I never heard of this before.I think I'll send the link to my 14 year old son.We talk about the system we live under today.We both agree that there could be a better system.However no one has come up with a better way.I like what you said at the end of the video about a citizen being killed and they call it a murder.Yet when it is a political leader they call it an assassination.I have wondered myself why they call it an assassination when a political leader is murdered?
@WilliamHBonney55 Its probably called that because of motivation. Who murders a politician for reasons other than how this person has executed their position?
@ InTheEndIWasRight - Sir, in a stateless society, you will always have powerful groups and leaders who will splinter a country as a whole into many parts, forming states on their own. We've seen it in the history of England where you had so many kings and rulers, fighting against each other until you had one supreme monarch. Hence, my friend, so long human nature craves for power, there will never be a lasting Anarchy! At least a Minarchy would have these elements of power under control. Peace
Wait, is this guy an anarchist? Fucking hell mate, you can shoot holes in states as much as you want, but anarchism pretty much shoots holes in itself.
As Winston Churchill said, democracy is a terrible way to run a country, it just happens to be better than all the others.
Also, in justifying anarchy he pretty much just dismissed that any foresight was possible but yet still advocates it?
He's a fucking decade away from convincing me, came across as selfish to me, not a freedom lover.
Im a minarchist. I hate Government as much as everyone else and ideally i wouldnt any around, but it always goes back to the security issues for me. I just wonder how it would all work.
The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, The Constitution, the Founding Fathers all failed. The Solution?: Let's go back and do it again.
2:53 - That's precisely the conclusion I drew several weeks ago after nearly three years of requests for money (usually $100 or more), signatures, and phone calls to Congress from liberty-minded political candidates and activist groups. Good on them for popularizing freedom to an extent, but just give me my HK USP .45 and DRO services for a flat monthly fee. I want to spend my free time pursuing hobbies and having fun, not watching the watchmen.
@InTheEndIWasRight the invading country would have the advantage. They would have organization, order, and funding unlike your stateless society. You're utopia would fail within days...
@HardcoreCapitalist Not true. And when has anyone said stateless defenses would not have organization, order and funding? lol And utopia? These criticisms are grade school.
@InTheEndIWasRight You could be more specific. PMC's is what you are really talking about.
The fact is, the strongest fist rules, in an anarchic state, this would eventually be the dominating/merging/fighting PMC's. Businesses are set up to compete after all. The most important factor, is the amount of people it would take to actually want an anarchistic society will never be there. So the 'utopian' ideal is not that the end result would be perfect, but that it could even happen and substain
@InTheEndIWasRight Minarchism has plenty of problems, but it's been shown to be quite good for society, America is a prime example. Under anarchism, we are merely being oppressed in a million and one possible ways as opposed to minarchism, which generally only oppresses us part of the time and is subject to change. Very general statement but people write books on this stuff so what's the point? I'd grab my cam, but I'd have to put on more clothes :( Fuck that
@HardcoreCapitalist Anarchists believes a private military would defend the country. I wonder what incentive this military would have to defend the country if no centralized organization were around to pay them to do it. Who would pay for this military? Who controls it? What makes you think the commander of this military will do so honorably? What does the commander deem honorable; who defined these terms? Without a centralized governance how can these terms be universal?
The problem with anarchists is they want a society, and they want it without governance. You can't have one without the other. Look at the internet. Ever been banned from a forum? Apparently even when people are left to their own devices they choose authority and totaltatarinsm. Real life has more means to create checks and balances. Mostly through the barrel of a gun. Even if they had the chance, people wouldn't exist in peace. So fuck them and their liberty.
@InTheEndIWasRight Great video. In the increasingly likely event that the US State collapses, I do see a potential attitudinal barrier with people in the US wanting to become the new Founding Fathers, and want to reconstruct Camelot aka. The State with a new Constitution, or a return to the Founding as their patriotic duty. How warranted or unwarranted do you think this fear is.
It cannot stay the same size. Population continues to grow, the state has to grow to accommodate the growing size of people. It needs more authority and power in comparison to the power and authority of the individual just to maintain the same amount of authority and power it had over a single individual, because the population is growing. More people = Less Power and Authority of Individuals. This is the nature of a democracy. 50 people more power to the individual, 500 people less power.
@Tom101229 Then what about territorial expansions of the state? And also a man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
Territorial expansion is to accommodate more room for its growing population.
It makes the population less dense, therefore allows more control to subdivisions, because there is an increase in land with a decrease in people. Tis why Russia is a Federal Republic. And why France is not.
Humans are not slaves. When humans are forced into actual servitude they usually do a very horrible job, which results in tyranny to promote better results. Unfortunately hostility is always met with hostility.
@Tom101229 /watch?v=L0ekDGlWumo "We" are not the State. And you have to look at acquisition of land. The state is illegitimate in your or I's preferences. They either conquer the land or just claim it. Politicians do not homestead the land or work it. People do, not the people that make up the state. I have other videos explaining a lot of the basics if your interested. But I seriously cant type it all out.
Actually under a democracy, we are the state. The problem is majority democracy only makes the majority be the state. Under a consensus democracy, everyone is the state.
The reason why we are not the state is due to being the minority in a democratic decision and due to having non-elected officials deciding issues on our behalf such as the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court, the CIA, the FBI, the Presidential Cabinet, and even the Presidency due to being elected indirectly.
The illegitimate under my preferences. What is illegitimate is how the state is govern and how it functions. Not the state it self. Not that a state exists. Not that a state does what a state does, but how it is done and how it gets decided.
That what you speak about involving claiming or conquering land is a principle of propertarianism. To argue against property is libertarianism. Property is slavery. To have property is to be enslaved. I argue for a territorial society rather property.
@Tom101229 Property is slavery? So have a state control all this territory and be "free" that way? Property is not slavery. If you own yourself, by your logic you are enslaved to yourself.
If the state has property, then it is enslaved. If people have property then they are enslaved. If territory is controlled, it becomes property. In order for territory to not become property, no one must control it.
Property is slavery. If I am your property, I am your slave. And due to the duo nature of human beings, what goes around comes around. If I am your slave, you are also my slave. Tis why people who own cats are also owned by their cats until they get rid of them or neglect them.
"If you own yourself, by your logic you are enslaved to yourself. "
Yes that is true. Regardless of how ridiculous that is, it is also true. What we determine to be right is not the same as what is true. Right and true are two different things, because are comfort seekers. We reside upon things that are comforting to us. Doesn't matter if they are true or not, that subject is entirely different.
Right and wrong are subjective and interpreted by the individual. They don't actually exist.
The difference between what is depicted owner and what is depicted slave is the same as what is depicted right and what is depicted is wrong. It is all illusion in the mind. It doesn't actually exist. You must take care of your slave as your slave holds a value as an irreplaceable commodity, especially slavery was getting expensive prior to the civil war. A slave was worth 1,000 dollars of what a dollar was worth back then. How much do you think that is in today's standards?
Since slavery was expensive and a slave was pretty much irreplaceable, the owner was very much dependent upon his slaves and therefore is enslaved by his own slaves.
As I have said, human nature hold a duo relationship. We talk and communicate through a duo relationship. I talk to you, you talk back. It is a called dialogue or communication under a duo relationship.
What is right is what is subjective to the mind of the beholder. What is true is what is actually going on. Tis the difference.
You can be enslaved by yourself. If you are dependent upon yourself to do everything and not on others, you are enslaved by yourself. By this I mean, you don't ask for help when it is offered. You don't allow other people to help you. That is what it means to have enslaved yourself.
Some people don't have a problem with this and we do all the time when we say such things as "I can do whatever the hell I want to do.
You have to understand the difference of what is right and what is true.
@Tom101229 "Property is slavery" unless this propery happens to be an uber-awesome supercomputer that has a chip implanted in your head that electroshocks you unless you fulfill it's wishes, and it's aims are unknown to you but you are forbiden by the chip from figuring out, for this monolithic abomination seeks control for it's own dark reasons, if it's not that, property isn't slavery
Politicians are just tools dude. Politicians work for whoever pays them. In a society structured on which the GDP is the most important aspect of state's strength as defined in international relations (how one states dominates another) and how politicians must require money to campaign and be elected, it is clear that those who control money, control the system. And what controls the distribution of money are banks.
