Why do people think civilization equals government?
You cannot have civilization without government.
case in point:
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=163845
"if anarchy is so perfect, why hasnt the whole populace of the earth gone 'right, lets be anarchists' and 'returned to nature'? you know why? because its impractical, especially with over 7 billion people. It could prbably work if the population was under 500 million, but with our current population, the only way we'd ever be able to advance is the continuation of civilisation and the (responsible) advancement of technology."
The size of the population is not an issue, their morals and ethics are. Anarchy won't work and hasn't been tried en masse because there's too many people who are perfectly fine forming/using the state to steal, brutalize, and murder other people. Now that is not to say a totally free system can't handle crime; it can. What i am saying is that people by and large suck, a good portion of them are extreme pieces of crap and actually enjoy hurting their fellow human beings, and organize for that very purpose. And that goes for everything from the psycho who becomes a cop because he loves bossing people around to the busy body who would rather force her neighbors to behave a certain way via zoning laws than actually have to deal with them personally and compromise.
People suck and enjoy forcing each other's hands, that's the long and short of it. Until we breed such people out of the herd so to speak, anarchism stands no chance.
"People suck and enjoy forcing each other's hands, that's the long and short of it. Until we breed such people out of the herd so to speak, anarchism stands no chance."
So, you basically think everyone on this forum want to live in a fantasy land that can never be?
I think it is quite the opposite.... I believe one lives in a fantasy world if they actually believe that there is an ideal government than can be achieved.
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Clearly not the "anarchy" that is talked about around here.
"So, you basically think everyone on this forum want to live in a fantasy land that can never be?"
No, I think everyone on this forum is exceptional compared to the majority of human beings out there, at least in regard to their understanding of how liberty breeds order, not the reverse.
However, there are problems. People who believe in using force to get what they want have a practical advatange: they don't give a shit if they violate your rights. And they are in the majority right now. That's why anarchism won't work right now. Socialism won't work because of the incentive and calculation problems. Anarchism solves that calculation issue, however there's still a human issue. Instead of the incentive problem it's the asshole problem; there are too many of them right now.
One glorius day in the future there will be a mass majority of anarchists staring down the last socialists, who will then and only then agree to shut up and stick to their commune. Until then, it's going to be a fight.
However, there are problems. People who believe in using force to get what they want have a practical advatange: they don't give a shit if they violate your rights. And they are in the majority right now. That's why anarchism won't work right now.
I disagree. The majority have never even examined the issue, they don't know they are rights violators and they probably would give a shit. All they know is that the state is necessary and if it were evil, it would look like Iraq, not the US. They have lives to live, economics is complicated, they love their families, and they work hard. This is what the majority looks like.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
I don't know. Just my speculation, but maybe some of it is just down to evolutionary history, and maybe because at this point in history and at other points the state has been the most stable form of organization that has the ability to defend itself against alternative forms of organizations. I don't see a dichotomy between the state and anarchy; in fact, I see the state as proof that people acting in their self interest will form the type of institutions most conducive to their interests. There's no doubt that the power of the state vests a lot of power and benefits in the hands of a few connected, and they do a good job of convincing the rest of us of the necessity of their presence. The reason why anarchy hasn't succeeded is simply because with humans being the way they are and with technological process and human understanding being where it was, anarchy just cannot compete.
I think the state has done pretty well at perpetuating itself until now, but the increasing decentralization of information has been changing the dynamic and I believe it will increasingly do so going into the future. I don't even like the term anarchy because it implies a return to an original state of affairs, but an original state of affairs was ignorance and barbary. That's not what most people mean when they talk about moving to a more anarchic state of affairs. You need highly developed institutions and technology to achieve something even near what the anarcho-capitalists describe, as well as educated and informed people. It won't just appear out of thin air.
xahrx: "So, you basically think everyone on this forum want to live in a fantasy land that can never be?" No, I think everyone on this forum is exceptional compared to the majority of human beings out there, at least in regard to their understanding of how liberty breeds order, not the reverse. However, there are problems. People who believe in using force to get what they want have a practical advatange: they don't give a shit if they violate your rights. And they are in the majority right now. That's why anarchism won't work right now. Socialism won't work because of the incentive and calculation problems. Anarchism solves that calculation issue, however there's still a human issue. Instead of the incentive problem it's the asshole problem; there are too many of them right now. One glorius day in the future there will be a mass majority of anarchists staring down the last socialists, who will then and only then agree to shut up and stick to their commune. Until then, it's going to be a fight.
