You all believe in limited government pointing out very astutely the tyranny of excess government as an institution or organization, my question to you all however, why have any kind of government at all? I just don’t understand the whole settling for limited government when you can have zero government.
You all portray limited government and a constitution as this pure timeless historical contraption but given history it should be obvious to anybody that even a limited constitutional government can become corrupt overtime. Isn’t that how we got here to begin with especially concerning those of us that live in the United States presently?
You know what I have to say in retrospect? Abolish and destroy government completely. Eradicate it all over the world.
K: what you are talking about is a psychological issue… right now, people
aren’t ready to embrace the responsibility of freedom that is required
when you abolish the government… because you must then take responsibility
of your own life and your own actions and quite clearly people aren’t
ready to do that… This is the fulcrum that made me stop being an
anarchist… I realized that centuries will be required to get people to
the stage of accepting responsibility for their own actions and their
own consequences… This is the first step for an anarchist to
learn to accept their own responsibility, accept actions and consequences…
the coming anarchist age requires this and this primary step
has not been taken, so I am not longer an anarchist because
we are just not ready for that step, maybe someday, but not
today…
You yourself don’t even advocate “no government”, you like hierarchy up to the so-called Tribal Level, and gave the gall to call that Anarchism, and say idiotic statements like “I see no contradiction in that”.
You just advocate a smaller scale society, don’t try to bullshit us your a anarchist, your just as entrenched in statism as anyone else. (And no “How so” remarks with pics of the Joker, we know your completely shallow and predictable and full of shit in this area).
You ask why a constitution and checks & balances, in the light of corruption.
I can flip that, pointing out small scale warlords are hardly known for their equitable distribution of wealth, or calls for equality or personal freedoms. You tend to get more corrump systems under your system. Haven’t you been watching the newest season of The Walking Dead, does Negan’s set up look equitable at all? That’s pretty much the world you advocate for, and it ain’t nothing but a shit pop tart. I’m not popping that in my toaster, just cause you masturbate to apocalyptic violence. You got issues. Serious issues.
Speak for yourself. I and a great deal of others can handle responsibility quite capable. You act as if human beings remain in permanent childhood where there needs to be a parental patronizing organization of government around.
Anarchism reduced to its most basic level is decentralized tribalism. I’ve admitted such publicly.
The existence of government is by far more apocalyptic than anarchism could ever be by comparison and inevitably will result in such a state of existence. Anarchism is uncontrolled competition domestically so naturally any kind of government controlled socialism opposes it. The very existence of any kind of government at its core is a socialist one.
K: look at religion for example and tell me how people are ready to handle the responsibility?
No, I don’t believe that people are ready for their own responsibility and accepting
of there consequences… If you look at the recent election, you clearly see how
the people voted for Herr Trumpf and that is a vote for dictatorship…
I believe that right now, the GOP party is about dictatorship and the DEMS
are about being responsible… The old outdate charge of the nanny state
no longer exists… it has change and any insights about the new world
must keep up with the changing world… You are stuck in the old
paradigm. You need to adapt to the new world order or you will be a dinosaur…
those who claim the DEMS are the racist party just haven’t keep up with the
ever changing flow of the world… thus people like Turd have failed
to adapt their idea’s to fit the new world… they think in terms of
what happened years and even decades ago… they have failed to keep
up with the new reality…I suspect that is part of the problem with
much of the discussion around here. we have two contrasting visions,
one is centered on the past, Turd and you and Phillo, and the other is about the
about the changing present and future…
I don’t worry about the past as much as I used to because I
need to adapt and change with the ever present new world we live in…
you have failed to adapt and change and that, and that is your failed
and flawed vision of the universe… you haven’t kept up…
I don’t think anarchism will ever work. To put it briefly, the problem is the tragedy of the commons: certain decisions that are rational for individuals are irrationals at other levels of considerations. Without coordination, everyone is hurt. Without coercion, cheaters reap a significant reward, and so the rational course of action eventually becomes to cheat. So it’s not that people can’t handle the responsibility, it’s that, for an individual, the rational decision is often at the expense of all other individuals, so it’s necessary for the collective to coercively prohibit or require certain acts from everyone for the benefit of everyone.
I expect this isn’t compelling for you, Hahaha, because I don’t think you see any duty of the individual to care for the well being of anyone else in society. But as I’ve argued before, the health of the collective is in the interest of the individual.
And, I should say I recognize that I’m not a typical libertarian. I don’t start with the principle of freedom, but arrive there as an instrumental value towards a healthy and efficient collective.
I’ve always wondered something about anarchism. We started in a state of anarchy, went through the long social evolution of strong-men to nation-states to today’s international order. If we were to somehow achieve a state of anarchy again, what would prevent strong-men, and nation-states, and the re-evolution of an international order much like what we have today?
I did, and that’s is a supposition we asserted over and beyond the available evidence. It is a anthropology of early man taken directly from cynicism and Romano-Christian theorization regarding the golden age of the noble savage. As I told ShieldMaiden recently, theology has permenated pretty much every aspect of knowledge we have, it has roots in everything. This is directly borrowed from early Christian anthropological speculation in regards to the stages of man’s development. Too many works have been done on this aspect of study, your just not aware how deeply entrenched you are in Catholic presumptions… it all unflinchingly just “makes sense”. Catholics if course took heavily from Cynic-Stoic presemotions, as well as many pagan theories (Promethius as a example).
