These are are all great questions :D I think all the services the the government provides can be provided voluntarily. We need to first accept that the government is an evil organisation who claims the right to use force over its citizens through taxation and regulation. The United States is one of the best countries in the world to live in but it does not change the fact the government is evil.
I've ranted long enuff now. It would be really funny if you somehow benefited financially by the state, because that would make it nearly impossible to make you see the immorality of the state. I'm not trying to bash you or anything, but I have to be brutally honest because time is running out. The state has got you working for it and you don't even know it, since you're defending its legitimacy. If what I'm saying is not true, please present me with rational arguments. Wish you all the best.
@wherearewegoing I'm not working for anybody. I'm 68 and retired. I do depend on the state to keep its promise and continue Social Security. I paid into it my whole working life, and I feel entitled to benefit from it now. I hope for your sake that you can save enough money not to be destitute when you reach old age. You seem to think it's amusing that people like me may be cut off.
@Largo64 I might depend on the state for certain things aswell, but that doesn't mean that I feel morally wrong for doing so. It's simply because they have the monopoly of the certain things, or that I'm already paying for those services so why should I turn them down? You are entitled to benefit and I would happily work so you could do other things. I respect my elders. My heart breaks to see people working their whole lives and not getting anything for it. It's definitately not amusing.
Parents should never raise their voice against their children and abso-goddamned-lutely NEVER use any form of violence against their children. As long as a parent feeds, clothes and keep children warm they can do whatever they like because the law will always state that the parent has authority over the child. This leaves alot of room for lazy parents to just say: "Do as you're told or else..." This does NOT mean the parents always should "obey" the will of the child, this is not good either.
But that's about it. Children are under the law the parents' property, what does that remind you of? Hm... owning other people... However you might think, oh no, now we will have chaos and rebellious children running away from home because they're so greedy and selfish. Well, not if the parents actually treat them as EQUALS!?!?!!? Wow, what a radical idea, to treat people as, you yourself would wanna be treated? Where have I read that... Respect is earned and not automatically given. cont.
@wherearewegoing What you suggest is ridiculous. Children are not the equals of their parents. They arrive as blank slates in need of instruction. They do have rights, like privacy, which my parents always respected. But they are by no means equal until they have reached a maturity that enables them to care for themselves without their parents' help.
@Largo64 Are you equal to a senile person? Are you equal to a mentally disabled adult? Because, if you treat children in a certain way because their brains are "dysfunctional" in need of instruction, you could just as easily apply this to a senile or mentally disabled adult, right? Maybe you had a good childhood, but do you realise what it would take for a young child to report their parents to anyone? Most of the times it doesn't happen. Of course if you hit them etc. someone might notice.
@wherearewegoing You have a point. That's why senility is soften called "second childhood." Children are literally incompetent to care for themselves, and so are adults with alzheimer's disease (which used to be called senility).
When I talk about laws and governments I do not talk about a single government or state or laws. Children are not at all obligated to even stay with their parents, let alone "obey" them. Because if parents rape / abuse / imprison / psychologically torture their children I don't see how they should be forced to stay in that abusive surrounding. Now you will say; "But we have laws which protect children!". Well. You have to feed them, not hit them, and keep them inside the house. cont.
@wherearewegoing You are talking about the extremes of parental misbehavior as if that's the norm. The law doesn't back a parent's right to abuse children. Quite the contrary. children are removed from abusive homes. But they are still put into the care of adults who will protect them. You seem to think human children are akin to wild animals. They are not.
@Largo64 What is your definition of child abuse? I think the only actions you would consider abuse are hitting them, starving them and locking them in a confined area. Abuse is according to my definition also the following: Brainwashing young children with concepts like hell and heaven, religion in general, neglect (not talking / looking at them enough) along with several other things.
@wherearewegoing I made a video saying exactly that - that indoctrinating children with religion might well be called abuse. You will never put an end to child abuse by parents because people can just pump out babies whenever they feel like it. It amazes me that, in the US at least, you have to have training, pass a test and get a license to apply makeup to another person or to cut their hair, but you don't ave to know anything more than how to fit your parts with someone else's to be a parent.
(cont.) Given that no experience or training is necessary to become a parent, it is inevitable that child abuse will occur. The hope is that instinct, love. . . and the law will prevent most of it, but we all know cases in which children are mistreated.
cont. However, likewise you do NOT have the right to impose YOUR will on me. The only justified action of violence or coercion you rightfully can take against me is self-defence. Self-defence is universally accepted, even by most current laws, exept against the state of course because they're not under the same law as you. You and me are livestock and different rules apply to us. I dunno brother, but is that not the very definition of hm... Hypocracy?
Your questions to him / her implies you haven't read anything about anarchism at all. I'm not trying to be rude or anything. So just because the government is representative you should give ALL your soverignty to it because it really sounds like you're legitimizing it simply cuz it's representative. Vote every 4 years and feel the freedom... That's fine, as an anarchist I would never impose my will on you to decide what you should or should not do. cont.
@wherearewegoing Have you actually read this whole comment section? I explained why anarchy doesn't work, except perhaps in small groups. In communities of millions it's just chaos.
@Largo64 Anarchy does not define the "system" or organization under which individuals come together to form. Therefore you cannot simply say in communities of millions "it's just chaos". In Catalonia 3 million people organized to form a better society. Without church, economic and social oppression.
After General Francisco Franco declared war on the Spanish government in 1936 the government lost control over much of Spain. Resistance to the rebels was often organized through the confederation of anarcho-syndicalist trade unions, . The Spanish Revolution occurred almost immediately after the failed coup of Franco, leading to the formation of worker's collectives all over Republican Spain. This has been hailed as the best example of a functioning anarchist system
@mrelisamuel If it functioned so well, why isn't it functioning now? Spain has been a constitutional monarchy since the 70's. Living under a constitution and a legislature certainly doesn't sound anarchic to me.
The ignorant and short-sighted idea that people would go on mass sprees of murder, rape, and theft are completely false, because, in an anarchist society with no monopolies of power under the name of government, people would be more likely to prosper and succeed by agreeing to pacifism and dealing strictly through the exchange of goods and services, which, is the only other alternative to violence and use of force.
You continously make the assumption that "man cannot coexist without a binding code". I agree with this statement and believe that if we could truly do anything we desired then the world would indeed be chaos. This however, is certainly not the case because we are human and have limitations and cannot do everything that we wish. A major limitation of humans, and your missing "code" for order, is survival.
I don't see an answer from "Withdrawn" but I have a few comments which might help.
1. I am glad to have been born here, too. It is the least-bad government on Earth. If there were a better one, I'd go there. However, the difference between States is eroding as the FedGov increases its own power.
2. You assume a society of 300 million. I don't.
3. You assume each person would be an island unto himself. I don't. Co-Ops would provide for defense and large projects without force.
Freedom of association. If someone in a community does things that harm the community, people disassociate from them. In an complex economy like ours, where every person is literally dependent on the actions of millions of others to get even basic necessities, this is very important.
Saying the state makes laws is like saying the weather man makes the weather. It is an emergent system.
What necessetates Chaos in classlessness? Keep in mind the major Anarchist societies like Catalonia and Mahknovist Ukraine did not have burning buildings, people strangling each other, or other things you may fantacise with limited insight. I am not Anarchist, but I strongly support him in this case. Explain how Anarchy could possibly be more hellish than Capitalism today? Whoa! And this is coming from a Sectarian commie.
As long as some people have power over others they will always use it for their own good at least in most cases. That's the nature of the human being. There are no exceptions to this. It's not about USA only, it's about the whole system that works as a single mechanism. There are different gears inside but all of them serve the same purpose, and that purpose isn't good for the working class. As long as there will be power there will be fear. And YES, people can live without fear.
Peace can occur in a free society. Defense can occur in a free society. Courts can occur in a free society. Property can occur in a free society. Money can occur in a free society.
I like you, Largo, so I don't want this to come off as harsh, but to quote Christopher Hitchens, "you give me the awful impression of somebody who has never heard any arguments against your position whatsoever." There have been many counter arguments to the relevant points you bring up in this video.
@AtheistAltar It does seem a little harsh, as well as inaccurate. If you read the other comments here you see that I have attempted (possibly not to your satisfaction) to field a number of objections. If I haven't changed my opinion it means only that I differ from you. That doesn't necessarily make me wrong. (Nor right, I admit. The question remains open as far as I am concerned.)
@Largo64 I was mainly addressing the points made in the video. After prompting me to read the comment section, I hate to say it, but I stand by my Hitchens quote :)
There are plenty of anarchic scholars (mostly from Mises) that have wrote extensively on the topics such as roads, defense, and law like Block, Rothbard, and Roderick Long. The thing I did read about traffic and consent I think is faulty. Government has monopolized the product, so using it isn't signaling passive agreement.
This dude makes a bunch of tangential and irrelevant arguments. Your rebuttal couldn't even be called that. Weak sauce. I was going to rip your argument apart, but there's really nothing there. One premise is a misrepresentation and the other is a presumption. Smoke and mirrors......
And representative govt? Representative of who? You know who. The wealthy corporate interests and lobbyists.
Anarchy is a good idea because anything less isn't freedom. Ask a gorilla how chaotic his life is.
Anarchy doesn't equal chaos. I always wonder why people cant think past the time they live in. how are humans alive today we date back 10,000 years at least. Native people of this land were just fine till we arrived here. how does a frog get along in the world or a bird or any other life form.Social structure is adapted by tribe mentality the problem is the tribe is too big and has way too many chiefs and not nearly enough indians.men arent men anymore and women arent women.
men use to build homes and raise families. women use to care for the children and tend to house work. now everyone is more concerned about iphones and blueray players or whatever. our tribe mentality has been highjacked by sports and our desire to protect our family has been outsourced too police. which everyone knows police are there to rob you and clean up murder scenes. i wonder if a cop has ever stopped a crime in progress in the history of tyrants.
Excellent video. If one can withdraw consent, we may as well abolish society as well as the state and return to survival of the fittest. Contracts mean nothing without a legal framework to back up and enforce them, and that means courts, which means laws, and that means legislatures, and that means gov't :-)
Usually anarchism doesn't refer to abolishing the rule of law or the legitimacy of a government to govern, but rather to justifying and trying to eliminate systems of hierarchy.
I think the latter has some merit and is worth pondering. ConsentWithdrawn sounds like he was referring to the former though.
Also, wanting to note that anarquism is mostly promoted by intelectual or responsable people, cause they know it will work with them; but they don't think about everyone else. A perfect system requires perfect people. That's why an economy based on 100% free market doesn't work. It is the freeist system and the most perfect system; but if every world citizen isn't a responsible man (and we know that is the case) the end result will be wealth in a few hands and the rest of the world starving.
@bobsanders222 " A perfect system requires perfect people. That's why an economy based on 100% free market doesn't work."
Very good point. We've seen, and are now feeling the effects of just relaxing controls on the banking industry. If left entirely free to do what they like, bankers would own everything and the rest of us would have food or shelter only at their pleasure. It's close to that now.
@Largo64 It's not quite that simple. The banking system is still highly regulated. The nonsense that happened was not so much because of a lack of regulation. It had more to do with the artificial manipulations of the federal reserve messing with interest rates. A true free market would have kept interest rates higher and prevented the unstable practice of lending "free" money to people who couldn't realistically handle the debt load. Unfortunately, the fed reserve is not controlled by govt.
@Largo64 It's not quite that simple. The banking system is still highly regulated. The nonsense that happened was not so much because of a lack of regulation. It had more to do with the artificial manipulations of the federal reserve messing with interest rates. A true free market would have kept interest rates higher and prevented the unstable practice of lending "free" money to people who couldn't realistically handle the debt load. Unfortunately, the fed reserve is not controlled by govt.
