The argument against Anarchy: Why trusting people will never work.
Submitted by none on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 07:51Anarchy! Just the mention of the word is enough to make people shudder. Visions of chaos in the streets with the rule of the jungle taking over from the rule of law come to the minds of most people. And of course, with those visions comes the fear. In my experience the fears that top the list are the fear of being subjected to the whims of anyone stronger than you, the fear of living without rules or organizations that are supposed to protect you, and the fear of the unknown. Thoughts of anarchy certainly inspire fear in most people, wouldn’t you agree?
It stands to reason that one of the predominant reasons for this fear is that people fear the potential actions of other people. After all, if there were no government it’d only be you against them, wouldn’t it? How could you possibly defend yourself from all those evil people out there in the world laying in wait for the moment that there’d be no government to stop them? Certainly it’d be impossible, wouldn’t it? The government and the law are all that keeps society civil, isn’t it? My heavens, what the world would be like without the government and the law! Can you imagine? Well, I can.
If you’re one of those people who allow the FUD (that’s Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) factor to cloud your cognitive abilities when it comes to the concepts of anarchy and the government, you probably believe that anarchy is bad, and government is all that can keep society civil. Well, I’m about to point something out to you I’m sure you might realize is a fact but have managed to keep disassociated from the argument of anarchy v. government in your mind. And that is that the government is made up of people.
Yep, you read it right. The very same people who you fear would be laying in wait to pounce on you, to victimize you, to subjugate you should the day come when there is no longer a government to protect you from them. The very same people who you believe are kept in check by government are the people who are responsible for the creation and administration of that government. Think about that for a little bit, would you? And if you have doubts about the character of the people in places of government power, if you believe that they’re somehow better, you need not look any further than the daily news. Stories of corruption abound, and at all levels of government. Are there some people in government who believe that they’re doing good things? I’m sure there are. Would I have you believe that they’re all rotten? Absolutely not. They’re simply people, people just like you and me.
But the problem, you see, is that the government exists and maintains a monopoly on the use of force to make people obey its dictates. And while the damage done to those subjugated by government may be mitigated by which people are in the offices of government, the fact is that the nature of government attracts people who wish to control other people. So, what you see in government today is a direct result of those people, the ones who want to control you and take from you what isn’t theirs, doing what government enables them to do.
In a society free of government, the people who today use government to steal from you and deny you the free exercise of your rights would be seen for what they are; thieves and bullies. Would you have to defend yourself against some of them? Absolutely! Would they have the air of legitimacy that the government affords them today? They would most definitely not.
If you trust people enough to entrust them with the power of government, why wouldn’t you trust them without it?
I suppose we can trust the president and congress???
huh
And that is my point.
If people can't be trusted to be decent in the absence of government, what makes anyone think that people with the power of government will or could do any better?
Rebuttal
http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=2694
Did you read my post?
Because that isn't a rebuttal, it's an agreement. I posted my headline that way for a reason. ;-)
Anarchy is like a flock of sheep
All Baahh and no bite.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
analogy
Give me an analogy for statism.
Statism is like ________.
Fill in the blank.
A herd of cattle
And why beef is more popular than mutton.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
Intervention for statists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e5lYUw2Bm0
Statism is like
A collective suicide pact, a race to the death.
_______________________________________________________
"Let the good heart speak words of true peace, not inciting others to further war." -- B.I.S.
None, I believe anarchy in its purest form, is what we are
truly striving for on earth! I believe anarchy is what the grand master teacher, Jesus was truly teaching. You can get a glimpse of this by reading the 113 sayings of Jesus in the Gnostic Gospels translated by Elaine Pagels.
I believe the founders left us a template to bring us all to the next level of 'consciousness'. It was simple, but not easy.
In essence, to live in an anarchy (no government, but self-government), without fear of each other, it would mean most people would be taught to live within 'Universal Laws' to fully understand its spiritual implications. Truly living within the 'Golden Rule'.
Imagine the freedom to create and ideas to explore in such a world! What magnificent relationships we would all enjoy without 'fear' of the slightest violation.
I'd say that is pretty revolutionary. Wouldn't you say?
A Jew was not at liberty to
A Jew was not at liberty to communicate to God except by way of a Jewish priest, needing to pay a tax to have their sins forgiven.
When the people bring their sin offerings, the priests get fed. So the priests are glad whent he people sin!
Hosea 4:8
Christ tore the curtain and allowed direct communication to our Creator.
It was for this reason that Jewish priests fought to have him killed, because it removed their authority and brought anarchy to their religious order. No longer did people need to feed them when they sinned. Better yet, don't sin at all.
The same rule can be applied to self government and no need for government in order for society to progress.
grant
Thank you for that piece of history iehuvihs. He sure rocked
the boat at every turn. He was quite aggressive at exposing these 'separated' ones.
