I think, Koolay, that you see government as a group of power-hungry elite. The problems caused by this elite, then, could be solved by removing them. But if you see government as the process of instinct in action, you'll see that it's rooted in obvious evolutionary advantage, and will pop up wherever those instincts exist. So long, for example, as fit men can provide for the potential offspring of fit women, there will be a behavioral interchange between them. As soon as language is involved, and that language is used to define the way behaviors can go down, and rules for enforcing that behavior, then government has been born. The problem with very big government (like that of the US) is mainly that each individual has a 1-in-300-million voice-- i.e. no noticeable voice when it comes to establishing rules or determining how they are enforced; for alpha-male types who never get to actually act like alphas, there is going to be a lot of discomfort (and a likely prison term). The real problem isn't the government, though-- it's the fact that you are in a social contract consisting of a truly staggering number of people, and have as much power as an individual salmon in a spawning river. This feels dehumanizing sometimes.

But that doesn't matter. You still get to establish a microarchy in your home to a degree. So long as your government doesn't harm your ability to reproduce, to get food, to provide shelter for your mate, etc. then you're okay. America is close to the point where too many feel this basic environment is lacking, and revolution is therefore increasingly likely IMO. But if a revolution succeeds, it's not going to lead to anything resembling anarchy.

(July 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I think, Koolay, that you see government as a group of power-hungry elite. The problems caused by this elite, then, could be solved by removing them. But if you see government as the process of instinct in action, you'll see that it's rooted in obvious evolutionary advantage, and will pop up wherever those instincts exist.

Actually humans are the only animal around that can negotiate peacefully - language after all is negotiation. If we want something, we (apart from the dsyfunctional aggressors) don't steal and fight when we want something. We peacefully trade and negotiate, negotiation is at the heart of all language systems that other animals do not posses. So humans, if anything are the only animal that aggression is not it's nature.

(July 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm)bennyboy Wrote: The real problem isn't the government, though-- it's the fact that you are in a social contract consisting of a truly staggering number of people, and have as much power as an individual salmon in a spawning river. This feels dehumanizing sometimes.

This is wrong. It is not a contract as a contract implies voluntarism. Nobody can sign on behalf of me unless I give permission. I didn't give permission for shit. How could I? I was a foetus when I was slapped on with fiscal debt and 'social obligations'.

(July 1, 2013 at 7:12 pm)Koolay Wrote:

(July 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I think, Koolay, that you see government as a group of power-hungry elite. The problems caused by this elite, then, could be solved by removing them. But if you see government as the process of instinct in action, you'll see that it's rooted in obvious evolutionary advantage, and will pop up wherever those instincts exist.

Actually humans are the only animal around that can negotiate peacefully - language after all is negotiation. If we want something, we (apart from the dsyfunctional aggressors) don't steal and fight when we want something. We peacefully trade and negotiate, negotiation is at the heart of all language systems that other animals do not posses. So humans, if anything are the only animal that aggression is not it's nature.

And if part of the negotiation is establishing common rules by which to guarantee fairness, and the consequences of breaking those rules, then you have established a peaceful government.

Quote:

(July 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm)bennyboy Wrote: The real problem isn't the government, though-- it's the fact that you are in a social contract consisting of a truly staggering number of people, and have as much power as an individual salmon in a spawning river. This feels dehumanizing sometimes.

This is wrong. It is not a contract as a contract implies voluntarism. Nobody can sign on behalf of me unless I give permission. I didn't give permission for shit. How could I? I was a foetus when I was slapped on with fiscal debt and 'social obligations'.

The contract is implied. Nobody ever signed the social contract or explicitly agreed to it. But so long as you follow the rules of the society, and demand its benefits, you are in the contract sure enough. I guarantee if the police knock on your door to drag you away for sedition, you'll tell them how you've been a great citizen and beg them to allow you your "rights" (which you don't actually have, because you claim not to be a party to the social contract).

People sometimes DO declare explicitly that they don't accept the contract. They refuse to pay taxes, or they attack government offices, or rob banks. Then the government kills them or removes their freedoms completely.

But the specific details you mentioned (e.g. debt upon birth) don't really require anarchy to be solved. They require an active population who will change the cost-benefit analysis of governmental behaviors-- either through rebellion ("Let them eat cake."), or through voting/anti-voting social campaigns, or through worker strike, or whatever. Take for example Wall Street. What would have happened if the angry citizens had stormed all the business offices and started executing CEOs?

But this is not anarchy. It's rebellion. There's a big difference-- because an anarchist might tear down a government, but he's a fool if he thinks another one won't replace it.

(July 1, 2013 at 7:31 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 1, 2013 at 7:12 pm)Koolay Wrote: Actually humans are the only animal around that can negotiate peacefully - language after all is negotiation. If we want something, we (apart from the dsyfunctional aggressors) don't steal and fight when we want something. We peacefully trade and negotiate, negotiation is at the heart of all language systems that other animals do not posses. So humans, if anything are the only animal that aggression is not it's nature.


