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

[semaphore]

Yes, referred to as Gaman. Meaning that the criminal organization's leadership believes in this philosophy, and sent out his little troopers to defend the wreckage from anyone in his shared society that would not believe in said philosophy. It's also a point I brought up in response to the first person trying to enlighten me.

It does not mean that at all. The Yakuza is merely one amongst many Japanese groups who organised relief efforts. They were, again, not the cause of the extraordinary orderliness in the aftermath of the disaster.

I do not know how to emphasize "NOTHING" any more. Maybe I should put it in bold. A big reason, a HUGE REASON. That NOTHING was looted, was because the Yakuza believing in Gaman and their pervading culture of dignity and self responsibility, went out of its way to enforce that culture against any who would fall prey to base greed.

Again, you are placing too much emphasis on the Yakuza's role and as a result confusing cause for effect. The Yakuza was by no means a big reason at all. It is, again, simply a more notable symptom of the way Japanese society pulled together, and not a cause.

I suspect this is because you apparently think literally nothing was looted, which is obviously extraordinary, and so in order to explain it you searched and grasped at the explanation that it was enforced through physical force. But the fact it there was no large scale looting, because most people acted orderly, but isolated cases did exist. Hundreds of millions were plundered from ATM machines, for instance. The lack of widespread looting is due to the common Japanese culture (of which the Yakuza is a part), and not because of a select group of violent criminals enforcing their culture on everyone else as you are claiming.

Which if I remember right this is a Buddhist mindset, and since the origins of this whole conversation was "We should all be more like the Japanese." And the premise of the Japanese's enlightened Buddhist views were begot after their Imperial Empire bit off more than it could chew, it bears the question yet again should we really be like the Japanese? Take on the world with bloodshed and war only to be taught what a colossal error that is, and then become enlightened?

No, not really. We can trace these aspects of Japanese culture and society to long before WW2 or the rise of modern Japanese militarism. WW2 provided a specific national trauma with regards to nuclear arms, as well as create a permissive anti-war culture. However, the deference to authority, self-discipline, etc are pre-existing features of Japanese society. In fact, these qualities were contributory factors to the Japanese achievement of being the only (for a very long time) non-Western nation to successfully modernise (1867-c1895).

Also I don't really see anything particularly Buddhist about this.

---------- Post added 2012-04-17 at 02:12 AM ----------

The OP's argument has the same fundamental flaw that brought down the soviet union, the human element.

The OP's argument suffers from the fundamental flaw of being completely detached from reality. It demonstrates a complete ignorance of basic economy, military history, history in general, and pretty much how anything actually works in the world.

[Nosonia]

I love how people say "government exists because people can't be trusted" ... you realize that those same people who can't be trusted ARE the government?

I'm not saying I agree with Anarchy... but to say our government isn't corrupt and actually protects its people is bullshit... they protect themselves, and their primary source of income is the people, therefore, we are high on their priority lists.

What's stopping the next president from declaring war on the world and launching nukes like crazy? The U.S. has enough nukes to attack every country at the same time, and still have their missile defense system in place... United Nations? pfft... United States is the primary governing body of UN... without the US, the UN is not much.

Anyways... I laugh when people say "government exists because people cant be trusted"...

[Daelak]

The OP's argument has the same fundamental flaw that brought down the soviet union, the human element. If you remove it both communism and anarchy would work fine, but if we remove the human element would we be more advanced? maybe....would we be us? No.

It is fine to be altruistic and believe in us rising above what we are, I also believe we can. But I am also a realist, in our current state we try to follow the path that works the best for us, is it perfect? no, but shades of gray is what we are as a species. Until something changes a pure philosophy such as chaos capitalism, pure anarchy or total communism will be impossible to create let alone sustain.

But you are under a delusion as well if you call the current economic system "capitalistic". We live in the 21st century of corporate administered state capitalism. Private interests have so much vested in public government that they use it as a means to an end. They lobby out competition, they legislate who gets patents and when. They control/influence global trade using governments such as the US and Europe to achieve these delusional goals of perpetual growth and never ending profits. They socialize all their losses by using the country's treasury. This is not the tenets of your "capitalist-free-market" schtick.



