Mixtape Culture Club
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 27, 2024 - 4:36pm
You are all WRONG!
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 27, 2024 - 4:34pm
The Presidential Debates
- rgio - Jun 27, 2024 - 4:14pm
NASA & other news from space
- miamizsun - Jun 27, 2024 - 3:12pm
Little known information... maybe even facts
- miamizsun - Jun 27, 2024 - 3:06pm
Trump
- maryte - Jun 27, 2024 - 2:32pm
Israel
- R_P - Jun 27, 2024 - 2:12pm
Today in History
- Proclivities - Jun 27, 2024 - 1:55pm
Derplahoma!
- Red_Dragon - Jun 27, 2024 - 12:47pm
Name My Band
- Beaker - Jun 27, 2024 - 12:42pm
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone
- oldviolin - Jun 27, 2024 - 12:36pm
NY Times Strands
- maryte - Jun 27, 2024 - 11:45am
RightWingNutZ
- R_P - Jun 27, 2024 - 11:00am
NYTimes Connections
- maryte - Jun 27, 2024 - 10:50am
Wordle - daily game
- maryte - Jun 27, 2024 - 10:34am
The Obituary Page
- ptooey - Jun 27, 2024 - 10:16am
Russia
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jun 27, 2024 - 9:50am
LeftWingNutZ
- Proclivities - Jun 27, 2024 - 9:31am
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - Jun 27, 2024 - 8:54am
Live Music
- oldviolin - Jun 27, 2024 - 8:49am
Radio Paradise Comments
- robbyster - Jun 27, 2024 - 6:39am
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Jun 26, 2024 - 5:41pm
iOS app download manager problem
- RPnate1 - Jun 26, 2024 - 12:25pm
What is your favorite music video?
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 26, 2024 - 11:39am
Post your favorite 'You Tube' Videos Here
- Red_Dragon - Jun 26, 2024 - 10:10am
2024 Elections!
- R_P - Jun 26, 2024 - 9:13am
June 2024 Photo Theme - Eyes
- fractalv - Jun 26, 2024 - 8:30am
SCOTUS
- Red_Dragon - Jun 26, 2024 - 8:10am
WikiLeaks
- R_P - Jun 26, 2024 - 6:50am
Anti-War
- R_P - Jun 26, 2024 - 6:11am
Ukraine
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jun 26, 2024 - 5:11am
Joe Biden
- kurtster - Jun 25, 2024 - 9:24pm
Hockey + Fantasy Hockey
- GeneP59 - Jun 25, 2024 - 8:59pm
::odd but intriguing::
- Beaker - Jun 25, 2024 - 4:09pm
Climate Change
- R_P - Jun 25, 2024 - 12:08pm
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Jun 25, 2024 - 11:26am
*** PUNS *** FRUIT
- Proclivities - Jun 25, 2024 - 11:23am
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing
- oldviolin - Jun 25, 2024 - 11:10am
Things You Thought Today
- Red_Dragon - Jun 25, 2024 - 8:37am
Music Videos
- miamizsun - Jun 25, 2024 - 8:11am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- wossName - Jun 25, 2024 - 4:47am
China
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jun 25, 2024 - 4:44am
MTV's The Real World
- R_P - Jun 24, 2024 - 11:11pm
Breaking News
- Red_Dragon - Jun 24, 2024 - 5:35pm
Baseball, anyone?
- rgio - Jun 24, 2024 - 5:02pm
Outstanding Covers
- oldviolin - Jun 24, 2024 - 10:45am
How do you create optimism?
- R_P - Jun 24, 2024 - 8:27am
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy
- R_P - Jun 23, 2024 - 8:04pm
Strips, cartoons, illustrations
- R_P - Jun 23, 2024 - 7:49pm
favorite love songs
- thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 3:35pm
Prog Rockers Anonymous
- thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 2:24pm
The Dragons' Roost
- thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 2:01pm
Dumb Laws
- thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 1:51pm
BEATLES Make History AGAIN!!
- thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 9:12am
TV shows you watch
- R_P - Jun 23, 2024 - 8:57am
Congress
- R_P - Jun 22, 2024 - 5:53pm
What do you snack on?
- thisbody - Jun 22, 2024 - 3:20pm
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- Alchemist - Jun 22, 2024 - 2:44pm
What did you have for dinner?
- triskele - Jun 22, 2024 - 2:31pm
Jam! (why should a song stop)
- thisbody - Jun 22, 2024 - 1:53pm
Things I Saw Today...
- R_P - Jun 22, 2024 - 1:38pm
Some bands or songs are recurring too much in Rock channe...
