Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle & Anarchy      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 freethink77
Joined: 12/27/2009
Msg: 1
Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle & AnarchyPage 1 of 2    (1, 2)
This stuff is important... Think about it people (:
please consider carefully what freedom really means ...
I look forward to the discussion!

voluntaryism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

excerpt from Stefan Molynuex's book 'Everyday Anarchy'
(it can be read/listened to at http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx

Now the actual meaning of the word “anarchy” is (from the OED):
1. Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of
the supreme power; political disorder.
2. A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons,
but each individual has absolute liberty (without implication of disorder).

Thus we can see that the word “anarchy” represents two central meanings: an absence of both government and social order, and an absence of government with no implication of social disorder.
Without a government… What does that mean in practice?
Well, clearly there are two kinds of leaders in this world – those who lead by incentive, and those who lead by force. Those who lead by incentive will offer you a salary to come and work for them; those who lead by force will throw you in jail if you do not pick up a gun and fight for them.
Those who lead by incentive will try to get you to voluntarily send your children to their schools by keeping their prices reasonable, their classes stimulating, and demonstrating proven and objective success.
Those who lead by force will simply tell you that if you do not pay the property taxes to fund their schools, you will be thrown in jail.
Clearly, this is the difference between voluntarism and violence.
The word “anarchy” does not mean “no rules.” It does not mean “kill others for fun.” It does not mean “no organization.” It simply means: “without a political leader.”
The difference, of course, between politics and every other area of life is that in politics, if you do not obey the government, you are thrown in jail. If you try to defend yourself against the people who come to throw you in jail, they will shoot you.
So – what does the word “anarchy” really mean? It simply means a way of interacting with others without threatening them with violence if they do not obey. It simply means “without political violence.”

It is scary out there folks... and more people need to take a stand and point out the 'gun in the room' ... I look forward to hearing feedback on this 'taboo topic' ... I will respond to all emails and try to check back in the forums weekly ... Thanks (: Freethink77
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 2
view profile
History
Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle & Anarchy
Posted: 8/8/2011 2:22:46 PM
Sounds like a wonderful existence, which unfortunately requires that all of the inhabitants be highly intelligent, equally educated, with identical biochemical conditions. Without at least all of those conditions, the natural result has always been that humans drift into one or another form of governed society, for the practical reason that hey CAN'T get enough people to play by the unwritten "rules" of justice, fair play, and honorable behavior.
Religions try to accomplish this every day. Most of them HOPE to create a better world, by using people's superstitions and/or belief in magic, to get them to better police themselves voluntarily. They haven't had much luck either. Many of them resort to playing EXCLUSION games, once they accept that they can't get everyone to join up, and then they try to go from there, to setting up independent countries where ONLY believers can live freely.
We have a host of religious groups vying for our loyalty, or fencing us off from them, right now. Hopefully, they will all fail in their attempts to get us to vote their religious beliefs into law, but we'll see.
 itechman63
Joined: 7/7/2005
Msg: 3
view profile
History
Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle & Anarchy
Posted: 8/8/2011 2:26:22 PM
See "Lord of the Flies".
 freethink77
Joined: 12/27/2009
Msg: 4
Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle & Anarchy
Posted: 8/8/2011 7:00:56 PM
IgorFrankensteen:
"Sounds like a wonderful existence, which unfortunately requires that all of the inhabitants be highly intelligent, equally educated, with identical biochemical conditions. Without at least all of those conditions, the natural result has always been that humans drift into one or another form of governed society, for the practical reason that hey CAN'T get enough people to play by the unwritten "rules" of justice, fair play, and honorable behavior."

and so it begins... (;

thank you Igor for your willingness to participate in this discussion..
(btw itech, thanks to you as well for participating, but I have to say that the Lord of the Flies is a story and is NOT a good 'argument' against a free society!! )

I do not have all the answers and I can not predict the future of how everything would work in a stateless society... I do want to try and present these ideas to as many people as I can... The idea of a voluntary society would be a benefit to all people who value freedom and the betterment of this world we share... It is not a unrealistic idea of 'utopia' that I strive for, I know there will be conflict and disagreements as long as there are different opinions and differing views ...I simply ask to not have 'solutions' to problems at the point of a gun...

I find it frustrating to try and go head to head and point by point on every single argument against a free society... this is a good summary of why it can be frustrating to 'argue' or 'debate' with the religious or the statist mentality:

"When I used to listen to a lot of debates with prominent sceptics, it always struck me how easy it was for those promoting the supernatural. The people on the irrational side of the debate could simply make stuff up on the fly, where as the sceptics had to really know the science in depth in order to really explain why their opponents are wrong. They had to be previously aware of the arguments and have an answer prepared. If something comes up that they had no answer prepared for, they are basically stumped and thus lose the debate in the eyes of the audience. The sceptics were limited by their own dedication to accuracy and truth, where their opponents were not. And so often-times they came off as being the ones who had no good answers to their opponent’s pre-prepared rationalisations. An example I can think of is the Michael Shermer vs Kent Hovind debate.
This seems to be a similar phenomenon. It’s easy to throw out knee jerk criticisms, however minor they may be. If your opponent cannot come up with a compelling answer you seemingly win the debate because you’ve stumped them. So it’s really hard to disseminate this sort of information because people have to be aware that your personal incredulity has no bearing on the truth at all. Where most people seem to operate in the mindset that if they can’t be convinced of X then Y must be true by default.
This seems to be the case even if their criticism is pretty inconsequential even if it is true. Like somebody will point out a problem with the free market that even if it cannot be solved it really doesn’t matter that much. Certainly not enough to warrant central planning enforced by statist violence. And if they pepper these minor criticisms in with their others, each one seems to carry the same weight as their strongest point. So even if you can completely decimate their strongest point, but you have no personal knowledge of the facts behind their other nine things they brought up, you seem to lose the debate for having a lack of answers. Even though all of those points may all be pretty negligible anyway even if they’re right.
Debates are tough "
^^^ http://theuklibertarian.com/2011/02/08/why-its-hard-to-debate-statists/

so in response to you Igor, this I will respond with this excerpt...

ANARCHY AND THE “PROBLEM OF THE COMMONS”
Ask almost any professional economist what the role of government is, and he will
generally reply that it is to regulate or solve the “problem of the commons,” and to make up for “market failures,” or the provision of public goods such as roads and water delivery that the free market cannot achieve on its own.
To anyone who works from historical evidence and even a basic smattering of first
principles, this answer is, to be frank, outlandishly unfounded.
The “problem of the commons” is the idea that if farmers share common ground for grazing their sheep, that each farmer has a personal incentive for overgrazing, which will harm everyone in general. Thus the immediate self-interest of each individual leads to a collective stripping of the land.

It only takes a moment’s thought to realize that the government is the worst possible
solution for this problem – if indeed it is a problem.

The problem of the commons recognizes that where collective ownership exists, individual exploitation will inevitably result, since there is no incentive for the long-term maintenance of the productivity of whatever is collectively owned. A farmer takes good care of his own fields, because he wants to profit from their utilization in the future. In fact, ownership
tends to accrue to those individuals who can make the most productive future use of an
asset, since they are the ones able to bid the most when it comes up for sale. If I can make $10,000 a year more out of a patch of land than you can, then I will be willing to bid more for it, and thus will end up owning it.

Thus where there is no stake in future profitability – as in the case of publicly-owned
resources – those resources inevitably tend to be pillaged and destroyed.
This is the situation that highly intelligent, well-educated people – with perfectly straight faces – say should be solved through the creation of a government.
Why is this such a bizarre solution?

Well, a government – and particularly the public treasury – is the ultimate publicly-owned good. If publicly-owned goods are always pillaged and exploited, then how is the creation of the largest and most violent publicly-owned good supposed to solve that problem? It’s like saying that exposure to sunlight can be dangerous for a person’s health, and so the solution
to that problem is to throw people into the sun.

The fact that people can repeat these absurdities with perfectly straight faces is testament to the power of propaganda and self-interest.

In the same way, we are told that free-market monopolies are dangerous and exploitive.
Companies that wish to voluntarily do business with us, and must appeal to our selfinterest, to mutual advantage, are considered grave threats to our personal freedoms.
And – the solution that is proposed by almost everyone to the “problem” of voluntary
economic interaction?
Well, since voluntary and peaceful “monopolies” are so terribly evil, the solution that is
always proposed is to create an involuntary, coercive, and violent monopoly in the form of a government.
^^^from 'Everyday Anarchy'

I have explored these ideas quite a bit and rather than try to put it in my own words, I will continue to reply with the simplest best way that i have found to put it... with source material that I credit to the author...

what I'm drawing from as resource so far in this post mostly comes from the book Everyday Anarchy by Stefan Molynuex

...Igor, I really hope you will take the time to explore these ideas with an open mind ...I invite you to read the 65 page book that I quoted from ...

