty years time if there were no cuts? I am a little biased as the cuts have not affected me but this is to secure our countries future as well as our own futures. Without these cuts our nation would be ruined and our children would be left with a broken country. Just think for five minutes, are these cuts affecting me too much? If the answer is yes then protest, legally, but if not stay at home or go to work. Thanks
@MrXray2011 This country is facing 87bn in Austerity. Multinational coorperations dodge their taxes. Vodafone-6.5bn alone and when found out, they paid a tiny tiny fraction of that back, if we don't pay we get fines on top!!! It will cost us another 25bn to keep firing depleted uranium into Afghanistan to kill and conquer and support a supporter of rape within marriage Hamid Karzai (War for womens righs yeah right!). However much being fired into Libya, bailed out bankers paying huge bonuses??!!
That is true and I can see why that isn't a positive thing for this country but neither is a total breakdown in law and order. I agree with what we are doing in Afghanistan as we are protecting ourselves from 'terror' Libya however I say we leave them to sort it out themselves- we didn't have any foreign help during the Wars of the Roses or the English civil war. A long time ago maybe but the fact is we should leave them alone (libya) that dosen't mean anarchy would be better.
@thescarybox This just proves how ignorant some people are. That is not anarchy, anarchy means that there is no ruler, that doesn't mean there is no laws. Anarchy is not chaos, anarchy is order. Please learn something abut anarchy before you state such a childish nonsenses .
@CrazyAjvar Laws huh? Well if everyone agreed upon laws, then what's the difference of that from now?
What if I don't agree about one of the laws "the people" "pass"? Note the quotations. You gonna say "too bad?" Well that's how it is now. YOU vote for someone to HOPEFULLY carry YOUR message and pass it into law. If not then "too bad, vote someone else." "Too bad, get more people to vote your way."
Anarchy in that sense would be the same as life is now. How can you enforce laws without govt?
@thescarybox You know that anarchy is pure democracy meaning that there is no representatives who you vote for. In other words democracy today is just liberal way of making new ruler every few years who will exploit people as any other ruler would. As you already have the image of anarchy as lawless chaos, you have a hard time imagining the world with out states where people them self govern, not elected elite which we give power to rule.
@CrazyAjvar Anarchy by definition is a lack of order.
Pure Democracy: Ok everybody, we're planning to put a tree here. Get everyone together and we can vote. Ok everyone we want to build a statue here, get everyone together. Ok everyone we're gonna get cookies for the next voting session. Let's all vote on that too.
And you can be governed... by the warlord down the street with the giant gang and all the guns. Either you will A: Fight together (not anarchy), or B: Die, or C: Accept slavery.
@thescarybox If some one wants to act like that he would lose a right to function in the world. By this I mean all communal rights will be closed to him, so let him find food, water ,electricity and heating by him self since clearly he doesn't want to be part of the community. Anarchy can not function if every man IS for him self like you say. You clearly do not understand the concept of anarchy as form of society organization.
And you clearly don't understand the concept of people being human beings. Communal rights?
Who says there would be rights? How can you have rights without an "official" body (technically government) to say there are rights, and what rights there are exactly?
Why can't I just walk up and say "Hey, I have the right to be lazy and eat from the communal pot of food"? Because it goes against the voted-... electe-... nevermind.
Without government, there is no "rights." None. At. All.
@thescarybox So human beings can not function with out some one telling them what to do and if they don't do as they are told we must make them do it by the armed force non the less? There is no civil way of organizing our ranks but giving the power to few individuals which will control population to be civil and responsible part of society? And I thought people evolved to intelligent beings. So only way for people to have rights is to have armed police with power ensure them? Bullox I say.
@thescarybox - You have rights because you're human. Those rights are life, liberty, and property. And, let's be honest, you are really the only person looking out to protect your rights. If you claim you have no rights with out government, that means you would not mind someone stealing from you, but the government 'minds for you?'
That doesn't make sense, of course. Why? Everyone has a basic understanding of human rights - because you're born with them.
That assumes everyone is born with the ability (whether it's physically, financially, or mentally) to defend their own inalienable rights from those who simply don't give a damn.
@thescarybox : No it doesn't. Governments take rights away all the time - how is this different? And don't argue that they take away rights for "the greater good," because that's not what's happening.
@thescarybox I am sorry but that definition of anarchy is only one meaning out of 5. We are not talking abut roman-catholic idea of anarchy, we are talking abut a utopian society which is based on idea of stateless world with out a government. That doesn't exclude some other form of organization, in your case fighting together against common evil is what anarchy really is, not other way around. Why do you have some notion that anarchy means every man for him self?
Because it WOULD BE every man for himself. What, other than "morality" and "ethics" is stopping me from saying "Screw you all! Stay off of "my land" or there will be hell to pay!"
Are you going to come in and say "You can't do that!" I thought this was anarchy, where people are free from being governed by others. People organizing to make rules and standards, and then enforcing those rules and standards IS GOVERNMENT.
anarchist unite! this is our fight! get a grip and free your soul! if all you want is death by dozen! then get the fuck out! and all you people think it would be hell! think again! all we want is to live free! our fate is sealed and yours is mine! keep it up and give it time! one day we shall rule and leave everything behind!
post this on every anarchy video you can find and LET US BE HEARD!
Just as the courts have been privatized and now act in a corrupt manor the DRO's would abuse there position in a similar way. Anarchy is what the elite want, from anarchy comes chaos, from chaos comes order, the new world order.
Johann Most in "The Science of Revolutionary Warfare. . 1885. . ."The existing system will be quickest and most radically overthrown by the annihilation of its exponents. Therefore, massacres of the enemies of the people must be set in motion." Maybe in Britain, you could throw crumpets at each other, her in Midwestern Amerika we have privatized -prisons,enforced by Mandatory Minimal sentencing. . . And Government Police who are very violent. . Fascism You Can Vote For,I'll keep my AK-47 . .Z
@RedDeath06 This also accommodates for increasing technology. As our world becomes automated, in the current system, more people become unemployed, prices then go up from resulting inflation, making the products and services, unobtainable. In my system, it requires less hours of human labor to provide this good or service, therefore it is cheaper, and people do not need to work as much to receive it, and eventually, not at all. also, everything would become immediately cheaper in my system.
@RedDeath06 however there is room for profit in the case of: one man has a gold ring, another wants it, and is willing to trade a certain amount of time notes, for this ring. there can be nothing to bar them from this trade, even though one man never really worked for it. people would go to the people who made the highest quality product the fastest. There may also be a "quality" and/or "neccesity/professional service" value to the time notes as well in a more capitalistic economy.
differently. Capitalist will divide the profits based on performance, and the difficulty and necessity of the work. They will then sell it for whatever the purchaser will pay. Communist will divide the profits equally. They will then give the shirts to the community, and sell or trade the surplus. Barter will simply divide the shirts up amongst the workers, either evenly, or based on a capitalist barter model, and they will do with it what they wish. Primitivist... would not have a factory.