- mlebihan29 - Jun 22, 2024 - 9:26am
Fox Spews
- R_P - Jun 22, 2024 - 9:19am
Sonos
- thatslongformud - Jun 22, 2024 - 6:18am
Too much classic rock lately?
- thisbody - Jun 21, 2024 - 4:01pm
Girls Just Want to Have Fun
- oldviolin - Jun 21, 2024 - 2:22pm
Musky Mythology
- R_P - Jun 21, 2024 - 12:26pm
Electronic Music
- Manbird - Jun 21, 2024 - 12:14pm
Basketball
- GeneP59 - Jun 20, 2024 - 4:53pm
Gotta Get Your Drink On
- Antigone - Jun 20, 2024 - 4:04pm
Shall We Dance?
- Steely_D - Jun 20, 2024 - 1:18pm
Predictions
- oldviolin - Jun 20, 2024 - 11:18am
Just Wrong
- ColdMiser - Jun 20, 2024 - 7:43am
Pink Floyd Set?
- Coaxial - Jun 20, 2024 - 5:46am
Whatever happened to Taco Wagon?
- Coaxial - Jun 19, 2024 - 6:14pm
|
Index »
Music »
Whatever »
Why not Anarchy?
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 Next |
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 8:59am |
|
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.
|
|
lily34
Location: GTFO Gender:
|
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 8:50am |
|
the show sons of anarchy is pretty decent.
|
|
cc_rider
Location: Bastrop Gender:
|
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 8:47am |
|
oldslabsides wrote: What do you think has made me what I am today? As I've explained previously in these threads, I love the people I love, I find some others worthy of certain respect and I find some highly entertaining, but for the most part, people scare the hell out of me. Amen brother.
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 8:45am |
|
Beaker wrote:
I think ... not that you axed, that you would do well to get out and interact with the human race more.
I'd heartily recommend some volunteer work.
What do you think has made me what I am today? As I've explained previously in these threads, I love the people I love, I find some others worthy of certain respect and I find some highly entertaining, but for the most part, people scare the hell out of me.
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 8:32am |
|
dmax wrote:Anarchy, and its little brother, Libertarianism, are fine for the tough and self-sufficient. For those temporarily afflicted with illness (physical or mental) or age or even poor geography or poor soil, it leaves them open to be preyed upon by those more capable.
Like communism is a neat theoretical idea, so's anarchy. In fact, so's the idea that all our daughters are princesses.
But it's still not a real-world possibility - unless you're in Somalia.
I'll pass. A perfect example of the natural human state of anarchy. There are some successes there too though: 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 WorldSomalia 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.
|
|
Sean-E-Sean
Location: Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc
|
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 8:08am |
|
Manbird wrote: Exactly. He who smelt it, dealt it.
*edit*
|
|
Proclivities
Location: Paris of the Piedmont Gender:
|
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 8:07am |
|
oldslabsides wrote:Ask anyone hereabouts - I'm the poster boy for both of these words. The existance of the bush people you speak of is - IMO - far closer to our "natural state" than what we have now. I think we exceeded our limitations when we invented agriculture and settled down in one place to begin our unsustainable breeding program which - btw - seems to be reaching its inevitable fruition. I hadn't realized your affiliation with those two words - no offense intended. There is something idyllic-seeming about the bush people, isn't there?
|
|
Manbird
Location: La Villa Toscana Gender:
|
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 8:03am |
|
dmax wrote: Naw, we made our big mistake when we learned to smelt metal. Ah, for the good ole days. Exactly. He who smelt it, dealt it.
|
|
(former member)
Gender:
|
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 7:56am |
|
oldslabsides wrote:Ask anyone hereabouts - I'm the poster boy for both of these words. The existance of the bush people you speak of is - IMO - far closer to our "natural state" than what we have now. I think we exceeded our limitations when we invented agriculture and settled down in one place to begin our unsustainable breeding program which - btw - seems to be reaching it's inevitable fruition. Naw, we made our big mistake when we learned to smelt metal. Ah, for the good ole days.
|
|
(former member)
Gender:
|
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 7:55am |
|
Anarchy, and its little brother, Libertarianism, are fine for the tough and self-sufficient. For those temporarily afflicted with illness (physical or mental) or age or even poor geography or poor soil, it leaves them open to be preyed upon by those more capable.
Like communism is a neat theoretical idea, so's anarchy. In fact, so's the idea that all our daughters are princesses.
But it's still not a real-world possibility - unless you're in Somalia.
I'll pass.
|
|
Manbird
Location: La Villa Toscana Gender:
|
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 7:52am |
|
oldslabsides wrote:Ask anyone hereabouts - I'm the poster boy for both of these words. The existance of the bush people you speak of is - IMO - far closer to our "natural state" than what we have now. I think we exceeded our limitations when we invented agriculture and settled down in one place to begin our unsustainable breeding program which - btw - seems to be reaching it's inevitable fruition. Right on. BTW, where can I get one of these posters? Zazzle?
