Topic: Bitcoin and Anarchism (Read 1445 times)
I just read thread's title and would say they have no relation whatsoever.
Then miscreants would try to remove them, and you would need to stop them.
Force shouldn't be necessary, but it is.
Force shouldn't be necessary, but it is.
Nothing in anarchism prevents the use of force to protect property.
Barriers, with attendants. And legal action if you don't pay. Ultimately the threat of imprisonment. Force.
And if you had barriers which prevented cars from entering the road without paying?
Then miscreants would try to remove them, and you would need to stop them.
Force shouldn't be necessary, but it is.
Barriers, with attendants. And legal action if you don't pay. Ultimately the threat of imprisonment. Force.
And if you had barriers which prevented cars from entering the road without paying?
And, so far, thoughout history I have been right 
So has Nock. As a species, we are very accepting of subjugation, so much so that we take pride in it.
What other way do you suggest, ultimately?
You have built a valuable road.
People are using it against your will.
How do you stop them?
You have built a valuable road.
People are using it against your will.
How do you stop them?
How are cars prevented from entering toll roads without paying today? It's not really a complex problem.
Barriers, with attendants. And legal action if you don't pay. Ultimately the threat of imprisonment. Force.
Every society ultimately ends up with someone with control of power running it, whether that power is the threat of force, or money or equivalent to be able to hire the threat of force, or agreements with other societies to be covered by the umbrella of their threat of force.
And I will repost Nock:
Quote
According to my observations, mankind are among the most easily tamable and domesticable of all creatures in the animal world. They are readily reducible to submission, so readily conditionable (to coin a word) as to exhibit an almost incredibly enduring patience under restraint and oppression of the most flagrant character. So far are they from displaying any overweening love of freedom that they show a singular contentment with a condition of servitorship, often showing a curious canine pride in it, and again often simply unaware that they are existing in that condition.(Memoirs of the Superfluous Man)
You choose submission because you view it as inevitable. I choose another path. One of the benefits of being an anarchist is that I don't need you to agree with me
And, so far, thoughout history I have been correct
What other way do you suggest, ultimately?
You have built a valuable road.
People are using it against your will.
How do you stop them?
You have built a valuable road.
People are using it against your will.
How do you stop them?
How are cars prevented from entering toll roads without paying today? It's not really a complex problem.
Every society ultimately ends up with someone with control of power running it, whether that power is the threat of force, or money or equivalent to be able to hire the threat of force, or agreements with other societies to be covered by the umbrella of their threat of force.
And I will repost Nock:
Quote
According to my observations, mankind are among the most easily tamable and domesticable of all creatures in the animal world. They are readily reducible to submission, so readily conditionable (to coin a word) as to exhibit an almost incredibly enduring patience under restraint and oppression of the most flagrant character. So far are they from displaying any overweening love of freedom that they show a singular contentment with a condition of servitorship, often showing a curious canine pride in it, and again often simply unaware that they are existing in that condition.(Memoirs of the Superfluous Man)
You choose submission because you view it as inevitable. I choose another path. One of the benefits of being an anarchist is that I don't need you to agree with me
They would use force to prevent non-payers using their roads.
Really? You can think of no other way?
What other way do you suggest, ultimately?
You have built a valuable road.
People are using it against your will.
How do you stop them?
Quote
No we haven't. For almost 800 years, we have found that extracting money on threat of violence is the most efficient way to fund any endeavour of the ruling elites. That you would trade your freedom for some smooth tarmac and a shiny iPod says more about you than it does about alternatives to extracting money on threat of violence.
Every society ultimately ends up with someone with control of power running it, whether that power is the threat of force, or money or equivalent to be able to hire the threat of force, or agreements with other societies to be covered by the umbrella of their threat of force.
If it didn't, it would be taken over by the warlord next door, and would have no way of preventing it.
As long as the guy next door has a gang, and no morals, you need either a bigger gang, or to bring yourself within the protection of a someone else's bigger gang.
On anything other than the most local scale, they would only ever be built by large companies as profit-generators, charging a toll for access.
Private roads are certainly an option. By no means the only one. Think about how the planning of towns and cities might have evolved differently without a state enforced infrastructure to connect them.
They would use force to prevent non-payers using their roads.
Really? You can think of no other way?
And the end result is that you have a single effective monopoly taxing you to maintain the roads.
How different is that from a government?
How different is that from a government?
Paying to use a road should be optional. I don't have to use it, do I?
