The Apathetic Anarchist

[Openeye]

For many years I have struggled with the ethics of the political process. These struggles led me to what I consider now to be the most ethical of philosophies; one which I now hold (along with many members of this community I assume) very dearly, and that is anarchism. However this has led me to what I see as an even greater intellectual struggle, which is the realistic implementation and stability of an anarchist society.

 

I cannot imagine that any single state (now or within the foreseeable future) can dissolve to form an anarchistic one.  The consensuses required in society for a stable and truly free market to be established seems to be in all honesty somewhat unrealistic. There is not even consensus on which immoral system to use in modern society, so how can we expect hundreds of millions if not billions of individuals to voluntarily give up government when there is such fundamental disagreement on the subject?

 

Furthermore as long as states exist which use pseudo-fascist economic systems that prop up massive corporations with government subsidies and programs that benefit the poor; how can a society built upon the NAP hope to compete against such states as they have the ability to acquire mass amounts of wealth via their populace?

 

Whenever I am discussing this with friends and acquaintances (who none are anarchists by the way) they can see the benefits of the NAP and other anarchistic principles, but then dismiss them as an utopist vision similar to that of Communism.

 

I could only disagree, but then found myself only disagreeing because I honestly did not want to concede despite an uncomfortable feeling of cognitive dissonance.

 

I find myself now thinking that anarchism (while not utopian) may very well be a futurist vision. One which cannot be used as a solution to our current problems, but rather a possible goal for generations hundreds of years of now to consider; which may be able to implemented once technology and resources are much more abundant and available (i.e. the cost of production and distribution being next to nothing).

 

Despite these serious issues it still does not hinder my love for anarchism and the moral superiority of the philosophy. I just feel a tad apathetic concerning my role in influencing those around me with my philosophy now that I feel its implementation to be currently unrealistic. 

 

Any comments or criticisms are welcome. Glad to be a member of the FDR community!

[WorBlux]

1. Welcome to the board fellow traveller.

 

2. What do you think of seasteading? We don't necessarily need to convert an existing state.

[Kevin Beal]

Hey welcome!

 

That makes sense to me

 

I agree with you (for what it's worth) that it's not going to happen anytime soon. But for whatever reason I don't share your apathy.

 

You can let me know if this makes any sense, but it's not anarchism, necessarily that's the goal, right? It's the morality that anarchism represents, of the NAP, and that moral position extends into many areas that aren't political. For example, child abuse and other forms of domestic violence.

 

Other anarchic values like individuals choosing their own destinies, and how to spend their own earnings, who they choose to associate with are also applicable in non-political areas.

 

And these things can exist in degrees, right?

 

So, there is a whole lot of room for growth in between now and a truly stateless society. We can achieve a lot of meaningful stuff toward these values that doesn't require anarchism per se.

 

And further, we can have a mini anarchistic society amongst our friends and family, teaching people these values, so that the evils of statism aren't as personally oppressive.

 

I think this is especially important especially considering what the state really is. Sure the state has a centralized monopoly on violence, but even more fundamentally (I'm prepared to argue) is that the state is the people around us. Rather than a top-down hierarchy, I submit that it's a horizontal dictatorship comprised of the people in our lives who would willingly violate the NAP, against us toward their own ends. Voting to rob you and your future children to pay for their own entitlements, fighting over who the guns of the state get pointed at.

 

And this is an area that we have much more control over. We can control who we associate with, the kinds of values we live. We can speak truth to the powers in our own lives.

 

And maybe there are problems with this approach, I just wanted to put forward the idea in case the ideal of anarchism is being viewed as something out there. Maybe it's a bad idea in certain situations too, but just so you know there are options, even in a socialist dystopia.

[dsayers]

Welcome to FDR. Sincere skepticism is very healthy. My reply would've been to point out the way we can have anarchy in our own lives, but Mr. Beal has covered it better than I could already. I mostly wanted to add that statism is momentum. It's not a conclusion people arrive at by way of logic, reason, and evidence. If we make it uncomfortable for people to maintain the statist position of using violence to achieve our goals, the religion of statism will eventually just *poof* out of existence. Sadly, it probably won't be in our lifetimes, but when it does happen can still be accelerated by us living our principles in our own lives, where we have direct control.

 

I find myself now thinking that anarchism (while not utopian) may very well be a futurist vision. One which cannot be used as a solution to our current problems, but rather a possible goal for generations hundreds of years of now to consider; which may be able to implemented once technology and resources are much more abundant and available (i.e. the cost of production and distribution being next to nothing).

 

Just to be clear, this is an impossible standard. Without freedom, the cost of everything goes up as those in power use the gun in the room to bar and batter competition. The internet has been a huge step forward making the most important component--the discussion of ideas--virtually cost-free.

