Topic: Politics, statism, anarchism, racism; split from: Wall Observer thread - page 11. (Read 5403 times)

Most of the people, who are against the government in general, are the ones who actually spend less then 5 minutes a year, on who to elect to lead the government. These people are lazy and without any sense of responsibility, and they want the government to work great, without them having to contribute any work themselves.

People get the government that they deserve - so immature and irresponsible people get the same kind of an government. When people elect those, who scream louder with the help of their campaign budgets, then it's no surprise that the government gets leaders of low quality.

Every large scale modern day problem can be traced back to one thing: Weakness. In this case, big gov vs small gov, the big gov proponents are the ones who don't think they would do well in a more competitive world. Those are the weak. And because they make up the majority of voters, this is the world we live in.

The root of the impending downfall of the west is democracy. It causes bigger and ever-growing governments which always, eventually, leads to socialism/communism.

We do have information: we can look at areas where government collapsed and listen to the stories of the people stuck in that kind of life. Those stories are never good, you never hear anyone say "man I was so happy we had roving bands of gangs out to rob our supplies and food."

You might say "well yeah but that's due to a sudden collapse," to which I would respond "well how else is it going to happen?"

It's one thing to say "I believe in smaller government, or more localized government." It's quite another to say "fuck government and who needs roads!"

I choose the moon 

The roads "argument" is purely fun for me. I know YOU haven't mentioned it and it's not meant as a serious argument which should convince anyone of anything.

I remember you were here to debate this the last time around and I think we covered the point of "how would we be better served in anarchy" for a bit. My attitude towards this is the following: you may say that it won't work out well I might say it will but in the end none of us know. We have insufficient data and all we have to go on are our personal biases and random related observations from other systems. My basic argument here is that yes government does mess up a lot of things very badly. Many of us know this. That's why exploring alternatives should be considered a high priority IMO.

This subject is endlessly complex, because it touches on pretty much all areas of life and involves our ideologies, belief systems, basic assumptions (linguistic and otherwise) so just establishing common ground for debate just by agreeing on some basic definitions and concepts can prove an insurmountable problem. I enjoy a good debate, though. As mentioned, my basic argument as to WHY decentralized systems are preferable goes back to my bolded theorem about information flow. My answer to HOW decentralized systems would provide the superior solution is that we have no way of knowing, because if we did, we wouldn't need them. We could just set up a centralized system and do exactly that. The whole point of decentralized systems (besides their resiliency to attack) is that its information processing capabilities are orders of magnitude more efficient than those of their centralized counterparts. In other words, ALL of us are smarter than ANY ONE of us and the solutions brought forth tend to be unexpected.

I'll be around later to derp around in this debate if it is still going on.

That contractor made a fortune off that work. He got paid and his cousin also got paid to clean it up.

No it would not mean we would need no roads. How does one even reach that conclusion?

By the way, I haven't said a word about roads before this. I don't know how that came up, seems like weak debate tactics, but whateves.

All of you seem to focus on the cons of government, but it's not like everyone doesn't already know those. At the end of the day, you can say the burden of proof is on whoever, but the reality is, the way I want it is the status quo, so in essence the burden of proof is placed back on you, whether it should be or not. Do not think this means that I accept the burden of proof but am throwing it in your face. It's just that I could just ignore you like the government will and what would you do?

With that in mind, now tell me, what are the BENEFITS of anarchy over government. Because all I see is everyone pointing out all the cons of government, but we all know those already. You're not really adding anything new. You see, because while you all are focusing on your "lulz road" argument, I'm asking "well yeah, government is kinda shit, but tell me how anarchy wouldn't be, or how it would be significantly less shit." Because if it's only going to be slightly less shit, it's not really worth the effort, and if it's going to be more shit, then it's just a terrible idea.

In response to your longer post that I won't quote in the interest of space, Eris, it's all well and good to propose what should be done, and you ask people to step aside and let you try, but what is the PLAN for HOW to do it? Nobody who isn't in your choir already is going to agree to that without a plan that makes sense.


Seems reasonable enough to me. I don't think I have a problem with anything you've said.

I do have a choice, I don't pay any tax* because I can't control where it will be spent

*I pay 7% sales tax in the country I now call home, that is the only tax I pay

Enjoy driving your Tesla on a dirt road.

http://i0.wp.com/thelibertarianrepublic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/tumblr_mcof6lHWUS1rxs13eo1_500.jpg?resize=300%2C225

http://starthere.the11thcommandment.org/wp-content/plugins/authpro/content-builder/assets/images/images/who%20will%20build%20roads%20banner545.PNG

http://images.therealfuckingnews.com/1/1545364fdfc7c5b8.jpg

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/21/21a8b6391c0e67b4b1afa1870b51820cbbeca0cf8b583f50cd606465460cb042.jpg

haha gold.