Our politicians aren't even free to make their own decisions, they are slaves.
Humans are not able to be met with actual satisfying results unless they can put the confidence in themselves to do a good job. This requires discipline, motivation, skill, knowledge, determination, and most of all intention.
The intention to do the job has to be there.
The reason why our societies suck for the most part is because they are built around the ideology of sheepherding, Christianity and Islam for the most part.
For a society to function properly it must be a human society.
The reason Ive drifted toward minarchy is bc/ anarchists seem to argue from a vacuum. The political reality is that there are very few of us who see the state for the hungry blob it is. Arguing over which is right (anarchism or minarchy) in terms of the state is like 2 hunters having confronted an angry grizzly and then arguing over whether to use a rifle or pepper spray. All those who see the state as a danger need to unite. Otherwise it will only grow bigger.
It seems to me, that If the entire world were stateless, the first society to develop a state would have superior resources and organization to conquer the stateless. The incentive would be acquisition of resources, and would be inevitable based on our nature (one shaped by natural selection).
Just a thought that popped into my head... Im new to all this anarchism, minarchism, libertarian stuff, and im just trying to work my way through the viewpoints. (i study biology, not pol sci.)
Well first what is a state, but projected authority? If one person wishes to be "king" in a stateless society then that person must gain the ideological support of a majority of the populace. A state can only be soundly maintained though ideological support, as a 100% marginal state, that is one enforced totally enforced by force.
In other words, people have authority over the state even if they don't realize it. Because the sustainability of a state rests on the ideological conformity and/or consensus of the population.
This isn't bad and in fact it is actually pretty good. The problem with the state is that if there exists more than one, it is problematic for humans. Humans must seek a consensus of conformity in order for there to be peace, prosperity, and harmony.
Nah, the first states arose out of religious cults. But in order to have a state you must have an ideological belief in the states authority. If thats not there, then there is no state. There is no way there can be 100% marginal state, that is one totally enforced by violence.
Stateless societies would have laws to govern them. Its depending on what type of society statless capitalists, socialists, primitivists ect would all have different views, so it depends on where one falls. If you value private property and a free market, associate with a stateless capitalist society, and so on and so forth.
but if people do form voluntary governments doesn't that in itself make it minarchism? therefore an anarchist society will never exist for a long term.
It's been a while eric, anyway in responce to your video, I have always felt sympathetic towords anarchists although I don't quite agree myself, even if we had an anarchist society people would eventually band together for their own protection (that's just human nature) thats how governments get started, everything has to start small at some point, anarchy would most likely result in neo-feudelism rather then any sort of freedom unfortunatly. human nature is in itself corrupt.
...So we will never have perfect system of government and even if we had no government, some form of government (no matter how small) would eventually form, (ever heard the term "order out of chaos"?) personally I'm an advocate of small government and I accept the fact that it will eventually get too big, thats why the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots. A revolution is on it's way my friend, it's coming sooner rather then later.
Don't kid yourself, i was saying that in 2003, it's not going to happen. The people are docile, anarchists are the only ones that will do anything (and even then, it's small).
"Voluntary Government" is an oxymoron; government is an entity that claims and exercises a monopoly on the initiation of violence. Ordo ab chao? Ever heard the term "spontaneous order"? Things tend to order themselves a lot more appropriately when every party involved in any given interactions has power to negotiate within, or discontinue, those interactions. A voluntary society will exist for the long term when people stop fantasizing that the state, in any form, is "for their own good".
Society has a minority of "evil, greedy, psychos?"
Uhhh.. Last time I checked over 100 million people turned out to VOTE (an act of pure, unadulterated evil) in the last election. I'd say that "evil" constitutes the majority.
Anyone who isn't an anarchist is evil. Government and evil are synonymous terms.
Your right though that they are psychos (as in psychopaths). Statism is an anti-social personality disorder.
Really? So you don't see how robbing people and committing acts of mass-murder as evil? I fail to see how it isn't. Just because you're not personally shoving people into the ovens doesn't mean your not guilty. Youre still a willing part of the system that made it happen.
Anyone who supports the existence of any government is a mass-murderer. If voters were brought up on conspiracy charges they'd be found guilty by a government court.
Do you pay taxes? Just because I do doesn't mean I support the government. I would love to not pay taxes, but as an individual, I don't really have the choice not to.
I would argue that taxation supports the state more than voting, although I concede that voting helps to perpetuate the ideological state. But there could still be a state without voting.
Sure, most of the people who voted probably do support the state, but I don't think you can draw the conclusion that anyone who votes does.
Paying taxes is not voluntary. I pay taxes because if I didn't pay the income tax they would murder me and if I didn't pay the sales tax I would starve to death.
They are not the same thing. The taxpayer is a victim. The voter is the one committing the crime.
Voting IS an act of supporting the state. Regardless of who you vote for a vote is still an endorsement of voting and ergo an endorsement of government and mass-murder.
The only exception is when voting NO on specific issues (eg a new tax) The election of anyone will lead to the perpetuation of evil (the voter is responsible) regardless of who that candidate is
using state services
So you'e saying that there's nothing wrong with receiving stolen property?
I was simply asking a question. There isnt anything wrong with taking stolen property from a thief. On the contrary, taking things from the government is an act of virtue. After all, every dollar you take from the government is a dollar that they cant use to murder someone. You are saving lives. Plus, every dollar drained from the ponzi scheme hastens the day of its total collapse
Taking resources from a gang of theives and murderers is an act of love The only thing more heroic is killing a cop
Well economically speaking government has already sown the seeds of its own destruction. The psychological problem is a lot more difficult to deal with. We aren't ever going to have freedom as long as america is populated by 300 million psychotics with anti-social personality disorders. If you could undermine the voting mechanism it would help cut back on crime though since most people are too cowardly to commit such acts directly.
Those are good points, but an anarchy could also slip into a different system as well. If you want to look at my views, check out minarchyunited (dot) blogspot (dot) com
Overall, I have observed that you tend to "over-think" concepts to death. Just my opinion.
BTW, I'll wager that about 98% of people on the planet would not agree with you that Ireland was once an "Anarchist society".............so, where the pre-Colombian Native Americans as well?
I think you missed my point about tribal society a few posts back, altogether.
Where's your message board? YouTurd comment box sucks for discussions.
The answer to the "What about roving bands of murders." is: In a Stateless society I will be able to have a BAR to protect myself. Where as now, I have to get an anal exam and pay a $200.00 extortion fee (tax) to the State.
I did not say we should not allow people to reach that conclusion. I am saying we as individuals need to take responsibly if we want no-state or a very limited state. We need to talk about this.
Utopia would be the best end, but it is not going to happen in reality. You want no-state and I want a very limited small state. Which founders do you speak of? A few wanted no federal government, a few wanted a very limited federal government, and a few wanted a strong federal government.
The US Constitution is flawed because, we as humans are flawed but, the US Constitution does provide a good foundation to build on. It sets the stage for limited government and we can and we should upgrade it to produce a better limited government.
I was talking about people taking responsibility for their state. It is really a double edged sword; the state vs. private groups providing police, courts, etc. So, I am saying instead of going around and around with this state vs. anti-state thing, we should be discussing the responsibilities of the masses.
I still think we need a uniform structure when it comes to certain things; which is why I would want a very small and limited government but, again it will take a responsible population.
There might be no central State but; you still have room for groups who will be providing goods and services to grow into monsters. So, we cannot pretend that removing the State; no matter how small it is or how big it is will eliminate or solve the issues. We both want similar things if we allow ourselves to see them. What we need is an informed, involved and a more impendent type of masses.
I do not think the constitution is a magic piece of paper nor do I think I get my rights from it. In a stateless society I assume we will still have contracts with groups or people we do business with thus, does that become a magic piece of paper?