Communism has never been tried; it has always been dictatorships in sheep's clothing. Existing and past power structures have always used excessive and violent force to quell true socialistic movements and governments in the US since the civil war.

The path we are on as Americans is unsustainable for the wealth accumulation of the top 400 wealthiest in the nation now control over 50% of all income and assets. That is not capitalism. They want you to defend their delusional hoarding of wealth under the guise of "job-creators".

Once you understand that the government is just another tool in the set for transnational companies and individuals, you see why the vast majority of Americans are under-represented and disenfranchised in the political process.

[Heathy]

any idea that starts with making lots of ppl jobless is definitely not a good idea.

[semaphore]

Communism has never been tried; it has always been dictatorships in sheep's clothing.

True communism is so unsustainable that no attempt to enact it could succeed before the entire country falls apart.

used excessive and violent force to quell true socialistic movements

But you were talking about communism.

[Slanderize]

It does not mean that at all. The Yakuza is merely one amongst many Japanese groups who organised relief efforts. They were, again, not the cause of the extraordinary orderliness in the aftermath of the disaster.


Again, you are placing too much emphasis on the Yakuza's role and as a result confusing cause for effect. The Yakuza was by no means a big reason at all. It is, again, simply a more notable symptom of the way Japanese society pulled together, and not a cause.

I suspect this is because you apparently think literally nothing was looted, which is obviously extraordinary, and so in order to explain it you searched and grasped at the explanation that it was enforced through physical force. But the fact it there was no large scale looting, because most people acted orderly, but isolated cases did exist. Hundreds of millions were plundered from ATM machines, for instance. The lack of widespread looting is due to the common Japanese culture (of which the Yakuza is a part), and not because of a select group of violent criminals enforcing their culture on everyone else as you are claiming.



No, not really. We can trace these aspects of Japanese culture and society to long before WW2 or the rise of modern Japanese militarism. WW2 provided a specific national trauma with regards to nuclear arms, as well as create a permissive anti-war culture. However, the deference to authority, self-discipline, etc are pre-existing features of Japanese society. In fact, these qualities were contributory factors to the Japanese achievement of being the only (for a very long time) non-Western nation to successfully modernise.

Also I don't really see anything particularly Buddhist about this.

---------- Post added 2012-04-17 at 02:12 AM ----------


The OP's argument suffers from the fundamental flaw of being completely detached from reality. It demonstrates a complete ignorance of basic economy, military history, history in general, and pretty much how anything actually works in the world.

Well I do agree, from all the reports I read about I had heard of literally zero looting, and I had figured after my reading of the Yakuza patrols I did account that zero looting reports were from the evidence that there were patrols out there that existed solely to stop all looting. So what you're telling me is that even with Yakuza patrols, and regular relief efforts/police enforcement, there was still looting. This was further enforced from the fact that no one in this conversation mentioned any looting, and you're the first person to say such looting had occurred. If this is the case, and I'm not saying it isn't, then obviously I am putting too much emphasis on this.

One thing I do disagree with is that you sit here and discuss how these qualities of deference to authority, and self control, have nothing to do with Buddhism. This IS all attributed to Gaman, which is linked directly to Zen Buddhism. So it's these ties to Buddhism that attributed this cultural mindset, and yet that mindset didn't stop them from occupying China.

Which is again still my question. Which you still have not answered, do you really think we should emulate the Japanese? Since that is what this entire conversation was based. I do not see how their long standing cultural beliefs that still caused them to occupy China and still allowed them to justify their actions during World War 2 leading up to the attack of Pearl Harbor, how is their culture the one to emulate?

I can see how we could learn by their example of admitting they were absolutely wrong in the aftermath, but none of their actual culture kept them from war, or gave them a respect for other nations. It was two atomic bombs that helped enlighten them on dreams in regards to world domination. Not philosophy, not debate, not deference to authority, self discipline, patience, or endurance. Simply the worst attack ever in the history of man.

