Of course, because Hitler and Stalin both came to power following periods of anarchy in their respective countries!

 

:rolleyes:

 

Hitler came to power because the Weimar Republic became unstable and was to weak to defend itself. Both communists and fascists had their own militias that were fighting each other and terrorising dissenters. Sounds a lot like anarchy to me.

Then clearly you can't tell the difference between anarchy and statism.

 

How much propaganda have you gulped to honestly equate war with anarchy? War is the result of governments. Maybe you also agree that Woodrow Wilson should also win the Nobel Peace Prize as he did? Come on.

anarchy |ˈanərkē|

noun

a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority

 

That's what happened in the final stages of the Weimar Republic. Statism is what came afterward. HTH

 

Anyway, I'm off for tonight, I need to catch some sleep.

Anarchy is not disorder. It's natural order.

 

You probably think the government should set the price of food and homes, right? Because anything else would be anarchy! *gasp*

 

You're a Creationist. But that's okay, eventually you'll realize that men in costumes with guns won't solve your problems, just like Darwin realized that a man in the sky didn't create Adam and Eve.

 

Because without a government we'd all be at each other's throats, killing and pillaging. Right? Of course.

With the peace prize will Obama send more troops to Afghanistan?

I never said it would be all cookies and sunshine. You're projecting. Statists tend to look upon anarchy with strong cynicism, yet uphold government (and all its attendant horrors and illogic) as some sort of panacea. Got a problem? Government can solve it! So from my perspective, ANYTHING is better than a geographic monopoly on violence. Anarchy is just the alternative, and how it's done is the result of millions of little decisions each member of society makes on a daily basis. It's not a single decision one man makes, and then implements with the force of a military whose weapons are so fearful, God himself would tremble!

 

The reason I believe anarchy would work is that throughout history, you see temporary periods where there was anarchy or near-anarchy. And in each of these times & places, life was relatively wonderful. Governments will propagandize and say things like "Oh without us, you'd still be working in a dirty factory! And you'd make 10 cents an hour!" But of course, if this were such a bad thing - why did millions of Britons choose to do it, rather than farm? Because they made a decision, independent of government interference, that this would be a better life. And it was.

 

Any time society changes due to a new technology or shift in economics, governments resist it, and put laws into place to "protect us" from ourselves. And then when things start to get better, the court historians say "See! This was because of that law they passed!"

 

Look around you. Any time the "government" does something, it's actually the cops who are doing it. They're the edge of the knife. They're the ones who make sure that government policy is implemented. So anytime someone says, "Government should do X", they're really saying, "Cops should do X".

 

Jay, I know you never said cookies and sunshine and I was projecting. I apologize.

 

I just do not think that an anarchy would work. It is just my opinion that in a world without order and rules, people will hurt those that are weaker or different or less-abled. I am of course aware that people are treated like shit by governments etc., i just look at it as the lesser of two evils I guess. Also, I really cannot think of a real anarchy having ever been in practice before. Again, I guess I do not mind sucking at the tit of the government as long as they are looking out for me. I know I am being naive to some point but at least I am aware of it. That counts for something right?

lol well as a gay man you're not getting much out of the government lately, are you?

 

From my perspective, a democratic republic reflects society to one degree or another. So if people are bigoted against gays or black or whatever, that will be reflected in government policy and laws.

 

So what comes first? The touchy-feely humanitarian thoughts (all people are equal!) or the government action? Well, it's clear that the most intelligent among us have realized for quite some time that "all men are created equal" and they even put that in famous documents. But we still aren't even there yet in America! Funny how that works.

 

The simple fact is, what's written in these old documents is secondary to the dominant ideology of the time.

 

So what comes first? The Government or the Culture? (it's like chicken/egg). From my perspective, it's the culture.

 

Next, look at Law. People will do things for money, that are illegal. Such as kill people or sell drugs, or (most unholy) have sex. They'll even take up arms against their fellow citizens for money (cops arresting non-violent offenders). They'll shoot foreigners for money. You just give them the helicopter and then bullets, and it'll be done.

 

So in this instance, what comes first? Well the money. Money trumps law as a means of controlling behavior.

 

So does culture. So if you are aware that in an anarchy, you still have money and culture, you can see that government is actually quite pitiful at governance.

 

But the propaganda is so heavily in favor of government that it's next to impossible to convince statists otherwise. It's like saying if we take the Bull's Eye down, it will no longer be a Target. The logo is gone, but the system of organization (that is all entirely voluntary) will still exist, albeit it will run more efficiently.

lol well as a gay man you're not getting much out of the government lately, are you?

