Rock the non-vote

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski
The OP has certainly traveled a great distance in this thread. From a true Individualistic Anarchy all the way to re-creating localized Governmental Institutions. From Voting as an act of Tyranny, to almost re-instituting it in his re-constituted Government. Seems to me the OP is realizing the impossibility of Anarchy without actually admitting to it.

I've been trying to get him to realize that for over a year now. He's literally talked himself in a circle more than once. He will counter my argument A with argument B, then later on counter my argument Z with argument A, only to start the run around again. He won't give in though, his ramblings follow cult like patterns.

HuH? Me following cult like patterns? No, that would be people who go into a voting booth and actually believe that dropping a piece of paper in a box creates the 'right to rule' for some politician.

Authoritarianism has all the makings of a cult. You just can't really call it a cult because it is so pervasive and widespread (I can't even get my girlfriend to stop voting). Hence, I call it a religion with cult like rituals and beliefs.

Authoritarianism has produced awful results all over the world for thousands of years. Everyone from Hitler, to Stalin to Fidel Castro. All of them rule(d) because of authoritarian beliefs. You think you are safe because you live in a 'democracy?' Ha, think again bucko. This 'democracy' is always one step away from a total state, where you could be swinging from the trees in short order in the name of the war on 'terror.' There are people out there who literally think that Bush is 'doing the lord's work.' They don't care how many coffins come back from Iraq, or how many billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars are spent on this overseas adventure. Their belief that Bush is their chosen leader is cemented in their twisted authoritarian/religious ideology. And whatever Bush does here at home to destroy the last vestiges of freedom via the Patriot Act is fully justified.

And if you think some relic pieces of paper in a glass case are going to save you, then that's the most delusional/cult like belief of all. You call me a 'dreamer' and a 'utopianist.' But you still haven't yet been able to explain how your authoritarian belief system isn't based on anything but mysticism and fairy tales. And you still haven't explained how belief in absolute governmental authority is somehow 'safe,' especially when over 100 million people have been murdered by their own governments in the 20th century alone.

Has anyone in here expressed a belief in "absolute governmental authority"? No, your trying to make it a black and white issue.

Ok, so you are saying that I don't have to give up my guns when Diane Feinstein and her ilk issue gun control edicts? And I guess if the government doesn't have absolute authority I can completely ignore Bush when he tries to draft me to fight in the Iraq war? Somehow I don't think that is what you are saying.

Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini were bad? Gee no sh:t, has anyone argued that? Does that make all govts bad? No.

It means that all governments have the ability to devolve into total murderous states.

Why have you completely ignored that fact that all three of those dictators rose to power from thier society's attempts at anarchism?

Are you kidding me? All three of those dictators rose to power because people in those countries believed in authoritarianism. No government has ever rose to power based on disbelief in authority. That is absurd. All of them are based on the idea that dictators/politicians have a mystical right to push other people around.

Even getting close to anarchism just creats the oppurtunity for the dictator, or "warlord", to seize control

Anarchism is based on the belief that no one has the right to push others around. No warlord or dictator can rise to power when people do not believe they have the right to rule.

I have explained quite well that societies, even animal societies, always have a form of "government" So no, its not based on mysticism, its based on the natural interaction of animals.

Animals cannot act. Humans do many things that animals do not. Comparing humans to animals is ridiculous. We have the ability to think for ourselves. Animals rely almost entirely on instincts. Government is not natural, anymore than extortion, murdering and control is 'natural.'

One animal having authority, even in the slightest degree, over another is as natural as gravity. Anarchism INEVITABLY forms a government.

How many people in Germany or Russia believed in anarchism when Hitler and Stalin rose to power? I would venture to guess maybe 1 in 5,000.

If your LUCKY, you'll get a democracy, but as history PROVES, you usually get the exact opposite of what you want, which is totalitarianism. Evil dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini swarm to fill the vaccum created when people try to destroy a common law.

A vacuum can only exist when people are looking for an authoritarian leader.

