Anarchy

[WolfAU]

[Selective Taxation] 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.

What I'm suggesting is that ESSENTIAL services like police are still covered largely by governments, just not necessarily by taxation (the government could earn plenty of money just through things like permits, land, investments etc), also I disagree that individuals would be so apathetic, for instance I contribute to my student union despite the fact that I've never gotten my monies worth out of it (ie I think its a good thing to have and don't want to see it close down). Equally I think individuals who don't watch non-commercial stations would see their importance as a method of preventing government tyranny, and I think their money not coming from the government would be even more ideal. I also think self preservation would kick in (ie realising the merit of these services), and would also be a nice way of forcing many services to justify their existance (or their recieving charity).

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.

Then apart from the fact that this would be a good excuse to improve this, as well as better things like secure internet cafe's. But I realise that these would not be 'minor' changes and would require radical reform, but to me that is exactly what is needed if we want to call either the US or Australia a true democracy. I pity anyone who considers chosing between two incompetant and/or undesireable candidates every four years, (aka 'America flips a coin' as the simpsons put it) to be a true democracy.

The question then becomes 'Do we really want true democracy?', which depends on if you think the 'plebs are idiots' argument is valid, or more valid than the 'politicians are currupt, greedy liars' argument.

 

[IrBubble]

just not necessarily by taxation (the government could earn plenty of money just through things like permits, land, investments etc)

If the government controls the police, firefighters etc. it might not be a good idea to turn them in to a capitalistic corperation.

I also think self preservation would kick in

Ever heard of the tradgedy of the commoners?

 

[WolfAU]

If the government controls the police, firefighters etc. it might not be a good idea to turn them in to a capitalistic corperation.

They already are, think about how the police focus their time (ie mostly to revenue raising from things like road violations, with cops in Australia actually earning 'points' towards promotions the more money they bring in from fines.

What I object to is the very principle of income tax, that the government has some right for whatever reason to a proportion of a persons income. I often draw an analogy to some guy knocking on my college room door and telling me I owe him 20 dollars for pizza, when I wasn't asked beforehand whether I wanted any, I wasn't given a choice of which type of pizza (or even other forms of food), and I owe the same amount whether I eat a small amount or eat excessively, and if I refuse to pay I'd be kicked out. Fair?

Ever heard of the tradgedy of the commoners?

I found reference to something called tragedy of the COMMONS on google if thats what you mean (problems caused by acting in self interest over a common resource) but haven't read the piece. But what I was saying was that to me... we all acknowledge that contributing money to hospitals is important, whether we're prone to illness or not, improving roads etc. Ie if the hospitals were poorly funded and the roads in a town were failing, people may stop coming or even start leaving, that would harm the town and again, I think this is where people would go 'its in my best interest to fund important services like roads, hospitals etc'.

 

[Aluman]

If the government controls the police, firefighters etc. it might not be a good idea to turn them in to a capitalistic corperation.

They already are, think about how the police focus their time (ie mostly to revenue raising from things like road violations, with cops in Australia actually earning 'points' towards promotions the more money they bring in from fines. [/quote]
Actually thats not even close to them being capitalistic (a corporation essentially). Corporations are money oriented and driven. Even the quotas some US areas have on cops does not turn them capitalistic, they will not be swayed (at least on an orginizational level) by the fact that person X is worth millions of dollars. The only thing that changes is instead of a quick investigation its a more methodical investigation to ensure when it comes time even the slick lawyers will have a hard time getting the felon off.

What changes when someone gives money directly to the cops is the entitlement that comes from stock holding in the police corporation.

What I object to is the very principle of income tax, that the government has some right for whatever reason to a proportion of a persons income. I often draw an analogy to some guy knocking on my college room door and telling me I owe him 20 dollars for pizza, when I wasn't asked beforehand whether I wanted any, I wasn't given a choice of which type of pizza (or even other forms of food), and I owe the same amount whether I eat a small amount or eat excessively, and if I refuse to pay I'd be kicked out. Fair?

Income tax is to provide money for several reasons amongst them is redistrubition of wealth. Its hard to understand as no one in the west has lived during it, but before socialism had its part in forming modern western thought processes, but instead of the quarter and half percent starving, you would have close to ten percent of a nation dying of starvation in places like the US that has some biggest cereal grain producing areas in the world would have vast numbers starving, due to the fact that they couldn't afford food. Poorly treated lower classmen is what leads to revolutions (see the number of class strife wars in the 1800s, including the US Union Wars).

found reference to something called tragedy of the COMMONS on google if thats what you mean (problems caused by acting in self interest over a common resource) but haven't read the piece. But what I was saying was that to me... we all acknowledge that contributing money to hospitals is important, whether we're prone to illness or not, improving roads etc. Ie if the hospitals were poorly funded and the roads in a town were failing, people may stop coming or even start leaving, that would harm the town and again, I think this is where people would go 'its in my best interest to fund important services like roads, hospitals etc'.

But people won't, its in people's best interest to save money for the future, yet they don't. Something like healthcare which only matters when you are sick won't get the money it needs.

Something you only notice when its not done like infrastructure really will not get the money it needs, it doesn't right now turning it to donation base will ensure it will never get the money it needs.

Also, education is partially or totally (depending on westernized nation you live in) funded by public funds including income tax. In the US its the plurality of their funding (30-40% depending on uni) and the differences from a private university's fees to a public one is close to 3:1, without public support for secondary education you have stratifacation in society, where the educated are the only ones who will be educated as those who are not continue to fall further and further behind the curves.