@bobsanders222 I would argue much to the opposite. The state is like Forest Gump's leg braces. It restricts mankind's true potential, and results is a stultifying and destructive effect on the general psyche. Governments were necessary in the past, but now that borders are fixed and those people fortunate enough to live in industrialized and prosperous nations prefer to live in peace, governments are like cancers, growing uncontrollably and doing irreparable harm to human progress.
@bobsanders222 I guess my point is that governments are preventing the majority from perfection. The entire power structure relies on the ignorance of the masses. They are treated as vessels for capital and labor by the most wealthy and powerful. The internet is making ignorance slightly easier to bypass, but of course now it's flooded with advertisements.
@ScottBrown666 You may be right, but my question is this: What will happen to big enterprises without government? I think that would throw us back to an enormous difference between classes. without any kind of restrictions, executives will do whatever the heck they want to do, like in ol' time capitalism. The elimination of the government can't come without someone else regulating things, and that someone will end up taking the power. That's why I think neither anarquism nor communism can work.
@bobsanders222 Ummm.... "executives will do whatever they want"... like they do now. I don't see how they could have much more power. The government is a pawn of big business, and you know this. That's why I don't think capitalism is working. With anarchism there would presumably be a psychological revolution necessary to precipitate it's adoption, and many things would hopefully change that would deal with the capitalist threat. People would be valued for more than their economic worth.
@ScottBrown666 Can you compare the situation now with the situation during the 19th century? that's what im talking about. Progressive taxation has helped create a middle class. Of course, you could make a case that without government big corporations will not be able to camp like in the 19th, because there would be no police. But I'm more inclined to think that people would just shut up in order to survive.
@bobsanders222 The 19th century was a different world. Unlike many anarchists, I'll admit that government was probably necessary to get us here, but now it just holds us back in many ways.
I'd never vote for a society where we had to shut up in order to survive. Sounds like North Korea.
@ScottBrown666 In every society you have to shut up to survive. Of course, I don't mean this in an extreme slavish way, I'm refering to simply keeping quiet so your boss doesn't fire you. You can't tell me with a straight face that people are "totally free" nowadays. Artists, rich people, intelectuals and some special jobs maybe, but for most of the guys, no.
All that ConsentWithdrawn said is true; the most basic right of any citizen is to decide not being a citizen. But why the heck would I want to not be a citizen? Right now, is far better being a citizen than not being it, and that's why I'm one. This thing should only be taking into account when you no longer want to be one. for example, during the Vietnam war draft. I don't approve that war, I don't want to leave my family, and so I'm moving to Canada.
it's stupid to presume that anarchy = chaos. there is nothing that supports that argument. it's about as rational as someone in the 1700's saying a constitutional republic will lead to chaos simply because there is no king.
@samlevla Great comment! Anarchy has not been tried in modern times. (Somalia doesn't count because of the warlords, etc) Most people don't realize that there can still be law and order of sorts within an anarchist framework. To anyone who doesn't know what I mean, research the "Non-Aggression Principle" and "Free Market Law Enforcement". There are some really good ideas kicking around out there.
So, my comment about pre-industrial was a little off. Sounds more like you favor a stone age society of happy hippies. I think I'm done here. Thanks everyone.
@rmcdaniel423 You suppose a death of tech. innovation, but I propose that capitalism, by restricting education and materials and forcing everyone to work their days away, stifles innovation. It also does it in more direct ways. i.e: electric cars exist. No one doubts that they are superior in every way to our combustion engine, yet what do we all drive? and why is that? The capitalist virtue of course: Greed.
@ScottBrown666 You imply that capitalism is preventing the development of electric cars. I believe CRONY capitalism, where a few big companies and industries collude with govt to prevent diversity, is what you mean. A true free market economy would allow cool ideas like that to flourish. All those small companies with great ideas for future cars would be able to compete more easily. True capitalism, without the "crony" part, would be less sinister, more diverse, and more accountable.
@rmcdaniel423 No. There's no money in electric cars. Barely any maintenance. Doesn't use petrol. With a small amount of technological innovation in the area they'll easily outlast cars. That whole section of the economy would crumble faster than it is now and would only be replaced with lab techs who synthesize polymers for the battery. We'll probably use solar power and electric cars eventually, but not until we absolutely have to.
@ScottBrown666 Re: what you said about electric cars. . . that all sounds GREAT to me! That's exactly the kind of thing that a free market could offer, which is currently being stamped out of existence by the status quo. Imagine an independent little car company that could offer that type of product vs. the dinosaurs from Detroit. Believe me, there is money to be made in good ideas. And that's not a bad thing.
@rmcdaniel423 Any anyway, your capitalism looks good on paper, but its idealistic. Capitalists always assume that the invisible hand of the free market corrects all impropriety. I'd like to see proof of that. haha.
@ScottBrown666 You disregard the free market with a disdainful laugh. Well, thank goodness we have congress to protect us from "impropriety". HaHa!!
In truth, the free market is just you and me. And everyone else acting freely, without coercion. That's all it means. If a company acts with impropriety, they would be at increased risk for litigation because there would be no corporate laws & regulations to protect them.
@ScottBrown666 wrote "there would be no court to try them in."
That's not true. Free market mediation and arbitration already exist. A TRUE free market would see even more options. Besides, if there happened to be a local municipal court system that was only tasked with protecting people's rights (not judicial legislation as is the current vogue), I would be ok with that. That would still fit the definition of anarchy (no government/rulers).
@ScottBrown666 "subjective territory of what constitutes a free market."
Please elaborate. I don't understand what makes it subjective (personal, illusory, in the mind). I see it as objective (having actual existence or reality). Either rules, regulations, taxes, fees, licensing, trade barriers, etc exist or they don't. Help me understand how freedom is subjective. Do you mean I'm only as free as I think I am? Many people make that mistake & refer to the present as a "free market".
Would an egalitarian society where nobody ever directed the actions of anybody else, and nobody had power or wealth, be able to produce things like airplanes, computers, MRI machines, satellite communications, etc.? I can see it working well within a small agrarian commune, but I'm having trouble envisioning it working withing the context of an entire modern technological civilization. Or is that the point? To regress to a pre-industrial condition, minus the kings and rich dudes?
@rmcdaniel423 I think you summed it up in your last sentence. Regression to a pre-industrial condition, minus the kings and rich dudes. The sweet, well ordered but totally unregulated world of people who all have what they need without taking from anyone else has been dreamed of for centuries. One of its names is Utopia. It doesn't exist, and can't exist, because human nature won't allow it.
It's nice to see a mature, level-headed, well-spoken person debating issues of great importance on youtube. This format tends to be dominated by disrespectful youths who merely shriek at each other with vulgarities and atrocious spelling, as well as closed ears and minds.
Furthermore, a lack of centralized politically motivated government does not have to be chaos. Most anarchists strongly adhere to the "non-aggression principle" and have debated numerous ways to enforce a sort of common law that respects liberty while protecting rights using privately run free market means and/or community based means. Basically we want to keep the good and eliminate the bad. And we see government as a source of lots of bad.
What people would like to see as anarchy comes in many different flavors. Most agree on the issue of government (or lack thereof) but fall on a continuum of disagreement regarding economics. I'm on the free market side. One thing I would like you to consider is that the majority of your daily interactions are likely already anarchist in nature, whether you realize it or not. You are perfectly capable of running your own life.
And I certainly would say most governments, including the US, are much too controlling,
But humans are selfish and reckless. We can barely keep from hurting and killing each other anyway. Without gov't there won't be anyone to stop the less thoughtful people down the road from ransacking your belongings/experiments/notes/inventions/food/wife/daughters/etc.
I think collective knowledge got a jump start when people started living in communities.
I'm not very well-versed in this, I just wanted to try & address a single point. That humanity lived through a high percentage of it's history with anarchy.
We also lived a high amount of history with no technology, low life spans and seemingly unimaginable suffering.
I hate the government because it is corrupt, however I think it's necessary for rapid progress. I like technology. It won't progress much if we have to spend the majority of our time defending needs and self, and collecting food.
What? W/o the state we'll all be farmers? There won't be technological advancement? Govt has no incentive to create technology. The steam engine, railroad, the automobile, the internet, the television, industrial farming that produces food for a nation and others. Made by people not govt. Eevery1 pursues their self interest, but the best way to achieve that is cooperation, which is why you get business and trade instead of thet and murder.
To expound on my point- Anarchism is not about embracing chaos, destruction, violence, or any of the cliched negative imagery. In fact it aims for a no-BS reduction of those such things and supports embracing a freer, more sustainable order based on cooperation and tightly knit egalitarian communities.
Plenty of species on this planet function in groups without the need for strong hierarchies. We are very much one of those species.
I think we would agree on many points, but I balk at your notion of egalitarianism. It is a utopian pipe dream that denies legitimate differences. People are not equal. There is no way you can convince me that my lazy, white-trash, deliberately uneducated, violent, child beating, child molesting, worthless, piece of shit brother-in-law is somehow deserving to be my social and/or economic equal. Some people really do deserve more (or less) than others.
Well in an egalitarian community you wouldn't have the same social dynamic... so a lazy/white-trash/etc. piece of shit bro-in-law probably wouldn't exist. And if he did, he'd be made to account for himself for abusing other members of the group and/or not contributing his fair share. Shame and outcasting can go a long long way to shape humans up socially rather than via arbitrary legal/economic hierarchy. And I'm sure there's a root reason why he's such a POS that isn't genetic...
Of course its not genetic. He's a POS by choice. Lots and Lots of bad (but deliberate) personal choices. And without going into all the miserable details of his history and the way it has affected those around him, I can safely say he doesn't respond well to "shame".
When you say "egalitarian", do you mean all people ought to have equal RIGHTS in life, or equal CONDITIONS? I understand egalitarianism is about equalization, but equal what? Help me understand.
When I say egalitarian, I mean a localized group of people cooperating with each other to make their livelihood and take care of each other. Within such a structure there is no real hierarchy, no real positions of power or wealth (therefore not much incentive for corruption at all). It's sort of a humble, effective, free, no BS way for humans to organize themselves.
Do you mean sort of like the Amish, but without the religious hierarchy? Also, by "localized group", do you envision a few families working together, or a big group like a whole town? When you say "free", do imply that money is not used?
Yeah, I think the Amish could definitely qualify as localized egalitarian communities. I mean... I'm just talking root structure, you can tack anything you want onto such a lifestyle, atheism, religion, different styles/beliefs/culture/music/food/attitudes/stories/etc.. I was thinking more along the lines of a tribe, with or without hunting/gathering. Anthropologists say a tribe can function effectively with up to 150 people. But egalitarian communities can and do vary.
As for the use of money, in an egalitarian and/or tribal culture, you'd have no real need for money, at least not within the community itself. A give support/get support model is usually employed where everyone gets what they need, everyone shares, everyone pitches in and does what they can to get things done.
Actual Anarchism is the belief in society without hierarchy. Or in a more practical sense- a society with all power/wealth hierarchies vastly reduced.
Now, unless you believe the world is 6000 years old, and you remember your anthropology, anatomically modern humans lived in more or less successful and very much sustainable anarchy for 90% of human history.
Hierarchy is totalitarianism, it perverts every noble or ignoble thing it wields.
I think its in human nature to group together. Its in the best interests of survival. Suppose Anarchy was initiated. Before long people would form groups for protection and trade. These groups would probably merge with other groups. Before long, hey presto you have a government.