[Drigghunter]

ok i know this will get lost in the pages but here is my 2 cent. the OP is talking of Marxism read up on it. yes humans will screw alot of things up but for the "cream of the crop" those of us that will appreciate this type of society and live in it like good human beings it is a utopia. it just cant exist though because our children and their children would stray from the path we lay down for them. to quote something "oday we fight for our childrens future tomorrow they forget what we faught for" (dont remember where i read that). in short we can make that society but just as America fell from what it was supposed to be so would it fall in the sands of time

[semaphore]

Well I do agree, from all the reports I read about I had heard of literally zero looting, and I had figured after my reading of the Yakuza patrols I did account that zero looting reports were from the evidence that there were patrols out there that existed solely to stop all looting. So what you're telling me is that even with Yakuza patrols, and regular relief efforts/police enforcement, there was still looting. This was further enforced from the fact that no one in this conversation mentioned any looting, and you're the first person to say such looting had occurred. If this is the case, and I'm not saying it isn't, then obviously I am putting too much emphasis on this.

That's because everyone remembers the "why was there no looting in Japan?" attention grabbing headlines and didn't bother actually reading the stories. Looting occurred, just sporadically and on a much smaller scale than in other similar cases.

One thing I do disagree with is that you sit here and discuss how these qualities of deference to authority, and self control, have nothing to do with Buddhism.

I didn't say that.

Which is again still my question. Which you still have not answered, do you really think we should emulate the Japanese? Since that is what this entire conversation was based. I do not see how their long standing cultural beliefs that still caused them to occupy China and still allowed them to justify their actions during World War 2 leading up to the attack of Pearl Harbor, how is their culture the one to emulate?

I don't see why you think Japanese culture "caused them to occupy China". The Sino-Japanese war have very complex causes.

To answer this question which you only just put to me now though, I find the way Japanese society pulled together is admirable. I would say that the rest of the world could learn from their example. The idea of actually emulating a culture wholesale however is ridiculous and unrealistic. And even in a theoretical context, as a feminist, I would most definitely not want to emulate a still highly sexist culture like Japan's.

[Slanderize]

That's because everyone remembers the "why was there no looting in Japan?" attention grabbing headlines and didn't bother actually reading the stories. Looting occurred, just sporadically and on a much smaller scale than in other similar cases.



I didn't say that.



I don't see why you think Japanese culture "caused them to occupy China". The Sino-Japanese war have very complex causes.

To answer this question which you only just put to me now though, I find the way Japanese society pulled together is admirable. I would say that the rest of the world could learn from their example. The idea of actually emulating a culture wholesale however is ridiculous and unrealistic. And even in a theoretical context, as a feminist, I would most definitely not want to emulate a still highly sexist culture like Japan's.

"Also I don't really see anything particularly Buddhist about this."

That's how you ended your previous comment.
So yes, you did say that.

"Which if I remember right this is a Buddhist mindset, and since the origins of this whole conversation was "We should all be more like the Japanese." And the premise of the Japanese's enlightened Buddhist views were begot after their Imperial Empire bit off more than it could chew, it bears the question yet again should we really be like the Japanese? Take on the world with bloodshed and war only to be taught what a colossal error that is, and then become enlightened?"


That's what I said, so yes, I did ask it previously. You simply may not have read it, although you quoted my text in one of your later responses, so that confuses me.

As far as I recall in most situations of national tragedy most places do pull together, as others have mentioned in this thread. Hurricane Rita we had many helping, very little looting. Katrina's fallout was mostly in my opinion due to the shoddy way the city itself responded to the crisis. Too many people were just left there to fend for themselves, they felt their government had left them to rot, and a lot of bad shit happened. I mention Rita because the fallout zone is well within driving distance of New Orleans.

And that's my entire point, the Japanese culture isn't one to emulate wholesale, just because they handle themselves well during a national tragedy.