Whatever moral theory someone subscribes to, in the end the rights a person has are the rights that they can successfully defend against encroachment by others. The anarchists will "win" when the balance of power swings to their side. I do think that the internet is creating a lot of freedom that did not exist before, and I see technology as the prime enabler of the decentralization of power simply because it is like a genie that cannot be put back in the bottle. It's like the hedgehog game; stamp down one hedgehog and another one appears. Unless a state succeeds in controlling the minds and actions of every human being on earth then I see states breaking apart going into the future as relative power shifts from the few toward the many. People think states are all-powerful today but I'm glad to be living today rather than centuries ago when I would likely be slowly tortured to death for spreading such treasonous thoughts.
Because the correlation is insane, and our history doesn't really point to much of an alternative at first, second, or third glance. Honestly, it would be odd not to think so without some specialized learning.
Civilization is the government in the video game.
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
"I disagree. The majority have never even examined the issue, they don't know they are rights violators and they probably would give a shit." - mikachusetts
Your opinion which I can respect but think is completely and totally wrong. To my way of thinking there is no difference between your judgement that they haven't examined the issue and a central planner's second guessing of someone's buying decision. They have made whatever judgements they deem necessary and given the issue all the thought they've deemed necessary. Which yes, for many means little to none, but the overall effect is just the same: statist rule because people don't give a damn.
"All they know is that the state is necessary and if it were evil, it would look like Iraq, not the US. They have lives to live, economics is complicated, they love their families, and they work hard. This is what the majority looks like."
I disagree. I think people as you describe certainly exist, but I think evil pricks exist too. There are plenty of people out there in my experience who enjoy lording it over their fellow human beings. If such people didn't exist states wouldn't get as far as they do and get away with as much as they do. There was an articule recently on LR.com by an author, I forgot which day and which author, but he described a type of driver he called a Clover. Clovers exist. They deliberately make other people's lives miserable because they get satisfaction from doing so. I recall a non driving example.
When I was a kid and working retail during school, I worked in a department store for a while. We had this fryer thing on sale in the Housewares department. It was one of those things we could never keep in stock and seemed to always be on sale. One fat ass woman decided this was too much and sued the store. Apparently it's illegal to keep things on sale too long. To my knowledge she won. we had to raise the price to the MSRP for a certain amount of time during the year. And Miss BusyBody kept frequenting the store and making sure when she checked out that everyone in line and the cashier knew what she did and how people needed to 'watch' us. She was very, very proud of her accomplishment.
These people exist. I don't know if it's by nature or nurture, but there are people out there who are immensly concerned with how everyone else is living their lives and come Hell or high water determined to make sure they have some say in it. And for anarcho capitalism to win you have to realize you're not just fighting against people who are good hearted but don't know better. There are evil sons of bitches out there who get off making other people's lives miserable because it makes them feel like they're better or superior or have accomplished something. I don't know. All I do know is that when I'm driving and someone needs to merge, I fall back and let the person in. The majority of people though do everything they can to ram their car up the ass of the car in front of them so as to leave no room for anyone to merge. And I see that tendency in a lot more places than in traffic. And as long as people think that way for whatever reason they do, anarchism will not work becauseit simply will not sell.
"Apparently it's illegal to keep things on sale too long. "
If someone could just keep a running list of laws like these, we could easily convince people government is not worth it.
problem is, noone knows about these laws. they might here about an odd one, and then thats it. they forget.
And I'm talking including federal laws like this as well. show the laws on why its illegal for women to sell breast milk to other women who need it.
But its ok to fund research on cows using human genes to produce something similar to human breast milk and sell that.
The question that should be asked is, is the general population civilised enough for Anarchism. I think the answer is yes, even though i would not describe the majority of people as civilised. The majority of people have just been given information that is pro state; they lack the comprehension that life without a state is plausible. Once people come to the logical conclusion that anarchism is more than plausible then they most likely will agree with it. But you will still get some that will think that the struggle for the working class lies in taking money from other people to help the poor. The case of what happens to poor people in a free market? They become richer. What happens to a poor person in a socialist market? They become stupid and a cycle of stupidity and poorness and social dependability sets in and people no longer want to work etc. As seen in some areas that are heavily dependent on state welfare. I see the state as an interference, almost like anarchism is already working, it is only interrupted by the state temporarily.
"It could prbably work if the population was under 500 million, but with our current population, the only way we'd ever be able to advance is the continuation of civilisation and the (responsible) advancement of technology."
Im sure that monarchists ot earlier days would have said the same thing....
People simply do not get implicit cooperation. That's why to solve poverty they insist wealth be taken from some and given to others. That's why instead of letting people solve their own problems with voluntary interactions they demand someone 'run' things. The majroity of the people in this world are just not wired to understand things like spontaneous order. Most people believe Russel Kirk; they think order preceeds liberty and therefore someone must impose order.