"State rules tend to be contradictory and unreasonable relative to other rules laid done"
DO remember, the reason that is so is because the people agreed that a rule was necessary. Believe it or not sometimes people actually make the state more complex in order for them to feel better.
For example, a person wants privacy. But when some1 intrudes on them, all of a sudden that person wants to know everything there is to know about that person.
I see it exactly the opposite. Where there is NO government there is chaos. Where there is government there is order. I don't think we define chaos in the same way. There will always be differences between individuals and government, but those differences are worked out bit by bit in what we call legislatures, chosen by - us. Now, if you've never voted, perhaps you haven't signed onto the social contract. But some would say you have simply shirked your duty.
"I can point to the early US, where it was possible for individuals to live their entire lives with negligible or even no interaction with the state."
Of course you can. A large segment of the population lived on the frontier. Towns were little more than we would call villages today. Even then most had some kind of policing in the form of a town sheriff.
Your main argument rests on the prejudice that not forcing people into acting means they wont be doing anything - that people thus will become "islands". You are basically seeing people as dolls, needing a ruler to act - having no free will nor any rational self interest. Why does anarchy equal chaos when people pursue their rational self interest? Voluntary organisation, cooperation and trade is all beneficial for the ego - and this can be proven both logically and historically.
My main argument rests on the observation that, even with government controls, groups collude with each other to control the flow of goods and services for their own profit, to the detriment of other groups and individuals. Show me a country the size of the US that has ever worked well unrestrained by some kind of governmental coercion. I'm talking about modern world populations, not village cultures.
The basic arguments for anarchy are all based on the descriptive psychological egoism of each individual, that all people act in their rational self interest. As all of your suggested "groups" probably will act in their rational self interest, they will definitely want to abuse other "groups" (as long as it's seemingly more profitable of course). Because all would want to abuse everybody else, it would thus also - and primarily - be a matter of defense from others. [Continued in next comment]
Constant defense and offense has a terrible cost. You can also find other costs such as a lack of trade. Inevitably, some "groups" will realize that it is more profitable to put down ones weapons and to trade - thus unions will form. Working through economic ostracism to prevent new offenses, the union will prove even more beneficial for non-members.
It is hard for ancient countries to keep up with modern day countries population-wise; thus I will proclaim your request as impossible.
Y'know when I was growing up D.A.R.E was just starting to take off.
Later I found that more kids started using drugs because of it.
Anarchists can make all the movies & calculations they want, but that won't stop people from pursuing destructive behavoirs.
You might argue that 'the state creates the violent individuals w/in it!' Thats not true, all those tendencies are naturally occuring & unless you dispose of them, they'll label even anarchists as "statists' impede his freedom!"
I don't know too much about D.A.R.E, so it won't try to argue on it. But yes, some people will pursue destructive behaviours. This is something that will exist both in statist and voluntarist societies, as it's psychological. You cant solve these kinds of problems with violent statism - voluntaristic methods would be preferable. Through consequentialism, you might argue that the state for example relieves the consequences of certain behaviours through subsidizing what is not wished for.
Are you opposed to all anarchy, or merely anarcho-capitalism?
I think that anarchism is a good idea, if not a natural progression., but only socialist anarchism
If you do oppose all anarchism, I would like to propose that you open your mind and consider thoroughly the following:
Our stage in human society - state capitalism - is this really the height of our evolution, or is there a high probability that we will progress further and that the state will be eliminated?
You kept critisizing his grammar, as if it was relevent.
I am a slave to no man, not "my" government or people.
In Anarchy the economy would still work, because people could voluntarily join together and form corporations.
In Anarchy there would be order, because people could do what they wish in their own privacy, but if they infringed upon other's rights, they could opt to do service for the community, or they could be excommunicated (at their own decision).
Consentwithdrawn is right. The founders placed taxation in the constitution. No regular colonist signed nor voted 4 it. It established a ruling class & gave them the absolute power of taxation and law making. Taxation is a force. You cannot justify force, if you say it is a necessary evil or for the overall good, you are a marxist and a conformist to the state. We live in a forced system! Why in a forced system would they have or need 2 give u representation? all u get is the illusion of it.
Take Britain for example- before the government there were Royal leaders. All was well until an oppressive King came to power. This lead to a revolt/civil war. Civil war lead to defeat of Royalty & establishment of a logical way of leading a Nation. IF the govt way is run 'correctly' then there should not be a problem. Unfortunately, man's nature is that of greed & power and this leads to the current state we're in. Anarchy is even more unlikely to ever happen due to man's nature.
The only true anarchists in the world are those who live in the woods in makeshift shacks, who forage for their own food and water, and possess no luxury or commodity whatsoever, such as cars, TV, computer, internet, etc.
Anarchy is the lack of rulers, the lack of a state. Not the lack of technology, which was created by private individuals for private profit, not by state programs, which are more often than not are nonproductive and wasteful.
But you miss the point. Those things were created by individuals for profit. They weren't created in the "interest of society," or for the "common good," and they weren't designed by bureaucrats or military scientists. The state does but little to further progress. Arguably it retards progress.
I'll give one compliment for all of these so-called "anarchists" both on and off line: they are highly amusing and entertaining (provided there not trying to kill anyone).
You listen to stereotypes to much. Not all anarchists want to kill people, true anarchists want decentralized government, not centralized government. The ones that want to kill people just want no laws. Anarchy isn't no laws, it's no rulers, hense the latin an archy, where an is no and archy is rule. No one should have more power than the other person we are all equal so no one should be granted more power. If they have more power we are mere slaves to them.
Anarchy, defined as the lack of a state, does not create chaos. The state creates chaos, in its countless and never ending wars, in its many unjust laws, in its protectionism and subsidization of failing industries, in the very principles which it espouses and upon which it bases its rule. W/o the state, human beings would subsist and organize in the same way they do most any day of their lives: by mutual consent.
There are no armed gov't agents supervising grocery stores, shopping malls, textile plants, and oil refineries. Why do we need them supervising law enforcement, or handing our contracts for roads? We don't. The free market solves each and every problem as it arises, w/o coercing anyone.
Who would pay for roads? I lived on an unpaved road for seven years because the people in that rural area chose not to pay an assessment. Every winter we had to slog through a half mile of mud to get to the highway. Boy, wasn't THAT fun!
Private investors would pay for roads, to make a profit. If there were no demand for auto transport in an area, no roads would be built. Or they'd be built and abandoned.
If you live in the wilderness, that's your decision. The rest of us shouldn't be forced to pay to for the consequences of your choices.
Do you think every other person is incompetent at everything he does, and needs his mommy to help him along the way every day of his life? 'Cause that's the impression I'm getting.
Yeah, private investors would pay for roads, so that every mile or so you'd have to stop and pay a toll. Nobody would ever get anywhere. Have you ever driven across the country? You can drive from the west at least a thousand miles before having to pay a toll. And then the tolls cover long stretches of highway.
"The free market solves each and every problem as it arises, w/o coercing anyone."
This is just naïve. In the 19th century, when things in the western US were almost as "free market" as you think ideal, there were wars over grazing rights, and water rights. People who owned land, especially with rivers running through it, could stop it's free flow and charge whatever they wanted for water. Government prevents that kind of thing. Your so-called free market encourages it.
I have no idea why you think there are so many people out to screw you, but it's a bit weird. If a private turnpike had booths every mile, it would be out of business quick-like. Someone is going to meet demand, if it's there.
The murder rate in the "Wild Wild West" was nothing compared to that in the eastern seaboard cities of the same era. Not so wild, huh?
Those private "wars" over grazing rights were nothing at all compared to WWI, which cost millions of young, innocent men their lives. Of course that was a "just war," right? You aren't applying the same moral compass to the state as you are to private individuals.
By and large gov'ts do not prevent violence. They create it. It's their business.
A country is not the same thing as the state that rules it. Being born in the USA does not make one a US citizen, any more than being born in a hospital makes one hospital citizen. An infant in the USA is physically no different from an infant anywhere else. It's the state's laws which declare an infant subject to the state; it is not some physical fact of birth.
People are born and live as "islands" unto themselves. There are no invisible threads among persons, and the state and its law have no magical power to prevent one man from attacking or offending another.
people are always going to form goups. the only thing we can do to protect our preferred rights is create or join a group that of protects (or maybe enforces... uh oh!) our way of doing things.
Anarchy is a difficult thing to achieve, but i think that if everyone truly believed in just doing things for the greater good of society, that we wouldn't need a government to regulate us. We would even need money because everyone is doing things to further the country.
Yes, if everyone truly believed . . . but as it is the greed of a relative few is very near destroying the economy of the whole world. If everyone practiced the so-called golden rule no government of any kind would be necessary. Those are lovely ideals, but incapable of practical application in a world of over 6 billion people.
You don't get the point of anarchism. It is actually the theory of the state which requires 'everyone just doing things for the greater good of society'. Anarchism rests upon the belief that people are not to be trusted with power or maybe that power even attracts the wrong kind of people or interests. (corporations)
Therefore anarchism demands the abolishment of these instruments of power. (the state)
The state consists of people whose interest it is to stay in power, not to do good.
Even the best people in the government have the interest to stay in power, you know so they can do 'good' which means that they have to compromise in order to survive - which will make them do bad things.
The only way the theory of the state works is if the vast majority of the people are always perfectly enlightened and altruistic beings. Otherwise they can be tricked or even lash out with the power of the state against other people. (you know like with subsidies on american jobs)
You see that the theory of the state is crazy, especially democratic ones. It has nothing to do with the reality of human nature.
This will only lead to a massive socialistic leviathan that will feed the rich and attack the poor. The poor won't have the education to strike back while the middle class is fighting a class war against them through unions and regulations. (sounds familiar?)
All that lies in the dynamics that come with a state and human nature.
Children owe their parents everything until they reach their majority. They owe them their existence and their support. And they owe them their obedience. If you think not, you may well have an antisocial or lawless disposition. In any case you must have been a brat.
Yes children owe their existence to their parents, that goes without saying. They do not owe them their obedience or their support however. You do not chose your parents therefore you cannot expect children to owe their parents anything.
Don't get me wrong I fully encourage people to support their parents in their old age or if the parent has health issues. Also I fully encourage children to obey there parents, provided they aren't extremely bad parents.
All I'm saying is that children don't choose to be born, and to expect support and/or obedience from that kind of relationship is crazy in my opinion.
Would expect a slave to owe his/her owner obedience or support because the owner saved the slave's life?. Both relationships are the same in that one party doesn't choose to enter into the relationship.
I really don't think the comparison between the relationship of child to parent and that of slave to master is a fair one. The relation of master to slave is a commercial one, the master holding the slave by force and providing subsistence in exchange for work that benefits only the master. Children are properly seen not as property, but as the responsibility of their parents.
You didn't consent to be born, but your parents gave you life anyway. Are you telling me that as a child you did not expect food, clothing and shelter from your parents? Given the attitude you display here I wonder how they feel about that now. The family relationship is not a contract. And it certainly isn't slavery.
No, I have never been called a brat in my life. It has often been said that I'm very well behaved and very polite individual. Kind of saddens me that you jump to that conclusion.
You stated, withoput support or explanation, "Children don't owe their parents anything."
The conclusion I "jumped" to came from your attitude. To say that you owe parents nothing, with no qualifying remark whatever, to me sounds pugnacious and in need of a curt reply.
In principle, too, I disagree with you. I think we do owe our parents, unless they are abusive.
And you asserted (at least implied) that children do owe their parents. Should I then assume you are a parent leeching of his children? Following your logic I should.
