Anarchy

[JacobEvans]

I personally believe that having a government is beneficial when looked at from a social contract stand point, which is for the most part is how the American Govt works.

I say this knowing full well that not only is our Govt is prone to profound stupidity, and to a lesser extent (less than you'd imagine) corruption.

If we look at some of the things we received from us having a Govt (Roads,Police,Fire Departments,Public schools, Research Grants, Regulations on Businesses prone to labor abuse, Relativily cheap Electricity, Mail services, Courts, etc) gives me some reason to believe Govt can be a positive despite the glaring defects.

What are your opinions on the matter?

 

[GoodKat]

Anarchy is my ideal, but I doubt humanity will ever be ready for it. Any current efforts to move toward anarchy are self-destructive.

 

[irmerk]

To copy a part from a prior post of mine:
I think a free and unhindered society not held back or quarantined by an unjust government. Moreover, any form of governance or organizational leadership should be justified completely and thoroughly in order to be considered any form of authority. Perhaps my ideology lies somewhere near that which was described by Noam Chomsky.

Freedom's meaning in respect to humans has been lost in translation over the years of propaganda. Freedom seems to be something like water in that too much is just a bad thing. An example of this, which I use frequently, would be some person or company, such as ExxonMobil, exploiting oil resources for profit merely because of greed and the current sense of 'freedom.' This freedom sure sounds good when put in respect to the person or company; however, it proves quite detrimental to a civilization which probably wants to continue surviving on this planet.

I think the republic government in America has lost all valid justification and now does whatever the hell it wants to. I think a more accountable government is necessary - one that must justify it's every step. I mean, just as you said, our government is just a boiling pot of corruption and stupidity. I do not know if there is an actual solution to what I have in my mind, but I would dearly love to see the American government dismantled and reattempted from the ground up.

Edit: I just remembered I had thought of this before: The disgusting nature and facts about the food industry are practically inevitable now. I speak of the questionable practices for raising chickens, cloning beef or even making random shit out of corn - peanut butter, twinkies, cheese, etc. The demands of the consumers to change anything would require so much energy and time from every single person, it is unfathomable to accomplish. Those in power to represent our interests are doing just what is not needed - representing the corporations interests.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I personally believe that having a government is beneficial when looked at from a social contract stand point, which is for the most part is how the American Govt works.

I say this knowing full well that not only is our Govt is prone to profound stupidity, and to a lesser extent (less than you'd imagine) corruption.

If we look at some of the things we received from us having a Govt (Roads,Police,Fire Departments,Public schools, Research Grants, Regulations on Businesses prone to labor abuse, Relativily cheap Electricity, Mail services, Courts, etc) gives me some reason to believe Govt can be a positive despite the glaring defects.

What are your opinions on the matter?

My opinion is that the reason that you are able to sit around and complain about the imperfections of government is largely because of all the good government has done. Basically, you come off as a selfish, lazy git... no offense, of course.

Seriously though, as bad as things are, do you think they would be better with no one in charge? If something was crappy before it was regulated, improved with regulation, and then got bad as the government got sloppy, got bought off, and/or relaxed regulations... do you think that they will be anything but worse with NO regulations?

 

[Weirdtopia]

People wanted a government and when the government serves the people, the people get to comfortable and go against what they have and not appreciate what they have. But if a government goes against the people and takes away rights that every individual needs then anarchy tears that down and hope is that they people will redevelop a new government. The problem with democracy is that the mass is the ignorant and the people will never have the humility to submit to a civil order.

They have made the people thereby so curious and so arrogant that they will never find humanity enough to submit to a civil rule.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

People wanted a government and when the government serves the people, the people get to comfortable and go against what they have and not appreciate what they have. But if a government goes against the people and takes away rights that every individual needs then anarchy tears that down and hope is that they people will redevelop a new government. The problem with democracy is that the mass is the ignorant and the people will never have the humility to submit to a civil order.

They have made the people thereby so curious and so arrogant that they will never find humanity enough to submit to a civil rule.

I think you go a bit too far in the other direction... I don't think the problem is just that people refuse to "submit to a civil rule" but that they always seem to forget that they are part of something bigger than themselves. That, and the fact that too many people want freedom and power for themselves at the expense of other people.

