Why are liberty, peace, and prosperity so unpopular?

[Nebor]

As a species, technologically, psychologically and morally we've grown beyond the point where personal liberty is something that can be afforded to everyone. It's to the point where crimes against the state are being dismissed under the guise of "personal liberties" or "individual rights." For example, people saying Wikileaks\Julian Assange is protected by freedom of speech or press. Or a federal appeals court today ruling that a man who encouraged others to kill the President of the United States on a message board was protected by free speech.

Without a state, we are not a people united. Therefore the needs of the state are foremost. Prosperity is nice, but again it comes second to the needs of the state. State funds (taxes) should scale proportionally with personal prosperity though, so that shouldn't be an issue.

As far as peace goes... well, life is a constant struggle. There will never be "peace" again.

 

[Anarchist420]

Yeah, without a state we'd risk being the utopia that Somalia is. God, I wish our pesky government would go away so I could rape, kill, torture, and steal from my neighbors.

Somalia would be fine if the U.N., the U.S., and others weren't trying to interfere. Of course Somalia isn't a libertopia because the people who don't respect property rights haven't been kicked out yet.

An anarchist who doesn't understand the tyranny of concentrated wealth. Read:



Who wrote that? Was it a statist, or perhaps an anarchist who understood that power and tyranny exist in many forms?

- wolf

I were to guess, then the statement may have been from one of those anarcho-communists.

Of course tyranny can exist in anarchy and I've read about Samuel Francis on anarcho-tyranny. However, the state isn't a guaranteed protector against street gangs. Sometimes to get away from them, it requires voluntary actions be taken by the person who wants to get away from them. In a voluntary society, there are consequences for murder and probably would be more so than the system we have now. If someone lacks morality, then they're more likely than not going to kill whomever or steal whatever they can. Many murderers are not thinking about the possible punishments when they murder. The state doesn't stop them.

I appreciate your kind reply, and it's a good debate. In any event, I don't believe tyranny can be perpetuated under a stateless society, nor can it be on as large of a scale as the U.S. Constitution is, because it isn't centralized law. Like I said, it's not 100% free of cost for a master to enslave people. It doesn't come without consequences. Also, that quote sounded like it was from a Marxist who believed that "wage slavery" was actually slavery. It can't be slavery if it's voluntary.

Marx has been proven wrong on many accounts and hopefully some day he'll have been proven wrong on all accounts.

 

[First]

Somalia would be fine if the U.N., the U.S., and others weren't trying to interfere. Of course Somalia isn't a libertopia because the people who don't respect property rights haven't been kicked out yet.

I were to guess, then the statement may have been from one of those anarcho-communists.

Of course tyranny can exist in anarchy and I've read about Samuel Francis on anarcho-tyranny. However, the state isn't a guaranteed protector against street gangs. Sometimes to get away from them, it requires voluntary actions be taken by the person who wants to get away from them. In a voluntary society, there are consequences for murder and probably would be more so than the system we have now. If someone lacks morality, then they're more likely than not going to kill whomever or steal whatever they can. Many murderers are not thinking about the possible punishments when they murder. The state doesn't stop them.

I appreciate your kind reply, and it's a good debate. In any event, I don't believe tyranny can be perpetuated under a stateless society, nor can it be on as large of a scale as the U.S. Constitution is, because it isn't centralized law. Like I said, it's not 100% free of cost for a master to enslave people. It doesn't come without consequences. Also, that quote sounded like it was from a Marxist who believed that "wage slavery" was actually slavery. It can't be slavery if it's voluntary.

Marx has been proven wrong on many accounts and hopefully some day he'll have been proven wrong on all accounts.

Answer how a murderer isn't incentivized to kill and how they'll be prosecuted, wimp.

 

[werepossum]

Anarchy is the antithesis of liberty, peace or prosperity. Especially liberty. There is no liberty in anarchy, unless it is the liberty of the sociopath, or the mob. It is a prison for everyone else.

Pretty much this. I'm no fan of socialism and authoritarianism and I greet any increase in either with suspicion, but some of each are required for any group big enough that they aren't all friends to progress to civilization. Anarchy only works when some significant factor such as family bonds or friendship (or really strong weed) prevents some from taking undue advantage of others. The only exception would be at very low population levels; if you can get away from everyone else, anarchy affords you the maximum liberty.

Of course, just because you can do anything you want doesn't mean you'd have all that many choices. Pioneers in isolated homesteads had no exterior constraints forced upon them, but you can bet that most of their days were filled with things they HAD to do to survive.

 

[woolfe9999]

Pretty much this. I'm no fan of socialism and authoritarianism and I greet any increase in either with suspicion, but some of each are required for any group big enough that they aren't all friends to progress to civilization. Anarchy only works when some significant factor such as family bonds or friendship (or really strong weed) prevents some from taking undue advantage of others. The only exception would be at very low population levels; if you can get away from everyone else, anarchy affords you the maximum liberty.

Of course, just because you can do anything you want doesn't mean you'd have all that many choices. Pioneers in isolated homesteads had no exterior constraints forced upon them, but you can bet that most of their days were filled with things they HAD to do to survive.

Bingo. Give the man a cigar for understanding that poverty /= liberty. The notion that, OK I'm dirt poor, but at least I have my liberty, is quaint but silly. Poverty is a prison.

 

[werepossum]

Bingo. Give the man a cigar for understanding that poverty /= liberty. The notion that, OK I'm dirt poor, but at least I have my liberty, is quaint but silly. Poverty is a prison.

