I've Made a Video about Anarchism

[Nay_Sayer]

So you made a cohesive movie about a topic that at its core is about the opposite of such. Fascinating.

[Athene]

https://youtu.be/vtPkRUp7ZIM

Well, you certainly crammed a lot into a few minutes. 
The video gives the air of a subtitled rant, tbh. Though to be fair, it is titled: "Why I'm an Atheist (in Latin)", so I guess as an expression of your personal take on religion and how you it got you to where you are, a bit of ranting was justified. You did manage to squeeze in a few thought-provoking questions, so there's that.

The visual/sound quality seems to have improved since the first vid, though I feel the climate change one was better in regards to continuity/flow.

[FlatAssembler]

Pointing out that government doesn't do that well at controlling externalities does nothing to elucidate the method by which an anarchy WOULD control them and is a tu quoque falacy.

Well, I think it's justified here. If you are claiming your political idea is better than mine because mine has some problem, you need to show your idea doesn't suffer from the same problem. If a religious person claims atheism is wrong because it doesn't explain how the knowledge is possible, the correct response to that is that the supposed existence of God doesn't properly explain that either.

Because when people interact there will be disagreements and those disagreements will eventually necessitate rules at the very least.

And how good is government at settling disagreements? Let me tell you my life story.
After my parents got bitterly divorced, somebody from the social security (and I am quite sure I know exactly who, but I won't name them here) made up a story that my father was a rapist and that I was a witness. Since they were in the government, many people believed them back then, including my mother. Both my parents lost their jobs and gave all the money I was supposed to start my life with to lawyers. That story was well-known, and nobody wanted to be a friend with me. I was lonely (thankfully, I am an only child, so I didn't have to share this little money my parents were able to spend on me with my siblings), and I became a part of a group of vandals and alcoholics. Additionally, my mother ended up in jail (primarily because of bad advices given to her by her lawyer, who was probably actually protecting the social security instead of her) for a year.
That's how the government "settles" disputes: by having lawyers and judges, people who profit from people having disputes, and who have a financial incentive (especially the lawyers) to prolong the disputes. It has nothing to do with justice. The justice would be to punish that psychologist from social security who destroyed my life. But, it's my parents who got punished.

I live in America; the populace is armed! There are governments within governments here BECAUSE of the firearms!

Look, I think we can all agree this argument is wrong because of two things:

1. I don't want to break your world, but the USA, as a heavily policed society with 3% of its population being under some form of custody, mostly for victimless crimes, can hardly be used as a proxy to what would happen in an actual anarchy. We can easily get things precisely backwards here: Is the USA full of armed gangs in spite of the repressive government, or is it maybe full of armed gangs because of the repressive government? The USA is not the freest nation in human history. It's not as bad as North Korea is, or as the Soviet Union was, or as China was in 1950s and 1960s, or as Nazi Germany was, but it's not very far from that either.

2. A society in which almost nobody believes in anarchism at any point in time is, by definition, not a fair test of anarchism. If almost nobody in a society believes in some political idea, that political idea can't be implemented (though the reverse doesn't apply). In the USA, as far as I can tell, most of the people believe in the minimum wage laws, that is, that it's justified to send the armed troupe called the police on a factory just because it supposedly doesn't pay its workers enough. That's as far from anarchism as you can get. Similarly, Somalia wouldn't be so bad if people there hadn't been indoctrinated into thinking the Sharia Law and socialism work.

Nobody said it's easy to accomplish. Like I've said in the video, it's difficult to fight against the love of the false sense of security that laws and the government give to us.

You made a video about anarchism in Latin? You're a goddamn living meme.

I am not sure what you mean.

So you made a cohesive movie about a topic that at its core is about the opposite of such. Fascinating.