 

[Weirdtopia]

I don't think the problem is just that people refuse to "submit to a civil rule" but that they always seem to forget that they are part of something bigger than themselves. That, and the fact that too many people want freedom and power for themselves at the expense of other people.

I agree, that's why we need people to be thankful for what we have.

 

[JacobEvans]

My opinion is that the reason that you are able to sit around and complain about the imperfections of government is largely because of all the good government has done. Basically, you come off as a selfish, lazy git... no offense, of course.

Seriously though, as bad as things are, do you think they would be better with no one in charge? If something was crappy before it was regulated, improved with regulation, and then got bad as the government got sloppy, got bought off, and/or relaxed regulations... do you think that they will be anything but worse with NO regulations?

Perhaps I was not clear...

But that's exactly what I was saying.
I DO support the existence of our current Govt.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Perhaps I was not clear...

But that's exactly what I was saying.
I DO support the existence of our current Govt.

Then I apologize for suggesting otherwise.

 

[JacobEvans]

Then I apologize for suggesting otherwise.

It was my fault for not being clear.

 

[Distructica]

Anarchists take some sort of weird view on humanity. The kind of inherent goodness that would be needed for "Voluntary Society" or "Governmentless state"(both terms I have heard, I'm not sure which is more accurate) simply is not there. In my life I have never seen a human do anything unselfish, and considering how easily agitated we are I just don't think anything good can come of it.

I have been wrong before and I am not so stuck in my ways that no one can sway me, I just stand here stating I am unconvinced a "Voluntary Society" or "Governmentless State" could work.

 

[irmerk]

Anarchists take some sort of weird view on humanity. The kind of inherent goodness that would be needed for "Voluntary Society" or "Governmentless state"(both terms I have heard, I'm not sure which is more accurate) simply is not there. In my life I have never seen a human do anything unselfish, and considering how easily agitated we are I just don't think anything good can come of it.

I have been wrong before and I am not so stuck in my ways that no one can sway me, I just stand here stating I am unconvinced a "Voluntary Society" or "Governmentless State" could work.

I think of it as a mob mentality of sorts. No one will go out of their way to recycle, drive less or whatever else to reduce the carbon footprint because they see everyone else still doing it. They think they might as well get theirs if everyone else is - but guess what, the other people are thinking the same thing.

 

[Weirdtopia]

Then would regulations be a good thing so that the people do fallow to protect the planet or should there be a leader to guide the people to be safer to the plant, but also there is a problem when it comes to people who deny that there is a such thing as global warming, what has to be done so that they fallow it?

 

[Jug Pilot]

To abuse a quote from a recent election campaign.

Is your Goverment better now than 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 500 years ago?

 

[Savior Of Logic]

1) Gov regulations don't help. as they get corrupted
2) If people care enough to vote for something, they care enough to do something
3) Just because I live in an area, why should I have to give up my money to the dictatorial majority in that area

 

[GoodKat]

1) Gov regulations don't help. as they get corrupted
2) If people care enough to vote for something, they care enough to do something
3) Just because I live in an area, why should I have to give up my money to the dictatorial majority in that area

I hope you weren't being serious.

 

[IrBubble]

Well, depending on how you define anarchy, one problem could be that the sense of direction would be distorted. For instance, if nobody is paying for roads, why would somebody build roads? And if you allow free market to reign than basically you'll be in the same situation as with the government, except the businesses could care less about the people, human rights etc.

@Savior Of Logic:

1: And not having regulations makes the situation better?

2: Voting is not as big of a deal for people as potentially getting killed in a revolution.

3: If you expect to take part of a society you should expect to have to work for the progression of said society. If you don't want to partake in said society and pay the money required for it, than I think you are free to leave and move somewhere else. I doubt the DEMOCRATIC majority in said area wants to give up their societies progression and social stability for the sake of one bitter anarchist.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

3) Just because I live in an area, why should I have to give up my money to the dictatorial majority in that area

Awww, poor baby!!! :lol:

Did you pay into the roads? Have you paid for the police and fire department yet? Need public schools for your kids, or at least state universities for their teachers? You "give up your money" because you are part of a centuries long chain of social advancement, that only exists because there weren't too many selfish and foolish people asking "why should I have have to give up my money?"

If you want to reap the benefits of modern society, it seems rather ridiculous to reject the responsibilities that go with it.