[Kevin Beal]

Mr. Beal has covered it

Mr Beal is my father's name. You can call me Kevin

[SuaveFeline]

NAP/self-ownership is still an idea worth spreading, and I second what Kevin and sayers have said. I wanted to ask (just out of curiosity), how much of the world's population is already at least turning towards the same principles, do you think? Look at Ukraine and Venezuela for example. I know a lot of my friends (who take philosophy, economic and political classes with me) have come to similar conclusions, or at least identify as libertarian. Most libertarians or anarcho-capitalists are competent businessmen as well (since economics is a large part of it) and, as slimy as it sounds, might someday be at the head of their own big businesses, influencing government decisions. Also, I don't think we should be shunning the government all together, and avoiding it at all costs. If you really want to make a difference you have to know the beast you wish to kill and confront it head on. It would be preferable if more of us got into the inner-workings of the state and started pushing legislation that dismantled socialist government programs, granted this would be very difficult to achieve. Hopefully we don't drink the statist powerade if we ever do get elected, but continue to hold to our principles.

 

Hope that provided some encouragement! Keep having conversations, and welcome to the forums!

[dsayers]

I wanted to ask (just out of curiosity), how much of the world's population is already at least turning towards the same principles, do you think?

 

I would argue that we are born seeking patterns and know subconsciously that things like statism cannot be universalized and therefore don't feel right. It only sticks because of the horrible threats made and the way parents abuse their children in preparation for it.

[Openeye]

 

 

2. What do you think of seasteading? We don't necessarily need to convert an existing state.

 

 

Sounds great, but I think the ability to actually seastead is very difficult right now. Again it seems much more viable in the future, not to mention I'm terrified being on the ocean 

 

Hey welcome!

 

That makes sense to me

 

I agree with you (for what it's worth) that it's not going to happen anytime soon. But for whatever reason I don't share your apathy.

 

You can let me know if this makes any sense, but it's not anarchism, necessarily that's the goal, right? It's the morality that anarchism represents, of the NAP, and that moral position extends into many areas that aren't political. For example, child abuse and other forms of domestic violence.

 

Other anarchic values like individuals choosing their own destinies, and how to spend their own earnings, who they choose to associate with are also applicable in non-political areas.

 

And these things can exist in degrees, right?

 

That is a very good point. I agree with you that that should be our main goal as anarchists. This is pretty much how I have been viewing anarchism for a while now; as a moral compass not as a "political" (for lack of a better work) goal. 

 

A question for you though. Is it more ethical to completely abstain from the political process, than to be involved at least in some manner (i.e. the local government)?

 

 

 

I think this is especially important especially considering what the state really is. Sure the state has a centralized monopoly on violence, but even more fundamentally (I'm prepared to argue) is that the state is the people around us. Rather than a top-down hierarchy, I submit that it's a horizontal dictatorship comprised of the people in our lives who would willingly violate the NAP, against us toward their own ends. Voting to rob you and your future children to pay for their own entitlements, fighting over who the guns of the state get pointed at.

 

I agree with you in part. The people are by far the main drivers of state power, but I also think people become more aware of the consequences of their actions when they involve people they personally know. For example my sister is a very devoted Mormon (I was raised LDS) and for many years she did not approve at all of same sex marriage, but when she actually met an individual who would become her friend who just so happened to be gay she changed her position. She still believes that homosexuality is a "sin" which one might still be able to criticize her for, but that honestly has little effect on the way she treats people she disagrees with.

 

I have always been conflicted about how I should view those around me who actively vote against my interests. I have friends for example who are very progressive (as I myself used to be) who vote for higher taxes and heavier regulation. I think they are wrong but in no way can I imagine disassociating myself from them. It is a simple disagreement on a complex subject humans have been debating for centuries; does it really make since to distance myself from people who in my personal life are a continued source of comfort and support because of our political positions?

 

I have a kind of pen pal who is an anarchist and we get into this debate a lot. I have no problem associating with people who have views that differ from mine; he does. I told him once that the criticisms against Noam Chomsky by us anarcho-capitalists (while some may be valid) are counter productive because he is one of the greatest allies anarchists has ever had. Sure he has views that some of us consider "statist", but I can guarantee you he holds the same position about anarcho-capitalists. So where does that leave us? If we isolate ourselves from those who would be our allies we will never be successful. No matter how much education we provide, and no matter how much we jump up and down and scream there will always be people that will disagree with us, and we have to live with that fact.

I would argue that we are born seeking patterns and know subconsciously that things like statism cannot be universalized and therefore don't feel right. It only sticks because of the horrible threats made and the way parents abuse their children in preparation for it.

 

I agree with this in part. 