 

[WolfAU]

Re Aluman:
Governments are money oriented and driven, they always have, and personal fines often reflect an individuals ability to pay them within parameters of what is acceptable given the offense, and alot of courts will rather fine a wealthy individual rather than jail them. Things like jail time for murder I see no reason why that would change (ie if found guilty of it they must do time rules remain intact).

Income tax all goes into the government coffers and could easily be covered by other sources of money should they cut back on spending ruinous amounts of money on war, beaurocracy, political luxuries, war on drugs etc. Also it is not so much about where the money goes, people have realised for a while the usefulness of controlling the masses by limiting their financial freedom (ie if they earn too much money, they can afford to stop doing jobs they hate). An old quote...

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

My point is that income tax is in part a system of control and a form of oppression.

Also you haven't convinced me yet that it is justified for the government to take what doesn't belong to it as a proportion of what I earn, regardless of where it goes (ie if I steal to give to sick children, I'd still go to jail) simply because I was born in their country, I mean if I signed an agreement to that effect that would be something else, but its just implied that you consent from birth to the government stealing from you. The government doesn't want anyone to play around with this issue or ask too many questions, because if they did, the whole house of lies that prop up modern governments would collapse. As I said before, all that we accept about modern governments simply stem from the governments before, based on the governments before etc etc all the way back to governments which were cruel tyrannical despots, that doesn't inspire confidence.

If you were right that people don't care about their societies or having contingencies against things (ie illness, death etc), then why is health/life insurance so popular, and why do so many individuals volunteer to help their community? Also I suspect that should this happen there would be a major social shift towards a sense of community than we have now.

Public education is another form of control (I know its sounds like conspiracy stuff, but bare with me), for starters alot of people have noticed that there was actually a decline in the standard levels of education after mandatory education was introduced rather than before (ie most parents, regardless of their status, found ways to teach kids to read, write, do maths etc), the main reason for it was to create a source of propaganda (ie I can remember in my schooling how big a focus environmentalism, feminism and various other political agenda's were).

Also in case you hadn't noticed, stratification is still happening, with expensive private schools always outshining public schools which are usually a joke by comparison, (examples here), then which university you get into depends on that, and what jobs you can get depend on which universities you get into... Thats stratification, and its exactly the way the elites want it... where their money can make them more employable/valuable individuals than those not from money.

 

[Aluman]

Re Aluman:
Governments are money oriented and driven, they always have, and personal fines often reflect an individuals ability to pay them within parameters of what is acceptable given the offense, and alot of courts will rather fine a wealthy individual rather than jail them. Things like jail time for murder I see no reason why that would change (ie if found guilty of it they must do time rules remain intact).

Actually Goverments are power oriented and driven, not money, otherwise the president's would be making more today than 1776 (in comparitive dollars)

Income tax all goes into the government coffers and could easily be covered by other sources of money should they cut back on spending ruinous amounts of money on war, beaurocracy, political luxuries, war on drugs etc. Also it is not so much about where the money goes, people have realised for a while the usefulness of controlling the masses by limiting their financial freedom (ie if they earn too much money, they can afford to stop doing jobs they hate). An old quote...

Actually, it might be that way in Australia (Their economics isn't something I can speak highly over), but in the US even without excesses, just covering infrastructure maintainece and basic things, would not be able to meet without income tax.

Also you haven't convinced me yet that it is justified for the government to take what doesn't belong to it as a proportion of what I earn, regardless of where it goes (ie if I steal to give to sick children, I'd still go to jail) simply because I was born in their country, I mean if I signed an agreement to that effect that would be something else, but its just implied that you consent from birth to the government stealing from you. The government doesn't want anyone to play around with this issue or ask too many questions, because if they did, the whole house of lies that prop up modern governments would collapse. As I said before, all that we accept about modern governments simply stem from the governments before, based on the governments before etc etc all the way back to governments which were cruel tyrannical despots, that doesn't inspire confidence.

How about the fact that in today's economies (That is fiat economies) the goverment provides the stabilization that makes the paper money worth diddly. Or the fact that without goverments, the life luxury you lead (whether you realize it or not) would not exsist. As without the goverment 99.95% of the people support .05% of the people.

If you were right that people don't care about their societies or having contingencies against things (ie illness, death etc), then why is health/life insurance so popular, and why do so many individuals volunteer to help their community? Also I suspect that should this happen there would be a major social shift towards a sense of community than we have now.

You do realize that for every community activist there is 9 or 10 that do nothing right? That if healthcare was marginally affordable without health insurance most people wouldn't have it?

Public education is another form of control (I know its sounds like conspiracy stuff, but bare with me), for starters alot of people have noticed that there was actually a decline in the standard levels of education after mandatory education was introduced rather than before (ie most parents, regardless of their status, found ways to teach kids to read, write, do maths etc), the main reason for it was to create a source of propaganda (ie I can remember in my schooling how big a focus environmentalism, feminism and various other political agenda's were).

I hope you are joking, otherwise you will have to tell me why literacy is better still than it was in the 1300's. Or your standard living.

Also in case you hadn't noticed, stratification is still happening, with expensive private schools always outshining public schools which are usually a joke by comparison, (examples here), then which university you get into depends on that, and what jobs you can get depend on which universities you get into... Thats stratification, and its exactly the way the elites want it... where their money can make them more employable/valuable individuals than those not from money.

[/quote]
Yes but remove the public school option, and you are left with the rich getting advanced degrees, poor staying poor with no chance of Any kind of change.

I think thats the real underlying problem, you don't understand what stratifcation is really like. Yes in the western world, people who are rich tend to stand rich and people who are poor tend to stay poor. In Africa or Latin America or other REALLY stratified nations, there is no 'tend' its just rich stay rich poor stay poor.