I've been going easy on you so far, mostly for entertainment purposes. I've been letting a lot (most) of your baseless assertions slide. If you really break your arguments down, theres no foundation for them, you dont have a leg to stand on. Wishful thinking.

Believing a piece of paper in a glass case can limit government power is wishful thinking to end all wishful thinking.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
It means that all governments have the ability to devolve into total murderous states.

As do individuals, this proves nothing.

Are you kidding me? All three of those dictators rose to power because people in those countries believed in authoritarianism.

Hitler never pushed anyone around? lol, go back to your 10th grade history class, do not pass go.

No government has ever rose to power based on disbelief in authority.

baseless assertion

That is absurd. All of them are based on the idea that dictators/politicians have a mystical right to push other people around.

baseless assertion

Anarchism is based on the belief that no one has the right to push others around. No warlord or dictator can rise to power when people do not believe they have the right to rule.

You have democracy on the mind, but are denying it. Many a dictator have come to power through force, again, this is like 10th grade world history.

Animals cannot act. Humans do many things that animals do not. Comparing humans to animals is ridiculous. We have the ability to think for ourselves. Animals rely almost entirely on instincts.

so do humans, regardless, any animal that does not live in solitary has a govt, think about the "Queen Bee" is she not the govt? A pack of dogs, a pride of lions, a flock of birds, a school of fish, you get the idea.

Government is not natural, anymore than extortion, murdering and control is 'natural.'

even your body has a government, once you became multi celled, you quickly developed a nervous system to "govern" the rest of your body.

How many people in Germany or Russia believed in anarchism when Hitler and Stalin rose to power? I would venture to guess maybe 1 in 5,000.

irrelevant, they took power by force, they seized the vaccum of control that an attempt at anarchism provides

A vacuum can only exist when people are looking for an authoritarian leader.

Another baseless assertion.

Believing a piece of paper in a glass case can limit government power is wishful thinking to end all wishful thinking.

But my wishful thinking is 230 years old, your was never even born.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Dissipate
It means that all governments have the ability to devolve into total murderous states.

As do individuals, this proves nothing.

Are you kidding me? All three of those dictators rose to power because people in those countries believed in authoritarianism.

Hitler never pushed anyone around? lol, go back to your 10th grade history class, do not pass go.

No government has ever rose to power based on disbelief in authority.

baseless assertion

That is absurd. All of them are based on the idea that dictators/politicians have a mystical right to push other people around.

baseless assertion

Anarchism is based on the belief that no one has the right to push others around. No warlord or dictator can rise to power when people do not believe they have the right to rule.

You have democracy on the mind, but are denying it. Many a dictator have come to power through force, again, this is like 10th grade world history.

Animals cannot act. Humans do many things that animals do not. Comparing humans to animals is ridiculous. We have the ability to think for ourselves. Animals rely almost entirely on instincts.

so do humans, regardless, any animal that does not live in solitary has a govt, think about the "Queen Bee" is she not the govt? A pack of dogs, a pride of lions, a flock of birds, a school of fish, you get the idea.

Government is not natural, anymore than extortion, murdering and control is 'natural.'

even your body has a government, once you became multi celled, you quickly developed a nervous system to "govern" the rest of your body.

How many people in Germany or Russia believed in anarchism when Hitler and Stalin rose to power? I would venture to guess maybe 1 in 5,000.

irrelevant, they took power by force, they seized the vaccum of control that an attempt at anarchism provides

A vacuum can only exist when people are looking for an authoritarian leader.

Another baseless assertion.

Believing a piece of paper in a glass case can limit government power is wishful thinking to end all wishful thinking.

But my wishful thinking is 230 years old, your was never even born.

You are denying the fact that all states are based on popuar opinion?

A 'power vacuum' cannot exist when people do not believe in power. This is not a baseless assertion. This is something so fundamental and obvious I find it rather odd that you do not have the capacity to comprehend this concept.

