Anarchy = True Freedom?

af_thefragile

"Man knows no master save creating Heaven, Or those whom choice and common good ordain." - Thomas Paine.

I said a while ago i was gonna be gone from here, but well, this topic compelled me to come back here.

People keep getting mixed up a lot between the concept of society and government. From what i see anarchism promotes society but abolishes the government. And no central/federal government is the way towards true freedom for the people.

But then what exactly is true freedom? And can you call people living in a socialist state truly free?
Is freedom more important to us or is protection from foreign threats that can be secured by the military might of a large state like Russia, China, USA or UK (or EU?).
And can people really be free while living under the protection of a large socialist state to which they have duties and obligations towards?


It possibly comes down to weighing the benefits of an individual to the benefit of the collective state the individual is a part of.
I don't think there really has been a time in history where a society was anarchic. People were always under the rule of a king/emperor and when the world moved towards democracy people were under the rule of the state.











Now for my personal opinion...
I believe the perfect society is an anarchic society. But (and its a big but!) that won't be achieved until people can learn to take complete responsibility towards their actions for themselves. Like the quote from American History X "Used to blame everybody. I didn't get no answers cuz i was asking the wrong questions. You have to ask the right question, Has anything you've done made your life better?".
People are responsible to get their education, get their job, make their living, pay for their health treatment (the more you abuse your body, the more you'll have to pay for it!) and be morally obliged to give charity to help others who aren't as privileged as them.
This way people are rewarded for their achievements. People get back from the world how much they put in.
People have the right to protect themselves and can use firearms if they wish so. But people need to also be able to use the firearms responsibly. If they kill or injure someone without a just cause, they'll be punished for it. But surely a morally responsible and sane person wouldn't do that and so only the ones who deserve will be punished. Again people get back what they put in.

So finally to end with saying Freedom begins with the mind and then moves outward.
You can't experience freedom unless you've freed your mind first.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

I dont disagree with anything you have written, but is freedom a benefit or a goal of a particular system? In my own way of thinking I dont like big gov as it is at the heart of all the moral hazard we see around us today and since the sums dont add up how can it be other then a big ponzi scheme which will implode on itself. Hardly a moral or practical basis for a robust society.
The only nagging thought I have and feel free to put me straight is if you hang your hat on the concept of freedom, can somebody else come along and say, fairness is the ultimate goal of society, then you end up with an arbitrary battle over values?

turgon

I suppose a lot of people have ideas of the perfect way to live, and the way to be most "fair" and "free" etc etc. And I think the first instinct for these people is to force others to subscribe to their notion of life. In their mind, if everyone lived the way they want to we would all be happy.

Of course these people see the government/state as the means to put forth their moral order. That is possibly why the government can be so overbearing. Fundamentally people will have ideas about the right and moral way to live and will have a motivation to spread this.

The system you describe demands something huge of people; something very enormous in fact: restraint. They have to be able to look at conflicting ways of life and admit "this is not effecting me so its none of my buisness." And that is hard for anyone as I think the predisposition is to impose order.

Im not someone to fully believe in ideals, but as far as ideals go I would consider yours to be quite good. However the key part is forcing people to take responsibility for their actions. Telling people to pay for their own health. Telling people to pay for their own education. Telling people to take responsibility for their kids. And thats a big one.

The welfare state is another thing people would have to be "weaned" off of. Child benefit, the dole, the old age pension - these are all things which are often times not needed but given by an administration too afraid to lose votes. For democracy is a really bad system of governance. Giving power to the common man is dangerous, for even the common man seems to stupid to see that a millionaire pensioner doesn't need a medical card. Even people as "smart" as Fergus Finlay think it is bad to have an economist in government because he is not "of the people."

The sentence above is like Churchill's quote - something like "democracy is an awful system of government, but the best Ive seen". Maybe hes constrained himself too much, maybe the best we can imagine is no government.

Hmmm....if I was reading what I just said 6 months ago id be shocked. Damn boards.ie libertarians!


Btw expand upon "free your mind."
If it involves narcotics ill need a number for your dealer too

af_thefragile

silverharp wrote: »

The only nagging thought I have and feel free to put me straight is if you hang your hat on the concept of freedom, can somebody else come along and say, fairness is the ultimate goal of society, then you end up with an arbitrary battle over values?

But isn't freedom fair?
Like in the anarchic society people get back exactly what they put in. I believe it couldn't get any more fair than that. If a person is committed to working hard, be innovative etc. he is contributing to the society greatly and in return is being rewarded for his efforts greatly too. A person by working hard can become rich, get rewarded for his efforts, become a role model for other people to strive towards, ultimately helping and bringing up the society. I really don't think being rich is a bad thing. People like Bill Gates worked hard to get to where they are. He contributed to the society by giving us all affordable and easy to use computers. He became a role model for people to look upto. He got great rewards for his work and he is also helping many poor through his charity work.
On the other hand old Joe living round the corner dropped out of school, worked as a janitor, lived an ordinary life for he never tried hard enough to achieve anything, became an alcoholic and died of liver failure.
How could it be fair if Bill Gates and old Joe end up getting the same rewards for the amount of work they put in?