I am not a parent, but I was once a child. I believe children owe their parents obedience, because the parent has much to teach and the child much to learn. We come into the world dependent on our parents. They provide shelter, food, clothing and earliest knowledge. We certainly owe them a debt.
Children do not owe their parents anything, nor do parents owe their children anything.
A parent can easily abandon a mewling infant, w/o fire raining down from heaven or rainbow lollipop princesses whisking the child away to fairy land.
A child can walk away from his parents forever, once he can walk. Angelic guardians do not descend to chide him, and evil imps do not torment him for his betrayal.
There are no invisible threads among human beings.
Your channel bio says you are a student. I was thinking probably college, but now it looks more like middle school. You need to get a vasectomy as soon as possible, because a person who thinks like you should ever be a parent. You will be a lousy one.
check out the series im working on right now largo, 3 out of 5 are up. it explains how real law is supposed to function, and how the government just gets in the way. ill post it as a video response.
Interesting. The other day a question came to mind of why we have to pay car insurance and how that entire thing got started. We know we must pay our insurance or there are systems in place that can lead to unpleasant circumstances. People can have their license suspended for not paying that insurance. Shouldn't a person be able to choose whether they want insurance or not? And I continued to think of all the systems in place that are enforced. Taxes, insurance, etc. No choices in the matter.
Actually, we aren't required to carry insurance to cover damage to ourselves. The law relates to liability for harm we may do others. Personally, I think compulsory liability insurance is a good idea, since so many people would just "risk" injury to others and then be unable to redress any damage they did. As it is, we are allowed to carry a minimum amount of liability insurance. I always carry the maximum because many years ago I had an accident, injuring someone, and I wasn't covered enough.
I think whether or not anarchy is a good idea depends on how far you can stretch the limit before one single social community turns into several smaller social groups. In a small community, like the partially anarchist danish town Fristaden Christiania, it would be easy to maintain a relatively good social level,
... but in a big community, like the partially anarchist place Somalia, people would most likely turn into groups, which may or may not turn into violence between them due to lack of social contact.
A good example of anarchy in action. Somalia has a government of sorts, but it's hardly recognized within its own borders. Real control is in the hands of clans. Would anyone from the regulated government of the US feel safe in Somalia? I think not. We do feel relatively safe in our own country.
1) Fristaden Christiania is a "colony" within the city of Copenhagen, Denmark. Its population is "650 grown ups and 200 children," according to their website. 850 people is about the size of a healthy US church. Such a small group is necessarily insular. Diversity is scarcely possible except with respect to individual personalities.
2) From the Fristaden Christiania website: "Through the individual Christianits self-discipline and the communitys close network have we created a district, almost without crime, violence and fear . . . "
A community of 850 "almost" without crime, violence and fear" doesn't recommend itself to me as any better than the community I live in with about 60,000 people and "almost without crime and violence," on the edge of a city of about a million. We do okay without an anarchic structure.
3) The early American colonies started out the same as Christiania Fristaden, and later allied themselves into states and then the United States. Anarchy tends to seek government. I think that to seek anarchy FROM government is going backward.
Yeah, anarchy would probably pretty much just go back to an archy in the length. That's why anarchy is a bad idea in my opinion: it's unstable, and requires a good social, self-diciplined society, and on a grand scale, this becomes so hard that sooner or later, either chaos will erupt somewhere, or the need for an archy becomes so big that it becomes one.
This is just a thesis of mine, though, but I do consider it a big possibility as a consequence of anarchy.
I don't object to anarchism on idealistic grounds, but on practical ones. I don't think humankind is well suited to an ungoverned existence except in solitary or in relatively small groups (like, perhaps, Rainbow gatherings). Keep in mind that, even if they last a month at a time, as illyounotme has said, those gatherings are not permanent. If they were, long-term needs of the whole community would have to be addressed. And that's not a week (or a month) in the woods.
" I don't think humankind is well suited to an ungoverned existence except in solitary or in relatively small groups "
But philosophers have argued before american democracy that humankind is not well suited for a democratic existence and it requires a dictator to keep it under control.
Do you see the point I am making? I am not expressly defending anarchism, because I dont know how it will turn out, all I am saying is we should give it a try.
1) It would be great if somehow a computer model of such a society could be fed with all the possible variables and we could sit back and watch a virtual "society" work. But in real life, where would you begin? Historically, such sweeping changes in societal structure have required revolutions.
It's been suggested that there are only criminals because there are laws. I think that's rather simple thinking, but let's say for the sake of argument that it's true. (cont.)
2) Do we, for a start, close all the prisons and let all the criminals out? Or are only SOME laws responsible for crime? Maybe we should keep the murderers, rapists and child molesters in prison. Possibly the violent gang-bangers, too, although most of them probably fit into at least categories one and two above. We let go all the dope pushers, because there won't any longer be laws against any kind of drugs.
3) With no taxes except those that are agreed to individually, how will we support roads and highways? Do we abandon traffic lights? (That has actually been suggested a year or two ago.) How many public hospitals will have to close for lack of support? Can Church supported or other private hospitals carry the entire burden?
Barter works well for small groups and vacationers like the Rainbow gatherings, but can any kind of efficiency occur without a standardized currency? (one more)
I know we are having a lot of trouble with our currency right now, and much has been written and said about the central banking system. Certainly it needs changes. But given where we are now, how might a government free system be instituted to replace the one in force now? Seriously, will the banks yield control to a loose confederation of anarchists with no force of government behind them? I may be wrong, but I just don't see it.
Largo, I dont have answers to your questions. I guess it depends on your definition of an anarchy. That is you can have a currency system without a government, correct? You can have private industries, road builders, and so forth, without a power overseeing it.
The issue anarchists seem to have is that when you give an individual power, they will get corrupted.
But I dont know enough about to answer you, sorry!
When the United states was first founded and there were only thirteen states, each of those states had its own currency, and sometimes the currency of one was not recognized in another state. it took a centralized currency (and the government to create and oversee it) to make interstate commerce not merely smoother, but even possible.
Even with contracts, must there not be some kind of coercive power to enforce the contract? Now, I know that there are contracts between honorable people sealed only with a handshake. But such things are rare. As the saying goes, a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
One thing not addressed is the question of what happens to minorities when there is no state to protect their rights. Absolute majority rule is as bad as dictatorship, in that majorities naturally subdue and persecute minorities. Even with the state as watchdog, minorities are abused. The Proposition 8 struggle in California is a good example. A majority, whose own rights are not affected in any way by gay marriage, used the weight of numbers to deprive a minority community of their rights.
If there were no government, no coercion of law, gays would not only be deprived of their rights, but persecuted, bashed, and even murdered in far greater numbers than they already are. If anarchy had reigned in the 19th century, there might very well still be slavery in the US. At any rate, black people would still be as oppressed as they were a century ago. Even with representative government and a constitution supposedly upholding civil rights, it took until 1964 to begin enforcing them.
about minorities- I agree but you have to admit that most prejudice against minorities is institutionalized. There would be very little prejudice if there was no organization of such ideas.
personally i dont like the idea of using a social contract to describe government/society. Hobbes argued that our ancestors signed consent to a totalitarian leader to lead. Then Hobbes rationalizes that since they decided that he is most capable of leading, he should also be most capable of choosing this successor, and that successor most be most capable as well.
You can use this sort of philosophizing to rationalize anything. Thats why I think we should try what works. If anarchy works, fine.
I had mistakenly taken you for an open minded person, who was honestly asking if there was information to be learned that could make anarchism sound better to you.
My Mistake.
Obviously you are not actually interested in this. I will trouble you no more. I don't mind answering questions sought, but I am not trying to convince people who don't what to have their opinion threatened by new ideas. Sorry for getting you worked up, and enjoy your time on YouTube.
You say you don't mind answering questions, but I asked a couple TWICE and you haven't bothered with them. I asked about financing, sanitation and health care.
As for being closed minded, I offer objections, which gives you the chance to clarify your point if you can. It's called discourse. Apparently that's too much for you. So call me closed minded and go away. That's okay with me.
I am not closed minded because I observed that what is essentially a vacation is not a society.
These are are all great questions :D I think all the services the the government provides can be provided voluntarily. We need to first accept that the government is an evil organisation who claims the right to use force over its citizens through taxation and regulation. The United States is one of the best countries in the world to live in but it does not change the fact the government is evil.
rjnrf 6 months ago
I've ranted long enuff now. It would be really funny if you somehow benefited financially by the state, because that would make it nearly impossible to make you see the immorality of the state. I'm not trying to bash you or anything, but I have to be brutally honest because time is running out. The state has got you working for it and you don't even know it, since you're defending its legitimacy. If what I'm saying is not true, please present me with rational arguments. Wish you all the best.
wherearewegoing 7 months ago
@wherearewegoing I'm not working for anybody. I'm 68 and retired. I do depend on the state to keep its promise and continue Social Security. I paid into it my whole working life, and I feel entitled to benefit from it now. I hope for your sake that you can save enough money not to be destitute when you reach old age. You seem to think it's amusing that people like me may be cut off.
Largo64 7 months ago
@Largo64 I might depend on the state for certain things aswell, but that doesn't mean that I feel morally wrong for doing so. It's simply because they have the monopoly of the certain things, or that I'm already paying for those services so why should I turn them down? You are entitled to benefit and I would happily work so you could do other things. I respect my elders. My heart breaks to see people working their whole lives and not getting anything for it. It's definitately not amusing.
wherearewegoing 7 months ago
Parents should never raise their voice against their children and abso-goddamned-lutely NEVER use any form of violence against their children. As long as a parent feeds, clothes and keep children warm they can do whatever they like because the law will always state that the parent has authority over the child. This leaves alot of room for lazy parents to just say: "Do as you're told or else..." This does NOT mean the parents always should "obey" the will of the child, this is not good either.
wherearewegoing 7 months ago
But that's about it. Children are under the law the parents' property, what does that remind you of? Hm... owning other people... However you might think, oh no, now we will have chaos and rebellious children running away from home because they're so greedy and selfish. Well, not if the parents actually treat them as EQUALS!?!?!!? Wow, what a radical idea, to treat people as, you yourself would wanna be treated? Where have I read that... Respect is earned and not automatically given. cont.
wherearewegoing 7 months ago
@wherearewegoing What you suggest is ridiculous. Children are not the equals of their parents. They arrive as blank slates in need of instruction. They do have rights, like privacy, which my parents always respected. But they are by no means equal until they have reached a maturity that enables them to care for themselves without their parents' help.
Largo64 7 months ago
@Largo64 Are you equal to a senile person? Are you equal to a mentally disabled adult? Because, if you treat children in a certain way because their brains are "dysfunctional" in need of instruction, you could just as easily apply this to a senile or mentally disabled adult, right? Maybe you had a good childhood, but do you realise what it would take for a young child to report their parents to anyone? Most of the times it doesn't happen. Of course if you hit them etc. someone might notice.
wherearewegoing 7 months ago
@wherearewegoing You have a point. That's why senility is soften called "second childhood." Children are literally incompetent to care for themselves, and so are adults with alzheimer's disease (which used to be called senility).
Largo64 6 months ago
When I talk about laws and governments I do not talk about a single government or state or laws. Children are not at all obligated to even stay with their parents, let alone "obey" them. Because if parents rape / abuse / imprison / psychologically torture their children I don't see how they should be forced to stay in that abusive surrounding. Now you will say; "But we have laws which protect children!". Well. You have to feed them, not hit them, and keep them inside the house. cont.
wherearewegoing 7 months ago
@wherearewegoing You are talking about the extremes of parental misbehavior as if that's the norm. The law doesn't back a parent's right to abuse children. Quite the contrary. children are removed from abusive homes. But they are still put into the care of adults who will protect them. You seem to think human children are akin to wild animals. They are not.