 

[WolfAU]

I consider myself in many ways an anarchist, but it depends what we define as anarchy. Most people use the words 'anarchy' and lawlessness interchangeably, which I am almost attempted to accuse governments of intentionally strawmanning anarchists.

"I personally believe that having a government is beneficial when looked at from a social contract stand point, which is for the most part is how the American Govt works."
Having some form of power structure is impossible to escape, humans both naturally form them (and even if we didn't, it would likely be a handicap to our ability to cooperate), and if we had no governments, gangs would just arise to replace them, doing pretty much the same thing as the government.

The only good things I've seen of modern western governments is that they do their core job of preventing lawlessness, thats about it.
- They crack down on competing factions (gangs), they allow a means of peaceful 'revolution' (though you're changing the head, the heart of the government hasn't changed)
- They allow a means of non-violent expression of dissatisfaction at the government (limiting the percieved necessity of resorting to violence).
- They crack down on desperation (as starving men with guns is one of the core causes of instability in a country).

Furthermore I often accuse the government of intentionally keeping things like healtcare in crappy shape, as they make such useful political tools during elections (if they fixed it, they'd probably have to debate something else that they don't want to debate).

"I say this knowing full well that not only is our Govt is prone to profound stupidity, and to a lesser extent (less than you'd imagine) corruption."
Sadly the government masks sinister motives as incompetance. Often poor spending on things like weapon projects is actually the government funneling money to 'old friends' or backdoor projects. Also keep in mind most individuals in the government view the masses as ignorant sheep, who need to be coddled and distracted, and never given power or what they want or they would make all these stupid decisions and ruin everying... and while I have contempt for this philosophy at face value (its in direct conflict with the core principles of democracy), as a scientist (and someone who went to a religious school as an atheist) I've witnessed first hand just how ignorant the public can be, example, doing genetic studies on fruit flies is very useful research, yet the average individual would likely see no merit for it and vote to pull the plug on it, and likely relocate the funds to sports or trivial matters, and support petty ideas.

Two other things I'd like to mention are my strong opposition to the very principle of taxation, aka 'you were born in our country so we get to take your hard earned money because WE'RE THE GOVERNMENT. Its a poor remnant from despotism and also because 'everywhere else does it' its seen as justification. However, if the government invested in various aspects of industry and services, they could raise enough money to maintain the military and basic expenses, then individuals would give their money to local government as they desired (ie I want to donate 500 dollars to local hospitals, 200 to police, 150 to fire services etc, with the government announcing if these groups are running low on funds and maybe benefits to those who give money to them or in general)...
...This will never, EVER happen because that would give us power to say 'not a chance' to bullshit government expendature, and support the things that benefit us, not them.

The other issue is radical improvements to voting... the short version is; use modern computer technology to allow for cheap referendums and elections (look up how much elections cost, its fucking disgraceful), ban all forms of public ads for politicians, and have them advertise on an unbiased website where they can list their policies, qualifications etc, debates are posted, may have forums where ou can ask them questions etc. This would allow voters to vote on relatively trivial things and in complex ways (ie express how they would prioritise the budget, write how they would handle something etc).

Again, this will never happen because this would give us more power and make us much more politically aware, breaking alot of voters out of apathy (which is where the government wants us, apathetic, demoralised and too distracted by shiny gadgets, sports and our own hassles to actually understand politics).

Sorry about this becoming a bit of a rant. Basically in closing I don't wish to see an end to governments because that would just make things like mob rule inevitable, and I'm not sold on having a true communal government structure (ie having nations, but no federal government), leaving governments acceptable until we come up with a better idea, however I object to alot of unquestioned assumptions about the government, and to say radical reform is needed is a serious understatement.

 

[Aluman]

I consider myself in many ways an anarchist, but it depends what we define as anarchy. Most people use the words 'anarchy' and lawlessness interchangeably, which I am almost attempted to accuse governments of intentionally strawmanning anarchists.

"I personally believe that having a government is beneficial when looked at from a social contract stand point, which is for the most part is how the American Govt works."
Having some form of power structure is impossible to escape, humans both naturally form them (and even if we didn't, it would likely be a handicap to our ability to cooperate), and if we had no governments, gangs would just arise to replace them, doing pretty much the same thing as the government.

