Whence Anarchy?

[Guest darkskyabove]

How, exactly, is an anarcho-capitalist society expected to be enacted. I've read, here in this forum, extensively, as elsewhere, many self-proclaimed pundits debate the intricacies of 'state v. non-state', but have yet to find one willing to, fully, admit the cold, hard truth: The state only grows until you prune it. ("The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, with the Blood of Patriots & Tyrants. It is its natural manure.") Espousing arm-chair theories from an 'ivory tower' will never get the job done. So: What are you willing to do?1. Will you risk financial insolvency?You are already insolvent. And so are your great-great-great-great...grandchildren. The money you thought you had is propped up by the guns of 'your' government. (Speaking to Americans, other nations have worse problems) $16,000,000,000,000 in debt, and counting. Stefan once quoted (and I checked with my scientific calculator) that if the Federal Government paid off $1.00 per second, it would take 440,000 years to pay off this debt. My calculation is 507,356.67174 years. That's longer than humans have existed. (Check your Anthropology, if you doubt. There's no debating my calculator, or, my tape measure, for that matter.) I could go on, and on, and on...about the fiscal irrationality that has become 'accepted' practice, but I leave it to YOU to understand. Money, and wealth, have become a 'convenient' fiction. They are backed by 'force' not free exchange. How much money (I mean force) do you have?2. Will you risk social ostracism:You are already 'ostracized'. The entire 'system' we live under is, by design, structured to fragment us into 'special interests'. Race, gender, socio-economic status. All fictitious. Are we not humans?3. Will you risk being a 'law-breaker'?You have already broken the law. You may not have been caught, yet. Just last year the Federal Government enacted 80,000 pages of new laws and regulations. Which ones have you broken?4. Will you risk 'life and limb'?Therein lies the crux. This country's original freedoms (as non-universal as they were) were bought, and paid for, with blood. Is your freedom any less valuable? "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." (Ayn Rand) Please, understand, you have already surrendered 'life and limb'. The Police, sworn to "uphold and protect", can kick in your door with a full SWAT team, shoot your dog, threaten you with modern assault weapons (i.e., H&K MP5's), and after it is found that the warrant was for your neighbor: Will they make reparation? Will they admit their wrongdoing? NO! It is all in the name of stopping some poor schmuck from poisoning 'himself' with dope. (Anyone who doesn't know what an MP5 is: better look it up, quick. The 2nd amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution to 'protect' us from our own government. Anyone who 'believes' that criminals are better armed than the police is either ignorant, or, self-deceiving. And that doesn't cover: Are U.S. citizens better armed than their 'potentially' tyrannical government? The Suisse are; why do you think Nazi Germany never even had a plan to invade Switzerland? Fighting house to house, and room to room is not an effective war strategy. So much for 'gun control': Who benefits?)Is political rhetoric a viable solution? Well: How's that going so far? Oh, and then there's 'public outrage'. Has that solved anything? Who the hell is this 'public'? Did they, truthfully, initiate any change? Or: Is it business as usual? Or, worse yet, business in a new, insidious fashion?So, who am I? Why should anyone accept what I say?The fact is, I'm just 'some' guy, who's paid attention to the ongoings throughout his life, and the lives before me: "Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."Why listen?: Well, don't. Continue down the path that's laid. My dog will "sell out" for a belly rub. Why shouldn't you sell your freedom for a slogan?Unlike the 99.999% of so-called humanity, I will gladly defend your right to disagree with me, providing "manure" for the Tree of Liberty, if required.There comes a time when one is faced with two, and only two, alternatives: stand up, or, lay down.What are we waiting for?

[MrCapitalism]

The state only grows until you prune it. ("The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, with the Blood of Patriots & Tyrants. It is its natural manure.") Espousing arm-chair theories from an 'ivory tower' will never get the job done.

If I (as an anarchist sitting in an ivory tower) were to rephrase your argument with 'less rosy' language, this would be my attempt:

The State (a coercive government) is good and neccessary for a well functioning society.

A prerequesite for a well functioning government (other than the regular initiation of violence and threats of violence), is that in regular intervals it is necessary for the entire society to be cast into a period of extreme violence, murder, and destruction. That to matintain order, thousands of people, including of course many bystanders, must die brutal deaths in regular intervals.