I am not sure what you mean. Are you refering to my video about atheism or to my video about anarchism?
If you mean that anarchism seems to be full of unexplained stuff (such as "Who is going to build the roads?"), the usual response to that is that there is a difference between a libertarian ideology and a statist ideology. A statist ideology, such as most forms of socialism, is intended to be forced upon people, so, of course, it is going to be full of "explanations" of how things are going to work in a society that implements it. A libertarian ideology, such as anarchism, claims it's not a good thing to use force to implement it, and it relies on people being creative for many things, so, of course, it's not supposed to explain everything.
And about the roads... well, there are probably better options than to leave the management of the roads to politicians who have no incentive to fix the roads.

[Nay_Sayer]

Pointing out that government doesn't do that well at controlling externalities does nothing to elucidate the method by which an anarchy WOULD control them and is a tu quoque falacy.

Well, I think it's justified here. If you are claiming your political idea is better than mine because mine has some problem, you need to show your idea doesn't suffer from the same problem. If a religious person claims atheism is wrong because it doesn't explain how the knowledge is possible, the correct response to that is that the supposed existence of God doesn't properly explain that either.

Because when people interact there will be disagreements and those disagreements will eventually necessitate rules at the very least.

And how good is government at settling disagreements? Let me tell you my life story.
After my parents got bitterly divorced, somebody from the social security (and I am quite sure I know exactly who, but I won't name them here) made up a story that my father was a rapist and that I was a witness. Since they were in the government, many people believed them back then, including my mother. Both my parents lost their jobs and gave all the money I was supposed to start my life with to lawyers. That story was well-known, and nobody wanted to be a friend with me. I was lonely (thankfully, I am an only child, so I didn't have to share this little money my parents were able to spend on me with my siblings), and I became a part of a group of vandals and alcoholics. Additionally, my mother ended up in jail (primarily because of bad advices given to her by her lawyer, who was probably actually protecting the social security instead of her) for a year.
That's how the government "settles" disputes: by having lawyers and judges, people who profit from people having disputes, and who have a financial incentive (especially the lawyers) to prolong the disputes. It has nothing to do with justice. The justice would be to punish that psychologist from social security who destroyed my life. But, it's my parents who got punished.

I live in America; the populace is armed! There are governments within governments here BECAUSE of the firearms!

Look, I think we can all agree this argument is wrong because of two things:

1. I don't want to break your world, but the USA, as a heavily policed society with 3% of its population being under some form of custody, mostly for victimless crimes, can hardly be used as a proxy to what would happen in an actual anarchy. We can easily get things precisely backwards here: Is the USA full of armed gangs in spite of the repressive government, or is it maybe full of armed gangs because of the repressive government? The USA is not the freest nation in human history. It's not as bad as North Korea is, or as the Soviet Union was, or as China was in 1950s and 1960s, or as Nazi Germany was, but it's not very far from that either.

2. A society in which almost nobody believes in anarchism at any point in time is, by definition, not a fair test of anarchism. If almost nobody in a society believes in some political idea, that political idea can't be implemented (though the reverse doesn't apply). In the USA, as far as I can tell, most of the people believe in the minimum wage laws, that is, that it's justified to send the armed troupe called the police on a factory just because it supposedly doesn't pay its workers enough. That's as far from anarchism as you can get. Similarly, Somalia wouldn't be so bad if people there hadn't been indoctrinated into thinking the Sharia Law and socialism work.

Nobody said it's easy to accomplish. Like I've said in the video, it's difficult to fight against the love of the false sense of security that laws and the government give to us.

You made a video about anarchism in Latin? You're a goddamn living meme.

I am not sure what you mean.

So you made a cohesive movie about a topic that at its core is about the opposite of such. Fascinating.

I am not sure what you mean. Are you refering to my video about atheism or to my video about anarchism?
If you mean that anarchism seems to be full of unexplained stuff (such as "Who is going to build the roads?"), the usual response to that is that there is a difference between a libertarian ideology and a statist ideology. A statist ideology, such as most forms of socialism, is intended to be forced upon people, so, of course, it is going to be full of "explanations" of how things are going to work in a society that implements it. A libertarian ideology, such as anarchism, claims it's not a good thing to use force to implement it, and it relies on people being creative for many things, so, of course, it's not supposed to explain everything.
And about the roads... well, there are probably better options than to leave the management of the roads to politicians who have no incentive to fix the roads.

