Daily Anarchist Forum
November 20, 2019, 08:06:42 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  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Proof of Anarchy  (Read 12573 times)
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« on: October 01, 2010, 12:14:49 PM »

I'm guessing those of you who learned about anarchy from Stefan Molyneux have heard this argument before, but for those of us (like me) who don't know too much about the guy, this will seem interesting, and maybe new:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw</a>

Any thoughts?
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
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2010, 08:47:17 PM »

This is an excellent video. I am going to toot my own horn here a little bit and say I came up with how to run a perfectly functioning DRO several months ago and that as far as I knew I was the only one to come up with it. It could very well be that I was merely reinventing the wheel that had been discovered by others a decade ago for all I know. The point is, the idea is out there. It will topple the state. Why hasn't it been put into practice yet? I don't know. But if nobody else does it soon I suppose I am going to have to do it. It is THE most important underground business necessary to replace the state and until it gets established, so many other underground businesses cannot flourish, such as banks, insurance, etc.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2010, 10:55:44 AM »

I can't believe I never looked into FDR seriously. This guy is really smart, and really persuasive. His analyses are clear enough for idiots to understand. All of the minor little doubts I ever had about anarchism are made to look preposterous when he explains them. We don't need to worry about air pollution etc, because if it ever got bad enough to be a problem, the guilty businesses would get ostracized out of existence. Anarchism just harnesses the good of the market to every area of human relationships. I can't get over what an impact all of these videos have had on me. I can't post them all here, there are too many, I just seriously encourage people to look for them.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gK2xB9F9Ag" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gK2xB9F9Ag</a>

This debate is a bit long, and Stefan's opponent isn't the best speaker, but the explanations Stefan gives could be repeated nearly verbatim when you debate minarchists. I'm really glad to have uncovered a whole new source of media to take in. If watching this stuff won't give me the skills to convert people, then nothing can.

@Seth
A DRO would be great for the movement.
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
august
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2010, 11:42:59 AM »


That our bribery/political system is a form of anarchy is an interesting thought, but it's not reassuring.  His description of this system makes me think of how the mafia operates.  The mafia is the same as our political system except the state is better at using only threats. 

If the bribery system and the mafia behave as they do now with "laws" and thousands of people trying to catch them, wouldn't they continue in a stateless society?   (the politicians could play the same games in the free-market by creating cartels, secret price manipulation, bribery, etc).  Yes, there would be no black markets for the mafia to exploit, but they don't need a black-market as seen in garbage, concrete, construction, pizza, etc.

And neither of these are what I hope for in a stateless society.  I'm not sure how you could argue out of the mafia comparison?

Logged
Travlyr
Newbie
*
Posts: 11


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 27, 2010, 05:25:18 PM »

This is why I am not an anarchist.

"The state is the best conceivable example of a functional anarchic system, because it functions almost entirely on the spontaneous enforcement of rules - without using violence." - Stefan Molyneux
"Thus the government is the best example of a perfectly functional state of anarchy." - Stefan Molyneux

Then, Stefan makes the leap that if anarchy works within the state, then it will work much better without the state.  I don't buy that argument. Stateless anarchy would work much like state sanctioned anarchy.

For liberty to prosper a limited republic that stays within it's bounds, collects taxes as necessary, but does not imprison non-violent violators is ideal.
Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 27, 2010, 05:50:06 PM »

I don't think most anarchists would agree with me on this point, but to me, anarchy is not about ending the state and THEN having anarchy. Anarchy is truth, and the truth is we always have been, currently are, and always will be living in a state of anarchy. As an anarchist, my goal isn't just to end the state, it is to create order in a way that is much more in harmony with truth and principle. This entails ending the state.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 27, 2010, 06:33:42 PM »

Recognizing gov't as a gang of thieves goes hand in hand with realizing that we do live in "anarchy." It's a way of recognizing that these people who just put out edicts and then enforce them with violence have no real moral authority. They just use force. That's it. It's confusing because of how anarchy is used here, it's not exactly what you always think. That's because it's rejecting the idea that government governs per se. What we call government is just a mafia, and I recognize that the "old" idea of gov't is not real (never has been, never will be. It can't "represent"). If a mafia tells you what to do, it's not gov't, just mafia.  So if gov't has no real meaning, it's absence means anarchy.

I think about it this way because it helps encourage resistance. Why do these *^%^&* have any say over what I do? I'll just disobey, or rather ignore. Disobey means that they have some right to tell me what to do to begin with. Ignore is better.

Quote
This is why I am not an anarchist
I hope that some anarchists' weird thought experiment won't keep you from embracing the ideology of anarchism. Think of this as a half-baked exercise in semantics that means different things to different people. It is not a definitive explanation of libertarianism. If that's what you're looking for, here it is:

1) Humans own themselves.
2) Government is violence and violates self-ownership by definition. (regardless of what a piece of paper might read)
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
Travlyr
Newbie
*
Posts: 11


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2010, 08:50:46 AM »

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=anarchy&searchmode=none
Anarchy:
    1530s, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader," noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless,"

Which means that everyone is their own leader, in other words, everyone interprets the rules for themselves. Which means misunderstandings and chaos.