This is wrong. It is not a contract as a contract implies voluntarism. Nobody can sign on behalf of me unless I give permission. I didn't give permission for shit. How could I? I was a foetus when I was slapped on with fiscal debt and 'social obligations'.

The contract is implied. Nobody ever signed the social contract or explicitly agreed to it.

If permission is not given, then it is not a contract by definition, simple.

You can't just say something is 'implied' and make it so, you are bound to reason and logic.

(July 1, 2013 at 7:32 pm)Koolay Wrote:

(July 1, 2013 at 7:31 pm)bennyboy Wrote: The contract is implied. Nobody ever signed the social contract or explicitly agreed to it.

If permission is not given, then it is not a contract by definition, simple.

You can't just say something is 'implied' and make it so, you are bound to reason and logic.

Your semantics are at odds with the reality of the situation.

(July 1, 2013 at 7:38 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 1, 2013 at 7:32 pm)Koolay Wrote: If permission is not given, then it is not a contract by definition, simple.

You can't just say something is 'implied' and make it so, you are bound to reason and logic.

Your semantics are at odds with the reality of the situation.

What do you mean by this?

I don't care if it is unpopular, am I right or wrong is all I am concerned about. This is philosophy after all.

(July 1, 2013 at 7:51 pm)Koolay Wrote:

(July 1, 2013 at 7:38 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Your semantics are at odds with the reality of the situation.

What do you mean by this?

I don't care if it is unpopular, am I right or wrong is all I am concerned about. This is philosophy after all.

You are defining the social contract as something which is entered into voluntarily. You say if you do not give your consent, you are not a member of that contract. However, the reality is that while you are voluntarily a member of a society, you implicitly accept that contract. Every time you stop at a red light, or walk past a jewelry store without smashing a display case and taking some gold, or allow a person to walk away who has insulted you, you are showing that you accept the terms, and are willing to abide by them.

If you do not like the rules, you have an obligation to remove yourself from the benefits which the society provide: safety, opportunity, etc. Someone who drives on roads paid for by taxes, but refuses to pay taxes because he "never explicitly agreed" to do so, is a parasite. Someone who enjoys the physical safety guaranteed by the police must accept that his own freedoms will be limited by those same police-- or else, he is a parasite.

So basically, an anarchist as I see it is someone who isn't a powerful politician, but wants to live like one. This seems hypocritical to me.

(July 1, 2013 at 6:04 pm)Koolay Wrote: You are degrading humans to machines, we are not machines and we have free will and we can stop the initiation of violence at any time.

On our own behalf, yes. A community of people who rely on pacifism is at the mercy of those who decide not to. Why would an aggressor worry about "the market" when he can simply force the non-violent to provide goods for him under the threat of abuse or death? I expect that a society that does away with an organized government will break down into smaller and smaller units that survive, not by turning to for-profit court systems, but by violently suppressing their neighbors.

A reasonable expectation...given that this is the way that we used to handle it..lol.

(July 1, 2013 at 9:03 pm)bennyboy Wrote: You are defining the social contract as something which is entered into voluntarily. You say if you do not give your consent, you are not a member of that contract. However, the reality is that while you are voluntarily a member of a society, you implicitly accept that contract.

The definition of a society is a voluntary group of people.

" a voluntary association of individuals for common ends; especially : an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession"

Not what a government is. Government is as much part of society as a group of hostages are to the robbers.

You are incorrect. Stop deceiving people.

(July 1, 2013 at 9:03 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Every time you stop at a red light, or walk past a jewelry store without smashing a display case and taking some gold, or allow a person to walk away who has insulted you, you are showing that you accept the terms, and are willing to abide by them.

Nothing to do with the government, I do that without threat of punishment. It's like a religious person saying to someone 'But if you don't have a religion, how would you have morals?'. You don't need punishment to follow a principled and peaceful life.

(July 1, 2013 at 9:03 pm)bennyboy Wrote: If you do not like the rules

Nope. Government does not have any rules. It slowly takes away rights from those that are not part of the same gang.

(July 2, 2013 at 12:06 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(July 1, 2013 at 6:04 pm)Koolay Wrote: You are degrading humans to machines, we are not machines and we have free will and we can stop the initiation of violence at any time.

On our own behalf, yes. A community of people who rely on pacifism is at the mercy of those who decide not to. Why would an aggressor worry about "the market" when he can simply force the non-violent to provide goods for him under the threat of abuse or death? I expect that a society that does away with an organized government will break down into smaller and smaller units that survive, not by turning to for-profit court systems, but by violently suppressing their neighbors.

There are more irrational people than rational, yes- so it would look something like that if governments ended today. But as treatment of children is improving, so will society. The best way to measure the rationality of a society is by the treatment of children, and so far we are seeing big leaps in the rights of children. So I would say what I am proposing would be mainstream in hundreds of years. All social changes are multi-generational, so I do not expect anarcho-capitalism to be embraced yet.