Corporations cannot exist in an anarchistic society, as they are, in fact, a form of government. How I view the Anarchist work force, is as this example: A factory that makes T-shirts is owned by the workers in that factory. the profit and cost of each t-shirt is shared by everyone in the factory. Each co-worker evaluates the others performance as their profit depends on everyone doing their job correctly. it's as simple as that. The only complexity is distribution, as each model will do it
will quickly parish, as they do in a statist model. so there is no change there. Those unABLE to defend themselves will receive defense from family, friends and neighbors, or defense agencies. Also an ENFORCED free market is not a free market. If there IS to be a free market, Capitalism, Communism, Primitivism, Barter, and all other economic models (other than Socialism, as that REQUIRES a state) must co-exist, in a symbiotic relationship, as a poly-economic model.
also, who will have authority over these nuclear weapons? Whoever is it will become supreme ruler in a very short time. Nukes have no place in an anarchist society. there is no need for national security as there is no nation. Only home, and personal defense, and people will obviously pool their resources together in militias for the defense of the community, which makes for a much tighter regional defense system that government currently has in place. Those unwilling to defend themselves
Dis-enabling a person to provide for themselves is simply put, murder. Example: Stalin and Mao starving their people to death because they would not submit to their absolute power. Granted, if your proposal was implemented, then the individual would have to sign a contract in order for these agencies to function, however you suggest that no action can be taken without these contracts. There is no freedom in that. If blacklisted by these agencies, then you are dead, giving them absolute power.
individual or community to carry out the enforcement. If they handle the situation immorally, they may be brought before the council of judges to be tried for that. in cases of the weak, unable to enforce morality, they may go to a friend or neighbor or an enforcement agency SEPARATE from the Judgment agency, who may only carry out the punishment suggested by the Judgment agency, or not. However if you give an agency the authority of judge jury and executor, then fascism is inevitable.
what exactly is the difference between a DRO and a pacifist government? what you are describing is fascism, rule by corporation. The rulers of government live in anarchy, while subjugating everyone else. The only way a DRO can work in an anarchistic society, is if they have no enforcement capability. Such as the early Hebrew Sanhedrin. An assumed "criminal" is judged by a council of peer judges, they decide on his "guilt" or innocence, and suggest a punishment. It is up to the offended
How would currency work? In order to fuel the DROs and the free market, a standard currency must be established. Currently, the government prohibits the printing of state issued money(in the US). If that regulation were removed, how would a standard be established? I doubt gold would function well, given the number of citizens and the rarity of the metal. I am not trying to criticize, I am simply seeking answers to major questions that I have concerning the proposed system and anarchy in general
@RedDeath06 I have an idea of a time based currency. all goods take time to make, and it takes time to deliver services. so, the way I look at it (and this is just an example) if it takes 80 hours of work for 20 people to grow 500 pounds of cotton, then the value of 500 pounds of cotton is 1600 hours making it 3.2 hours of work per pound. in order to turn that into a one pound T-shirt, (for simplicities sake) it takes 5 people a total 1 hour of work. thus making it a grand total of 4.2 hours.
@RedDeath06 of course, you would have to factor in fule for distribution and all that, but I estimate even with that, you should only have to work for about 10 min for a T-shirt, maybe only a few weeks for a car. of course this model is very efficient, and time cannot be made out of thin air, so inflation does not exist, however it does not allow for profit much, merely equal trade. However, with your "time notes" you can do with whatever you wish, so this half capitalism, half communism.
DRO's as defined here are not even necessary. If someone jips you on a business deal, they become known for this and people stop doing business with them.
what of the DRO contract businesses going amoral and blacklisting people that get in their way?
Free information is VITAL for anarchy to work, but what if it is tainted and you are falsely accused for something you did not do? Who would keep this in check?
I am asking because I am working on ideas of functional Anarchy, but you must think of the worst that can happen.
Monetary inflation (money creation) is the most evil thing ever created by Man. However, most people do not understand the implications or consequences. People want "stability". So, they allow their leaders to control the economy. When they control the economy, who do you think it is going to benefit the most? At whose expense?
@mikemat3307 Furthermore, people will stop extracting stuff from the Earth like mad, and the environment will benefit since new markets for the sake of being markets will no longer be pursued.
Remember, REAL wages, NEVER keep pace with REAL inflation. An economist by the name of Melchoir Palyi proved this, in his book, "An Inflation Primer", in 1961. It is available for free download from mises[dot]com.
The way our financial system works is a throwback from 16th century Mercantilism. You do not "fight" Mercantilism with Socialism. You fight it, with freedom. Freedom starts, with the freedom to exchange goods and services. A free society is the "effect" not the "cause" of a people freely exchanging goods and services. Money is a good. Money creation for the benefit of the rich is coercive, and violates the non-aggression axiom.
Banks are given "special privileges" by the government. If banks were "forced" to operate like other businesses, most of the inequalities in society would disappear. And those that didn't, could be easily accommodated by "voluntary" contributions. Only when people are free to exchange goods and services, can there be a free society. Currently, we are not, because the rich and powerful get to create "property" by printing money. That is where the inequalities start.
The reason there are so many inequities in our society, is because money is created out of thin air, by the banks and the government. The rich always benefit the most from the new money, while us working schmucks get stuck with all of the inflation. They create money, therefore, they create property. You, like so many others, confuse business with finance. There is nothing wrong with free enterprise. The problems are in the financial sector.
@mikemat3307 Nothing of what you've said so far makes me believe that classes will be abolished in your society.
What gives people the right to be rich? What gives the children of the rich the right to be rich by inheritance while the children of the workers who made their parents rich are not so?
@mikemat3307 I am not against someone making a dress and exchanging it for a massage; I don't care to stop that. What I am against is the accumulation of resources in private hands so that some are able to dictate how the resources will be attained, in self-serving decisions from above.
With self-management, everyone can have a "business" and without losing their liberty or running the risk of being poor. AND, communities can decide what an acceptable job is -- no more baristas, more free time.
If you feel you have a right to someone else's property, you must take it by force. What happens when someone wants what you have? Will you willingly hand it over? That is in violation of the non-aggression axiom. I thought you wanted freedom? Perhaps you don't understand that freedom, without responsibility, is not freedom, at all. It is coercion.
@mikemat3307 Please don't confuse possession/use with how greedy someone is about this earth. I think most people would agree that someone who claims to own a river does not really have a right to it since it is a resource for humanity. No one would agree, however, that someone should come kick me out of my apartment since living spaces should be provided for all.
Hegemony makes it a little more difficult for people to realize what should be truly theirs.
Coercion is when someone claims to own resources (remember, we're supposed to be equally human and with natural rights to life on Earth) and then sets up a system under which you are TOLD the conditions under which you must work/slave for the resource.
@adryroseinbloom "Remember, everything you own is off people's backs."
Sure, and what my clients get from me, is off my back. No wait, they give me money for my services. I then divide that money amongst my workers for their labor. I also use that money to buy insurance, buy tools, and pay for all of the overhead necessary to operate a business. Of course, I take a profit. Why wouldn't I? Wouldn't you? I am TOLD the conditions under which I must work/slave for the resource by my clients.
@mikemat3307 I mean that to point out how there is collective labor in everything, and that many of the people who have contributed to the things you possess are being/were exploited, not about your business in particular.
Why do you refuse to see the loss of liberty inherent in being hired? Ex: If an employee is insulted and chooses to talk back to an a**hole customer, she risks being fired for not "representing the company well". She has to warp her personality to keep her job.
When you bring your car in for, say, new tires, are YOU not an authoritarian? Do you not tell the person working there what you want? What do you do if the work is not performed to your satisfaction? Do you order them to correct the problem? Do you not have the choice to go somewhere else? Of course you want to order others around. You MUST. Otherwise, no one will know what you want, and your needs will not be met to your satisfaction.
@mikemat3307 - We all have to take part in the present system, one in which we exchange our service for a wage which may or may not give us what we need to survive.
Regardless of the system, a society has to cooperate on some level, unless you choose isolationism. That is not authoritarian and just makes sense when it is done with free consent, liberty and control of what you do with your product/service.
Even the CEOs of major corporations are nothing more than paid employees. They are hired by the Board of Directors, who are elected by the shareholders (owners). If you want to own a corporation, you are free to buy stock. Perhaps, as an employee, you would prefer to take stock in the company in lieu of wages (full or partial)? I have no problem with that.
@mikemat3307 Actually, they're a little more than just paid employees. They make decisions for those below them and somehow get a better wage. Those below them are forced to give up their liberty during the work day to obey the bosses. That's all CEOs do, make decisions to be followed. The ones at the very bottom don't often benefit from such orders. In other words, managers manage exploitation.
Not every company has stock. And who wants to be part of something so unstable, anywyay?
Managers ARE workers. Just because one sits behind a desk, and another operates a machine, makes no difference. You seem to have a problem with the division of labor. A worker is no more capable of managing himself than a manager is capable of operating a machine. If you are operating a machine, how would you know how many parts to make without a manager? If you managed "yourself", how would you have any time to operate the machine?