[Zamfix]

I stopped reading at "morally correct" because I believe morality is relative, not absolute.

---------- Post added 2012-04-16 at 10:07 PM ----------

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.

"If you disagree with me, you're wrong."

It never gets old.

---------- Post added 2012-04-16 at 10:11 PM ----------

Also, why do you think humans used to live in a stateless society, and now we don't? Once have a certain amount of people occupying the same geographic region, one of two things will happen: they'll kill each other until there's only a small amount left, or they'll form a government of some sort.

[semaphore]

"Also I don't really see anything particularly Buddhist about this."

That's how you ended your previous comment.
So yes, you did say that.

Exactly, I said that. And I didn't say that it has "nothing to do with Buddhism", you made those words up and tried to shoved them into my mouth. Of course its linked to Buddhism on some level because Buddhism is so intertwined with Japanese history, society and culture. Doesn't really mean much.

This IS all attributed to Gaman, which is linked directly to Zen Buddhism. So it's these ties to Buddhism that attributed this cultural mindset

Yeah, no. That's a very superficial understanding. Which I suppose explains the rest of your posts.

The phrase gaman is taken from Buddhism. The concept is not (directly/entirely/mostly). Gaman came from the Sino-Japanese translation of the Sanskrit word māna, and originally meant something along the lines of an inflated sense of self-worth (我に執着し、我をよりどころとする心から、自分を偉いと*って おごり、他を侮ること -- 正法眼蔵 (CE 1147)). The meaning of the phrase gradually shifted to mean stubbornness, before assuming its modern definition of stoic perseverance.

Sure, it's linked to Buddhism. But no, it's not really particularly Buddhist at this point, especially not how people (i.e. Western media) are using it.

That's what I said, so yes, I did ask it previously. You simply may not have read it, although you quoted my text in one of your later responses, so that confuses me.

Because I was responding to a particular claim you made. Don't act upset that I didn't answer this supposed original question of yours when I only ever intended to say that you grossly overstated the effect of the Yakuza. And I quoted appropriately to reflect my point; just because I quoted a sentence from you doesn't mean that I must therefore be responding to every single thing you've ever written.

[Holofernes]

ahm what karl marx actually said, was that under the impression of industrialization and the rise of a new social layer, the workers, their is a discrepancy between taxes on work and taxes on capital.

Capital = low tax
Work = high tax.
so the more money someone has, the less he has to pay, and the other way round.
So capital is more important, has the attribute of increasing itself, when beeing worked with , being more beneficial, and gets the deciding role, and workers are the modern slaves of capital, when in a just society they should be even.

now imagine a tax system, where a worker with 20.000 / year, and a owner of a small piece of land, worth 20.000, pay the same amount of tax every year. that would be fair, work and capital would be taxed even.

but: this would kill capital off, as capital doesnt gain additonial value on itself , is not productive without work. so we cant do it. and the workers pay their part, + they pay for capitalists.

This is was Karl Marx stated in his well known book, and it is still true.

Communism was a approach to this problem, via the socialisation of capital / property, so that every cititizen had its own equal share of the country, and would work as good as he can to increase the value of its share. this is the idea behind communism.

(comparable to a corporation / incorporated company, but in this case the company would be the country, and the shareholders would be the citizens, actually every russian has gotten such papers, who were worth a part of russias economy , which was of course worth nothing, as the country was bancrupt in its "liquidation" in 1991)

[Arcangnom]

Government is the initiation of force. Think about it. Try not paying your taxes. At first you'll let a letter or a phone call saying "Hey, you aren't paying! Pay up!" Next you get a notice to go to court. And after that, police will show up to your house to apprehend you. If you defend yourself, you get gunned down. Government breaks the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) by initiating force upon it's sheep (citizens). Now you're probably thinking that this is just some teenage pot head trying to rebel against the man. Well I assure you, I believe drugs are immoral as well, however, I do believe you have the right to use them as long as you're not breaking the NAP.