Time to go back to a few hundred years ago. Text.

The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude is lucidly and coherently structured around a single axiom, a single percipient insight into the nature not only of tyranny, but implicitly of the State apparatus itself. Many medieval writers had attacked tyranny, but La Boétie delves especially deeply into its nature, and into the nature of State rule itself. This fundamental insight was that every tyranny must necessarily be grounded upon general popular acceptance. In short, the bulk of the people themselves, for whatever reason, acquiesce in their own subjection. If this were not the case, no tyranny, indeed no governmental rule, could long endure. Hence, a government does not have to be popularly elected to enjoy general public support; for general public support is in the very nature of all governments that endure, including the most oppressive of tyrannies. The tyrant is but one person, and could scarcely command the obedience of another person, much less of an entire country, if most of the subjects did not grant their obedience by their own consent.

ALL states, no matter how ruthless the dictator are based on popular opinion. Unless you believe Hitler had superhuman powers and comitted genocide singlehandedly.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Dissipate
It means that all governments have the ability to devolve into total murderous states.

As do individuals, this proves nothing.

Are you kidding me? All three of those dictators rose to power because people in those countries believed in authoritarianism.

Hitler never pushed anyone around? lol, go back to your 10th grade history class, do not pass go.

No government has ever rose to power based on disbelief in authority.

baseless assertion

That is absurd. All of them are based on the idea that dictators/politicians have a mystical right to push other people around.

baseless assertion

Anarchism is based on the belief that no one has the right to push others around. No warlord or dictator can rise to power when people do not believe they have the right to rule.

You have democracy on the mind, but are denying it. Many a dictator have come to power through force, again, this is like 10th grade world history.

Animals cannot act. Humans do many things that animals do not. Comparing humans to animals is ridiculous. We have the ability to think for ourselves. Animals rely almost entirely on instincts.

so do humans, regardless, any animal that does not live in solitary has a govt, think about the "Queen Bee" is she not the govt? A pack of dogs, a pride of lions, a flock of birds, a school of fish, you get the idea.

Government is not natural, anymore than extortion, murdering and control is 'natural.'

even your body has a government, once you became multi celled, you quickly developed a nervous system to "govern" the rest of your body.

How many people in Germany or Russia believed in anarchism when Hitler and Stalin rose to power? I would venture to guess maybe 1 in 5,000.

irrelevant, they took power by force, they seized the vaccum of control that an attempt at anarchism provides

A vacuum can only exist when people are looking for an authoritarian leader.

Another baseless assertion.

Believing a piece of paper in a glass case can limit government power is wishful thinking to end all wishful thinking.

But my wishful thinking is 230 years old, your was never even born.

You are denying the fact that all states are based on popuar opinion?

A 'power vacuum' cannot exist when people do not believe in power. This is not a baseless assertion. This is something so fundamental and obvious I find it rather odd that you do not have the capacity to comprehend this concept.

Time to go back to a few hundred years ago. Text.

The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude is lucidly and coherently structured around a single axiom, a single percipient insight into the nature not only of tyranny, but implicitly of the State apparatus itself. Many medieval writers had attacked tyranny, but La Boétie delves especially deeply into its nature, and into the nature of State rule itself. This fundamental insight was that every tyranny must necessarily be grounded upon general popular acceptance. In short, the bulk of the people themselves, for whatever reason, acquiesce in their own subjection. If this were not the case, no tyranny, indeed no governmental rule, could long endure. Hence, a government does not have to be popularly elected to enjoy general public support; for general public support is in the very nature of all governments that endure, including the most oppressive of tyrannies. The tyrant is but one person, and could scarcely command the obedience of another person, much less of an entire country, if most of the subjects did not grant their obedience by their own consent.

ALL states, no matter how ruthless the dictator are based on popular opinion. Unless you believe Hitler had superhuman powers and comitted genocide singlehandedly.