Thanks to all who are willing to participate in the discussion (and also to those willing to read this forum and explore these ideas.

Freethink77 (:
 freethink77
Joined: 12/27/2009
Msg: 5
Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle & Anarchy
Posted: 8/9/2011 8:11:12 AM
I've finished the 'Everyday Anarchy' book and am next going to start 'Practical Anarchism' I hope to discuss it here on the forums...

Hope to not just be talking to myself here or 'preaching to the choir' as it were... Like I said at the start of this post, this stuff is important not just to me, but also should be important to ANYONE who really wants to be free !!!

towards the end of 'Everyday Anarchy' is this :

"...The reason that I’m talking about these kinds of calculations is that we all face this choice in life when we are presented with a startling and unforeseen argument that we cannot dismantle. Our truly brilliant ability to process cost/benefit scenarios immediately kicks out a series of syllogisms such as the following:
• Anarchist arguments are valid BUT…
• I will never have any influence on the elimination of the state in my lifetime;
• I will alienate, frustrate and bewilder those around me by bringing these arguments
up;
• I will not have any influence on the thinking of those around me;
• If people have to choose between the truth that I bring and their own illusions, they
will ditch both me and the truth without as much as a backward glance.
• Thus I will have alienated myself from those around me, for the sake of a goal I can
never achieve.
These sorts of calculations flash rapidly through our minds, resulting in an irritation
towards the arguments that can never be directly expressed, and fear of any further
examination of the truth of one’s social and professional relations.....
.....Society “survives” by accepting a fairly rigid set of unquestionable axioms. If people start poking around at the root of those axioms, they are first ignored, then attacked, then isolated. Individuals have almost no ability to overturn these core axioms within their own lifetimes – and thus it takes a somewhat “irrational” dedication to truth and reason to take this course."

My “irrational” dedication to truth and reason is why I am (for some strange reason), a bit optimistic... hope to hear from you!!!
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 6
Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle & Anarchy
Posted: 8/9/2011 2:36:40 PM
People should check out Stefan's Youtube channel if they're really interested.

http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot

It's unfortunate, but not surprising, that our media and schools have left people with the impression that anarchy means chaos. That the riots in London are an example of anarchy. That the Sex Pistols were anarchist philosophers.

Humans are social creatures. When left to our own devices, free from oligarchs with a monopoly on the use of force, we don't suddenly turn into psychotic killing machines. If that were the case humanity would have gone extinct 100,000 years ago.

There are lots of resources on historical anarchist states freely available on the net. I'll briefly mention a few:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer
http://mises.org/daily/2066
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people
 freethink77
Joined: 12/27/2009
Msg: 7
Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle & Anarchy
Posted: 8/9/2011 10:01:52 PM
CountIbli: "calling the riots in London are an example of anarchy. "

yeah exactly... I heard that comment today too... irritated me ...i just had chance to google the reason or start of it :

*****
THE NIGHTTIME riots in London in recent days have followed an old pattern in which long-simmering resentments suddenly boil over into violence. Yet the riots in London have a new dimension: Rather than waning on their own, they’ve grown more furious and more widespread, and for a unique reason: social media.
While Facebook and Twitter were crucial tools for the protesters of the Arab Spring, these media have also been used to accelerate widespread looting and other forms of chaos in London. In most Western countries, even poor and disaffected young people have Internet-capable cellphones that they can use to coordinate their activities, for good or ill. While the world hailed the copycats of the Middle East- how the citizens of one country after another emulated each other in peaceful protest- the dark side of such instant communication is that rioters can coordinate and assemble large groups of people in previously peaceful parts of the city.
The police shooting that sparked the riots was, at best, a questionable act that should be investigated fully. But the mass looting has quickly become disconnected from any sense of protest; the dispiriting video footage coming out of London suggests a formless anger, a commitment to rioting for its own sake.
Facebook is a means of communication, not necessarily a force for good. As these contrasting events in Tottenham and Tahrir Square show, the method in which a message is conveyed is still far less important than its content.
from : http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2011/08/10/trouble_spreads_on_facebook/
******
" The unrest began after a protest over the fatal shooting by police of 29-year-old Mark Duggan on Thursday.
About 300 people gathered outside the police station on the High Road after demonstrators demanded "justice". "
from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14434318
******

if it started with a murder of someone, by a guy in a costume calling him self authority....
...., oops I mean 'police officer' who did the 'questionable act' that 'should be investigated fully'.... ,

...and they started wrecking things to act out their anger/hurt/fear ....

...why go after the neighborhood/property of others in their community and 'rioting for its own sake'?

....to window breakers/looters : Why the hell didn't you go for destruction of courthouses or government buildings or things of that nature? ... if you started by protesting government, wouldn't that had been a better act of protest? and made more of a statement?

I as an a voluntaryist, I dont' advocate 'violent overthrow' ... and/or destruction/vandalism etc....
(wiki: a philosophy according to which all forms of human association should be voluntary as far as possible. Consequently, voluntaryism opposes the initiation of aggressive force or coercion. The word 'initiation' is used here to make clear that voluntaryism does not oppose self-defense.)

....so I dont think a 'violent overthrow' is any kind of solution

BUT.. if yur gonna start destroying stuff regardless, why not use Facebook as a means of communication as a force for actually saying something effective... maybe encouraging others to go after more govt targets since thats who you are pissed at?


yeah CountIbli .....this was definitely NOT anarchy....

"It's unfortunate, but not surprising, that our media and schools have left people with the impression that anarchy means chaos. "
what can you expect with the indoctrination daycamps most of us are put forcibly through for 12+ of of young lives? I highly recommend checking out a podcast....

" s c h o o l s u c k s ?
In my 10+ years of teaching, "school sucks" is perhaps the most common phrase I've heard students use to describe their feelings about public education. But this seemingly bitter and reductive slogan is actually quite clever. When taken literally, "school sucks" is perhaps the most accurate and astute synopsis of the system I've ever heard. Here's why...
-----1. The twelve-year process of an American public education has a dramatic effect on the mind of a child. When we first enter school at age six, many of our best personal attributes are already in place. We are curious, innovative, unique, creative and hopeful in ways that we will rarely be able to replicate throughout the rest of our lives. But over time, school sucks those essential attributes out of too many of us...and replaces them with predictability, obedience and apathy.
-----2. The public school system sucks off the productive capacity of hard-working people. The system is funded through taxation. In other words, whether public education succeeds or fails (spoiler alert: it fails) at providing real education to the public, the cost goes up every year. There are no refunds."
-Brett Veinotte, host of schoolsucks podcast @ http://edu-lu-tion.com/
t h e s c h o o l s u c k s p r o j e c t EDUCATION EVOLUTION

Hope to hear more from people that have chimed in here as well as anyone reading this post now that has questions /comments...
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle & Anarchy
Posted: 8/10/2011 4:59:32 AM
The trouble is still, that behaving with rational self-interest is NOT a sufficiently common human trait. I am an Historian, among many other things, and I always LIKED the idea of a government-free existence, but I have seen again and again, both in the Macro world, and in small local instances, that enlightened self interest just doesn't work in the long run.
It's effectively identical to the idea of an enlightened despot government.

Yes, some small groups of farmers here and there, all of whom have years and possibly generations of farm knowledge that cause them to behave in a coordinated fashion, MIGHT be able to live peacefully and prosperously for a good long time.

The trouble is even there, that CHANGE happens in the world. Many such farm communities WERE fine, as long as farming itself didn't change. When SOME farmers discovered they could increase yields through the use of fertilizers, they did it. They only discovered later that they accidentally poisoned their own water supply, and once they DID learn that, their first urge wasn't to STOP fertilizing and let the ecology heal itself, it was instead to do the usual human thing: they came up with a NEW fix for the new problem. That "fix," for some farmers, was to look at the neighbors and say "hey, I'm fine, because I'm upstream from you. Maybe you should get out of the business of using water for your cows."

So the farmers created GOVERNMENT, over again.