You may have a good case here. Personally I think the NAP is stupid (going by wikipedia's definition), but if you accept that definition, I suppose the governement breaks it by forcing taxes on its citizens.

Next you may say "Well! Without government, who will provide for the poor?" Government actually made the poor people poor, and if anyone did manage to become poor in a stateless society, charity would be provided. Who provides such charities you ask? towns would. Ostracism would be an effective tool. If you don't donate, you miss out on social relationships, don't get a sign on your lawn saying you donated etc. And even if this isn't perfect, is our current system any better?

Wait, people who wouldn't donate would be excluded from society? How does this help the poor? And what are these "towns" you speak of? A town is a collection of buildings as far as I'm aware. If you are talking about a town council being in charge of giving out charities, is this really any different from a larger government deciding how to spend taxes? Unless of course, the town council is not elected by popular vote, but then we're talking about despotism.

"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.

Firstly, I've no experience in real life warfare, but I'd imagine 100s of independent defense organizations would not be very effective at defending a country from invaders. Who would pay these people? Individuals with money I assume. Individuals with money and hired guns? Another name for it would be mafia. Secondly, your entire argument seems to be based on Russians having no sense of national pride, and that their elections are corrupt. I won't start a debate this, as I'm not Russian and have little knowledge on that topic. Thirdly, assuming the wars go as you predict, who comes out ahead? A country that (only) lost military battles but had to capitulate, or a country who remained free, but countless civilians got slaughtered?

"Oh, I've got you here! Medical care! How is this going to work?!" Well, the reason medical care is expensive now, is because of government intervention in the system, subsidies, medicare, medicaid, etc. If a doctor in a stateless society wants to charge $20 per patient, he is more than welcome to! If his next door neighbor wants to be a doctor and charge $15 per patient, he will simply get the majority of patients and drive the first doctor to either lower his rates or go out of business. "And what of surgery costs?" Same answer as before, surgeons will lower their rates as much as possible to where they still make a profit but get as many patients as possible. Health insurance will also be 100% privatized.

Quite frankly I don't know jack about the American medical care system, so I can't go into details on this. Perhaps the system is really bad. Here in Norway, we hardly pay anything for medical procedures, they're largely payed by taxes, unless you decide to use private doctors. Maybe a change in your system to be more like the Norwegian one would be better? Anyhow, You seem to assume that doctors want to work for less. Perhaps they do, I'm not a doctor so I don't know. However, doctors and surgeons (especially surgeons) can't work alone, so your "doctor next door" analogy is pointless. The reason they can't work alone is because medical equipment is expensive. Very, very expensive.
Also, I find this article interesting.

"Currency! What will be the currency of a stateless society!?" It doesn't matter. You could trade gold, silver, rocks, spoons or even pens. Whatever the seller wants that buyer will offer in exchange for the product the customer wants.

I would make an argument that this simply would not work in modern society, but it's so blatantly obvious if you think about it, so I won't. Therefore, I have no argument on this one for now.

"Education is not receivable to most people without a government provided system!" Government has lowered education standards and does not actually teach you much. If you're older than 30 try telling me the integral of cotx. Try telling me the formula for resistance. If you were doing this math in high school, chances are, (unless you became a mathematician or a physicist) that you just regurgitated this information for the test and forgot it after. Real education advances would be made without the government.

I could tell you these things, but I could obviously just have googled them, so there's no point I can prove. Also, I'm not over 30.
You have no argument, just a statement.

"Well what about courts! For crimes such as murder, theft, or fraud!" Privately run courts would exist, where the defendants and prosecutors would mutually agree to attend, so as to deter corruption. There could be 1 juror or 100, based on a voluntary or salary system. It may not be the absolute perfect system, but is our current one better? Just look at some of the corruption that is going on!

I really don't see how your idea of a court system would do anything to prevent/reduce corruption. And again, I can't argue with the rest of it, as I don't know the details of the American court system.

