Topic: Politics, statism, anarchism, racism; split from: Wall Observer thread - page 12. (Read 5403 times)

WHAT ABOT TEH ROADZ

Anarchism doesn't mean no fire service.

Anarchy is just a correct alignment of morals, it's not a practical suggestion on my part. What we have is the "rule of law" for the poor and unlucky whilst we have socialism for the wealthy.

Until people understand that violence can't be the first resort to solving problems, our species will remain primitive.

So I can be clear, you are speaking of total anarchy, right? No government whatsoever. No military, no police force, no firemen, nothing. Is this correct?


I think the term necessary evil is fair. What I don't understand is how not having a government would be any benefit to those in need, when you've got plenty of people arguing that others don't even have the right to essentials like education and emergency services, let alone any need based assistance.

Governments are in the business of making the wealthy more wealthy, at the expense of the masses and the planet.

But....teh roadz!!!1

Yeah because gov does so well at anything it does.

The problem is, government is a beast that gets bigger and bigger and cost more and more and while at it, waste more and more money in the process.

I think gov is a necessary evil. The problem is, it consumes everything around it as it grows bigger. A even more of a slap in the face, is when it helps people that should not be helped, and slapping those that do have a legit reason for help, get screwed over.... just because politicians want to play politics.

That's the beauty of it. The burden of justification lies on the violent party. The one that wants to govern others.

It's not my job to explain why I don't want to be governed, it's your job to explain why you want to control others.

Yeah that tends to be about the extent of the anarchists argument...

Anyone catch that wall at like 398?

Also, anarchy = good. government = obviously shit. I am glad this community has the politics it does. It makes a great thing great in another dimension.

You previously mentioned volunteerism for something that's ridiculously hard work that requires trained individuals to do. I don't know about you, but my training for putting out fires involves "dump some fucking water on it?! I dunno!"

Donations to pay trained people would be better in the sense of we don't have a ton of people doing shit they have no clue how to do. But aren't donations kind of like treating taxes as "pay what you like?" What if under the donation system, someone decides "eh I won't donate, fuck 'em, someone else will pick up some slack!" What if a whole lot of people do that? Who's freeloading now? Now you've got some suckers, excuse me, "donators," picking up the slack for everyone who doesn't give a fuck to do so.

For that matter, how can you say donation campaigns are "random and a drop in the bucket," then say "shit does actually get done." with a straight face? Not to mention charities can be more wasteful than governments, and most people don't spend the time to educate themselves on how much money they're donating is actually getting put to use for the thing they're trying to support, instead of getting shuttled to advertisement and administration. How's that for faith in humanity? Charity, like recycling, is a nice way to say "I did good" when you didn't actually do much of anything.

I have faith in neither humanity nor government. But I've read plenty of stories of what happens when a government collapses, and let's just say those people really got to see just how little you can trust your fellow man. You don't have friends? Well guess what, now you don't have supplies or food, either, because the people with friends just came and took it all away from you to support themselves. In that world, it's join or die.

In the taxed world of government, it's join or die (read: pay taxes or get arrested), too, I understand that. But at least in this instance, my toilet flushes when I take a shit in it, and I don't have to steal my food. That alone is worth the tax fee to me.

I hate seeing my taxes being wasted. I know where my money and labour should be put to use to improve society in a more beneficial way then the government currently does.

If you spend your own money and labour directly on social projects, you become much more invested in the result.

Do you get any satisfaction sending a tax cheque to the government? Do you get satisfaction directly helping someone in need with money or moral support?

The safety net we currently have is full of holes and increasing the size of the net does not promote inclusion of the less fortunate into the healthy portion of our society. Just the opposite, it alienates them.

We are a social species, and government is undermining that aspect of humanity by trying to look after everyone, which is impossible.

Wouldn't it be nice to have rules without rulers, where every single person was sovereign?

edit: Proudhorn said it best: We went from monarchy, where one person was sovereign, to democracy, where the majority are (sudo) sovereign, and the next logical progress is anarchy, where everyone is sovereign.

But government only shifts capital from one private party to another, so someone is the workhorse slave that's threatened by force for non-compliance, with government skimming the top for acting as an empowered middleman.


A) I see. No I'd never take that position.

B) Would I donate? If I could and if I feel the organization is deserving, as I do now. Could I donate more if I wasn't being taxed so much? Yes. I don't believe in mandatory services because I don't believe in slavery, so I wouldn't be ok with such a thing.

Just in regard to the "shit getting done" part, consider...

http://philanthropy.com/article/Donations-to-Aid-Haiti-Exce/63756/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2014/08/29/the-als-ice-bucket-challenge-has-raised-100m-but-its-finally-cooling-off/

These are random, and a drop in the bucket, truthfully, but such showings suggest shit does actually get done when necessary. Keep in mind this is on top of being quite burdened with high taxation for the social services of health, education, public safety, etc.

I think we've sort of been conditioned to shift our faith in humanity to faith in government, unfortunately. Though it's quite obvious they make up a subsection of humanity so they're clearly subject to the same deficit of caring the rest of humanity (seemingly) possesses, for some reason they seem to be held to a higher degree of respect or belief that they will do the right thing(s) when laymen won't.

As someone who thinks taxes are fine, your "I hate taxes" argument has no effect on me. It's the waste of tax money that's the problem to me, and I hardly consider things like education and emergency services to be a waste, even if there does happen to be some wasteful spending going on.


Agreed. So maybe the government should, like, hire people to do it, and provide the service for free. That seems like a great idea, doesn't it?

A mandate to perform a service is slavery.

A) I'm saying that's how I think people who agree with you will see me. "Cool, I saved some money on my taxes this year thanks to suckers like that person."

B) You never answered the question: would YOU be the one to do it? Would you even consider doing it? What if it were mandated that everyone had to put in their time? Would you still like the plan then?

Quite to the contrary, I would say that if you are willing to appropriate the funds of others against their wills to achieve your goals, that is hardly a "kind heart".

Mandating services be provided to those who do not pay is no different than slavery to those who perform the services.

Hm, why would you think you're a sucker for being charitable?

Are people like you (who want this new system) going to be the ones to be charitable, or are you going to leave it to the "suckers" oops, I'm sorry, "kind hearts" like me to do it?

Sounds like a great way to pass the buck, and I couldn't disagree with you more. Relying on the charity of others seems like a great way to have absolutely no guarantee that shit will get done.


If you couldn't figure it out already, I think this is a very dumb way to go about things.

There are many places where one is required to make payments to the fire department if you expect them to turn up in the event of a fire. If you wander around some older buildings in England, you can see the plates which indicated you had paid. A while back around here, there was someone who had not paid (not because he was too poor but just because) and his house caught fire. The fire department did show up... To ensure the fire didn't spread to his neighbors house (who had paid). His burned to the ground.

You do want the genuinely needful to be taken care of but you have to balance that off against the freeloaders. Private parties are usually a lot more careful about that than government.

I don't believe anyone is entitled to such things. But whether people like yourself and others with kind hearts come together as a community, or structure local government to afford those services, is really a matter of preference. I do believe that if left to our own devices, we have a tendency to be charitable and caring to those that are less fortunate than ourselves, though.