Largo64 7 months ago
@Largo64 What is your definition of child abuse? I think the only actions you would consider abuse are hitting them, starving them and locking them in a confined area. Abuse is according to my definition also the following: Brainwashing young children with concepts like hell and heaven, religion in general, neglect (not talking / looking at them enough) along with several other things.
wherearewegoing 7 months ago
@wherearewegoing I made a video saying exactly that - that indoctrinating children with religion might well be called abuse. You will never put an end to child abuse by parents because people can just pump out babies whenever they feel like it. It amazes me that, in the US at least, you have to have training, pass a test and get a license to apply makeup to another person or to cut their hair, but you don't ave to know anything more than how to fit your parts with someone else's to be a parent.
Largo64 6 months ago
(cont.) Given that no experience or training is necessary to become a parent, it is inevitable that child abuse will occur. The hope is that instinct, love. . . and the law will prevent most of it, but we all know cases in which children are mistreated.
Largo64 6 months ago
cont. However, likewise you do NOT have the right to impose YOUR will on me. The only justified action of violence or coercion you rightfully can take against me is self-defence. Self-defence is universally accepted, even by most current laws, exept against the state of course because they're not under the same law as you. You and me are livestock and different rules apply to us. I dunno brother, but is that not the very definition of hm... Hypocracy?
wherearewegoing 7 months ago
Your questions to him / her implies you haven't read anything about anarchism at all. I'm not trying to be rude or anything. So just because the government is representative you should give ALL your soverignty to it because it really sounds like you're legitimizing it simply cuz it's representative. Vote every 4 years and feel the freedom... That's fine, as an anarchist I would never impose my will on you to decide what you should or should not do. cont.
wherearewegoing 7 months ago
@wherearewegoing Have you actually read this whole comment section? I explained why anarchy doesn't work, except perhaps in small groups. In communities of millions it's just chaos.
Largo64 7 months ago
@Largo64 Anarchy does not define the "system" or organization under which individuals come together to form. Therefore you cannot simply say in communities of millions "it's just chaos". In Catalonia 3 million people organized to form a better society. Without church, economic and social oppression.
wherearewegoing 7 months ago
@Largo64 There is no need for million big communities, you are right.
KainSlash 3 months ago
After General Francisco Franco declared war on the Spanish government in 1936 the government lost control over much of Spain. Resistance to the rebels was often organized through the confederation of anarcho-syndicalist trade unions, . The Spanish Revolution occurred almost immediately after the failed coup of Franco, leading to the formation of worker's collectives all over Republican Spain. This has been hailed as the best example of a functioning anarchist system
mrelisamuel 9 months ago
@mrelisamuel If it functioned so well, why isn't it functioning now? Spain has been a constitutional monarchy since the 70's. Living under a constitution and a legislature certainly doesn't sound anarchic to me.
Largo64 9 months ago
@Largo64 This only worked on during the Civil War, after 1939 the whole Spanish territory was under a fascist regime
mrelisamuel 9 months ago
As so well stated by Ayn Rand, its "Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice--there is no other."
Marioag0412 11 months ago
The ignorant and short-sighted idea that people would go on mass sprees of murder, rape, and theft are completely false, because, in an anarchist society with no monopolies of power under the name of government, people would be more likely to prosper and succeed by agreeing to pacifism and dealing strictly through the exchange of goods and services, which, is the only other alternative to violence and use of force.
Marioag0412 11 months ago
Necessity itself binds us to each other as a species. It is the reason why we evolved into very social beings; because it works.
Marioag0412 11 months ago
You continously make the assumption that "man cannot coexist without a binding code". I agree with this statement and believe that if we could truly do anything we desired then the world would indeed be chaos. This however, is certainly not the case because we are human and have limitations and cannot do everything that we wish. A major limitation of humans, and your missing "code" for order, is survival.
Marioag0412 11 months ago
Dear Largo,
I don't see an answer from "Withdrawn" but I have a few comments which might help.
1. I am glad to have been born here, too. It is the least-bad government on Earth. If there were a better one, I'd go there. However, the difference between States is eroding as the FedGov increases its own power.
2. You assume a society of 300 million. I don't.
3. You assume each person would be an island unto himself. I don't. Co-Ops would provide for defense and large projects without force.
KutWrite 1 year ago
Freedom of association. If someone in a community does things that harm the community, people disassociate from them. In an complex economy like ours, where every person is literally dependent on the actions of millions of others to get even basic necessities, this is very important.
Saying the state makes laws is like saying the weather man makes the weather. It is an emergent system.
Houshalter 1 year ago
What necessetates Chaos in classlessness? Keep in mind the major Anarchist societies like Catalonia and Mahknovist Ukraine did not have burning buildings, people strangling each other, or other things you may fantacise with limited insight. I am not Anarchist, but I strongly support him in this case. Explain how Anarchy could possibly be more hellish than Capitalism today? Whoa! And this is coming from a Sectarian commie.
Mauser9513 1 year ago
As long as some people have power over others they will always use it for their own good at least in most cases. That's the nature of the human being. There are no exceptions to this. It's not about USA only, it's about the whole system that works as a single mechanism. There are different gears inside but all of them serve the same purpose, and that purpose isn't good for the working class. As long as there will be power there will be fear. And YES, people can live without fear.
Feralbreeze 1 year ago
Peace can occur in a free society. Defense can occur in a free society. Courts can occur in a free society. Property can occur in a free society. Money can occur in a free society.
I like you, Largo, so I don't want this to come off as harsh, but to quote Christopher Hitchens, "you give me the awful impression of somebody who has never heard any arguments against your position whatsoever." There have been many counter arguments to the relevant points you bring up in this video.
AtheistAltar 1 year ago
@AtheistAltar It does seem a little harsh, as well as inaccurate. If you read the other comments here you see that I have attempted (possibly not to your satisfaction) to field a number of objections. If I haven't changed my opinion it means only that I differ from you. That doesn't necessarily make me wrong. (Nor right, I admit. The question remains open as far as I am concerned.)
Largo64 1 year ago
@Largo64 I was mainly addressing the points made in the video. After prompting me to read the comment section, I hate to say it, but I stand by my Hitchens quote :)
There are plenty of anarchic scholars (mostly from Mises) that have wrote extensively on the topics such as roads, defense, and law like Block, Rothbard, and Roderick Long. The thing I did read about traffic and consent I think is faulty. Government has monopolized the product, so using it isn't signaling passive agreement.
AtheistAltar 1 year ago
if men were angels, government would not be needed
since that is not the case, we need government, however, in my opinion, we should have a very loose government
TuxedoZebraPunk 1 year ago
This dude makes a bunch of tangential and irrelevant arguments. Your rebuttal couldn't even be called that. Weak sauce. I was going to rip your argument apart, but there's really nothing there. One premise is a misrepresentation and the other is a presumption. Smoke and mirrors......
And representative govt? Representative of who? You know who. The wealthy corporate interests and lobbyists.
Anarchy is a good idea because anything less isn't freedom. Ask a gorilla how chaotic his life is.
ScottBrown666 1 year ago
@ScottBrown666 Gorillas live in small family groups, not in millions or even hundreds. That's not really a fair analogue.
Largo64 1 year ago
@Largo64 You speak of quantity when I was speaking of quality. Maybe they live in smaller groups for a reason.
tScottBrown777t 1 year ago
you should read a book called chaos theory by bob murphy, its a short read and it was written for people wondering the things youre wondering.
oiuoiu988 1 year ago
Anarchy doesn't equal chaos. I always wonder why people cant think past the time they live in. how are humans alive today we date back 10,000 years at least. Native people of this land were just fine till we arrived here. how does a frog get along in the world or a bird or any other life form.Social structure is adapted by tribe mentality the problem is the tribe is too big and has way too many chiefs and not nearly enough indians.men arent men anymore and women arent women.
Xen5s 1 year ago
men use to build homes and raise families. women use to care for the children and tend to house work. now everyone is more concerned about iphones and blueray players or whatever. our tribe mentality has been highjacked by sports and our desire to protect our family has been outsourced too police. which everyone knows police are there to rob you and clean up murder scenes. i wonder if a cop has ever stopped a crime in progress in the history of tyrants.
Xen5s 1 year ago
Excellent video. If one can withdraw consent, we may as well abolish society as well as the state and return to survival of the fittest. Contracts mean nothing without a legal framework to back up and enforce them, and that means courts, which means laws, and that means legislatures, and that means gov't :-)
Anekantavad 2 years ago
Usually anarchism doesn't refer to abolishing the rule of law or the legitimacy of a government to govern, but rather to justifying and trying to eliminate systems of hierarchy.
I think the latter has some merit and is worth pondering. ConsentWithdrawn sounds like he was referring to the former though.
GregGirardin 2 years ago
Also, wanting to note that anarquism is mostly promoted by intelectual or responsable people, cause they know it will work with them; but they don't think about everyone else. A perfect system requires perfect people. That's why an economy based on 100% free market doesn't work. It is the freeist system and the most perfect system; but if every world citizen isn't a responsible man (and we know that is the case) the end result will be wealth in a few hands and the rest of the world starving.
bobsanders222 2 years ago
@bobsanders222 " A perfect system requires perfect people. That's why an economy based on 100% free market doesn't work."
Very good point. We've seen, and are now feeling the effects of just relaxing controls on the banking industry. If left entirely free to do what they like, bankers would own everything and the rest of us would have food or shelter only at their pleasure. It's close to that now.
Largo64 2 years ago
@Largo64 It's not quite that simple. The banking system is still highly regulated. The nonsense that happened was not so much because of a lack of regulation. It had more to do with the artificial manipulations of the federal reserve messing with interest rates. A true free market would have kept interest rates higher and prevented the unstable practice of lending "free" money to people who couldn't realistically handle the debt load. Unfortunately, the fed reserve is not controlled by govt.
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
@Largo64 It's not quite that simple. The banking system is still highly regulated. The nonsense that happened was not so much because of a lack of regulation. It had more to do with the artificial manipulations of the federal reserve messing with interest rates. A true free market would have kept interest rates higher and prevented the unstable practice of lending "free" money to people who couldn't realistically handle the debt load. Unfortunately, the fed reserve is not controlled by govt.
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
@bobsanders222 I would argue much to the opposite. The state is like Forest Gump's leg braces. It restricts mankind's true potential, and results is a stultifying and destructive effect on the general psyche. Governments were necessary in the past, but now that borders are fixed and those people fortunate enough to live in industrialized and prosperous nations prefer to live in peace, governments are like cancers, growing uncontrollably and doing irreparable harm to human progress.
ScottBrown666 1 year ago
@bobsanders222 I guess my point is that governments are preventing the majority from perfection. The entire power structure relies on the ignorance of the masses. They are treated as vessels for capital and labor by the most wealthy and powerful. The internet is making ignorance slightly easier to bypass, but of course now it's flooded with advertisements.
ScottBrown666 1 year ago
@ScottBrown666 You may be right, but my question is this: What will happen to big enterprises without government? I think that would throw us back to an enormous difference between classes. without any kind of restrictions, executives will do whatever the heck they want to do, like in ol' time capitalism. The elimination of the government can't come without someone else regulating things, and that someone will end up taking the power. That's why I think neither anarquism nor communism can work.
bobsanders222 1 year ago
@bobsanders222 Ummm.... "executives will do whatever they want"... like they do now. I don't see how they could have much more power. The government is a pawn of big business, and you know this. That's why I don't think capitalism is working. With anarchism there would presumably be a psychological revolution necessary to precipitate it's adoption, and many things would hopefully change that would deal with the capitalist threat. People would be valued for more than their economic worth.