Yes, minarchist must be vigilant on watching the state but, what do you think you have to do when you have no state? You have to be vigilant in protecting your life, liberty, and property and vigilant in making sure the groups you buy goods and services from are providing such goods and services.
I'm not criticising the arguments you made in this video, nor am I saying that anarcho-capitalism wouldn't work. I'm pretty new to Austrian economics and market anarchism, so these are questions which I am genuinely pursuing answers for.
One reason that I am attracted to minarchism as opposed to anarchism is that I am not sure that everyone would have the ability to access private law courts. If one is middle-class or upper-class, then it shouldn't be a problem, but how would working-class people have access to courts if they could not afford them?
The same problem extends to policing - private protection could be afforded by the wealthy, and probably by most middle-class people as well, but would the poor be able to afford...
Anarchism though percieved as radical is the most natural political belief and really is actually instinctive is humans.
An elite can create a society where whoever is born into it will believe being ruled and having authorites over them is natural.
The elite social engineers have used the same technique down through the ages because it has work every time and that is manipulation of human instinct and emotion.
There was no links or nothing like that, i was just trying to say it is really hard to understand what you are saying sometimes, you say your not against the states but then you are? I gets a little confusing lol.
part 1: Ok i watched the video, I see now what you are saying, it would be great to get rid of all governmental institutions i agree, but there needs to be some type of organisation for defense and safety from criminals and infrastructure.
part 2: I agree with you in some sense, perhaps the key would be limited time in offices that do these things and open transparency always. Put not continual positions for individuals that eventually become corrupt. By the way there is no law saying you have to pay income tax, but they will get you one way or another so you are right.
No, I do not advocate violence what so ever unless it is for defence. You are putting words in my mouth, I hate big government and there lust for power. I do not agree with big government at all, they need to be reminded they work for us from time to time, by eliminating the states you give more power to big government, so do you disagree with 31 states claiming sovereignty from the government because of all the BS they agree trying to pull right now?
I am not advocate violence on dencenters, i am advocating violence if need be to protect our freedoms from people that would not care about your stateless world. You make no sense, you say each group can hire people to do things but in a sense you are still talking about organisation running things, government. I think what you are really striving for is less government involvement, that is a good thing.
It all sounds great and rosy but how decides who gets to fix the roads and bridges if no one decides to volunteer for it, you? And unfortunately there are bad men in this world that will form organisations for power and control and only organizations will stop them,i understand this is where we are today but that is because people don't fight to defend there freedoms,so yes violence is necessary sometimes when it is going to be used against us,good luck with whatever you are trying to accomplish
Like I said that would be awesome in an enlighten society, i will even go so far as to say perhaps if they where not force drugging people through things like fluoridated water and such we may be much closer to a utopian society that you discus. I don't like big government and ridiculous rules either,and i think government should be continually limited,but i still think we need them for infrastructure and to maintain some law and order because frankly people are not mature enough yet to do this.
No laws are written by the very same people you are denouncing, i know these people abuse there own laws like not paying taxes but these things happen because people don't stand up to fight for freedom or fairness. Maybe I am not understanding you correctly here, are you saying just get rid of states and have one government running everything or get rid of both?
Because no one stands up to defend liberty. I see what you are saying and i completely respect your opinion, i really wish we could live in a world that we are all equals and no one has more power than another but every single person would need to be enlightened like you clearly are, but what you are saying right now is akin to saying we don't need laws against murder when we clearly have murderers around, see what I mean? laws are just something written on paper as well.
so what is wrong with free speech, the right to bare arms, the right to a seedy trial and unlawful seizure? Your ideals are great in a world full of good men, unfortunately that is not the case.
I see what your saying but the constitution was written for the people by the people, the lack of people defending it does not take away from the constitution and what it stands for.
I think the only possible way we could see a successful stateless society is to have one with great moral backing. I think we as Americans are further from a great moral backing than we have ever been before. That's probably why I am a minarchist. If we could show people how great it would be with little government, then maybe people could learn to function without one. I think the first step though would be to instill good values in society.
"Why do I need to give up my liberty and freedom just because there is a possibility for evil in society." That pretty much sums up my ideals for governments. Although I have to admit I would have to consider myself a "minarchist" (I had never heard of that before), I would have to say, I would take anarchy over our current government today.
Lol yeah I know right, I actually talked to the principle to see if we could get a civics class into the schedule, but that wasn't until my junior year so who knows, they may have one by now. But yeah, it's crazy lol
Somalia is presented through a specific lens that would tend to emphasize the negative. I have never been there so I don't know if it is spontaneous order or a true chaos. Don't get me started on the UN please. I might bust a blood vessel.
Yeah all of the people who want nothing but more wealth and power will always be attracted to positions of power, sad but it's reality.
Yep, try and make sure we show the future generations the way.
Lol yeah we never really payed much attention to the people that cracked on us lol what's sad is because they dont even realize what anarchism is, a civics class in my high-school would have been really useful lol
Volunteer government, a revolutionary concept nowdays, sadly governing with the consent of the governed is a foreign term anymore. But, hopefull it wont be that way forever, i'd love to see it within my lifetime but if not, well then all we can do is try and do what we believe to be right.
Lol yeah I used to run into alot of those kinds of anarchist posers in high-school, they used to hate on all the ROTC guys like me lol
Well whatever the future of us Southrons, we must preserve our culture and history.
Ok that's a really good answer lol a volunteer militia with possible funding from private agencies. I've run into alot of people who call themselves anarchists and when I ask them a question like that they get compltely stumped and just quit talking to me lol anyway, I was just curious of your take on it man.
So I watched some of the videos to the side there man, but im curious as to what your opinion is. So hypothetically speaking, say that America became an anarchist, stateless society, and some time after that a foreign power invaded the U.S, not to take over our government, but for something else, like say resources, the oil in Texas and Alaska for example. How would the stateless society protect itself from a foreign invader if we dont have atleast a minimal government?
Is this not easier in a model where the individuals comprising the society are essentially of the same cultural heritage? What is the difference between the model you propose and the situation in Somalia?
I think we ought to have a constitutional anarchy. That is an anarchy where simple principals are expected to be followed by everyone. Principals like "actions may be subject to physical retaliation, statements may not," and "Respect the right-of-way in traffic," and "an acre of kingdom per individual."
You know... a basic outline of the kind of behaviors one can expect from people everywhere one goes, for one's own safety while travelling.
I'm more than a little sympathetic to your position, but eternal vigilance is something one has to maintain whether one has a state or not. In the paradigm of a state the people keep an eye on the state. In the anarchist model people have to watch each other. The case can be made that that is the situation under a state system as well.
your thoughts are very idealistic, but so is the plan of the "founding fathers"...it sounds plausible but its just not propable...i hate to sound like a "wet blanket" but in my study of the world and human psyche i find that people are creatures of habit and they will always resort to having a few govern many...placing power in to the hands of the "choosen ones" which leads to corruption...its an ugly vicious cycle that has been going on since the beginning of time..promote values and morals..
people are abusive and unsatisfiable...any system will not be good enough...people claim they dont want to be ruled, but they do, and most need to...sad, but there are only a percentage of people who can control themselves
Good Answer Eric, so now what Justifies the determination of right and wrong within the community is the majority will of society to live under law, right?
My point is that simple tribal societies, while imperfect in terms of absolute freedom, tend to have very happy citizens, as rule is by consensus (or a council of elders).
But most importantly, personal contentment is NOT technology/convenience based. It is in close, supportive interpersonal relationships. THAT makes them feel loved & whole as persons.
You may be right about cooling - but I am not qualified to comment on that....not my field:p
As to 'trading liberty for security = losing both'...most fall for this trap & will not awaken until it is too late. Keep giving them cheap beer & football (bread & circuses) & they will shut up & comply with whatever the TV tells them to think.
Aside from the greed in men, we have the problem of BOTH collusive groups (i.e. Masonry) & the intergeneration training of new elite/controllers. The 'black hole' does suck them in & also attracts them like moths to a flame.