In a "fair" no class socialist society a person who is more intelligent and hardworking ends up getting the same rewards as a person who doesn't put in as much effort as him. Where is the fairness there?
When a person too lazy to go to college to get a good education and a good job ends up sitting at home on social welfare, he's living a better life than a person working hard 9 to 5 to pay off his bills!
Also an intelligent person with an innovative idea and plan can't put it into action cuz he can't create enough capital for it. He'ld have to give away his idea to the state for them to implement it and he'ld get very little reward for it in return.

Finally to critique the socialist state, there is no such thing as equality in the socialist state. There is always the bureaucrats over the proletarians. The case of "all men are equal but some men are more equal then others!".

af_thefragile

To turgon:

I believe the whole "common men are too stupid to have common sense" thing is nothing more than socialist propaganda. It restricts people from growing out of their bounds and limitations. What makes men "common". On what basis can men be divided into the "common" and the "bureaucrats/aristocrats". Men grow through learning and experience. If they're not allowed to do that, humanity will not progress and we'll be still caught up in the same problems we were a century ago!

When you put a certain responsibility on a person, you are commanding that person to grow! The best way to do this is not to force it on the people but instead by taking away the safety net from under them. Cuz you cannot force anything onto a person. Forcing your ideals onto a person will only make him rebel. But instead leaving him all along by himself will lead him to take action and responsibility for himself. Putting him back according to the natural order of nature. You've gotta watch where you step!

Free your mind corresponds to being free to think for yourself. Something that takes quite an effort! But there's no noting as free lunch!
As for the drugs, i think they usually do quite the opposite of freeing your mind. Me being an artist, i like to have the ability to be creative without the need to alter my mind by the use of drugs. Works better when you can control your mind and direct it towards opening your third eye consciously than letting DMT do it for you!...

But then again, i'm not a preacher cuz i preach people to think for themselves!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

thesunwashot

af_thefragile wrote: »

People have the right to protect themselves and can use firearms if they wish so. But people need to also be able to use the firearms responsibly. If they kill or injure someone without a just cause, they'll be punished for it. But surely a morally responsible and sane person wouldn't do that and so only the ones who deserve will be punished. Again people get back what they put in.

This seems like a baffling statement to me. Who does this punishing? Who decides when a line has been transgressed? Who sets that line in the first place? If you abolish a governmental structure, how do the laws get set? What is to stop the bullies/greedy/immoral/etc taking over. This seems to me to be the major flaw in anarchism.

I'm pretty convinced that a democratic system is the only fair way. Sadly most democracies are also run by the bullies/greedy/immoral/etc but if the elected representatives were more responsible to the needs of the population, we might get a system that worked more effectively and was endorsed by the public who are a part of it.

af_thefragile

thesunwashot wrote: »

This seems like a baffling statement to me. Who does this punishing? Who decides when a line has been transgressed? Who sets that line in the first place? If you abolish a governmental structure, how do the laws get set? What is to stop the bullies/greedy/immoral/etc taking over. This seems to me to be the major flaw in anarchism.

I'm pretty convinced that a democratic system is the only fair way. Sadly most democracies are also run by the bullies/greedy/immoral/etc but if the elected representatives were more responsible to the needs of the population, we might get a system that worked more effectively and was endorsed by the public who are a part of it.

This is exactly what people get wrong about anarchism. Thats why i first mention anarchy promotes society but abolishes government as in a central/federal government. In anarchy the society rules itself. The members of the society come together to form their own laws and their own police in a way that all the people who're a part of the society agree to. So say taking Ireland as an example. Every county would have its own set of rules and laws and its own police force formed by the residents of that community. If anyone didn't like the way one county works, they have the freedom to just simply move out and join another one which they like more. People voting by the power of just stepping out.

So say if Dublin decides it wants to be communist but Galway likes anarchism, instead of converting whole of Ireland to communism or anarchism, Dublin can be communist while Galway functions as an anarchic county. People in Dublin who don't like the communist rule and prefer the anarchic one can move to Galway and vice versa. People have the freedom to chose the way their society is run and also have the freedom to leave the society if they don't like it.

And Ireland can remain as an intact state, it doesn't mean Ireland breaks up into its individual counties as separate states. Ireland could/will be the collective state composed of all the individual self governing counties and it could deal with Foreign Policies, common law and such (like say how the EU was initially proposed to be for Europe). People in Ireland would be Irish and free to roam around and settle down wherever they like within Ireland. Just Ireland wouldn't have much central power over the states. It has to be a state for the people, not a state for the few elite bureaucrats. And this is what happens most of the time. Democracy ends up in a bunch of these bureaucrats competing for their personal gains and ideals while the people of the state end up being left out of the equation.

Anarchy leaves the greedy politicians redundant. It funnels back the power from the central state back into the hands of the people and their societies.
Every individual has a say in the society. The society has the power to decide how it wants to rule itself.

You can also check out Thomas Paine's constitution of united states. It could maybe fit for a libertarian anarchic state.

