Why would we not have security? Firefighters? EMTs?
They would simply be private contractual services rendered by professionals.
And since they would have to be competitive, we would be assured of the best possible service at the best possible price.
When you give a group of people the authority to initiate violence and the power to forcibly take your money and/or just acquired property without any accountability, especially nothing contractual, it tends to attract the bad guys and we see the results.
Our country is bankrupt, circling the drain, in debt/obligated over $1,000,000 per taxpayer and we're being treated like cattle.
We can (and deserve) better.
Regards
Like the best possible service the banking 'profession' provided when allowed to self regulate?
Why would we not have security? Firefighters? EMTs?
They would simply be private contractual services rendered by professionals.
And since they would have to be competitive, we would be assured of the best possible service at the best possible price.
When you give a group of people the authority to initiate violence and the power to forcibly take your money and/or just acquired property without any accountability, especially nothing contractual, it tends to attract the bad guys and we see the results.
Our country is bankrupt, circling the drain, in debt/obligated over $1,000,000 per taxpayer and we're being treated like cattle.
We can (and deserve) better.
Regards
I tend to think that what we would be "assured of" is being preyed upon by venal privateers and/or unrestrained warlords - the ones with the most guns would rule. You may maintain that it is something like that already but without a "government" of some sort, there would be no system of checks and balances. Anarchy is not exactly going swimmingly in Somalia - not that anything may.
It goes to beyond scary. No cops? Whose gonnna eat most of the donuts? Seriously, whose going to be there for us if not cops and firefighters and EMT and all the service providers we rely upon?
???
Why would we not have security? Firefighters? EMTs?
They would simply be private contractual services rendered by professionals.
And since they would have to be competitive, we would be assured of the best possible service at the best possible price.
When you give a group of people the authority to initiate violence and the power to forcibly take your money and/or just acquired property without any accountability, especially nothing contractual, it tends to attract the bad guys and we see the results.
Our country is bankrupt, circling the drain, in debt/obligated over $1,000,000 per taxpayer and we're being treated like cattle.
It goes to beyond scary. No cops? Whose gonnna eat most of the donuts? Seriously, whose going to be there for us if not cops and firefighters and EMT and all the service providers we rely upon?
That's what it means to have a society. There cannot me a society without rules.
It goes to beyond scary. No cops? Whose gonnna eat most of the donuts? Seriously, whose going to be there for us if not cops and firefighters and EMT and all the service providers we rely upon?
And no insurance! Who's going to issue a policy when there is no one to check it wasn't an inside job.
It's quite a scary thing to think of living with no Police. The 'Ascent of Money' documentary talked about the lengths people had to go to to protect their property before the Police forces arrived. Basically the last thing the head of the house did at night was go round and lock every single door (inside as well as out) and shutter every window. If you got burgled, unless you caught them in the act, you had no comeback whatsoever. Just think about that. Scary.
It goes to beyond scary. No cops? Whose gonnna eat most of the donuts? Seriously, whose going to be there for us if not cops and firefighters and EMT and all the service providers we rely upon?
The absence of Government is the absence of law. We humans might have lived for many moons minus Government, but we were more self-efficient, more capable of making do. Remove Government today and see how many can survive a world suddenly without law and order and for many, essential services. That's my 2 cents worth.
It's quite a scary thing to think of living with no Police. The 'Ascent of Money' documentary talked about the lengths people had to go to to protect their property before the Police forces arrived. Basically the last thing the head of the house did at night was go round and lock every single door (inside as well as out) and shutter every window. If you got burgled, unless you caught them in the act, you had no comeback whatsoever. Just think about that. Scary.
European anarchists grow more violent, coordinated ... A loosely linked movement of European anarchists who want to bring down state and financial institutions is becoming more violent and coordinated after decades out of the spotlight, and may be responding to social tensions spawned by the continent's financial crisis, security experts say. Italian police said Tuesday that letter bombs were sent to three embassies in Rome by Italian anarchists in solidarity with jailed Greek anarchists, who had asked their comrades to organize and coordinate a global "revolutionary war." - AP News
Dominant Social Theme: Anarchists arise to topple democratically elected governments.
