[QUOTE=cori93437;968794]Don't vote at all?[/QUOTE]
Correct. If voting changed anything, it would be illegal. All voting really does, is give legitimacy to the bad things our politicians do.
[QUOTE=cori93437;968794]Hmm... how did the wall come down?
What made that happen?
Did it have anything at all to do with some people who were voted for at some point?[/QUOTE]
No, it had everything to do with the protests against it. It also didn't hurt when the protesters overwhelmed the soldiers guarding the border. Lethal force was still authorized, but they couldn't justify slaughtering thousands and thousands of people. No vote needed.
I'll leave you all to your flights of fancy now.
This whole conversation will change about as much as voting will in your assessment, or not voting. Whichever.
Actually probably less.
There are fewer people who believe in this than believe in the system that is already in place.
You have your work cut out for you...
I suggest you all chatter louder.
Yes, people are astonishingly superstitious, but I am hopeful. I believe they are catching on. Statism is archaic. Voluntary peaceful societies are the intelligent choice of the future.
[QUOTE=j3nn;968829]Yes, people are astonishingly superstitious, but I am hopeful. I believe they are catching on. Statism is archaic. [B]Voluntary peaceful societies are the intelligent choice of the future.[/B][/QUOTE]
Not sure how the violent world we live in will get there...
Human nature, as I've studied it, seems much to prone towards a good deal of nastiness unfortunately.
But hopefully we will.
[QUOTE=DamienMaddox;968804]The biggest problem with that, is the whole thing relies on coercion and intimidation. A law is nothing more than a threat (If you do this, we will fine, cage, or hurt you).
It's a case of ends justifying means. It's not possible to justify means, no matter how good the intentions are.
If government shut down for a day, or even a week, without announcing it, most people wouldn't even notice. I don't think its a stretch to believe that society is not hinged on the threat that if you do something wrong, government is going to punish you.[/QUOTE]You seem to be under the impression that I have not heard the arguments for anarchism and voluntarism before. I have. I've read several books by Stefan (Stephan? can't remember...) Molyneux, for instance, who delves into these topics at (often boringly repetitive) length. David Graeber, whose work and ideas I generally respect, also has strongly anarchist leanings. I agree with the non-aggression principle and think it's an ideal rule to govern oneself by. I don't necessarily agree with the concept of prisons (I'm still working out whether I believe it's [I]ever[/I] acceptable to cage a human being--I think there may be some circumstances that permit it, but they are clearly much fewer in number that what our current law allows), and I'm certainly against the death penalty, point blank. I do agree that many laws are based simply on threats. However, what else is there, if a person is willing to aggress? The NAP allows violence in response to violence; any violence inherent to the application of a [I]just[/I] law must therefore take the NAP into consideration; any law that permits violence for any reason other than the type of violence-in-response-to-violence permitted by the NAP is an unjust law and should be opposed. But that doesn't mean that [I]all[/I] legal violence is unjust--only that we have a moral responsibility to make sure our law codes conform to moral principles, and to oppose such laws as do not, and are therefore unjust or immoral.
Where I don't generally disagree with the general position is in the absolute nature of individual property rights. I don't think that placing restrictions or limits on what people can do with property is necessarily a violation of the NAP, in part [I]because many things that people do with their property are themselves violations of the NAP[/I]. I also think that a world in which there was no such thing as public property would be a very unpleasant and possibly dangerous place to live. But that's another discussion and we've been 'round that bend already.
Not sure how the violent world we live in will get there...[/quote]
“The pioneers of a warless world are the young men ([I]and women[/I]) who refuse military service.” -- Albert Einstein
It all starts with the individual!
[QUOTE=DamienMaddox;968761]Why does it matter what "other people" define anarchy as? What matters is the concepts that are being discussed.
The fact that some people can twist a word that literally means "no rulers" into meaning "no rulers [I]per se[/I]" only proves that somewhere in our dna is a gene that can make some people very thick headed.[/QUOTE]
Nobody's twisting anything. Anarchism as an ideology existed long before Peter Shiff youtubes. You really ought to get out more.
[QUOTE=j3nn;968808]When did Paleo become synonymous with anarchism or even tribalism for that matter? You reference one group of hunter-gathers who simply evolved to the point of controlling and terrorizing and enslaving their fellow man and you believe they are the epitome of early human beings? So what. They learned, just like the millions before them, how to abuse other people. Humans learned to work and live in tribes, and then they learned how to do it wrongly. That was not how it always was. This behavior developed over generations. The natural state of human existence is what we now refer to as anarchism.[/quote]
I am stating my disbelief that there has ever been a human society that has conformed to your anarchic ideal, and giving an example of what I think is highly typical of tribal human societies. I think violence, oppression and manipulation has been part of the "human package" since before we were even human--along with our kinder, gentler instincts, which are just as inherent--and that whenever humans have found themselves in a situation where using violence would give them an advantage, at least some of them have chosen it. Violence simply works too well, and is too common across pretty much every species (and certainly near-universal in the primates) for it to be a mere cultural artifact. No; I think it is bred into us very deeply, and the vast machine we have built around ourselves is the current iteration of our ongoing attempts to create an environment in which violence becomes less and less necessary for our survival as individuals and as groups. The experiment continues apace, sometimes mis-stepping and sometimes skipping forward, but I don't think we are wise enough yet to know which way to leap, or how far, to land on that breathtaking pinnacle that would be a universally, voluntarily non-violent society. There are just too many crevasses we could fall into, and so we have to keep making our tentative way up the nearest slopes, testing each step along the way to decide whether we are best off forging ahead or turning around and blazing a different trail.