AngryHippie

anarchic systems could work in a sparsely populated system or dare I say it planet, but unfortunately, our human instinct to go forth and multiply means that we can only do it if we are prepared to compromise our liberties to accomadate the liberties of those who surround us, for this to work, some form of civil service must be in place, this has to be agreed upon and you end up back at democracy in some form, or a police state. Right now we are caught up in a nanny state where we are as mentioned above mortgaging the next generation to pay for the excesses (greed moreso than hedonism imo) of this one.

af_thefragile

^I say an easier way to solve this is by diving the planet/country/city into its individual societies. Letting them decide for themselves how they wanna rule their society/community. The state not composed of one big macro-economy/macro-community but rather small individual micro-economies/micro-communities.

Yes when things get too big, they get hard to control. So why let things get that big in the first place? Like i mentioned in my previous post, i don't say chop up countries into its individual districts. A country even as big as Russia or China can still remain intact but chop up the countries central power into its individual districts. The country composed of members of all the individual communities. Going back to Thomas Paine's composition of america.'


We are caught in a nanny state cuz we have let ourselves get caught. We haven't been smart enough and we let ourselves get manipulated by greedy politicians or can i mention corpocracy?
We are working for the gains of the few elite at the top of the pyramid. All this has taken place because of our inability to think for ourselves and take responsibility for our actions. Or have we been fooled into shutting down our mind and responsibilities by manipulative politicians, bankers and greedy industrialists who constantly keep coming up with more cleaver ways to fool us into buying their bull ****! And we are so easily fooled!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ionix5891

Can we pack all anarchists on a plane to Somalia to experience anarchy and lack of government and collapse of society for themselves

af_thefragile

ionix5891 wrote: »

Can we pack all anarchists on a plane to Somalia to experience anarchy and lack of government and collapse of society for themselves

And send all the socialists to North Korea?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ionix5891

af_thefragile wrote: »

And send all the socialists to North Korea?

they have socialism in north korea?! hahahahahahaaa please dont mix up "stalinist" type of communism with socialism, Ireland is more "socialised" than North Korea we pay people to sit on their arses and i dont see anyone starving

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

5*n=??? (where n is 0 or a very small number)

its not hard to grow when you have nothing to begin with after your country has been in civil war for 20+ years and cant fall any more, if they have it so fine and dandy why are they resorting to piracy unlike the neigbouring countries which arent exactly rich themselves? why are people in both countries mentioned starving??


and finally why dont you move to somalia if its so great? @somaliafella will quickly learn the difference beteen ak47 and ak74 :pac:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

af_thefragile wrote: »

But isn't freedom fair?....

Cheers, I'm just grumpy because being a parent I dont even have the freedom to have a lie in on a Sat.:D

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its a great viewpoint and even as an academic exercise it shows a mirror to how much of our rights we have signed away.
My view is that the current system will break to some extent over the next 10or 20 years and we may see if we are lucky some kind of gold based money system. Will the system break to such an extent that centralised gov. will collapse entirely, I doubt it but I do believe we will see a generation shift away from the central planning we have seen for the last 100 years

af_thefragile

ionix5891 wrote: »

they have socialism in north korea?! hahahahahahaaa please dont mix up "stalinist" type of communism with socialism, Ireland is more "socialised" than North Korea we pay people to sit on their arses and i dont see anyone starving

Just like they have anarchism in Somalia according to you...

And wait a couple of years, you'll find more people starving in our "socialised" Ireland than there will be in N. Korea!

ionix5891

look i agree with some of the points of yee libertarians/anarchists/whatever

such as too much intervention in markets being a bad thing

BUT (and thats a bug but) social structures and "governments" set us apart from primitive human tribes and primates, even tho i have strong beliefs in free trade and capitalism i do realize that things such as education, fire fighters, police can not be done by provided private enterprise, you can not rely on private enterprise to provide fair legal system, and you definatelly can not hope that private enterprise will make laws that will only be fair to anyone but themselves

the alternative is a wild west anarchy, every man for himself, as has been the case up to about 3000 years ago for most of human existence

Leonid

Interesting topic. In counter to this though, You should check out John Rawls use of the 'original position' to support his theory of justice as fairness. Personally I'd prefer to live in a state that balances liberty with equality. The separation of state into autonomous units free to experiment politically is interesting. Though I doubt it would suit such a trade dependant country as Ireland. The regional direct democracy linked to central national government, that you mentioned is outlined by Marx. just thought I'd put that in there.

Capt'n Midnight

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose.
Kris Kristofferson

"They had nothing to loose and were willing to risk it all"


Anarchy is great if you are very rich and very powerful, no one to rein you in. It would be nice to live without rules, but looking at what happens after revolutions, it seems to just be a power grab.


Somalia as an example , WOW just WOW

dsmythy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A problem i see here is lets say someone has been living in a tuatha, for arguments sake, for 20 years under a particular set of rules but then around them the majority of people decide to change the rules. This new system is not to the persons liking so they are pretty much forced to either accept the new system or move away from their home of many years.