 

From my perspective, a democratic republic reflects society to one degree or another. So if people are bigoted against gays or black or whatever, that will be reflected in government policy and laws.

 

So what comes first? The touchy-feely humanitarian thoughts (all people are equal!) or the government action? Well, it's clear that the most intelligent among us have realized for quite some time that "all men are created equal" and they even put that in famous documents. But we still aren't even there yet in America! Funny how that works.

 

The simple fact is, what's written in these old documents is secondary to the dominant ideology of the time.

 

So what comes first? The Government or the Culture? (it's like chicken/egg). From my perspective, it's the culture.

 

Next, look at Law. People will do things for money, that are illegal. Such as kill people or sell drugs, or (most unholy) have sex. They'll even take up arms against their fellow citizens for money (cops arresting non-violent offenders). They'll shoot foreigners for money. You just give them the helicopter and then bullets, and it'll be done.

 

So in this instance, what comes first? Well the money. Money trumps law as a means of controlling behavior.

 

So does culture. So if you are aware that in an anarchy, you still have money and culture, you can see that government is actually quite pitiful at governance.

 

But the propaganda is so heavily in favor of government that it's next to impossible to convince statists otherwise. It's like saying if we take the Bull's Eye down, it will no longer be a Target. The logo is gone, but the system of organization (that is all entirely voluntary) will still exist, albeit it will run more efficiently.

 

Great response Jay!

Yes, the government is pitiful at governance. obviously this is true. And yes, as a gay man, I know my rights are not yet being fully granted. however, in an anarchist state, what is to keep people from using their religion to go out and kill me or other people they deem less worthy. Religion has been behind many a war and many deaths. Does religion fit into an anarchy?

What's weird is that I am not in support of big government. I think governments should leave people to their own devices unless those people are to do harm to others. This country has no chance of ever becoming an anarchy, so I lace up my shoes every morning and join in the rat race.

Oh yeah religion is the other great danger. But if you look at a lot of western nations, you see less and less religious people as time goes on. We're becoming more secular, which in my view is a good thing. Secular nations are the most peaceful and have the least crime.

 

It's hard to say but I think even America will eventually secularize. The question is, after you stop believing in the fairy tales, when do you stop believing in the government? I think it's the logical next-step in human enlightenment.

Oh yeah religion is the other great danger. But if you look at a lot of western nations, you see less and less religious people as time goes on. We're becoming more secular, which in my view is a good thing. Secular nations are the most peaceful and have the least crime.

 

It's hard to say but I think even America will eventually secularize. The question is, after you stop believing in the fairy tales, when do you stop believing in the government? I think it's the logical next-step in human enlightenment.

 

Totally agree with this statement. I am hopeful that we become a more secular country and I do believe that we are headed in that direction. Sadly, I do not believe it will be in our lifetimes. There are too many people that grasp so tightly to their religion and will kill to defend it. I am not necessarily against anarchy, as long as I could be somewhat assured of my safety. I don't trust people enough to play fair when there are no rules.

Anarchy is not disorder. It's natural order.

 

You probably think the government should set the price of food and homes, right? Because anything else would be anarchy! *gasp*

 

You're a Creationist. But that's okay, eventually you'll realize that men in costumes with guns won't solve your problems, just like Darwin realized that a man in the sky didn't create Adam and Eve.

 

Because without a government we'd all be at each other's throats, killing and pillaging. Right? Of course.

 

Believe it or not, I don't think that the government is the answer to all our problems. But I don't think a mythical free market is the answer to everything, either. What we need is a mixture of both. And we most definitely need laws, and a way to enforce them. If there's no need to fear punishment if you steal, kill or rape, things will get ugly, trust me. If you don't like your current government, the answer isn't to abolish it but to strive for a better one.

 

By the way, you never answered how the "free market" is going to care of the poor. After all, there's no money to be made off them.

What we need is a mixture of both.

 

A mixed economy is the true myth. It's a lie to trick people who don't understand economics to believe they have something they don't.

 

By the way, you never answered how the "free market" is going to care of the poor. After all, there's no money to be made off them.

 

Capitalism was started by the poor, and brought wealth to the poor in Europe. Before Capitalism they made goods used up by the rich, now the modern worker makes goods, they buy themselves. Free Market Capitalism pulls people out of poverty thus allowing them to buy more and have a higher stand of living, perpetuating profits for other people as well. Thus the "poor" in a free market are profitable and in the process they are taken out of poverty.

