Daily Anarchist Forum
August 20, 2019, 09:47:13 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Poll
Question: How many people do you think it would take to engage in a successful Ancap enclave project?
2-100 - 2 (28.6%)
100-500 - 0 (0%)
500-1,000 - 0 (0%)
1,000-5,000 - 1 (14.3%)
5,000-10,000 - 0 (0%)
10,000-50,000 - 2 (28.6%)
50k plus - 1 (14.3%)
Can't happen - 0 (0%)
The Balls are Inert - 1 (14.3%)
Total Voters: 7

Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Enclave/Group preferences  (Read 18270 times)
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2013, 07:32:21 PM »

At some point we're gonna have to hike up the skirt and get shit done. Agorist I understand your pessimism but really what is it going to accomplish? Nobody is going to beat the US military in the immediate future. If anarchy is achieved 200 years from now great but what good is that to me? I'm going to be dead in 60 years...

I want to be free. And I think it's worth the risk. acft has not suggested shirking the US with this enclave. He has stated that we need to follow all the bullshit regulations and I agree with that. Nothing Anarchist is going to exist in the US ever. You are right they will kill us if we give them a reason to. We need to be focussed on getting out of this country, and to a place with minimal military might.

I seriously doubt that every country is going to attack us at the same time and I doubt that more then one will attack us at a time. I think that it's possible that we can get this going with out provoking a gubberment to kill us. Yes they're blood thirsty and vicious, but come on. They haven't killed off the hippie communes and the commie communes why are they going to treat us differently? To them our vision is as unrealistic as the Ancomms I seriously doubt that Statists truely believe in anarchy and are just in denial. Honestly this entire situation reminds of Christians saying that there are no atheists, that everyone believes in God but some just deny HIm. It's pretty silly.

I think you have set your expectations so high that nothing will ever be good enough for you. That's fine to each his own. If you judge the risk too great for you to participate all the power to you. But you have to realize that what you want is never going to be possible. You have defined a goal and set the rules so that to you it is impossible.

So, the US and UK didn't work together to ensure that Ethiopia would keep Somalia to busy to continue their society without a government?  Nobody has yet to explain why a government, any government wouldn't feel that its existence would be threatened by a society which exists without a government.  Also, you can run anywhere you want outside the US, it certainly wont stop the US from attacking you.

I don't set my expectation high; but I do recognise that the existence of a peaceful society existing without a government is a threat to all governments everywhere.  You apparently do not recognize that.  To be able to -in one manner or another- neutralize the US would be the only way for an AnCap society to exist anywhere.  Some on here think the US will just leave you alone, to operate a society without a government; this will not happen.

The hippie communes, don't actually pose a threat to the very existence of government.  That is why the US government would never kill them off.  A hippie commune is ridiculous with its rules, so most people don't join them, and the hippie commune even makes many people grateful for the current government.  This would not happen in a AnCap system.  So, to compare a hippie commune which has many rules, with an AnCap society with only one rule, is worse than comparing apples to oranges.

AnComs, while being anti government do create their own methods of mass control of the populations.  The AnCom would need for everybody to be 100% on board with their system for it to work, which is why Governments don't feel threatened, besides the fact that their are more rules in communist societies then there are in our current society -this gives a very easy method to control the people; what government wouldn't like that?  Many AnComs have devised not-so-nice ways of dealing with those who do not follow along.

All forms of Statism require that only some form of Statism exists; however, non-Statism cannot exist without threatening all forms of Statism -so non-Statism is never permitted.
Logged
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2013, 08:09:58 PM »

I think you are seriously over estimating the level of give-a-shit that gubberments will throw our way. This whole Somalia thing I find ridiculous. Why is everyone so convinced that it was ever Anarchist? Somalia got shit on end of story.


Quote
Nobody has yet to explain why a government, any government wouldn't feel that its existence would be threatened by a society which exists without a government.


Just because we prefer to be left alone and not told what to do doesn't mean that the vast majority of the population feels the same way. Value is subjective. Do you really think that people don't want to be ruled? Don't be ridiculous. News flash what we have now is a free market, what we have now is anarchy. It just happens to be that slavery is what people continue to choose over and over.

I'm sure you're familiar with the whole people voting with their dollars, choosing what they want. Well the votes are tallied, enough people want Statism to make it the dominate system on the planet. If/when people change their minds then the dominate system will change, and I'm not holding my breath for this to happen any time soon. I'd rather take my destiny into my own hands then let another decide my fate. Taking responsibility always brings risk. If you allow fear of what might happen to rule your life then you're always going to be fleeting from shadow to shadow to busy running to live.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2013, 10:25:57 PM »

I think you are seriously over estimating the level of give-a-shit that gubberments will throw our way. This whole Somalia thing I find ridiculous. Why is everyone so convinced that it was ever Anarchist? Somalia got shit on end of story.


Quote
Nobody has yet to explain why a government, any government wouldn't feel that its existence would be threatened by a society which exists without a government.


Just because we prefer to be left alone and not told what to do doesn't mean that the vast majority of the population feels the same way. Value is subjective. Do you really think that people don't want to be ruled? Don't be ridiculous. News flash what we have now is a free market, what we have now is anarchy. It just happens to be that slavery is what people continue to choose over and over.