That particular person doesn't seem free to me. Sure they have two options but neither of them may be desirable.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

af_thefragile

Leonid wrote: »

Interesting topic. In counter to this though, You should check out John Rawls use of the 'original position' to support his theory of justice as fairness. Personally I'd prefer to live in a state that balances liberty with equality. The separation of state into autonomous units free to experiment politically is interesting. Though I doubt it would suit such a trade dependant country as Ireland. The regional direct democracy linked to central national government, that you mentioned is outlined by Marx. just thought I'd put that in there.

Just to note on equality. I believe equality is a myth. No two people are equal. And this is destroying society currently with all this political correctness and giving minorities preference over others.
Libertarians look at every person as an individual. Not as a white guy or a black guy or Irish or English a catholic or muslim, we just look at them as a person. And the person gets back from the society exactly how much he puts in. If he works hard he gets more rewards, if he's a lazy slob, we'll he better work hard or he's gonna fall off the field!

I believe you can't get anymore equal than that. Where you judge people according to their abilities as opposed to their background what socialists tend to do, uplift the minorities, lower classes etc. It only ends up creating more racial and social tension between the people.

And about trade, i believe if anything, it'ld improve trade. Cuz it abolishes most of the taxes, businesses can operate more freely and it'ld also attract many foreign businesses to set up their bases in the state bringing in revenue to the state. So basically it'ld make Ireland a tax haven. Businesses can expand more freely, people will have more money in their pocket (due to no or very low income tax) and there would be loads of jobs as such a society would also encourage entrepreneurship, setting up many innovative new local businesses which progress the society and attracting foreign ones as well.

And i'll look up on Marx's theory into a bit more detail... I was reading Das Kapital back in my commie days but then i became a libertarian and started studying the austrian school of economics instead...



And then i really can't see whats so wrong about the every man for himself notion.
Isn't that how it really is? You've gotta work hard to get anywhere in life. You can't just sit there and hope someone else will do your work for you and become successful. Even in a socialist state. Yes, if you don't wanna work, you'll have the dole to keep you alive in the socialist state but do you really deserve someone else to pay for your laziness or incompetence?

And then how many times do i have to reiterate the fact that anarchy promotes society. Its not wild west, do what you want, no laws, no rules type of society. Its a proper structured society with its own laws and policing. Where the society is free to decide how it wants to rule/govern itself and there is no external force out there to impose any rules or laws on the people of the society. Its better than the hunter gatherer society cuz this society is community based rather than based on might.

I do ask you all to read Common Sense by Thomas Paine, to get a better understanding of libertarianism and the libertarian state. Actually there's even a new pamphlet Common Sense Revisited which is a revised version of Paine's original Common Sense but for the 21st century.
Common Sense was the single most popular pamphlet published that incited americans to start their revolutionary war for independence.

Leonid

af_thefragile wrote: »

And i'll look up on Marx's theory into a bit more detail... I was reading Das Kapital back in my commie days but then i became a libertarian and started studying the austrian school of economics instead...

On the austrian school, I posted this in the other thread (which seemed to kill it). http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/191.html

turgon

Does anybody think theres any potential for a libertarian/liberal movement/political party in the near future?

af_thefragile

turgon wrote: »

Does anybody think theres any potential for a libertarian/liberal movement/political party in the near future?

I'ld love to see one. I have noticed a growing number of libertarians lately. A lot can be contributed to the efforts and rational and logical talks of people like Ron Paul and Daniel Hannan. But a libertarian political party is still a little far off imo. The libertarian agenda puts a lot of responsibility onto the individual and thats something people haven't been used to lately and the libertarian policy won't work if you implement one policy but leave out another one. For the system to work, you've gotta implement it completely cuz all the little different aspects and policies of the system compliment one another towards the advancement libertarians speak of.

Saying that also as i mentioned earlier the Libertarian system focuses around the individual. The common person and its not gonna succeed until people learn to become responsible for their decisions and actions and start to think for themselves. No social security, no free education, no free healthcare would be a huge change for people to cope with.

This brings us to the historical dilemma. People won't be able to adjust to the huge change bought about by the implementation of the libertarian system in a day. But at the same time people won't be motivated enough to fight for a transitional phase thats midway between centralism and libertarianism, neither am i sure how well it would work. Like Bakunin said, the people overthrowing the old order must immediately live in freedom or they'll lose it.

The formation of a libertarian party would certainly be a step forward but i think what we need more is a movement than a party. We don't need another guy standing up for election ready to impose his ideals on us. That is exactly what want to get rid of. We need to make people realise what freedom means to them and take responsibility to think for themselves and their actions. Going back to Thomas Paine again, we need to teach people about Liberty through Common Sense! So that they can first free their mind and then fight for their liberty!

"What would happen if there was a war and no one turned up for it?"

af_thefragile

Also to add a little note:

Anarchy is a very romantic idea. Its something that poets and artists have dreamed of for centuries. The notion of a free man exempted from the rule of any king or emperor. He is free to travel the earth and live wherever he wishes learning and gaining wisdom from all the different people he meets as he journeys through the wonders of this planet. He is free to live by his own rules and moral code. He doesn't have any duties or obligations to anyone (but his creator?). He knows and lives what freedom really is.

