Anarchism

[Mister Agenda]

Good point, cooperation is the basis for human survival. It has served us very well. A system that puts us at odds with each other is a step back.

[JefferyHale]

[youtube]2YfgKOnYx5A&feature=related[/youtube]

---

Think I see the problem, Jeff.

So says the supporter of a Marxist-Leninist regime & most likely views the distribution of wealth as being for the "common good" & not "theft". Thus making your poor attempt at a "jab" moot.

[festive1]

So I suppose Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were anarchists then? I seem to remember them having rather strong stances on the whole non-violence thing...

[JefferyHale]

There are many successful & rich individuals who are quite wealthy & would most likely be advocates of such a system, who are not white. You're mistaking social Darwinism with ethnic cleansing I believe. I'm against Nationalism fully & find such abhorrent things utterly disgusting & contemptible. Though I'm guessing you're liberal, therefore, the race card being brought up does not shock me.

I bring up the race issue, because it is a viable issue in this discussion. If we were to wake up tomorrow and simply have no government, instead the system which you propose, it would negatively impact racial minorities to a greater extent than whites. That is a valid assertion. Sure, Herman Cain would have no problem going about his daily life, but lots of other African Americans, Latinos, and other minorities would suffer in greater numbers than average white Americans in your proposed scenario.

Yet again, the masses do not concern anarcho-capitalists. This isn't a "worldly" point of view. This isn't for the collective or the common good. This is for fairness, freedom & survival of the fittest. So, let's say that certain minorities suffered as a result of the free-market, volunteerism & complete freedom. So fucking be it! I'm against theft, even if that means the masses do well under it's pretense.

---

So I suppose Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were anarchists then? I seem to remember them having rather strong stances on the whole non-violence thing...

I cannot say, since I haven't researched much in way of their political beliefs.

[Darkstar]

Yet again, the masses do not concern anarcho-capitalists. This isn't a "worldly" point of view. This isn't for the collective or the common good. This is for fairness, freedom & survival of the fittest. So, let's say that certain minorities suffered as a result of the free-market, volunteerism & complete freedom. So fucking be it! I'm against theft, even if that means the masses do well under it's pretense.

And what if the strong systematically prey on and terrorize the weak? What is strength and weakness, who own the bigger gun? Why do you think that many 'doomsday' scenarios involve chaos due to governmental collapse? If there is order of any sort, then why not just put in a government to do it? With no government, we will fall back to the capitalism that gave birth to Marxists with its inhumane treatment and abuse of the working class for a few elites.

From the image "Anarchy does not mean without rules, rather without rulers" Who will wnforce the rules, then? You? And if the other guy is stronger or has a bigger gun? Survival of the ruthless, there be no retribution if the weak couldn't defend themselves in the first place.

[The Grand Nudger]

What if the "weak" systematically prey on those who thought they were "strong"?

[festive1]

What if the "weak" systematically pray on those who thought they were "strong"?

I could totally imagine some of the drug cartels taking over... That would be fun times, no? Beheadings, shootings, blood in the streets... ah, utopia.

[JefferyHale]

What if the "weak" systematically pray on those who thought they were "strong"?

Then it is up to the "strong" to fight back. I don't see how you could not deduce this one for yourself. As for the gentleman above you, the reason "doomsday" scenarios are painted that way is because the liberal media/Hollywood are the one's portraying them in such a manner. I could easily point you to films like "1984" & "V for Vendetta" to offer up my argument(s) as well, but see them only as works of fiction/art.

Your idea that only government can keep us in line is a typical statist mentality that has been indoctrinated into your brain from a very early age. Without obedience to the state, we're all doomed!

A leftist girl at the local pub asked me who I was going to vote for. When I responded with: I don't vote, I'm an anarchist. She quickly replied with something to the effect of: Oh, no! I don't want to get raped.

The aforementioned mentality seems to be lacking in common sense, so I decided to drink my beverage & forgo any type of rational argument, because I could see she was unarmed.

---

What if the "weak" systematically pray on those who thought they were "strong"?

I could totally imagine some of the drug cartels taking over... That would be fun times, no? Beheadings, shootings, blood in the streets... ah, utopia.

Again, anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with NO ORDER, or NO RULES. These services would still be provided, though by the private sector, not the federal government/tax dollars.

[Darkstar]

Then it is up to the "strong" to fight back. I don't see how you could not deduce this one for yourself. As for the gentleman above you, the reason "doomsday" scenarios are painted that way is because the liberal media/Hollywood are the one's portraying in such a manner. I could easily point you to films like "1984" & "V for Vendetta" to offer up my argument(s) as well, but see them only as works of fiction/art.

Your idea that only government can keep us in line is a typical statist mentality that has been indoctrinated into your brain from a very early age. Without obedience to the state, we're all doomed!

A leftist girl at the local pub asked me who I was going to vote for. When I responded with: I don't vote, I'm an anarchist. She quickly replied with something to the effect of: Oh, no! I don't want to get raped.

The aforementioned mentality seems to be lacking in common sense, so I decided to drink my beverage & forgo any type of rational argument, because I could see she was unarmed.

Anarchy doesn't mean people will do bad things, but that bad people can easily victimize their prey without fear because there is no one to stop them. Yeah, governments can be bad, but I think the American constitution is a good example (whatever else America is doing notwithstanding) of how government is supposed to work. Power is derived from the people; if a government becomes oppressive, the people have a right to overthrow it. You will probably say "yeah but only in theory, no government runs exactly like that", but then let me ask you this: why do you think anarchy extends usefullness beyond theory. The simple fact is that if you wanted to do something bad to her, in a society with no government you could and then no one could do anything about it. Friends of hers? The thug's friends will have bigger guns. You put too much faith in humanity; society would either break down, or re-establish government. Why do you think government was even established in the first place?

State of nature

John Locke considers the state of nature in his Second Treatise on Civil Government written around the time of the Exclusion Crisis in England during the 1680s. For Locke, in the state of nature all men are free "to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature." (2nd Tr., §4). "The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it", and that law is Reason. Locke believes that reason teaches that "no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, and or property"; and that transgressions of this may be punished. This view of the state of nature is partly deduced from Christian belief (unlike Hobbes, whose philosophy is not dependent upon any prior theology).

Even Locke, who had the most positive view of non-government basically says that reason shows us certain things. Yet, said things seem conspicuously similar to what government was designed to do already. Now there is simply a system. If there is no system at all, there is chaos. If there evolves a system, then that system might be called government.

[jonb]

Well Mr hale, do it.
Or are you just going to carry on talking about what you want?