Topic: How long would it take for Anarchy to start working? - page 18. (Read 16377 times)

I agree with pretty much everything you say until you get to secession.  It's a nice thought, but other than granting exit visas (i'm sure that's not what you mean), there are just no practical ways to implement that without wrecking the whole system.
If i'm understanding you correctly, there would emerge multiple city-states & even house-states in the middle of a country state?  How would that work?
(maybe i misunderstand what you mean by "secede")

i am not for centralized governments. i know what the problem is, i just don't pretend that i have the answer.

what you say doesn't change the fact that there'd be more civil wars/fighting in an anarchistic society. by saying "anarchy is like or similar to government" it doesn't prove that it's a better option or even a solution. it's just a different way of doing things.

government is and will always be corrupt, but it's the people in government that are causing it.. not government itself.

I'm not accusing you of provoking disobedience or organizing acts of resistance... God forbid!

What you just posted is a great argument against monopoly governments.  Decentralization makes the threat you are describing smaller.

Right now we are all facing basically only options 1 and 3 in response to oppression.  If everybody suddenly faced option 2, then the oppressing institution would suddenly lose a lot of support and become a lot smaller - making it easier to defend against.

I do not like the gangsters who run my state government.  But I would love to have them actually stand up and defend me against the gangsters who run my federal government.  That would be a valuable service they could perform for me, and I have a better chance of defending myself against the local state gangsters than the powerful Washington gangsters.  Then my city or county gangsters could defend me against the state gangsters, and my local neighborhood could perhaps stand up to the city gangsters.  This would be fantastic for freedom and prosperity!  It wouldn't solve all of the world's ills, but it would certainly give us a fighting chance that we do not have now.

What do you mean by a temporary bout and why wouldn't this be a state (condition) of anarchy?

if your opinion is that "death, chaos, and mayhem are much more fun and interesting than being peaceful and finding one's own happiness," then that is your opinion. you sound like a sociopath.

To me, extremism is when people say, "Look, just leave us alone; as long as we don't violate anybody else's rights, don't force us to live by your laws," and the response is to force them to submit anyway.

Take drug users for example.  I have never used an illicit substance in my life.  The people that I have known who have done so really have experienced quite a bit of damage in their lives.  But none of them has ever done any damage to my life.  The damage in my life comes from people who ruin the economy, people who take my resources and use them to fund wars and projects I don't believe in, people who destroy thriving markets and replace them with failing government monopolies, people who inflate the currency supply....  Those people are infringing my rights, but drug users never hurt me.  Extremism would be if I supported the drug war.

if you banded with a group to take my rights away, and i have 3 guns to go against your 1,000 strong.. then i'll only fall under your power. if i group up with someone else, and i only have 2 hands and 3 guns to offer, then i won't be joining forces on my own terms, but instead i'd be at the whim of the guy who has more influence.

so that means i have only a few choices as an individual:

1) allow the aggressor to dominate me in every way (especially economically).
2) sell myself to another powerful group, which would dominate me since i'd only be 1 strong.. i'd be agreeing to their terms if i wanted protection from them.
3) run away and give up my possessions

The basic problem as I see it is that governments are no escape from the nature of man.  They will not somehow lift us up and out of what we are.

Taking a line from the Declaration of Independence - "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" - we see an attempt to deal with the problem of the nature of man.  Basically, we have rights, and people want to infringe them.  Great idea: establishing an institution to defend against such threats.  So for example if you become a threat to my rights, I have the right to defend myself, and my neighbor and I have the right to band together against you.


Suppose my group of people banded together to defend our rights starts oppressing you, infringing your rights.  This is how decentralization helps: you also have the right to defend yourself, to join together with others to do so, etc.  Basically there would be no problem whatsoever with you and I, in the same territory, belonging to competing institutions that defend rights - you could call them governments if you want.  And it would be a very good way to protect ourselves, to prevent any of these institutions from becoming oppressive.  It's a fantastic "check and balance."

That is why any legitimate government should allow people to secede.  Rather than forcing people to accept its rights-securing services, it should permit people to decline to participate and to participate in competing service providers.  The reason governments as we know them don't allow this is because what they really want, rather than protecting people's rights, is power.

Exactly.

I actually said so in my very first post this topic:


I never suggested the forceful and instantaneous removal of the government. I support growing alternatives from the bottom up - like Bitcoin. Hopefully one day there will arise better ways of doing things than the current system.

Let's not forget, that while we may disagree on what should replace this system/how we should improve it, I think we can agree that the way it is behaving at the moment is detrimental to most people and the biosphere - alternatives should be considered and solutions searched for.

hate my line of thinking if you will. i just find it an endless pursuit in trying to change other people. i will work with myself first.

if someone tries to piss me off, i prefer to just not let it get to me than trying to obliterate them. that's the better route.

extremism in any form is just ignorance to me. especially with people in society. the more you are against someone for whatever reason, the more you can see your hypocrisy in all of it. if you are absolutely against the idea of government, go live in the forest or off the grid. that's the best way of showing your example to others. at the very least, it's a lot better than trying to jam your ideology down someone's throat.

Every single person hailed as "spiritually enlightened" has said something along these lines. The middle path. Live in the present, where you actually are -- not your thoughts. Etcetera.

I fucking hate these people. Extremism, mental self-flogging and pretending you can "help save the world" while not causing 1000x misery to everybody else along the path of your tiny mind trying to figure out something that's so big....... is so much more fun than looking like a lobotomized happy retard that stares into the world and keeps babbling that this moment is all so breathtakingly beautiful blah blah blah blah

yeah, i don't even know how i'd be able to help the cause even if i were an anarchist... maybe try to force my opinion on everyone? and when they don't agree, just say "people just misunderstand the meaning of an anarchy."

i only know one thing for certain; being an extremist doesn't really solve problems, and i prefer to stay in the middle.

If we deny government and state as being the embodiment of that "ultra-large-scale singleton of social hierarchy" what should we do about multinational corporations (many of them being more powerful than some states), which are another incarnation of high-rise social hierarchy? It doesn't look that we can get away with them so easy without wrecking the world economy... 

Move to a hippy commune, live all the 'anarchy' you want...Otherwise you are just inviting trouble with your anti-government dissidence.

It's fine. We'll probably not figure it out in time and just disappear like every other monkey civilization/zergswarm on this planet.

It's all way too complicated. Give up like I did and let's play satoshi dice.

One can argue that the "human animal" has, historically, been organizing tribes hierarchically. However, there was no social meta-hierarchy tying all those "tribes" around the world together under the same system. Which is what we have now. It's called global industrial civilization and it is killing our habitat.

As I understand it, "anarchy" is not about the negation of real human sociality. You can project a "topology" into human sociality and call it "the natural tendency to be hierarchical." That's not what "anarchy" is "against." "Anarchy" is about negating the ultra-large-scale singleton social hierarchy that sucks up all humans into this unsustainable and violent Zerg Swarm that's headed nowhere very fast.

i just had a long discussion with an anarchist last night.. and i still don't quite understand his ideology. i think i've narrowed it down to him thinking that government is the root of all problems. i, on the other hand, think that government is only part of the problem. the main issue is the nature of man. if you set rules, many people will play by them.. but many other people will not - and those are the ones who are rewarded. by decentralizing government, i don't see how this makes the situation any better.

Could we continue to the point where you agree that dismantling a government could wreak havoc?