It was a lame joke about doing a movie that are normally in order and thought out about a concept that is all about disorder and randomness.

Either way, it sounds very interesting

[Cecelia]

A day in the life under anarchy:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...government

Without the government you have no public education, so you've got a far less educated society. You've done away with safety standards, traffic laws (traffic lights too! Think of the accidents. 911 will be very busy--oh wait, 911 won't exist anymore. That's right. Traffic jams will only be much much longer). Without safety standards, workers often die on the job -- or at the very least get hurt. I mean this happened in the 20's WITH government, so without a government to set any standards and no courts to hold businesses accountable, they can really go wild with cutting safety in favor of profit. But hey! At least you'll be free from pesky government. Well, at least until you die a horrible death from eating eggs with salmonella that weren't inspected by the DNA (that's assuming your car's safety is up to spec enough to get you to the store in the first place, to survive those accidents which will again have no emergency services for).

Anarchy is a simple way of thinking. "No rules will make us more free!" But that's simply not true. Yourargument that government messes up, ignores that anarchy is NOT a better solution. If a factory worker messes up, you train them to do better -- you don't go and hire a monkey to do the job. Hiring the monkey is anarchy.

[FlatAssembler]

Without the government you have no public education, so you've got a far less educated society.

Education provided by the government doesn't appear to be too useful. What does it teach children? It teaches children to analyze poetry and to hate capitalism. If the parents pay the teachers for the education, then maybe they will teach children more useful stuff. And teachers would then get more money if they do a good job, most of them probably won't be as underpaid as they are now. I and my family certainly won't be willing to pay somebody to teach me Latin, I'd probably be taught something more useful had I lived in anarchy.

traffic lights too!

In most cases, circular intersections are better solutions. Even so, why would traffic lights magically disappear without a government? Most of them here in Osijek are powered by solar panels, so, even if some idiot wants to make them stop working (if that's more likely to happen in an anarchy than in a state, and I don't see why it would be), it wouldn't be easy for him or her to do that.

. 911 will be very busy--oh wait, 911 won't exist anymore.

Why wouldn't they exist any more? There are quite a few private firefighters.

they can really go wild with cutting safety in favor of profit.

Well, to paraphrase Milton Friedman, how much can that safety cost? Is it OK to put a safety measure that costs 50 dollars? If so, is it OK to force a safety measure that costs a 1'000'000 dollars? And if your answer to the first one is "yes", and to the other one is "no", then you are putting a price to human life.

Hiring the monkey is anarchy.

Not at all. The government isn't working for us, it's forcing us to give them money so that they can do things we perhaps don't even want to be done, or that we think somebody else could do that much better.

[Aegon]

You made a video about anarchism in Latin? You're a goddamn living meme.

I am not sure what you mean.

I know, and frankly I'm not sure how to explain it.

[Rhizomorph13]

FlatAssembler I think you are missing my point. I'm not arguing that government is better or does a great job or even what a government will look like. My argument is simple:

There will be government as in, society will arrange itself toward order based on the necessity of egos to deal with each other.

Even something simple like dividing a piece of cake requires governing principles. Something simple like, "You cut the pieces, I choose which piece I want." You remind me of people who claim that socialism would work if it weren't for the people being greedy. That is the point; people fuck up every style of government out there. If I get your point, things would be better if everyone would just let go of rules and treat each other well. I agree, but I have yet to meet two people who truly agree on what that will look like.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

FlatAssembler I think you are missing my point. I'm not arguing that government is better or does a great job or even what a government will look like. My argument is simple:

There will be government as in, society will arrange itself toward order based on the necessity of egos to deal with each other.