The single most obvious question that anarchists never address is that if this is such an obviously better way of doing things, where are the examples?
Ask an anthropologist, there are examples, but they are pushed to the periphery by...the state.
Where are the successful modern-day anarchistic societies, that have all the technological and engineering improvements that 'normal' societies have, but without a central body ruling ultimately by the use or threat of force?
States have pushed out the alternatives, because they can. And for another reason, a more troubling reason, one that comes through in your posts. I mentioned Nock earlier in the thread, let me quote a passage for you:
So for almost 800 years we've found that roads couldn't been maintained without state taxation.
No we haven't. For almost 800 years, we have found that extracting money on threat of violence is the most efficient way to fund any endeavour of the ruling elites. That you would trade your freedom for some smooth tarmac and a shiny iPod says more about you than it does about alternatives to extracting money on threat of violence.
Any many of them were built by the state.
Many things have been done by the state. It doesn't mean it requires a state in order to come about. Can you really not conceive of roads being built by anything other than a state?
On anything other than the most local scale, they would only ever be built by large companies as profit-generators, charging a toll for access.
Then you would end up having to pay lots of different tolls for parts of the same journey, which would be very inefficient and annoying.
So either the companies would end up merging, or form a cartel, which one doesn't really matter, to have one unified toll system.
They would use force to prevent non-payers using their roads.
Rather than paying per use, they would instead charge an annual fee to anyone who ever wanted to use the roads.
And the end result is that you have a single effective monopoly taxing you to maintain the roads.
How different is that from a government?
The single most obvious question that anarchists never address is that if this is such an obviously better way of doing things, where are the examples?
Where are the successful modern-day anarchistic societies, that have all the technological and engineering improvements that 'normal' societies have, but without a central body ruling ultimately by the use or threat of force?
Oh, and doing a little more digging, state finacing of roads in the UK goes back further than 1555.
Quote
Pavage was a medieval toll for the maintenance or improvement of a road or street in England. The king by letters patent granted the right to collect it to an individual, or the corporation of a town, or to the "bailiffs and good men" of a neighbouring village.
Pavage grants can be divided into two classes:
Urban grants to enable the streets of a town (or its market place) to be paved. These represent the majority of grants.
Rural grants to enable a particular road to be repaired. These grants were mostly made in the 14th century, and largely for the great roads radiating from London, which were presumably those carrying the heaviest traffic.
The first grant was in 1249 for the Yorkshire town of Beverley, where the pavage was associated with the cult of St John of Beverley, and was ultimately made permanent. Another early one was for Shrewsbury in 1266 for paving the new market place, removed from the churchard of St Alkmund and St Juliana.
Pavage grants can be divided into two classes:
Urban grants to enable the streets of a town (or its market place) to be paved. These represent the majority of grants.
Rural grants to enable a particular road to be repaired. These grants were mostly made in the 14th century, and largely for the great roads radiating from London, which were presumably those carrying the heaviest traffic.
The first grant was in 1249 for the Yorkshire town of Beverley, where the pavage was associated with the cult of St John of Beverley, and was ultimately made permanent. Another early one was for Shrewsbury in 1266 for paving the new market place, removed from the churchard of St Alkmund and St Juliana.
So for almost 800 years we've found that roads couldn't been maintained without state taxation.
Any many of them were built by the state.
Many things have been done by the state. It doesn't mean it requires a state in order to come about. Can you really not conceive of roads being built by anything other than a state?
Who would build the Xs, the Ys and the Zs
The most common first counter to an anarchist's vision is "who would build the roads?"
This is to be expected, since statists (which account for 99+% of people) have spent no time imagining life without the state. The doctrinal systems are set up to drill into us this dependency from day 1, and undoing this conditioning is not a trivial process.
Nation states are a 19th century European invention, one exported to disastrous effect across the world. We had roads before them, we will have roads after them.
The most common first counter to an anarchist's vision is "who would build the roads?"
This is to be expected, since statists (which account for 99+% of people) have spent no time imagining life without the state. The doctrinal systems are set up to drill into us this dependency from day 1, and undoing this conditioning is not a trivial process.
Nation states are a 19th century European invention, one exported to disastrous effect across the world. We had roads before them, we will have roads after them.
Any many of them were built by the state.
In the UK, you can still see the legacy of the network of roads built by the Roman army almost two thousand years ago.
And your idea of nation states being a 19th century invention seems a bit odd to people living in nations that have existed a lot longer than that.