 

[WolfAU]

Actually Goverments are power oriented and driven...

Semantics.

otherwise the president's would be making more today than 1776 (in comparitive dollars)

What does the presidents pay have th do with anything? Besides the president gets paid both under the table, and often is rewarded after his term in office (ie politicians tend to go on to recieve cushy jobs with businesses that they did backroom dealings for).

...in the US even without excesses, just covering infrastructure maintainece and basic things, would not be able to meet without income tax.

I think what you and I considers 'essentials' would vary considerably, ie without all this money to manage, you could slash the numbers employed by civil service, most other things would become matters for cities and communities. Besides, I am suggesting that they explore alternative sources of revenue and cutting costs.

The goverment provides the stabilization that makes the paper money worth diddly. Or the fact that without goverments, the life luxury you lead (whether you realize it or not) would not exsist. As without the goverment 99.95% of the people support .05% of the people.

All of this seems to be getting off topic and seem arguments for the existance of a government, not one structured in this way. But I fail to see how financial stability requires a government (ie a world bank could provide it). What luxury does the government provide me with exactly? I have benefitted very little from government spending, I have never used a public hospital, I went to a public school for one year etc. So unless you're arguing things like 'police prevent societies from turning lawless' which is a complete strawman of my argument, I haven't really benefitted much from tax spending.

You do realize that for every community activist there is 9 or 10 that do nothing right? That if healthcare was marginally affordable without health insurance most people wouldn't have it?

That is in part because that is how the government wants us, distracted, apathetic and demoralised, and this is hardly a natural human trait, largely the opposite. As for healthcare there is considerable difference between Australia's and the US, that healthcare IS affordable, but health insurance is still worthwhile.

I hope you are joking, otherwise you will have to tell me why literacy is better still than it was in the 1300's. Or your standard living.

You accredit these things to mandatory education? Thats ridiculous. Literacy is better today than in the 1300's because of the increased availability of books/education, reduced focus on manual work, increased focus on intellectual work, improved technology, and decreased stratification of society. When I say "BEFORE mandatory schooling" I mean the prior 20 years or so before (I forget which figures I'd seen, think they were English figures).

I'm not suggesting we remove public schools, I'm suggesting we remove mandatory schooling and have governments offer reduced costs to parents rather than more or less free, alot of people hold that this will actually increase the quality of schools because as it stands public schools get money from governments based on grades and raw student numbers, whereas if they got money based on parent prices, there would be incentive for them to offer better education and focus on parent/student satisfaction. For those that hate school or can't find a good nearby school, private/group tutoring or home schooling can be effective.

The rich will always be the ones with advanced degree's because they set the rules to benefit themselves, we change the rules to make it more fair, and they find a loophole to make it unfair again, trying to get rich and poor on an equal playing field is a fools game, but some progress can be made in reducing the gap in terms of quality of life.

 

[IrBubble]

All of this seems to be getting off topic and seem arguments for the existance of a government, not one structured in this way. But I fail to see how financial stability requires a government (ie a world bank could provide it). What luxury does the government provide me with exactly? I have benefitted very little from government spending, I have never used a public hospital, I went to a public school for one year etc. So unless you're arguing things like 'police prevent societies from turning lawless' which is a complete strawman of my argument, I haven't really benefitted much from tax spending.

You have to realize that you benefit from society benefitting from tax spending. Society progresses as a whole, and without it the economy goes down and your personal wealth goes down.

 

[WolfAU]

You have to realize that you benefit from society benefitting from tax spending. Society progresses as a whole, and without it the economy goes down and your personal wealth goes down.

I am aware of that, but to me its like arguing 'if we abolish slavery, the economy will collapse'.

It also doesn't address my point that modern westernised governments do use income tax as a form of oppression in a similar way to the concept of 'debt slavery', I still reject the claim that the government is somehow entitled to it and reject the claim that a more voluntary alternative is doomed to fail... Hell, wikipedia is still up and running.

Again, the main reason I would prefer this system, even if some degree of contribution was required by law, is people get to CHOOSE which government projects they support, this would force the government to JUSTIFY its projects. Example every federal election for the decades has involved a small bidding war for money towards hospitals, yet years later our public hospitals are still in terrible shape. With a voluntary system they would be required to write up detailed plans for how to spend the money and hopefully they would be subject to external evaluation. It would allow for citizens to pull the plug on projects they have no confidence in and veto pointless projects that are clearly wasteful. This would lead to a much greater power shift towards governence by the people.

 

[IrBubble]

Yes, but assuming that the government isn't evil, how could people possibly hope to do as good of a job in selecting where the money goes as somebody who is a proffessional money-funler.

And I do not think of it as a sort of "debt slavery", I think of it as a way of producing a better society at the expense of a bit of your labour. And I'm not talking about entitledment, I'm talking about the betterment of the society as a whole. And while some people think it's their right to (I will not take a stance on this) keep their money, I do think that an overwhelming majority would prefer to keep the system as it is, if they knew what it meant. And the only reason to realize this is by making it mandatory, orelse nobody would pay.

And I do agree that the government should be in the power of the people, however, tax is not the right battle to fight it over, since tax benefits us way too much to remove.

 

[WolfAU]

Yes, but assuming that the government isn't evil, how could people possibly hope to do as good of a job in selecting where the money goes as somebody who is a proffessional money-funler.

In some ways not, but partly it is more in tune with the 'democratic ideal' (again I don't consider electing/re-electing these twits every few years to be a democracy), and also these are the people who are essenttially footing the bill, and the people who are the 'end users' as it were.