To this day, direct communication is interfered with in a myriad of ways.
He knew full well what that would cost him, but by sacrificing himself to their treachery, it exposed their scams so the people could see what they were living under.
It was brilliant actually. They still cannot get rid of his name and his deeds of freedom for humanity. America was the hope for this freedom.
Jesus never lived.
It's a story created by Rome to undermine the Jews who didn't allow the image of Caesar into their temples.
Watch the interview about the Roman conspiracy here:
http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/main.html
Besides, I'd rather be a member of a religion that charged a flat fee for their services than a percentage of my income.
I find that hard to believe, but even so, it's a damn good story
Although the Romans did corrupt much about Christ true purpose.
Maybe you should read the bible for yourself and not have it interpreted for you by priests or preachers. But remember it is a book, by your spirit do you truely communicate to our Creator.
You will discover that Christ had nothing to do with what we call religion or what we call a church. He was a true Jew, and not a perverted Jew whose religion is like that practiced by Zionist star god worshippers.
grant
I'd Say!
I fully, whole-heartedly, agree, and I dig the optimism of your post!
Such thoughts are dangerous and can drive one insane if pondered upon for too long...
_______________________________________________________
"Let the good heart speak words of true peace, not inciting others to further war." -- B.I.S.
To everyone who has and continues to participate, THANKS!
I'm impressed with the quality of the discussion which my original post has generated. It's nice to see that there are those of you out there on the path to liberty who are willing to discuss anarchy and what it really means, and equally happy with those of you who have already decided the best government of all is no government.
We need to be the change we want to see in the world. It really is that simple.
Agreement and Disagreement
I suspect most people on a Ron Paul forum have some general agreements.
1) We tend to agree on the problems.
2) We want to move toward a freer society.
Whether we support anarchy, oppose it, or are unsure we tend to agree on the above. My position is that while I have doubts about anarchy I do want to move in that direction. While we may disagree about the final destination we can cooperate for mutual benefit.
The problem with those who support anarchy is they speak in generalities as if wishing will make it so. If you want support you need to give specifics. How would you get there from here? I'll make it easy, what is step 1? Don't tell me why anarchy is good, tell me about step 1. Who knows? We may all agree on step 1.
Hayek supported piecemeal change. We need to cut our agenda up in pieces and look for allies who may not agree with our total position. Trying to sell a system or ideology in its entirety is next to impossible.
My agenda is I want to live in a free, civilized, prosperous world. I want reforms one at a time, not trying to get people to swallow some system in one gulp.
Using the word "anarchy" is a good way to lose the argument among the general public from the get go. We have a perfectly good word, "freedom" which is popular. Using that will not handicap us.
Step 1
If most people believe that anarchy means chaos and violence, then we shouldn't use that word. I prefer the word voluntaryism. All interactions between people should be voluntary and not coercive. Point out that the government violates this principle because of their taxation and its enforcement of monopoly on defense services.
Step 1
I believe that the government gets its power because people think that government is necessary, that's why they support it and consent to it. Most people think that taxes provide a necessary and vital function.
So, step 1 might be explaining, the non-aggression principle, and then demonstrating that there's nothing that government does, which society needs, that can't be provided far better by the free market.
I like Roderick Long's demonstration of how government is a forced monopoly. Read the first 6 paragraphs.
The key is to demonstrate how all governments are (1) immoral, and (2) produce bad results.
I agree 100%....
I made this point earlier. There are a 1000 different ideas about what anarchy amoung the population. First idea to come to mind is the Unibomber, which the media painted as an anarchist and Leon Czolgosz who shot and killed William McKinley and was also proclaimed to be an anarchist.
I think voluntaryism is a great word. I hope it doesn't get confused with donating one's time for free, but there are many words that give this false impression. For example, Libertarian many people confuss with Liberal.
Or Non-Profit Organization, many people actually belief that those who work for NPOs don't recieve a salary and the money goes directly to the cause. Actually to extent this idea, I think money given to the government should be voluntary and in the form of donations. Why not. Churches manage to make billions this way, can you imagine if Churches could take away your property if you did not tithe. If the government wants a war, then they have to convince people it is necessary and raise donations. This would make the government have to follow the Constitution of no standing armies.
grant
Step 1
Legalize competing private currency.
_______________________________________________________
"Let the good heart speak words of true peace, not inciting others to further war." -- B.I.S.
Step 1
No. Why do we need state approval to use private currency?
But this is moot because currency is a tool of the state. A true free market would use barter - not gold - as means of exchange.
What happened to the Liberty Dollar?
I would argue that government cages (and its violence toward dissenters) are very real.
