Why Anarchy is morally correct, necessary, and better than a governed society

[Catta]

I cannot respond to all of you, sorry. There is too much to quote. All I can say is, that it is impossible for me to live as an anarchist today. Moving to Antarctica or Africa is an outrageous and suicidal idea. Sure, I could pay the car salesman $20,000 worth of gold for a car, and he can accept it, but if an issue arises over this deal, I cannot be backed in court as having paid because gold is not considered legal tender. Taxes are not necessary for roads, water, electricity or whatever. The argument of "monopolies will form" and "corporations will run it all" is absurd because first of all, there is such a thing as competition, and when everything is privatized, you have maximum competition. Second of all, corporations are products of the state. Please tell me how a corporation can exist without the state creating it. Sole proprietorship, partnerships and corporations are all products of the state. And what I get from Laurcus' reply is that he is perfectly content being controlled by the state, has no desire to seek change at all, and cares little for the non-aggression principle, which states that the initiation or threat of initiation of force is immoral. At this point in the thread, its blatantly obvious that none of you are really going to try to consider how anarchy may work some day in the future, but it really sucks to see that none of you will really even recognize that taxation is immoral. If you want a good read, (or a good laugh if you're that stubborn) read Practical Anarchy by Stefan Molyneux, it's available online for free at freedomainradio.com. It details how anarchy would work (according to his facts and evidence).

Yes - because corporations will always just compete with one another especially if there are no laws against agreeing on a high price with their competitors and at last forming into a single conglomerate with monopoly on everything

[xylophone]

OP: don't you think it may be a sign that the only support in 19 pages that you have gotten is 2 or 3 sentence long posts with little substance? It's not that your intellect so far outdistances our own, it's that your ideas, while they may sound good on paper/in your head, would never play out in the real world.

[Gahagan]

OP is either a troll or has never taken a psychology or sociology class.

OP, if you are interested in entertaining ideas you don't agree with, read a book titled "People Will Talk: The Surprising Science of Reputation" by John Whitfield.

The tendency to congregate and organize into social and political structures is hardwired into human behavior. Genetically, an anarchist state is not possible. Human nature prevents it.

[Catta]

OP: don't you think it may be a sign that the only support in 19 pages that you have gotten is 2 or 3 sentence long posts with little substance? It's not that your intellect so far outdistances our own, it's that your ideas, while they may sound good on paper/in your head, would never play out in the real world.

nah he will just think that great minds are never recognized in their time

[Castel]

Sure, I could pay the car salesman $20,000 worth of gold for a car, and he can accept it, but if an issue arises over this deal, I cannot be backed in court as having paid because gold is not considered legal tender.

Court? Courts deal with laws and anarchy is *defined* as a lack of laws. As soon as there are laws then, in your own words, someone has a gun at your head.

The argument of "monopolies will form" and "corporations will run it all" is absurd because first of all, there is such a thing as competition, and when everything is privatized, you have maximum competition. Second of all, corporations are products of the state. Please tell me how a corporation can exist without the state creating it.

Please study some history - when a corporation gets big enough they can crush all competition. I know this is fact because it happened. The only reason we don't have monopolies is because the government stepped in and broke them up. Do yourself a favor and look up monopolies, antitrust and robber barons.

And stop accusing people of being slaves to the current system. The fact that people recognize all the things that are wrong with your fantasy utopia doesn't mean we all think the current system is perfect - we just think it's better than what you propose.

[Grizzly Willy]

Court? Courts deal with laws and anarchy is *defined* as a lack of laws. As soon as there are laws then, in your own words, someone has a gun at your head.

He's talking about using gold in our current society, and with our current court system.

[Catta]

He's talking about using gold in our current society, and with our current court system.

he is also taking about volunteering to go to private courts which implies laws

---------- Post added 2012-04-15 at 12:04 AM ----------

also the OPs take on wars is breathtakingly stupid but many have pointed that out already...

[TheLimonTree]

off topic but image how bad Apple would be without laws....

[Adam Jensen]

If you're going to make an argument of anarchism being a ruthless dog-eat dog world that the "OP" wouldn't last a day in, do not even post, as you obviously didn't read the initial thread, and cannot make up a reasonable argument. You have been brain washed through propaganda to believe in government, and anyone saying otherwise, in your minds, is a fool. Anarchism is rare throughout history, and there is NO way that you could know it would fail.

It's not a matter of "brainwashing."

Its a matter that society cannot function without laws to maintain order from those who would disregard morals for their own greedy agendas. If all humans were moral beings, then sure, anarchy might work. The fact is, there is too much evil in mankind for there to be no form of government.