Free-Market Analysis: The hoary anarchist meme is being trotted out again. What we can see from the above article excerpt is that a firm link is to be drawn between anarchism and violence. This has happened before. The last time anarchists appeared to savage the West was around the turn of the 20th century - when regulatory democracy was under threat previously. Reading about anarchism, generally, on such sites as Wikipedia is enough to make one's head ache. The untruths are manifest; the manipulation seems obvious. It is a sub-dominant social theme of the power elite: fear those who wish to do without government (at least as it is currently constituted). They are lawless and apt to turn violent.
In fact, anarchism merely stands for absence of government. There is no violence involved, or certainly violence is not a necessary adjunct. Really, it should be easy to define what an anarchist is: But at Wikipedia in particular, one will find a plethora of mysterious definitions. There are libertarian socialists (who may espouse anarchism) and anarcho-syndicalists. Some anarchists, we are informed, believe in peaceful change; others believe in violence.
Yet anarchy is a social environment, one that simply seeks a lifestyle without a distant and non-responsive ruling class. It has nothing to do with violence, which is a strategy not an sociopolitical philosophy. One believes in various forms of social organization: communism, socialism, anarcho-capitalism. But one does not believe (as a communal structure) in violence or peace - or jumping jacks or cartwheels for that matter.
Thus, when the mainstream press writes about anarchism. It should make clear the differences between polity and strategy. The article excerpted above by AP begins "European anarchists grow more violent." The lead should be written as follows in our view: "Some masked individuals whom we claim are 'anarchists' are apparently growing more violent."
Of course, the whole point is to smear those who would live without government or at least make a case that one could do with less. If a tight link can be drawn between anarchy and violence, then those who wish to change certain fundamental elements of modern society - including its governance - can be more easily discredited by the powers-that-be. The argument could even be made that governments are inciting or even helping to instigate such violence through false-flag events. It's happened before.
Can society exist without the current regulatory democracy model of the West? A good case can be made that the current era of Western regulatory democracy is in fact anomalous. In the past, we've pointed out that human societies tended to less bigness in the past, and were in fact organized around clans and tribes, often interlinked. Human beings tend to have the ability to recognize and relate to about 150 people at the most, and this is evidence of a long-term, evolutionary lifestyle within extended families.
Seen in this context, human behavior takes on a different look. The controlling elements of social units, even within larger living arrangements, might be seen to function at a local level. Justice could be resolved between aggrieved parties using rational common law provisions. Business and trade could be conducted between individuals and families with corporate overlays. Even international commerce could be pursued privately using gold and silver as money.
Lacking the controlling force of a coercive or invasive government, such societies (as they existed in the past) were surely organized nonetheless. However, the organizing element of such "anarchistic" societies tended to be religious in nature as people who live in clans or tribes will substitute private enculturation for official control.
In fact, human civilization provides many examples of clans and tribes living in close proximity to one another without an over-arching central government. If local authorities prove too oppressive, people can migrate to other, local regions that speak the same language and continue their lives with little interruption. As such societies coalesce, government behaviors may remain modest because of the restraint exercised during these formative years. We can see the results in the vibrant societies of Rome (with its initial seven hills) Greece and Italy (with their city states) and of course America itself (with its 13 original colonies).
The societies mentioned above tended toward a strict morality to begin with. This can be seen from the lamentations of various Roman philosophers recalling the modesty and republican virtues of men and women before Rome turned into an empire. America had its Puritans; Italy had its Renaissance. In all these cases, it was not government that provided society's structural glue but the culture itself, using the free-market tools of spirituality, private commerce and cultural traditions.