@mikemat3307 Managers are simply managers of exploitation. If allowed the knowledge and development, workers can easily do a mangers job is that is to administrate. We're talking about a useless hierarchical relation.
@mikemat3307 - Come on, people have room in their heads to operate on both levels. Workers know what's up, believe it or not, and there are many ways to make the entire workplace self-managing. When they don't, it's because they aren't allowed access to administrative information since it does divide labor and enforces inequality.
Without the workers, managers can't manage. Without managers, workers have been proven to run establishments, and more efficiently/happily too.
I worked as a laborer for 30 years. My Grandfather taught me a trade when I was 13 years old. I sacrificed my Summer vacations to learn. When I graduated high school, I had a "marketable skill" which I could trade to the highest bidder. Nobody in this World will give you something for nothing, except Mommy and Daddy. If you want something, go out and earn it. Stop crying, and DO SOMETHING.
@mikemat3307 I'm glad you were taught a skill. Remember, everything you own is off people's backs. How dare you say they don't deserve a decent life, regardless of their skill level, if you benefit from their labor every day?
I work, yet I don't have health care. Many people don't either, and even struggle with rent and food. They work. Their parents have worked. They're not crying, their demanding justice.
Anarchism can only "work" in certain kinds of communities, such as farming communities. If we want to maintain a highly specialized society it isn't an option. Which is demonstrated by the fact that fdr solution is essentially is just a decentralization of government. It still maintains a government which will inevitably progress to centralization in it's own interests and therein make the exercise futile.
and the technology(and think of where we might have been without "govern"ment/religion) makes the whole DRO idea quite viable. opinions on the following? - but as long as people are willing to be hired as thugs or hire thugs(which is the basis of organized crime/government) can there ever be anarchy?
There should be made a boardgame or cardgame out of this. Putting theory in practice will have an even more powerful effect on the public!
Oh, one problem is that people like to form teams, and some teams like to enslave the whole population - like we have now. How would an anarchic society prevent from a group from becoming a monopolist, or forming an oligarchy, bossing the workers and the rest around with violence?
@ookiemand exactly. this model has no deterrent against organised violence. it also seems to offer no ''check and balance' system in regards to accusation of crime. how do i defend myself against charges, made by someone and deliberated by an insurance conglomerate, without a body that oversees and ultimately has power over the insurance body??
This sounds like a contractually and currency based version of anarcho-syndicalism; at least what I've read of that. Of course, this is monetarily based, as mentioned, which makes it different...still interesting, though.
anarchy is hypocrisy and reactionary bullshit.
KGBsovietpride 6 days ago
At a glance of the previous comments it seems many people are missing the fact there would be multiple DRO in society, not a single monopolistic DRO.
However, what does seem to be unaccounted for is the possibility that one DRO could buy out the other DROs and become a monopoly.
chargrims 1 week ago
Listen everybody, people are entitled to their opinions and beliefs. So theres no need to bash people over political, religious, ect. I for one support any one who stands up against an oppressive government of any sort. That's the beauty of Anarchy. Every one is on the same level socialy and economicaly so there are no synical tyrants barking orders at us. I'm proud to be a Anarchist.
AleinGAMEs 2 weeks ago
we humans need a moral code.
TheThunderGirl1 3 weeks ago
i think you should respond to themadhatter114's comment
simonk512 3 weeks ago
So it sounds like this "DRO" concept would just evolve into modern day GOVERNMENT..... If you truly believe if Anarchy then you have to be willing to say "FUCK THE WORLD, FUCK EVERYTHING, I AM FREE!!!!!!!!"
HerbalJah 4 weeks ago
Anarchy doesn't work, Limited government does. Otherwise you have looting pillaging, Rape and rape :D
tehatemachine 1 month ago
So, you've basically just changed the name of "government" to "DRO"
...
96Optimistic 1 month ago
@96Optimistic
government isnt contractual, DRO's are.
InvincibleNumanist 1 month ago
What makes you think that a contract would be public?
this is my last comment for now, sorry if i spammed it.
darris321 2 months ago
"almost infinitely" is a nonsensical quantifier lol
darris321 2 months ago
if the only punishment is monetary, and doesn't get people out of the society so long as they pay, bill gates could just go around raping and murdering people lol, no?
Once you have saved up a lot of money and retired, just go start raping people lol
unless you think that at a certain point they would say no more regardless of the money.
darris321 2 months ago
@darris321 The problem with a rich person constantly committing crimes is that all these insurance companies will have to constantly pay out claims. They will probably receive no complaints from the public if they use physical force to stop this person. Then you throw in the fact that he risks a bullet to the face every time he commits a crime, and his days of criminality are numbered.
jeffsandychelsea 1 month ago
There are some public goods that I think wouldn't be covered. Like space travel or something lol stuff that has such a high chance to fail that business-wise, it would make no sense to invest in it.
In Ireland, did they have a jury system? I think they did, i haven't read on that in a while. I think now, in the age of media, when a case like Casey Anthony's comes out, the insurance company might just off her because the people get so enraged and convinced of her guilt.
darris321 2 months ago
@darris321 Space travel already exists in the private market. Space tourism is emerging as a market. Of course it's in very early stages. Only seven clients have taken private orbital spaceflights, and they were all with a company called Space Adventures. Virgin Galactic is expected to start passenger flights into space soon as well.
BobGeorgeAU 1 month ago
All of you that want to defend Stefan's conception of DRO's need to read his column "Caging the Devils" about how DRO's will handle "criminals." It's certainly not a "voluntary" system as he imagines it.
themadhatter114 2 months ago
ANARCHY = TRUE FREEDOM
MrTitiez 3 months ago
i'm not sure how i've missed this video for so long. most epic.
also funny story, while watching this video i was suddenly interrupted by an over-bearing, protestant-raised... and angry mother. i think your well reasoned and logical method helped me neutralize the situation, heh. perhaps proves logic is an international language. combined with some open honesty, she was left speechless... the argument ended in silence, and calm. :)
cheers once again.
TekkGnostic 3 months ago
What would Professor Anton say... "Oh Stefbot you are reducing a complex system down to over simplified terms. It's not that simple!"
It must suck being a well educated supporter of over complexification just like those who defended the Geocentric model over the Heliocentric model.
Does Occam's Razor ring a bell?
batfly 3 months ago
@themadhatter114 This is where competition steps in. These DRO's are not compulsory as you say, you'd just be crippled if you choose not to use one, same as if you'd one day decide, "Hey, I'm giving all this oxygen and energy to my left arm! If I just cut it off, I'll have to breathe less and eat less!" This is a ridiculous example, but so is forfeiting the DRO's. If a DRO is working unjustly, you can simply "subscribe" to another DRO, which would protect you. The Profit lies in the masses.
Tritlo 3 months ago
Anarchy is kinda fucked up a country with no laws so if i kill someone i wont even get arrested nothing will happpen
TheNathan148 3 months ago
@TheNathan148 At least you won't be able to kill legally like you can today.
Watchdawg 3 months ago
@TheNathan148
Why do you think that nothing would happen if you killed someone in a free society?
Do you think justice is served in our current system?
mikedurland 3 months ago
@TheNathan148
If there was no God what would stop you from running mad in the streets killing and raping and stealing?
THE LAW!
So THE LAW is what gives you your morality?
batfly 3 months ago
@TheNathan148 In anarchy, everyone would own a gun. If someone would kill you, you die, and they might get caught and go to prison. In anarchy, you would protect yourself, and not have to wait for cops to show up too late. You could act immediately and shoot them. You could still have your life.
MrTitiez 3 months ago
Anarchy - you're doing it wrong.
nikolar91 5 months ago
I've seen a few of his videos, and aside from his views on economic theory, he's full of it.