ScottBrown666 1 year ago
@ScottBrown666 Can you compare the situation now with the situation during the 19th century? that's what im talking about. Progressive taxation has helped create a middle class. Of course, you could make a case that without government big corporations will not be able to camp like in the 19th, because there would be no police. But I'm more inclined to think that people would just shut up in order to survive.
bobsanders222 1 year ago
@bobsanders222 The 19th century was a different world. Unlike many anarchists, I'll admit that government was probably necessary to get us here, but now it just holds us back in many ways.
I'd never vote for a society where we had to shut up in order to survive. Sounds like North Korea.
ScottBrown666 1 year ago
@ScottBrown666 In every society you have to shut up to survive. Of course, I don't mean this in an extreme slavish way, I'm refering to simply keeping quiet so your boss doesn't fire you. You can't tell me with a straight face that people are "totally free" nowadays. Artists, rich people, intelectuals and some special jobs maybe, but for most of the guys, no.
bobsanders222 1 year ago
All that ConsentWithdrawn said is true; the most basic right of any citizen is to decide not being a citizen. But why the heck would I want to not be a citizen? Right now, is far better being a citizen than not being it, and that's why I'm one. This thing should only be taking into account when you no longer want to be one. for example, during the Vietnam war draft. I don't approve that war, I don't want to leave my family, and so I'm moving to Canada.
bobsanders222 2 years ago
it's stupid to presume that anarchy = chaos. there is nothing that supports that argument. it's about as rational as someone in the 1700's saying a constitutional republic will lead to chaos simply because there is no king.
samlevla 2 years ago
@samlevla Interesting analogy. I'll have to think about that.
Largo64 2 years ago
Word man, I wish more people understood that more often.
Tokagawa89 1 year ago
@samlevla Great comment! Anarchy has not been tried in modern times. (Somalia doesn't count because of the warlords, etc) Most people don't realize that there can still be law and order of sorts within an anarchist framework. To anyone who doesn't know what I mean, research the "Non-Aggression Principle" and "Free Market Law Enforcement". There are some really good ideas kicking around out there.
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
because he is old he can say whatever he want, and it will still make sense
161194 2 years ago
So, my comment about pre-industrial was a little off. Sounds more like you favor a stone age society of happy hippies. I think I'm done here. Thanks everyone.
rmcdaniel423 2 years ago
@rmcdaniel423 You suppose a death of tech. innovation, but I propose that capitalism, by restricting education and materials and forcing everyone to work their days away, stifles innovation. It also does it in more direct ways. i.e: electric cars exist. No one doubts that they are superior in every way to our combustion engine, yet what do we all drive? and why is that? The capitalist virtue of course: Greed.
ScottBrown666 1 year ago
@ScottBrown666 You imply that capitalism is preventing the development of electric cars. I believe CRONY capitalism, where a few big companies and industries collude with govt to prevent diversity, is what you mean. A true free market economy would allow cool ideas like that to flourish. All those small companies with great ideas for future cars would be able to compete more easily. True capitalism, without the "crony" part, would be less sinister, more diverse, and more accountable.
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
@rmcdaniel423 No. There's no money in electric cars. Barely any maintenance. Doesn't use petrol. With a small amount of technological innovation in the area they'll easily outlast cars. That whole section of the economy would crumble faster than it is now and would only be replaced with lab techs who synthesize polymers for the battery. We'll probably use solar power and electric cars eventually, but not until we absolutely have to.
ScottBrown666 1 year ago
@ScottBrown666 Re: what you said about electric cars. . . that all sounds GREAT to me! That's exactly the kind of thing that a free market could offer, which is currently being stamped out of existence by the status quo. Imagine an independent little car company that could offer that type of product vs. the dinosaurs from Detroit. Believe me, there is money to be made in good ideas. And that's not a bad thing.
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
@rmcdaniel423 Any anyway, your capitalism looks good on paper, but its idealistic. Capitalists always assume that the invisible hand of the free market corrects all impropriety. I'd like to see proof of that. haha.
ScottBrown666 1 year ago
@ScottBrown666 You disregard the free market with a disdainful laugh. Well, thank goodness we have congress to protect us from "impropriety". HaHa!!
In truth, the free market is just you and me. And everyone else acting freely, without coercion. That's all it means. If a company acts with impropriety, they would be at increased risk for litigation because there would be no corporate laws & regulations to protect them.
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
@rmcdaniel423 And there would be no court to try them in. Wouldn't want government interfering with the free market.
ScottBrown666 1 year ago
@ScottBrown666 wrote "there would be no court to try them in."
That's not true. Free market mediation and arbitration already exist. A TRUE free market would see even more options. Besides, if there happened to be a local municipal court system that was only tasked with protecting people's rights (not judicial legislation as is the current vogue), I would be ok with that. That would still fit the definition of anarchy (no government/rulers).
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
@rmcdaniel423 But now you get into the subjective territory of what constitutes a free market.
ScottBrown666 1 year ago
@ScottBrown666 "subjective territory of what constitutes a free market."
Please elaborate. I don't understand what makes it subjective (personal, illusory, in the mind). I see it as objective (having actual existence or reality). Either rules, regulations, taxes, fees, licensing, trade barriers, etc exist or they don't. Help me understand how freedom is subjective. Do you mean I'm only as free as I think I am? Many people make that mistake & refer to the present as a "free market".
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
HaHa! Like the Hobbit village in Lord of the Rings.
rmcdaniel423 2 years ago
Would an egalitarian society where nobody ever directed the actions of anybody else, and nobody had power or wealth, be able to produce things like airplanes, computers, MRI machines, satellite communications, etc.? I can see it working well within a small agrarian commune, but I'm having trouble envisioning it working withing the context of an entire modern technological civilization. Or is that the point? To regress to a pre-industrial condition, minus the kings and rich dudes?
rmcdaniel423 2 years ago
@rmcdaniel423 I think you summed it up in your last sentence. Regression to a pre-industrial condition, minus the kings and rich dudes. The sweet, well ordered but totally unregulated world of people who all have what they need without taking from anyone else has been dreamed of for centuries. One of its names is Utopia. It doesn't exist, and can't exist, because human nature won't allow it.
Largo64 2 years ago
And one last thing. Honest!
It's nice to see a mature, level-headed, well-spoken person debating issues of great importance on youtube. This format tends to be dominated by disrespectful youths who merely shriek at each other with vulgarities and atrocious spelling, as well as closed ears and minds.
rmcdaniel423 2 years ago
Furthermore, a lack of centralized politically motivated government does not have to be chaos. Most anarchists strongly adhere to the "non-aggression principle" and have debated numerous ways to enforce a sort of common law that respects liberty while protecting rights using privately run free market means and/or community based means. Basically we want to keep the good and eliminate the bad. And we see government as a source of lots of bad.
rmcdaniel423 2 years ago
Largo,
What people would like to see as anarchy comes in many different flavors. Most agree on the issue of government (or lack thereof) but fall on a continuum of disagreement regarding economics. I'm on the free market side. One thing I would like you to consider is that the majority of your daily interactions are likely already anarchist in nature, whether you realize it or not. You are perfectly capable of running your own life.
rmcdaniel423 2 years ago
"my" government is the worst I don't allow them to rule my life in my own opinion the government can just suck it
DFIZZLETV 2 years ago
What you typed sounds perfectly logical.
And I certainly would say most governments, including the US, are much too controlling,
But humans are selfish and reckless. We can barely keep from hurting and killing each other anyway. Without gov't there won't be anyone to stop the less thoughtful people down the road from ransacking your belongings/experiments/notes/inventions/food/wife/daughters/etc.
I think collective knowledge got a jump start when people started living in communities.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
I'm not very well-versed in this, I just wanted to try & address a single point. That humanity lived through a high percentage of it's history with anarchy.
We also lived a high amount of history with no technology, low life spans and seemingly unimaginable suffering.
I hate the government because it is corrupt, however I think it's necessary for rapid progress. I like technology. It won't progress much if we have to spend the majority of our time defending needs and self, and collecting food.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
What? W/o the state we'll all be farmers? There won't be technological advancement? Govt has no incentive to create technology. The steam engine, railroad, the automobile, the internet, the television, industrial farming that produces food for a nation and others. Made by people not govt. Eevery1 pursues their self interest, but the best way to achieve that is cooperation, which is why you get business and trade instead of thet and murder.
ThePintsizeslasher 2 years ago
To expound on my point- Anarchism is not about embracing chaos, destruction, violence, or any of the cliched negative imagery. In fact it aims for a no-BS reduction of those such things and supports embracing a freer, more sustainable order based on cooperation and tightly knit egalitarian communities.
Plenty of species on this planet function in groups without the need for strong hierarchies. We are very much one of those species.
IngeniousEpithet 2 years ago
I dig that
TheStoicAgnostic 2 years ago
@IngeniousEpithet
I think we would agree on many points, but I balk at your notion of egalitarianism. It is a utopian pipe dream that denies legitimate differences. People are not equal. There is no way you can convince me that my lazy, white-trash, deliberately uneducated, violent, child beating, child molesting, worthless, piece of shit brother-in-law is somehow deserving to be my social and/or economic equal. Some people really do deserve more (or less) than others.
rmcdaniel423 2 years ago
@rmcdaniel
Well in an egalitarian community you wouldn't have the same social dynamic... so a lazy/white-trash/etc. piece of shit bro-in-law probably wouldn't exist. And if he did, he'd be made to account for himself for abusing other members of the group and/or not contributing his fair share. Shame and outcasting can go a long long way to shape humans up socially rather than via arbitrary legal/economic hierarchy. And I'm sure there's a root reason why he's such a POS that isn't genetic...
IngeniousEpithet 2 years ago
Of course its not genetic. He's a POS by choice. Lots and Lots of bad (but deliberate) personal choices. And without going into all the miserable details of his history and the way it has affected those around him, I can safely say he doesn't respond well to "shame".
When you say "egalitarian", do you mean all people ought to have equal RIGHTS in life, or equal CONDITIONS? I understand egalitarianism is about equalization, but equal what? Help me understand.
rmcdaniel423 2 years ago
rmcdaniel,
When I say egalitarian, I mean a localized group of people cooperating with each other to make their livelihood and take care of each other. Within such a structure there is no real hierarchy, no real positions of power or wealth (therefore not much incentive for corruption at all). It's sort of a humble, effective, free, no BS way for humans to organize themselves.
IngeniousEpithet 2 years ago
Do you mean sort of like the Amish, but without the religious hierarchy? Also, by "localized group", do you envision a few families working together, or a big group like a whole town? When you say "free", do imply that money is not used?
rmcdaniel423 2 years ago
rmcdaniel,
Yeah, I think the Amish could definitely qualify as localized egalitarian communities. I mean... I'm just talking root structure, you can tack anything you want onto such a lifestyle, atheism, religion, different styles/beliefs/culture/music/food/attitudes/stories/etc.. I was thinking more along the lines of a tribe, with or without hunting/gathering. Anthropologists say a tribe can function effectively with up to 150 people. But egalitarian communities can and do vary.
IngeniousEpithet 2 years ago
rmcdaniel,
As for the use of money, in an egalitarian and/or tribal culture, you'd have no real need for money, at least not within the community itself. A give support/get support model is usually employed where everyone gets what they need, everyone shares, everyone pitches in and does what they can to get things done.