As Stefan points out, the "Owners" enjoy anarchy because the rules do not apply to them, but most people currently live under the tyranny of strict, over-burdensome laws/rules and "Owners" who have hired thugs to enforce them.

There are at least three fundamental flaws in not having collectively clearly stated rules, capture of violators, justice/restitution, and assistance for the indigent.
  • Property rights - All wealth comes from the earth (land, water, air). Mine it, grow it, or sew it. Who in an anarchical society determines property boundaries?
  • All taxation is theft - While technically accurate, that notion is a very selfish ideology. Self-ownership is inherent, but self-dependence is impossible. Some infants, some adolescents, some adults, and some elderly need help. While voluntary contributions are the most ideal, the most selfish individuals will not contribute because they fail to recognize that they themselves will likely need help someday.
  • DRO's would become the most powerful organizations, violate privacy, and initiate violence in the name of retribution and/or self-defense.

Liberty is only possible if natural rights are protected. I may be able to mostly protect, and provide for myself, but the fact that I cannot completely protect, and provide for myself means that I may, someday, need the assistance of others.
Legally binding social contracts (government) can clearly state the rules, provide assistance for capturing criminals, justice to provide restitution to victims, and assistance for the indigent.
Limited government does not have to be violent by definition and it does not have to be designed to expand into an empire.

The limited government I envision is non-aggressive.


Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2010, 12:05:25 PM »

If you are for natural rights then you should know that forcing another individual to help you violates their natural rights.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
Travlyr
Newbie
*
Posts: 11


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2010, 12:35:48 PM »

If you are for natural rights then you should know that forcing another individual to help you violates their natural rights.
I would not force anyone to pay, but I would design taxation around products, excluding land, food, energy, communications, and housing. I would collect taxes on all other products for the collective good (help the unable people, sheriff, courts,etc) ... minimally, but take enough to pay for essential services.  If an individual simply refused to help society by opting out of taxes, then they would be selfish (not deserving of help when they need it) but free to do so.
Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2010, 12:46:53 PM »

Then by your standards I should be allowed to be as selfish and I want and not "buy-in" to collective police force? Can I get together with others and form our own protection service, or would that result in jail time?

My question is this. If I stop paying all taxes, do I deserve to be thrown into a cage? If you say no, then you may be an anarcho-capitalist after all, and perhaps our debate is merely semantics.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
Travlyr
Newbie
*
Posts: 11


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: October 29, 2010, 01:04:55 PM »

Not really semantics, you can be as selfish as you wish without fear of being caged.

A limited government would not police the people, but employed a sheriff, courts and justice system to provide restitution to victims of violators of natural rights, imprison violent offenders, as well as, provide a safety net for people to prevent starvation, freezing, and dire circumstances.

There would be no reason to throw you in jail for hiring your own protection agency, but it would be redundant. Your protection agency would have to go through the government courts to demand justice.
Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 29, 2010, 02:41:32 PM »

A monopoly of justice brings the same result as any other forced government monopoly. Have you read any of the books I offer in my STORE section?
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
Travlyr
Newbie
*
Posts: 11


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2010, 04:20:34 PM »

I still need to read those books.
Debating this philosophy is tiresome because the standard answer to my questions is always "read more." I've read quite a bit of Rothbard, Woods, Paul and I've been a libertarian since the 80's.

Anarcho-capitalists rarely/never present a "picture" of what society would look like under a voluntary system, or even answer the simple questions such as,"who designates real property boundaries in an anarchical environment?"  It's an important concept and vital to laissez-faire free market capitalism and liberty.

I see today's problems clearly as a central bank fiat money controlled political system which barely resembles the vision painted in the "Preamble."  An honest monetary system would limit government and fix many of the wrongs we endure today. The central banking cabal is the culprit. A well designed limited constitutional republic is the answer.
I've studied the constitution and while there are numerous problems with it, the concept created an America that has been a refuge from tyrants for many people throughout history and for opportunity and prosperity for many more; plus it can be amended as needed. I prefer limited government to some abstract concept that no one can clearly define and must be studied in depth to understand... especially when I view the Voluntary ideology as inferior in concept to begin with... i.e. self absorbed (selfish).

A monopoly in justice is appropriate for government because natural rights are the same for all of us, and equal justice is optimal.
I would shudder at the thought of your protection agency coming after me because someone mistakenly claimed that I violated your rights. I do not wish to deal with hundreds, or thousands, of protection agencies who are not accountable to a lawful authority.
Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: October 29, 2010, 04:50:07 PM »

The books in the store are paramount to understanding the Anarcho-capitalist viewpoint. But as abstract as it may seem, I don't think we are the ones needing to defend ourselves. I think the statists are the ones needing to defend their system.

Every fear you may have about anarchy is alive and well right now. You are afraid of private protection agencies? Could they do any worse than what government agencies do right now, and have done all throughout the 20th century?
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
Pages: [1] 2
  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!