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 7:50am |
|
Proclivities wrote: I agree, having "better humans" would make many things possible, but the flaws and limitations of the human race — as they are and have been for a very long time — are all we have to work with. At the risk of seeming misanthropic or pessimistic (which I do not believe myself to be), I believe that a substantial portion of the population will not do "the right thing" without a law or an authority telling them to do so. Ironically, a group such as the Bush People of the Kalahari, while considered "primitive" and "isolated", seem in many ways, a group closest to advancing to that level of moral existence.
Ask anyone hereabouts - I'm the poster boy for both of these words. The existance of the bush people you speak of is - IMO - far closer to our "natural state" than what we have now. I think we exceeded our limitations when we invented agriculture and settled down in one place to begin our unsustainable breeding program which - btw - seems to be reaching its inevitable fruition.
|
|
Proclivities
Location: Paris of the Piedmont Gender:
|
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 7:34am |
|
oldslabsides wrote:
You perhaps missed the part of Zeff's post that espoused lack of government without the implication of chaos most people associate with anarchy. That's the one I'm talking about. He need better humans.
People should do the right thing because it's the right thing, not because it's the law.
I agree, having "better humans" would make many things possible, but the flaws and limitations of the human race — as they are and have been for a very long time — are all we have to work with. At the risk of seeming misanthropic or pessimistic (which I do not believe myself to be), I believe that a substantial portion of the population will not do "the right thing" without a law or an authority telling them to do so. Ironically, a group such as the Bush People of the Kalahari, while considered "primitive" and "isolated", seem in many ways, a group closest to advancing to that level of moral existence.
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 7:24am |
|
oldslabsides wrote:
You perhaps missed the part of Zeff's post that espoused lack of government without the implication of chaos most people associate with anarchy. That's the one I'm talking about. He need better humans.
People should do the right thing because it's the right thing, not because it's the law. I saw that, and I agree that it's a nice idea. However, we have a couple of thousand years of history that indicates it's not our natural state. The whole idea of "government" as an evil entity is flawed. Government is just an extension of us (good and bad). If we have no official .gov and we live next to each other and we put up a fence to define our mutually agreed upon boundaries, we have formed our own government. We put down a set of rules that govern our behavior. Now when I cut down part of the fence to improve my view and then cut down a tree on your side of the fence for the same purpose, we need a 3rd party to arbitrate the dispute (I never agreed to let your tree grow into my view). We just grew government by %50. We all have different goals and so we need to be able to compromise. This is what government should be for. If it's not working, it's up to us to go fix it. I'm all for doing the right thing, but often there will be differences of opinion on what is right. The ability to compromise and continue to work together even though we don't all get our way all the time is also 'the right thing'. This part of governing seems to be lost on our current set of representatives, but again, I think we should just fix it, not start over w/ a clean slate.
|
|
steeler
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
|
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 7:14am |
|
The notion that if we did not have government the masses — and individuals — would conduct themselves in a more honorable and ethical manner ("doing right") seems to turn logic on its head. I recognize, however, that it is possibly true, so we discuss this theory. Nonetheless, it seems illogical because it presumes that the primary reason that groups or individuals are acting in a manner contrary to the collective good is because they are either being adversely influenced by the government or they are chafing under the government reins and seeking to rebel. So, the theory appears to go, if we eliminate the government, the people, acting individually or in groups, will no longer have a need to act contrary to the collective good. Instead, freed of the coercive goverment, they will revert back to acting completely in their own self-interest and that somehow will conform to acting more in line with the collective good. (There, of course, would still be outliers; I recognize that.) Still, I doubt that government is the primary and virtually sole source of the thoughts and feelings that give rise to anti-social behavior. And we are not just talking bout anti-social behavior in the worst sense (i.e., physical crime, etc). We also are talking about competing interests and focusing folk upon making compromises for the collective good — seeing beyond one's self-interest. Acting in one's self-interest is not a panacea; it should not be a trump card.
The trick is to allow for as much individual freedom as possible without undermining the collective good. Laws are not just coercive; they also are aspirational. That often gets lost in the conversation, but it is an important point. If we are talking about concepts — foundations upon which to build — I favor the notion of a society based upon the rule of law, not the rule of men. We may have strayed too far from that in practice, but I don't think the model itself has been proven to be suspect, much less the root of our problems.