[By the way, another historical observation is, that when a community of farmers DID manage to generate wealth and comfort through cooperation, some lazier neighboring communities decided to take a short cut to wealth, by using THEIR skills as warriors, to enslave the farmers. The farmers response to that too, was to create a government and an army to defend them. You can't BOTH run a farm, AND be a full time soldier, after all.]
What you've done with what you quoted and said, is to prove MY point all over again. The kind of government-free world you are talking about, requires ALL of it's participants to be VERY highly educated, and all on the same page all of the time. That HAS never happened in the world, and is unlikely to, without lots of DNA manipulation that we are no where NEAR being able to carry out.

I agree about the misuse of the word Anarchy, by the way. It doesn't really matter for the most part, since true Anarchy CAN'T happen, as I've said. But it is a shame that the prejudices and fears of most folks are being manipulated by the powerful few this way, to keep them from realizing that we really DON'T need the powerful few, or at least this particular powerful few, to be running our lives as they do.
 freethink77
Joined: 12/27/2009
Msg: 9
Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle & Anarchy
Posted: 8/10/2011 2:26:31 PM
" The kind of government-free world you are talking about, requires ALL of it's participants to be VERY highly educated, and all on the same page all of the time. That HAS never happened in the world, and is unlikely to, without lots of DNA manipulation that we are no where NEAR being able to carry out. "

I see the point you are making...I agree that most people do not want to think about these things and most have been indoctrinated very deeply and for so long, that they want to continue their existence 'just the way it is' ... this happens in people that are older mostly ...the reason is that they have so much invested already in 'the system'(social security for example) at least that is what i have discovered in my conversations and research

I do not agree however that this is because people are all needing 'very high levels of education' or that everyone needs to be on the same page about everything all at once to have a voluntary society work... nor do we need to mess with dna to make this happen genetically somehow...

I think the best approach is 'get em while they are young' ... like religions and what the state does with the govt schools... but with a much moral positive goals in mind not ones of control and power
....schoolsuckspodcast is a good example... if jr high and hs age kids are absorbing this stuff and sharing with their friends... word can spread... i know it is a HUGE thing to ask... having a voluntary society in my life time... but i really think we can do it better if these ideas are not shot down so easily... especially by people like your self Igor, who seem to have at least some understanding of this stuff... it is big, i know... and it probably wont happen in your lifetime but at least give these ideas a chance without automatically resorting to 'it cant be done' ...'it is impossible to get folks all thinking like that' and the like...

I invite you to veiw this series of 5 videos on youtube :
Brett Veinotte-The Catastrophe of Conventional Wisdom (1/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKgrVJyWa8g

let me know what you think , thanks, ttysoon...freethink77
 drifter73
Joined: 6/15/2011
Msg: 10
Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle & Anarchy
Posted: 8/10/2011 5:08:36 PM
Anarchy is the advocation of absence of a state, debating that human nature would allow individuals to gather in agreement to form a democratic society that allows participants to freely develop their unique sense of morality, ethics or guideline behavior. Some combination forms of anarchy, such as anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism not only seek rejection of the state, but also other systems that are perceive as authoritarian, including capitalism, capitalist markets, and title-based property ownership. The opposing political stance known as free-market anarchy, contemporary individualism anarchy or anarcho-capitalism, debates that a society without a state is a free market capitalist system that is voluntary in nature.

The word "anarchy" is often used by non-anarchists as a negative term, to invoke the thought of lacking control or a chaotic society. Anarchists still debate that anarchy does not and has never implied nihilism, anomie, or the total absence of rules, but instead an anti-statist society that is based on the random order of free people in autonomous communities.

With that said, I can see some potential in regression of societies to reach a harmonious state of neutral anarchism. I say regression because it's quite obvious that some current progressive technologically advanced social groups that are co-dependent on current legislation's and fear for their lives without organized / governed policing will not willingly surrender their comfort zones.

(Some see true Anarchy like the wild West, but without a sheriff in town)

neutral Anarchism itself can take society back in time to a barter system of peaceful trade and help eliminate economical power control.

But I think we have to first establish the type of anarchism before we can move forward with an all out anarchy solution. Are we talking anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, free-market anarchy, contemporary individualism anarchy, anarcho-capitalism, or neutral anarchism?

I suppose I just don't see a majority being to quick to volunteer their current cloaks of protection for a anarchist based solution that would more than likly cut all funding for security of the nation and it's local law enforcement programs. (Again, think wild wild west)

Maybe the first step is to develop an anarchist colony that is off the grid and thriving successfully to help convince others to convert. (Sounds kinda Amish, I know) lol
 freethink77
Joined: 12/27/2009
Msg: 11
what kind of anarchist are you?
Posted: 8/10/2011 5:46:25 PM
'what type of anarchy'
short answer based on quiz: i guess im an Anarcho-Capitalist ...???

I wouldn't get too caught up on the whole labels thing....feck the 'schools of thought', read the literature available, watch videos, listen to podcasts and above all else
THINK FOR YOURSELF !!!

I would highly suggest taking this quiz if you are interested in what kind of anarchist you are...
http://quizfarm.com/quizzes/new/biffothebear/what-kind-of-anarchist-are-you/

I personally havn't given a lot of effort into categorizing myself into a particular type of anarchist...
I DO know that I'm definitely not a 'minarchist' or a
'Libertarian'( big L = party affiliated)

I would highly suggest taking this quiz if you are interested in what kind of anarchist you are...
http://quizfarm.com/quizzes/new/biffothebear/what-kind-of-anarchist-are-you/

im gonna take it now...i'll post my type when I find out what it is...
***
ok ...here are my results based on the 30 questions i answered
(score based on a 1-5 range, agree-disagree, allowing completely neutral answers)

" You Scored as Anarcho-Capitalist
Anarcho-capitalism is perhaps more closely linked the libertarian tradition than anarchism as it favours a free market and a stateless society. Private businesses would replace the functions of the state. This form of anarchism is largely an American phenomenon and first emerged in the 1950s (although it arguably has its roots in 19th century individualist anarchism and classical liberalism). Key thinkers include Murray Rothbard."

Anarcho-Capitalist 85% Anarcha-Feminist 45%
Anarcho-Syndicalist 35% Anarcho-Primitivist 35%
Christian Anarchist 30% Anarcho-Communist 25%
im thinking these percentages are of who has taken the quiz so far...

I look forward to the continuing discussion!!!
 freethink77
Joined: 12/27/2009
Msg: 12
what kind of anarchist are you?
Posted: 8/10/2011 5:50:18 PM
oops double copypasted two lines of type... apparently you cant edit your own post exept when you are the thread creator...and then only within 15 min... oh well poop happens!
 drifter73
Joined: 6/15/2011
Msg: 13
what kind of anarchist are you?
Posted: 8/10/2011 6:03:16 PM
I just took that quiz myself and the results were:

Anarcho-Syndicalism is the anarchist wing of the labour movement. Syndicalists believe in workers' solidarity, self-management and direct action. This movement is most commonly associated with France and key thinkers include Rudolf Rocker.

I tend to agree with the assessment it provided.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 14
view profile
History
what kind of anarchist are you?
Posted: 8/10/2011 8:35:55 PM
Coincidentally, my youngest son came in yesterday, and was venting to the effect that he thought the world would be better off if we broke ALL of the nations into smaller units, each of which would be designed to be self-sufficient.

I thought it was another nice idea in many ways, despite again being entirely fantasy, and despite that I know that historically, such situations have not lasted in the past. It is quite possible that some factors HAVE changed through time, such that conquest would NOT be attempted again. It's possible that with enough instant communication, that we really COULD have a different planet than we have had.

My ongoing worries, come from seeing how often LOCAL majorities have committed nasty acts against their own minorities, and are doing so even as I type, all over the world.

But again, I do like the idea of finding a way OTHER than what we have at the moment in the U.S., which is a hegemony of the rich and powerful, aided by the deluded and angry.
 drifter73
Joined: 6/15/2011
Msg: 15
what kind of anarchist are you?
Posted: 8/10/2011 10:51:36 PM
My ongoing worries, come from seeing how often LOCAL majorities have committed nasty acts against their own minorities, and are doing so even as I type, all over the world.

I totally agree here, it seems that society as a hole has violence in their biological make-up somewhere. We could blame the government for making laws that allow them to rape anything monetary from it's people, We could blame the justice system itself for loopholes it seems only the richest clients can find as well as the flawed rehabilitation, We could also blame society itself for allowing such systems and government officials to be elected into office, and finally, we could blame our self for not taking a more active roll in modeling other peoples lives.