Andreasw, I haven't got time to give you a full course on anarcho-capitalism. But let me give you a few links and a short response to each of your points.

 

1. You cannot have a "mixture" of the free market and government. It's impossible. Any government will interfere with free and voluntary exchange in such a way as to enrich those already in power, and make poorer those who aren't. The current methods are taxation, inflation, regulation, patents, government-granted monopolies, and licensure. None of these would exist in a free market, and they all cause unemployment and poverty, while reducing innovation.

 

2. Things would get ugly if you didn't fear punishment... okay. I've heard this argument a thousand times, and I'm not an idiot.

 

First off, let's assume that everyone is retarded, except for criminals, who are like George Clooney and Matt Damon in Ocean's 11. Even in this scenario, the only people who would be hurt are those who come in contact with George and Matt. George and Matt comprise such a small % of the population, and only have enough time to commit so many crimes - 99% of the time, they wouldn't be committing crimes. And if they were, the retarded people (me and my anarchist buddies) would eventually figure out what was going on and we'd beat them with sharp sticks until they're dead. Problem solved.

 

That was the worst-case-scenario. But now let's look at the real world. In the real world, people are self-interested. They seek security, shelter, food, and clothing. They want to raise their kids and educate them. They would like to have roads to drive on. So everyone is willing to pay for security VOLUNTARILY. There is a demand in society - it will be met.

 

3. How is the government taking care of the poor? The "war on poverty" hasn't changed the % of people who are poor. So until you can show me empirical data that proves government reduces poverty better than capitalism can, I'm afraid you don't have an argument.

 

In capitalism, entrepreneurs are rewarded for figuring out the cheapest way to mass-manufacture goods and services that are in demand by the MOST people. It is this "price system" that signals which methods are profitable, and which are inefficient. If there is a population of poor in society, they are potential customers. So whoever can figure out how to serve them best, gets the most money. It might only be 1 dollar per person. But that's enough to make you a millionaire. Supply... and demand.

I agree Nick, but like all things, even an engine of commerce needs a governor to keep it balanced and not over-speeding.

I have to say I agree somewhat with andreasw, as even the high wire act needs a safety net, and every game (outside of solitaire) requires a referee. There are many motivators in life besides the market as well - some of us are motivated by shared success, some are motivated by altruistic betterment for all, some are motivated by the joy of discovery, or being part of a team that makes life better for the larger group. Some are motivated by the thrill of the game, and some find it good to be the referee, so that the outcome is just and there is a sense of comfort in seeing fair play move humanity ahead.

Seeing through the eyes of others often is a portal to greater existence, but in the mix of things, I think there are many great motivators, which benefit one and all. So if President Obama does gather enough world support for peace initatives, perhaps he is deserving of the prize, albeit specific for just that reason. I too find the ongoing wars disturbing, and I think we would all be better off if the efforts went more into improving conditions & opportunities for those living in impoverished and unstable regions of the world, and less into military forays. The trick as I see it is to steer defense contractors in the right direction (since they're locked into power in out current mode, especially in the US). Truly, defense is about defending the rights of mankind, and there is no better way to do that than to diminish the conditions that lead to instability and conflict. If we can get them to make & send plowshares instead of swords, we will win the hearts and minds of those in desperate situations, and help "prime their pumps" economically speaking. So, I am writing the President, asking that he steer money flowing into defense in the direction of solar-powered desalination systems and pipelines, renewable electric systems, disease prevention equipment and education, sanitation equipment, and the like for those in urgent need around the globe. For the billions we spend on defense, we ought to be living in a safer world by now! They need the jobs, we need the jobs, and the world needs a better way forward.

I remember a tape of Bin Laden bringing equipment to the Sudan, and grading and improving the roads there - the citizens of Sudan were ecstatic to have these improvements! Many a village in Afghanistan needs better water supplies, electric infrastructure, and a small improvement in something like a pump, panel, and water well brings us a huge return in good will. Since it takes a thriving middle class to support and nurture democratic principles and real progress, this is the best investment in defense we, or any nation can make.

Now, since once a stone is placed in a structure, it is hard to move - so we'll probably have to get the defense contractors to make these things over more weapons - they should be alright with that, as long as they get the contracts, and can apply their high-tech know-how to the problems at hand. And hopefully, Barack will see this too, and be persuasive in bringing for this change. If he hasn't been steered too far into the war camp, I see some hope for the future. Otherwise, it's back to the chaos of tribal/family/power broker feuds, and safe-havens for lunatics on the fringe..