A Question regarding anarchy/Joker's ideas

[Fent]

@Joker

@ego diligo scientia

Hi, I’m new to the board. I’ve actually perused this board quite often and really like many of the threads and topics. Like many, I am fascinated with Joker’s unorthodox ideas of the nature of the goverment and man and so forth. I didn’t want to just pose this question to him although it does pertain to his views. My question is why man sees a government as inhibiting his freedom? In other words, if a man so chooses, wishes to rape, stab, and steal from others, how can the government physically stop him? In my views they can’t which ultimately leads to the idea that one sees the government symbolizing the consequences of such actions. What I was wondering was that isn’t a man who so chooses not to obey the governemnt’s laws, norms, and morals, free? Why should a man who so chooses to kill or harm others stop just because they live in a society where they’re is a government. So what there will be consequences (legally) for commiting acts agains the law, why should that be a deterrence. If a man sees himself as free, no mundane consequence can nor should stop them from exacting their freedom as they so choose on others? I think those, like Joker, who adhere to the policy of anarchy see this as a consequence free rule. I however fail to see the connection. Hypothetically, if a man rapes a four year old girl he may be subjugated to capital punishment or other legal crimes under governmental punishment. If under an anarchal rule, hypothetically, the familiy members may exact their own justice towards the man. Both types of rules seem to have clear definitions of what can or cannot be done. The difference seems to be that anarchy’s rules are not verbalized or written down, however consequences will abound. I don’t see how in any type of anarchy, consequences for one’s actions will not occur. I will wrap up this post by stating my final and real question. Why should fear or governmental consequences stop one who wishes to be free, regardless of societal norms and standars?

My question is why man sees a government as inhibiting his freedom?

I look at governments and market economies as heavily repressed formulas of mechanism that revolves around pipe dreams of utopias perpetuated by religionism.

Men become enslaved through the ambitions that governments and markets put out all the while their natural inclinations of wild emotion become suppressed through civility or forced docility by enforced legislative means.

A market society can’t survive without deception, forced labor and classism.

As a rule market societies only allow the freedom of a few to prevail while it inhibits large amounts of deception on the rest making them believe that they are free or that they can be free through rough labor.

If you look at the history of punishment and law over a span of any given civilization the final goal is to always strip man of his natural wild emotions and instincts in creating him into a caricature of man by mechanical manufactured moral idealism followed by elaborate delusions of salvation for future generations.

Over a period of time men no longer look like men but instead become to be empty mechanical vessels ready to be assimilated in the machine of the market for a universal cause that has never existed and for false senses of security that strips them of their natural freedoms given to them by birth. ( By Nature.)

In other words, if a man so chooses, wishes to rape, stab, and steal from others, how can the government physically stop him?

Very easily. Through immoral means of execution and imprisonment but unfortunately for the government these forms of repressing violent behaviors puts them in a contradiction of using the same forces of violence that they solely pronounce to be against.

This is what I mean when I say that true morality is nonexistent but instead morality is just another form of immorality in disguise in the fulfillment of a will to power.

The will to power comes in many disguises and moral deception is one of them but if we understand morality as just another predatory motive of immorality in the act of survival then where exactly does the government or moralists inhibit their absolute universal “rights” from which they rule over other men where they condemn all other actions contrary to their own?

If we look at the history of centralized state governments their underlying power always comes from hysteria, superstition, mythology, religion, and religious pronouncements of heresy in which they punish or kill others by some twisted nonexistent exaltation of a conceptual understanding of which is the “sacred” good. ( This is the same for modern industrial nations.)

What I was wondering was that isn’t a man who so chooses not to obey the governemnt’s laws, norms, and morals, free?

As long as he doesn’t get caught, sure.

I have always said that freedom exists only when the individual has absolute control of himself and his enviroment whether it is through violence or cooperation.( Depending on what form of action the individual wants to choose for themselves.)

What we call freedom amongst our idols in civilization isn’t freedom at all. It is manufactured freedom by the state which blackmails people to sell their labor for a price. ( Such a manufactured form of freedom is a elaborate form of slavery in disguise at the state’s disposal for absolute control.)

Do you want to keep eating lavishly and have all the pleasures we the state put out? Keep selling us your labor or else.
( Blackmail followed by clever elaborate forms of psychological warfare.) - Example.

( Look into the theory: Prisoner’s Dilemma)

Why should a man who so chooses to kill or harm others stop just because they live in a society where they’re is a government.

Million dollar question. If we understand man as a predatory animal such a individual is only acting out naturally.

So what there will be consequences (legally) for commiting acts agains the law, why should that be a deterrence.

In reality such a circumstance always follows into their word against yours.

Because the state with their so call infallible wisdom guided by morality has bigger guns and resources of power they come off as more accepted however if we were to have a society or government that thrived on murder with the same power it too would be acceptable.

[b]Whoever has the power can talk the masses into believing and doing anything.

( We see this in ancient cultures with willing victims of ritual sacrifice guided by powers of religion and state.)[/b]

If a man sees himself as free, no mundane consequence can nor should stop them from exacting their freedom as they so choose on others?

That is what I believe of course this doesn’t hinder other people’s perceptions of revenge.

Example-

If I go out and kill a couple of people this doesn’t hinder a family member’s insight to vengeance.

Hypothetically, if a man rapes a four year old girl he may be subjugated to capital punishment or other legal crimes under governmental punishment. If under an anarchal rule, hypothetically, the familiy members may exact their own justice towards the man. Both types of rules seem to have clear definitions of what can or cannot be done.

This is where things get tricky:

Those seeking vengeance and retribution in the anarchy sense are not always strong enough to install said punishment by their own weakness.

( Thus in the anarchy sense natural selection is still maintained.)

In a modern organized state scenario the law revolves around the concept of protecting the weak by a policing force and so even if a victim isn’t strong enough to enact the punishment himself he has a police force to enact retribution for him without the victim having to put any effort into anything beyond complaining or wimpering.

( This is where natural selection is nonexistent onto deterioration in state governing societies.)

The difference seems to be that anarchy’s rules are not verbalized or written down, however consequences will abound.

I will tell you the difference.

In a anarchy scenario victims are not always strong enough to enact retribution where the predatory man still gains momentum in fulfilling his natural abilities of survival by that of strength.

( The predatory man is free to carry out his natural predatory motives so long his strength holds since the victim is too weak to defend themselves.)

In a state centralized government scenario guided by moral pretenses the man naturally acting predatory is immediately condemned under the fictitious construction of “rights”.

( The predatory man is immediately condemned, executed, or imprisoned by fictitious ideologies through large masses of people in numbers by that of fanatical belief structures.)

Why should fear or governmental consequences stop one who wishes to be free, regardless of societal norms and standars?

It shouldn’t. Although it does complicate many things for such a individual.

( Unnecessary complications.)

=D>
Very well done. An excellent reply.

[1Samuel8]

@Existentialist

Yes you are quite right…I mistyped. I should have typed something like this: That these “slaves” are doing what they choose asserts that they really are free.

Your re-phrase makes no difference.
You are just trivializing the concept of freedom by making it a synonym of “what people choose to do in constrained circumstances” and makes the concept of freedom useless.

[stoned_kazak]

i can say to you right now that the “state” is a necessary evil, for civilization. i have read alot of anarchist theory and while they make extremely valid observations about how the ruling class keeps the masses suppressed with various tools( religion etc), and that government is a breeding ground for tyrrany( power does corrupt “people”), the ideas of “spontaneous” revolution and the dismantling of society in one day are impractical and ridiculous. organization and at least a minimal form of centralized government is necessary in order for society and civilization, at the advanced level it is today, to function.

it’s possible for a few dozen people to live on a farm, but frankly that would be for hippies and i don’t need to explain why this community wouldn’t advance( i personally wouldn’t want to live in the countryside or something all my life as after a few days it starts pissing me off )

i have more to say on this matter, but i’d like for some responses. i recently started a paper on why i believe anarchy is plainly BS

[Chato]

@stoned_kazak

i have more to say on this matter, but i’d like for some responses. i recently started a paper on why i believe anarchy is plainly BS

You may be right in the sense of it being impractical. But why is is impractical?

Could it be that the modern means of communication - Of communisty forums, chat boards, Bulletin boards, etc, etc, WILL make it practical?

The problem with Anarchy is decision making. Not only who, but HOW? And modern technology is increasing the ability to exchange ideas. Who knows?

If you’re writing a paper - think it through.

Dave

[Cyrene]

Anarchy is clearly BS in the form of no government because contrary to sssm thought the brain contains domain specific mechanisms for dealing with regularities in the social world. Chimpanzee’s don’t live in a anarchistic society, they form hiearchies, humans form hiearchies which can be comparable to ‘governments’ in a sense.

You can’t teach humans not to form social groups/hiarchies. Though they may be flexible and dynamic.

[realunoriginal]

@Cyrene

Anarchy is clearly BS in the form of no government because contrary to sssm thought the brain contains domain specific mechanisms for dealing with regularities in the social world. Chimpanzee’s don’t live in a anarchistic society, they form hiearchies, humans form hiearchies which can be comparable to ‘governments’ in a sense.

You can’t teach humans not to form social groups/hiarchies. Though they may be flexible and dynamic.

I agree with this; anarchy can’t exist, since humans will always create laws of some kind, whether consciously or subconsciously.

[Chato]

@realunoriginal

@Cyrene

Anarchy is clearly BS in the form of no government because contrary to sssm thought the brain contains domain specific mechanisms for dealing with regularities in the social world. Chimpanzee’s don’t live in a anarchistic society, they form hiearchies, humans form hiearchies which can be comparable to ‘governments’ in a sense.

You can’t teach humans not to form social groups/hiarchies. Though they may be flexible and dynamic.

I agree with this; anarchy can’t exist, since humans will always create laws of some kind, whether consciously or subconsciously.

Hiarchies are not government. If people value your judgement, and defer to your wisdom, that would be a hiarchy. The question of government arises, when compulsive force is used to impose their laws on you.

The two questions are separate, and so for that matter so is the question of “law” itself. Anarchy doesn’t repudiate law, but rather law imposed by an outside coercive force.

As for Cyrene’s pathetic attempt to look educated, the SSSM, whether right of wrong, is not the views of Bukarin and Kropotkin, or any other Anarchist for that matter

Dave

[Cyrene]

the type of social hiearchies that exist in hunter/gatherer and tribal groups can be called a proto-government. The type of social hiearchies that CHIMPS have can be called a proto-government, force can and usually is envolved with each. Theres going to be some form of social cohesion/direction with a social hiearchy envolved with that, which b asically is a proto government.

[realunoriginal]

What I meant to say is that there are no true systems of anarchy when considering that people will always form some kind of system of rule/law. What I know of anarchy is that it is essentially the antithesis of rule/law.

[stoned_kazak]

cyrene, who mentioned hierarchy, seems to share similar views to me on this topic. humans have differences in ability, strength etc etc and in a normal, non utopic environment this leads to the formation of hierarchies as some specimens are dominant over others. that being said, i think that the best way to provide a platform where all these differences are harnessed leading to a “according to needs and abilities” formula, and hinders “power” from being inherited(through “law”) is socialist democracy

[Cyrene]

anarchy can’t exist because it requires social cohesion to hunt, which requires certain social rules and considerations of fairness to be enforced, the same with mate choice and so on within an ingroup. Theres dominant males or a variety of alpha males that can change due to environmental reasons.

What i’m saying is that with chimps there are social structures and typical behaviors reflecting proto-morality which are enforced. a group of chimps don’t chaoticly interact, theres structure and coalition. the same is true of hunter/gatherer groups who hunt and engage in raids against other hunter gatherers.

[realunoriginal]

Seriously…

Is anybody else in the world bothered by the use of morality as far as animal actions go??? Morality implies religion. Animals are not religious!

I know I’m going off-topic, but animals represent ethical rules, not moral rules!

[Cyrene]

Morality isn’t soley created by religion, try again!

[realunoriginal]

@Cyrene

Morality isn’t soley created by religion, try again!

Yes it is!

[Cyrene]

@realunoriginal

@Cyrene

Morality isn’t soley created by religion, try again!

Yes it is!

No, its not. reciprocal altruism, inclusive fitness, whatever. Morality is an adaptation that responds to environmental cues, like a knob that can be adjusted.

On top of that religion is a byproduct of adaptations, see: Atran, In Gods We Trust.

[Fent]

@Cyrene

@realunoriginal

@Cyrene

Morality isn’t soley created by religion, try again!

Yes it is!

No, its not. reciprocal altruism, inclusive fitness, whatever. Morality is an adaptation that responds to environmental cues, like a knob that can be adjusted.

On top of that religion is a byproduct of adaptations, see: Atran, In Gods We Trust.

Morality has ‘sacred’ or ‘idealistic’ undertones running through it, reciprocal altruism (originally) arises from utility in given circumstances; it is not an unconditional ought. Reciprocal altruism only becomes moral when some kooky individual(s) desire it to be either, a ‘way of life’ leading to some utopia, or when religious goons instantiate Gods into the act.

[Cyrene]

Yeah, lets just pretend like what you said made any sense what-so-ever. R-altruism can be responsible for many of the types of moral behavior that we see today, it doesn’t have to be consciously directed.

[ego_diligo_scientia]

I’m ultimately satisfied with Joker’s responses as I knew they would fully answer my questions. While I agree with everything he and others have stated in regards to the nature of societal morality and so forth, I do not believe that should be used as a hinderance, if one so chooses to exert his or her will upon others in various ways and matters. I feel with any choice one must be fully functional not only to carry it out but to sustain such consequences of the actions, whether they come in the form of a traditional set government or a higher exertion of will from another. Yes, the government and such false moralities make it difficult for some to claim their will to power (because of the nature of laws and crime/punishment). However just because it is hard does not make it impossible. If one so chooses to ignore societal morality and consequences, he or she should be fully prepared and able to continue their will of power by evading such govermental consequences. While this isn’t an ideal life per se for one claiming the will to power, theorteically it can be done. Therefore I see society as a huge crux and a conflict but not necessary making such actions an impossibility.

[Cyrene]

haha, wow, theres nothing that can be said of that kind of view which would be tolerated by site administrators.

[Chato]

@realunoriginal

What I meant to say is that there are no true systems of anarchy when considering that people will always form some kind of system of rule/law. What I know of anarchy is that it is essentially the antithesis of rule/law.

Not at all. Unless we simply want to turn this into a semantic argument. Would criminal acts be allowed under Anarchist thinking? People like Kropotkin weren’t that stupid. The difference is the nature of an ourside coercive force as opposed to collectives of people coming from their place of work, or production.

If you want to get semantic, you can call these collectives, “mini-governments,” but that’s not the way Anarchist thinkers pictured them. Since they are neighbors and co-workers, they are by definition, NOT an outside coercive force.

Mind you, I’m not necessarily saying that this is practical - But it’s their thinking.

Dave