And then also there is the anarchist rebel. The outlaw, fighting the oppression of the establishment. He doesn't give into the laws placed upon him. He lives by rules and principles that are his alone. Like Robin Hood or V from V for Vendetta.

Try writing a story about a commie hero!
Though that is exactly what I'm doing right now...

Leonid

af_thefragile wrote: »

Try writing a story about a commie hero!
Though that is exactly what I'm doing right now...

Well there are lots of books from socialist/anti-capitalism views:The Grapes of Wrath, death of a salesmen and so on.

thesunwashot

af_thefragile wrote: »

This is exactly what people get wrong about anarchism. Thats why i first mention anarchy promotes society but abolishes government as in a central/federal government. In anarchy the society rules itself. The members of the society come together to form their own laws and their own police in a way that all the people who're a part of the society agree to. So say taking Ireland as an example. Every county would have its own set of rules and laws and its own police force formed by the residents of that community. If anyone didn't like the way one county works, they have the freedom to just simply move out and join another one which they like more. People voting by the power of just stepping out.

So say if Dublin decides it wants to be communist but Galway likes anarchism, instead of converting whole of Ireland to communism or anarchism, Dublin can be communist while Galway functions as an anarchic county. People in Dublin who don't like the communist rule and prefer the anarchic one can move to Galway and vice versa. People have the freedom to chose the way their society is run and also have the freedom to leave the society if they don't like it.

And Ireland can remain as an intact state, it doesn't mean Ireland breaks up into its individual counties as separate states. Ireland could/will be the collective state composed of all the individual self governing counties and it could deal with Foreign Policies, common law and such (like say how the EU was initially proposed to be for Europe). People in Ireland would be Irish and free to roam around and settle down wherever they like within Ireland. Just Ireland wouldn't have much central power over the states. It has to be a state for the people, not a state for the few elite bureaucrats. And this is what happens most of the time. Democracy ends up in a bunch of these bureaucrats competing for their personal gains and ideals while the people of the state end up being left out of the equation.

Anarchy leaves the greedy politicians redundant. It funnels back the power from the central state back into the hands of the people and their societies.
Every individual has a say in the society. The society has the power to decide how it wants to rule itself.

You can also check out Thomas Paine's constitution of united states. It could maybe fit for a libertarian anarchic state.

From what you say, you have a great deal of faith in each person to do the right thing. You argue that people will come together and form their own laws and police them, but how? You are saying my post is wrong but you don't explain how you foresee this happening. If a group or individual takes over a community using violence, people can't "just simply move out". How are those who don't want to live in harmony with your system to be accommodated?

You are advocating a state of nature approach here but acting like each person will think and act in the same way and reach some kind of harmony. Whilst it might be a nice idea, humans are not good at getting along. Power struggles always occur.

The best run any group has had at implementing anarchism was in Spain when people grouped to oppose Franco. Although this was a noble attempt at putting the principles into action, it was like minded people in opposition to another way of life rather than a whole state living peacefully as anarchists and it all ended very badly when the communists turned on them under Soviet instruction. By all rights you would think these groups would work together not against each other...

af_thefragile

thesunwashot wrote: »

From what you say, you have a great deal of faith in each person to do the right thing. You argue that people will come together and form their own laws and police them, but how? You are saying my post is wrong but you don't explain how you foresee this happening. If a group or individual takes over a community using violence, people can't "just simply move out". How are those who don't want to live in harmony with your system to be accommodated?

You are advocating a state of nature approach here but acting like each person will think and act in the same way and reach some kind of harmony. Whilst it might be a nice idea, humans are not good at getting along. Power struggles always occur.

The best run any group has had at implementing anarchism was in Spain when people grouped to oppose Franco. Although this was a noble attempt at putting the principles into action, it was like minded people in opposition to another way of life rather than a whole state living peacefully as anarchists and it all ended very badly when the communists turned on them under Soviet instruction. By all rights you would think these groups would work together not against each other...

Anarchy is not about like minded people living together in harmony. Its about people having the freedom to live the way they chose to without anyone forcing their ideals onto them.

Although you say humans aren't good at getting along, humans are also not good at living by themselves. Humans have a natural tendency to socialise and form a society/community. Like the bunch of sailors who got marooned on an island. If they had to survive, they had to work together as a community. Its the natural order of things. It how humans have managed to survive all along. By forming societies and looking out for one another. This is how we say humans should live. I don't need to foresee it happening. Its how humans naturally behave.

You don't need to use force or violence to take over a community. Infact if someone tries to do that, the people will rebel against him and throw him out of the community.

And then about the one who doesn't wanna live within harmony or doesn't like the way the community is run, i stated this before, such a person is free to leave the community and go find another community he likes more. Anarchy means freedom to the person. The person is not obliged to be a part of the society like he would be under a communist/socialist rule. The person is a free man and he can go live wherever and however he wishes to. The person joins the community for his own benefit and because humans are social beings, we can't function too well if we're not a part of some community.