I'm sure you're familiar with the whole people voting with their dollars, choosing what they want. Well the votes are tallied, enough people want Statism to make it the dominate system on the planet. If/when people change their minds then the dominate system will change, and I'm not holding my breath for this to happen any time soon. I'd rather take my destiny into my own hands then let another decide my fate. Taking responsibility always brings risk. If you allow fear of what might happen to rule your life then you're always going to be fleeting from shadow to shadow to busy running to live.


I'm sure people would rather spend their own dollars than to have government spend them; however, under currents circumstances via governments, the general population think that without government there would be mass killings in the streets.  Do you really think government didn't have any hand in pushing that image on the people?  Do you really think that if a non-government system were to emerge, which did everything a Statist system provided while increasing profits and products and having zero tax, people wouldn't desire it?

I'm not afraid what might happen; I know what will happen, if people underestimate the threat government poses for their lives.  You just want to be left alone.  Name one country that the US government just leaves alone?  If a non-government system isn't perceived as such a threat then why did the US and UK feel that it was necessary to take-out Somalia before it became a peaceful, productive, non-government system?  Do you think that if Zimbabwe starts growing their own food, thereby lifting themselves out of poverty -while not having an actual government,  the US or some-other government will just leave them alone?

While having an AnCap system wont simultaneously end Government, it will give aid to those working inside a Statist country to show as proof that the absence of government doesn't have to lead to chaos.  The existence of just one peaceful, productive, non-government system will put serious pressure on governments throughout the world.  It is not exactly like a government will be able to keep saying, "we need government because without it everybody will be dying on the streets," if there is an actual example which proves that message false.  Likewise, the government won't be able to keep bleeding the people dry, when an example exists of a system which functions better while the people don't pay any taxes.

In essence, with the existence of an AnCap society there will be physical -not just theoretical or philosophical- proof that government is not needed.  If you cannot see why governments wouldn't allow something like that to exist, then you really need to think harder on the matter.

Also, we do not have a free market.  Elections are rigged; how can that be a free market?  The 97% of all media is owned by the same people who own the Fed and politicians; how can that be a free market?  I'm not sure where you get that there is any kind of free market.  If the people in government along with their corporatist buddies in business want something passed, they just hold a vote on it.  They rig the vote and the measure passes; that sounds quite free market to me.

The current anti-gun stuff wont pass 100%, but then it is not supposed to; it is being used to divert attention.  The vast majority of people will tolerate far more pain and suffering at the hands of their own then they ever would by foreigners; and most people will be very reluctant to fire on their own police or military as opposed to foreigners.  Do you really think that if the people who went around collecting guns after Katrina were Germans, Russian, or Chinese, the Americans would have just turned over their guns?

So, Americans are extremely unlikely to start going after police or military any-time soon; and the police and military attack in numbers to overtake a situation quickly.  Whether Americans have semi-auto weapons or not, is really not going to make a difference, when 15 to 20 plus individuals in militarized fire-teams storms an individuals house at 3am.  So, then what is the whole gun debate all about then.  Guns are an issue which can rile people up on both sides and keep them arguing forever, becoming blind to everything else.

I wonder how many people in the regular world knows what's going on with Cyprus, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany?  I wonder how many regular people have noticed that the price of Gold has gone down, while Silver has gone up slightly, the Stock Market has gone up, while unemployment has also gone up; foreclosures are still happening while Blackwater just got let off the hook for all wrongdoing because they were following orders from the CIA.  There is so much shit going on and down right now, throughout the world and within the US as well as within each individual State and even on the local level; however, most people have no idea about any of it, because the gun debate is happening.

These last several paragraphs of my diatribe were just in explaining that the focus, and the debate are rigged and therefore there cannot be a free market; so, people are not necessarily getting what they want.  The people are getting what TPTB want people to want, by having the important information hidden from the normal public.
Logged
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2013, 10:59:06 PM »

When I say "we" I don't mean the US I mean the world, I mean humanity, I mean existence. The market is human action. Existence is organic, it is anarchic. What exists between individuals is anarchy. They interact in a free market through human action. The state is created because it is what the actors want.

Life is anarchy, human action is the free market, this is all there is. Once you've accepted that what exists all over the world is anarchy and the free market, then you can move onto the realization that people form the State because it is what they desire.

True people are stupid and brainwashed I don't particularly care what their motivations are it doesn't matter. What matters is that the majority of the people have decided that they desire the State. It is their choice to do so.

I contend that if an AnCap society were established there would be people working to create States within it. I contend that this is what has happened already. The world is already in anarchy and in the free market this is the state of nature. But the "people" have decided that they want the State. Also back to this Somalia thing, now I'm going to put this in bold italics and all caps because I've said it on a dozen threads already and multiple times on this thread and it's not sinking in, maybe you're not reading my posts, I don't know.

 I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT SOMALIA EVER EXISTED IN THE STATE OF NATURE. The motivation of the powerful to increase their power is enough for them to justify taking over Somalia. Even if Somalia was anarchist (still not convinced) the lack of cohesion would be enough of a motivator for the US to attack it. Predators attack the weak and the lame.