I suppose some examples are, our dear leader, K.Rudd did when in office was invite experts from all around Australia and the world to a summit to discuss various global issues. They talked about very little, no real progress was accomplished, and the cost of it was completely unreasonable (I forget the exact figures but it was in the 10's or 100's of millions). Also soon after Rudd travelled around the world first class (flights, gourmet food, entourage etc), also costing millions. Most Australian's would've pulled the plug on this idea, or at the very leasted forced them to not make such a spectical of it.

Governments controlling the wealth of their citizens is actually not really a controversial notion, its been known about your years (Orwell covers it quite a bit in 1984). Think about it, the ultimate goal of having a productive country is ensuring the populous are 'motivated' into being as productive as they can be, and also distracted away from becoming politically aware (by sports/past-times/entertainment, personal issues/drama's, jobs). So ideally you make it so the cost of living (income - tax - basic essentials) and income roughly cancel out. If cost of living on average is considerably higher than income, you have considerable social harm and the damage it causes outweighs the benefit. If income is considerably higher than cost of living, people can afford to work less (being less productive), and actually become involved in political issues (again, this is talked about in 1984, the protagonist discribes how they are socially pressured into filling all their free time with party activities to prevent political awareness, Noam Chomsky also talks about it in Manufacturing Consent).

My point is that it IS my money, the government is not entitled to it, they have not earned it, and if I refuse to let them take it (and fill out hours of forms) they will kidnap me and put me in a position where I am likely to come to physical harm (sounds like organised crime), and as I said before, the law is quite clear, it doesn't care about where stolen money goes, its still illegal. Plus as I'm trying to state, there is DEFINATELY a thread of the government trying to reduce the financial freedom of its citizens as a control mechanism (this again, is largely an undisputed and well documented tactic that has been used by many faschist states). However the issue then becomes what are valid alternatives?

The government acknowledging that it is not entitled to income tax, and laws limiting further taxation in similar forms, giving people more control over how their income tax is allocated. Obviously completely voluntary taxation is the strongest stance (but I still maintain is doable), but there are other alternatives along that train of thought.

 

[IrBubble]

again I don't consider electing/re-electing these twits every few years to be a democracy

Well, it is, and just because you don't like the result of it does not mean it's not a democratic process.

Think about it, the ultimate goal of having a productive country is ensuring the populous are 'motivated' into being as productive as they can be, and also distracted away from becoming politically aware

Or it could be to produce a better living for the inhabitants of said country.

So ideally you make it so the cost of living (income - tax - basic essentials) and income roughly cancel out.

Money is useless unless you use it to buy something. So people will work (no pun intended) towards spending it anyways. And if there is too much money and the prices are too low they will inflate to match how much money there is.

My point is that it IS my money, the government is not entitled to it

What makes you feel that your entitlement to the money is more important than the development of the country? And why do you think that you would be in a better economical situation assuming tax was removed? It would mean that everybody had 30% (well, lets run with 30% regardless of the actual number) more money than they previously had, meaning that the money will inflate by 30% reducing it's worth down to the original 70% you were already recieving.

 

[WolfAU]

What makes you feel that your entitlement to the money is more important than the development of the country?

I'm not arguing the merit of how its spent as some of it is spent well, some is utterly wasted, and most of it is spent poorly on worthwhile causes. What I arguing it is not theirs by any right, and I have no say in how its spent.

And why do you think that you would be in a better economical situation assuming tax was removed?

I'm not, I am correctly asserting that how much we are taxed is chosen strategically as a method of control.

 

[IrBubble]

I'm not arguing the merit of how its spent as some of it is spent well, some is utterly wasted, and most of it is spent poorly on worthwhile causes. What I arguing it is not theirs by any right, and I have no say in how its spent.

Well, it improves the lives of many more people and it does not violate your basic rights, so why not?

I'm not, I am correctly asserting that how much we are taxed is chosen strategically as a method of control.

You're paranoid. You can still choose to work less, as long as you're willing to live for less (assuming you can find a workplace which lets you ofcourse). People are under the control of their desires for the good things in life, not due to taxes.

 

[Don-Sama]

Hmm well I read the hole discussion.

It also doesn't address my point that modern westernised governments do use income tax as a form of oppression in a similar way to the concept of 'debt slavery', I still reject the claim that the government is somehow entitled to it and reject the claim that a more voluntary alternative is doomed to fail... Hell, wikipedia is still up and running.

And in an anarchist society u have real slavery. in which an elite gets money, and with it power.
Anarchy would just be as big as a mess as communism, on paper it sounds good, but put it into practice and it would just suck

Wolf, u seriously need some history lessons, (which the government forces u to, so that people have an average understanding of how things are) so that people actually know what the hell their talking about.
off course schooling does have some manipulations in it, which is only normal since the government is chosen by the people, and the government on that position wants to put ideals in children's head so that the once peoples will be continued even after the next generation. The problem of course with this is that people get manipulated, however REAL democracy should counter that effect through real truth and education, and not some lame creationist forcing.

If u had any knowledge of history u would have known that education is the KEY to progress in a civilization. The number of people who could read, or properly speak in the past was stunningly low. This is because the people would do anything to get enough money for tomorrow rather than the future. Also try to understand what the result of education is on the health of the people. Only 300 years ago most doctors didn't wash their hands after treating a patient - calling it the scent of the profession. To prevent this from happening education & research is necessary, in an anarchist society people would focus on the money making, instead of the well being of people. And many poor people won't be educating their children (and if they were to educate, imagine how much manipulation and just wrong information will be given with that?) because they either don't have to time or the knowledge for it.
And to keep the people from being ''ignorant sheep'' education, by a government is necessary to maintain the current progress.

Democracy in America is in my eyes flawed, there are 2 choices to be made. Both pumping propaganda in people's heads saying that they are better when they in fact don't differ that much.