The trick with socialism is to gain the maximum benefit whilst giving up the minimum liberty, with the understanding that gaining the benefits of civilization whilst giving up no liberty is not possible. Or even desirable; the freedom to be a total dick is not necessarily a good thing in close proximity to others.

Oddly, the only true anarchist I've known was a plant manager who wanted to be in advertising. Who can imagine advertising existing as a career in an anarchy?

 

[Doboji]

Violating property rights gets you nowhere in a stateless society.

There would be consequences you would suffer if you were actually able to do so.

Besides, I could just as easily do the same to you. However, I wouldn't, because I realize that I would suffer consequences. Judging from what you've said, you know very little about living in a stateless society.

The amount of freedom does depend upon how much government you have and yes, I realize that anarchy is not 100% freedom. But you've got to be kidding yourself if you think that what we have now protects us from danger and allows us to be more free than we would be without the state.

Do you know how property rights are protected in a stateless society? By the formation of an authority with capable force. Your ability to defend your property is 100% dependent on you having more force than me. The group with the most force becomes the de-facto government, because they then control property rights, laws, etc.

While are existing government isn't perfect.. it DOES do a much much much much better job of protecting us from danger than no state, and better than previous forms of government as well. At least in our current situation we have some substantial view into the machinations of government, and we have the ability to organize politically without fear of being massacred by the existing authority.

If you study all of human history, you will see that the human condition has vastly improved as we've risen away from anarchy... Thats not to say we should proceed forward to communism... or that our system is perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But to say that Anarchy would be better is to completely ignore ALL the lessons of human history.

 

[werepossum]

Do you know how property rights are protected in a stateless society? By the formation of an authority with capable force. Your ability to defend your property is 100% dependent on you having more force than me. The group with the most force becomes the de-facto government, because they then control property rights, laws, etc.

While are existing government isn't perfect.. it DOES do a much much much much better job of protecting us from danger than no state, and better than previous forms of government as well. At least in our current situation we have some substantial view into the machinations of government, and we have the ability to organize politically without fear of being massacred by the existing authority.

If you study all of human history, you will see that the human condition has vastly improved as we've risen away from anarchy... Thats not to say we should proceed forward to communism... or that our system is perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But to say that Anarchy would be better is to completely ignore ALL the lessons of human history.

Whomever said that representative democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others is spot-on.

I reject Somalia as some sort of libertarian utopia, but I think it's a pretty fair example of anarchy. Very few large groups of people don't have at least some violent and/or dishonest people who will surely take advantage of others if not prevented by threat of force. While there aren't many large scale Western examples of anarchy, the one I can instantly recall - the fall of the Roman empire, which removed virtually all government above the village level - led to widespread slavery as weaker people were driven to give up their freedom to gain the protection of stronger people. I daresay that would be nearly the result today without government.

 

[Anarchist420]

Do you know how property rights are protected in a stateless society? By the formation of an authority with capable force. Your ability to defend your property is 100% dependent on you having more force than me. The group with the most force becomes the de-facto government, because they then control property rights, laws, etc.

While are existing government isn't perfect.. it DOES do a much much much much better job of protecting us from danger than no state, and better than previous forms of government as well. At least in our current situation we have some substantial view into the machinations of government, and we have the ability to organize politically without fear of being massacred by the existing authority.

If you study all of human history, you will see that the human condition has vastly improved as we've risen away from anarchy... Thats not to say we should proceed forward to communism... or that our system is perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But to say that Anarchy would be better is to completely ignore ALL the lessons of human history.

Thanks for the kind reply🙂

 

[xj0hnx]

Clearly it is because the Constitution does not protect them.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Oddly, the only true anarchist I've known was a plant manager who wanted to be in advertising. Who can imagine advertising existing as a career in an anarchy?

The core of advertising would work well in an anarchy. With nothing to support any bastions of truth, everything becomes a war of opinion.

With the breakdown of society the structures of the old guard die. New agendas arise and govern the surrounding behavior, allowing for the possibility of information corruption anywhere. This puts the individual (who is practically blind on his own) in a position where, externally, it may often times be impossible to determine fact from fiction, and often internally he'll be unaware and still processing as though he can.

Look at the effectiveness of Fox News in convincing the uneducated masses that every information source is politicized and therefore everything is untrustworthy in order to get idiots to believe that the only reason anyone chooses an information source is by its coincidence with their beliefs, thereby giving "picking a news source by how much it strokes my ego" the sheen of legitimacy which those idiots use as a shield when they use it to choose Fox News.
If Fox News can get away with this form of self-advertising in a time where the MSM still does have some journalistic integrity, would the world suddenly going sideways change this?

Propaganda is the structure that rules in what is otherwise information chaos, and once your deception has gained you a power base you can now advertise with, "Join us or die."

 

[werepossum]

Do you know how property rights are protected in a stateless society? By the formation of an authority with capable force. Your ability to defend your property is 100% dependent on you having more force than me. The group with the most force becomes the de-facto government, because they then control property rights, laws, etc.

While are existing government isn't perfect.. it DOES do a much much much much better job of protecting us from danger than no state, and better than previous forms of government as well. At least in our current situation we have some substantial view into the machinations of government, and we have the ability to organize politically without fear of being massacred by the existing authority.

If you study all of human history, you will see that the human condition has vastly improved as we've risen away from anarchy... Thats not to say we should proceed forward to communism... or that our system is perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But to say that Anarchy would be better is to completely ignore ALL the lessons of human history.

Very well put.

(Forgot to say that the first time I responded. 😀)

 

[Siddhartha]

never mind

 

[werepossum]

never mind

What? I need closure!