It is no surprise that as the excesses of authority become more pervasive, private solutions yield. In America, the "Shaking Quakers" - Shakers - took in thousands of orphans because the Shaker religion forbade sex. But once orphanages became commonplace, the Shakers diminished as a religion and eventually were extinguished. Insurance companies in the West were once more vital too, but as government expands its safety net, private solutions begin to be reduced and those that remained often attempted some sort of government merger. Private watchdog groups are also reduced as government expands its role and function.
We can see from the above points that an argument can be made that private societies are perfectly capable of providing the essential building blocks of society. But as government expands, these private solutions tend to wither away. Anarcho-libertarians may wish to revive them, but how does that make such individuals and groups violent?
It could be said that regulatory democracy itself, with its emphasis on ever-increasing authoritarianism, projects a level of incipient and overt violence that anarchism neither aspires to or retains as part of its fundamental constitution. Again, anarchy is a lack of government; but that does not mean that anarchy involves a lack of ORDER. Nor does it mean that those who believe in private solutions to public problems want to implement them by force.
Conclusion: The Internet in particular is revealing these truths to a whole new generation that has grown up with the idea that only through pervasive government can society prosper. The powers-that-be are doubtless uncomfortable with these revelations. But anarchy is not lawless. It is in fact the way humans lived for millennia. And perhaps there are elements that will be adopted as the current system degrades (as it now seems to be doing) - whether or not the elite approves.
The absence of Government is the absence of law. We humans might have lived for many moons minus Government, but we were more self-efficient, more capable of making do. Remove Government today and see how many can survive a world suddenly without law and order and for many, essential services. That's my 2 cents worth.
European anarchists grow more violent, coordinated ... A loosely linked movement of European anarchists who want to bring down state and financial institutions is becoming more violent and coordinated after decades out of the spotlight, and may be responding to social tensions spawned by the continent's financial crisis, security experts say. Italian police said Tuesday that letter bombs were sent to three embassies in Rome by Italian anarchists in solidarity with jailed Greek anarchists, who had asked their comrades to organize and coordinate a global "revolutionary war." - AP News
Dominant Social Theme: Anarchists arise to topple democratically elected governments.
Free-Market Analysis: The hoary anarchist meme is being trotted out again. What we can see from the above article excerpt is that a firm link is to be drawn between anarchism and violence. This has happened before. The last time anarchists appeared to savage the West was around the turn of the 20th century - when regulatory democracy was under threat previously. Reading about anarchism, generally, on such sites as Wikipedia is enough to make one's head ache. The untruths are manifest; the manipulation seems obvious. It is a sub-dominant social theme of the power elite: fear those who wish to do without government (at least as it is currently constituted). They are lawless and apt to turn violent.
In fact, anarchism merely stands for absence of government. There is no violence involved, or certainly violence is not a necessary adjunct. Really, it should be easy to define what an anarchist is: But at Wikipedia in particular, one will find a plethora of mysterious definitions. There are libertarian socialists (who may espouse anarchism) and anarcho-syndicalists. Some anarchists, we are informed, believe in peaceful change; others believe in violence.
Yet anarchy is a social environment, one that simply seeks a lifestyle without a distant and non-responsive ruling class. It has nothing to do with violence, which is a strategy not an sociopolitical philosophy. One believes in various forms of social organization: communism, socialism, anarcho-capitalism. But one does not believe (as a communal structure) in violence or peace - or jumping jacks or cartwheels for that matter.
Thus, when the mainstream press writes about anarchism. It should make clear the differences between polity and strategy. The article excerpted above by AP begins "European anarchists grow more violent." The lead should be written as follows in our view: "Some masked individuals whom we claim are 'anarchists' are apparently growing more violent."
Of course, the whole point is to smear those who would live without government or at least make a case that one could do with less. If a tight link can be drawn between anarchy and violence, then those who wish to change certain fundamental elements of modern society - including its governance - can be more easily discredited by the powers-that-be. The argument could even be made that governments are inciting or even helping to instigate such violence through false-flag events. It's happened before.