None of thus lights up in your fucking head when you “go back” in time. Go back any farther and you’ll bump into the judea-christian how creating the heavens on the “reasonable secular track” your on.
K: as we did not start in a full blown civilization and we did not start with a full blown society
and we did not start with cities or states or a society… all of which takes many, many,
many years to create… if we do not start with a society or with a state, we started with
individuals and families who competed with each other for the available food until one
bright and shiny day, the idea of cooperation hit someone and we began civilization
and society, but first came the anarchism, however long or short it lasted… because
that is really the only way it could have started…not with a society and not within
religion as religion is a relatively late idea in man’s development but with individual
and/or families who competed for resources…
How do you know it takes “many, many years to create” a full blown civilization? Caral in Peru appears practically to of popped up over night from a trading network, they decided it appears “let’s build a market economic capital” right fucking smack in the middle of Peru with no apparent precedents we can detect, no standing armies, no warfare, no obvious hierarchy.
Joker’s theory wouldn’t know what the fuck to do with them, but the are a original civilization with no obvious precedents. Just leaped up out of someone’s ass full blown.
Your demanding, inserting a mathematical model of progressive material evolution upon man, who empirically improves in his knowledge over time. I’m seeing that only AFTER a civilization is founded, they tend to start off with a diverse array of ideas, technology, and social organizational presumptions out of the blue, then go back and refine it, like the Sumerians did with the Mes. Did the Sumerians invent the Mes, or did a pastorist invent the Mes, and thus Sumeria, and only later they tried to order it?
Careful on your assumptions here, you stand on the edge of a hurricane.
In order to discuss anarchism I think a definition needs to be agreed upon.
For me it is tribal decentralized localist societies of self producing, self surviving, and self ruling people. We could use that definition for starters. The beginning of the end of anarchist societies began with government centralization and nation states.
Stares at the punch out work clock
Will respond to other posts here within a short period of time.
No, Anarchy cannot have Archy. Hence why it us called ‘An’archy, cause it us opposed to her’archy’.
This is elementary. It is like Donald Trump trying to pass himself off as a Cynic Philosopher being a billionaire, it is the one class that can’t be a part Cynic Philosophy.
So if I’m a farmer, and I flood a valley for trees I planted, and a nomadic group cones stumbling in, unknown to me, and are flushed out of my groves, I’m a state, even if I live in complete solitude? Same if I put up walls around the four corners of my roof, or chain my fishing boat out in harbor where they can’t swim too? I’m evil state, and they are anarchists because they don’t grasp irrigation, architecture, and seafaring?
Is Snow state? Sometimes blizzards strike, forces people a way from what they want to do. Are landslides state? What about angry fucking volcanoes, like at Pompei?
What is state, what isn’t on the part of the receiver? I’m sure a lot of those people at Pompei thought the volcano God was oppresding the fuck out of them, someone fucked their sacrifice to said God up big time. A fucking volcano in such a moment has all the qualities of state projected upon it.
I think anarchy can accommodate hierarchy. The question is whether it’s voluntary. For something like Hahaha’s “tribal decentralization”, that is arguably the case. While there is probably some coercion in even a small tribe, given the option the members of the tribe may choose the coercion over the “freedom” of being isolated. Even an abusive tribe is better for an individual in a stateless society.
Hahaha is right that this depends on your definition of anarchy. Packs/troops likely existed before humans did, because our lineage likely was social before the advent of genetically modern humans. But anything more complex (trade, formal hierarchy) probably came later. By Hahaha’s definition, this is a state of anarchy. By my definition, I would argue it does as well: a chimp is free to leave the troop, and to suffer the consequences of living in a hostile world with no allies.
Maybe that’s a good question to get us started: what other animals live in a state of anarachy? I would say all animals do, that only humans are capable of anything I would call government (‘archy’). I take it you would want to say that social animals do not live in a state of anarchy?
Carleas, your talking about theories other than anarchism. It isn’t about the perspective of who we pretend to be, but rather, absolute indifference to Hierarchy.
And no, your definition really doesn’t work, Qaddafi tried that with his government, he claimed Libya to be a Anarchist society, where people choose their own people. I don’t know why people keep having this conversation, it is stupid and doesn’t work, it actually just mirphs into fascism.
The federalization of the anarchists in The Spanish Revolution wasn’t Anarchism at that point, they looked identical to any other faction, complete with head quarter buildings and a chain of command. Only thing was they were bullshitting themselves saying it was fully voluntary and temporary, but the actuality was, they were NOT Anarchists during this period.
It is a rather simple and straight forward philosophy with one simple, irrefutable litmus test to judge the definition, and every clever fuck on this forum wants to smudge it up. How about we talk about how pacifists can wage voluntary wars while we are at it, or how virgins can have sex and stay virgins? It is that silly.