The first post-medieval state-legislated road program in the UK dates to the mid 16th century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highways_Act_1555
Are you familiar with Albert Jay Nock's concept of The Remnant? That pretty much summarises the disparate, tiny minority of anarchists in the world, at least in my view.
I'm not, but I'll google it when I get home from wage-slavery, errr work. There is a myth that many/most anarchists believe in an "every man for himself" non-society. I add "social" to my political self-description to convey that I believe human beings should take care of each other.
I'd love to live in a truly anarchistic society, with communities, and communities of communities. My currently philosophy is organic and fluid, and will respond to change.
While I am committed to change and want to work towards a better future, I also have to live in the present. Are you familiar with Albert Jay Nock's concept of The Remnant? That pretty much summarises the disparate, tiny minority of anarchists in the world, at least in my view.
You mean paved roads that connect towns?
Like the roads that were build by the roman empire?
Like the roads that were build by the roman empire?
I'm no expert on road building or civil engineering in general. I am, however, fairly certain that technology has moved on somewhat.
All property, or just land?
Land and "human resources" (AKA wage-slaves) as well. I'm with Russell Brand on this one, massive redistribution of wealth, end the corporation as a concept. Rewrite of the constitution.If an individual wanted to work for a wage, would he still count as a slave? It would seem the most innate property we own is ourselves and our time i.e. how we determine the usage of our bodies, so wage slavery sounds like an oxymoron at first glance; it must be assumed that there is a coercive element forcing people to work at a job, but I don't believe businesses directly influence individuals to work for them; rather, government plays the key role in stopping individuals from deciding they will not work for a wage which becomes a non-issue within anarchism.
I'm also uncertain about the rules of land; let's say a man owns a farm on a piece of public land (assuming all land is public here), but another man wants to build a park where the farm is. Since the land is public, the public decides whether the farm or the park will be there. This means, if the park is decided upon, the farmer must pack his things and do something else. This necessitates a violation of the man's person and time, which is similar to the concept of wage slavery wherein the individual does not have control over his person or time. How might this problem be resolved in a consistent fashion within the socialist system, so as to limit or stop this slavery to the majority?
How would the redistribution of wealth occur in the anarchist society? I imagine the cronies who profit from the government being there will no longer have a monopoly over anything and thus will not be able to enforce unfavorable conditions upon other businesses, thereby allowing the wage slave greater opportunity to be his own man. Also, I would think most anarchists see a constitution as unnecessary; if it were rewritten, who would enforce it? We could say we the people would enforce it but then, without a central coercive element to do so, it would be awfully difficult to orchestrate; it seems it would be more efficient instead to agree not to violate each other's property i.e. bodies and time, than to define a central set of guidelines to follow which anyone can break from and define their own; I think most would agree at least to the aforementioned rule without the need for enforcement, as the enforcer necessitates it violate this rule itself, i.e. minarchism.
Sorry if I'm being annoying
I don't interact with very many liberty-minded socialists and I'm interested in the PoV differences between this, capitalism and communism. All property, or just land?
Land and "human resources" (AKA wage-slaves) as well. I'm with Russell Brand on this one, massive redistribution of wealth, end the corporation as a concept. Rewrite of the constitution.Are you in agreement with those?
Property is theft, and "ownership" of land is madness. From my perspective, pretty much our entire culture is insane.The Earth does not belong to us, we belong to the Earth.
All property, or just land?
Are you in agreement with those?
Property is theft, and "ownership" of land is madness. From my perspective, pretty much our entire culture is insane.The Earth does not belong to us, we belong to the Earth.
What's the separating quality between this and other forms of anarchism?
There is a myth that many/most anarchists believe in an "every man for himself" non-society. I add "social" to my political self-description to convey that I believe human beings should take care of each other. We are, as primates, neuro-biologically wired for compassion.
I agree with you here; the common misconception about anarchism is that there can be no order and it's essentially Fallout 3 IRL
However, the reason I ask you, is that the term "socialist" is usually associated with various economic practices such as public ownership and such. Are you in agreement with those? What's the separating quality between this and other forms of anarchism?
There is a myth that many/most anarchists believe in an "every man for himself" non-society. I add "social" to my political self-description to convey that I believe human beings should take care of each other. We are, as primates, neuro-biologically wired for compassion.
"Hello, babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. At the outside, babies, you've got about a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies —
God damn it, you've got to be kind."
-Kurt Vonnegut
Jump to: