134 replies to this topic

[valkyrie_ice]

Every anti-government type I have ever dealt with, regardless of political beliefs has been exactly the same. "I'm not in charge, and if things were done my way, I would be!"

No... I think you have it wrong. Or, if you have indeed met only people who are looking to be in charge, allow me to say that "I'm not in charge, and if things were done my way, no one would be".

And by "charge" I mean power that relies on violence... I don't mean a world where restaurants have no one in charge.

The only way to create a world where "No-one" is in charge is via a universal democracy composed of educated, informed, and engaged voters. And even then, they will create a body to enact the will of the collective. Right now, there is no way to do this, but once the internet has grown to the point that every human on the planet can access it, and we have enabled sufficient enhancement to ensure universal education, then it becomes possible.


Your dream is nice, but sadly until we eliminate violence as a possibility, i.e. by making death impossible under any circumstance, it's little more than a flight of fancy.


Don't get me wrong JLL. I wish reality were different too, but sadly we are humans, not angels. So long as human nature is what it is, violence will always remain a tool for any hierarchal structure. Remove one group's ability to use it, and another group will arise that uses it. The sole way to overcome this is to ensure only one group has access to it, and to ensure that group is tightly bound to use it solely to prevent it's use against others. That is also impossible to accomplish at present, but will become possible in the future.

[RandomNoobie]

You are right. We are humans, not angels; as for the rest... not so much.

In your preposed world someone is in charge - the idiot voters. I want a world where someone is in charge - the proprety owner. Eliminating death would no more eliminate violence then it would eliminate chocholate and no one believes we can eliminate violence, simply that we would like everyone to view it as immoral. That's not really too much to ask is it?

Violence is a tool of the strong, and always has been (Chomsky). Your propsed method of ridding us of violence is giving authority to a group to be violent? What proposal would you imagine to rid the world of rapists, I wonder?

[valkyrie_ice]

You are right. We are humans, not angels; as for the rest... not so much.

In your preposed world someone is in charge - the idiot voters. I want a world where someone is in charge - the proprety owner. Eliminating death would no more eliminate violence then it would eliminate chocholate and no one believes we can eliminate violence, simply that we would like everyone to view it as immoral. That's not really too much to ask is it?

Violence is a tool of the strong, and always has been (Chomsky). Your propsed method of ridding us of violence is giving authority to a group to be violent? What proposal would you imagine to rid the world of rapists, I wonder?

You make a rather large assumption. I have stated repeatedly that only an engaged and educated populace could create a true democracy, which has been impossible, is impossible at present, and can only become possible once we have achieved universal internet access, and sufficient enhancement to ensure that all voters are making informed decisions. Democracy as it currently exists is indeed a idiocracy, in which the majority of the voters are neither logical nor rational. Nonetheless, it is still a better system than any system in which the majority is at the whim of a minority.

You also assume I am proposing a method to "rid us of violence" when such an entity as I proposed is also impossible to guarantee. Even a autonomous "robot" force of "peacekeepers" is vulnerable to programming errors, hacking etc. It was used as an example of the impossibility of "eliminating violence". As no system can be created to ensure that violence cannot ever be used, whether it be via physical, or non-physical force, violence remains forever a reality that can only be coped with, not eliminated.

The point you repeatedly ignore is that under your "governmentless" system as most of you continue to define it assumes that all actors in the system will be benevolent. It makes no allowance for the non-benevolent, and even if you think that "Moral force" will prevent non-benevolent behavior, history shows that such behavior is counter to all previously established human behavior patterns, including those performed under "moral force" in various religions.

Thus, your proposed system includes NO CHECKS on human behavior, and in fact REWARDS those who violate the "moral rules" you seem to feel will be sufficient to prevent non-benevolence. I have attempted to illustrate this repeatedly, only to met over and over with the illogical rational of "that will be illegal" when there is no mechanism to enforce "illegality" followed by claims that a police force will be around to enforce illegality, except that the system you propose for such a police force is identical to warlordism, more or less re-enforcing my arguments that your system simply rewards those who violate the moral rules.

By the time the "well, buts" get done, the world view revealed is one in which "government" in any form which has a potential to prevent the mass exploitation of the majority by those willing to use force is tossed aside for a "government of the elites" free to do as they wish to whoever they wish with no restraints. In every sense it is simply an argument for "might makes right" justifying the use of financial resources to buy "Might" and excusing those with said resources from any sort of possible penalization while using "moral force" to keep the rest in line.

So, once broken down to its most basic, you argue for precisely what you claim to be arguing against. A world in which violence is the sole criteria by which "rule" is established. I also see you ignore this fact because you continue to self delude yourselves into thinking that somehow you would be a member of that social tier that will be in charge, failing to comprehend that in a world ruled by nothing but a willingness to commit violence you would be so much dogfood.

But do feel free to attempt your ideological views and go seasteading. It will be amusing reading.

[RandomNoobie]

You have strawmanned us. It is because of man's faliability, because of man's violent nature THAT we are ACists, not because we are utopian daydreamers wishing for all of our problesm to go away. If we believed in benevolence we would have no problem with government. What are we to do if these violent thugs who you fear so much take over the government? As they always have and always will. Who is to protect us from them?

It is difficult for those who have lived their lives under the control of others to imagine what it might be like to escape their chains. It is impossible for my to predict what anarcho-capitalism would look like and this is a problem that most critics of my belief system have difficulties with. The entire point of course is that the society we envision is not planned but rather the spontaneous voluntary solutions to various problems that occur.

Do you believe that in the world we propose, if someone walked down the street and shot someone in the head, nothing would happen? People would just keep about their shopping? There would be no police in an anarchocapitalist society, not in the manner that they exist today, but I see no reason why private defense contractors could not arise on the market, as people turn to voluntary solutions to the ubiquitous problem of criminal thugs. The primary check on dangerous human behaviour is a gun, preferrably in the hands of the soon to be victim. In a sense you could view what I propose as warlordism... after all, we are talking about anarchy... and I accept that there are preconditions to this socio-politico-economic system being putting in place (namely a preponderance of society accpepting PASSIONATELY property rights) but I do not think it would be a savage every man for himself battle to the death as some critics have alleged.

One thing you must understand is that the state is nothing more than an extremely successful criminal gang. This has been recognized since the days of Cicero and St. Thomas Aquinas, with the parable of the priate and the emperor. There is a decaying influence on society from our submission to the state. Every year nearly half of the wealth produced in my nation is flat out stolen by the state. In turn, people have become accustomed to the idea that it is okay to steal. The state uses violence to cow us, and in turn, people become more accepting of violence.


Violence is ALWAYS the sole criteria by which rule is established. I cannot change this basic fact of human history, rather, I wish to deal with it and plan around it.



P.S. have you ever met anyone? I do not want to be ruled by my neigbhours, as they funnel beer into their mouths, eat greasy pizza and watch hours of reality television sitting on their couchs. These people are not my peers, they are not fit to rule me, and I have no desire to control them. Let me rule myself, and I will ask only of others that the world leave me alone (or better, share in this crazy experience that is life as my friend).

[valkyrie_ice]

How many times do I have to say this.


GOVERNMENT IS A NATURAL RESULT OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION. ANY SYSTEM WHICH EXISTS IN WHICH A HIERARCHAL SOCIAL STRUCTURE EXISTS IS A GOVERNMENT.


So "governmentless" society is a DELUSIONAL FANTASY. It cannot exist.


All you are claiming to do is simply not call Government "Government" and the systems of "government" you claim are not "government" are little more than justifications for FINANCIAL WEALTH BUYING MIGHT TO MAKE RIGHT, and as such are nothing more than advocation of a society as ruled by violence as every other, but in which NO RESTRAINTS EXIST ON THE WEALTHY TO PREVENT ABUSE.


You are not arguing for freedom, you are arguing for an aristocracy in which which you ASSUME you personally will be part of the ruling class.


Spin it how you like. Once boiled down to reality instead of flights of fantasy, this is what you argue for. The PR and the spin don't change the semantic content of your words.

[RandomNoobie]

Government is a coercive monopoly on the use of force and arbitrage in a given geographical area and your definition is far too inclusive to be of any use in clarifying this debate. Actually I am not claiming to do anything, what I am arguing for is a stateless society, a world in which coercion and violence were not accepted as morally acceptable ways of doing business. It is our current society that is ruled by violence, in particular the violence of the state, and so I submit to you that your criticisms of my theories are really more valid with regards to the current order. Stateless societies can and have existed, and to some degree do currently (the Mennonites, for example).

To be honest, you have not really demonstrated that you understand what it is I am arguing for, which I would imagine to be the first step in rebutting my claims.

[chris w]

You are not arguing for freedom, you are arguing for an aristocracy in which which you ASSUME you personally will be part of the ruling class.

Actually I think that she understands it quite well, it's just that you refuse to acknowledge that the ramifications of your worldview if it was apllied, would exceed in horror the enslavement that we now have in this planet ruled by corrupt governments only that the owners would change, but without the ways of improvement left that we have come to through two hundred years since Enlightment, like equal vote.

Forgive me for hitting some high notes here, but I will break it down like this - I think I can speak for myself but Val and Progressive too, that what we want to see, is a world where those who want to be free of physical deprivation, are, and the one you libertarians choose, is where those are free from it, who are able to afford it, even if this group was to be large, there would still be those left out. To roam freely on no man's land, cheering that you don't belong to any state, while you don't have anything to put in your mouth is truly a devil's freedom. You really believe so much in the benevolence of humankind that you think there always will be someone to voluntarilly feed all the hungry ? And if there isn't, then I begg you for answer - what happens to them ? But you have the luxury of not having to think about it, because it won't be you.

Yes, essentially taxation is theft, but I won't call it that a rich man is made a slave of anybody if his standard of living is made to be "only" superhigh, whereas if that money wasn't taken from him, it would have been ultra mega fucking high. "In the land of the blind, the one eyed is the king". If a fraction of his wealth is taken from him, it doesn't change anything in his situation, he still is the king compared to those to whom this money is distributed so that they could buy clotches or bread instead of going out with a gun to get it. You close your eyes to the fact that in this world that we have, hordes of people are slaves of their unchosen situation, unlucky draw of the cards - born in a wrong place, in a wrong time, with the wrong abilities, or none whatsoever and I don't buy that this is the state of affairs that should just be let to continue in hope of improvement with many to succumb along the way, as egalitarism is somehow supposedly unnatural. It's my gut feeling that it is despicable to just let them be left behind while the lucky ones strive for the stars. If it was you born on the bottom, would you still respect the rights to property, the negative freedoms that you eloquently speak about here, or would you just reach with your armed hands to wherever you could help yourself in this sorry situation ? But right now, you can afford to just say "Yeah, you know, life is unfair".

And about Mennonites - so would you switch ? What exactly have they accomplished since 400 years, without the albatross hanging in their necks ? And I don't think they are the best example for the good of private property ownership, as they typically shunned it, and tended to give up earthly possessions. Yes, stateless societies do exist, but I wouldn't exactly want to trade places, as the level of personal freedom is much less than I would want, because in those societies Tradition is the omnipotent government.

Edited by chris w, 05 July 2010 - 07:24 PM.

[JLL]

I do not want to be ruled by my neigbhours, as they funnel beer into their mouths, eat greasy pizza and watch hours of reality television sitting on their couchs. These people are not my peers, they are not fit to rule me, and I have no desire to control them. Let me rule myself, and I will ask only of others that the world leave me alone (or better, share in this crazy experience that is life as my friend).

Well said!

[JLL]

How many times do I have to say this.

GOVERNMENT IS A NATURAL RESULT OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION. ANY SYSTEM WHICH EXISTS IN WHICH A HIERARCHAL SOCIAL STRUCTURE EXISTS IS A GOVERNMENT.

So "governmentless" society is a DELUSIONAL FANTASY. It cannot exist.

All you are claiming to do is simply not call Government "Government" and the systems of "government" you claim are not "government" are little more than justifications for FINANCIAL WEALTH BUYING MIGHT TO MAKE RIGHT, and as such are nothing more than advocation of a society as ruled by violence as every other, but in which NO RESTRAINTS EXIST ON THE WEALTHY TO PREVENT ABUSE.

You are not arguing for freedom, you are arguing for an aristocracy in which which you ASSUME you personally will be part of the ruling class.

Spin it how you like. Once boiled down to reality instead of flights of fantasy, this is what you argue for. The PR and the spin don't change the semantic content of your words.

Your definition of government is wrong... but accepting your definition for the sake of argument, it simply means that government is not a binary value, it's a sliding scale. The more hierarchical oppression, the more government. Since it's difficult for you to accept what anarcho-capitalists want when they say the want a stateless society, how about a society with the least amount of hierarchical oppression?

Still, reading your post again just makes me think that you're really missing the whole point in the discussion, even though it has been stated several times by me, Alex and RandomNoobie already.

You are saying "people are bad, so let's choose a handful among us to protect us from ourselves" -- we are saying "some people are bad, so we can't afford to risk giving the guns to those people".

Until you realize this, nothing will change your mind.

[valkyrie_ice]

How many times do I have to say this.

GOVERNMENT IS A NATURAL RESULT OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION. ANY SYSTEM WHICH EXISTS IN WHICH A HIERARCHAL SOCIAL STRUCTURE EXISTS IS A GOVERNMENT.

So "governmentless" society is a DELUSIONAL FANTASY. It cannot exist.

All you are claiming to do is simply not call Government "Government" and the systems of "government" you claim are not "government" are little more than justifications for FINANCIAL WEALTH BUYING MIGHT TO MAKE RIGHT, and as such are nothing more than advocation of a society as ruled by violence as every other, but in which NO RESTRAINTS EXIST ON THE WEALTHY TO PREVENT ABUSE.

You are not arguing for freedom, you are arguing for an aristocracy in which which you ASSUME you personally will be part of the ruling class.

Spin it how you like. Once boiled down to reality instead of flights of fantasy, this is what you argue for. The PR and the spin don't change the semantic content of your words.

Your definition of government is wrong... but accepting your definition for the sake of argument, it simply means that government is not a binary value, it's a sliding scale. The more hierarchical oppression, the more government. Since it's difficult for you to accept what anarcho-capitalists want when they say the want a stateless society, how about a society with the least amount of hierarchical oppression?

Still, reading your post again just makes me think that you're really missing the whole point in the discussion, even though it has been stated several times by me, Alex and RandomNoobie already.

You are saying "people are bad, so let's choose a handful among us to protect us from ourselves" -- we are saying "some people are bad, so we can't afford to risk giving the guns to those people".

Until you realize this, nothing will change your mind.

http://valkyrieice.b...government.html

On the contrary. I am saying all people are driven by the instincts to survive and to reproduce, and that confusion over which instinct produces which behavior has led to the confusion you suffer from which makes you think you are being "logical and rational" when in fact you are simply justifying a system in which abuse has been far too rampant throughout human history.

I am saying that until we recognize the biological imperatives which create "Government" (a collective Positive sum game which enables efficient division of labor and equal allocation of resources to provide for all individual NEEDS) and those which create "The Market" ( a zero sum game in which mating suitability is determined through markers representing social status which is competitive and stratifying) and stop confusing their respective roles, we will do nothing but endlessly repeat the same "Aristocracy" and "serfs" society which is the default operating mode of the human species. All your arguments come down justifying a status driven "government" in which the "high status" minority is removed from all accountability to the "low status" majority, and thus free to demand whatever "tribute" they can take from low status individuals through any means they wish, up to and including that violence you seem to dislike.

The fact that you cannot realize that you are not advocating ANYTHING NEW, but are simply advocating a return to the "default mode" of status driven behavior which has ALWAYS LED to the WORST TRAVESTIES IN HUMAN HISTORY is simply impossible to fathom. Only the fact that your stances make clear that you ASSUME membership in the ALPHA ELITE status under such conditions enables you to ignore the enormous suffering that will be created by such efforts, because our instincts dictate that we defer to high status, and dismiss low status, so by assuming high status, you can justify any amount of suffering by those of lower status than that which you assume you will be elevated too.

You seek to deny those instincts that favor SURVIVAL which create hierarchal systems of government, in favor of that instinct that favors INDIVIDUAL REPRODUCTION at all costs, History demonstrates that NO SOCIETY that has sought to do so has survived, and that most which go to the extremes you advocate in favor of individual status seeking behavior have deteriorated into violent anarchy in short order, only to be replaced inevitably with a more balanced society.

I neither advocate for TOTAL COLLECTIVISM, nor do I advocate for TOTAL INDIVIDUALISM, I advocate a Balance, in which the government fulfills its function of providing for the five basic NEEDS, and in which the market is unfettered by any chains but those which are attached to the five basic needs. This creates a balance between the instinct of survival and the instinct to reproduce, taming both to the service of humanity, rather than allowing them to be humanities master.

My definition of government is the one provided by a study of reality, and of animal behavior as well as human. It is the spontaneous creation of pack behavior and exists in EVERY COLLECTIVE. Your definition is little more than a demonization of the collective structure intended to absolve high status individuals of their abuse of that structure to enhance personal status. Outside of the specific context of that purpose, it has no validity.

Edited by valkyrie_ice, 05 July 2010 - 11:39 PM.

[valkyrie_ice]

sorry for the double post, minor glitch.

Edited by valkyrie_ice, 05 July 2010 - 11:39 PM.

[JLL]

I stopped reading when you said government is a positive sum game and free markets are a zero sum game. That is incorrect, but I doubt anything will persuade you to acknowledge it.