No matter what or who we blame though, it won't change the psychological and physical damage being done every 5 seconds in the world. Once a train picks up speed and that momentum builds up behind it (especially on a downhill slope), the task of stopping it becomes almost impossible (but not improbable).

Even if we were able to get a good starting point, say 13 states converted to a new social system (I use "social system" loosely just to refer to a non-violent anarchist rule), you would still have the violent trafficking coming in from other states that now see the 13 as easy targets with weakened defenses.. Heck, while we are at it, even if a whole country declared world peace & destroyed their weapons of violence, it wouldn't be very long before another country with the same human violent traits invade and re-establish a working government again (By force).

Sometimes the only way to combat violence is with violence (If you want to survive), the downside is that by teaching violence to combat with, you continue to fuel the disorder.

I'm not sure what the solution is either, but I know that if only one party throws down their defenses, another party will exploit it.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 16
Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle & Anarchy
Posted: 8/11/2011 11:44:48 AM
"But I think we have to first establish the type of anarchism before we can move forward with an all out anarchy solution. Are we talking anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, free-market anarchy, contemporary individualism anarchy, anarcho-capitalism, or neutral anarchism?"

I wouldn't be a very good anarchist if I forced you to become an anarcho-capitalist, for example. As long as you don't try to force your anarcho-syndicalism on me we anarchists can all get along fine. The people we need to worry about are those who would initiate force against us to establish their state (as all states must).
 freethink77
Joined: 12/27/2009
Msg: 17
Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle & Anarchy
Posted: 8/11/2011 4:42:00 PM
DRIFTER :
1. " it seems that society as a hole has violence in their biological make-up somewhere."

2. "Even if we were able to get a good starting point, say 13 states converted to a new social system (I use "social system" loosely just to refer to a non-violent anarchist rule"

3. " it wouldn't be very long before another country with the same human violent traits invade and re-establish a working government again (By force)."

4. "Sometimes the only way to combat violence is with violence (If you want to survive), the downside is that by teaching violence to combat with, you continue to fuel the disorder."

5. "I know that if only one party throws down their defenses, another party will exploit it."

IGORFRANKENSTEEN:
1. "The trouble is still, that behaving with rational self-interest is NOT a sufficiently common human trait. I am an Historian, among many other things, and I always LIKED the idea of a government-free existence, but I have seen again and again, both in the Macro world, and in small local instances, that enlightened self interest just doesn't work in the long run. It's effectively identical to the idea of an enlightened despot government."

2. It is quite possible that some factors HAVE changed through time, such that conquest would NOT be attempted again. It's possible that with enough instant communication, that we really COULD have a different planet than we have had. ......
......But again, I do like the idea of finding a way OTHER than what we have at the moment in the U.S., which is a hegemony of the rich and powerful, aided by the deluded and angry."

To address 'human nature':
I do not believe
that human beings are either innately good, or innately evil. I take a very conservative and majority
view, which is that human beings respond to incentives, which also happens to be the basis for the
discipline of economics. Human beings are not innately corrupt, but they will inevitably be
corrupted by power. Most people will respond to situations and circumstances in a way that
maximizes their advantage, not explicitly at the expense of others, though that can happen of
course, but we are biological as well as moral beings, and there are very few people who will
sacrifice the safety and security of their family in order to follow some abstract moral principle.
When human beings are forced to choose between virtue and necessity, they will in general choose
necessity, and will then rework their definition of virtue to justify their own actions.

To address jumping to... 'it cant be done, it's never been done before!' ...as an argument against anarchy:
Surely the communicative power of the Internet has removed significant barriers to freedom of selfexpression
and the exchange of information, to the point where we no longer need to sit back when
an institution fails to serve us, but rather we can very quickly and effectively work to bring about
change in our political system.
It also seems very alarming for us to take the enormous risk of getting rid of a government. Such a
radical step has never been taken before as part of a conscious philosophical program.
Governments have collapsed, of course – and we can only look at the example of Somalia to see the
infighting and warlords that can arise from such a situation – and governments have been taken
over, either internally or externally – but there is no example in history of consciously dismantling a
State without any goal of replacing it. Does it seem sensible to go directly against the entire
collective history of our species, and throw out an essential human institution that has been around
as long as we have? Other radical “reorganizations” of human society have resulted in endless
slaughter, chaos, war, and the staggering disorientation of children raised without families, of
rampant polygamy, communal “ownership” and so on. It does seem to be a particular curse of our
species that every generation or two, some new idea comes along which aims to overthrow the
entire history of human interaction, and replace the controlled hurly-burly of a State-managed free
market with something like fascism, socialism or communism. Then, some other wild-eyed rebel
comes along and decries that, “family is dictatorship,” and attempts to undermine and destroy that
most essential component of social life, the nuclear family. Then someone else comes along and
says, “Property is theft!” and the cycle just seems to start all over again.

To address 'history' and jumping immediately to the IMpossibilities rather than what is possible:

STATISM AND ISOLATION
There is something about statism, some aspect of it, which profoundly isolates us from our fellow
citizens. We turn from animated problem-solvers to mindless defenders of the status quo. As an
example, I offer up the inevitable response I receive when I provide an anarchic solution to an
existing State function. When I say that theoretical entities called Dispute Resolution Organizations
(DROs) could enforce contracts and protect property, the immediate response is that these DROs
will inevitably evolve into a single monopoly that will end up recreating the State that they were
supposed to replace.
Or, when I talk about private roads, I inevitably hear the argument that someone could just build a
road in a ring around your land and charge you a million dollars every time you wanted to cross it.
Or, when I talk about private defense agencies that can be used to protect a geographical region
from invasion, I am promptly informed that those private agencies will simply turn their guns on
their subscribers, take them over, and create a new State.
Or, when I discuss the power of economic ostracism as a tool for maintaining order and conformity
to basic social and economic rules, I am immediately told that people will be “marked for exclusion”
unless they pay hefty bribes to whatever agencies control such information.
It is the same story, over and over – an anarchic solution is provided, and an immediate “disaster
scenario” is put forward without thought, without reflection, and without curiosity.
Of course, I am not bothered by the fact that people are critical of a new and volatile theory – I think
that is an essential process for any new idea.
What does concern me is the fundamental lack of reciprocity in the minds of the people who
thoughtlessly reject creative solutions to trenchant problems.
I don’t mean reciprocity with regards to me – though that is surely lacking as well – but rather with
regards to any form of authority or influence in general.
For instance, if people in a geographical region want to contract with an agency or group of
agencies for the sake of collective defense, what is the greatest fear that will be first and foremost in
their minds?
Naturally, it will be that some defense agency will take their money, buy a bunch of weapons, and
promptly enslave them.
How does a free society solve this problem? Well, if there is a market need or demand for collective
defense, a number of firms will vie for the business, since it will be so lucrative in the long term. The
economic efficiency of having a majority of subscribers would drive the price of such defense down
– however, the more people that you enroll in such a contract, the greater everyone’s fear will be
that this defense agency will attempt to become a government of some kind.
Thus no entrepreneur will be able to sell this service in the most economically efficient manner if he
does not directly and credibly address the fear that he will attempt to create a new government.
We are so used to being on the one-sided receiving end of dictatorial edicts from those in power –
whether they are parents, teachers, or government officials, that the very idea that someone is
going to have to woo our trust is almost incomprehensible. “If I am afraid of something that
someone wants to sell me, then it is up to that person to calm my fears if he wants my business” –
this is so far from our existing ways of dealing with statist authority that we might as well be
inventing a new planet...... we
are essentially talking about two sides of a negotiation table.
When it comes to government as it is – and all that government ever could be – we are never really
talking about two sides of the table. You get a letter in the mail informing you that your property
taxes are going to increase 5% – there is no negotiation; no one offers you an alternative; your
opinion is not consulted beforehand, and your approval is not required afterwards, because if you
do not pay the increased tax, you will, after a fairly lengthy sequence of letters and phone calls, end
up without a house.
It is certainly true that your local cable company may also send you a notice that they’re going to
increase their charges by 5%, but that is still a negotiation! You can switch to satellite, or give up on
cable and rent DVDs of movies or television shows, or reduce some of the extra features that you
have, or just decide to get rid of your television and read and talk instead.
None of these options are available with the government – with the government, you either pay
them, give up your house, go to jail, or move to some other country, where the exact same process
will start all over again.
(the above sections of text are from 'practical anarchy')
I have copy pasted a lot of Stefan Molyneux's work on this thread work... I want to give credit where credit is due...
He has a way of putting things that really have helped me talk about these voluntaryist ideas with people...