Power desires more power, anything that concentrates more power is going to be desired by the power hungry. It doesn't have to be because they were "anarchist".
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: March 17, 2013, 11:02:47 PM »

I'm sure people would rather spend their own dollars than to have government spend them;
I sooooo wish you were right on this one. But it's not true. Many people disagree.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: March 17, 2013, 11:11:11 PM »

War is what the state does. In fact this is the only thing that the state does. By it's nature it wants to destroy shit, it's just looking for an excuse.

I contend that keeping these projects under the radar is the best option. Your right if you go around proselytizing the State is going to kill you. If these projects were known by zero non participants I would consider it the most optimal situation.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
acft
Newbie
*
Posts: 49


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: March 18, 2013, 04:22:03 PM »

Agrarian_Agorist
Quote
What makes you think that the State will not actively resist this through force of arms.

By the state I think you mean the US, which, again, is an unfair standard. Still:

   The US did nothing to stop the genocides in Rwanda and many other nations. The US did nothing to stop Russians invasion of Georgia (an ally)
   The US has only recently become overtly active in africa again with africom. This means all of the atrocities and coups, and milita groups in Africa have been operating with no US troops on the ground. Indeed, no report of even drone strikes in the vast majority of those countries. (Cony 2012)
   The US has not invaded Mexico even though the Cartels challenge their policy and violate their very borders
   There are neighborhoods in LA the cops will not go into, feds, DEA or otherwise.
   The US did not use force against North Korea when they openly shelled a South Korean island AND sunk a South Korean destroyer.
   There have been numerous communes in america and around the world that already practiced what we are trying to do.
   There were already new nation projects that were not militarily opposed by the US government in the past.
   Monarchies still exist, and are not a "state" as we come to understand it.

   There have been many overtly militant organizations that opposed the US (weather underground, black panthers) that did not have all its members wiped out in some mass attack. Overt terrorist organizations like the KKK or the white nationalists or the US based Hebrew Israelites operate without being bombed or gunned down. There are many many many anti-gov militias training unmolested to counter a gun grab as we speak. ( I agree they will probably fail)

   The US is in serious financial trouble AND is over extended militarily, as you alluded to. It is hard to imagine that they will divert an aircraft carrier group or destroyer group to bomb some arcane colony. Its not like noone would take note of a random shelling of some land for no reason. They could very seriously not even afford the resources begin diverted given the Threat of an Iranian response to an isreali attack, the threat of awar in north korea, the need to intervene in Sayria or some other mid east nation.


Given all this, it is still possible, but not as likely as it is being made to sound. Furthermore, we would be prepared to respond (as evident by the article about defense I linked to and my previous responses about defense) Again, it is a risk.

Your waco example is not relevant. 1- Obviously someone had personal beef with him 2- They were an easy target, peaceful, kept to themselves, and did not desire conflict. 3 They were within the US

Quote
There were some other secondary messages and motives behind them

This cannot be understated. Not only were there reports of fully automatic weapon fire (against federal law without the proper tax stamp. But there were also reports of child molestation (marriage to little girls) which they frown upon heavily. I do not know if any of this was true.

The enclave idea within the US does not call for child sex or automatic weapons.

Somalia has and has always had numerous parties competing for power: foreign states, warlords, and 3 state regions inside Somalia(TFG, Somaliland, Puntland). Furthermore it is in the mid east and is full of natural resources. It is also a muslim country and may harbor terrorists. They are also one of the few countries that militarily expelled and embarrassed the Us (like Libya) This example could not be more unfair.

AS for the sovereign move, there are countries that have tons of child sex (Thailand sex tourism) and countries that have legal drugs, and many of them are not being bombed by the US or invaded or even sanctioned. HA, there are tons of congressman who have child sex. The Vatican is renowned for child sex and yes the Catholic church is left alone, the Vatican has not been bombed or invaded.

Quote
The US government only allows the different organizations exist which doesn't directly question it's(the US government's) power and authority

This is not true. They intervene militarily when they see their vital interests are threatened. these vital interests usually have to do with A) military bases/strategic terratory or B) natural resources. The trouble of invading or bombing has to overcome a threshold for them to be bothered with something. There are many groups and organizations that are overtly anti-american here and abroad. The US has not bombed or invaded all countries.

If what you say is true. Hong Kong should have been nuked by now. Forget Hong Kong, take Colorado and Washington state. They just legalized mary J and should have federal troops marching on them right about now. Or maybe all the states that have Medical marijuanna. The US fed gov does not instantly respond to all threats with overt force or even sanctions.

There are many countries, large and small, with significantly better conditions for business and civil liberties than the US.

Furthermore, when they intervene militarily they often need an excuse (massacres, wmds, on a small colony? ) AND they usually do it after a long series of sanctions.

Quote
If you cannot fend off the US government or some-other government wherever you want to create the enclave, then it will not last very long.  

This leads me to believe that you did not read the article on defense. This is handled extensively. It is "some other country" we have to be concerned about.

Quote
The one thing government protects more than anything else, is its very existence; and AnCap enclave/society would dispel the belief that government is required and therefore become a threat to any and all governments.


