Universal religion-->state-->anarchy?

[Anarchist420]

If today most of us laugh at the notion that a universal religion is necessary for salvation, then how far off is it until a future generation laughs at the idea that a state is needed for protection?

There is no proof that a state is needed for protection of individual liberties, just as there is no absolute proof that a universal religion is needed for salvation. However, there is just as much (actually more) evidence that a state is not needed for protection as there is evidence that men do not need a universal religion for salvation. The American state has become a lot more tyrannical, and I'd say even more ridiculous, than papal rule ever was.

The only reason a military seems necessary is because we already had a military. It's like heroin, IMO. At first it seems kind of fun (to some, at least), but then it destroys (i.e., kills) the host. I've proved the Hamiltonian and Wilsonian militarists wrong time and again that a military is not necessary, so I'd rather not debate this particular point again.

A democracy is no different than a monarchy, because there is still an absolute ruler. The majority is king under a democracy and rules with the same exact power that a monarch does. So you don't need a democracy or a monarchy.

The police are more likely to protect rich people, so why not just do away with the governmental monopoly if the only people served by them are the ones who pay for it anyway?

You don't need government for economic equality, because if you raise income taxes too high, then the super-rich won't pay them. A wealth tax potentially has even more loopholes than an income tax. Government's have no right to take peoples' money anyway (I don't consent to paying a dime for any or all the useless shit the government does), and they often wind up just impovershing people by taking away savings through taxation and inflation.

I understand that the government may not always have the worst of intentions, but the fact is that it destroys individual liberty as well as the common security of society. Government is like heroin--it seems fun at first for some people, but it eventually kills the host.

 

[Macamus Prime]

There never really was democracy in the USA.

It was a few people that started off with the intent to create freedom. Instead, greedy vultures got into the driver's seat and reaped in trillions of dollars in wealth and power.

The state is tyranical, because tyrants are running it; the rich. They want their money. They want their power. So, they manipulate a system that was intended to protect all people and use it to protect themselves. Think I am making shit up again?

Google; "citibank plutonomy memo" - I can't link it, since it's blocked at work. But, it spells it all out.

 

[Thump553]

In the 1970s there was a nice album by Dan Fogelberg and Tim Weisberg named "Twin Sons Of A Different Mother." Apt for this thread.

 

[KAZANI]

How can you be an anarchist and an aristocrat at the same time?

 

[CycloWizard]

Lack of a military/police force poses many problems with respect to securing the rights of people from both local and foreign threats. While this role may be filled by private entities, these bring with them hosts of ethical issues, as well as all of the problems wrapped up in the government version (i.e. corruption and use to infringe on the rights of others).

 

[Anarchist420]

Well, they'd go out of business if they were corrupt. However, governmental monopolies can only go out of business if a majority of the people vote to abolish them.

 

[Anarchist420]

How can you be an anarchist and an aristocrat at the same time?

I'm not really an aristocrat; it's a quote that I like from John Randolph of Roanoke.

 

[jackstar7]

The police are more likely to protect rich people, so why not just do away with the governmental monopoly if the only people served by them are the ones who pay for it anyway?

Okay, just as an example for the future, when you jump from "more likely" to "only" all in the same sentence, you are displaying the holes in your logic.

Patch those up, son. Then don't bother getting back to us.

 

[CycloWizard]

Well, they'd go out of business if they were corrupt. However, governmental monopolies can only go out of business if a majority of the people vote to abolish them.

How would corruption force them out of business? It seems to me that they would perform more as mercenaries.

 

[Jaepheth]

Anarchy is unsustainable simply because cooperating groups will always beat individuals.
Any prolonged anarchy will give rise to gangs/warlords running the place.

 

[woolfe9999]

Anarchy is unsustainable simply because cooperating groups will always beat individuals.
Any prolonged anarchy will give rise to gangs/warlords running the place.