People always keep confusing anarchism with bunch of rebels and stuff. That is not anarchism, that rebellion! Anarchism is an order of society. It means every person is a free man and is free to make his own decisions. He doesn't have any duties towards the state. Though the state in return is not gonna nurse him with safety nets like social welfare, free education and healthcare etc. He is a free man and so he needs to look after himself and he is free to make his own living.
People will be rewarded on how much they put into the society they've decided to become a part of. The more the person contributes to the society, the more he will be rewarded back in return (through money, richness etc.). Its as fair as a society can get.

And equality is a myth.
We libertarians believe everyone is equal at the starting line, not at the finish line. And then its upto your courage, hardwork, talent etc. where you end up at the finish line.

af_thefragile

One thing to add:
They key difference between anarchy and other orders of society is that in anarchy one doesn't try to impose his ideals onto the whole society.

Anarchy, by definition, is the only order of society where men are free to chose their way to live (as long as they're not harming others). Where no one is trying to get the rest of the society succumb to his way of life.

turgon

Reading af_thefragiles post it reminded me of Lord of the Flies by William Golding.

The book comments a lot on society etc. Towards the end of the book the key idea is that Ralph (the disposed "democratic" leader) and his cohorts are being forced to join the "scouts," and army like institution under the directorship of Jack and another boy. They dont want to but due to force of arms they are not allowed live their lives.

Saying that modern Ireland represents Lord of the Flies is probably being way too dramatic. However one can see the similarities here between that scenario above and the way we are forced to adhere to a strict set of moral guidelines even though very often we disagree with them and dont want it.

af_thefragile

^Looks like i must check out that book!

silverharp

One for the Ron Paul fans

Question: Dr. Paul, what do you say to people who advocate self-government and who don’t simply want to return to the Constitution?

Dr. Paul: Great, that’s fine, I think that’s really what my goal is. Isn’t it interesting that if you have a government they’ll want us all to be socialistic and use us, but they’ll never let an enclave to become libertarian but if we lived in a libertarian society we would have no qualms if people wanted to live socialistically?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

they made the point that younger people have nothing to lose because they know social security wont be there when it comes around to their turn.

dsmythy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Think it was on a video posted here that a great thing to ask a socialist is whether they are a coercive socialist or a voluntary socialist.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

thesunwashot

af_thefragile wrote: »

Anarchy is not about like minded people living together in harmony. Its about people having the freedom to live the way they chose to without anyone forcing their ideals onto them.

Except that when you write about it and try to give examples, you refer to small groups (sailors on an island) or small communities which in your head seem to be unrelated. You seem to be saying that an Anarchist Ireland would be made up of lots of small communities each containing members who agree with each other (as the rest would have moved on) and who don't interfere with other communities right to be. This seems unrealistic.

I think you need to seriously address the logistics of what you suggest otherwise in grand Chomsky fashion it is political opinions without an idea of how to implement them.

Lets assume Ireland becomes an anarchist state. Do you envisage a centralised organisation which takes care of shared things such as educational policy, road maintenance, etc or do you see each community as providing for itself only. Would there be a centralised taxation system or would it be a case of chipping in for costs as you feel like it (as you mention there would be no coercion to do anything by a state).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

af_thefragile

thesunwashot wrote: »

Except that when you write about it and try to give examples, you refer to small groups (sailors on an island) or small communities which in your head seem to be unrelated. You seem to be saying that an Anarchist Ireland would be made up of lots of small communities each containing members who agree with each other (as the rest would have moved on) and who don't interfere with other communities right to be. This seems unrealistic.

I think you need to seriously address the logistics of what you suggest otherwise in grand Chomsky fashion it is political opinions without an idea of how to implement them.

Lets assume Ireland becomes an anarchist state. Do you envisage a centralised organisation which takes care of shared things such as educational policy, road maintenance, etc or do you see each community as providing for itself only. Would there be a centralised taxation system or would it be a case of chipping in for costs as you feel like it (as you mention there would be no coercion to do anything by a state).

Why is it unrealistic?
Why do all of ye socialist keep propagating the same rhetoric that people are too stupid to fend for themselves and entrepreneurs are too evil to care for the people?
You've gotta give the people a chance to grow and take responsibility for themselves. Its about time people need to get weaned off the state providing and looking after them.

Also the state usually does a lousy job whenever it does anything. Everything the state does in this country is inefficient. From Dublin Bus to the state run schools. Putting these services back in the hands of the people (by privatisation) would result in competition which would lead to a better, cheaper and more efficient service.

How would you want me to implement this?
Dissolve the central government. Give the businesses back to the people in a proper free market fashion without any government intervention and regulation. Get rid of income tax, let the people and businesses keep the hard earned money they make. Each state/county/society can have their own police force composed of the people of the society. Each state/county/society is free to have their own laws and their own system of governance.
As almost every industry is privatised, there is no need for government to take taxes from the people as the government has very little job in the society. The government is for the people, not for the few elite at the top.