The project is based on the very concept that the masses will not and cannot have that concept dispelled form them. Again, Hong Kong exists, and yet tens of millions of liberals want more taxes. No amount of evidence is going to change the statists minds. We don't even have to go to Hong Kong, thee ate States within the Us with lower taxes that do better than other states with higher taxes and more laws and YET people still beg for more of it. this project will not dispel anything nor is its purpose to do that.

Quote
Nobody has yet to explain why a government, any government wouldn't feel that its existence would be threatened by a society which exists without a government.

No one made the claim they would not feel threatened. The claim was made that there would be a low probability of the US or another major western nation attacking us. They can feel threatened all they want. There's a good chance that decision makers wouldn't even know we existed. They don't read their own memos.

Quote
I don't set my expectation high

The ability to defend oneself against or neutralize the US or a major European power is way too high. Again, not Russia, China or Europe, probably combined, could defend against an American attack. This standard makes no sense and is impractical.

Most countries that exist today, 200 something, cannot defend against a major western power. Not even close. What matters is defensive parity between you and your neighbors.

Quote
Some on here think the US will just leave you alone, to operate a society without a government; this will not happen.

No one stated this either, again, the article and my response about meddling addresses this very issue.

Quote
The existence of just one peaceful, productive, non-government system will put serious pressure on governments throughout the world.  It is not exactly like a government will be able to keep saying, "we need government because without it everybody will be dying on the streets," if there is an actual example which proves that message false.  Likewise, the government won't be able to keep bleeding the people dry, when an example exists of a system which functions better while the people don't pay any taxes.

In essence, with the existence of an AnCap society there will be physical -not just theoretical or philosophical- proof that government is not needed.

No, that is exactly the case, the government will keep saying the same line and people will keep believing it. No matter what the government does and no matter how other countries with barely any taxes and with lax laws prosper, they will will get away with the same line for the very reasons you cited. Hong Kong is very prosperous with something like 5-10% tax rate and yet all the other regiments are keeping their taxes steady if not raising them. No matter how bad it gets, even if there is open revolt, the people will simply demand a different government. We see proof of this with the arab spring and the EU crisis. violent or non-violent, the people just vote in new governments.

Bear in mind, I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am responding to your arguments and pointing out counter examples. Furthermore, the enclave within the US is not the same as the move for a sovereign territory outside of and far away from the US.

Basically, your argument is the US will ignore millions slaughtered in genocide, unspeakable atrocities, rampant child sex and white slavery, arms dealings, legal and prolific drugs and prostitution and near o % tax rates, countries that attack and invade their allies overtly, countries that operate explicitly as tax havens to enable the rich to avoid taxes, and countries that harbor terrorists without launching invasions and without bombing the majority of these places. However, a colony with a few ancaps looking to do business with the world is completely intolerable. again I see it as possible, some congressman can take it up as their crusade or something, but I see it as significantly less likely and manageable. They are not invincible or invulnerable or all powerful or all knowing.

Your arguments are perhaps more appropriate for the blueseed project that is trying to make a seastead 12 miles off the coast of California. I can see your worries applying to them because it is close to the US, it exists in order to directly challenge the US system of gov., they explicitly plan to violate US code, and they explicitly want to prove that their system is superior to that of the US system.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2013, 04:31:52 PM by acft » Logged
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: March 18, 2013, 04:35:36 PM »

Well said acft, furthermore I think the mistake that Agorist is making is that he is assuming that everyone thinks like him, has the same values and priorities. As I stated before just because we want to be left alone doesn't mean that everyone agrees.

EDIT: In addition perfect security is a myth.

Second EDIT:
Quote
The US has not invaded Mexico even though the Cartels challenge their policy and violate their very borders
The borders of New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona are not even patrolled by US troops. They are patrolled by volunteers. The Texas Militia, a constitutional militia of minarchists, conducts border security operations in these states.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2013, 04:53:29 PM by MAM » Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: March 18, 2013, 05:58:45 PM »

Agrarian_Agorist
Quote
What makes you think that the State will not actively resist this through force of arms.

By the state I think you mean the US, which, again, is an unfair standard. Still:

   The US did nothing to stop the genocides in Rwanda and many other nations. The US did nothing to stop Russians invasion of Georgia (an ally)
   The US has only recently become overtly active in africa again with africom. This means all of the atrocities and coups, and milita groups in Africa have been operating with no US troops on the ground. Indeed, no report of even drone strikes in the vast majority of those countries. (Cony 2012)
   The US has not invaded Mexico even though the Cartels challenge their policy and violate their very borders
   There are neighborhoods in LA the cops will not go into, feds, DEA or otherwise.
   The US did not use force against North Korea when they openly shelled a South Korean island AND sunk a South Korean destroyer.
   There have been numerous communes in america and around the world that already practiced what we are trying to do.
   There were already new nation projects that were not militarily opposed by the US government in the past.
   Monarchies still exist, and are not a "state" as we come to understand it.