No, he started small, just as any warlord would, he only had a few followers. But they bullied a few people, a few more, a few more, until eventually they took over an entire country. And then all of mainland Europe. There were far more people under his power that DIDN'T like him than did, therefore he was not the "popular" choice

So yes, your assertion that all power must come from popularity is indeed, false.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Dissipate
It means that all governments have the ability to devolve into total murderous states.

As do individuals, this proves nothing.

Are you kidding me? All three of those dictators rose to power because people in those countries believed in authoritarianism.

Hitler never pushed anyone around? lol, go back to your 10th grade history class, do not pass go.

No government has ever rose to power based on disbelief in authority.

baseless assertion

That is absurd. All of them are based on the idea that dictators/politicians have a mystical right to push other people around.

baseless assertion

Anarchism is based on the belief that no one has the right to push others around. No warlord or dictator can rise to power when people do not believe they have the right to rule.

You have democracy on the mind, but are denying it. Many a dictator have come to power through force, again, this is like 10th grade world history.

Animals cannot act. Humans do many things that animals do not. Comparing humans to animals is ridiculous. We have the ability to think for ourselves. Animals rely almost entirely on instincts.

so do humans, regardless, any animal that does not live in solitary has a govt, think about the "Queen Bee" is she not the govt? A pack of dogs, a pride of lions, a flock of birds, a school of fish, you get the idea.

Government is not natural, anymore than extortion, murdering and control is 'natural.'

even your body has a government, once you became multi celled, you quickly developed a nervous system to "govern" the rest of your body.

How many people in Germany or Russia believed in anarchism when Hitler and Stalin rose to power? I would venture to guess maybe 1 in 5,000.

irrelevant, they took power by force, they seized the vaccum of control that an attempt at anarchism provides

A vacuum can only exist when people are looking for an authoritarian leader.

Another baseless assertion.

Believing a piece of paper in a glass case can limit government power is wishful thinking to end all wishful thinking.

But my wishful thinking is 230 years old, your was never even born.

You are denying the fact that all states are based on popuar opinion?

A 'power vacuum' cannot exist when people do not believe in power. This is not a baseless assertion. This is something so fundamental and obvious I find it rather odd that you do not have the capacity to comprehend this concept.

Time to go back to a few hundred years ago. Text.

The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude is lucidly and coherently structured around a single axiom, a single percipient insight into the nature not only of tyranny, but implicitly of the State apparatus itself. Many medieval writers had attacked tyranny, but La Boétie delves especially deeply into its nature, and into the nature of State rule itself. This fundamental insight was that every tyranny must necessarily be grounded upon general popular acceptance. In short, the bulk of the people themselves, for whatever reason, acquiesce in their own subjection. If this were not the case, no tyranny, indeed no governmental rule, could long endure. Hence, a government does not have to be popularly elected to enjoy general public support; for general public support is in the very nature of all governments that endure, including the most oppressive of tyrannies. The tyrant is but one person, and could scarcely command the obedience of another person, much less of an entire country, if most of the subjects did not grant their obedience by their own consent.

ALL states, no matter how ruthless the dictator are based on popular opinion. Unless you believe Hitler had superhuman powers and comitted genocide singlehandedly.

No, he started small, just as any warlord would, he only had a few followers. But they bullied a few people, a few more, a few more, until eventually they took over an entire country. And then all of mainland Europe. There were far more people under his power that DIDN'T like him than did, therefore he was not the "popular" choice

So yes, your assertion that all power must come from popularity is indeed, false.

Uh Huh. And so it just happend just like THAT. Magically Hitler was in power. I guess you forget that Hitler was part of a political party under a democratic system.

Hitler was indeed the popular choice. People turned to Hitler because of the aftermath of World War I. Your assertions are the ones that are baseless and quite absurd. I love it how you just brush off all rational intellectual inquiry with your own B.S. Something tells me that you aren't a smart one.

BTW, you might want to read the 'road to power' section on Hitler. It tells a slightly different story.