And i'd love to see anyone disprove that some people are predisposed to psychopathy. What, aside from the inevibility of genetics, how on earth can we as people make sure that every human being is brought up with intellectual integrity and rational inclinations for the species as a whole? Who will "convince" the powerful elite NOT to delude their offspring with yearnings for power?
ThinkSkank 5 months ago
#FAIL
But riddle me this. If this guy is TRULY an anarchic, why is he still here? Maybe he knows in his heart, his philosophy is bullshit, and that he'll get gang banged in Somalia LOL.
tjohn1986 5 months ago
THANK YOU! I have a perfect response to this, something I just wrote about my IDEAL Anarchy world and how it would function and it matches what you are saying so well.
PiggiBankProductions 5 months ago
What do you mean "anarchy will work"? Anarchy is always working because anarchy is the true reality. Authority is the illusion.
ambigroove 5 months ago 34
How in the world is this anarchism? This is pure right-libertarianism.
happinessiseasy 5 months ago
The easiest way to debunk this is to claim that money is sign of government.
User01010000 6 months ago
The state itself doesn't have a state. It makes perfect sense!
m0cachin0 6 months ago
The DRO handles policing, the courts, and insurance. And they're compulsory. My goodness if you don't call that "government" you are truly a moron. They'll be bursting into your home to search whenever they want, enforcing contracts in such a way to favor the rich, screw you out of your insurance claims, manufacture evidence against you, and they'll tell you what you have to eat in order to keep your DRO health insurance.
themadhatter114 6 months ago 4
@themadhatter114 Thumbs down. The entire point behind it is that DROs are NOT compulsory. If people can do business and live peacefully without them, then they certainly have that option. They will just not use DROs. No one is advocating the forcible imposition of such a system on people. If you think that's what Stef is suggesting, given everything else he says about government, it would appear that you are not paying enough attention.
eulercircles 5 months ago
@eulercircles Why don't you actually read Stefan's article "Caging the Devils" and then tell me that it's not exactly as I've described. His idea of them IS compulsory. DRO's might be good, but not as Stefan peddles them. He's a statist masquerading as an anarchist.
themadhatter114 5 months ago
@themadhatter114 I've read plenty of Stef's stuff on DROs - maybe not that particular article, but he does have a lot of material on this. I gotta think that if he spends so much time and effort repudiating obligations of that kind, he's not going to then go and advocate DROs that operate the same way. That would be a big contradiction, easy enough for anyone to see. Do you think perhaps you are misrepresenting him just a little? Or at least not taking everything he's said into consideration?
eulercircles 5 months ago
@themadhatter114 yes, but the free market would discourage that sort of action. If DRO #1 engages in that sort of activity, you would simply switch to DRO #2. What he's describing is a state run society, except the state has competition.
mu5icaddict2 4 months ago
@themadhatter114
A true moron comments on a video without actually understanding it in the least.
mikedurland 3 months ago
@themadhatter114
It IS government,
Government =/= state
Some of the basic differences are however things like consent and scope.
ProDCloud 3 months ago
@themadhatter114 They can't fuck you over, because you are the consumer.
MrTitiez 3 months ago
@themadhatter114 you miss the key point, in that the DRO is a voluntary contract provided on the market. Bursting into properties at a whim would not attract many customers. Medeival Iceland had private defense & law and saw 300+ years of peaceful anarchy, because their chieftans and courts had only the power for which they could voluntarily contract. There is no reason to think the kind of behavior you expect would survive in a true free market setting.
RogueCapital 3 months ago
@themadhatter114 You're wrong on two counts, and of course, all your other wrongness springs from two fundamental misunderstandings: 1) DRO's would not be compulsory. 2) There would be competition among them.
Anielde167 3 months ago
@themadhatter114 Funny that you got thumbs up but ok. DRO's is as compulsory as making love to your wife. If SOMEHOW one DRO is compulsory, then find one that isn't. I'm sure everyone here would not want a compulsory DRO which means good things because if there was one, he would surely go out of business because who wants people to tell them what to eat, and search their house anytime.
sniped101 2 months ago
@themadhatter114 it is government, it's the lack of a state. There are multiple DRO's, if you don't like your DRO, go to another DRO or make your own DRO.
darris321 2 months ago
@themadhatter114 I missed the part where they're compulsory. Enlighten me.
gusgusthegreat 1 month ago
@gusgusthegreat Read Stefan's article "Caging the Devils" where he discusses the glories of DRO crime fighting by killing anyone who steps off his own property without DRO insurance.
themadhatter114 1 month ago
@themadhatter114
Well, I don't think he quite advocates that, but his vision of DROs do seem to be compulsory in the sense that if you don't subscribe with one, you are economically shunned and therefore unable to live outside this system. I've come to a rather similar conclusion on my own, except my "DROs" are truly voluntary in that people are allowed economic productivity outside of the DRO system.
ultramerton 1 month ago
@ultramerton but see the problem with your theory is that it ignores reality. Your "DRO's" do not exist. You see, anyone who picks up a gun to perform tasks for pay is a mercenary, and money and violence will always be the truest language for people like that. Theorizing about what kind of police force would work best is freaking absurd - we are talking about a profession that attracts psychopaths.
ThinkSkank 1 month ago
@ThinkSkank
I don't quite understand the relevance of your comment. DROs currently don't exist, but that doesn't preclude their existence. Also, I don't want mercenaries to exist: each individual ought to take responsibility for not only his or her individual defense, but the defense of his or her economic interests as well (i.e. their local community). This is a natural responsibility, not a career move.
ultramerton 1 month ago
@ultramerton Let me make it more clear for you: DRO's = mercenaries, i.e., dudes with guns that get paid to bully people are mercenaries, regardless of what they are called.
ThinkSkank 1 month ago
@ThinkSkank
But that's not how I envision a DRO at all. In fact, anarchism is against the institution of a monopoly of deadly force, which is the primary source of our opposition to the state. It would make absolutely no sense for anarchists to destroy one such monopoly just to create another.
ultramerton 1 month ago
@ultramerton LOL it doesn't matter how YOU envision a DRO at all. You give an ape a gun, prompt him with some cash, and wallah, you got yourself a mercenary. I am not accusing anarchists of replacing one monopoly with another on purpose, rather i see the anarchist community doing so out of extreme naivete.
ThinkSkank 1 month ago
@ThinkSkank
And again, you are arguing a strawman. Never have I said that we should "give an ape a gun and prompt him with some cash." As I said before, defense is a natural responsibility, not a career move.
ultramerton 1 month ago
@ultramerton Then why use the term DRO if that is how you see it? If you just mean people using guns to defend themselves (without the existence of cops) then i would advise against equivocating your message.
ThinkSkank 1 month ago
@ThinkSkank
Hence the quotes around "DRO" in my original post. ;)
ultramerton 1 month ago
@themadhatter114
Bingo. Power is power. Calling "Cops" "DRO'S" does not change the fact that we are talking about mercenary thugs.
ThinkSkank 1 month ago
@themadhatter114 Question: how would they get funding for all these despicable activities? They ain't got no tax base to leech off and they can't print money that anyone would simply accept.
lordthawkeye 2 weeks ago 3
@themadhatter114 Wouldn't the difference be that one volunteered for that DRO, and wasn't forced to do it out of a 'social contract?'
And doing what you describe is hardly good business. Would you mind explaining?
thephoenixsage 1 week ago
A DRO that basically starves people out if they don't buy their services is no less coercive nor immoral than a state which functions through taxation.
The proof doesn't make any sense, because all it proves is that big money wins.
There is not even any clarification of what he means by "works."
Will it work? Of course it will. It will work by turning into a government via DRO which starves people to death if they don't obey the state.
themadhatter114 6 months ago 2
Hey, here's an idea. What if we simply have a Democracy which adheres to its Constitution, enforces its laws, and imprisons the thug Treasonists which inevitably corrupt the power structure?