This reminds of the last state vs. anarchy debate we had on here and inevitably the subject of roads was brought up. And it wonderfully illustrated a rather subtle point about all of this. Proponents of state-managed institutions often rely on the argument that they are the only way to provide certain things we need, such as roads. Just one lone soul (Richy_T, bless his discordian heart) pointed out that, yes, without government we may indeed have no roads, but would this not mean that we don't need roads? Right now road construction is enormously resource intensive and the resulting infrastructure is being used by gasoline powered vehicles. The result is a lot of pollution and horrible traffic. Maybe there are cheaper, more efficient, less harmful ways of extending infrastructure (such as subways, trains, etc.) but for now we won't find out, because the people in charge are convinced they KNOW what is needed and they are going to provide it. Whether you and your wallet like it or not

You act like once you give them your money they will do what you want with it.

heh

Can I have a bitcoin to go help starving babies being attacked by wolves?

1K3sdfJaMBs873lLshjolasdfj320Jabsdlfauq3224

Oh the bi-monthly statist bash is back, great!


government = obviously shit for MORAL reasons (which I leave for the moralists to explain) and reasons of efficiency.

The reason is that centralized structures produce distortions in the information flow due to the absence of efficient feedback mechanisms.

In other words in a centralized system power does not reside with the participants who have the most accurate information at their disposal. This tends to produce decisions which range from laughably misguided to horribly dangerous.

Let me quote something, because quoting a book will make me look smart:


And so we are setting up boards to assess the quality of doctors in order to protect patients and this comes with all the incentives for corruption and slacking off. Meanwhile the non-experts are told not to rely on their own judgement and experience, but rather to trust the assessment of the authority. The result is a population with a mentality that says that basic aspects of their lives, such as their own health, are not their own responsibility. Thus we become reliant on those in authority to provide us with what we need, because we have given up the responsibility to do this ourselves and this is a dangerous and vulnerable situation to be in. Furthermore as the quote above illustrates, this is hopelessly inefficient.

I am willing to entertain the notion that during that part of our history when information could not move faster than a horses gallop, centralized structures were the only way how to unify a large enough part of society necessary to achieve economies of scale. Maybe. Possibly. But with information flow becoming faster and more resilient and with the emergence of the internet I'd argue that our systems of resource allocation and decision making are due for a serious revision. Cultural and societal progress is as always seriously lagging behind technological progress and we are living in a world of 21st century technology, yet keep managing it with a 19th century mindset.

Those of us who are quite sure that this is bullshit and could never work - I politely ask you to stand aside and let those of us who are willing to try do just that - try and potentially fail. If we do, you'll be proven right and we'll have some more data. If we don't and we indeed do come up with superior decentralized alternatives to present structures (such as Bitcoin) in the end your lives will be improved as well and the only way I can see for that to be a problem is if your egos get hurt, because they were too attached to your particular ideologies.

EDIT: to further clarify - I don't subscribe to the neo-darwinian "survival of the fittest" theory of society. I think there are two basic ways to ensure survival in a given biosphere - predation and cooperation. The more complex an environment gets the heavier it sees to tilt towards cooperation and symbiosis. Because synergy I'd imagine.

This means I am not against social safety nets, access to education and health care etc. I just happen to think we need alternative ways of providing these, because our current system is fundamentally flawed. Yes, it works to some degree, but with the amount of resources it is taking in, the laws of probability dictate that it is bound to do something useful. I am also willing to put my money AND my time where my mouth is - this is why most of my Bitcoin transactions, BY FAR, are donations. To artists who entertain me and causes which I would like to support (think Seans outpost or the guys fighting Ebola in Ghana - 600watt put a link here two days ago) and I am more than willing to help fund and set up institutions providing basic necessities of life for the unfortunate. Because I consider myself lucky and sharing feels good. But only if it is done of my own free will, not under threat of violence.

When I lived in the UK i had no issue paying tax for things like social welfare, the national health service etc.

What I dislike is paying tax to fund the EU, $150,000 a year rent for somalians who just came off a boat (true story), police who do nothing but enforce speed laws and ignore crime, an offensive military, the war on drugs, 100% pension plans for politicians who work 20 years and then retire at 50, the neoliberal policies of the last 20 years including huge bank bailouts and QE (both of which have been nothing but welfare for the rich) and give billions a year to foreign dictatorships (foreign aid)

I'm somewhat of a socialist-libertarian, I have no problem with society providing a safety net for others, including welfare + healthcare for the poor, you can even throw in road building to the things i'd be happy to pay tax for. I just don't want to pay tax to bomb random brown people, enforce immoral drug laws, enrich a tiny percentage of people or support overseas dictators.

and teh prisons/indoctrination camps for children, I mean schoolz!