I'll let others try.

[valkyrie_ice]

I stopped reading when you said government is a positive sum game and free markets are a zero sum game. That is incorrect, but I doubt anything will persuade you to acknowledge it.

I'll let others try.

http://www.futurehea...on-it-away.html

Research results not consistent with your world view? Then you're likely to believe science can't supply all the answers

What do people do when confronted with scientific evidence that challenges their pre-existing view? Often they will try to ignore it, intimidate it, buy it off, sue it for libel or reason it away.

I Illustrated the truth of my statements in non-human species, JLL. Collective behavior, which results in Government, is a positive sum game. Individual status seeking, which is the source of "the Market" is a zero sum game in that all members can only "Win" or "Lose" relative to each other. The "Value" added by the market is zero. The positive gains you THINK are due to the market are not because of the market, but because of the collective division of labor which creates goods that are then hijacked into the "status" game of the Market.

Your entire argument centers around confusing the two behaviors which create societies. Both of these drives do have positive effects, but the main negative effects you oppose are caused by reproductive behaviors that encourage subversion of the collective to enhance personal status. Rather than admit to this, you seek to transpose those behaviors on the drive to survive which encourages organization, sharing, and efficiency.

The "GOVERNMENT HIERARCHY" is not the source of oppression. The "STATUS HIERARCHY" which is not the same thing, even though status may affect who is in the Government Hierarchy, is the source of Oppression. The role of Government is to provide for all members of a society their five basic NEEDS. The role of the Status game is to divide individuals into "High Status" and "Low Status" with violence as a tool for determining and retaining status.

You want to blame "The System" go right ahead, but blame the CORRECT system, rather than defending and enabling the very abuses which you claim to oppose.

If you truly desire a world in which oppression, suffering, misery and violence have come to an end, then you will have to realize that failure to comprehend the basic drives which motivate us, and failure to recognize which drive lies behind which behaviors will only enable those behaviors to run out of control, resulting in the endless cycle of "Aristos" and "serfs" which is the default result of injecting status into government.

[Cameron]

You are right. We are humans, not angels; as for the rest... not so much.

In your preposed world someone is in charge - the idiot voters. I want a world where someone is in charge - the proprety owner. Eliminating death would no more eliminate violence then it would eliminate chocholate and no one believes we can eliminate violence, simply that we would like everyone to view it as immoral. That's not really too much to ask is it?

Violence is a tool of the strong, and always has been (Chomsky). Your propsed method of ridding us of violence is giving authority to a group to be violent? What proposal would you imagine to rid the world of rapists, I wonder?

In a virtual world it is possible to completely eliminate all the effects of violence and all physical threats through human interactions. I believe some(most) advanced societies will change their ways so as to make most if not all interactions through virtual reality. Multiple safety mechanisms would be put in place, and physical bodies would be provided extreme levels of security. All individuals coming into such nations would be disarmed and subject to interactions through special facilities.

These nations would likely acquire highly advanced military capability as a deterrent to other more barbaric societies, if they don't outright subdue these lesser groups to the point were they're no longer a potential threat.

There would be no police in an anarchocapitalist society, not in the manner that they exist today, but I see no reason why private defense contractors could not arise on the market, as people turn to voluntary solutions to the ubiquitous problem of criminal thugs.

Human institutions as vulnerable to the concentration of power and corruption as any other human institution that has ever existed.

As for guns they provide zero defense against the likely future creation of large automated armies.

[valkyrie_ice]

Yes, essentially taxation is theft,

The individual contributes to the collective in exchange for provision of NEEDS by the collective in an exchange which - through division of labor - maximizes the collective's production while minimizing individual effort. The next time you hear a Randian "Libertarian" saying "taxation is theft" think about the sheer number of benefits the average person receives from the various collectives they are a member of. It doesn't matter if it is "tax" or "hours of work" or "physical labor" the individual is contributing "their labor" in exchange for the receiving of NEEDS. Taxation is no more "theft" then a "job" is theft. In both cases you are exchanging a percentage of your "labor" to a Collective in exchange for one or more of your NEEDS being met. For it to be "theft" if would require a one sided exchange, with no benefits returned. If I worked 80 hours for a paycheck and didn't get one that would be theft, if I paid taxes and then was stopped at the end of my driveway and told I couldn't drive on the road my taxes pay for, that would be theft. But since I benefit from that exchange, it is not theft, no matter how they try to twist it.