SeabrightTrading 6 months ago
@SeabrightTrading its a great idea but the last time we wanted this was when america was first founded its rare to find a non corrupt politician
tatt2lover 6 months ago
@tatt2lover Also America was supposed to be a constitutional republic not a democracy. They are different and a democracy is almost if not the worst social structure possible. Check out "Democracy the God that failed" by Hans Hoppe.
collinej87 6 months ago
@SeabrightTrading Because a piece of paper is just a piece of paper. At the end of the day, it's just people doing stuff. If all people are held to the same moral standards, government would be impossible. Democracy, Constitution - such terms are the talk of magical moral categories for some that are the complete opposite as those for others.
eulercircles 5 months ago
Damn, i have to watch this again tomorrow to fully understand ... this is GENIOUS! i never looked it this way ...
AtheistBelgium 6 months ago
We are always responsible as individuals for our own integrity. I think anarchists tend to cast all the blame on the state, and forget that the mewing masses has a responsibility towards truth and real justice.
Anarchists forget that the "state" is made up of people, the same sort of people that will still exist in a supposed anarchist society. And those very type of people will cheat and steal their way to power, because some people - like it or not - are predisposed towards psychopathy.
ThinkSkank 6 months ago
@ThinkSkank Stef agrees with what you've said - you'd see if you watch more of his videos. What you've said here is one of the principle reasons why there should be no state.
eulercircles 5 months ago
@eulercircles Stef certainly does not agree with what i've said. See, the difference is i realize that the state is made up of people, it can't just be erased. Believing in anarchy is like believing in world peace or that all humans are warm and fuzzy. Anarchy is a great intention, don't get me wrong, but believing in it is fucking retarded.
ThinkSkank 5 months ago
I suppose one thing you originally said that Stef would not agree with is, "... the same sort of people that will still exist in a supposed anarchist society. And those very type of people will cheat and steal their way to power, because some people - like it or not - are predisposed towards psychopathy." My apologies for not seeing this at first. However, Stef does offer a lot of reasons why this view is not the case. Would you be willing to look into it further?
eulercircles 5 months ago
Cops, DRO's, they both attract more psychopathic people than not. Changing names from cop to DRO, stating how "if only" people changed how they view the world things would work, is akin to wanking without cumming. SIlly.
ThinkSkank 6 months ago
Using this system, DROs would just become the new state.
GChillProductions 6 months ago
also, LOL @ feudal europe as an example.
LOL @ modern Somalia.
This guy has more zeal than intelligence.
ThinkSkank 6 months ago
...ALL of us in order for this utopian fantasy to even have a shot. Again, love teh intention, but this has about as much practical application as Sir Thomas More's Utopia.
ThinkSkank 6 months ago
I love the spirit of anarchy, but it will never work until people evolve past petty dreams of power.
Nothing in this video demonstrates how we can prevent the few from exploiting human mortality for personal gain. Nothing here demonstrates how small fraternal family lines will automatically take into account the beauty of freedom.
Remember, the whiz of a bullet concurs theories and well intended movements. Something truly evolutionary on a psychological level has to arise within....
ThinkSkank 6 months ago
@ThinkSkank, and that is why Anarchy is more of a social ideology than a political one. You cannot treat it like you are herding cattle (people) when you talk about theories as shown in this video. For it to become a perfect anarchy, people would have to learn to work together instead of competing for authority, power, money etc.
Crabbensmasher 6 months ago
@Crabbensmasher LOL, you talk out of both sides of your mouth like a typical anarchist. Social ideologies ARE political by their very nature.
Call Anarchy any kind of movement you want. The ideas are still naive and redundant.
ThinkSkank 6 months ago
@ThinkSkank Or maybe it just seems naive from our perspective? We still live in a society which more or less pits us against one another, and although humans are competitive, we are also known to be able to mutually benefit each other. That's what I think anarchy kind of plays off of. No systems overseeing us, just people interacting with people.
Crabbensmasher 6 months ago
This is flawed out the ass and screams anarcho-capitalism.
And really? Ostracism/restitution for rape!? FOR RAPE!? That's not going to solve anything you ignorant fuck.
KlumzyThePunk 6 months ago
@KlumzyThePunk So if you knew someone was a rapist you wouldn't treat them differently or exclude them from your social circle? If so the problem lies not with a non-coercive, voluntary and open society, but with you, "ignorant fuck."
Marioag0412 6 months ago
@Marioag0412 Never said I wouldn't ostracize the person, I'm saying it's FUCKING IDIOTIC to think that's good justice/punishment for a person that is a rapist. + It's completely illogical to think a person can be completely ostracized on this planet. This planet has nearly 7 billion people on it and it is fucking MASSIVE. There's no possible way to completely ostracize someone without an organization that is all throughout the planet keeping tabs on everyone, and that is un-orthodox to anarchy.
KlumzyThePunk 6 months ago
@KlumzyThePunk First off, what do you define as " good justice/punishment?" Who do you think should decide that? And enforce it? Why should I have to pay for through taxes, at gun point mind you, the "punishing" of criminals in ways that I do not agree with, lets say the death penalty, just because the majority of people think that its justified and because I happen to live in the same country as said people?
Marioag0412 6 months ago
@Marioag0412 The only way possible, LOCK THEM UP, that's the only way people can truly ostracize someone from society and keep society safe.
And if the crime is harsh enough, say a man goes on a murdering spree and kills many people, I can tell you now, most people in a society wouldn't want him alive and killing elsewhere, so yes, the death penalty would be a good case of punishment/justice for victims.
PRISON/DEATH IS THE ONLY TYPE OF JUSTICE/PUNISHMENT THAT CAN BE DEALT OUT!
KlumzyThePunk 6 months ago
@KlumzyThePunk Secondly, the reason why ostracism works is because its personal, non-coercive, and public. If someone is objectively proved to have committed the act of rape by one or preferably multiple DROs, then he/she is labeled and the information of their action is made public for all to know. Because of this, their ability to trade suffers a huge risk, as people generally do not prefer to deal with rapists. This fact makes the option of committing these actions hugely risky and dangerous
Marioag0412 6 months ago
@Marioag0412 Dude, there's no possible way for that to efficiently work out, it's humanly impossible to have a system like that without an authoritarian organization keeping tabs on everyone and hooking them up with this information + you have to make EVERYONE remember his name and face etc. Not everyone's going to do that, THAT'S WHY IT FAILS!
You're a fucking idiot, THINK THESE THINGS THROUGH, BEFORE YOU START BLURTING OUT BULLSHIT.
KlumzyThePunk 6 months ago
@KlumzyThePunk So its humanly impossible to have databases owned by private contract enforcement/public information providers/background check agencies with information on people and their actions? How so? Insurance companies do it all the time with their clients' histories and backgrounds. Did you even watch the video before you attempted to discredit it? And please don't stoop to the level of insulting me, I'm merely trying to have a discussion and not an "ALL CAPS CUSS-OUT", thanks.
Marioag0412 6 months ago
@Marioag0412 Anarcho-capitalism is fucking idiocy.
I'm just gonna leave it at that you stupid troll.
KlumzyThePunk 6 months ago
@KlumzyThePunk Well I'm sorry that you chose to ignore every single one of my questions and simply stated an opinion with absolutely no logical backing, and I fail to see how I was the "troll" when I never once attempted to blindly assault you or your ideas without reasoning or evidence and was not the one constantly typing harsh language in all caps, but If that's your opinion and you are shut to the point of no return then that is fine. Good luck with that attitude and have a nice day.
Marioag0412 6 months ago
@KlumzyThePunk IF YOU DONT LIKE IT THEN WHY ARE THE FUCK ARE YOU WATCHING THIS!!!!?????
99darkhawk 6 months ago
@99darkhawk I'm explaining to people how this guys theory is flawed, and not actually anarchist.
KlumzyThePunk 6 months ago
I was watching this and had to stop 15 minutes in because I had to look for the rest of my head, it was blown all over the room.
mediageneration65 6 months ago
I was gonna comment, "government is an illusion", but I guess I don't have to huh?