Of course governments should change their ruling, as it is far from perfect; however anarchy is as well far from perfect. Many of the taxes especially in America go to unneccesary things such as a war that shouldn't be fought.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/45/114081154_0d8e8d4113.jpg

Humans are all just to human to participate in such a idealist society.

 

[WolfAU]

Well, it improves the lives of many more people and it does not violate your basic rights, so why not?

So taxes only go towards improving citizens lives eh (here and here)? And that still leaves out direct harm from excess taxation.

And you're being naive, believe it or not taxation as a means of oppression is largely undisputed (read books on famous dictatorships if you don't believe me), the only thing you can dispute is if the US is doing it intentionally. And saying 'you can pay less tax if you earn less' is completely strawmanning my argument.

I'm left with the impression you have little to show other than your instinctual hesitation and doomsday predictions at what I clearly admit is a radical suggestion, I mean few people have the balls to call a spade a spade and point out income taxation is theft and theft is bad, and then to go on to have the nerve that people have some direct say in how their money is spent... ie NOT dropping million dollar smart bombs on civilians while a nation suffers under an ineffective healthcare system.

And in an anarchist society u have real slavery...

I assume you mean LAWLESS, the words 'anarchist society' are a bit vague so I hope you can clarify. I made that point earlier that anarchy/lawlessness just leads to another group taking control by force and making new laws and government structure.

Anarchy would just be as big as a mess as communism, on paper it sounds good, but put it into practice and it would just suck.

If you're addressing me, I think I made it clear I am not in favour of what one would call 'true' anarchy, as anarchy is simply a power vacuum, which will inevitably be replaced by power, usually violently. Also theres nothing wrong with communism in itself (ie its not inherantly flawed as you insinuate) just that it was intended to be a dictatorship, not a utopia. My personal image of a Utopia is fairly balanced (ie elements of all great philosophies, not relying too much on any specific one).

History lessons are part 'look at us, the victors', ie another form of propaganda (ie look at the same history classes on the same topic throughout the world, ie WW2 history between Japan, Germany, Italy and the west).

If u had any knowledge of history u would have known that education is the KEY to progress in a civilization.

Yes, its for that reason I'm opposed to mandatory schooling.

number of people who could read, or properly speak in the past was stunningly low.

Reread my comments on this issue, increase in literacy rates are hardly due to mandatory education.

You really think if primary ed wasn't free no parents would get their kids an education??? Eugh... God, again you are completely misinterpreting what I am saying, you really think I'm encouraging kids to go without an education? Prior to the introduction of mandatory schooling in alot of countries (Aus, US, England, NZ etc), most of those countries had effective means (parents taught their kids, hired tudors, sent them to private schools etc)... there is no real benefit to mandatory education with the arguable exception of forcing absolutely terrible parents, who without the law forcing them would not get their kids an education, who in my mind have no business raising kids to begin with.

in an anarchist society people would focus on the money making, instead of the well being of people.

You keep referring to this 'anarchis society', I'm not clear on what your idea of that is. Besides, focusing on money over quality of life... thats called capitalism, and its already here.

And to keep the people from being ''ignorant sheep'' education, by a government is necessary to maintain the current progress.

What a naive comment. Learning to name state capitals doesn't help combat tyranny, nor does learning calculus, learning to think and reason do, and those are rarely taught in any public school classroom, I learnt them at home from my parents, and if mandatory education was abolished, I would've still learnt them, I learnt more coming home after class and surfing the net and talking to my parents, other adults and my friends, than I ever did at school.

 

[IrBubble]

So taxes only go towards improving citizens lives eh (here and here)? And that still leaves out direct harm from excess taxation.

And you're being naive, believe it or not taxation as a means of oppression is largely undisputed (read books on famous dictatorships if you don't believe me), the only thing you can dispute is if the US is doing it intentionally. And saying 'you can pay less tax if you earn less' is completely strawmanning my argument.

You don't think that these taxes were used in conjecture with controlling the prices on the food, thus starving people that weren't working "enough"?

And i didn't strawman your argument, I presented a counter-argument in which I tried to explain that the taxation in these cases weren't detrimental to the personal economy, they're merely manipulating the numbers to help the society.

I'm left with the impression you have little to show other than your instinctual hesitation and doomsday predictions at what I clearly admit is a radical suggestion, I mean few people have the balls to call a spade a spade and point out income taxation is theft and theft is bad, and then to go on to have the nerve that people have some direct say in how their money is spent... ie NOT dropping million dollar smart bombs on civilians while a nation suffers under an ineffective healthcare system.

As I stated earlier, that's a problem with your democratic system, not with the concept of taxation.

If u had any knowledge of history u would have known that education is the KEY to progress in a civilization.

Yes, its for that reason I'm opposed to mandatory schooling.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

You really think if primary ed wasn't free no parents would get their kids an education???

Some parents wouldn't.

Prior to the introduction of mandatory schooling in alot of countries (Aus, US, England, NZ etc), most of those countries had effective means (parents taught their kids, hired tudors, sent them to private schools etc)

Well, that's true for the upper middleclass and above at least.

there is no real benefit to mandatory education with the arguable exception of forcing absolutely terrible parents, who without the law forcing them would not get their kids an education, who in my mind have no business raising kids to begin with.

Except that you can standardize the education, make sure you enhance the education, put a higher standard on tutors and teachers by forcing them to have a good formal education before starting to teach.

What a naive comment. Learning to name state capitals doesn't help combat tyranny, nor does learning calculus, learning to think and reason do, and those are rarely taught in any public school classroom, I learnt them at home from my parents, and if mandatory education was abolished, I would've still learnt them, I learnt more coming home after class and surfing the net and talking to my parents, other adults and my friends, than I ever did at school.