We cannot eliminate greed in men. We CAN minimize the opportunities for making the elitist overarching control over others a 'career'.
The Idea and theory of government is Not the problem, ITs greedy and hateful people in positions of control. Every group and generation has this type person.
the problem is that we have alot of uncertainty right now, and people want security. they would rather have certainty instead of liberty. BTW, do you believe in global warming?
what you say is true, but i looked up Minarchism and it's exactly what a libertarianism is: minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism,[1] small government, or limited-government libertarianism[2]) refers to a political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression.
Clearly observable in both cities & rural towns. The 'elite' are generationally raised to be the presumed 'rightful controllers'. Having met some of these types, they DO seriously think they have an innate right to control, manipulate, plunder - & persecute those peons who get in their way.
We are conditioned to respect & obey them as our duly elected/appointed leaders.
This is the "Mammon' of which Christ spoke of as being the evil of this world; supported by organized religion...
It is interesting to note that the 'illiteralte savages", i.e. indigenous tribal ppls, are usually very content with their standard of living....dare I say happy with it?:)
In any documentary of such a group all I see is friendly & genuine smiles on their faces. It does not seem to bother them that they do not have granite kitchen counters or PCs:)
But neither have they taxes....and things are usually decided by mutual consensus of the group.....
I don't have a problem with having my views challenged, otherwise I wouldn't be here in areas I'm in. If anything you are the one that can't handle anyone that disagrees.
I have a problem with other people making unfounded and baseless assumptions about why I hold those views in the first place.
But you ARE telling me how to live my life. You are saying that if I choose to use a state then I'm 1. doing it wrong and 2. a conditioned, mindless corporate minion.
I agree with a vast majority of your ideologies I believe in a contractual society which from the near as I can tell is the way an anarcho system would be "regulated" I wanted to get your thoughts on this. On that note the statists argument of anarchy = chaos. Why convince them to change their definition when you can just change the term? Example, The estate tax became the death tax and global warming became climate change. essentially the same thing they just changed for desired effect.
STATE - Politically organized system of people, system of rules which exercise authority and jurisdiction.
Society can be "stateless" without political government organization, which is Anarchy. OR it can voluntarily assemble together to form political government which is the state.
"Restore the constitution!" "Bla...bla...bla... Tam-tata-tam-tam!!! Booo!" That is not the way to discuss in a sivilized manner, to all you bullhorners.
Take that one Alex-Bullhorn Wild-Goose-Chase, you know who... Touché!
anarcho-capitalism: my favorite oxymoron
gonzopoet00 2 weeks ago
"Defend the Constitution! Restore the Republic!"
me: nope.avi
MutantBamHammer 1 month ago
Out of curiosity, what is your view on Ayn Rand's philosophy?
Seargent363 5 months ago
@Seargent363 it's shite.
gonzopoet00 2 weeks ago
Interesting argument, one ? do you have an example of when anarchism has worked ?
jcb1416 5 months ago
I never heard of this before.I think I'll send the link to my 14 year old son.We talk about the system we live under today.We both agree that there could be a better system.However no one has come up with a better way.I like what you said at the end of the video about a citizen being killed and they call it a murder.Yet when it is a political leader they call it an assassination.I have wondered myself why they call it an assassination when a political leader is murdered?
WilliamHBonney55 8 months ago
@WilliamHBonney55 Its probably called that because of motivation. Who murders a politician for reasons other than how this person has executed their position?
liOVERLOADil 5 months ago
@liOVERLOADil
Thanks!
WilliamHBonney55 5 months ago
'possibility' of evil??
Are you living on the moon?
Incrue 11 months ago
@ InTheEndIWasRight - Sir, in a stateless society, you will always have powerful groups and leaders who will splinter a country as a whole into many parts, forming states on their own. We've seen it in the history of England where you had so many kings and rulers, fighting against each other until you had one supreme monarch. Hence, my friend, so long human nature craves for power, there will never be a lasting Anarchy! At least a Minarchy would have these elements of power under control. Peace
Mwaterfall 1 year ago
Wait, is this guy an anarchist? Fucking hell mate, you can shoot holes in states as much as you want, but anarchism pretty much shoots holes in itself.
As Winston Churchill said, democracy is a terrible way to run a country, it just happens to be better than all the others.
Also, in justifying anarchy he pretty much just dismissed that any foresight was possible but yet still advocates it?
He's a fucking decade away from convincing me, came across as selfish to me, not a freedom lover.
ihaterobbie123 1 year ago
I'm a stratocratic minarchist & I enjoyed that video/ narrative slide show.
emeryevery1 1 year ago
Im a minarchist. I hate Government as much as everyone else and ideally i wouldnt any around, but it always goes back to the security issues for me. I just wonder how it would all work.
PikSokolit 1 year ago
The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, The Constitution, the Founding Fathers all failed. The Solution?: Let's go back and do it again.
BacchanalianJ 1 year ago
Excellent video!
MrHolipsism 1 year ago
2:53 - That's precisely the conclusion I drew several weeks ago after nearly three years of requests for money (usually $100 or more), signatures, and phone calls to Congress from liberty-minded political candidates and activist groups. Good on them for popularizing freedom to an extent, but just give me my HK USP .45 and DRO services for a flat monthly fee. I want to spend my free time pursuing hobbies and having fun, not watching the watchmen.
BiffMP5 1 year ago 5
@BiffMP5 Here here. Happy to see another person has lost belief in the legitimacy of the state.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago 2
@InTheEndIWasRight The pleasure's all mine, friend.
BiffMP5 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight What would a stateless society do if another country invaded?
HardcoreCapitalist 1 year ago
@HardcoreCapitalist Fight back like any sane person would.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago 4
@InTheEndIWasRight the invading country would have the advantage. They would have organization, order, and funding unlike your stateless society. You're utopia would fail within days...
HardcoreCapitalist 1 year ago
@HardcoreCapitalist Not true. And when has anyone said stateless defenses would not have organization, order and funding? lol And utopia? These criticisms are grade school.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago 5
@HardcoreCapitalist The Us tried that in Vietnam and Iraq. They have failed.
Emil246 1 year ago 2
@InTheEndIWasRight You could be more specific. PMC's is what you are really talking about.
The fact is, the strongest fist rules, in an anarchic state, this would eventually be the dominating/merging/fighting PMC's. Businesses are set up to compete after all. The most important factor, is the amount of people it would take to actually want an anarchistic society will never be there. So the 'utopian' ideal is not that the end result would be perfect, but that it could even happen and substain
Clyaton 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight Minarchism has plenty of problems, but it's been shown to be quite good for society, America is a prime example. Under anarchism, we are merely being oppressed in a million and one possible ways as opposed to minarchism, which generally only oppresses us part of the time and is subject to change. Very general statement but people write books on this stuff so what's the point? I'd grab my cam, but I'd have to put on more clothes :( Fuck that
Clyaton 1 year ago
@HardcoreCapitalist Anarchists believes a private military would defend the country. I wonder what incentive this military would have to defend the country if no centralized organization were around to pay them to do it. Who would pay for this military? Who controls it? What makes you think the commander of this military will do so honorably? What does the commander deem honorable; who defined these terms? Without a centralized governance how can these terms be universal?
liOVERLOADil 5 months ago
The problem with anarchists is they want a society, and they want it without governance. You can't have one without the other. Look at the internet. Ever been banned from a forum? Apparently even when people are left to their own devices they choose authority and totaltatarinsm. Real life has more means to create checks and balances. Mostly through the barrel of a gun. Even if they had the chance, people wouldn't exist in peace. So fuck them and their liberty.
JimProfitCat 1 year ago
@JimProfitCat I dont call myself an "anarchist" anymore. And I am not against governance, I am opposed to the state and statism.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight Great video. In the increasingly likely event that the US State collapses, I do see a potential attitudinal barrier with people in the US wanting to become the new Founding Fathers, and want to reconstruct Camelot aka. The State with a new Constitution, or a return to the Founding as their patriotic duty. How warranted or unwarranted do you think this fear is.
leavesofliberty 1 year ago
It cannot stay the same size. Population continues to grow, the state has to grow to accommodate the growing size of people. It needs more authority and power in comparison to the power and authority of the individual just to maintain the same amount of authority and power it had over a single individual, because the population is growing. More people = Less Power and Authority of Individuals. This is the nature of a democracy. 50 people more power to the individual, 500 people less power.