I am really exited about the possibilities of a voluntary society in my lifetime...
I am passionate about my newfound outlook on anarchy and what it REALLY means...
I gotta say though... before anyone makes a crack about it ...
I am NOT trying to form a cult and worship stefan molyneux as a god!!
jussayin... im reveiwing the overall thread and i want to put my voice/opinion out there on this stuff... but...it is easier to paste in some things occasionally .
and because these ideas are so new to most people, some of these chunks of explanation are a page long!
I want to continue to encourage people to read a whole book on it if at all possible ...everyday anarchy is only 65 pages and practical anarchy is 143pages
Im enjoying the discussion...keep it coming people!! tty soon (: Freethink77
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 18
Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle & Anarchy
Posted: 8/11/2011 10:14:28 PM
"Government is inevitable and necessary. Only its extent can be constrained."

For 90% of the time man has been on this planet there were no governments. Government is an unnecessary evil.

"In order for this discussion to progress honestly we might consider talking about how government can be restrained to apply a historical education to correcting mistakes within the system for the future. Might the founding fathers, here in the US, have added something to the Consitution preventing such abuse?"

Yeah, they put in the 2nd Amendment. We see how well that's worked.

"Government is necessary to progress, without it I will rob the shit out of you... and I am not alone."

Interestingly we find:

1) Governments have not been successful at eliminating robbery. In the vast majority of cases they arrive well after the robbery has occurred and usually don't catch the thieves.

2) Thievery has not become a huge problem in anarchies that have existed in historical times. As far as I've been able to determine (and I admittedly need to do much more research) anarchies in historical times have collapsed not from failures from within but from the failure to defend against military encroachment from states.

3) All taxation is theft. Everywhere that the state exists theft necessarily exists on a massive scale. The US government, for example, steals over $2 trillion from the America people every year. That scale of theft is unthinkable in an anarchy.

Finally, I wonder how long you would survive as a thief in a well armed population. Without the state to protect us (which it does a very poor job of; when seconds count the police are only minutes away) or prevent us from protecting ourselves, being a thief will be a very dangerous profession. Are you willing to bet your life that I'm unarmed? Or that I'll have any moral qualms about shooting you in the face?
 martian soup101
Joined: 3/21/2009
Msg: 19
Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle & Anarchy
Posted: 8/13/2011 12:56:14 PM
I didnt have much of a political view either way until I started work at a place where my boss watches a lot of the politics shows and it creeped into my subconscious. I doubt that regardless of the situation, be it a hyarchy, socialist society, dictatatorship or if aliens came from space to govern us stupid primates, theres always going to be someone in some sort of power with a bug up his ass and plenty of people to blindly follow him.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 20
Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle & Anarchy
Posted: 8/13/2011 3:51:31 PM
"Well, at least you have given me pause to consider where I might begin; no mean feat. I guess we'll just go point by point, in reciprocal fashion."

Fair enough. This could result in some long posts so I'll try to stick to the major points. If there's something that I skip but you feel is an important point then just let me know and I'll address it.

"Your math is either really, really bad or we are not counting the same things. Modern humans have been on Earth for about 200,000 years, give or take. As early as 160,000 years ago there is evidence of ritual performed by these early humans. This means, rudimentally speaking, that there was a system and an order for things. While neither you, nor I, can speak specifically to what that system or order might have been it seems like that the tribe-type would have dominated this period of our existance and it is unlikely that such a tribe would have taken the form(s) suggested by either voluntaryism or ararchism."

We're probably counting different things here (I was assuming that humans have been around for 100,000 years, but that might be an obsolete number). More important than the number of years is what is meant by anarchy. Anarchy is not the same as disorder. Orderly society certainly predates man's existence. All animal societies have order. For example, Bonobo chimps resolve disputes with sex. Up until the neolithic revolution mankind lived in hunter-gatherer societies and as near as I can tell there's no evidence for the state before then.

"To find a fair comparison, you would need to go back about 2000 years, from which time to today governments have existed in many forms and varieties, far too numerous to name; but that they have existed has been consistent."

Functioning anarchies have existed in the past 2000 years though. Early 20th century Ukraine and mid-20th century Spain are good examples. Certainly it's fair to say that they have collapsed, but then again so have many governments.

"The second amendment was never incorporated to the states. In effect, it is a right that no US citizen holds except against the federal government, where it has worked well enough."

I'm not sure that's entirely true though. Unlike the 1st Amendment Congress, or the federal government in general, isn't mentioned at all. The right the keep and bear arms, is given to the people. Couple that with the 10th Amendment (and the 14th for that matter) and a case could be made that the states are bound by the 2nd Amendment.

"This, however, is besides the point since most citizens are under the direct jurisdiction of their state in the first case, which is not required to recognize the 2nd Amendment in any way. This is a matter of Constitutional law which the Supreme Court is currently correctly. The doctrine of stare decisis has caused review of the conclusions drawn by US v. Miller (the only real 2nd Amendment case to make it to the Supreme Court, excluding very recent arrivals) to be unbearably delayed."

There's an interesting point in the Miller decision that often gets ignored. The reason why a sawed-off shotgun was considered exempt from the 2nd Amendment was because it is not a weapon typically used in military contexts. If we took that point to its logical conclusion we'd all be able to own surface-to-air missiles.

"Can you suggest a way that the 2nd Amendment might have been better worded in order to avoid the "confusion" that ensued? Or, alternatively, perhaps your opinion is that the 2nd Amendment is wholly unsuited to its purpose. In which case, do you suggest an alternative?"

The part that says "A well-regulated militia" has always been a problem. I don't think the meaning is confusing, but it's been latched onto by the gun grabbers. So in hindsight that was bad wording. Ultimately, though, a piece of paper is never very good protection. Regardless of how it's worded there will be people clever enough to argue that it doesn't mean what it says (c.f. "Commerce Clause" which is now interpreted to mean that non-interstate non-commerce is interstate commerce).

"However, the glaring failure in your surmise is to suggest that the measure for success is the elimination of the undesirable behavior."

Bad wording on my part I suppose. I didn't mean to suggest that we should compare government (or the lack of it) to Utopia. Everything fails when compared to an unrealizable ideal.

"How do you think crime rates stand up between the US and Somolia, arguably the most lawless nation on Earth?"

Somalia has no crime because it has no laws

In truth there are no statistics for things like theft and murder for Somalia so we really don't know if crime rates are higher (and crime rates in America are pretty high compared to the rest of the world). But I invite you to read this paper which compares Somalia before and after the collapse on the state for all data that exists pre- and post-collapse.

http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf

On 18 measures of societal health (e.g. access to water, access to sanitation, infant mortality) post-collapse fares better on 14 and 1 unchanged than pre-collapse. One of the measures, GDP, is uncertain because the numbers may have been inflated during the Barre regime.

"Let's take a moment to smile and remember - this is where many modern day pirates come from. I mean, ****ing pirates!"

Arrr, don't be dissin' no pirates ye grog-snarfing bilge-rat!

Piracy exists elsewhere of course, and has for thousands of years. I understand it's especially bad off the coasts of Asia. In the early 19th century the Chinese pirate Zheng Yi had 10,000 pirates under his command. Somali pirates are puny in comparison.

It's also instructive to look at the origin of modern day Somali pirates. Somali piracy arose from independent fisherman as a response to two problems in Somali waters. First, European and Asian ships would over-fish the waters. Since the rise of the pirates these waters are now making a comeback (contrast that to other African nations with governments who still have a problem with foreigners over-fishing their waters). Second, European and Asian ships used Somali waters to dump toxic waste. Somalis have been complaining about this for 20 years. In 2004 the country was hit with a tsunami which washed ashore rusting containers of toxic waste. Up until a few months ago none of the people Somali pirates had kidnapped were killed. It wasn't until Navy Seals raided a vessel a few months ago that any people were killed.

If the pirates seem evil, keep in mind that every country on the planet will seize boats and arrest people who illegal enter their waters. Just a few months ago the Israeli government boarded and violently seized a ship carry humanitarian aid to Palestinians. The Somali pirates are qualitatively no different from any other navy or coast guard.

"The establishment of modern government is sufficio to the end of disuading most crime. I think this concept stands on its own merit, but if you really need me to prove it, say so, and I'll spend 4-5 paragraphs doing so, just for fun."

I'd be interested in seeing statistics for this.