The irony in this is that yes it does. Learning history allows us not to repeat past mistakes, learning calculus helps us improve civilization in such a manner that people have more time to contemplate important values. Also people learning calculus has helped us develop instant global comunications, has helped to feed the hungry etc, which in its turn helps deter people from violence.

 

[Don-Sama]

I will try to keep it short as bubble also has already responded.

I assume you mean LAWLESS, the words 'anarchist society' are a bit vague so I hope you can clarify. I made that point earlier that anarchy/lawlessness just leads to another group taking control by force and making new laws and government structure.

Lawless, or controlled by the rich (isn;t it almost the same?). however, I do not know ur definition of ur (lets call it) wolf-anarchy, could u clarify that? in the way of immigration, morals, economics and healthcare. Only that way, a true conversation can be held since u don't support the real definition of anarchy.

In history many civilications have had slavery, and in a way anarchy as well can lead to slavery, due to the lack of rules (u talked about indebt-slavery, however no one is forcing u to borrow, apart from the taxes u have to pay. and that the american goverment spents so much of it on means to kill doesn't mean other country's do that as well. so please also take a look at other goverments. (as bubble also has already said)

Prior to the introduction of mandatory schooling in alot of countries (Aus, US, England, NZ etc), most of those countries had effective means (parents taught their kids, hired tudors, sent them to private schools etc)

Well, that's true for the upper middleclass and above at least.

And that middle class would be very low in anarchist society's (looking back at the industrial revolution in which factory's basicly where free to do what they wanted) off course this could be different in ur anarchy, if it is explain it.

History lessons are part 'look at us, the victors', ie another form of propaganda (ie look at the same history classes on the same topic throughout the world, ie WW2 history between Japan, Germany, Italy and the west).

naturally this is the case in many country's especially in the patriot america, however in holland we get taught what an assholes our for-fathers really where (basicly all the bad things also get told, as well as the good things, allthought the minister does talks about the voc as if it was good it pisses me off), it also really depends on the teacher.

Yes, its for that reason I'm opposed to mandatory schooling.

He, well anyhoo, brains need training, Schools also know at what lvl the kid is, and on what age surtain things are most suitable for learning (at some stages in youth childs can learn different things more easily, and other things harder) also the schooling in the past was destined for the rich, those very good educated people later on got the good jobs, as a result the poorer stayed poor, and the rich rich. mandatory schooling gives everyone the option to get a good education.

What a naive comment. Learning to name state capitals doesn't help combat tyranny, nor does learning calculus, learning to think and reason do, and those are rarely taught in any public school classroom, I learnt them at home from my parents, and if mandatory education was abolished, I would've still learnt them, I learnt more coming home after class and surfing the net and talking to my parents, other adults and my friends, than I ever did at school.

Quite naive too, but i gotta admit my arguments werent that good either. however, here u again go at ur own experience at school in ur own country, look outside that too. (in the same way I not only should look at my own experience of dutch schooling) But just because u didn't learned something doesn't mean that it can't be learned in a non-anarchy.

And so ur parents where educated and smart, not all are like that he. ur parents also (like mine) gave u the opportunity to learn something at home or on the internet. many people do not have that opportunity. and that would lead to a group being left out, and therefore missing ''the boat'' to further richness and standart of living.

 

[desero]

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 do not think any notable anarchist writer expressed a believe in inherently good or unselfish humans. I think most consider all such ideals bad simplifications. Humans can be both altruistic and selfish, evil and good. Taken from the Anarchist FAQ on Human nature (hope this is not to long to post or read ):

Anarchists, far from ignoring "human nature," have the only political theory that gives this concept deep thought and reflection. Too often, "human nature" is flung up as the last line of defence in an argument against anarchism, because it is thought to be beyond reply. This is not the case, however. First of all, human nature is a complex thing. If, by human nature, it is meant "what humans do," it is obvious that human nature is contradictory -- love and hate, compassion and heartlessness, peace and violence, and so on, have all been expressed by people and so are all products of "human nature." Of course, what is considered "human nature" can change with changing social circumstances. For example, slavery was considered part of "human nature" and "normal" for thousands of years. Homosexuality was considered perfectly normal by the ancient Greeks yet thousands of years later the Christian church denounced it as unnatural. War only become part of "human nature" once states developed. Hence Chomsky:
"Individuals are certainly capable of evil . . . But individuals are capable of all sorts of things. Human nature has lots of ways of realising itself, humans have lots of capacities and options. Which ones reveal themselves depends to a large extent on the institutional structures. If we had institutions which permitted pathological killers free rein, they'd be running the place. The only way to survive would be to let those elements of your nature manifest themselves.

"If we have institutions which make greed the sole property of human beings and encourage pure greed at the expense of other human emotions and commitments, we're going to have a society based on greed, with all that follows. A different society might be organised in such a way that human feelings and emotions of other sorts, say, solidarity, support, sympathy become dominant. Then you'll have different aspects of human nature and personality revealing themselves." [Chronicles of Dissent, pp. 158]

Therefore, environment plays an important part in defining what "human nature" is, how it develops and what aspects of it are expressed. Indeed, one of the greatest myths about anarchism is the idea that we think human nature is inherently good (rather, we think it is inherently sociable). How it develops and expresses itself is dependent on the kind of society we live in and create. A hierarchical society will shape people in certain (negative) ways and produce a "human nature" radically different from a libertarian one. So "when we hear men [and women] saying that Anarchists imagine men [and women] much better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means of rendering men [and women] less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and ambition?" [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 83]