Only when this period of death, desctruction, and brutality is complete can a new State be imposed to once again initiate and make threats of violence.

Thus defines a functioning society, and how dare a bunch of stupid anarchists come up with crazy schemes to try and find another way for humanity to exist.

 

 

 

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

"What are we waiting for?"

 

Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

If I (as an anarchist sitting in an ivory tower) were to rephrase
your argument with 'less rosy' language, this would be my attempt:

The State (a coercive government) is good and neccessary for a well functioning society.

...

Thus
defines a functioning society, and how dare a bunch of stupid
anarchists come up with crazy schemes to try and find another way for
humanity to exist.

 

My name is not Straw Man. If you wish to "rephrase" my argument, at least try to get close.

At what point did I claim the State to be good and necessary?

I'm sure I defined ours as a "dis-functioning" society.

I called no one "stupid", and my claim is that anarcho-capitalist, libertarian, etc., views have made little impact. I did not say they were crazy, though I did imply ineffective, but never discounted them as worthless.

 

"What are we waiting for?"

 Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

 

Is passive-aggressive flaming accepted in this forum?

In fact, I have an alligator in my pocket. Would you care to test that? Having a battle of wits with an unarmed man is no challenge.

 

Back to reality...

For those that read my original post, and are put off by the negative emotional content: good. It was not meant to be a positive reinforcement of what anyone "wishes" to be true.

Reality has the last word. How's the quest for anarchy working so far? (And that's coming from an 110% anarchist/devout atheist [Yeah, "devout atheist" is an oxymoron. That's the point.])

What's the current state of "freedom" in this, supposedly, free nation?

My argument, ultimately, is that freedom is teetering on the brink of oblivion. What should I do?

It seems useless to re-iterate all the facts. People can can be given facts and: "blank out". (Thank you Ayn, for such a pertinent description.)

I can appeal to reason. But, everything in my original post has been stated by Stefan, and others, numerous times. I thought that being a member of this forum indicated, at the very least, a modicum of respect for Stefan's "enlightenment".

I can appeal to emotion. That I, simply, refuse to attempt. Emotion is not a viable method for dealing with reality. It is a form of positive, or negative, reinforcement for decisions already made. Should I become a demagouge?

I can appeal to force. The "alligator" reference is no fantasy. I AM stronger, faster, smarter, far more dangerous, than anyone I've met. I grew up in the ghetto of East Oakland, and have, since then, been around some "extremely" dangerous people. (No, I was not in the military, but my, numerous, military-trained family and acquaintances are "scared" of me.) Yet, I am a pacifist. I've NEVER applied physical force except in response to a physical attack. (Yes, my response has been tested.) Most importantly, I "fully" subscribe to the Non-Aggression Principle.

But, how can I advocate potentially violent resistance to totalitarianism. Because it is a response to the initiation of force. It is very simple. If I strike you, for whatever reason, I have initiated force. This is acceptable, if we consider ourselves animals. Unacceptable in a truly "civilized" society. If, however, you strike me. My retaliation is then justified. And you don't want to be the recipient, I guarantee it. [Hell, I live in a town infested with vampires and werewolves ]

I do not wish to advocate violence, even in retaliation. Facts diminish this stance. If anyone thinks that what has happened in Greece cannot happen in the U.S. Empire, think carefully. Our problems are exponentially greater, and we have a, somewhat, armed populace. Riots in Greece and Syria involve sticks and stones compared to what "some" Americans bring to the table. Do you understand why gun control is SO important to the statists?

On the other hand. There have been "glimmers" of hope. Ayn Rand is, "suddenly", popular with conservative politicians. The socialist policies of the last century may just implode, forcing re-implementation, before annihilation. Just don't count on it.

In conclusion, I'm not asking for validation, or consent. I'm ready. Ready for what? Whatever may come. Mostly I write from a sense of charity (yeah, I'm one arrogant ***). Altruism being the coerced imposition of "sacrificing oneself to others". (Thanks, again, Ayn.) If you're "not sure" what's coming: "Ya better axe somebody."