Text

 

[imported_tss4]

Well, there is one point that train has made that I would have to agree with. We are social creatures by design. A social heirarchy (aka government) is inevitable. Its been with us through out history from the tribe all the way to the modern democracy. Even in our families there is chain of power and influence. In the end anarchy is nothing more than a power vacuum and a government (likely totalitarian) will form to fill it.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: tss4
Well, there is one point that train has made that I would have to agree with. We are social creatures by design. A social heirarchy (aka government) is inevitable.

That is a non-sequitur. We are social creatures and thus government is inevitable? Nonesense. Social institutions change over the years all the time. The fact that people have changed the type of their government lends credence to the idea that we could eliminate government altogether. Government is just a religion.

Its been with us through out history from the tribe all the way to the modern democracy. Even in our families there is chain of power and influence. In the end anarchy is nothing more than a power vacuum and a government (likely totalitarian) will form to fill it.

How could any dictator come to power if no one believes in political authority in the first place? For instance, the only reason why the IRS gets away with extortion is because people do not believe the IRS is really an extortionist entity. It exists solely because people believe it is legitimate. It could not exist if people saw IRS agents as nothing other than armed robbers. Government is based on opinion, nothing more. And fortunately, opinions can change.

 

[Train]

Dis, your stiull clinging to a false assertion. Power does not require popularity.

You can prove this with simple math.

How many people in Europe under Hitlers power in 1944?
How many supported him? (Not even a majority in Germany)
How many did not support him? (France, Poland, Romania, Czeckoslovakia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Latvia, Norway, Finland, Hungary, Greece, and a few more I cant name off the top of my head)

No matter how you slice it, those against Hitler greatly outnumbered those with him, yet he was in Power.

Therefore, Power != Popularity.

Napolean, the Roman Empire, the Greek Empire, XXX Empires, all exerted power far beyond thier popularity.

Please stop using an assertion that is clearly false. You can not change history to meet your ideology, you need to change your ideology to fit history.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train
Dis, your stiull clinging to a false assertion. Power does not require popularity.

That is true, but it depends on your definition of 'popularity.' For instance, Bush's ratings are down to 37%. But because people believe that Bush has a right to rule, they still obey his edicts. So, he may not be 'popular' but since people believed he was the one who passed the voting ritual in 2000, he is the annoited 'leader.'

You can prove this with simple math.

How many people in Europe under Hitlers power in 1944?
How many supported him? (Not even a majority in Germany)
How many did not support him? (France, Poland, Romania, Czeckoslovakia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Latvia, Norway, Finland, Hungary, Greece, and a few more I cant name off the top of my head)

The only reason why Hitler was able to take power there was because the only opposition he faced were state run militaries. The people in those countries trusted their protection to government, so they were indirectly conquered through belief in authoritarianism. If he had faced an anarcho-capitalist area with a full fledged private military, he would have no doubt run into much fiercer opposition.

No matter how you slice it, those against Hitler greatly outnumbered those with him, yet he was in Power.

Indirectly due to belief in authoritarianism, yes. And his rule of those areas would have been temporary as long as the people in those countries wanted to overthrow him. i.e. he would not have been able to rule forever.

Therefore, Power != Popularity.

Agree with you there. But power does ultimately come from belief in right to rule.

Napolean, the Roman Empire, the Greek Empire, XXX Empires, all exerted power far beyond thier popularity.

I don't doubt it. But they all ruled populations that firmly belived in their authority. I may not like you, but I may be willing to go along with your edicts if I believe you have the authority to boss me around.

Please stop using an assertion that is clearly false. You can not change history to meet your ideology, you need to change your ideology to fit history.

I don't have an ideology. All I have is rational thought stemming from my faculties of logic. The state is not rational, end of story. Unlike a minarchist I'm not going to apologize for it, or say that we should only limit government to protection of private property or the production of roads. It is a depraved religion, and it should be stopped.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: tss4

Its been with us through out history from the tribe all the way to the modern democracy. Even in our families there is chain of power and influence. In the end anarchy is nothing more than a power vacuum and a government (likely totalitarian) will form to fill it.