"Right. My friends and I will be coming from the outside, to the inside, and encroaching the shit out of your society. Military encroachment = imperialism = grand larceny on a grand scale. Incidentally, this sort of thing is yet another reason why voluntaryism and anarchism don't work. However, to completely list the reasons Igor and I would need coffee, hookers, 5 hour-energy and a helluva lot more space than whatever these posts are limited too."

Sounds fun. I'll supply the coffee and 5 hour-energy if you supply the hookers. BTW, how long do imperialistic societies last? Is it better to live under the rule of imperial governments (look at the mess England made of the world) than under no government at all?

"Oh, and those security forces for hire that would spring up to fill the need? Yeah, I own ten of them. You guess which ten."

Wow, you must have a lot of money. How long before those 10 security agencies decide they want it all? You're a much bigger fish than I. Guess who's going to get fried first.
 freethink77
Joined: 12/27/2009
Msg: 21
Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle & Anarchy
Posted: 8/15/2011 10:10:59 PM
wow... lot of text there to sort through... I will do my best to respond thoroughly and efficiently.... also... thanks for the source/reference list!!


-----The further removed we became from the cave, and the need to knock each other over the head with big sticks, the more rational our chosen form of government has become.
I do not feel that government is a 'rational' choice at all. Through no choice of my own, I passed through a birth canal and wound up here... I did not choose to be ruled over, controlled... some people say we are born into a 'social contract' "The justification for a government – particularly a democratic government – is really
founded upon the idea of a “social contract.” Because we happen to be born in a particular geographical location, we “owe” the government our allegiance, time, energy and money for the rest of our lives, or as long as we stay. This “contract” is open to renegotiation, insofar as we can decide to alter the government by getting involved in the political process – or, we can leave the country, just as we can leave a marriage or place of employment. This
argument – which goes back to Socrates – is based upon an implied contract that remains in force as long as we ourselves remain within the geographical area ruled over by the government.
However, this idea of the “social contract” fails such an elemental test that it is only
testament to the power of propaganda that it has lasted as a credible narrative for over
2,000 years.
Children cannot enter into contracts – and adults cannot have contracts imposed upon
them against their will. Thus being born in a particular location does not create any
contract, since it takes a lunatic or a Catholic to believe that obligations accrue to a
newborn squalling baby.
Thus children cannot be subjected to – or be responsible for – any form of implicit social contract.
Adults, on the other hand, must be able to choose which contracts they enter into – if they cannot, there is no differentiation between imposing a contract on a child, and imposing a contract on an adult. I cannot say that implicit contracts are invalid for children, but then they magically become automatically valid when the child turns 18, and bind the adult thereby." pg 42 in everyday anarchy

"In the past, society was so poor that the aristocracy had to be hereditary in order to maintain its economic wealth – this is no longer the case, due to the massive productivity increases of the relatively free market. Now, a successful politician can easily gather enough wealth to last several generations – or forever if handled
wisely – in just a few terms. This has allowed for the development of the illusion that the tax livestock control something we call “democracy.”" pg 9 of The Handbook of Human Ownership: A Manual for New Tax Farmers




----(((Today, man still needs the state. Man needs the state because he has not evolved to the point where he can govern himself. Just as children eventually outgrow reliance on parental figures, so too is mankind likely to outgrow the need for directed governance. )))
^^^^^^"To most efficiently control the human farm, you need a majority of broken, self-attacking, insecure, shallow,
vain and ambitious sheep, forever consumed by inconsequentialities like weight, abs and celebrities – and a minority of volatile, angry and dominant sheepdogs, which you can dress up in either a green or a blue costume,
and use to threaten and manage the herd." pg 16 The Handbook of Human Ownership: A Manual for New Tax Farmers

"Anyone who does not play along with this insanity will just be branded a malcontent, not a “team player” –and mocked and ostracized. Fortunately, we have bred our livestock to be so dependent on social approval that most everyone will find this unbearable, and slink back into the single file line to the graveyard, pushing their bewildered and resentful children ahead of them…" pg 24 The Handbook of Human Ownership: A Manual for New Tax Farmers


-----(((In a world where energy and (consequently) resources are unlimited, man has no need of government and there is very little to fight about. )))
AND
-----(((As long as resources and energy remain deeply within the scope of limitation, we will need government to order the assignation and control of those resources.)))
^^^^^^government is not an answer or solution in any way shape or form. There are other options that have been explored as far as resolving conflicts ....DRO's for example (dispute resolution organization)

"If the government claims to take our money in order to solve the problem of poverty, for instance,
but the government clearly does not solve the problem of poverty, but rather in fact tends to make
it worse, what then do we begin to understand when the government continues to take our money?"
pg. 13 Practical Anarchy

“tank in the garden"
“Let us suppose that you have a neighbor who becomes obsessed with military hardware, and begins building a tank in his backyard. It looks like a very realistic tank, and he even gets a hold of shells. He then drives the tank back and forth in his backyard, and points the turret directly at your house. Clearly, this is not a good situation for you, but your neighbor is only exercising his own property rights, and so what right do you have to interfere with his tank-building? Certainly, if he accidentally blows the top off your house, you can act in response, but surely you should not have to wait for such a disaster in order to intervene – forcefully, if necessary.”
If we believe that anarchism is a society without rules or laws, then this would seem to be a perplexing problem. In a statist society, you simply have laws against private tank ownership, and the problem is solved!
However, as we have discussed above, anarchism is not a society without rules or laws, but is rather populated by agencies entirely devoted to preventing foreseeable problems. Some problems are complicated and hard to detect – but the “tank in the garden” is not one of those problems.
Furthermore, if we are so concerned about military hardware being used against us, it scarcely
seems a wise “solution” to arm a government to the teeth, and disarm ourselves proportionately.
If people are afraid of the “tank in the garden,” all they have to do is ensure that their DRO contract
contains protections against well-armed neighbors. How can this be achieved? Well, when my wife
and I bought our house, we signed a contract stipulating that we were not to repaint the outside of
our house for a period of five years. I am sure that we would not have hesitated to sign the contract
if it also included a ban on building tanks, nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers.
If someone does break their DRO contract by building such weapons, the DRO can invoke all of the
exclusion and ostracism penalties discussed above.
pg 98 in practical anarchy

"DISPUTE RESOLUTION ORGANIZATIONS pg 70 practical anarchy
An essential aspect of economic life is the ability to enforce contracts and resolve intractable
disputes. How can a stateless society provide these functions in the absence of a government?
The first thing to understand about contracts is that they are a form of insurance, insofar as they
attempt to minimize the risks of noncompliance. If I enter into a five-year mortgage agreement with
a bank, I will attempt to minimize my risks by requiring that the bank give me a fixed interest rate
for the time period of the contract. My bank, on the other hand, will minimize its risk by retaining
ownership of my house as collateral, in case I do not pay the mortgage.
In a world without risk, contracts would be unnecessary, and everyone would do business on a
handshake. However, there are people who are dishonest, scatterbrained, manipulative and false,
and so we need contracts which basically spell out the penalties for noncompliance to particular
requirements.
In modern statist societies, contracts are generally enforced not through the court system, but
rather through the threat of the court system. I was in business for many years, at an executive
level, and I never once heard of a contract being successfully enforced through the state court
system, although I did on occasion hear litigious threats – which is quite different. The threat was
not so much, “I am going to use the court to enforce this contract,” but rather, “I am going to use the
threat of taking you to court in order to enforce this contract.” The prospect of expensive and timeconsuming
legal action was always enough to force a resolution of some kind. No actual court
compulsion was ever required.
It is quite easy to see that when a process that is designed to mediate disputes becomes itself a
threat which causes disputes to be mediated privately, it has largely failed in its intent. State court
systems have become like the quasi-private car insurance companies – the threats and
inconvenience of using them has caused most people to settle their disputes privately, rather than
involve themselves in something that they are forced to pay for, but can almost never use.
This bodes very well for anarchic solutions to contract disputes.
In a stateless society, entrepreneurs will be very willing and eager to provide creative solutions to
the problems of contractual noncompliance. As a nonviolent solution, the profits will be maximized
if noncompliance can be prevented, rather than merely addressed after the fact."