Another point: No matter what, there will be some organization of people living as groups or in close proximity — that is government. For those who have been around long enough, you might remember some of the postings Face (Not Applicable) made. I had a conversation with him here in which he eventually conceded that he was talking about removing government as we know it and allowing groups to voluntarily form that would resemble something akin to Indian tribes. Indian tribes, however, were not without government. Thehy had hierarchy and they had rules. And, even assuming this is a good idea, how do we turn back the clock to allow for this? We have no room for nomadic tribes. The great, great majority of people are not living off the land or in the wild. Will we start by giving up the notion of ownership of real property? How is it going to work?
Edit: I see the growing fundamental distrust of our government as the specter that scares me. It is getting to the point where the brilliant framework set out for us by the brave and wise men who established this independent country is being seen as wishful thinking and seriously flawed — or, even worse, as some diabolical power grab. That framework, however, is based upon government by the people. More and more, we tend to view our government as being apart from us, akin to a voracious and inanimate object that continually thwarts the good intentions of the people. Could the Founders have been this wrong? I think the model is sound; still brilliant. We just have to step up to the plate as individuals and do our part.
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 7:11am |
|
islander wrote: There are many places without a functioning government. They tend to devolve into lawless wastelands and then a feudal set of warlords take control of a region.
I personally like being able to drive from one end of town to the other, or from one end of the country to the other without having to worry about which group to bribe or which kidnappers to watch out for.
Yeah, there are many downsides to our system. But the fact that we can go on the internet and bitch about them openly tells me we have the best compromise available. We should still keep working to improve it, but let's not forget that lots of people literally die trying to get a shot at our set of opportunities. Maybe we already have a set of 'better humans' we just need a little more organization... careful with that bathwater.
You perhaps missed the part of Zeff's post that espoused lack of government without the implication of chaos most people associate with anarchy. That's the one I'm talking about. He need better humans. People should do the right thing because it's the right thing, not because it's the law.
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 7:06am |
|
oldslabsides wrote: I agree that we need a better human. As we are right now, we pretty much suck. But I fully agree with the principle of no government.
People should do the right thing because it's the right thing, not because it's the law.
There are many places without a functioning government. They tend to devolve into lawless wastelands and then a feudal set of warlords take control of a region. I personally like being able to drive from one end of town to the other, or from one end of the country to the other without having to worry about which group to bribe or which kidnappers to watch out for. Yeah, there are many downsides to our system. But the fact that we can go on the internet and bitch about them openly tells me we have the best compromise available. We should still keep working to improve it, but let's not forget that lots of people literally die trying to get a shot at our set of opportunities. Maybe we already have a set of 'better humans' we just need a little more organization... careful with that bathwater.
|
|
samiyam
Location: Moving North
|
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 6:24am |
|
miamizsun wrote: Pro, don't have much time right now, my work day is getting busy, however the robber barons you speak of did their deeds with full complicity of the government, in other words they bribe our government to write favorable legislation that "legally" enables them to rob us. Some call it lobbying. Follow the money.
Regards
One hand washes the other... And the Rothchilds own it all...
|
|
Proclivities
Location: Paris of the Piedmont Gender:
|
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 5:54am |
|
miamizsun wrote: Pro, don't have much time right now, my work day is getting busy, however the robber barons you speak of did their deeds with full complicity of the government, in other words they bribe our government to write favorable legislation that "legally" enables them to rob us. Some call it lobbying. Follow the money.
Regards
True. Regards as well.
|
|
miamizsun
Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP) Gender:
|
Posted:
Sep 9, 2010 - 5:52am |
|
Proclivities wrote: Seems a trifle paranoid and utopian to me. Some of it sounds like excerpts of the trial statements from Terry Nichols. If you do not pay property taxes your property could be foreclosed by the town or county - you DO NOT get "thrown in jail". He seems to like the phrase "thrown in jail". I wonder if he actually knows anyone who has been incarcerated for standing up to what he calls "political violence".
Those who lead by incentive will offer you a salary to come and work for them; those who lead by force will throw you in jail if you do not pick up a gun and fight for them.
Very black-and-white theorizing. There are only two choices? Does he really believe that employers and industrialists are motivated to "lead by incentive"? So the robber-barons, and environmentally-averse entities like GE, DuPont and Monsanto have acted only out of humanitarian benevolence or a "morally good" anarchy? Greed was never part of the equation? Some of what he says makes sense, but that can be said of a lot of theories - some of what Marx and Engels wrote also makes sense.
Interesting "food for thought" as you said, however. Thanks for posting it.
Pro, don't have much time right now, my work day is getting busy, however the robber barons you speak of did their deeds with full complicity of the government, in other words they bribe our government to write favorable legislation that "legally" enables them to rob us. Some call it lobbying. Follow the money. Regards
|
|
|