Can society exist without the current regulatory democracy model of the West? A good case can be made that the current era of Western regulatory democracy is in fact anomalous. In the past, we've pointed out that human societies tended to less bigness in the past, and were in fact organized around clans and tribes, often interlinked. Human beings tend to have the ability to recognize and relate to about 150 people at the most, and this is evidence of a long-term, evolutionary lifestyle within extended families.
Seen in this context, human behavior takes on a different look. The controlling elements of social units, even within larger living arrangements, might be seen to function at a local level. Justice could be resolved between aggrieved parties using rational common law provisions. Business and trade could be conducted between individuals and families with corporate overlays. Even international commerce could be pursued privately using gold and silver as money.
Lacking the controlling force of a coercive or invasive government, such societies (as they existed in the past) were surely organized nonetheless. However, the organizing element of such "anarchistic" societies tended to be religious in nature as people who live in clans or tribes will substitute private enculturation for official control.
In fact, human civilization provides many examples of clans and tribes living in close proximity to one another without an over-arching central government. If local authorities prove too oppressive, people can migrate to other, local regions that speak the same language and continue their lives with little interruption. As such societies coalesce, government behaviors may remain modest because of the restraint exercised during these formative years. We can see the results in the vibrant societies of Rome (with its initial seven hills) Greece and Italy (with their city states) and of course America itself (with its 13 original colonies).
The societies mentioned above tended toward a strict morality to begin with. This can be seen from the lamentations of various Roman philosophers recalling the modesty and republican virtues of men and women before Rome turned into an empire. America had its Puritans; Italy had its Renaissance. In all these cases, it was not government that provided society's structural glue but the culture itself, using the free-market tools of spirituality, private commerce and cultural traditions.
It is no surprise that as the excesses of authority become more pervasive, private solutions yield. In America, the "Shaking Quakers" - Shakers - took in thousands of orphans because the Shaker religion forbade sex. But once orphanages became commonplace, the Shakers diminished as a religion and eventually were extinguished. Insurance companies in the West were once more vital too, but as government expands its safety net, private solutions begin to be reduced and those that remained often attempted some sort of government merger. Private watchdog groups are also reduced as government expands its role and function.
We can see from the above points that an argument can be made that private societies are perfectly capable of providing the essential building blocks of society. But as government expands, these private solutions tend to wither away. Anarcho-libertarians may wish to revive them, but how does that make such individuals and groups violent?
It could be said that regulatory democracy itself, with its emphasis on ever-increasing authoritarianism, projects a level of incipient and overt violence that anarchism neither aspires to or retains as part of its fundamental constitution. Again, anarchy is a lack of government; but that does not mean that anarchy involves a lack of ORDER. Nor does it mean that those who believe in private solutions to public problems want to implement them by force.
Conclusion: The Internet in particular is revealing these truths to a whole new generation that has grown up with the idea that only through pervasive government can society prosper. The powers-that-be are doubtless uncomfortable with these revelations. But anarchy is not lawless. It is in fact the way humans lived for millennia. And perhaps there are elements that will be adopted as the current system degrades (as it now seems to be doing) - whether or not the elite approves.
Although as I said earlier, I'm willing to pay a higher price for civilization. What is the true cost of a cheap cell phone?
The Most Dangerous Place in the World
Somalia is a state governed only by anarchy. A graveyard of foreign-policy failures, it has known just six months of peace in the past two decades. Now, as the country's endless chaos threatens to engulf an entire region, the world again simply watches it burn. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/02/16/the_most_dangerous_place_in_the_world
I'll take our flawed Democratic Republic over this option.
Yes there are, but we should we should be aware of some Somali history. This should clear up a lot of the misconception. Peace.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 2:00pm
oldslabsides wrote:
...and when the world government is in place and empowered by the bankers and mega-corporations, there will be no place left to run if you don't like it.
*reminds self to get back to work on that spaceship project in the basement*
Possible.
Personally, I think it is a positive thing for there to be international tribunals. Beats the heck out of going to war to resolve disputes.