This. There is no such thing as a vacuum of power. Anarchistic utopia is a complete fiction. In the absence of government, it is either wealth and/or might makes right. Those who think there is any quality or condition of human existence where power will not be wielded over the individual in some manner or other are naive.

 

[xj0hnx]

There is no proof that a state is needed for protection of individual liberties,

So then you won't mind if I come and take everything you own?

The problem with you silly anarchist wannabe's is that you fail to realize that your dream utopia would instantly turn into a survival of the fittest, where those with the weapons, and strength will take what they want from those that can not defend themselves. Anarchy will never exist, it can not. As soon as the "state" is removed it will be replaced with another form of authority, one that may not be as civilized as you wish.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Mad Max...........

 

[piasabird]

Yes under anarchy, the rich or government elites would form a kingdom, where the rich could enslave the poor and take their property. Then after starving their slaves, plagues would develop and whole segments of the population would die, until they endangered their rich masters. In the end the rich masters would develop a system that would have to from time to time spend money to take care of the poor or looked after their welfare, out of self preservation. People would start a revolution and overthrow the ruling class whenever things got bad enough. Either that or the ruling class would have to exterminate huge numbers of the population from time to time.

So the real reason for government in the end is to protect people who are rich or control the population.

 

[Anarchist420]

So then you won't mind if I come and take everything you own?

The problem with you silly anarchist wannabe's is that you fail to realize that your dream utopia would instantly turn into a survival of the fittest, where those with the weapons, and strength will take what they want from those that can not defend themselves. Anarchy will never exist, it can not. As soon as the "state" is removed it will be replaced with another form of authority, one that may not be as civilized as you wish.

What makes you think I wouldn't have the means to defend myself from you without a state?

There can be costs associated with stealing and the elites of society have to pay to enslave people... unless they have a strong centralized government to help them out.

How do you know that once the state is removed that it would be replaced with a form of authority that's less civil than government? If there is a central ruler, then there is a government. The reason so many people were slaves (i.e., subjects) to the monarch was because they didn't realize they were slaves. The reason there's so
much centralized democracy is because so many people are dumb enough to think that it protects them and a democracy takes a majority to end, or at least a strong plurality depending upon how democratic the system is.

Another common fallacy many people make about anarchy is when they say that the rich/powerful don't have to pay anything if they want to enslave the average person, or even the slightly less than average person; no one is all-powerful. Even if 10% of the world pop is superior to the other 90% doesn't make it possible for the 10% of the world pop to enslave the other 90% without a government or without paying a cost that outweighs their benefit, because there is a continuum, not a 10% are very smart, and the other 90% are very dumb. A strong centralized government is necessary for slavery to exist.

It's like how there is no such thing as a perpetual natural monopoly.

 

[woolfe9999]

What makes you think I wouldn't have the means to defend myself from you without a state?

There can be costs associated with stealing and the elites of society have to pay to enslave people... unless they have a strong centralized government to help them out.

How do you know that once the state is removed that it would be replaced with a form of authority that's less civil than government? If there is a central ruler, then there is a government. The reason so many people were slaves (i.e., subjects) to the monarch was because they didn't realize they were slaves. The reason there's so
much centralized democracy is because so many people are dumb enough to think that it protects them and a democracy takes a majority to end, or at least a strong plurality depending upon how democratic the system is.

Another common fallacy many people make about anarchy is when they say that the rich/powerful don't have to pay anything if they want to enslave the average person, or even the slightly less than average person; no one is all-powerful. Even if 10% of the world pop is superior to the other 90% doesn't make it possible for the 10% of the world pop to enslave the other 90% without a government or without paying a cost that outweighs their benefit, because there is a continuum, not a 10% are very smart, and the other 90% are very dumb. A strong centralized government is necessary for slavery to exist.

It's like how there is no such thing as a perpetual natural monopoly.

It doesn't matter whether it is slavery to the elite, crime, or mob rule. There is no vacuum of power. Living in fear of crime alone is not "freedom."

 

[xj0hnx]

What makes you think I wouldn't have the means to defend myself from you without a state?