IngeniousEpithet 2 years ago
Largo64,
Actual Anarchism is the belief in society without hierarchy. Or in a more practical sense- a society with all power/wealth hierarchies vastly reduced.
Now, unless you believe the world is 6000 years old, and you remember your anthropology, anatomically modern humans lived in more or less successful and very much sustainable anarchy for 90% of human history.
Hierarchy is totalitarianism, it perverts every noble or ignoble thing it wields.
IngeniousEpithet 2 years ago
I think its in human nature to group together. Its in the best interests of survival. Suppose Anarchy was initiated. Before long people would form groups for protection and trade. These groups would probably merge with other groups. Before long, hey presto you have a government.
AIEmpire 2 years ago
"State rules tend to be contradictory and unreasonable relative to other rules laid done"
DO remember, the reason that is so is because the people agreed that a rule was necessary. Believe it or not sometimes people actually make the state more complex in order for them to feel better.
For example, a person wants privacy. But when some1 intrudes on them, all of a sudden that person wants to know everything there is to know about that person.
Where did the intrudeds idea of privacy go??
Yujifanik 2 years ago
I see it exactly the opposite. Where there is NO government there is chaos. Where there is government there is order. I don't think we define chaos in the same way. There will always be differences between individuals and government, but those differences are worked out bit by bit in what we call legislatures, chosen by - us. Now, if you've never voted, perhaps you haven't signed onto the social contract. But some would say you have simply shirked your duty.
Largo64 2 years ago
Actually, it's you who state that human action is better ungoverned. You just haven't proved it.
Largo64 2 years ago
"I can point to the early US, where it was possible for individuals to live their entire lives with negligible or even no interaction with the state."
Of course you can. A large segment of the population lived on the frontier. Towns were little more than we would call villages today. Even then most had some kind of policing in the form of a town sheriff.
Largo64 2 years ago
Your main argument rests on the prejudice that not forcing people into acting means they wont be doing anything - that people thus will become "islands". You are basically seeing people as dolls, needing a ruler to act - having no free will nor any rational self interest. Why does anarchy equal chaos when people pursue their rational self interest? Voluntary organisation, cooperation and trade is all beneficial for the ego - and this can be proven both logically and historically.
MarcusNorberg 2 years ago
My main argument rests on the observation that, even with government controls, groups collude with each other to control the flow of goods and services for their own profit, to the detriment of other groups and individuals. Show me a country the size of the US that has ever worked well unrestrained by some kind of governmental coercion. I'm talking about modern world populations, not village cultures.
Largo64 2 years ago
The basic arguments for anarchy are all based on the descriptive psychological egoism of each individual, that all people act in their rational self interest. As all of your suggested "groups" probably will act in their rational self interest, they will definitely want to abuse other "groups" (as long as it's seemingly more profitable of course). Because all would want to abuse everybody else, it would thus also - and primarily - be a matter of defense from others. [Continued in next comment]
MarcusNorberg 2 years ago
Constant defense and offense has a terrible cost. You can also find other costs such as a lack of trade. Inevitably, some "groups" will realize that it is more profitable to put down ones weapons and to trade - thus unions will form. Working through economic ostracism to prevent new offenses, the union will prove even more beneficial for non-members.
It is hard for ancient countries to keep up with modern day countries population-wise; thus I will proclaim your request as impossible.
MarcusNorberg 2 years ago
Y'know when I was growing up D.A.R.E was just starting to take off.
Later I found that more kids started using drugs because of it.
Anarchists can make all the movies & calculations they want, but that won't stop people from pursuing destructive behavoirs.
You might argue that 'the state creates the violent individuals w/in it!' Thats not true, all those tendencies are naturally occuring & unless you dispose of them, they'll label even anarchists as "statists' impede his freedom!"
Yujifanik 2 years ago
I don't know too much about D.A.R.E, so it won't try to argue on it. But yes, some people will pursue destructive behaviours. This is something that will exist both in statist and voluntarist societies, as it's psychological. You cant solve these kinds of problems with violent statism - voluntaristic methods would be preferable. Through consequentialism, you might argue that the state for example relieves the consequences of certain behaviours through subsidizing what is not wished for.
MarcusNorberg 2 years ago
Are you opposed to all anarchy, or merely anarcho-capitalism?
I think that anarchism is a good idea, if not a natural progression., but only socialist anarchism
If you do oppose all anarchism, I would like to propose that you open your mind and consider thoroughly the following:
Our stage in human society - state capitalism - is this really the height of our evolution, or is there a high probability that we will progress further and that the state will be eliminated?
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
I agree with Consent.
You kept critisizing his grammar, as if it was relevent.
I am a slave to no man, not "my" government or people.
In Anarchy the economy would still work, because people could voluntarily join together and form corporations.
In Anarchy there would be order, because people could do what they wish in their own privacy, but if they infringed upon other's rights, they could opt to do service for the community, or they could be excommunicated (at their own decision).
Calhoon1832 2 years ago
Consentwithdrawn is right. The founders placed taxation in the constitution. No regular colonist signed nor voted 4 it. It established a ruling class & gave them the absolute power of taxation and law making. Taxation is a force. You cannot justify force, if you say it is a necessary evil or for the overall good, you are a marxist and a conformist to the state. We live in a forced system! Why in a forced system would they have or need 2 give u representation? all u get is the illusion of it.
ang9967 2 years ago
Take Britain for example- before the government there were Royal leaders. All was well until an oppressive King came to power. This lead to a revolt/civil war. Civil war lead to defeat of Royalty & establishment of a logical way of leading a Nation. IF the govt way is run 'correctly' then there should not be a problem. Unfortunately, man's nature is that of greed & power and this leads to the current state we're in. Anarchy is even more unlikely to ever happen due to man's nature.
DW01 2 years ago
The only true anarchists in the world are those who live in the woods in makeshift shacks, who forage for their own food and water, and possess no luxury or commodity whatsoever, such as cars, TV, computer, internet, etc.
lawfulg00d 2 years ago
Anarchy is the lack of rulers, the lack of a state. Not the lack of technology, which was created by private individuals for private profit, not by state programs, which are more often than not are nonproductive and wasteful.
lnd3005 2 years ago
How many people, having seen all those things, would opt to go to the woods and give them all up? I mean other than the unibomber?
Largo64 2 years ago
I don't know. I wouldn't.
But you miss the point. Those things were created by individuals for profit. They weren't created in the "interest of society," or for the "common good," and they weren't designed by bureaucrats or military scientists. The state does but little to further progress. Arguably it retards progress.
lnd3005 2 years ago
I'll give one compliment for all of these so-called "anarchists" both on and off line: they are highly amusing and entertaining (provided there not trying to kill anyone).
lawfulg00d 2 years ago
You listen to stereotypes to much. Not all anarchists want to kill people, true anarchists want decentralized government, not centralized government. The ones that want to kill people just want no laws. Anarchy isn't no laws, it's no rulers, hense the latin an archy, where an is no and archy is rule. No one should have more power than the other person we are all equal so no one should be granted more power. If they have more power we are mere slaves to them.
15443215112 2 years ago
Anarchy, defined as the lack of a state, does not create chaos. The state creates chaos, in its countless and never ending wars, in its many unjust laws, in its protectionism and subsidization of failing industries, in the very principles which it espouses and upon which it bases its rule. W/o the state, human beings would subsist and organize in the same way they do most any day of their lives: by mutual consent.
lnd3005 2 years ago
There are no armed gov't agents supervising grocery stores, shopping malls, textile plants, and oil refineries. Why do we need them supervising law enforcement, or handing our contracts for roads? We don't. The free market solves each and every problem as it arises, w/o coercing anyone.
lnd3005 2 years ago
Who would pay for roads? I lived on an unpaved road for seven years because the people in that rural area chose not to pay an assessment. Every winter we had to slog through a half mile of mud to get to the highway. Boy, wasn't THAT fun!
Largo64 2 years ago
Private investors would pay for roads, to make a profit. If there were no demand for auto transport in an area, no roads would be built. Or they'd be built and abandoned.
If you live in the wilderness, that's your decision. The rest of us shouldn't be forced to pay to for the consequences of your choices.
Do you think every other person is incompetent at everything he does, and needs his mommy to help him along the way every day of his life? 'Cause that's the impression I'm getting.
lnd3005 2 years ago
Yeah, private investors would pay for roads, so that every mile or so you'd have to stop and pay a toll. Nobody would ever get anywhere. Have you ever driven across the country? You can drive from the west at least a thousand miles before having to pay a toll. And then the tolls cover long stretches of highway.
Largo64 2 years ago
"The free market solves each and every problem as it arises, w/o coercing anyone."
This is just naïve. In the 19th century, when things in the western US were almost as "free market" as you think ideal, there were wars over grazing rights, and water rights. People who owned land, especially with rivers running through it, could stop it's free flow and charge whatever they wanted for water. Government prevents that kind of thing. Your so-called free market encourages it.
Largo64 2 years ago
I have no idea why you think there are so many people out to screw you, but it's a bit weird. If a private turnpike had booths every mile, it would be out of business quick-like. Someone is going to meet demand, if it's there.
The murder rate in the "Wild Wild West" was nothing compared to that in the eastern seaboard cities of the same era. Not so wild, huh?
lnd3005 2 years ago
Those private "wars" over grazing rights were nothing at all compared to WWI, which cost millions of young, innocent men their lives. Of course that was a "just war," right? You aren't applying the same moral compass to the state as you are to private individuals.
By and large gov'ts do not prevent violence. They create it. It's their business.
lnd3005 2 years ago
A country is not the same thing as the state that rules it. Being born in the USA does not make one a US citizen, any more than being born in a hospital makes one hospital citizen. An infant in the USA is physically no different from an infant anywhere else. It's the state's laws which declare an infant subject to the state; it is not some physical fact of birth.
lnd3005 2 years ago
People are born and live as "islands" unto themselves. There are no invisible threads among persons, and the state and its law have no magical power to prevent one man from attacking or offending another.
lnd3005 2 years ago
people are always going to form goups. the only thing we can do to protect our preferred rights is create or join a group that of protects (or maybe enforces... uh oh!) our way of doing things.
TheDastardlyDildo 2 years ago
Anarchy is a difficult thing to achieve, but i think that if everyone truly believed in just doing things for the greater good of society, that we wouldn't need a government to regulate us. We would even need money because everyone is doing things to further the country.
Pssghetti 2 years ago
Yes, if everyone truly believed . . . but as it is the greed of a relative few is very near destroying the economy of the whole world. If everyone practiced the so-called golden rule no government of any kind would be necessary. Those are lovely ideals, but incapable of practical application in a world of over 6 billion people.
Largo64 2 years ago
You don't get the point of anarchism. It is actually the theory of the state which requires 'everyone just doing things for the greater good of society'. Anarchism rests upon the belief that people are not to be trusted with power or maybe that power even attracts the wrong kind of people or interests. (corporations)
Therefore anarchism demands the abolishment of these instruments of power. (the state)
The state consists of people whose interest it is to stay in power, not to do good.
j4ck2234 2 years ago
Even the best people in the government have the interest to stay in power, you know so they can do 'good' which means that they have to compromise in order to survive - which will make them do bad things.
The only way the theory of the state works is if the vast majority of the people are always perfectly enlightened and altruistic beings. Otherwise they can be tricked or even lash out with the power of the state against other people. (you know like with subsidies on american jobs)
j4ck2234 2 years ago
You see that the theory of the state is crazy, especially democratic ones. It has nothing to do with the reality of human nature.
This will only lead to a massive socialistic leviathan that will feed the rich and attack the poor. The poor won't have the education to strike back while the middle class is fighting a class war against them through unions and regulations. (sounds familiar?)