   There have been many overtly militant organizations that opposed the US (weather underground, black panthers) that did not have all its members wiped out in some mass attack. Overt terrorist organizations like the KKK or the white nationalists or the US based Hebrew Israelites operate without being bombed or gunned down. There are many many many anti-gov militias training unmolested to counter a gun grab as we speak. ( I agree they will probably fail)

   The US is in serious financial trouble AND is over extended militarily, as you alluded to. It is hard to imagine that they will divert an aircraft carrier group or destroyer group to bomb some arcane colony. Its not like noone would take note of a random shelling of some land for no reason. They could very seriously not even afford the resources begin diverted given the Threat of an Iranian response to an isreali attack, the threat of awar in north korea, the need to intervene in Sayria or some other mid east nation.


Given all this, it is still possible, but not as likely as it is being made to sound. Furthermore, we would be prepared to respond (as evident by the article about defense I linked to and my previous responses about defense) Again, it is a risk.

Your waco example is not relevant. 1- Obviously someone had personal beef with him 2- They were an easy target, peaceful, kept to themselves, and did not desire conflict. 3 They were within the US

Quote
There were some other secondary messages and motives behind them

This cannot be understated. Not only were there reports of fully automatic weapon fire (against federal law without the proper tax stamp. But there were also reports of child molestation (marriage to little girls) which they frown upon heavily. I do not know if any of this was true.

The enclave idea within the US does not call for child sex or automatic weapons.

Somalia has and has always had numerous parties competing for power: foreign states, warlords, and 3 state regions inside Somalia(TFG, Somaliland, Puntland). Furthermore it is in the mid east and is full of natural resources. It is also a muslim country and may harbor terrorists. They are also one of the few countries that militarily expelled and embarrassed the Us (like Libya) This example could not be more unfair.

AS for the sovereign move, there are countries that have tons of child sex (Thailand sex tourism) and countries that have legal drugs, and many of them are not being bombed by the US or invaded or even sanctioned. HA, there are tons of congressman who have child sex. The Vatican is renowned for child sex and yes the Catholic church is left alone, the Vatican has not been bombed or invaded.

Quote
The US government only allows the different organizations exist which doesn't directly question it's(the US government's) power and authority

This is not true. They intervene militarily when they see their vital interests are threatened. these vital interests usually have to do with A) military bases/strategic terratory or B) natural resources. The trouble of invading or bombing has to overcome a threshold for them to be bothered with something. There are many groups and organizations that are overtly anti-american here and abroad. The US has not bombed or invaded all countries.

If what you say is true. Hong Kong should have been nuked by now. Forget Hong Kong, take Colorado and Washington state. They just legalized mary J and should have federal troops marching on them right about now. Or maybe all the states that have Medical marijuanna. The US fed gov does not instantly respond to all threats with overt force or even sanctions.

There are many countries, large and small, with significantly better conditions for business and civil liberties than the US.

Furthermore, when they intervene militarily they often need an excuse (massacres, wmds, on a small colony? ) AND they usually do it after a long series of sanctions.

Quote
If you cannot fend off the US government or some-other government wherever you want to create the enclave, then it will not last very long.  

This leads me to believe that you did not read the article on defense. This is handled extensively. It is "some other country" we have to be concerned about.

Quote
The one thing government protects more than anything else, is its very existence; and AnCap enclave/society would dispel the belief that government is required and therefore become a threat to any and all governments.


The project is based on the very concept that the masses will not and cannot have that concept dispelled form them. Again, Hong Kong exists, and yet tens of millions of liberals want more taxes. No amount of evidence is going to change the statists minds. We don't even have to go to Hong Kong, thee ate States within the Us with lower taxes that do better than other states with higher taxes and more laws and YET people still beg for more of it. this project will not dispel anything nor is its purpose to do that.

Quote
Nobody has yet to explain why a government, any government wouldn't feel that its existence would be threatened by a society which exists without a government.

No one made the claim they would not feel threatened. The claim was made that there would be a low probability of the US or another major western nation attacking us. They can feel threatened all they want. There's a good chance that decision makers wouldn't even know we existed. They don't read their own memos.

Quote
I don't set my expectation high

The ability to defend oneself against or neutralize the US or a major European power is way too high. Again, not Russia, China or Europe, probably combined, could defend against an American attack. This standard makes no sense and is impractical.

Most countries that exist today, 200 something, cannot defend against a major western power. Not even close. What matters is defensive parity between you and your neighbors.

Quote
Some on here think the US will just leave you alone, to operate a society without a government; this will not happen.

No one stated this either, again, the article and my response about meddling addresses this very issue.

Quote
The existence of just one peaceful, productive, non-government system will put serious pressure on governments throughout the world.  It is not exactly like a government will be able to keep saying, "we need government because without it everybody will be dying on the streets," if there is an actual example which proves that message false.  Likewise, the government won't be able to keep bleeding the people dry, when an example exists of a system which functions better while the people don't pay any taxes.

In essence, with the existence of an AnCap society there will be physical -not just theoretical or philosophical- proof that government is not needed.

No, that is exactly the case, the government will keep saying the same line and people will keep believing it. No matter what the government does and no matter how other countries with barely any taxes and with lax laws prosper, they will will get away with the same line for the very reasons you cited. Hong Kong is very prosperous with something like 5-10% tax rate and yet all the other regiments are keeping their taxes steady if not raising them. No matter how bad it gets, even if there is open revolt, the people will simply demand a different government. We see proof of this with the arab spring and the EU crisis. violent or non-violent, the people just vote in new governments.