(Practical Anarchy: table of contents surrounding DRO's:
But if there is no government, how can the inevitable conflicts in human society be resolved?...47
For somebody who is an anarchist, you sure do sound like a politician! Wasn’t that just a
complete dodge of the question? ...... 48
But what about the roads? .... 48
Okay – here’s a scenario for you: a guy builds a road that completely encircles a suburban
neighborhood, and then charges $1 million for anyone to cross that road. Isn’t he holding
everyone who lives in that neighborhood hostage? ........... 49
All right, smarty-pants – what about this: the company that supplies water to a neighborhood
suddenly decides to increase its rates Tenfold – people are going to be forced to pay the
exorbitant price, right?....... 49
Okay – what if two DROs have different rules – isn’t that just going to result in endless civil
war? .... 49
But – won’t the most successful DRO just arm itself, violently eliminate all the other DROs, and
emerge as a new government? ..... 50)
Audio info on DRO'S :
feed://feeds.feedburner.com/FreedomainRadio-Anarchism



-----(((You want to create an anarchist societal structure, but can’t get it done here on Earth? No worries, go colonize another planet. Right now, this is, of course, impossible. But mankind can, today, imagine a world where it is possible.)))

^^^^^^ so basically " if you don't like it you can leave!!''
http://anarchy101.org/332/anyone-really-anarchist-their-lifestyle-conflicts-philosophy:
"You don't have anywhere to run to. There's no haven for people like us. Living on the margins is just another madness awaiting those who can't bare the madness of wage-labor.
Any lifestyle you could possibly live would leave you with the same question. This isn't a matter of making your surroundings shapeshift so you can feel comfortable in your own skin. The only choice you have is to assert yourself into whatever surroundings you may find yourself in at any given time as an anarchist — you see? I mean, far be it from me to tell you how to live. All I'm saying is that there's no "safe space" for anarchists. You've accepted a principled and contrary existence that will constantly toss you into contradictions and struggle.
So keep your job when you get it. Or don't keep it. Either one will be problematic for you. Same thing with school and paying the state. Whichever one makes you breathe easier, I suppose. But none of it will make being an anarchist easier."

Because it is impossible to just 'opt out' of being a 'citizen', is why by it's very nature government is force. It can only get bigger and more tyrannical...AND if you are raised by a government system (that is indoctrination through gubment schools, which is constantly re enforced by mainstream media as well as the slave mentality of the majority of the people in our lives), you will be way less likely to question the system itself and more likely be on 'one side or the other' in the political realm. This does no good. both Democrats and Republicans waste time with 'debates on the issues' and say they want to 'solve problems' by 'reaching across the aisle' and working together... well these are sides of the same coin.. or as i heard it put recently the right wing and left wing are both important in elevating this bird of prey that is government.

AND-----(((But mankind can, today, imagine a world where it is possible.))) I can imagine a world where statism is a thing of the past ...current society looks at slavery today with horror... I can imagine a world where people are looking back and thinking 'wow, I'm amazed that society actually lasted that long under a coercive monoply like government !! '


-----(((Without government, humans cannot advance technologically and therefore, cannot advance towards a time where government may not be necessary. No society has ever advanced technologically without the benefit of government, and, none ever will *until* the technology exists which should render government obsolete.)))
^^^^^^^^ you say:
1 Humans can not advance technology with out government rulers.
2 We can not advance beyond government until technology exists that renders the need for government rulers unnecessary...
thus you are stating that we can not get to a stateless society because it is impossible...
I disagree...the internet is a huge technological advance for people to communicate these ideas and podcasts/websites are available that present solutions .
The internet has also made it possible for people that do reach this mindset, to form virtual communities and not feel like 'i'm the only one who feels this way' also there is a real live community in the freestate project http://freestateproject.org/


-----(((This is why anarchism and voluntaryism are such a waste of critical mental process in our present political climate. If we were to do away with government technological advance would cease until government developed again, which it certainly would.)))
^^^^^ I agree ...but only partly... If I had a magic button to push and it would end the state instantly, I feel it would be pointless to push it ...unless there was a second magic button to open peoples eyes : waking them up all at once to what is wrong with the idea of government in the first place... The present society can not just instantly have anarchy because most see it as 'chaos and no rules' instead of what it is which is a society with no RULERS, no political violence. I do not even begin to claim to have all the answers to all the questions or an instant solution to every scenario ... I do however claim that anarchy is the answer :

"If religion is not the answer, and the State is not the answer, then what is?
Well, when a particular “answer” has proven so universally disastrous, the first place to look is the
opposite of that answer.
If “no property rights” (communism) is disastrous, then “property rights” (free markets) are most
likely to be beneficial.
If faith is disastrous, then science is most likely to be beneficial.
If superstition is disastrous, than reason and evidence are most likely to be beneficial.
If violence is disastrous, then peace and negotiation are most likely to be beneficial.
If the State is disastrous, then anarchism is most likely to be beneficial.
It is this last statement that tends to be the most challenging for people."
pg 14 practical anarchy

thank you everyone for participating in this continuing conversation, Freethink77
 porcupine312
Joined: 3/4/2010
Msg: 22
Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle & Anarchy
Posted: 8/16/2011 8:51:34 AM
The important thing to keep in mind is that the state is only a concept that certain people get to threaten others with force to provoke or prevent certain behaviors. It isn't a thing that can be removed. Where is the state? It's in you if you believe in it. There are only people.

Power over adults comes from those who are ruled not the rulers. Adults who seek rulers will find them. The rulers are actually dependent on those who they claim to rule. The anger the rulers have for those unwilling to be ruled, who don't show false respect for them, is actually their fear of becoming irrelevant and powerless and their dependence visible to them.

So where does this belief in the state and desire to be ruled come from? Childhood. We are born helpless and dependent on whoever will provide for us. We form attachments to those that provide for us. Those who provide for us exploit this to their advantage to gain power over us, as was done to them. They want to see their children go through what they went through. I think it may provide a sense of empathy to see their children be controlled the way they were. They also get a feeling of power that they had taken away from them early on. People want to feel power and control. If they can't feel power and control over themselves, they will try to feel it over others. There is also the fear of social disapproval that drives parents to dominate their children rather than respect them as individuals.

How to eliminate the state? Stop believing in it. Make yourself ungovernable as possible. Realize that those calling themselves the government need you, but you don't need them. Understand where your belief in it came from. If you have children, understand that they were born not believing in the state, and will only believe in it if it is forced upon them. Respect them as individuals not as some object to control. Respect your inner child that was not given the respect that it needed.

Belief in the state is a response to emotional abuse as children.
 freethink77
Joined: 12/27/2009
Msg: 23
Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle & Anarchy
Posted: 8/25/2011 7:32:01 PM
"I figure that's probably long enough to declare victory and consider the matter closed."

declare victory? what was won exactly? I was not aware there was a victory to be had... I'd like to continue discussion and I do not view this topic as a win/lose situation...

I think part of the problem seems to be this enemy image that people have of eachother... I hope to try to get away from that and try and focus on win/win solutions ...I think just being aware that there is a problem with how things are is one of the most important things

reboundman, you can consider the matter closed if you wish... I am going to post a reply to some of the things you brought up... I have not had time to yet, but I am working on it...

As long as the force and violence of the state exists, 'the matter' is far from closed...
 freethink77
Joined: 12/27/2009
Msg: 24
Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle & Anarchy
Posted: 8/26/2011 3:36:28 PM
porcupine312 : "How to eliminate the state? Stop believing in it.
Make yourself ungovernable as possible. "
----------> yes... I am doing as much as I can to avoid being aggressed upon ... It is very frustrating because the slave mentality we are indoctrinated with, encourages most people to keep each other 'in line', and because of this, there does not need to be as much force applied by the 'rulers/authorities'.

"The anger the rulers have for those unwilling to be ruled, who don't show false respect for them, is actually their fear of becoming irrelevant and powerless and their dependence visible to them."
----------> exactly... the bureaucrats /polititians should become productive members of their societies instead of concerning themselves with ruling over others.
***********************************
ReboundMan: " You were very lucky to be born into a society from which you are free to take your leave. You may make haste to any number of attractive destinations that contain governmental structures more to your liking."
MY RESPONSE----------> basically you are saying 'if you don't like it you can leave'. All I ask is to be left alone, to not be stolen from or aggressed upon. I entered this life by passing through a birth canal onto this particular piece of land... I did not sign any contract giving anyone rights to rule over me.

"choosing to stay means choosing to be a member"
----------> you are telling me to leave my home to avoid aggression... I cannot opt out of the state rule even if I go to another country. I would still being ruled over by another form of statist control... I do not advocate aggression against another person and the state is aggression

"You should immediately understand that the government is not doing a very good job "
----------> I do understand this fact... that is why I want to see it abolished.