I'm not calling for a complete break up of Ireland into its counties, as i mentioned before, Ireland will remain intact, there will be a small central government to take care of foreign policy, army and defense and common law (protection of people's rights and liberty). But thats it. No further involvement of the central government in the counties and any of the industries and market.

turgon

But will there have to be a small tax to upkeep government? Maybe a fixed amount per person per year?

Iwasfrozen

How would you want me to implement this?
Dissolve the central government. Give the businesses back to the people in a proper free market fashion without any government intervention and regulation. Get rid of income tax, let the people and businesses keep the hard earned money they make. Each state/county/society can have their own police force composed of the people of the society. Each state/county/society is free to have their own laws and their own system of governance.
As almost every industry is privatised, there is no need for government to take taxes from the people as the government has very little job in the society. The government is for the people, not for the few elite at the top.

And what, prey tell will prevent companies from forming a monopolie then charging the **** out of people for their product ? Who will pay for these regional Police Force ? what incentive is there for large businesses to move out of the city into the country ? What is to stop a large company hireing/bribing a "local police force" i.e Militia, and enslaving the population ?
You say that in a Libertarian society people will start off equal and finish with winners and losers but how would this work ? If all schools are private then wouldn't the Son/Daughter of a Doctor/Business Leader be able to afford better a better education giving them a better (or less than equal) start in life. Eventually you would find yourself living in a very Class Based society with the Rich at the top and Poor at the bottom with no way for the Poor to become Rich unless the Rich wanted them to be Rich.
Do you see where I'm coming form here ? Ironically in your desire for a Classless Society where everyone is equal and the Rich become Rich by Hard work alone you will find that those born into a Rich family will not need to work at all while those born into a Poor family will have to work extremely hard for little or no return.

silverharp

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ironically in your desire for a Classless Society where everyone is equal and the Rich become Rich by Hard work alone you will find that those born into a Rich family will not need to work at all while those born into a Poor family will have to work extremely hard for little or no return.

who said what now? , Part of wanting to be rich is to pass on the benefits to their offspring. A Libertarian doesnt have a problem with this in a free market. If the offspring are not good custodians , they will run their inheritance into the ground and the assets will be sold on to be used more efficiently.

Iwasfrozen

who said what now? , Part of wanting to be rich is to pass on the benefits to their offspring. A Libertarian doesnt have a problem with this in a free market. If the offspring are not good custodians , they will run their inheritance into the ground and the assets will be sold on to be used more efficiently.

If you read the rest of my post you would see that as all schools are private Rich peoples children would go to the best schools, giving them a better education and a better start in life. Poor/Middle class people would not be able to afford to send their children to good schools giving them a disadvantage.
Thus the Rich stay Rich and the Poor stay Poor.

silverharp

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If you read the rest of my post you would see that as all schools are private Rich peoples children would go to the best schools, giving them a better education and a better start in life. Poor/Middle class people would not be able to afford to send their children to good schools giving them a disadvantage.
Thus the Rich stay Rich and the Poor stay Poor.

Statistically you could be right but so what? we are not talking feudal lords and inherited titles. Within a generation industries rise and fall so there is no guarantee that what made a family sucessful can be passed on with any certainty.
Break it down, take a sample of 1000 working class people, ask them what do they want for their kids? what is realistic? why should they be intimidated by saying they only have less then 1% chance of ever being rich (under any system).
Personally looking back at my own family history, go back 2 generations and I have working class and peasant farmers ancestors , my parents would have been middle class (through a bit of self reliance) and thankfully I've managed to build on it. I dont see anything in my recent family history where I can say "the man" was keeping them down. It seems like a bogus argument to talk about the rich staying rich and the poor staying poor. I have 0% chance of being a rich as Bill Gates , am I supposed to have a problem with that?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

I found this awfully dark quote apparently by John Paul II:

"Freedom is not the power to do what one wants. Freedom is the power to do what is right. "

It's actually a bit scary.

af_thefragile

turgon wrote: »

But will there have to be a small tax to upkeep government? Maybe a fixed amount per person per year?

Maybe there could be. Something small and affordable to run the police probably. I'm not an economist, so i guess it would be an economist's job of figuring out what this "affordable" amount of tax would be and would such a tax even be necessary cuz back in the days there was no such thing as income tax but the services still used to function pretty well. Maybe the revenue the society could generate would be enough to fund the police force.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And what, prey tell will prevent companies from forming a monopolie then charging the **** out of people for their product ? Who will pay for these regional Police Force ? what incentive is there for large businesses to move out of the city into the country ? What is to stop a large company hireing/bribing a "local police force" i.e Militia, and enslaving the population ?
You say that in a Libertarian society people will start off equal and finish with winners and losers but how would this work ? If all schools are private then wouldn't the Son/Daughter of a Doctor/Business Leader be able to afford better a better education giving them a better (or less than equal) start in life. Eventually you would find yourself living in a very Class Based society with the Rich at the top and Poor at the bottom with no way for the Poor to become Rich unless the Rich wanted them to be Rich.
Do you see where I'm coming form here ? Ironically in your desire for a Classless Society where everyone is equal and the Rich become Rich by Hard work alone you will find that those born into a Rich family will not need to work at all while those born into a Poor family will have to work extremely hard for little or no return.