I think you underestimate, in your zeal--whose intentions I find entirely admirable, by the way, though I think it's not well-founded--how much [I]work[/I], and how many safeguards, it takes to hold us all together in a time when a few madmen given access to the wrong buttons could literally blow up the planet and everyone on it.
[QUOTE=j3nn;968808]Anarchy means no ruler, not no rules. Even families have rules, but most parents don't throw their children in a cage for 25 years for selling a plant. Of course there must be rules if we want to maintain a functioning society. That doesn't go without saying?![/quote]
No, it doesn't. I get the impression from some advocates of anarchism that they chafe under any sort of restrictions, no matter how reasonable, or how necessary, or how little they are materially affected. It often strikes me as a very childish sort of desire never to be opposed or prevented from anything one's heart might desire. From what you say this is not true of you, and so I say good. I don't think everyone is as mature.
[QUOTE=j3nn;968808]How positively disconnected from reality you sound! Yes, it's true that Americans and other first world countries live lives of relative ease and luxury compared to others around the world, but it doesn't come without a price. You see, while you are relishing in the fact that you can buy your breakfast at the nearest super mart with little risk of being killed, you and millions of others, myself included, are forced to support a system that slaughters and starves millions of other human beings around the world. That sends thousands of soldiers to their death. That cages millions of people in prisons for victimless crimes. That gives billions of dollars to corporations, many of which are making people in this country chronically ill or killing them--big pharma and agri-business. That allows a corporation like the Federal Reserve to devalue our currency, creating inflation. That takes and takes and takes taxes and Social Security against peoples' will in a giant Ponzi scheme until the day comes when the elderly are sick and impoverished and the low-income people are given cell phones. And while the government gets credit for so much of our relatively sweet lifestyles, the truth is that the free markets are what enables all of the luxuries and privileges that you are so fond of. Without the taxpayer who generates income in the private sector, what would finance all of the government agencies and departments and branches that allegedly provide all of these luxuries? The free markets in a voluntary society could and would provide all of the same necessities, only more efficiently and without the use of force and violence.[/quote]
I have already expressed a) my agreement that these sort of problems are real, and significant and b) that I disagree with your suggested approach for fixing them, because it is my belief it would [I]likely[/I] do more harm than good. Feel free to provide evidence (not ideology or slogans) that disagrees with me, because I would happily change my mind. Believe me, I [I]want[/I] to agree with you. But the facts as I see them currently don't warrant agreement, they suggest caution and incremental change.
[QUOTE=j3nn;968808]I don't think you really know what freedom is. And why would you assume that without the state all of the progress we have made would vanish? That's preposterous and superstitious. If anything, the state suppresses advancements. How long does it take for the FDA to approve of a life-saving drug? 6 years? How much do you have to pay to get taxi medallion license in NYC? Upwards of $1 million? But you are pleased with how the world is becoming molded to your preference, what if others do not want what you want? Why should they have to follow your desire? Why can't individuals [I]be individuals[/I]? Why must you force others to comply--violently--to your ideals?[/QUOTE]
I don't assume it [I]would[/I] vanish--I have what I believe is a reasonable fear that it [I]might[/I], to the detriment of billions of people.
I have already stated my disagreement with laws and rules that are put in place for reasons other than the minimization or elimination of violence and protection of our natural rights. The problem (or rather one of the problems) as I see it is that people's interests and rights will naturally tend to conflict. I believe that we can improve the system to the point where those laws that are arbitrary, unjust and restrictive of natural human behavior and ingenuity can be changed or eliminated to make them better. I don't think this is any more idealistic than your belief that simply eliminating the government will solve everything. I do think it's more likely to actually happen, though.
Perhaps you and I don't have the same concept of freedom. Words like that can be very difficult to rigorously and defensibly define. Would you do me the favor of summarizing it in your words so that I can better understand where you're coming from? I'd appreciate it, if you don't mind.
[QUOTE=j3nn;968845]“The pioneers of a warless world are the young men ([I]and women[/I]) who refuse military service.” -- Albert Einstein
It all starts with the individual![/QUOTE]
Here is one place we don't disagree in the slightest.
EDIT: A couple of edits/additions for clarity. Also, I think it was unfair to characterize "many" anarchists as childish, so I changed it to read "some".
NM, my cursor did a silly and hit the wrong one. of course this one became a statist argument. LOL