1HumanKind 7 months ago
The terrorist argument fails because "terrorists" are a mental construct created by a government who's sole product is fear. Remove government and it's media mouthpiece and the idea of terrorism dies. Remove the flags behind the politicians and you will only see thuggy businessmen conspiring to take your shit.
InfinityPointChannel 7 months ago
By your rationale I could "prove" that anarchy is alive and well within the prison system, because the system (albeit secretly) allows this to occur to the degree that they feel it must. I don't see your worst case scenario as particularly valid, because the illegal lobbying occurs behind several layers of protection to the point of practical impunity. Simply circumventing the law is not in itself anarchy.
Edwinward 7 months ago
I'm sorry but this is crazy. What is more crazy is that some people don't think its crazy.
"nukes deter all invasion" are you serious? Terrorists dont give a damn about your nukes.
Captain0Newman 7 months ago
@Captain0Newman the reason terrorists don't give a damn about nukes is because they care shit about their countries,terrorists bacically live in basements and small camps,and it would be an overkill to throw a nuke on some terrorists basement and kill a million of other innocent people,and terrorists know that.
Gotcha1234Mariok 7 months ago
@Gotcha1234Mariok
That is exactly why nukes don't "deter all invasion." Geurilla warfare renders them obselete.
Captain0Newman 5 months ago
NEXT LONDON UK ANTI CUTS PROTEST 30TH JUNE LICOLNS INN FIELDS TO PARLIAMENT SQUARE. ASSEMBLE 11:30
!!!!!!!!!!!!
joinusinsong 7 months ago
@joinusinsong No offence but where would this country be in five, ten, twenty years time if there were no cuts? I am a little biased as the cuts have not affected me but this is to secure our countries future as well as our own futures. Without these cuts our nation would be ruined and our children would be left with a broken country. Just think for five minutes, are these cuts affecting me too much? If the answer is yes then protest, legally, but if not stay at home or go to work. Thanks
MrXray2011 7 months ago
@MrXray2011 This country is facing 87bn in Austerity. Multinational coorperations dodge their taxes. Vodafone-6.5bn alone and when found out, they paid a tiny tiny fraction of that back, if we don't pay we get fines on top!!! It will cost us another 25bn to keep firing depleted uranium into Afghanistan to kill and conquer and support a supporter of rape within marriage Hamid Karzai (War for womens righs yeah right!). However much being fired into Libya, bailed out bankers paying huge bonuses??!!
joinusinsong 7 months ago
@joinusinsong
That is true and I can see why that isn't a positive thing for this country but neither is a total breakdown in law and order. I agree with what we are doing in Afghanistan as we are protecting ourselves from 'terror' Libya however I say we leave them to sort it out themselves- we didn't have any foreign help during the Wars of the Roses or the English civil war. A long time ago maybe but the fact is we should leave them alone (libya) that dosen't mean anarchy would be better.
MrXray2011 7 months ago
Thanks for making me lose 19 minutes of my life.
PKFlaith 7 months ago
@PKFlaith Wow, what a well-reasoned and intelligent argument. You sir, are a genius.
taylr81 7 months ago
4th of July. USA. We Protest, Rebel, and Revolt. fb / 4thofJulyprotest
TheRedAnarch 8 months ago
The counter-argument I seem to get is that the people in the state are "above" those of us peons. Seriously.
vspqbd 8 months ago
Interesting approach. I've used the argument of statism being a religion, but never heard of statism proving that anarchy works.
HeyRuka 8 months ago
5:07-5:11 I did the exact same thing, haha
HeyRuka 8 months ago
In Anarchy:
I will turn my home into a fort. Don't like it? Invade me.
I will point my weapons at anyone who wanders near my property. Don't like it? Point back.
I will shoot at any man who enters my property. Don't like it? Have better aim than me.
Any person weaker than me will become my slave. Don't like it? Overpower me.
I will loot and plunder every other household weaker than me. Don't like it? Come get your stuff back; bring a gun.
I will create my own army and govern-... oh wait.
thescarybox 8 months ago
@thescarybox This just proves how ignorant some people are. That is not anarchy, anarchy means that there is no ruler, that doesn't mean there is no laws. Anarchy is not chaos, anarchy is order. Please learn something abut anarchy before you state such a childish nonsenses .
CrazyAjvar 8 months ago
@CrazyAjvar Laws huh? Well if everyone agreed upon laws, then what's the difference of that from now?
What if I don't agree about one of the laws "the people" "pass"? Note the quotations. You gonna say "too bad?" Well that's how it is now. YOU vote for someone to HOPEFULLY carry YOUR message and pass it into law. If not then "too bad, vote someone else." "Too bad, get more people to vote your way."
Anarchy in that sense would be the same as life is now. How can you enforce laws without govt?
thescarybox 8 months ago
@thescarybox You know that anarchy is pure democracy meaning that there is no representatives who you vote for. In other words democracy today is just liberal way of making new ruler every few years who will exploit people as any other ruler would. As you already have the image of anarchy as lawless chaos, you have a hard time imagining the world with out states where people them self govern, not elected elite which we give power to rule.
CrazyAjvar 8 months ago
@CrazyAjvar Anarchy by definition is a lack of order.
Pure Democracy: Ok everybody, we're planning to put a tree here. Get everyone together and we can vote. Ok everyone we want to build a statue here, get everyone together. Ok everyone we're gonna get cookies for the next voting session. Let's all vote on that too.
And you can be governed... by the warlord down the street with the giant gang and all the guns. Either you will A: Fight together (not anarchy), or B: Die, or C: Accept slavery.
thescarybox 7 months ago
@thescarybox If some one wants to act like that he would lose a right to function in the world. By this I mean all communal rights will be closed to him, so let him find food, water ,electricity and heating by him self since clearly he doesn't want to be part of the community. Anarchy can not function if every man IS for him self like you say. You clearly do not understand the concept of anarchy as form of society organization.
CrazyAjvar 7 months ago
@CrazyAjvar
And you clearly don't understand the concept of people being human beings. Communal rights?
Who says there would be rights? How can you have rights without an "official" body (technically government) to say there are rights, and what rights there are exactly?
Why can't I just walk up and say "Hey, I have the right to be lazy and eat from the communal pot of food"? Because it goes against the voted-... electe-... nevermind.
Without government, there is no "rights." None. At. All.
thescarybox 7 months ago
@thescarybox So human beings can not function with out some one telling them what to do and if they don't do as they are told we must make them do it by the armed force non the less? There is no civil way of organizing our ranks but giving the power to few individuals which will control population to be civil and responsible part of society? And I thought people evolved to intelligent beings. So only way for people to have rights is to have armed police with power ensure them? Bullox I say.
CrazyAjvar 7 months ago
@thescarybox - You have rights because you're human. Those rights are life, liberty, and property. And, let's be honest, you are really the only person looking out to protect your rights. If you claim you have no rights with out government, that means you would not mind someone stealing from you, but the government 'minds for you?'
That doesn't make sense, of course. Why? Everyone has a basic understanding of human rights - because you're born with them.
Achooification 7 months ago in playlist Stefan Molyneux Part 2 - Mar2007 to Mar2009
@Achooification
That assumes everyone is born with the ability (whether it's physically, financially, or mentally) to defend their own inalienable rights from those who simply don't give a damn.
thescarybox 7 months ago
@thescarybox : No it doesn't. Governments take rights away all the time - how is this different? And don't argue that they take away rights for "the greater good," because that's not what's happening.
Achooification 7 months ago
@thescarybox I am sorry but that definition of anarchy is only one meaning out of 5. We are not talking abut roman-catholic idea of anarchy, we are talking abut a utopian society which is based on idea of stateless world with out a government. That doesn't exclude some other form of organization, in your case fighting together against common evil is what anarchy really is, not other way around. Why do you have some notion that anarchy means every man for him self?
CrazyAjvar 7 months ago
@CrazyAjvar
Because it WOULD BE every man for himself. What, other than "morality" and "ethics" is stopping me from saying "Screw you all! Stay off of "my land" or there will be hell to pay!"