As such, the use of "human nature" as an argument against anarchism is simply superficial and,ultimately, an evasion. It is an excuse not to think. "Every fool," as Emma Goldman put it, "from king to policemen, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weakness of human nature. Yet how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?" Change society, create a better social environment and then we can judge what is a product of our natures and what is the product of an authoritarian system. For this reason, anarchism "stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government." For "[f]reedom, expansion, opportunity, and above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 73]

This does not mean that human beings are infinitely plastic, with each individual born a tabula rasa (blank slate) waiting to be formed by "society" (which in practice means those who run it). As Noam Chomsky argues, "I don't think its possible to give a rational account of the concept of alienated labour on that assumption [that human nature is nothing but a historical product], nor is it possible to produce something like a moral justification for the commitment to some kind of social change, except on the basis of assumptions about human nature and how modifications in the structure of society will be better able to conform to some of the fundamental needs that are part of our essential nature." [Language and Politics, p. 215] We do not wish to enter the debate about what human characteristics are and are not "innate." All we will say is that human beings have an innate ability to think and learn -- that much is obvious, we feel -- and that humans are sociable creatures, needing the company of others to feel complete and to prosper. Moreover, they have the ability to recognise and oppose injustice and oppression (Bakunin rightly considered "the power to think and the desire to rebel" as "precious faculties." [God and the State, p. 9]).

These three features, we think, suggest the viability of an anarchist society. The innate ability to think for oneself automatically makes all forms of hierarchy illegitimate, and our need for social relationships implies that we can organise without the state. The deep unhappiness and alienation afflicting modern society reveals that the centralisation and authoritarianism of capitalism and the state is denying some innate needs within us. In fact, as mentioned earlier, for the great majority of its existence the human race has lived in anarchic communities, with little or no hierarchy. That modern society calls such people "savages" or "primitive" is pure arrogance. So who can tell whether anarchism is against "human nature"? Anarchists have accumulated much evidence to suggest that it may not be. As for the charge the anarchists demand too much of "human nature," it is often non anarchists who make the greatest claims on it. For "while our opponents seem to admit there is a kind of salt of the earth -- the rulers, the employers, the leaders -- who, happily enough, prevent those bad men -- the ruled, the exploited, the led -- from becoming still worse than they are" we anarchists "maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority" and "both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation." So "there is [a] difference, and a very important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but we make no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes unconsciously, and because we make no such exception, they say that we are dreamers." [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 83] If human nature is so bad, then giving some people power over others and hoping this will lead to justice and freedom is hopelessly utopian.

Moreover, as noted, Anarchists argue that hierarchical organisations bring out the worse in human nature. Both the oppressor and the oppressed are negatively affected by the authoritarian relationships so produced. "It is a characteristic of rivilege and of every kind of privilege," argued Bakunin, "to kill the mind and heart of man . . . That is a social law which admits no exceptions . . . It is the law of equality and humanity." [God and the State, p. 31] And while the privileged become corrupted by power, the powerless (in general) become servile in heart and mind (luckily the human spirit is such that there will always be rebels no matter the oppression for where there is oppression, there is resistance and, consequently, hope). As such, it seems strange for anarchists to hear non-anarchists justify hierarchy in terms of the (distorted) "human
nature" it produces.
Sadly, too many have done precisely this. It continues to this day. For example, with the rise of "sociobiology," some claim (with very little real evidence) that capitalism is a product of our "nature," which is determined by our genes. These claims are simply a new variation of the "human nature" argument and have, unsurprisingly, been leapt upon by the powers that be.
Considering the dearth of evidence, their support for this "new" doctrine must be purely the result of its utility to those in power -- i.e. the fact that it is useful to have an "objective" and "scientific" basis to rationalise inequalities in wealth and power (for a discussion of this process see Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature by Steven Rose, R.C. Lewontin and Leon J. Kamin).

This is not to say that it does not hold a grain of truth. As scientist Stephen Jay Gould notes, "the range of our potential behaviour is circumscribed by our biology" and if this is what sociobiology means "by genetic control, then we can scarcely disagree." However, this is not what is meant. Rather, it is a form of "biological determinism" that sociobiology argues for. Saying that there are specific genes for specific human traits says little for while "[v]iolence, sexism, and general nastiness are biological since they represent one subset of a possible range of behaviours" so are "peacefulness, equality, and kindness." And so "we may see their influence increase if we can create social structures that permit them to flourish." That this may be the case can be seen from the works of sociobiologists themselves, who "acknowledge diversity" in human cultures while "often dismiss[ing] the uncomfortable 'exceptions' as temporary and unimportant aberrations." This is surprising, for if you believe that "repeated, often genocidal warfare has shaped our genetic destiny, the existence of nonaggressive peoples is embarrassing." [Ever Since Darwin, p. 252, p. 257 and p. 254]