Tom101229 1 year ago
@Tom101229 Then what about territorial expansions of the state? And also a man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
Territorial expansion is to accommodate more room for its growing population.
It makes the population less dense, therefore allows more control to subdivisions, because there is an increase in land with a decrease in people. Tis why Russia is a Federal Republic. And why France is not.
Humans are not slaves. When humans are forced into actual servitude they usually do a very horrible job, which results in tyranny to promote better results. Unfortunately hostility is always met with hostility.
Tom101229 1 year ago
@Tom101229 /watch?v=L0ekDGlWumo "We" are not the State. And you have to look at acquisition of land. The state is illegitimate in your or I's preferences. They either conquer the land or just claim it. Politicians do not homestead the land or work it. People do, not the people that make up the state. I have other videos explaining a lot of the basics if your interested. But I seriously cant type it all out.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
Actually under a democracy, we are the state. The problem is majority democracy only makes the majority be the state. Under a consensus democracy, everyone is the state.
The reason why we are not the state is due to being the minority in a democratic decision and due to having non-elected officials deciding issues on our behalf such as the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court, the CIA, the FBI, the Presidential Cabinet, and even the Presidency due to being elected indirectly.
Tom101229 1 year ago
The illegitimate under my preferences. What is illegitimate is how the state is govern and how it functions. Not the state it self. Not that a state exists. Not that a state does what a state does, but how it is done and how it gets decided.
That what you speak about involving claiming or conquering land is a principle of propertarianism. To argue against property is libertarianism. Property is slavery. To have property is to be enslaved. I argue for a territorial society rather property.
Tom101229 1 year ago
@Tom101229 Property is slavery? So have a state control all this territory and be "free" that way? Property is not slavery. If you own yourself, by your logic you are enslaved to yourself.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
If the state has property, then it is enslaved. If people have property then they are enslaved. If territory is controlled, it becomes property. In order for territory to not become property, no one must control it.
Property is slavery. If I am your property, I am your slave. And due to the duo nature of human beings, what goes around comes around. If I am your slave, you are also my slave. Tis why people who own cats are also owned by their cats until they get rid of them or neglect them.
Tom101229 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"If you own yourself, by your logic you are enslaved to yourself. "
Yes that is true. Regardless of how ridiculous that is, it is also true. What we determine to be right is not the same as what is true. Right and true are two different things, because are comfort seekers. We reside upon things that are comforting to us. Doesn't matter if they are true or not, that subject is entirely different.
Right and wrong are subjective and interpreted by the individual. They don't actually exist.
Tom101229 1 year ago
The difference between what is depicted owner and what is depicted slave is the same as what is depicted right and what is depicted is wrong. It is all illusion in the mind. It doesn't actually exist. You must take care of your slave as your slave holds a value as an irreplaceable commodity, especially slavery was getting expensive prior to the civil war. A slave was worth 1,000 dollars of what a dollar was worth back then. How much do you think that is in today's standards?
Tom101229 1 year ago
Since slavery was expensive and a slave was pretty much irreplaceable, the owner was very much dependent upon his slaves and therefore is enslaved by his own slaves.
As I have said, human nature hold a duo relationship. We talk and communicate through a duo relationship. I talk to you, you talk back. It is a called dialogue or communication under a duo relationship.
What is right is what is subjective to the mind of the beholder. What is true is what is actually going on. Tis the difference.
Tom101229 1 year ago
You can be enslaved by yourself. If you are dependent upon yourself to do everything and not on others, you are enslaved by yourself. By this I mean, you don't ask for help when it is offered. You don't allow other people to help you. That is what it means to have enslaved yourself.
Some people don't have a problem with this and we do all the time when we say such things as "I can do whatever the hell I want to do.
You have to understand the difference of what is right and what is true.
Tom101229 1 year ago
@Tom101229 "Property is slavery" unless this propery happens to be an uber-awesome supercomputer that has a chip implanted in your head that electroshocks you unless you fulfill it's wishes, and it's aims are unknown to you but you are forbiden by the chip from figuring out, for this monolithic abomination seeks control for it's own dark reasons, if it's not that, property isn't slavery
arachnophile01 1 year ago
Politicians are just tools dude. Politicians work for whoever pays them. In a society structured on which the GDP is the most important aspect of state's strength as defined in international relations (how one states dominates another) and how politicians must require money to campaign and be elected, it is clear that those who control money, control the system. And what controls the distribution of money are banks.
Our politicians aren't even free to make their own decisions, they are slaves.
Tom101229 1 year ago
Humans are not able to be met with actual satisfying results unless they can put the confidence in themselves to do a good job. This requires discipline, motivation, skill, knowledge, determination, and most of all intention.
The intention to do the job has to be there.
The reason why our societies suck for the most part is because they are built around the ideology of sheepherding, Christianity and Islam for the most part.
For a society to function properly it must be a human society.
Tom101229 1 year ago
The reason Ive drifted toward minarchy is bc/ anarchists seem to argue from a vacuum. The political reality is that there are very few of us who see the state for the hungry blob it is. Arguing over which is right (anarchism or minarchy) in terms of the state is like 2 hunters having confronted an angry grizzly and then arguing over whether to use a rifle or pepper spray. All those who see the state as a danger need to unite. Otherwise it will only grow bigger.
And I need to add mia culpa TBH
madscirat 1 year ago
It seems to me, that If the entire world were stateless, the first society to develop a state would have superior resources and organization to conquer the stateless. The incentive would be acquisition of resources, and would be inevitable based on our nature (one shaped by natural selection).
Just a thought that popped into my head... Im new to all this anarchism, minarchism, libertarian stuff, and im just trying to work my way through the viewpoints. (i study biology, not pol sci.)
my4rk89 1 year ago
Well first what is a state, but projected authority? If one person wishes to be "king" in a stateless society then that person must gain the ideological support of a majority of the populace. A state can only be soundly maintained though ideological support, as a 100% marginal state, that is one enforced totally enforced by force.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
In other words, people have authority over the state even if they don't realize it. Because the sustainability of a state rests on the ideological conformity and/or consensus of the population.
This isn't bad and in fact it is actually pretty good. The problem with the state is that if there exists more than one, it is problematic for humans. Humans must seek a consensus of conformity in order for there to be peace, prosperity, and harmony.
One world government that is all it takes.
Tom101229 1 year ago
Wouldn't a state evolve from a stateless society? Isn't that how the state came about in the first place?
amalwaysawsome 1 year ago
Nah, the first states arose out of religious cults. But in order to have a state you must have an ideological belief in the states authority. If thats not there, then there is no state. There is no way there can be 100% marginal state, that is one totally enforced by violence.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight I'm proud to say I'm no longer a minarchist.
amalwaysawsome 1 year ago
@amalwaysawsome Thats fantastic! Congrats :)
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
so anything goes in a stateless society?
wolverine10mm 1 year ago
@wolverine10mm No way.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
With out a constitution and laws that written down how do you know what your rights are?
wolverine10mm 1 year ago
Stateless societies would have laws to govern them. Its depending on what type of society statless capitalists, socialists, primitivists ect would all have different views, so it depends on where one falls. If you value private property and a free market, associate with a stateless capitalist society, and so on and so forth.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
What do you mean by your use of the phrase "stupid old Ale Gore"? :)
Peace.
gegebird 2 years ago
but if people do form voluntary governments doesn't that in itself make it minarchism? therefore an anarchist society will never exist for a long term.
DecimusAquila 2 years ago
It's been a while eric, anyway in responce to your video, I have always felt sympathetic towords anarchists although I don't quite agree myself, even if we had an anarchist society people would eventually band together for their own protection (that's just human nature) thats how governments get started, everything has to start small at some point, anarchy would most likely result in neo-feudelism rather then any sort of freedom unfortunatly. human nature is in itself corrupt.