[misspellar]

4 letters.... 1 word.... 4chan. That's anarchy.

---------- Post added 2012-04-14 at 02:50 AM ----------

This topic is nonsense. The court system being privatized. That would keep the corruption out... As if I wouldn't pay a judge not to put me in prison. Monopolies would flourish. I don't even have to go on.

4chan is not anarchy. there are mods.

One time the mods lost their powers because of a glitch though, and then there was anarchy for a short period. pretty much every forum got spammed with child pornography for several minutes.

[Jaxi]

4chan is not anarchy. there are mods.

One time the mods lost their powers because of a glitch though, and then there was anarchy for a short period. pretty much every forum got spammed with child pornography for several minutes.

Those kind of people repulse me to no end.

[Grizzly Willy]

he is also taking about volunteering to go to private courts which implies laws

---------- Post added 2012-04-15 at 12:04 AM ----------

also the OPs take on wars is breathtakingly stupid but many have pointed that out already...

On your first point, I should clarify. In the scenario that is being discussed, the person is going to a car dealership in, let's say, the U.S. (with our current government, not anarchy), and he wants to pay in gold. The dealership accepts the gold, but because it isn't the accepted legal tender, he has no chance in our court system. Thus, paying with gold is out of the question.

I agree that the implementation of any court system brings with it inherent laws, but I that's not the point of the scenario at hand.

And could we refrain from using such crass words like stupid? I know you're not the only one, but it doesn't do much in a proper discussion.

[Holy]

I disagree. I think the exact opposite is true.

A one-world government is the thing to have. Not one based on stupid ideals and racism like the Nazis, however. This government needs to have the armies to back it up, as it will have to rule by fear. Fear is pretty much the only way you can keep a world-sized population of humans in check. It would also have to somewhat put the good of the species above the good of the individual, though not completely lacking empathy. The best way to cover the fear and to make things run more efficiently is to change the prison system. It is very easy to do, too. Non-violent crimes are punished by castration. Violent crimes are punished by forcing the convict to work on public projects until they die. When they do die, you feed them to the other convicts. With this system set up I bet crime would drop dramatically. There needs to be a reward program for anyone who has yet to have offspring to get sterilized. If this didn't work out, there would probably just have to be a coin flip on birth whether the child is sterilized or not.

It would be pretty harsh at first, but as the generations passed and there where less and less humans, restrictions would start to soften. When we get to the point where we have about 1/4th of the people we have now with even greater technology, the standard of living could be very good for almost everyone. This is the opposite of what would happen with anarchy, I think. There would be random killings and stuff, but people would reproduce like nuts and there would always be some groups vying for power until one won out and the anarchy would end and simply start again later.

[Kanariya]

The argument of "monopolies will form" and "corporations will run it all" is absurd because first of all, there is such a thing as competition, and when everything is privatized, you have maximum competition.

*looks at banks* *looks at cellphone companies* yup, look at all those choices i have. I see this argument a lot, from my right wing friends, who think that privatizing everything will just somehow work because corporations are not only responsible, but would never make an agreement with each other to rip people off or form monopolies. You really need to understand how Corporate America works before you make this argument.

[Wells]

Maximum competition doesn't always mean maximum efficiency either.

[Flaks]

Charities, medical care etc. provided to the poor is a form of government and is not anarchy at all.

It'll just be microchosms of governing groups instead of a central government.

[Slanderize]

I disagree. I think the exact opposite is true.

A one-world government is the thing to have. Not one based on stupid ideals and racism like the Nazis, however. This government needs to have the armies to back it up, as it will have to rule by fear. Fear is pretty much the only way you can keep a world-sized population of humans in check. It would also have to somewhat put the good of the species above the good of the individual, though not completely lacking empathy. The best way to cover the fear and to make things run more efficiently is to change the prison system. It is very easy to do, too. Non-violent crimes are punished by castration. Violent crimes are punished by forcing the convict to work on public projects until they die. When they do die, you feed them to the other convicts. With this system set up I bet crime would drop dramatically. There needs to be a reward program for anyone who has yet to have offspring to get sterilized. If this didn't work out, there would probably just have to be a coin flip on birth whether the child is sterilized or not.

It would be pretty harsh at first, but as the generations passed and there where less and less humans, restrictions would start to soften. When we get to the point where we have about 1/4th of the people we have now with even greater technology, the standard of living could be very good for almost everyone. This is the opposite of what would happen with anarchy, I think. There would be random killings and stuff, but people would reproduce like nuts and there would always be some groups vying for power until one won out and the anarchy would end and simply start again later.