In the case of the Liberty Dollar, the state stole millions of dollars of private property/currency (Liberty Dollar Gold, Silver, and Platinum rounds and Copper Ron Paul dollars), and they are going to railroad and cage the proprieters in a kangaroo court. All of the victims of the stolen property are S.O.L. with no recourse for the return of their property.
All freedom stems from economic freedom - if you cannot freely dispose of the fruit of your labor, you have no other freedoms, they are illusions.
In a true free market, *any* medium could be used as long as all parties to the transaction voluntarily agree.
The "transaction costs" of barter are too high in a specialized economy which is why "money" (a medium of exchange) evolved in the first place. Imagine trying to barter for a cart full of groceries at the supermarket? What would you bring to exchange? Would you barter each item individually? imagine a line of 20 people, now 50, now 100? How about the diverse materials to build a house? I agree that barter is (and should be) one option in a free market, but it does not scale.
Additionally, Gold/Silver are only *one* option. I honestly cannot tell you what products entrepreneurs would develop under a free market for currency. In Kenya they are using cell phone minutes. Freedom works.
_______________________________________________________
"Let the good heart speak words of true peace, not inciting others to further war." -- B.I.S.
Freedom works.
Incorrect: "A true free market would use barter - not gold - as means of exchange."
Correct: True free markets use barter - including gold - as means of exchange.
If only we could barter when it comes to paying taxes.
grant
That's step 1?
How does that happen? Does it come as a gift under the Christmas tree?
If that's step 1 the vast majority are going to think we're nuts. Currently only a small minority would buy it or even understand why it's needed. You've a lot of work to do to sell that one. You need something people will support without having them take Austrian Economics.
I know Ron Paul supports this, but it's a real "yawner" for most people.
It'd be nice if it came sooner than Christmas...
...because the FRN is going to sink faster than the Titanic with the way that the fed has been monetizing the debt...oh wait, that's not what they're doing...they're performing 'quantitative easing', a completely different process where the government debt is bought up by the government using money made up on a signature...oh wait, that sounds like monetizing the debt...gee I guess TIMMAH!!! is going to have to come up with some new BS to spew. I suppose that's why those Chinese college students laughed at him so hard...cause he's so full of BS it's funny.
But yes, in order to take the first steps towards true liberty we need to get the government completely separated from any control on money whatsoever. Until that happens, they're in control.
Can't disagree with you,
but can anyone get elected running on this issue. The typical voter won't get it. He'll reject the message and the messenger.
Hammering things out is what
Hammering things out is what the this thread is all about. You say there is some good some bad etc. why don't you be specific and tell us what you think is good and what you think is bad and help us hammer it out? And maybe you just might find that some stuff you thought was bad is not?
I am amazed at folks unwillingness to explore all possibilities and automatically defer in favor of their captivity (no you specifically, just in general)
I seem to be in a small minority of folks who are sick to death of others claiming authority over my life when they have no right to do so be they politicians in government or anyone else. People say we consent to government by voting etc. I say BS only a small percentage consent and the rest are expected to obey. I say BS to that also.
Man has proven he is not fit to rule others even in limited government so I am ready to try something new ( or old actually). But another small percentage group tell me I don't have the right. Who the hell made them God and ruler of my life? No one that's who, they have no right!
The brainwash and Constitution and Founder worship is just sickening. I think the founders were well meaning and thier ideas had a good run but ultimately have failed because human nature is not capable of welding even limited power benevolently so it's time for real freedom and real responsibility. Patrick Henry was right! He smelled a rat and we got it anyways!
It's coming anyways when the dollar collapses and the feds and the state and local governments cannot afford to to pay their agents and officials, so you might as well start exploring how to peacefully coexist with you neighbors and how to defend yourself against lawlessness, and how to meat out justice without police and courts etc. because you will be on your own sink or swim and it might be nice to have some semblance of community during those times. It's the wave of the future so might as well beat the rush.
It is coming because of our lack of willingness to take responsibility for ourselves and preserve true freedom
-----
Get Prepared!
Only dead fish go with the flow...
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
Hey Hawkiye...........
If you've never listened to Dr. Stuart Crane's "Proofs of Conspiracy," which is available online, I beg you to at least listen to tape one. There are 6 to 7 tapes total. If you listen to one, I guarantee you'll listen to them all.
Are you always so non
Are you always so non specific and vague? Why should I listen to him and what has that got to do with this topic?
-----
Get Prepared!
Only dead fish go with the flow...
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
Re: Are you always so non
guess you didn't see my post below before you responded?
........ I do understand your plea. Did not mean to offend anybody, on the "selling anarchy" piece, just had to try to make some things clear.
Will get back to this a little more when I have a chance.
peace
p.s.
I did post a little, for what I had time for..........
anywayz...........