Are you going to come in and say "You can't do that!" I thought this was anarchy, where people are free from being governed by others. People organizing to make rules and standards, and then enforcing those rules and standards IS GOVERNMENT.
How would anarchy be different from now?
thescarybox 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
anarchist unite! this is our fight! get a grip and free your soul! if all you want is death by dozen! then get the fuck out! and all you people think it would be hell! think again! all we want is to live free! our fate is sealed and yours is mine! keep it up and give it time! one day we shall rule and leave everything behind!
post this on every anarchy video you can find and LET US BE HEARD!
migeezel 8 months ago
Just as the courts have been privatized and now act in a corrupt manor the DRO's would abuse there position in a similar way. Anarchy is what the elite want, from anarchy comes chaos, from chaos comes order, the new world order.
eyeswideopennimrod 9 months ago
Johann Most in "The Science of Revolutionary Warfare. . 1885. . ."The existing system will be quickest and most radically overthrown by the annihilation of its exponents. Therefore, massacres of the enemies of the people must be set in motion." Maybe in Britain, you could throw crumpets at each other, her in Midwestern Amerika we have privatized -prisons,enforced by Mandatory Minimal sentencing. . . And Government Police who are very violent. . Fascism You Can Vote For,I'll keep my AK-47 . .Z
45zarathustra 9 months ago
@RedDeath06 This also accommodates for increasing technology. As our world becomes automated, in the current system, more people become unemployed, prices then go up from resulting inflation, making the products and services, unobtainable. In my system, it requires less hours of human labor to provide this good or service, therefore it is cheaper, and people do not need to work as much to receive it, and eventually, not at all. also, everything would become immediately cheaper in my system.
FuCuMao 9 months ago
@RedDeath06 however there is room for profit in the case of: one man has a gold ring, another wants it, and is willing to trade a certain amount of time notes, for this ring. there can be nothing to bar them from this trade, even though one man never really worked for it. people would go to the people who made the highest quality product the fastest. There may also be a "quality" and/or "neccesity/professional service" value to the time notes as well in a more capitalistic economy.
FuCuMao 9 months ago
you have some great Ideas, however I think they just need a little tweaking. They lack government prevention measures.
FuCuMao 9 months ago
differently. Capitalist will divide the profits based on performance, and the difficulty and necessity of the work. They will then sell it for whatever the purchaser will pay. Communist will divide the profits equally. They will then give the shirts to the community, and sell or trade the surplus. Barter will simply divide the shirts up amongst the workers, either evenly, or based on a capitalist barter model, and they will do with it what they wish. Primitivist... would not have a factory.
FuCuMao 9 months ago
Corporations cannot exist in an anarchistic society, as they are, in fact, a form of government. How I view the Anarchist work force, is as this example: A factory that makes T-shirts is owned by the workers in that factory. the profit and cost of each t-shirt is shared by everyone in the factory. Each co-worker evaluates the others performance as their profit depends on everyone doing their job correctly. it's as simple as that. The only complexity is distribution, as each model will do it
FuCuMao 9 months ago
will quickly parish, as they do in a statist model. so there is no change there. Those unABLE to defend themselves will receive defense from family, friends and neighbors, or defense agencies. Also an ENFORCED free market is not a free market. If there IS to be a free market, Capitalism, Communism, Primitivism, Barter, and all other economic models (other than Socialism, as that REQUIRES a state) must co-exist, in a symbiotic relationship, as a poly-economic model.
FuCuMao 9 months ago
also, who will have authority over these nuclear weapons? Whoever is it will become supreme ruler in a very short time. Nukes have no place in an anarchist society. there is no need for national security as there is no nation. Only home, and personal defense, and people will obviously pool their resources together in militias for the defense of the community, which makes for a much tighter regional defense system that government currently has in place. Those unwilling to defend themselves
FuCuMao 9 months ago
Dis-enabling a person to provide for themselves is simply put, murder. Example: Stalin and Mao starving their people to death because they would not submit to their absolute power. Granted, if your proposal was implemented, then the individual would have to sign a contract in order for these agencies to function, however you suggest that no action can be taken without these contracts. There is no freedom in that. If blacklisted by these agencies, then you are dead, giving them absolute power.
FuCuMao 9 months ago
individual or community to carry out the enforcement. If they handle the situation immorally, they may be brought before the council of judges to be tried for that. in cases of the weak, unable to enforce morality, they may go to a friend or neighbor or an enforcement agency SEPARATE from the Judgment agency, who may only carry out the punishment suggested by the Judgment agency, or not. However if you give an agency the authority of judge jury and executor, then fascism is inevitable.
FuCuMao 9 months ago
what exactly is the difference between a DRO and a pacifist government? what you are describing is fascism, rule by corporation. The rulers of government live in anarchy, while subjugating everyone else. The only way a DRO can work in an anarchistic society, is if they have no enforcement capability. Such as the early Hebrew Sanhedrin. An assumed "criminal" is judged by a council of peer judges, they decide on his "guilt" or innocence, and suggest a punishment. It is up to the offended
FuCuMao 9 months ago
How would currency work? In order to fuel the DROs and the free market, a standard currency must be established. Currently, the government prohibits the printing of state issued money(in the US). If that regulation were removed, how would a standard be established? I doubt gold would function well, given the number of citizens and the rarity of the metal. I am not trying to criticize, I am simply seeking answers to major questions that I have concerning the proposed system and anarchy in general
RedDeath06 9 months ago
@RedDeath06 I have an idea of a time based currency. all goods take time to make, and it takes time to deliver services. so, the way I look at it (and this is just an example) if it takes 80 hours of work for 20 people to grow 500 pounds of cotton, then the value of 500 pounds of cotton is 1600 hours making it 3.2 hours of work per pound. in order to turn that into a one pound T-shirt, (for simplicities sake) it takes 5 people a total 1 hour of work. thus making it a grand total of 4.2 hours.
FuCuMao 9 months ago
@RedDeath06 of course, you would have to factor in fule for distribution and all that, but I estimate even with that, you should only have to work for about 10 min for a T-shirt, maybe only a few weeks for a car. of course this model is very efficient, and time cannot be made out of thin air, so inflation does not exist, however it does not allow for profit much, merely equal trade. However, with your "time notes" you can do with whatever you wish, so this half capitalism, half communism.
FuCuMao 9 months ago
DRO's as defined here are not even necessary. If someone jips you on a business deal, they become known for this and people stop doing business with them.
JaysThoughts 9 months ago
Nuclear proliferation and insurance companies...not a good model
LiberalCast 10 months ago
what of the DRO contract businesses going amoral and blacklisting people that get in their way?
Free information is VITAL for anarchy to work, but what if it is tainted and you are falsely accused for something you did not do? Who would keep this in check?
I am asking because I am working on ideas of functional Anarchy, but you must think of the worst that can happen.
HatterMadigan 10 months ago
Monetary inflation (money creation) is the most evil thing ever created by Man. However, most people do not understand the implications or consequences. People want "stability". So, they allow their leaders to control the economy. When they control the economy, who do you think it is going to benefit the most? At whose expense?
mikemat3307 10 months ago
@mikemat3307 Furthermore, people will stop extracting stuff from the Earth like mad, and the environment will benefit since new markets for the sake of being markets will no longer be pursued.
adryroseinbloom 10 months ago
Remember, REAL wages, NEVER keep pace with REAL inflation. An economist by the name of Melchoir Palyi proved this, in his book, "An Inflation Primer", in 1961. It is available for free download from mises[dot]com.
mikemat3307 10 months ago
The way our financial system works is a throwback from 16th century Mercantilism. You do not "fight" Mercantilism with Socialism. You fight it, with freedom. Freedom starts, with the freedom to exchange goods and services. A free society is the "effect" not the "cause" of a people freely exchanging goods and services. Money is a good. Money creation for the benefit of the rich is coercive, and violates the non-aggression axiom.
mikemat3307 10 months ago
Banks are given "special privileges" by the government. If banks were "forced" to operate like other businesses, most of the inequalities in society would disappear. And those that didn't, could be easily accommodated by "voluntary" contributions. Only when people are free to exchange goods and services, can there be a free society. Currently, we are not, because the rich and powerful get to create "property" by printing money. That is where the inequalities start.
mikemat3307 10 months ago
The reason there are so many inequities in our society, is because money is created out of thin air, by the banks and the government. The rich always benefit the most from the new money, while us working schmucks get stuck with all of the inflation. They create money, therefore, they create property. You, like so many others, confuse business with finance. There is nothing wrong with free enterprise. The problems are in the financial sector.
mikemat3307 10 months ago
@mikemat3307 Nothing of what you've said so far makes me believe that classes will be abolished in your society.