Bear in mind, I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am responding to your arguments and pointing out counter examples. Furthermore, the enclave within the US is not the same as the move for a sovereign territory outside of and far away from the US.

Basically, your argument is the US will ignore millions slaughtered in genocide, unspeakable atrocities, rampant child sex and white slavery, arms dealings, legal and prolific drugs and prostitution and near o % tax rates, countries that attack and invade their allies overtly, countries that operate explicitly as tax havens to enable the rich to avoid taxes, and countries that harbor terrorists without launching invasions and without bombing the majority of these places. However, a colony with a few ancaps looking to do business with the world is completely intolerable. again I see it as possible, some congressman can take it up as their crusade or something, but I see it as significantly less likely and manageable. They are not invincible or invulnerable or all powerful or all knowing.

Your arguments are perhaps more appropriate for the blueseed project that is trying to make a seastead 12 miles off the coast of California. I can see your worries applying to them because it is close to the US, it exists in order to directly challenge the US system of gov., they explicitly plan to violate US code, and they explicitly want to prove that their system is superior to that of the US system.

The first half of your comment is an entire joke.  Government -all types- are allowable, because they al serve the same purpose.  Non-governmnet is the only type of society which breaks away from the enslavement of the masses.  A monarchy, communist, socialist, fascist, republic, democracy, etc all are governments -they all force everybody within the citizenry of said government to do whatever they decree.  A voluntaryist society breaks that mould; nobody is forced to do anything.  Are you and MAM able to understand the difference between government and non-government systems?

If we can say that organizations will do what is in their best interest -just like people will- then it will be accepted that governments are organizations and therefore will also do what is in its best interest; right?  Governments tolerate people forming other governments, because the same mechanisms are in-place -no matter what kind of government one creates.  This is why the US government doesn't really care if one sets-up a communist enclave somewhere -because communism doesn't actually work beyond a certain population size, and most people wouldn't particularly like communism as a method of living their lives; it sounds great, but try it.  Communism does have more overt rules than current society; no matter who set it up.

Therefore, again if government likes its control over people, and it works to do what is in its best interest -to continue its control over people; then how exactly is it in governments best interest to allow a Voluntaryist society to exist?  This is a very simple question; and yet nobody has ever answered it.  You just point to nonsense about some communist enclave somewhere without actually pointing one out; as if allowing a communist -a large amount of control over the residence- enclave has anything remotely to do with allowing a voluntaryist -no actual government with minimum if any rules, and no forced associations- enclave. That is a marvellous comparison.  I suppose you may want to compare the hypothetical AnCapistan with Stalin's Russia.

The Democratic Party created the KKK; and the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are the same Party, so why would they go after their own organization?  Anyway; you are still missing the point.  Government will never oppose an organization which forces its residents/group to do things.  Being forced to do something by one group is the same -or very similar- as being forced to do something by any-other group -it is void of voluntary cooperation; it makes the individual pliable to being forced to do things.  Unless you are talking about some weird Voluntaryist enclave which forces people to do things -other than to basically accept NAP- then what you propose runs counter to what government will tolerate; because anything which allows people to freely associate without force, is by its very nature a threat to government.  Non of the supposed list of evidence you included in your comment has anything to do with a group of people creating a system which allows people to freely associate; so, I'm not sure how you think anything which you've used as a reply is even applicable.

You talk of Rwanda -like the US or any government cares if all of those people die or not; the same with Georgia.  As long as a government exists, they don't care which kind of government, because all government requires force and control of the population.

The US in financial problems, the entire world is in financial problems, but has that stopped anybody from doing anything?  The financial problems are being used to consolidate power; leading to a one world socialistic government.  You can't possibly think that all of these people with the best education money can buy, and they couldn't see any of this coming; seriously, that would be ridiculous.

Also, those communities which you claim the DEA won't even go in to, are for one given the ability to operate due to the CIA selling them drugs.  Those communities are also able to be used to scare people into accepting government; have you never heard people say that, "without government all areas would look like -insert a particular slum neighbourhood?"

Really, you are going to play Waco was molesting children and had automatic weapons?  That is your justification; you certainly sound like a state worshipper to me.  The facts after the incident proved that neither were they molesting children nor did they have illegal weapons.  So, support your state actions some-more.  You say they opened themselves up to it by being isolated, do you really think that your enclave wouldn't be isolated?

While some countries may have child sex or even legal drugs, they STILL HAVE government; I'm not sure how hard that is for some of you guys to understand.  Government will tolerate government; but government will not tolerate no-government, especially if it is peaceful and relatively successful.  The only situations where government will tolerate no-government is situation which are horrendous -constant violence and death, or starvation and death- other than that, and government will not tolerate the existence of a place that has no-government; because it is proof of a solution -or possibility- which government -looking out for its own interest- doesn't want people to even contemplate as an actual viable option.

You talk about Washington and Colorado; do you remember when California legalized MMJ?  What did the Feds do?  If you think that Washington and Colorado are even close to being off-the-hook you are seriously delusional; however, lets suppose the Feds left them alone.  What does that whole scenario spell out for people?  That government needs to be used to give you your freedoms; is this really a message you want to support.  This is what Gary Johnson was sporting in 2012 which is why I wouldn't vote for him, even though the vote is rigged anyway.

Why would Hong Kong have been bombed by now?  Hong Kong has a government, does it not?

You say that they need an excuse to intervene militarily; are you serious?  They can make-up any excuse and the Propaganda Ministry aka the MSM will push it; it is not like actual proof of anything is required.

Most countries 200 plus cannot defend against a Western power; while this is true, all 200+ countries have governments and either have a central bank tied to the Central Banking Cabal or are so heavily vested in Euros or Dollars, that those countries are more like vassal states than independent countries.

Do you know how our tax system works?  People buy our system because they have no alternative, most of those people are middle class and below; they are manipulated into believing things which aren't true.  You say Hong Kong has a tax between 5% and 10%, however, their wealthy and their businesses also pay this or similar, do they not?  Honk Kong doesn't have Corporations paying 0% tax or Billionaires who openly admit that they pay a smaller percent of their income than their secretary does; do they?  So, the big money pays to keep our system the way it is because they benefit from it -this is the same as looking out for their self interest.  If you think people aren't complaining about the tax system, then you certainly aren't paying attention.  However, when even when the people do agree, the politicians wont vote for it anyway.  But, the voice gets louder and louder and louder.  If you think people like the IRS or paying taxes; then you must be very young, because I don't know anybody who likes paying taxes.  If their was a system which could be shown to actually work, then it would be a threat.

Ask a neighbour what are their thoughts on Anarchism; what do you think they would say?  Anarchism is always shown in a negative connotation, I wonder why?  If an Anarchist system would emerge it would directly counter the government's argument that to exist without government is to live in poverty, and in chaos.  I wonder why governments feel the need to associate violence, chaos, and poverty with Anarchism?

While you think there would be  a low probability for the US government -or any government- to take action against your Anarchist enclave; this is highly unlikely. (1) In the beginning the enclave would be less able to protect itself -ie easier to take out, (2) If it is allowed to continue it will pose an ever greater threat to the very existence of government -why would any government want it to last? (3) A government could take-it-out in the beginning without people even knowing what happened -why would a government want to allow it to continue on?

Quote
Basically, your argument is the US will ignore millions slaughtered in genocide, unspeakable atrocities, rampant child sex and white slavery, arms dealings, legal and prolific drugs and prostitution and near o % tax rates, countries that attack and invade their allies overtly, countries that operate explicitly as tax havens to enable the rich to avoid taxes, and countries that harbor terrorists without launching invasions and without bombing the majority of these places. However, a colony with a few ancaps looking to do business with the world is completely intolerable. again I see it as possible, some congressman can take it up as their crusade or something, but I see it as significantly less likely and manageable. They are not invincible or invulnerable or all powerful or all knowing.

Yes, the US will ignore millions slaughtered -they have since forever. Terrorists are created by the US government; what do you think a terrorist is?  A few AnCaps in one society is a threat to all government, because it is living breathing proof that it can work -that government isn't absolutely needed.  You may think that they are not all knowing , but that is funny.  Have you never heard of their Eye in the Sky, have you never heard about their facility in Utah?  Have you never heard about all electronic financial transactions being monitored.  Everything in the US in now monitored; how exactly is that not all knowing?

The Seesteading project is only going to be available to the extremely wealthy, whose money and wealth creation would still be via government sanction; the government would never stop that.

MAM
Quote
Well said acft, furthermore I think the mistake that Agorist is making is that he is assuming that everyone thinks like him, has the same values and priorities. As I stated before just because we want to be left alone doesn't mean that everyone agrees.

Really; no, actually nobody does think like me, for if any did then they would be more concentrated on understanding how to keep any AnCap enclave around.  If the first enclave fails, via US intervention or bombing; how many people do you think will be willing to try on a second enclave?
Logged
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: March 18, 2013, 06:24:33 PM »

So governments are all powerful all knowing, they can't be stopped. We need to accept the fact that anything we attempt to organize and do is going to end with the US and all other countries coming to kill us. An event that we can't possibly counter. Got it. Discussion over.

I had more then removed it because I realized that it was futile.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2013, 10:13:59 PM by MAM » Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
acft
Newbie
*
Posts: 49


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: March 18, 2013, 07:25:04 PM »

Agrarian_Agorist

Quote
The first half of your comment is an entire joke.

And respectable discourse goes out the window.

Quote
Are you and MAM able to understand the difference between government and non-government systems?
Derrr no we stoopid.

Quote
then how exactly is it in governments best interest to allow a Voluntaryist society to exist

No one claimed this.

Quote
That is a marvellous comparison.  I suppose you may want to compare the hypothetical AnCapistan with Stalin's Russia.

A marvelous comparison that no one made. Communes were listed as a group that started an enclave that the government did not use force to destroy. Instead of accepting that fact, you just explain it away with your conspiracy theory.

Quote
Government will never oppose an organization which forces its residents/group to do things.

This is demonstrably historically overtly false. Gaddafi, Saddam, every government the US ever invaded forced people to do things.

Quote
I'm not sure how you think anything which you've used as a reply is even applicable.