"I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but, again, there is no agency certifying the DRO here. Not that that really matters so very much since the sort of disputes that are the most likely to emerge are not ones that really have a peaceful resolution." ----------> Currently there are NO checks and balances on the state and there is no 'peaceful resolution' when the state is involved...there are violations of individual rights on the smallest scale and and wars on a largest scale. War on the scale we see it today, would not be possible with out state control. For those who say 'well just get into politics and change things' , I ask you to look at the difference between trying to fire a politician(employee of the state) and firing an employee of a company/business.

"This solution is absurd. Who is overseeing these contracts? Who is charged with their enforcement?"
----------> In a free market based on voluntary interactions, these contracts are enforced by the people who sign up with the DRO's... If a DRO is not acting in accordance with the contracts and acting unjustly then people have the option of not using that DRO... this is not the case with the state run court system.

".... this just proves that the state court is efficient."
---------> there can be resolutions to disputes without a state run court . Currently, people are forced to use the state run courts because of the state monopoly on 'justice' . this not proved that state is efficient.

....I have used the court system plenty in my time as a pre-law student and it is easy to navigate, open to all citizens, appropriately divided into sections according to need, and suffers only marginally under the weight of delay.....
---------> Just because you have had no troubles using the court system, does not mean it is easy for all people to use/navigate through... As someone who is prelaw I'm sure that you are aware that because it is NOT easy for the average person to use, is the reason we need to hire people like you (that go to law school for years) to defend/represent us... and many people can not afford to hire a lawyer just to defend themselves against the injustice in the system.

The state court system should be used when private parties cannot resolve a dispute on their own; clearly, most people and organizations can in most circumstances......
----------> I disagree that there should be a monopoly on justice through the state. If there was not a monopoly, there would be several different options (like choose the best local DRO to handle your particular kind of dispute)... and the DRO would have to have a good reputation for fairly handling disputes in the past in order to function as a business... Currently there is 1 system: the state courts that are funded through coercion and theft

This is the sort of all-or-nothing backwards thinking that plagues Practical Anarchy."
----------> it is very forward thinking... the idea that we can exist on a voluntary basis ... The backward thinking is that people have to be controlled and that we can not live in a society with out the control of the state.

"You can opt out of being a citizen. When was the last time you saw a hobo being hassled by the IRS? What you may not do, ever, is take advantage of what society offers and not pay what it asks. That is theft, pure and simple."
-----------> I want the option to have my money go to the goods and services that I use... I do not want a government to take my money/property by force, and use it to fund a welfare state, the crappy government education system, and war.

"The internet, the technology that developed it and the agencies that allow for its continued operation are all made possible by government. Really. Look it up."
-----------> you seem to be saying that because technologies developed by the government led to the internet, this means that the state needs to continue to be supported or people will not be able to create new technology?? This makes no sense I see the internet is going to be a problem for the government because the state no longer has the control over the media like it once did... see the documentary 'Manufacturing Consent' for more on this ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FKdU_xL4O8 = 1 of 17 )

"So, just to be clear, you claim something is the answer which you do not understand by way of answer to its questions and challenges?"
------------> I claim that voluntary interactions are the best way to live... I do not claim to have all the answers/solutions to each individual problem that a society must deal with. I do not advocate for forcing anyone to do anything, and I want the same in return (to not be forced/agressed upon)

"Another trick of the great magician – get people thinking that there are only two answers and you’ve got them trapped."
-----------> I do not give you a choice of 'my way or the highway' ... the either/or choice i presented is force/aggression vs voluntary interactions ... i think it is clear that voluntaryism is the choice that benefits everyone (except the politicians and bureaucrats of course, because they want to maintain the control they have )

"I do not understand the connection between pages 16 and 24 of the Handbook of Human Ownership to the statement of mine they seem meant to address. Could you explain in your own words for me?"
_______________________________________
((( REBOUNDMAN: Today, man still needs the state. Man needs the state because he has not evolved to the point where he can govern himself. Just as children eventually outgrow reliance on parental figures, so too is mankind likely to outgrow the need for directed governance. )))
QUOTES: "To most efficiently control the human farm, you need a majority of broken, self-attacking, insecure, shallow, vain and ambitious sheep, forever consumed by inconsequentialities like weight, abs and celebrities – and a minority of volatile, angry and dominant sheepdogs, which you can dress up in either a green or a blue costume, and use to threaten and manage the herd." AND
"Anyone who does not play along with this insanity will just be branded a malcontent, not a “team player” –and mocked and ostracized. Fortunately, we have bred our livestock to be so dependent on social approval that most everyone will find this unbearable, and slink back into the single file line to the graveyard, pushing their bewildered and resentful children ahead of them…" pg 16 and pg 24 The Handbook of Human Ownership: A Manual for New Tax Farmers

IN MY OWN WORDS:
you state that man is likely to evolve from needing to be controlled like children grow out of reliance on their parents... this is why it is very important to not indoctrinate children into the government schools, they are brought up learning to admire and rely on the state and the cycle continues...

basically, we as a society can not outgrow the 'need for the state' if we are indoctrinated by the state ...it is a vicious circle we need to break free of... the government schools are funded through theft(taxes) ... even if you homeschool or send your kids to private schools, you are still forced by the state to pay for these crappy 'services'
_______________________________________________

"But the people are also dependent on the state. "
----------> the welfare system is not a good argument in favor of the state... I have looked at the history of this and the facts are poverty has increased due to the introduction of the welfare system not decreased. The welfare system also encourages the dependance on the state and is becoming a big problem... Like social security, the welfare system was put into place by politicians and is paid for by future citizens incurring that debt after those politicians are long gone.

"But children require a measure of control"
----------> children need guidance and encouragement and mentoring... not control

"As usual, I am unimpressed with posts that describe problems and offer no viable solution, regardless of how completely those problems may be described."
---------->I am not trying to impress anyone by describing the problem that many are already aware of... I am putting the problem very simply... the problem is the state ... government = force
there is not one simple solution... there has to be a variety of answers and solutions for the huge variety of people and the problems we face... one coercive state is the problem, NOT any kind of solution.

If anyone wants to continue this discussion, I will partake and respond ....however, I am not going to play whack-a-mole with all the statist objections to a voluntary society ... there are more productive ways to spend my time...

I do not wish to impose my will, aggress against, or steal from you... Would you be willing to agree not impose your will , or aggress against, or steal from me?
 freethink77
Joined: 12/27/2009
Msg: 25
Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle & Anarchy
Posted: 8/28/2011 12:48:41 PM
REBOUNDMAN said:
"You have lost your capacity for critical thought in this regard.....What you have done is to conclude, ... an idea that sounds good must, therefore, be good. .... abject disregard for history, reason, human nature, geopolitics and science. Instead of examining, you advocate..... you skip this step entirely and insist that an answer of overwhelming significance and sufficency must exist somewhere in the murky undergrowth of prevalent propaganda.....In this conversation you are saying "religion is good... The rules of logic and reason, the only rules under which men should debate... these are rules you reject. As long as you reject them, we can't talk about these issues ..."
_____________________
Reboundman,
I am frustrated that you have disregarded the ideas I have brought up as a religion. I am not getting my needs for consideration or understanding met by having someone tell me what I do or do not think/insist/reject. If you personally feel that "we can't talk about these issues", than you have the choice to opt out of this conversation and may choose not to post in this thread.

I would rather have both our needs for understanding met by continuing a discussion... I am not looking for a debate; I do not wish to 'win' or 'declare victory' against you personally or against 'statists' in general. People are people and looking at a person or a group as an enemy or opponent is not a good way to reach solutions/ solve problems.

I do not wish to impose my will, aggress against, or steal from you...
Again I ask of you John, Would you be willing to agree not impose your will , or aggress against, or steal from me?

***************************
I have concluded through careful examination of the concepts of voluntaryism/anarchism, that to aggress against another person is wrong... and yes, it is a really simple idea. There is no 'one solution' to the problems we face in a society...there has to be many solutions. I don't think anyone likes to be lied to/cheated on/stolen from or aggressed upon in any other way. This is precisely why the solutions that start with the nonaggression principal will be most beneficial to everyone.


for those that are curious about what helped to bring me to the understanding i have reached, there are many things to look at...
as a start explore these ideas google and/or wiki search :
voluntaryism, anarchism, agorism, austrian economics, DRO's (dispute resolution organizations), freestate project, no state project, freedomainradio, complete liberty, nonaggression principal, natural law, common law, strike the root, copblock.org, liberty on tour,the unschool bus, civil disobedience, FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association)
so many more...

And of course don't take my word for anything, do your own research, and above all else, think for yourself !!

Thank you for reading/participating!!!
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle & Anarchy