What gives people the right to be rich? What gives the children of the rich the right to be rich by inheritance while the children of the workers who made their parents rich are not so?
adryroseinbloom 10 months ago
@mikemat3307 I am not against someone making a dress and exchanging it for a massage; I don't care to stop that. What I am against is the accumulation of resources in private hands so that some are able to dictate how the resources will be attained, in self-serving decisions from above.
With self-management, everyone can have a "business" and without losing their liberty or running the risk of being poor. AND, communities can decide what an acceptable job is -- no more baristas, more free time.
adryroseinbloom 10 months ago
If you feel you have a right to someone else's property, you must take it by force. What happens when someone wants what you have? Will you willingly hand it over? That is in violation of the non-aggression axiom. I thought you wanted freedom? Perhaps you don't understand that freedom, without responsibility, is not freedom, at all. It is coercion.
mikemat3307 10 months ago
@mikemat3307 Please don't confuse possession/use with how greedy someone is about this earth. I think most people would agree that someone who claims to own a river does not really have a right to it since it is a resource for humanity. No one would agree, however, that someone should come kick me out of my apartment since living spaces should be provided for all.
Hegemony makes it a little more difficult for people to realize what should be truly theirs.
adryroseinbloom 10 months ago
Coercion is when someone claims to own resources (remember, we're supposed to be equally human and with natural rights to life on Earth) and then sets up a system under which you are TOLD the conditions under which you must work/slave for the resource.
adryroseinbloom 10 months ago
@adryroseinbloom "Remember, everything you own is off people's backs."
Sure, and what my clients get from me, is off my back. No wait, they give me money for my services. I then divide that money amongst my workers for their labor. I also use that money to buy insurance, buy tools, and pay for all of the overhead necessary to operate a business. Of course, I take a profit. Why wouldn't I? Wouldn't you? I am TOLD the conditions under which I must work/slave for the resource by my clients.
mikemat3307 10 months ago
@mikemat3307 I mean that to point out how there is collective labor in everything, and that many of the people who have contributed to the things you possess are being/were exploited, not about your business in particular.
Why do you refuse to see the loss of liberty inherent in being hired? Ex: If an employee is insulted and chooses to talk back to an a**hole customer, she risks being fired for not "representing the company well". She has to warp her personality to keep her job.
adryroseinbloom 10 months ago
When you bring your car in for, say, new tires, are YOU not an authoritarian? Do you not tell the person working there what you want? What do you do if the work is not performed to your satisfaction? Do you order them to correct the problem? Do you not have the choice to go somewhere else? Of course you want to order others around. You MUST. Otherwise, no one will know what you want, and your needs will not be met to your satisfaction.
mikemat3307 10 months ago
@mikemat3307 - We all have to take part in the present system, one in which we exchange our service for a wage which may or may not give us what we need to survive.
Regardless of the system, a society has to cooperate on some level, unless you choose isolationism. That is not authoritarian and just makes sense when it is done with free consent, liberty and control of what you do with your product/service.
adryroseinbloom 10 months ago
Even the CEOs of major corporations are nothing more than paid employees. They are hired by the Board of Directors, who are elected by the shareholders (owners). If you want to own a corporation, you are free to buy stock. Perhaps, as an employee, you would prefer to take stock in the company in lieu of wages (full or partial)? I have no problem with that.
mikemat3307 10 months ago
@mikemat3307 Actually, they're a little more than just paid employees. They make decisions for those below them and somehow get a better wage. Those below them are forced to give up their liberty during the work day to obey the bosses. That's all CEOs do, make decisions to be followed. The ones at the very bottom don't often benefit from such orders. In other words, managers manage exploitation.
Not every company has stock. And who wants to be part of something so unstable, anywyay?
adryroseinbloom 10 months ago
Managers ARE workers. Just because one sits behind a desk, and another operates a machine, makes no difference. You seem to have a problem with the division of labor. A worker is no more capable of managing himself than a manager is capable of operating a machine. If you are operating a machine, how would you know how many parts to make without a manager? If you managed "yourself", how would you have any time to operate the machine?
mikemat3307 10 months ago
@mikemat3307 Managers are simply managers of exploitation. If allowed the knowledge and development, workers can easily do a mangers job is that is to administrate. We're talking about a useless hierarchical relation.
adryroseinbloom 10 months ago
@mikemat3307 - Come on, people have room in their heads to operate on both levels. Workers know what's up, believe it or not, and there are many ways to make the entire workplace self-managing. When they don't, it's because they aren't allowed access to administrative information since it does divide labor and enforces inequality.
Without the workers, managers can't manage. Without managers, workers have been proven to run establishments, and more efficiently/happily too.
adryroseinbloom 10 months ago
I worked as a laborer for 30 years. My Grandfather taught me a trade when I was 13 years old. I sacrificed my Summer vacations to learn. When I graduated high school, I had a "marketable skill" which I could trade to the highest bidder. Nobody in this World will give you something for nothing, except Mommy and Daddy. If you want something, go out and earn it. Stop crying, and DO SOMETHING.
mikemat3307 10 months ago
@mikemat3307 I'm glad you were taught a skill. Remember, everything you own is off people's backs. How dare you say they don't deserve a decent life, regardless of their skill level, if you benefit from their labor every day?
I work, yet I don't have health care. Many people don't either, and even struggle with rent and food. They work. Their parents have worked. They're not crying, their demanding justice.
adryroseinbloom 10 months ago
Anarchism can only "work" in certain kinds of communities, such as farming communities. If we want to maintain a highly specialized society it isn't an option. Which is demonstrated by the fact that fdr solution is essentially is just a decentralization of government. It still maintains a government which will inevitably progress to centralization in it's own interests and therein make the exercise futile.
dookiecheez 10 months ago
What if I cannot afford to pay the DFO? This is security and justice for those who can afford it.
And who protects against corruption in the DROs? Conveniently sidestepped.
amritatva 11 months ago
Holy shit.
AZLuvV 11 months ago
and the technology(and think of where we might have been without "govern"ment/religion) makes the whole DRO idea quite viable. opinions on the following? - but as long as people are willing to be hired as thugs or hire thugs(which is the basis of organized crime/government) can there ever be anarchy?
desirefirst 11 months ago
There should be made a boardgame or cardgame out of this. Putting theory in practice will have an even more powerful effect on the public!
Oh, one problem is that people like to form teams, and some teams like to enslave the whole population - like we have now. How would an anarchic society prevent from a group from becoming a monopolist, or forming an oligarchy, bossing the workers and the rest around with violence?
ookiemand 11 months ago
@ookiemand exactly. this model has no deterrent against organised violence. it also seems to offer no ''check and balance' system in regards to accusation of crime. how do i defend myself against charges, made by someone and deliberated by an insurance conglomerate, without a body that oversees and ultimately has power over the insurance body??
scottpastry 11 months ago
WOW!!!!!
THEcontinanza 11 months ago
I do love your positivity, Stef. :)
petrus4 11 months ago
This sounds like a contractually and currency based version of anarcho-syndicalism; at least what I've read of that. Of course, this is monetarily based, as mentioned, which makes it different...still interesting, though.
petrus4 11 months ago