Lmfao, ah yes. From the mouths of babes.

Nothing like Nazism based off of racism or anything, just utter disregard towards all human beings that aren't part of the global system.
Oh yeah, also forced cannibalism. Oh yeah, also, if you've ever stolen anything, we're gonna cut your balls off.

But TRUST me guys, after four generations of this or so, there wouldn't be any war. Because this is a system based off of FEAR!
How's that fear based system working out for Syria?

Oh yeah that's right, it's culminating into a fucking civil war.
The only thing your system would end up doing is throwing the whole WORLD into a freaking civil war. You could call it the Northies versus the Southies, the equator being our Mason Dixie Line.


You know Denmark already taxes pretty much everybody out the ass. Everyone gets free college, free healthcare, great housing, and they've managed to do it without forced cannibalism, castration for non-violent crimes, etc. and so forth.
The standard of living right now, for EVERYONE. Could be pretty good. Sociological reasons prevent certain nations from "catching up" to other developed nations, but it is still happening.

This is akin to doomsday propaganda, and more of this bullshit thought process that somehow there's just "too many people" on the planet.

[Ryve]

This is akin to doomsday propaganda, and more of this bullshit thought process that somehow there's just "too many people" on the planet.

But if you tell yourself that there are too many people on the planet, it's easier to accept that people *have* to live in poverty, and die from starvation or easily curable ailments.

JSG31494- Have you ever met a real person outside of your family, or have you only been told stories about them?

I can't be bothered replying to all of your points, but here's a few: Private military? So, when "Canada" decides they want to invade, they just have to bribe them given they have no specific loyalty, only happening to live in the area. So now it's the "Canadian army" plus the American private military vs regular citizens with guns... Good luck.

Medical care will become cheaper... And you'd get what you paid for. People with skill and experience would flee and be welcomed by other countries with open arms, along with with the people who trained them. There would be so many who remained for their own reasons, but those replacing everyone who left would be doing so knowing there would be little financial incentive in dedicating the years to learn how to do things right, let alone a lack of people to train them.

Private courts... Who is providing the funding... And with no governing bodies, who is taking measures to reduce/prevent corruption? Oh, that's right, no one. Then what power does this "court" have, let alone what are they enforcing without defined laws?

[Catta]

On your first point, I should clarify. In the scenario that is being discussed, the person is going to a car dealership in, let's say, the U.S. (with our current government, not anarchy), and he wants to pay in gold. The dealership accepts the gold, but because it isn't the accepted legal tender, he has no chance in our court system. Thus, paying with gold is out of the question.

I agree that the implementation of any court system brings with it inherent laws, but I that's not the point of the scenario at hand.

And could we refrain from using such crass words like stupid? I know you're not the only one, but it doesn't do much in a proper discussion.

I could not find a better word - his scenario is figurativly mind-boggling

"Well, what happens if we're invaded?" Private defense organizations/defense insurance companies would be there! Let us say that the U.S. becomes a stateless society and Canada has a choice to invade us or Russia. Let's say for all intents and purposes they really hate our guts for ripping them off with Maple Syrup tariffs before the collapse of the state. They must get through private defense companies, mercenaries and every single citizen fighting to not be taxed, and enslaved by another government. If Canada invaded Russia, all they would have to do is break down the Russian military, get to Moscow and claim victory. Once this happens, the Russian people don't take up arms against Canadian oppression, they merely switched mafia heads. One leader lost to another leader, it would be no different than a forced election where many people died.

He thinks that all you have to do is invade a capital and that will stop any resistance what so ever - because thats how invasions work - just look at the 2 current ones right now...
Also he is talking about having huge private armies which, when not used to fight wars, actually just gonna stand there wasting money on standing ready instead of... well... go around doing what they want with impunity - furthermore them being mercs would mean that Canada could potentionally just give them a better offer...

Back to your post - just discussing said scenario should show how it wouldnt work with anarchy - you could get that car - and it could be faulty and you would have no legal way of getting it right - presumably the guy who sold it will be rich and have people to protect him so that means you are just fucked...

[Deleted]

If now there was an anarchy outbreak, after a short time people will band together and will create a government. Now whether it will be a mafia gov'n or a democratic - it depends on the people.

anarchy is just a phase.




It is better to strife for an utopia with a ruling power consisting of a democratic council/chamber of representatives.

and fuck the senate. In most countries, they are a bunch of assholes.


- We are human; unpredictable, stubborn and naive; we are like water - we can work together and become as hard as ice or we can float away like gas and be weak. -