International law, which is pretty much in an embryonic state, works in a peer pressure sort of way. No country wishes to be seen as a pariah. Even North korea attempts to justify its actions in terms of international law. So, even though there is not much in the way of enforcement, there still is some effect. And the power of international law has been growing — slowly.
...and when the world government is in place and empowered by the bankers and mega-corporations, there will be no place left to run if you don't like it.
*reminds self to get back to work on that spaceship project in the basement*
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 1:41pm
Lazy8 wrote:
steeler wrote:
Another way of saying that we always have government.
We always have power structures. There are plenty of historical examples of "stateless" societies1, but that didn't mean no rules and no way to enforce them, just that the structures that enforced the rules weren't permanent.
A world without power structures, permanent or otherwise, would be a world without humans.
1. Medieval Ireland and the Icelandic Commonwealth are two good examples, but another more modern example is all around us: there is no overarching world government, and the interactions between nations are essentially ungoverned except by voluntary structures.
International law, which is pretty much in an embryonic state, works in a peer pressure sort of way. No country wishes to be seen as a pariah. Even North korea attempts to justify its actions in terms of international law. So, even though there is not much in the way of enforcement, there still is some effect. And the power of international law has been growing — slowly.
Another way of saying that we always have government.
We always have power structures. There are plenty of historical examples of "stateless" societies1, but that didn't mean no rules and no way to enforce them, just that the structures that enforced the rules weren't permanent.
A world without power structures, permanent or otherwise, would be a world without humans.
1. Medieval Ireland and the Icelandic Commonwealth are two good examples, but another more modern example is all around us: there is no overarching world government, and the interactions between nations are essentially ungoverned except by voluntary structures.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 10:05am
oldslabsides wrote:
I don't think thinking that anarchy is the way to go is any different that thinking government is. Neither has ever worked as envisioned by those who instituted them. As long as humans are involved there will be imperfection and disagreement. I just prefer that power be spread as thinly as possible, not concentrated.
Agreed.
The last sentence is a bit open to interpretation. I would say that I am not in favor of "big government." On the other hand, I am not even sure what that means as individuals have different ideas as to what constitutes governmental activity that should not be. The debate has to be particularized, not generalized when we talk about what the government should be involved in and what it should not.
Another way of saying that we always have government.
I don't think thinking that anarchy is the way to go is any different that thinking government is. Neither has ever worked as envisioned by those who instituted them. As long as humans are involved there will be imperfection and disagreement. I just prefer that power be spread as thinly as possible, not concentrated.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 9:47am
Lazy8 wrote:
We already have anarchy.
Imagine there were no governments. Then imagine some group of people decides (voluntarily) that they are the "government". Call it whatever you like, it's their choice. And others could choose to acknowledge that government, pay it taxes, obey its laws, submit to its policies, join its armies. We'd still have anarchy, just punctuated by people deluding themselves that they were the Dutchy of Fenwick or Canada or the Republican National Committee.
But what if that "government" tries to impose its will on non-participants? Well, what are they going to do to stop it?
They can argue that the "governments" are illegitimate, that they have no authority, but that doesn't make a truncheon any softer or a jail cell any more porous. They can fight back, but firepower will decide the issue. In practical terms we'd be where we are now.
So how do we get to that utopian ideal of self-organizing power structures that dissolve when they no longer serve the purpose they emerged for, of people engaging in only voluntary transactions, the dead weights of armies and ministries lifted from the shoulders of mankind? We look at the differences between the state we want and the state we're in, and understand that there will always be somebody gathering people around him to form a power structure. And that power structure is nothing without the acknowledgment of people around it.
Without that acknowledgment what is a cop but a guy in a clown suit waving his arms at traffic? He can't shoot everybody who ignores him, especially if some of them shoot back. A subpoena has no more weight than a garage sale poster if it's ignored. What gives a government power is people accepting that it has power.
So rejoice! We have anarchy, it's just in a degenerate state. And pretty much always will be.
Another way of saying that we always have government.