All that lies in the dynamics that come with a state and human nature.
j4ck2234 2 years ago
Children don't owe their parents anything.
crazypants88 2 years ago
Children owe their parents everything until they reach their majority. They owe them their existence and their support. And they owe them their obedience. If you think not, you may well have an antisocial or lawless disposition. In any case you must have been a brat.
Largo64 2 years ago
Yes children owe their existence to their parents, that goes without saying. They do not owe them their obedience or their support however. You do not chose your parents therefore you cannot expect children to owe their parents anything.
Don't get me wrong I fully encourage people to support their parents in their old age or if the parent has health issues. Also I fully encourage children to obey there parents, provided they aren't extremely bad parents.
contd.
crazypants88 2 years ago
All I'm saying is that children don't choose to be born, and to expect support and/or obedience from that kind of relationship is crazy in my opinion.
Would expect a slave to owe his/her owner obedience or support because the owner saved the slave's life?. Both relationships are the same in that one party doesn't choose to enter into the relationship.
crazypants88 2 years ago
I really don't think the comparison between the relationship of child to parent and that of slave to master is a fair one. The relation of master to slave is a commercial one, the master holding the slave by force and providing subsistence in exchange for work that benefits only the master. Children are properly seen not as property, but as the responsibility of their parents.
Largo64 2 years ago
The comparison works consent wise. One party does not consent to the relationship.
crazypants88 2 years ago
You didn't consent to be born, but your parents gave you life anyway. Are you telling me that as a child you did not expect food, clothing and shelter from your parents? Given the attitude you display here I wonder how they feel about that now. The family relationship is not a contract. And it certainly isn't slavery.
Largo64 2 years ago
No, I have never been called a brat in my life. It has often been said that I'm very well behaved and very polite individual. Kind of saddens me that you jump to that conclusion.
crazypants88 2 years ago
You stated, withoput support or explanation, "Children don't owe their parents anything."
The conclusion I "jumped" to came from your attitude. To say that you owe parents nothing, with no qualifying remark whatever, to me sounds pugnacious and in need of a curt reply.
In principle, too, I disagree with you. I think we do owe our parents, unless they are abusive.
Largo64 2 years ago
And you asserted (at least implied) that children do owe their parents. Should I then assume you are a parent leeching of his children? Following your logic I should.
crazypants88 2 years ago
I am not a parent, but I was once a child. I believe children owe their parents obedience, because the parent has much to teach and the child much to learn. We come into the world dependent on our parents. They provide shelter, food, clothing and earliest knowledge. We certainly owe them a debt.
Largo64 2 years ago
Children do not owe their parents anything, nor do parents owe their children anything.
A parent can easily abandon a mewling infant, w/o fire raining down from heaven or rainbow lollipop princesses whisking the child away to fairy land.
A child can walk away from his parents forever, once he can walk. Angelic guardians do not descend to chide him, and evil imps do not torment him for his betrayal.
There are no invisible threads among human beings.
lnd3005 2 years ago
Your channel bio says you are a student. I was thinking probably college, but now it looks more like middle school. You need to get a vasectomy as soon as possible, because a person who thinks like you should ever be a parent. You will be a lousy one.
Largo64 2 years ago
Grad student.
So far I haven't thrown any insults your way. I wish you'd do me the same courtesy.
I was illustrating the ridiculousness of claiming that someone can be born into a state of obligation, or enter into it by virtue of reproduction.
lnd3005 2 years ago
check out the series im working on right now largo, 3 out of 5 are up. it explains how real law is supposed to function, and how the government just gets in the way. ill post it as a video response.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Interesting. The other day a question came to mind of why we have to pay car insurance and how that entire thing got started. We know we must pay our insurance or there are systems in place that can lead to unpleasant circumstances. People can have their license suspended for not paying that insurance. Shouldn't a person be able to choose whether they want insurance or not? And I continued to think of all the systems in place that are enforced. Taxes, insurance, etc. No choices in the matter.
Rhonda9 2 years ago
Actually, we aren't required to carry insurance to cover damage to ourselves. The law relates to liability for harm we may do others. Personally, I think compulsory liability insurance is a good idea, since so many people would just "risk" injury to others and then be unable to redress any damage they did. As it is, we are allowed to carry a minimum amount of liability insurance. I always carry the maximum because many years ago I had an accident, injuring someone, and I wasn't covered enough.
Largo64 2 years ago
I think whether or not anarchy is a good idea depends on how far you can stretch the limit before one single social community turns into several smaller social groups. In a small community, like the partially anarchist danish town Fristaden Christiania, it would be easy to maintain a relatively good social level,
EasytoonGuy 2 years ago
... but in a big community, like the partially anarchist place Somalia, people would most likely turn into groups, which may or may not turn into violence between them due to lack of social contact.
EasytoonGuy 2 years ago
I've got to grammar-nazi myself here. I meant "anarchic", not "anarchist".
EasytoonGuy 2 years ago
A good example of anarchy in action. Somalia has a government of sorts, but it's hardly recognized within its own borders. Real control is in the hands of clans. Would anyone from the regulated government of the US feel safe in Somalia? I think not. We do feel relatively safe in our own country.
Largo64 2 years ago
1) Fristaden Christiania is a "colony" within the city of Copenhagen, Denmark. Its population is "650 grown ups and 200 children," according to their website. 850 people is about the size of a healthy US church. Such a small group is necessarily insular. Diversity is scarcely possible except with respect to individual personalities.
Largo64 2 years ago
2) From the Fristaden Christiania website: "Through the individual Christianits self-discipline and the communitys close network have we created a district, almost without crime, violence and fear . . . "
A community of 850 "almost" without crime, violence and fear" doesn't recommend itself to me as any better than the community I live in with about 60,000 people and "almost without crime and violence," on the edge of a city of about a million. We do okay without an anarchic structure.
Largo64 2 years ago
3) The early American colonies started out the same as Christiania Fristaden, and later allied themselves into states and then the United States. Anarchy tends to seek government. I think that to seek anarchy FROM government is going backward.
Largo64 2 years ago
Yeah, anarchy would probably pretty much just go back to an archy in the length. That's why anarchy is a bad idea in my opinion: it's unstable, and requires a good social, self-diciplined society, and on a grand scale, this becomes so hard that sooner or later, either chaos will erupt somewhere, or the need for an archy becomes so big that it becomes one.
This is just a thesis of mine, though, but I do consider it a big possibility as a consequence of anarchy.
EasytoonGuy 2 years ago
I don't object to anarchism on idealistic grounds, but on practical ones. I don't think humankind is well suited to an ungoverned existence except in solitary or in relatively small groups (like, perhaps, Rainbow gatherings). Keep in mind that, even if they last a month at a time, as illyounotme has said, those gatherings are not permanent. If they were, long-term needs of the whole community would have to be addressed. And that's not a week (or a month) in the woods.
Largo64 2 years ago
" I don't think humankind is well suited to an ungoverned existence except in solitary or in relatively small groups "
But philosophers have argued before american democracy that humankind is not well suited for a democratic existence and it requires a dictator to keep it under control.
Do you see the point I am making? I am not expressly defending anarchism, because I dont know how it will turn out, all I am saying is we should give it a try.
truthofevolution 2 years ago
1) It would be great if somehow a computer model of such a society could be fed with all the possible variables and we could sit back and watch a virtual "society" work. But in real life, where would you begin? Historically, such sweeping changes in societal structure have required revolutions.
It's been suggested that there are only criminals because there are laws. I think that's rather simple thinking, but let's say for the sake of argument that it's true. (cont.)
Largo64 2 years ago
2) Do we, for a start, close all the prisons and let all the criminals out? Or are only SOME laws responsible for crime? Maybe we should keep the murderers, rapists and child molesters in prison. Possibly the violent gang-bangers, too, although most of them probably fit into at least categories one and two above. We let go all the dope pushers, because there won't any longer be laws against any kind of drugs.
(cont.)
Largo64 2 years ago
3) With no taxes except those that are agreed to individually, how will we support roads and highways? Do we abandon traffic lights? (That has actually been suggested a year or two ago.) How many public hospitals will have to close for lack of support? Can Church supported or other private hospitals carry the entire burden?
Barter works well for small groups and vacationers like the Rainbow gatherings, but can any kind of efficiency occur without a standardized currency? (one more)
Largo64 2 years ago
4) Last one, I promise!
I know we are having a lot of trouble with our currency right now, and much has been written and said about the central banking system. Certainly it needs changes. But given where we are now, how might a government free system be instituted to replace the one in force now? Seriously, will the banks yield control to a loose confederation of anarchists with no force of government behind them? I may be wrong, but I just don't see it.
Largo64 2 years ago
Largo, I dont have answers to your questions. I guess it depends on your definition of an anarchy. That is you can have a currency system without a government, correct? You can have private industries, road builders, and so forth, without a power overseeing it.
The issue anarchists seem to have is that when you give an individual power, they will get corrupted.
But I dont know enough about to answer you, sorry!
truthofevolution 2 years ago
When the United states was first founded and there were only thirteen states, each of those states had its own currency, and sometimes the currency of one was not recognized in another state. it took a centralized currency (and the government to create and oversee it) to make interstate commerce not merely smoother, but even possible.
Largo64 2 years ago
Even with contracts, must there not be some kind of coercive power to enforce the contract? Now, I know that there are contracts between honorable people sealed only with a handshake. But such things are rare. As the saying goes, a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
Largo64 2 years ago
One thing not addressed is the question of what happens to minorities when there is no state to protect their rights. Absolute majority rule is as bad as dictatorship, in that majorities naturally subdue and persecute minorities. Even with the state as watchdog, minorities are abused. The Proposition 8 struggle in California is a good example. A majority, whose own rights are not affected in any way by gay marriage, used the weight of numbers to deprive a minority community of their rights.
Largo64 2 years ago
If there were no government, no coercion of law, gays would not only be deprived of their rights, but persecuted, bashed, and even murdered in far greater numbers than they already are. If anarchy had reigned in the 19th century, there might very well still be slavery in the US. At any rate, black people would still be as oppressed as they were a century ago. Even with representative government and a constitution supposedly upholding civil rights, it took until 1964 to begin enforcing them.
Largo64 2 years ago
about minorities- I agree but you have to admit that most prejudice against minorities is institutionalized. There would be very little prejudice if there was no organization of such ideas.
truthofevolution 2 years ago
personally i dont like the idea of using a social contract to describe government/society. Hobbes argued that our ancestors signed consent to a totalitarian leader to lead. Then Hobbes rationalizes that since they decided that he is most capable of leading, he should also be most capable of choosing this successor, and that successor most be most capable as well.
You can use this sort of philosophizing to rationalize anything. Thats why I think we should try what works. If anarchy works, fine.
truthofevolution 2 years ago
I had mistakenly taken you for an open minded person, who was honestly asking if there was information to be learned that could make anarchism sound better to you.
My Mistake.
Obviously you are not actually interested in this. I will trouble you no more. I don't mind answering questions sought, but I am not trying to convince people who don't what to have their opinion threatened by new ideas. Sorry for getting you worked up, and enjoy your time on YouTube.
illyounotme 2 years ago
You say you don't mind answering questions, but I asked a couple TWICE and you haven't bothered with them. I asked about financing, sanitation and health care.
As for being closed minded, I offer objections, which gives you the chance to clarify your point if you can. It's called discourse. Apparently that's too much for you. So call me closed minded and go away. That's okay with me.
I am not closed minded because I observed that what is essentially a vacation is not a society.
Largo64 2 years ago