Like the social Darwinism that preceded it, sociobiology proceeds by first projecting the dominant ideas of current society onto nature (often unconsciously, so that scientists mistakenly consider the ideas in question as both "normal" and "natural"). Then the theories of nature produced in this manner are transferred back onto society and history, being used to "prove" that the principles of capitalism (hierarchy, authority, competition, etc.) are eternal laws, which are then appealed to as a justification for the status quo! Amazingly, there are many supposedly intelligent people who take this sleight-of-hand seriously. This can be seen when "hierarchies" in nature are used to explain, and so justify, hierarchies in
human societies. Such analogies are misleading for they forget the institutional nature of human life. As Murray Bookchin notes in his critique of sociobiology, a "weak, enfeebled, unnerved, and sick ape is hardly likely to become an 'alpha' male, much less retain this highly ephemeral 'status.' By contrast, the most physically and mentally pathological human rulers have exercised authority with devastating effect in the course of history." This "expresses a power of hierarchical institutions over persons that is completely reversed in so-called 'animal hierarchies' where the absence of institutions is precisely the only intelligible way of talking about 'alpha males' or 'queen bees.'" ["Sociobiology or Social Ecology", Which way for the
Ecology Movement?, p. 58] Thus what makes human society unique is conveniently ignored and the real sources of power in society are hidden under a genetic screen. The sort of apologetics associated with appeals to "human nature" (or sociobiology at its worse) are natural, of course, because every ruling class needs to justify their right to rule. Hence they support doctrines that defined the latter in ways appearing to justify elite power -- be it sociobiology, divine right, original sin, etc. Obviously, such doctrines have always been wrong . . . until now, of course, as it is obvious our current society truly conforms to "human nature" and it has been scientifically proven by our current scientific priesthood!
The arrogance of this claim is truly amazing. History hasn't stopped. One thousand years from now, society will be completely different from what it is presently or from what anyone has imagined. No government in place at the moment will still be around, and the current economic system will not exist. The only thing that may remain the same is that people will still be
claiming that their new society is the "One True System" that completely conforms to human nature, even though all past systems did not.

Of course, it does not cross the minds of supporters of capitalism that people from different cultures may draw different conclusions from the same facts -- conclusions that may be more valid. Nor does it occur to capitalist apologists that the theories of the "objective" scientists may be framed in the context of the dominant ideas of the society they live in. It comes as no surprise to anarchists, however, that scientists working in Tsarist Russia developed a theory of evolution based on cooperation within species, quite unlike their counterparts in capitalist Britain, who developed a theory based on competitive struggle within and between species. That the latter theory reflected the dominant political and economic theories of British society (notably competitive individualism) is pure coincidence, of course.

Kropotkin's classic work Mutual Aid, for example, was written in response to the obvious inaccuracies that British representatives of Darwinism had projected onto nature and human life. Building upon the mainstream Russian criticism of the British Darwinism of the time, Kropotkin showed (with substantial empirical evidence) that "mutual aid" within a group or species played as important a role as "mutual struggle" between individuals within those groups or species (see Stephan Jay Gould's essay "Kropotkin was no Crackpot" in his book Bully for Brontosaurus for details and an evaluation). It was, he stressed, a "factor" in evolution along with competition, a factor which, in most circumstances, was far more important to survival. Thus co-operation is just as "natural" as competition so proving that "human nature" was not a barrier to anarchism as co-operation between members of a species can be the best pathway to advantage individuals.

To conclude. Anarchists argue that anarchy is not against "human nature" for two main reasons. Firstly, what is considered as being "human nature" is shaped by the society we live in and the relationships we create. This means a hierarchical society will encourage certain personality traits to dominate while an anarchist one would encourage others. As such, anarchists "do not so much rely on the fact that human nature will change as they do upon the theory that the some nature will act differently under different circumstances." Secondly, change "seems to be one of the fundamental laws of existence" so "who can say that man [sic!] has reached the limits of his possibilities." [George Barrett, Objections to Anarchism, pp. 360-1 and p. 360]

For useful discussions on anarchist ideas on human nature, both of which refute the idea that anarchists think human beings are naturally good, see Peter Marshall's "Human nature and anarchism" [David Goodway (ed.), For Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice, pp. 127- 149] and David Hartley's "Communitarian Anarchism and Human Nature." [Anarchist Studies, vol. 3, no. 2, Autumn 1995, pp. 145-164]

 

[WolfAU]

My computer crashed and is currently getting fixed, and I'm stuck using a PoS computer in the college commons with an awkward keyboard, so I'll keep this pretty brief and doubt I will be able to respond very frequently.

As I stated earlier, that's a problem with your democratic system, not with the concept of taxation.

If the government made contributing money necessary but gave individuals more freedom on how it was spent, my objection would decrease, its the fact that they do both, and no one dares question their right to do so our the world will end that I object to.

"Yes, its for that reason I'm opposed to mandatory schooling."
How do you arrive at that conclusion?

Because the quality of education in school, particularly public schools is atrocious, this is well documented and generally understood (a good quote summing it up is from Yes PM "We'll give them a comprehensive education... to make up for their, comprehensive education"), again, my point you seem to be avoiding is that while ACCESS TO education has improved, the quality of education since mandatory schooling was introduced has dropped considerably, especially when compared to improvements in society and technology (ie cheaper books, computer technology etc).

The parents who wouldn't give their kids an education if not forced would still be lousy parents when they ARE forced, ie they wouldn't teach their kids things themselves, help with homework, hire tutors etc, so the improvement is minimal and it would be better to focus on improving parental responsibility rather than forcing parents to play the gov's crooked and faulty game.

An example is quite high teen suicide rates are often linked to problems at school. I didn't want to bring it up because its somewhat off topic but the emotional harm of highschool is really indisputable. Another example is the high level of apathy or dislike of education that many students have BECAUSE they are forced to study, if this was removed alot would find their own motivation and their own interests.

Well, that's true for the upper middleclass and above at least.

Actually for most class groups, as while lower class didn't hire formal education, they found ways of getting their children forms of education, with quite high literacy rates before mandatory schooling was introduced.

Standardising education can be done without using mandatory education, for instance you could have optional 'accreditations', just like learning to drive, you may be forced to prove you can read and write at a socially acceptable level, or other necessary skills.

skill in calculus is only useful to those who would use it in later life, and those would learn it even if they weren't forced to. And learning history doesn't prevent tyranny, UNDERSTANDING it does, important distinction.