Because if someone wants something bad enough they will take it, especially if there's no system in place to help you if you couldn't defend yourself against them, or offer you a recourse when they did.

How do you know that once the state is removed that it would be replaced with a form of authority that's less civil than government?

Because there would be, that's humanity. It's called necessity. In the face of a lack of centralized government people would band together and govern themselves, humans are communal creatures.

A strong centralized government is necessary for slavery to exist.

Funny, it's also necessary to keep the stronger from enslaving the weaker. If there were no government, me and my band of marauders would over take your anarchist "commune", and force your people to do whatever we told you to, or die.

 

[Anarchist420]

Because if someone wants something bad enough they will take it, especially if there's no system in place to help you if you couldn't defend yourself against them, or offer you a recourse when they did.



Because there would be, that's humanity. It's called necessity. In the face of a lack of centralized government people would band together and govern themselves, humans are communal creatures.



Funny, it's also necessary to keep the stronger from enslaving the weaker. If there were no government, me and my band of marauders would over take your anarchist "commune", and force your people to do whatever we told you to, or die.

You sure do have a superiority complex, don't you?

 

[Perknose]

It doesn't matter whether it is slavery to the elite, crime, or mob rule. There is no vacuum of power. Living in fear of crime alone is not "freedom."

This state is what the seminal political philosopher Thomas Hobbes famously called a life that is nasty, brutish and short.

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

 

[woolfe9999]

This state is what the seminal political philosopher Thomas Hobbes famously called a life that is nasty, brutish and short.

Hobbes understood that man's "natural" condition is not "free."

If you start with the fallacy that man is 100% free without government, then you must come to the equally fallacious conclusion that anything government does is a net loss to freedom.

The implicit fallacy of the anarchist is that *only* government is capable of taking away freedom, with two additional correlary fallacies. First, that any action of government necessarily follows down the slippery slope, and second, that a given restriction imposed by government takes away freedom but cannot give any freedom in return. The "tradeoff" between security and freedom, for example, is often illusory. If I will not go outside my house for fear of crime - because there are no police - I am not "free." I am in a prison.

 

[xj0hnx]

You sure do have a superiority complex, don't you?

Why because I realize you live in a fantasy world? Or because I understand the fact that if someone wants to take something from you bad enough they will?

"Anarchy sounds good to me till someone asks "who'd fix the sewers", would the rednecks just play king of the neighborhood?"

 

[Anarchist420]

Hobbes understood that man's "natural" condition is not "free."

If you start with the fallacy that man is 100% free without government, then you must come to the equally fallacious conclusion that anything government does is a net loss to freedom.

The implicit fallacy of the anarchist is that *only* government is capable of taking away freedom, with two additional correlary fallacies. First, that any action of government necessarily follows down the slippery slope, and second, that a given restriction imposed by government takes away freedom but cannot give any freedom in return. The "tradeoff" between security and freedom, for example, is often illusory. If I will not go outside my house for fear of crime - because there are no police - I am not "free." I am in a prison.

Good point and I appreciate the civil reply.

I realize that it's never possible to be 100% free, state or no state. I agree that it's human nature to not be 100% free.

However, unless a truly minimal state, like the Articles of Confederation were in place, then there is no way I'd rather live in what we have today, compared to a stateless society. I mean, society is sooner going to collapse, because no more than 1/5 of the House of Rep (and only like 10 senators) actually wants to do what's necessary to prevent society from collapsing. I'd rather have no state than having people rioting because society collapsed from hyperinflation.

I'll agree that it's possible that a decentralized government can protect individual liberty, if it's planned right and if only a very tiny part of the population is evil and if those evil people are in their place. But those governments are very rare and don't last. They get replaced due to special interests and very few, if any, of the average people have any say in it.

If I could move to a stateless society right now (mircosecede), I'd do it, because I don't want to be around when hyperinflation sets in, or when unemployment hits 20% and people from innercity areas are coming into suburbs or rural areas and rioting them.