DecimusAquila 2 years ago
...So we will never have perfect system of government and even if we had no government, some form of government (no matter how small) would eventually form, (ever heard the term "order out of chaos"?) personally I'm an advocate of small government and I accept the fact that it will eventually get too big, thats why the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots. A revolution is on it's way my friend, it's coming sooner rather then later.
DecimusAquila 2 years ago
Don't kid yourself, i was saying that in 2003, it's not going to happen. The people are docile, anarchists are the only ones that will do anything (and even then, it's small).
sbmillionair 2 years ago
@DecimusAquila That's all fine and dandy but you have in no way made a rational argument for the legitimacy of any government whatsoever.
landgabriel 2 years ago
@DecimusAquila I should say, any STATE government whatsoever. Self governance is fine by me.
landgabriel 2 years ago
"Voluntary Government" is an oxymoron; government is an entity that claims and exercises a monopoly on the initiation of violence. Ordo ab chao? Ever heard the term "spontaneous order"? Things tend to order themselves a lot more appropriately when every party involved in any given interactions has power to negotiate within, or discontinue, those interactions. A voluntary society will exist for the long term when people stop fantasizing that the state, in any form, is "for their own good".
baggytheo 1 year ago
Society has a minority of "evil, greedy, psychos?"
Uhhh.. Last time I checked over 100 million people turned out to VOTE (an act of pure, unadulterated evil) in the last election. I'd say that "evil" constitutes the majority.
Anyone who isn't an anarchist is evil. Government and evil are synonymous terms.
Your right though that they are psychos (as in psychopaths). Statism is an anti-social personality disorder.
icfnord 2 years ago
I don't see voting as evil, I see it as ignorant. Or at the very least, naive (for those who think they can break the system down from the inside).
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
>> I don't see voting as evil
Really? So you don't see how robbing people and committing acts of mass-murder as evil? I fail to see how it isn't. Just because you're not personally shoving people into the ovens doesn't mean your not guilty. Youre still a willing part of the system that made it happen.
Anyone who supports the existence of any government is a mass-murderer. If voters were brought up on conspiracy charges they'd be found guilty by a government court.
icfnord 2 years ago
Do you pay taxes? Just because I do doesn't mean I support the government. I would love to not pay taxes, but as an individual, I don't really have the choice not to.
I would argue that taxation supports the state more than voting, although I concede that voting helps to perpetuate the ideological state. But there could still be a state without voting.
Sure, most of the people who voted probably do support the state, but I don't think you can draw the conclusion that anyone who votes does.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
>> Do you pay taxes?
Voting is a voluntary act.
Paying taxes is not voluntary. I pay taxes because if I didn't pay the income tax they would murder me and if I didn't pay the sales tax I would starve to death.
They are not the same thing. The taxpayer is a victim. The voter is the one committing the crime.
icfnord 2 years ago
Right, but voting itself does not indicate support of the state, the same way that using state services does not.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
> not indicate support of the state
Voting IS an act of supporting the state. Regardless of who you vote for a vote is still an endorsement of voting and ergo an endorsement of government and mass-murder.
The only exception is when voting NO on specific issues (eg a new tax) The election of anyone will lead to the perpetuation of evil (the voter is responsible) regardless of who that candidate is
using state services
So you'e saying that there's nothing wrong with receiving stolen property?
icfnord 2 years ago
Well yeah, if I'm forced to pay for it anyway, why shouldn't I use it? Especially since I can't afford to pay for my own roads, etc.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
I was simply asking a question. There isnt anything wrong with taking stolen property from a thief. On the contrary, taking things from the government is an act of virtue. After all, every dollar you take from the government is a dollar that they cant use to murder someone. You are saving lives. Plus, every dollar drained from the ponzi scheme hastens the day of its total collapse
Taking resources from a gang of theives and murderers is an act of love The only thing more heroic is killing a cop
icfnord 2 years ago
Yeah, the sooner it breaks, the better.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Well economically speaking government has already sown the seeds of its own destruction. The psychological problem is a lot more difficult to deal with. We aren't ever going to have freedom as long as america is populated by 300 million psychotics with anti-social personality disorders. If you could undermine the voting mechanism it would help cut back on crime though since most people are too cowardly to commit such acts directly.
icfnord 2 years ago
Nice work.
My journey to Anarchism started with becoming a "Constitutionalist" and then trying to defend that stance against hard-core Statists.
I think a lot of folks transition through to Anarchism slooowly, and videos like this may help!
RVqueen 2 years ago
Good points, but the same could happen to anarchy too. If you want to check out my views, look at minarchyunited (dot) blogspot (dot) com
Keiseroll 2 years ago
Those are good points, but an anarchy could also slip into a different system as well. If you want to look at my views, check out minarchyunited (dot) blogspot (dot) com
Keiseroll 2 years ago
I am not a big fan of labels.
Roughly speaking, I am a Minarchist-primitivist.
NoLongerFooled 2 years ago
Well, just so you know, I am one of your subs.
NoLongerFooled 2 years ago
1. Generally, yes. However, one should guard against letting it make one feel superior to others.
2. Huh!?
3. No, I'm not. What gave you that idea? I'm simply giving you a heads up.
NoLongerFooled 2 years ago
In a sense, yes.
Overall, I have observed that you tend to "over-think" concepts to death. Just my opinion.
BTW, I'll wager that about 98% of people on the planet would not agree with you that Ireland was once an "Anarchist society".............so, where the pre-Colombian Native Americans as well?
I think you missed my point about tribal society a few posts back, altogether.
Where's your message board? YouTurd comment box sucks for discussions.
NoLongerFooled 2 years ago
In the Western world? Are you joking?
NoLongerFooled 2 years ago
You are talking about a tribal society.
The family unit is the last vestige of tribal society. That is why is it under such vicious attack by the NWO.
Only family members stand up for each other against unjust authority.
NoLongerFooled 2 years ago
I have a question.
Can you point back in history to a great Anarchic society? How long did it last?
NoLongerFooled 2 years ago
Wow, this video has given me much to think about. Nice work.
Hatesfury08 2 years ago
1:31
The government had its way with healthcare before our great grandparents were born so i'm not sure what you mean there.
McDicker96 2 years ago
About Private nukes.
The fact that greedy people controll a group of people makes them want to selfishly protect them.
Anarchistic depressed person with a nuke sounds wery bad.
edewit08 2 years ago
The answer to the "What about roving bands of murders." is: In a Stateless society I will be able to have a BAR to protect myself. Where as now, I have to get an anal exam and pay a $200.00 extortion fee (tax) to the State.
M14Mann 2 years ago
I did not say we should not allow people to reach that conclusion. I am saying we as individuals need to take responsibly if we want no-state or a very limited state. We need to talk about this.
peepnklown 2 years ago
Utopia would be the best end, but it is not going to happen in reality. You want no-state and I want a very limited small state. Which founders do you speak of? A few wanted no federal government, a few wanted a very limited federal government, and a few wanted a strong federal government.
peepnklown 2 years ago
I used to be a minarchist, but I ran out of excuses...
Incivist 2 years ago 12
The US Constitution is flawed because, we as humans are flawed but, the US Constitution does provide a good foundation to build on. It sets the stage for limited government and we can and we should upgrade it to produce a better limited government.
peepnklown 2 years ago
I was talking about people taking responsibility for their state. It is really a double edged sword; the state vs. private groups providing police, courts, etc. So, I am saying instead of going around and around with this state vs. anti-state thing, we should be discussing the responsibilities of the masses.
peepnklown 2 years ago
I still think we need a uniform structure when it comes to certain things; which is why I would want a very small and limited government but, again it will take a responsible population.
peepnklown 2 years ago
There might be no central State but; you still have room for groups who will be providing goods and services to grow into monsters. So, we cannot pretend that removing the State; no matter how small it is or how big it is will eliminate or solve the issues. We both want similar things if we allow ourselves to see them. What we need is an informed, involved and a more impendent type of masses.
peepnklown 2 years ago
I do not think the constitution is a magic piece of paper nor do I think I get my rights from it. In a stateless society I assume we will still have contracts with groups or people we do business with thus, does that become a magic piece of paper?
peepnklown 2 years ago
Yes, minarchist must be vigilant on watching the state but, what do you think you have to do when you have no state? You have to be vigilant in protecting your life, liberty, and property and vigilant in making sure the groups you buy goods and services from are providing such goods and services.
peepnklown 2 years ago
Im a minarchist but, I am a friend of the anarchist.
peepnklown 2 years ago
...private protection?