So, those are the ways anarchism would benefit us, whereas the state not only does not benefit it, it hinders us, enslaves us and attacks us. I advocate an anarchist society, but I want to achieve it nonviolently.

I don't agree with this,

Using violence to achieve anarchy will not only fail, but it will just prop up warlords and dictators in an even worse society. Nonviolence, education, and will power are the only way to get rid of the state. I hope that one day we'll realize that we do not need a government to tell us what to do, what to think or what to feel.

but I do agree with this. I do not feel a need for the government to tell me what to do, think and feel, but there are a lot of other reasons why I think a government is useful, and a lot of those are the exact things you argued the government did a terrible job at, or were not needed for.

Last thing I'll note is that I'm Norwegian. English is not my primary language, and as such some grammatical errors are to be expected. It also inevitably influences my view on this topic.

[Stanton Biston]

ahm what karl marx actually said, was that under the impression of industrialization and the rise of a new social layer, the workers, their is a discrepancy between taxes on work and taxes on capital.

Capital = low tax
Work = high tax.
so the more money someone has, the less he has to pay, and the other way round.
So capital is more important, has the attribute of increasing itself, when beeing worked with , being more beneficial, and gets the deciding role, and workers are the modern slaves of capital, when in a just society they should be even.

now imagine a tax system, where a worker with 20.000 / year, and a owner of a small piece of land, worth 20.000, pay the same amount of tax every year. that would be fair, work and capital would be taxed even.

but: this would kill capital off, as capital doesnt gain additonial value on itself , is not productive without work. so we cant do it. and the workers pay their part, + they pay for capitalists.

This is was Karl Marx stated in his well known book, and it is still true.

Which is why we have a tax appropriately called, 'Capital Gains'.

Which is a tax levied on the gain in value of capital.

[skyclops]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2111871/posts

[Maharishi]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2111871/posts

What is that crap? Not only is America a communist nation, it has been for 150 years?

[Deleted]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2111871/posts

You have no idea what communism is.

[jaykaywhy]

Sorry, this argument is just stupid and fallacious on so many grounds.

You sound like a 16-year old who talks about anarchy to try to sound edgy.

[Kaldreno]

This dude that my ex knew talked about this kind of thing once. He was a hippie douchebag moron taking psych 101 and basic american history classes and he thought that made him super smart. I thought it was dumb then, and surprise, it's still dumb now.

[Hraklea]

Also, people have problems implementing things. Government isn't something that we can act like it is some alien being or something. It's made up of people. And people fuck shit up. Then other people come in and try to fix it. There is no perfect system, and there never will be.

I never said liberalism was perfect too, I'm saying it is better. The one who is trying to deny all flaws of the current government system is you, using the "it is just a bad implementation" card for everything I say. People "have problems implementing things", but where I live:

- private schools are better than public ones
- private hospitals are better than public ones
- private retirement savings are better than public ones
- etc.

This is not just coincidence. People are less likely to do crap when they spend their own money, because their wealth depends on it. The government will get their wage no matter their job was good or bad.

Still, I'm not sure I can prove I'm right with 100% certainty.

I never used the "100%" too. What I tried to explain is that just because education was good in our lives (yours, mine and a few more people in this discussion) is not an evidence that education is infinitelly worth it, therefore we should force everybody to study as much as we did, no matter how much it costs. Some people's lives might be better without going to school.

The "education was good for you, how can you suggest to someone not to study?!??!?!?!?!" argument is a falacy. That's what that post was supposed to mean. Sorry for the confusion.

You need to be educated so that the government does not usurp your rights.

Or you can reduce the government power.
Your system is to give a lot of power to the government and then remove people's freedom because they MUST learn how to protect themselves not to lose even more freedom. My system is not to give that power to the government and allow people to be free.

If a legalized prostitution was overseen properly by police, there would simply be no pimps.

That's the problem. Do you have any suggestioning of how to make legalized prostitution to be overseen properly, with no bribery or corruption?

I do: not overseen it. You'll have 0% corruption.
The best way to stop people from breaking the law is to remove the law.