You asked me why I don't think the state(US) is likely to actively resist this through force of arms.  You also made the claim that "The US government only allows the different organizations exist which doesn't directly question it's(the US government's) power and authority"

I then listed examples of events and organizations that were many orders of magnitudes more serious that a random colony being founded somewhere. I listed examples where US laws were broken, and the US's power was overtly challenged and yet nothing was done. That is why they are applicable.

Quote
You say that they need an excuse to intervene militarily; are you serious?  They can make-up any excuse and the Propaganda Ministry aka the MSM will push it; it is not like actual proof of anything is required.

You realize making up an excuse is still an excuse. I never said I believe them. I indicated that it would be a hard sell to say we were massacring people or developing WMDs in a small colony.

Quote
Why would Hong Kong have been bombed by now?


You claimed that a ancap colony would prove to the world that anarchy works AND that this would somehow threaten state power as the masses open their eyes to the truth that they can live w/o government.

My point was, if this was the case, then they should all be agitating for smaller government since it has been proven to be successful. Even Keynseins admit lower tax rates increase business activity and often lead to higher government revenue.

According to your logic, a smaller government being successful anywhere would then threaten the power of larger governments, and thus, they should be instantly attacked and destroyed so that there's no examples of small governments being successful.


Now lets look at some conspiracy fueled trolling on your part.

Quote
If you think people aren't complaining about the tax system, then you certainly aren't paying attention.  However, when even when the people do agree, the politicians wont vote for it anyway.  But, the voice gets louder and louder and louder.  If you think people like the IRS or paying taxes; then you must be very young, because I don't know anybody who likes paying taxes.  If their was a system which could be shown to actually work, then it would be a threat.

I don't remember even remotely hinting at any of this

Quote
While you think there would be  a low probability for the US government -or any government- to take action against your Anarchist enclave

I don't see how you could have read the article I linked, or the responses I gave, and concluded that I think that there's a low probability of ANY GOVERNMENT attacking. I again and again have said, you need to be able to fight a 3rd world type army and deter a first world army.

Furthermore, I conceded that there might be meddling and that that meddling would have to be dealt with.

Quote
Really, you are going to play Waco was molesting children and had automatic weapons?  That is your justification; you certainly sound like a state worshipper to me.  The facts after the incident proved that neither were they molesting children nor did they have illegal weapons.  So, support your state actions some-more.

Maybe you didn't see that part where I said I don't know if those things are true. Devolving into Ad hominem also,nice touch, very classy.

Quote
You talk about Washington and Colorado; do you remember when California legalized MMJ?  What did the Feds do?  If you think that Washington and Colorado are even close to being off-the-hook you are seriously delusional;

According to http://norml.org/legal/medical-marijuana-2 about 18 states have legal marijuanna.
Where are the Black Fema helicopters and the storm troopers?

Quote
Government will tolerate government

Except when they invade or destroy them, of coarse. Or maybe its all part of their master plan.

Quote
leading to a one world socialistic government
Quote
given the ability to operate due to the CIA selling them drugs
Quote
while this is true, all 200+ countries have governments and either have a central bank tied to the Central Banking Cabal or are so heavily vested in Euros or Dollars, that those countries are more like vassal states than independent countries.

This one takes the cake

Quote
You may think that they are not all knowing , but that is funny.  Have you never heard of their Eye in the Sky, have you never heard about their facility in Utah?  Have you never heard about all electronic financial transactions being monitored.  Everything in the US in now monitored; how exactly is that not all knowing?

HAAHAHAHA OK, they are all knowing let me get my tinfoil hat.
So let me get this straight, you called me a "state worshiper", and that I should "support state actions some more", none of which I did.

Meanwhile... you think the Government is all powerful AND all knowing.

So somehow I am a state worshiper supporter of government action who thinks the state can be defeated and is not all knowing.

It is now obvious to me you are either a statist troll or a conspiracy nut (maybe both) I will not respond to any more of your posts unless you 1. apologize for your ad hom nonsense and 2. address the topics at hand without flying off the handle.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2013, 07:29:29 PM by acft » Logged
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: March 20, 2013, 01:15:30 AM »

So how do we get this started?
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
acft
Newbie
*
Posts: 49


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: March 20, 2013, 05:55:11 PM »

So how do we get this started?

Well, I am slowly compiling a very long plan. I don't know when it will be finished or if I will even get to finish it. I will then probably start a Wyoming corporation (at my expense) and launch a marketing campaign.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2013, 06:04:05 PM by acft » Logged
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: March 20, 2013, 06:48:14 PM »

So how do we get this started?

Well, I am slowly compiling a very long plan. I don't know when it will be finished or if I will even get to finish it. I will then probably start a Wyoming corporation (at my expense) and launch a marketing campaign.

All I got's is time, how can I help?
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
acft
Newbie
*
Posts: 49


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: March 21, 2013, 02:05:27 AM »



All I got's is time, how can I help?

Well at this point, wait. I suppose you can join the forum at http://www.ancapfreethinker.info/Community (its not  really active), where more will be announced later, although my purpose on this forum (daily anarchist) is not really to recruit anyone or advertise, but to engage in philosophical discussion about ancap topics.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!