Even something simple like dividing a piece of cake requires governing principles. Something simple like, "You cut the pieces, I choose which piece I want." You remind me of people who claim that socialism would work if it weren't for the people being greedy. That is the point; people fuck up every style of government out there. If I get your point, things would be better if everyone would just let go of rules and treat each other well. I agree, but I have yet to meet two people who truly agree on what that will look like.

Exactly.  Anarchism depends on human beings always agreeing on what is best for the group and setting their own interests to one side.  History has amply demonstrated that not enough humans have this quality to make anarchism work.

In a more earthy sense, in the cesspit that is human society, there's always going to be at least one chunk striving to get to the top.

Boru

[Cecelia]

#1. Education provided by the government doesn't appear to be too useful. What does it teach children? It teaches children to analyze poetry and to hate capitalism. If the parents pay the teachers for the education, then maybe they will teach children more useful stuff. And teachers would then get more money if they do a good job, most of them probably won't be as underpaid as they are now. I and my family certainly won't be willing to pay somebody to teach me Latin, I'd probably be taught something more useful had I lived in anarchy.

#2. In most cases, circular intersections are better solutions. Even so, why would traffic lights magically disappear without a government? Most of them here in Osijek are powered by solar panels, so, even if some idiot wants to make them stop working (if that's more likely to happen in an anarchy than in a state, and I don't see why it would be), it wouldn't be easy for him or her to do that.

#3. Why wouldn't they exist any more? There are quite a few private firefighters.

#4. Well, to paraphrase Milton Friedman, how much can that safety cost? Is it OK to put a safety measure that costs 50 dollars? If so, is it OK to force a safety measure that costs a 1'000'000 dollars? And if your answer to the first one is "yes", and to the other one is "no", then you are putting a price to human life.
#5. Not at all. The government isn't working for us, it's forcing us to give them money so that they can do things we perhaps don't even want to be done, or that we think somebody else could do that much better.

I'm breaking this down into points in order to save time quoting each time.

#1. Education by public schools does a great job, actually.  We learn basic history, math, science, and English -- as well as important social skills.  Not every family can afford private education.  Maybe yours can -- but there's nothing stopping your family from seeking private education in a system with government.  As a teacher, I would NEVER work for a private school.  They cater to the parents, rather than the education of kids.  Without the public school system, society as a whole would be far less educated.  

#2. Traffic lights were put in place by government.  They're run by government, and mandated by government, and are entirely pointless without government (after all, if there's nobody to enforce the rules, then rules don't matter!)  You don't get to keep the things you like just because you like Anarchy and it weakens your argument for your anarchist utopia.

#3. 911 wouldn't exist because it's run by the government.  You would, I suppose, be able to call a private firefighter.  (Assuming that you're able to make a call in the first place, and aren't too injured to make the call) but you'd have to 1--have their number, and 2--hope they aren't too busy, and 3--don't gouge you on prices because it's a service you need urgently. Oh and let's also hope that they accept whatever currency you use. Because a currency not backed by a government is worthless. I suppose you could use gold, but gold is a pretty poor form of currency contrary to popular belief. It's expensive to store, hard to carry around, and generally doesn't have much other use.

#4. I'm not even sure what you're getting at here.  You're the one arguing we shouldn't force ANY safety standards on companies.  Which means that companies can cut corners, and let their employees die -- and the employees have NO recourse for such injuries.  They can try to sue the businesses in Private Courts, I presume, but that's assuming the companies don't own the private courts as well.

#5. You do realize that you're free to go find a private island, and live.  Right?  There you will be free from government, and not expected to pay any money (of course in an anarchy, money is useless anyway since it's not backed by anything, nor can it be insured by anybody).  I'm wondering how long you'd last on your private island with your system of anarchy.  I mean that's what you want, isn't it?  Anarchy?  You can't force anarchy on other people.  Most of us don't want it.  But you're free to start you own little nation along with other people, and see how it all works out.  I wish you the best of luck.  But don't expect us to welcome you back with welcome arms when it inevitably fails.  Because you can't say we didn't try to warn you.