I'm not criticising the arguments you made in this video, nor am I saying that anarcho-capitalism wouldn't work. I'm pretty new to Austrian economics and market anarchism, so these are questions which I am genuinely pursuing answers for.
Cheers,
VanDoodah.
P.S. Keep up the good work.
VanDoodah 2 years ago
One reason that I am attracted to minarchism as opposed to anarchism is that I am not sure that everyone would have the ability to access private law courts. If one is middle-class or upper-class, then it shouldn't be a problem, but how would working-class people have access to courts if they could not afford them?
The same problem extends to policing - private protection could be afforded by the wealthy, and probably by most middle-class people as well, but would the poor be able to afford...
VanDoodah 2 years ago
Very well spoken.
Anarchism though percieved as radical is the most natural political belief and really is actually instinctive is humans.
An elite can create a society where whoever is born into it will believe being ruled and having authorites over them is natural.
The elite social engineers have used the same technique down through the ages because it has work every time and that is manipulation of human instinct and emotion.
thepeacecat 2 years ago
ok, i got you know, so you mean the police, CIA, FBI, ect...?
1freedomfighter11 2 years ago
There was no links or nothing like that, i was just trying to say it is really hard to understand what you are saying sometimes, you say your not against the states but then you are? I gets a little confusing lol.
1freedomfighter11 2 years ago
Very astute observation on the bugs to bug zapper analogy. You're so right, the best leaders generally have nothing to do with politics.
funkymonkey1930 2 years ago 4
it wont let me post my comment? Oh well gl lol.
1freedomfighter11 2 years ago
test
1freedomfighter11 2 years ago
part 1: Ok i watched the video, I see now what you are saying, it would be great to get rid of all governmental institutions i agree, but there needs to be some type of organisation for defense and safety from criminals and infrastructure.
1freedomfighter11 2 years ago
part 2: I agree with you in some sense, perhaps the key would be limited time in offices that do these things and open transparency always. Put not continual positions for individuals that eventually become corrupt. By the way there is no law saying you have to pay income tax, but they will get you one way or another so you are right.
Peace.
1freedomfighter11 2 years ago
No, I do not advocate violence what so ever unless it is for defence. You are putting words in my mouth, I hate big government and there lust for power. I do not agree with big government at all, they need to be reminded they work for us from time to time, by eliminating the states you give more power to big government, so do you disagree with 31 states claiming sovereignty from the government because of all the BS they agree trying to pull right now?
1freedomfighter11 2 years ago
"regular people get murdered, politicians are 'assasinated' ", lol
AfricanPrince 2 years ago
I am not advocate violence on dencenters, i am advocating violence if need be to protect our freedoms from people that would not care about your stateless world. You make no sense, you say each group can hire people to do things but in a sense you are still talking about organisation running things, government. I think what you are really striving for is less government involvement, that is a good thing.
Peace.
1freedomfighter11 2 years ago
It all sounds great and rosy but how decides who gets to fix the roads and bridges if no one decides to volunteer for it, you? And unfortunately there are bad men in this world that will form organisations for power and control and only organizations will stop them,i understand this is where we are today but that is because people don't fight to defend there freedoms,so yes violence is necessary sometimes when it is going to be used against us,good luck with whatever you are trying to accomplish
1freedomfighter11 2 years ago
Like I said that would be awesome in an enlighten society, i will even go so far as to say perhaps if they where not force drugging people through things like fluoridated water and such we may be much closer to a utopian society that you discus. I don't like big government and ridiculous rules either,and i think government should be continually limited,but i still think we need them for infrastructure and to maintain some law and order because frankly people are not mature enough yet to do this.
1freedomfighter11 2 years ago
No laws are written by the very same people you are denouncing, i know these people abuse there own laws like not paying taxes but these things happen because people don't stand up to fight for freedom or fairness. Maybe I am not understanding you correctly here, are you saying just get rid of states and have one government running everything or get rid of both?
1freedomfighter11 2 years ago
Because no one stands up to defend liberty. I see what you are saying and i completely respect your opinion, i really wish we could live in a world that we are all equals and no one has more power than another but every single person would need to be enlightened like you clearly are, but what you are saying right now is akin to saying we don't need laws against murder when we clearly have murderers around, see what I mean? laws are just something written on paper as well.
1freedomfighter11 2 years ago
so what is wrong with free speech, the right to bare arms, the right to a seedy trial and unlawful seizure? Your ideals are great in a world full of good men, unfortunately that is not the case.
1freedomfighter11 2 years ago
I see what your saying but the constitution was written for the people by the people, the lack of people defending it does not take away from the constitution and what it stands for.
1freedomfighter11 2 years ago
I think the only possible way we could see a successful stateless society is to have one with great moral backing. I think we as Americans are further from a great moral backing than we have ever been before. That's probably why I am a minarchist. If we could show people how great it would be with little government, then maybe people could learn to function without one. I think the first step though would be to instill good values in society.
ajhinfairbanks 2 years ago
"Why do I need to give up my liberty and freedom just because there is a possibility for evil in society." That pretty much sums up my ideals for governments. Although I have to admit I would have to consider myself a "minarchist" (I had never heard of that before), I would have to say, I would take anarchy over our current government today.
ajhinfairbanks 2 years ago
Im starting to understand what your saying now. Very interesting, ill have to look into more.
Phoenixhunter08 2 years ago
Lol yeah I know right, I actually talked to the principle to see if we could get a civics class into the schedule, but that wasn't until my junior year so who knows, they may have one by now. But yeah, it's crazy lol
circlecityrabbit2004 2 years ago
Somalia is presented through a specific lens that would tend to emphasize the negative. I have never been there so I don't know if it is spontaneous order or a true chaos. Don't get me started on the UN please. I might bust a blood vessel.
steve0281 2 years ago
Nope, crazy right? lol
circlecityrabbit2004 2 years ago
Yeah all of the people who want nothing but more wealth and power will always be attracted to positions of power, sad but it's reality.
Yep, try and make sure we show the future generations the way.
Lol yeah we never really payed much attention to the people that cracked on us lol what's sad is because they dont even realize what anarchism is, a civics class in my high-school would have been really useful lol
circlecityrabbit2004 2 years ago
Volunteer government, a revolutionary concept nowdays, sadly governing with the consent of the governed is a foreign term anymore. But, hopefull it wont be that way forever, i'd love to see it within my lifetime but if not, well then all we can do is try and do what we believe to be right.
Lol yeah I used to run into alot of those kinds of anarchist posers in high-school, they used to hate on all the ROTC guys like me lol
circlecityrabbit2004 2 years ago
Well whatever the future of us Southrons, we must preserve our culture and history.
Ok that's a really good answer lol a volunteer militia with possible funding from private agencies. I've run into alot of people who call themselves anarchists and when I ask them a question like that they get compltely stumped and just quit talking to me lol anyway, I was just curious of your take on it man.
circlecityrabbit2004 2 years ago
So I watched some of the videos to the side there man, but im curious as to what your opinion is. So hypothetically speaking, say that America became an anarchist, stateless society, and some time after that a foreign power invaded the U.S, not to take over our government, but for something else, like say resources, the oil in Texas and Alaska for example. How would the stateless society protect itself from a foreign invader if we dont have atleast a minimal government?
circlecityrabbit2004 2 years ago
No disrespect intended man lol just curious since i'd probably qualify more as a minarchist myself.
circlecityrabbit2004 2 years ago
Is this not easier in a model where the individuals comprising the society are essentially of the same cultural heritage? What is the difference between the model you propose and the situation in Somalia?
steve0281 2 years ago
I think we ought to have a constitutional anarchy. That is an anarchy where simple principals are expected to be followed by everyone. Principals like "actions may be subject to physical retaliation, statements may not," and "Respect the right-of-way in traffic," and "an acre of kingdom per individual."