The only good things I've seen of modern western governments is that they do their core job of preventing lawlessness, thats about it.
- They crack down on competing factions (gangs), they allow a means of peaceful 'revolution' (though you're changing the head, the heart of the government hasn't changed)
- They allow a means of non-violent expression of dissatisfaction at the government (limiting the percieved necessity of resorting to violence).
- They crack down on desperation (as starving men with guns is one of the core causes of instability in a country).

Furthermore I often accuse the government of intentionally keeping things like healtcare in crappy shape, as they make such useful political tools during elections (if they fixed it, they'd probably have to debate something else that they don't want to debate).

Its what the war on drugs, poverty, immorality, and now terrorism are for, fixing healthcare is more a product of the costs of elections and who controls the wealth.

"I say this knowing full well that not only is our Govt is prone to profound stupidity, and to a lesser extent (less than you'd imagine) corruption."
Sadly the government masks sinister motives as incompetance. Often poor spending on things like weapon projects is actually the government funneling money to 'old friends' or backdoor projects. Also keep in mind most individuals in the government view the masses as ignorant sheep, who need to be coddled and distracted, and never given power or what they want or they would make all these stupid decisions and ruin everying... and while I have contempt for this philosophy at face value (its in direct conflict with the core principles of democracy), as a scientist (and someone who went to a religious school as an atheist) I've witnessed first hand just how ignorant the public can be, example, doing genetic studies on fruit flies is very useful research, yet the average individual would likely see no merit for it and vote to pull the plug on it, and likely relocate the funds to sports or trivial matters, and support petty ideas.

Meh the biggest government waste projects are in some ways due to alturism/self-preservation on congressmen (for instance the recently scrapped jet fighter was assembled in more forty states thus ensuring a lot of backing for the project despite the Pentagon desire to cut it for almost a decade now to redirect the money to more appropriate items).

Two other things I'd like to mention are my strong opposition to the very principle of taxation, aka 'you were born in our country so we get to take your hard earned money because WE'RE THE GOVERNMENT. Its a poor remnant from despotism and also because 'everywhere else does it' its seen as justification. However, if the government invested in various aspects of industry and services, they could raise enough money to maintain the military and basic expenses, then individuals would give their money to local government as they desired (ie I want to donate 500 dollars to local hospitals, 200 to police, 150 to fire services etc, with the government announcing if these groups are running low on funds and maybe benefits to those who give money to them or in general)...

Doesn't work. If giving money by those who used the services worked, PBS/NPR wouldn't require government funding to stay the course. Furthermore, indviduals who give their money to the goverment for the servies would have a sense of entitlement to the best of it, which then leads to murders who happen to give a lot to the police getting away with it from self-preservation. Not to mention that certain areas (Jackson Hole Wyoming) has a disproportionate amount of the income compared to others (Ten Sleep, Wyoming) and thusly: You are setting up a socialist revolution.

...This will never, EVER happen because that would give us power to say 'not a chance' to bullshit government expendature, and support the things that benefit us, not them.

It also only works on paper, never in practice due to the self interest of the race.

The other issue is radical improvements to voting... the short version is; use modern computer technology to allow for cheap referendums and elections (look up how much elections cost, its fucking disgraceful), ban all forms of public ads for politicians, and have them advertise on an unbiased website where they can list their policies, qualifications etc, debates are posted, may have forums where ou can ask them questions etc. This would allow voters to vote on relatively trivial things and in complex ways (ie express how they would prioritise the budget, write how they would handle something etc).

Again, this will never happen because this would give us more power and make us much more politically aware, breaking alot of voters out of apathy (which is where the government wants us, apathetic, demoralised and too distracted by shiny gadgets, sports and our own hassles to actually understand politics).

Sorry about this becoming a bit of a rant. Basically in closing I don't wish to see an end to governments because that would just make things like mob rule inevitable, and I'm not sold on having a true communal government structure (ie having nations, but no federal government), leaving governments acceptable until we come up with a better idea, however I object to alot of unquestioned assumptions about the government, and to say radical reform is needed is a serious understatement.

The issue with doing everything on the internet is its not very ideal yet. The digital divide in just the US is a lot larger than someone who spends time on forums would actually be willing to accept. To a degree its a good idea for the future, but the future is not now.