How could any dictator come to power if no one believes in political authority in the first place? For instance, the only reason why the IRS gets away with extortion is because people do not believe the IRS is really an extortionist entity. It exists solely because people believe it is legitimate. It could not exist if people saw IRS agents as nothing other than armed robbers. Government is based on opinion, nothing more. And fortunately, opinions can change.

They usually come to power at the end of a gun barrel (or big club in caveman times )

I would agree that government is based on opinion and social instutions change but that doesn't disprove that there has NEVER been an anarchist state with the standard of living that modern democracies enjoy. Anarchist capitolism idealizes the way people act much like communism does.

Do you have any examples of a prosperous society under anarchists capitolism?

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

The only reason why Hitler was able to take power there was because the only opposition he faced were state run militaries. The people in those countries trusted their protection to government, so they were indirectly conquered through belief in authoritarianism. If he had faced an anarcho-capitalist area with a full fledged private military, he would have no doubt run into much fiercer opposition.

That's quite the statement. Do you have any evidence of an anrachist capitolist society ever succesfully defending itself? Or is this based purely on faith?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: tss4

Its been with us through out history from the tribe all the way to the modern democracy. Even in our families there is chain of power and influence. In the end anarchy is nothing more than a power vacuum and a government (likely totalitarian) will form to fill it.

How could any dictator come to power if no one believes in political authority in the first place? For instance, the only reason why the IRS gets away with extortion is because people do not believe the IRS is really an extortionist entity. It exists solely because people believe it is legitimate. It could not exist if people saw IRS agents as nothing other than armed robbers. Government is based on opinion, nothing more. And fortunately, opinions can change.

They usually come to power at the end of a gun barrel (or big club in caveman times )

One gun can't rule an entire population.

I would agree that government is based on opinion and social instutions change but that doesn't disprove that there has NEVER been an anarchist state with the standard of living that modern democracies enjoy.

There hasn't been any place in the world where people didn't believe in 'government' in some form. This has nothing to do with what would happen if we got rid of government. Historically speaking, I would argue that the U.S. rose to economic power under the auspices of limited government throughout the 19th century (i.e. without a welfare state or massive economic interventions).

Anarchist capitolism idealizes the way people act much like communism does.

Every authoritarian I've known has had exceedingly utopianeque ideas as to how politicians act in real life. Most of them just pay their taxes and expect the government to do its thing. When they do actually investigate whether the government has achieved the goals it has promised to achieve, a lot of people aren't surprised when the government has failed utterly at what it set out to do. But for some reason they give government a pass, and a lot of times they only look for 'token efforts.'

Do you have any examples of a prosperous society under anarchists capitolism?

I would if you showed me an example of a society where people reject organizing society through political means.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Dissipate

The only reason why Hitler was able to take power there was because the only opposition he faced were state run militaries. The people in those countries trusted their protection to government, so they were indirectly conquered through belief in authoritarianism. If he had faced an anarcho-capitalist area with a full fledged private military, he would have no doubt run into much fiercer opposition.

That's quite the statement. Do you have any evidence of an anrachist capitolist society ever succesfully defending itself? Or is this based purely on faith?

That argument was beaten to death a year or so ago, the answer is no, but he claims its just because anarchy "never had a fair chance", Lol, really, look up the thread. I actually had him admit that it never happened, and here he is saying, quite absolutely, that anarchists would have stopped Hitlers march across Europe!

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Dissipate

The only reason why Hitler was able to take power there was because the only opposition he faced were state run militaries. The people in those countries trusted their protection to government, so they were indirectly conquered through belief in authoritarianism. If he had faced an anarcho-capitalist area with a full fledged private military, he would have no doubt run into much fiercer opposition.

That's quite the statement. Do you have any evidence of an anrachist capitolist society ever succesfully defending itself? Or is this based purely on faith?

Do you have an example of any society not believing in a state run military?