What makes you think the government isn't charge the **** out of people already for the inefficient service it is providing. Dublin Bus would be a perfect example to throw in here. The fares keep going higher but the service remains the same. Also the police force works for the government not the people...
In a libertarian state the police force would work for the people (as it would be composed of the people from the society), if a business wanted to bribe the police, its quite likely it would have to end up bribing everyone in the force.

In a libertarian state the people would have the knowledge to figure out if a certain company is forming a monopoly and to stop it from doing so. But as this is quite hypothetical, maybe there could be laws against the formation of cartels. There could be audit firms that keep a check on businesses to make sure they aren't committing any fraud. Also there's even the question of companies agreeing to form a cartel in the first place.

Anyway, the point is all this already happens in this pseudo capitalistic state we've got. It can only get worse in a socialist state cuz over there every industry is a monopoly and the police belongs to the bureaucrats, not the common people.
In a liberal state, where everyone is free to set up their own businesses without any problem, it would be much harder to form a monopoly and also as the police is composed of the members of the society, they're working for the people and not for the businesses.

Coming to the question about classes, yes there will be classes in a libertarian society but its only fair. People who have worked hard have been rewarded by moving up the class ladder while the lazy people remain at the bottom of the ladder. Also if a person is born in a low class, he can move up the ladder through hard work, there have been many rags to riches stories around and such people are a great asset to the society. They become a mode of inspiration and idols for other people to look upto and follow. Such people would have no place in a socialist society. The bureaucrats remain bureaucrats and the proletariats remain proletariats.

And finally about schooling, it doesn't just matter what school a person goes to, the person's ability, talent, skill, hardwork etc. also matters in where the person ends up in life. There have been many examples of people being born with a silver spoon, getting the best possible education and resources ending up in rehab. There have also been examples of people being born in very poor background, with no resources, who end up very high in life.
So again, there's nothing too unfair about such a system. The best person gets to go the furthest in a libertarian society and this is as fair a society could get. People get what they deserve.

Also if a poor person wants to go to a rich school, he (his parents) could take a loan or/and if he's too poor to afford school/university, he could apply for grants from the state. There would be a little bit of social welfare in the society but set up as a form of a charity rather than tax. Like i mentioned before, people are/should be morally obliged to give charity for the well being of society. Instead of the government leeching money of the people by the way of tax, people would instead donate voluntary charity which people could donate as much as they want and the money would be used only on the ones who really need it/deserve it. Charity/philanthropy would be a significant part of such a society. And as people are voluntarily doing it, its not a form of socialism where money is forcefully taken from the rich (who have worked hard to earn it) and distributed within the poor.

af_thefragile

And another thing i'ld like to add is right now we're just speculating.
There hasn't been proper libertarian society neither has there been a proper marxist society in history to speak of. All that we've had so far is people trying to rule over one another.

A libertarian state can finally put these orders of society to their proper test. By letting the anarchists run their society the anarchic/libertarian way and by letting the socialists run their society the socialist way, we're creating competition between the two societies under the state. It could be the ultimate test in determining out which form of society would be more perfect and superior.

The only way for real we can find out if all these systems of governance can work or not and figure out the flaws and advantages in them is by giving these systems a fair trails and only a libertarian state can provide such freedom to the people in the state to form their societies according to the socialist or anarchist or whatever system they wanna and see for themselves what works and what doesn't.

Speculation will only bring us this far.

People fight quite hard to get to their level of power and once they get there it becomes almost impossible for them to let go of the power they've worked so hard to achieve. They get blinded by it and only crave for more of it. This is why no leader/head of state will resort to a libertarian state cuz by doing so he'ld have to let go of all the power he's worked so hard to achieve, he'ld have to give all that power back to the people. A mere mortal can't do that!! Instead leaders crave for more power and the state slowly constricts into a form of false democracy/social dictatorship. Guess this is the natural order of humanity. Like in the book Lord of Flies. Democracy slowly loses out to a form of savage, animalistic order under a ruthless, power hungry leader.

And maybe the only way of putting things back to order is by the uprising of a revolutionary force from within the increasingly oppressed members of the state (as the leader keeps getting more and more oppressive on his power trip, he also needs to keep becoming more oppressive to control the growing number of responsibilities he's taking over and to make sure his state stays intact), the force itself led by a radical leader with fair intentions, fighting for freedom and liberty (a Che Guevara), to come and press the "Reset" button on the society. By overthrowing the oppressive leader and bringing back freedom to the people (after the dictator's oppression has gotten to a point people can't take it anymore). The new leader rises up to power the state and although he's been fair and for the people all along, now he's the head of the new state and now knows what power tastes like. The new leader (Fidel Castro could be the example here) gets addicted to this new power he's achieved and then only starts craving for more. The cycle continues until someone else rises up to press the "Reset" button and start the cycle over again!
This is the order of humanity. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.