I'll outro with the words to a "very" apropos song:

Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away;
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Jordan, and I have seen
Things are not what they seem.

What do you get for pretending the danger's not real.
Meek and obedient you follow the leader
Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel.
What a surprise!
A look of terminal shock in your eyes.
Now things are really what they seem.
No, this is no bad dream.

The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want
He makes me down to lie
Through pastures green He leadeth me the silent waters by.
With bright knives He releaseth my soul.
He maketh me to hang on hooks in high places.
He converteth me to lamb cutlets,
For lo, He hath great power, and great hunger.
When cometh the day we lowly ones,
Through quiet reflection, and great dedication
Master the art of karate,
Lo, we shall rise up,
And then we'll make the bugger's eyes water.

Bleating and babbling I fell on his neck with a scream.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers
March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

Have you heard the news?
The dogs are dead!
You better stay home
And do as you're told.
Get out of the road if you want to grow old.

- Pink Floyd, "Sheep", from Animals, 1977

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

"Is passive-aggressive flaming accepted in this forum?"

Is your original post still there?

[MrCapitalism]

I'm sorry I mischarachterized your argument.

Are you advocating the use of violence in self defense as a means to resist the state?

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

 

I'm sorry I mischarachterized your argument.

Are you advocating the use of violence in self defense as a means to resist the state?

 

Thank you for trying to understand my point. Yes, I am advocating resistance to governmental, or any other, force.

I would go so far as saying, the simplest (not easiest) way to stop the totalitarian trend is to NOT pay your taxes. But then, men with guns show up, kick in your door, and shoot your dog!

It takes a warrior's mind-set to embrace this.

My argument is that you, I, or anyone else, may shortly lose the oppurtunity to debate the point.

Tyrrany will not let you know when YOU are in the crosshairs.

 

[Rick Horton]

 

The state only grows until you prune it. ("The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, with the Blood of Patriots & Tyrants. It is its natural manure.") Espousing arm-chair theories from an 'ivory tower' will never get the job done.

If I (as an anarchist sitting in an ivory tower) were to rephrase your argument with 'less rosy' language, this would be my attempt:

The State (a coercive government) is good and neccessary for a well functioning society.

 

Is there evidence contrary?

 

A prerequesite for a well functioning government (other than the regular initiation of violence and threats of violence), is that in regular intervals it is necessary for the entire society to be cast into a period of extreme violence, murder, and destruction. That to matintain order, thousands of people, including of course many bystanders, must die brutal deaths in regular intervals.

 

Now, that is going to the extreme. It depends on the resolution of the dispute and how it gets worked out. Sometimes it can be more brutal than other times, and sometimes things can go relatively smooth for the majority of people in the society.

 

Only when this period of death, desctruction, and brutality is complete can a new State be imposed to once again initiate and make threats of violence.

Thus defines a functioning society, and how dare a bunch of stupid anarchists come up with crazy schemes to try and find another way for humanity to exist.

 

It's not about how dare, it's about it's not possible, it hasn't been seen in society or in any other lifeform on the planet in scientific history. Competition is the biologic method of evolution. There are winners and losers, even to the point of extinction. Anarchy has never been seen or substantiated to even exist outside of a mere concept that has failed to be enacted in any way in any society on earth since the beginning of time, and unless competition somehow stops, there will always be rulers. Anarachy's definition is a society without rulers, right Stef? So believing there can be a society without rulers is a lot like believing Jesus is God's son, rose from the dead, and there is a Heaven where all good children go. It's a concept. A real concept. Not a real possibility or a truth. There's no evidence for the claim, so it is religious, NOT scientific. NO MATTER HOW HARD and anarchist tries to introduce reality into his concept, IT DOESN'T EXIST. The rest of the arguments are clever word plays to make it seem believable, and those same clever word games and repetitious mantras are used to support all of the other faith based idiologies that break down under scientific scrutiny. Then the whining and vitriol ensues by those who WILL NOT concede their broken philosophy. 

 

 

 

[Guest darkskyabove]

Do I smell troll on my post?

[Rick Horton]

 

Do I smell troll on my post?

 

I think I used the quotes all wrong, sorry. Right? I "think" you and I seem to be on the same page.