My assertion is not based merely on faith. It is based on economic theory that is one of the most accepted tenets when it comes to ecnomoic theory (this is one that not even 3chord would deny, although he would deny that it applies to national defense). Bureaucratically organized systems are always much more inefficient than privately organized ones. The reason for this is the profit and loss test coupled with the ability for trial and error among competing entrepreneurs. With the state you get one military under the command of one political 'leader.' Under a free market you would have competing firms with a number of different ideas all being tested by profit and loss.

Here is an entire book with essays from a variety of economists on this subject:

The Myth of National Defense

Train has yet to address the historical evidence put forth by this book. I believe he abandoned the thread in which I pointed it out.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Do you have any examples of a prosperous society under anarchists capitolism?

I would if you showed me an example of a society where people reject organizing society through political means.

Nice cop out.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I would agree that government is based on opinion and social instutions change but that doesn't disprove that there has NEVER been an anarchist state with the standard of living that modern democracies enjoy.

There hasn't been any place in the world where people didn't believe in 'government' in some form. This has nothing to do with what would happen if we got rid of government. Historically speaking, I would argue that the U.S. rose to economic power under the auspices of limited government throughout the 19th century (i.e. without a welfare state or massive economic interventions).

There have been plenty of anarchist states and many more that were very close to it. Yet, none of them have survived and prospoured. Furthermore, humans developed civilization concurrently in many different parts of the globe, yet somehow they all managed to form governments (and you claim that government isn't a natural by product of social creatures).

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Do you have any examples of a prosperous society under anarchists capitolism?

I would if you showed me an example of a society where people reject organizing society through political means.

Nice cop out.

Ok, tell me where I can apply for my 'national defense' permit, I want to start an insurance company here in the U.S. to compete with the U.S. military. What's that you say? I'm not allowed to own machine guns, missles and bombs? Well then so much for having the chance to give you an example.

Would you support allowing competition with the U.S. government in terms of national defense? Or even competition in law enforcement? i.e. private police and prisons?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I would agree that government is based on opinion and social instutions change but that doesn't disprove that there has NEVER been an anarchist state with the standard of living that modern democracies enjoy.

There hasn't been any place in the world where people didn't believe in 'government' in some form. This has nothing to do with what would happen if we got rid of government. Historically speaking, I would argue that the U.S. rose to economic power under the auspices of limited government throughout the 19th century (i.e. without a welfare state or massive economic interventions).

There have been plenty of anarchist states and many more that were very close to it. Yet, none of them have survived and prospoured. Furthermore, humans developed civilization concurrently in many different parts of the globe, yet somehow they all managed to form governments (and you claim that government isn't a natural by product of social creatures).

They all managed to form organized religions too. Does this mean that society 'needs' religion? Non-sequitur again.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Dissipate

The only reason why Hitler was able to take power there was because the only opposition he faced were state run militaries. The people in those countries trusted their protection to government, so they were indirectly conquered through belief in authoritarianism. If he had faced an anarcho-capitalist area with a full fledged private military, he would have no doubt run into much fiercer opposition.

That's quite the statement. Do you have any evidence of an anrachist capitolist society ever succesfully defending itself? Or is this based purely on faith?

Do you have an example of any society not believing in a state run military?

My assertion is not based merely on faith. It is based on economic theory that is one of the most accepted tenets when it comes to ecnomoic theory (this is one that not even 3chord would deny, although he would deny that it applies to national defense). Bureaucratically organized systems are always much more inefficient than privately organized ones. The reason for this is the profit and loss test coupled with the ability for trial and error among competing entrepreneurs. With the state you get one military under the command of one political 'leader.' Under a free market you would have competing firms with a number of different ideas all being tested by profit and loss.

Here is an entire book with essays from a variety of economists on this subject:

The Myth of National Defense

Train has yet to address the historical evidence put forth by this book. I believe he abandoned the thread in which I pointed it out.

You summed it up nicely. You base your entire position on theory without any evidence derived from history or the natural environment.