You know... a basic outline of the kind of behaviors one can expect from people everywhere one goes, for one's own safety while travelling.
HankMeyer 2 years ago
I'm more than a little sympathetic to your position, but eternal vigilance is something one has to maintain whether one has a state or not. In the paradigm of a state the people keep an eye on the state. In the anarchist model people have to watch each other. The case can be made that that is the situation under a state system as well.
steve0281 2 years ago
when people have impeccable high standards of morality and values, then and only then, will people have a fighting chance at "slaveless" freedom
takethat2thebank 2 years ago
your thoughts are very idealistic, but so is the plan of the "founding fathers"...it sounds plausible but its just not propable...i hate to sound like a "wet blanket" but in my study of the world and human psyche i find that people are creatures of habit and they will always resort to having a few govern many...placing power in to the hands of the "choosen ones" which leads to corruption...its an ugly vicious cycle that has been going on since the beginning of time..promote values and morals..
takethat2thebank 2 years ago
people are abusive and unsatisfiable...any system will not be good enough...people claim they dont want to be ruled, but they do, and most need to...sad, but there are only a percentage of people who can control themselves
takethat2thebank 2 years ago
good, we are on the same page
aesopstruth 2 years ago
So its better to retain local forms of government while doing away with national and global empires?
aesopstruth 2 years ago
IF people would then split apart into opposing groups, How would that make a united community?
aesopstruth 2 years ago
Good Answer Eric, so now what Justifies the determination of right and wrong within the community is the majority will of society to live under law, right?
aesopstruth 2 years ago
i agree,and i like how you explain these ideas
chatsworthsharp420 2 years ago
ERIC you wrote that right and wrong are subjective, determined by individual preference.
aesopstruth 2 years ago
So if person A does Not Like person B, then person A could kill person B and not face condemnation?
aesopstruth 2 years ago
IF There is No right or wrong, how can there be consequences?
aesopstruth 2 years ago
how does the anarchy society know for certain that it has the correct understanding of something?
aesopstruth 2 years ago
Within the Anarchy system who And/OR what determines the rightness or wrongness of anything?
aesopstruth 2 years ago
What Laws does the anarchic court follow, observe and enforce?
aesopstruth 2 years ago
Group A1 approaches hill from the East
Group B2 approaches hill from the West
Niether group knows nothing about the other.
Both groups claim ownership while cultivating their own side of hill for over hundred years.
Army C3 marches from the North
Army D4 marches from the south
Without any governmental Statist organization how is this dispute resolved?
aesopstruth 2 years ago
A state just means territory, the problem is forced government.
MachineLegion 2 years ago
LOL!!!
My point is that simple tribal societies, while imperfect in terms of absolute freedom, tend to have very happy citizens, as rule is by consensus (or a council of elders).
But most importantly, personal contentment is NOT technology/convenience based. It is in close, supportive interpersonal relationships. THAT makes them feel loved & whole as persons.
19lfm12 2 years ago
You may be right about cooling - but I am not qualified to comment on that....not my field:p
As to 'trading liberty for security = losing both'...most fall for this trap & will not awaken until it is too late. Keep giving them cheap beer & football (bread & circuses) & they will shut up & comply with whatever the TV tells them to think.
....like lemmings to the sea:)
19lfm12 2 years ago
Aside from the greed in men, we have the problem of BOTH collusive groups (i.e. Masonry) & the intergeneration training of new elite/controllers. The 'black hole' does suck them in & also attracts them like moths to a flame.
We cannot eliminate greed in men. We CAN minimize the opportunities for making the elitist overarching control over others a 'career'.
19lfm12 2 years ago
The Idea and theory of government is Not the problem, ITs greedy and hateful people in positions of control. Every group and generation has this type person.
aesopstruth 2 years ago
the problem is that we have alot of uncertainty right now, and people want security. they would rather have certainty instead of liberty. BTW, do you believe in global warming?
megaminxmaster 2 years ago
but i thought statism was "big government"? and besides, how do you propose we "eliminate the virus?"
megaminxmaster 2 years ago
minarchism is the ideal government system. the only problem is that the state can't stop; THEY HAVE TO ABUSE US!
megaminxmaster 2 years ago
what you say is true, but i looked up Minarchism and it's exactly what a libertarianism is: minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism,[1] small government, or limited-government libertarianism[2]) refers to a political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression.
megaminxmaster 2 years ago
by a constitutionalist, do you mean a libertarian? (that's what i am)
megaminxmaster 2 years ago
Clearly observable in both cities & rural towns. The 'elite' are generationally raised to be the presumed 'rightful controllers'. Having met some of these types, they DO seriously think they have an innate right to control, manipulate, plunder - & persecute those peons who get in their way.
We are conditioned to respect & obey them as our duly elected/appointed leaders.
This is the "Mammon' of which Christ spoke of as being the evil of this world; supported by organized religion...
19lfm12 2 years ago
It is interesting to note that the 'illiteralte savages", i.e. indigenous tribal ppls, are usually very content with their standard of living....dare I say happy with it?:)
In any documentary of such a group all I see is friendly & genuine smiles on their faces. It does not seem to bother them that they do not have granite kitchen counters or PCs:)
But neither have they taxes....and things are usually decided by mutual consensus of the group.....
19lfm12 2 years ago
I don't have a problem with having my views challenged, otherwise I wouldn't be here in areas I'm in. If anything you are the one that can't handle anyone that disagrees.
I have a problem with other people making unfounded and baseless assumptions about why I hold those views in the first place.
But you ARE telling me how to live my life. You are saying that if I choose to use a state then I'm 1. doing it wrong and 2. a conditioned, mindless corporate minion.
sorienor 2 years ago
You make contradictory statements about anarchy, Thats what Im pointing out.
aesopstruth 2 years ago
thats what I wrote, but you dont agree?
You are more cracked egg than you realize.
aesopstruth 2 years ago
I agree with a vast majority of your ideologies I believe in a contractual society which from the near as I can tell is the way an anarcho system would be "regulated" I wanted to get your thoughts on this. On that note the statists argument of anarchy = chaos. Why convince them to change their definition when you can just change the term? Example, The estate tax became the death tax and global warming became climate change. essentially the same thing they just changed for desired effect.
wfrable 2 years ago
Chaotic destruction does
NOT Equal Non statist anarchy
aesopstruth 2 years ago
With Regards to the meaning
of words You are NOT Logically Correct
aesopstruth 2 years ago
ITs not a matter of helping me,
you are making a fool of yourself.
aesopstruth 2 years ago
Anarchy is NOT organized,
ITs the opposite of organization
aesopstruth 2 years ago
STATE - Politically organized system of people, system of rules which exercise authority and jurisdiction.
Society can be "stateless" without political government organization, which is Anarchy. OR it can voluntarily assemble together to form political government which is the state.
aesopstruth 2 years ago
The organization of society is government whether its minimal or maximal
aesopstruth 2 years ago
from BLACKS LAW DICT:
Anarchy - Absence of Government, people without law.
American Heritage Dict:
Anarchy - Absence of political authority, and cohesive principle, such as common purpose.
aesopstruth 2 years ago
Anarachy means the ABSENCE of Government
aesopstruth 2 years ago
By ALL Logical understanding the stateless society is the Exact OPPOSITE of any Governmental State
aesopstruth 2 years ago
"Restore the constitution!" "Bla...bla...bla... Tam-tata-tam-tam!!! Booo!" That is not the way to discuss in a sivilized manner, to all you bullhorners.
Take that one Alex-Bullhorn Wild-Goose-Chase, you know who... Touché!
PolarBeamz 2 years ago