Dude even your paper is all thoery! I can't find any historical evidence in it to support that an anarchacist capitalist state could even exist. When it gets to private militaries it digresses into models riddled with assumptions (to its benefit, it clearly points them out).

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I would agree that government is based on opinion and social instutions change but that doesn't disprove that there has NEVER been an anarchist state with the standard of living that modern democracies enjoy.

There hasn't been any place in the world where people didn't believe in 'government' in some form. This has nothing to do with what would happen if we got rid of government. Historically speaking, I would argue that the U.S. rose to economic power under the auspices of limited government throughout the 19th century (i.e. without a welfare state or massive economic interventions).

There have been plenty of anarchist states and many more that were very close to it. Yet, none of them have survived and prospoured. Furthermore, humans developed civilization concurrently in many different parts of the globe, yet somehow they all managed to form governments (and you claim that government isn't a natural by product of social creatures).

They all managed to form organized religions too. Does this mean that society 'needs' religion? Non-sequitur again.

It is natural for man to attempt to explain the unknown. Thus religions were formed. Yes, its quite natural. We're curious beings.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Do you have any examples of a prosperous society under anarchists capitolism?

I would if you showed me an example of a society where people reject organizing society through political means.

Nice cop out.

Ok, tell me where I can apply for my 'national defense' permit, I want to start an insurance company here in the U.S. to compete with the U.S. military. What's that you say? I'm not allowed to own machine guns, missles and bombs? Well then so much for having the chance to give you an example.

Would you support allowing competition with the U.S. government in terms of national defense? Or even competition in law enforcement? i.e. private police and prisons?

I asked you to give me any example of a prosperous anarchacist capitalist society.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Do you have any examples of a prosperous society under anarchists capitolism?

I would if you showed me an example of a society where people reject organizing society through political means.

Nice cop out.

Ok, tell me where I can apply for my 'national defense' permit, I want to start an insurance company here in the U.S. to compete with the U.S. military. What's that you say? I'm not allowed to own machine guns, missles and bombs? Well then so much for having the chance to give you an example.

Would you support allowing competition with the U.S. government in terms of national defense? Or even competition in law enforcement? i.e. private police and prisons?

I asked you to give me any example of a prosperous anarchacist capitalist society.

The U.S.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Do you have any examples of a prosperous society under anarchists capitolism?

I would if you showed me an example of a society where people reject organizing society through political means.

Nice cop out.

Ok, tell me where I can apply for my 'national defense' permit, I want to start an insurance company here in the U.S. to compete with the U.S. military. What's that you say? I'm not allowed to own machine guns, missles and bombs? Well then so much for having the chance to give you an example.

Would you support allowing competition with the U.S. government in terms of national defense? Or even competition in law enforcement? i.e. private police and prisons?

I asked you to give me any example of a prosperous anarchacist capitalist society.

The U.S.

yet you were just complaining about it two posts up?

The same country you refuse to participate in through voting, as stated in the OP. Another circle is complete.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Do you have any examples of a prosperous society under anarchists capitolism?

I would if you showed me an example of a society where people reject organizing society through political means.

Nice cop out.

Ok, tell me where I can apply for my 'national defense' permit, I want to start an insurance company here in the U.S. to compete with the U.S. military. What's that you say? I'm not allowed to own machine guns, missles and bombs? Well then so much for having the chance to give you an example.

Would you support allowing competition with the U.S. government in terms of national defense? Or even competition in law enforcement? i.e. private police and prisons?

I asked you to give me any example of a prosperous anarchacist capitalist society.

The U.S.

yet you were just complaining about it two posts up?

The same country you refuse to participate in through voting, as stated in the OP. Another circle is complete.

I'm complaining about a religion that is practiced in the U.S. I don't believe we have ever truly left 'anarchy.' What I argue against is political anarchy. I wish to replace it with market anarchy.Do we ever really get out of anarchy?

 

[Train]

Do you ever really get out of theory?