 

People I think inherently/subconsciously dislike being controlled. However when certain situations arise which cause them great suffering or a loss of control they will seek some greater power to alleviate that agony and create stability.

 

This is why I think government (and religion) is a sort of force of nature because it is not necessarily "created" using reason or logic, but more so manifests itself due to helplessness and chaos.

[dsayers]

It is a simple disagreement on a complex subject humans have been debating for centuries

 

No, here is what a simple disagreement looks like: I disagree.

 

Voting, even for things you think are a good idea is saying: "I'm giving you permission in my name to go and steal from that person to spend the money on something I want, but don't want to have to spend the time and energy to pursue myself." This is far from a "simple disagreement."

 

People I think inherently/subconsciously dislike being controlled. However when certain situations arise which cause them great suffering or a loss of control they will seek some greater power to alleviate that agony and create stability.

 

This is not natural; it is the effect of there being a great big gun in the room. If there was not gun in the room, if there were no weapons, if you couldn't steal from others because they were all bigger than you, if you needed something (read: life depends on it), you would find a way to make it happen.

 

Seeking a greater power can only exist amid the belief that such a greater power is available. This is an effect of religion and government (another religion), not the precursor for it. You can not ascribe something as a solution to a problem when that problem only exists because of the "solution."

[Kevin Beal]

A question for you though. Is it more ethical to completely abstain from the political process, than to be involved at least in some manner (i.e. the local government)?

Good question. I don't know

 

I guess that would probably depend on some things. It's not great if they are directly profiting from stolen money, such as if they are employed by the local government. And I think there is some good reason to believe that it's not going to accomplish anything. People profiting from violence like that have a greater investment than people who aren't really paying much attention, slowly being bled. But I'm not sure that it's strictly immoral.

 

Personally, I abstain completely out of a visceral repulsion, and only secondarily out of principle.

 

What do you think?

[Openeye]

No, here is what a simple disagreement looks like: I disagree.

 

Voting, even for things you think are a good idea is saying: "I'm giving you permission in my name to go and steal from that person to spend the money on something I want, but don't want to have to spend the time and energy to pursue myself." This is far from a "simple disagreement."

 

Sure one might not describe the disagreement as simple, but I'm not going to condemn those around me simply for having a position on taxation that is contrary to my own. That would literally force me to not associate with everyone around me, and that is far from viable, or desirable. I will tell them that I believe they are wrong and they need to reexamine the ethical implications of their position. 

 

 

 

Seeking a greater power can only exist amid the belief that such a greater power is available. This is an effect of religion and government (another religion), not the precursor for it. You can not ascribe something as a solution to a problem when that problem only exists because of the "solution."

 

This is assuming that religion and government are the only cause of suffering which is undeniably false.

 

People "find God" all the time due to events in their life that caused them suffering. If a man "found Jesus" after his family is killed in a car accident, was the "solution" he found the cause of the problem?

 

And said power does not have to be available at all to be desired. Humans biggest advantage is also there biggest disadvantage and that is the ability to imagine. Even if a government did not exist there would still be those who would desire to create one due to the suffering in their lives, and their own weaknesses.

 

I do not want to get in a semantically fueled argument about the word "natural", but everything we do is natural as we are products of nature. The desire to create a government is completely natural just like it is completely natural to want to harm someone who has done you wrong, but that says nothing of the ethical implications of doing either of those things.

 

 

Good question. I don't know

 

I guess that would probably depend on some things. It's not great if they are directly profiting from stolen money, such as if they are employed by the local government. And I think there is some good reason to believe that it's not going to accomplish anything. People profiting from violence like that have a greater investment than people who aren't really paying much attention, slowly being bled. But I'm not sure that it's strictly immoral.

 

Personally, I abstain completely out of a visceral repulsion, and only secondarily out of principle.

 

What do you think?

 

I pretty much agree. I just don't know how to get anything accomplished within the community short of doing it myself and some of those things are simply beyond my ability to do.

 

For example there has been a chain link fence on the ground next to this free way exit ramp that I walk by nearly everyday. This fence is at least 40 feet long (possibly more) and has been covering the sidewalk. Every time I walk on it I start thinking "This really needs to be fixed. Now I cannot do it myself (or I should say I could but the amount of work that would have to be done requires multiple people and a great deal of equipment) so my only recourse is to go to the city and ask them to repair it. But now we are faced with the problem of tax dollars being spent on contractors to fix the fence. There are other examples to like road work, and other "commons" that have problems which can only be addressed it seems through the state.  

 

The only thing I can think of is some sort of community action getting a bunch of volunteer to go out there and fix it.

[dsayers]

Sure one might not describe the disagreement as simple, but I'm not going to condemn those around me simply for having a position on taxation that is contrary to my own. That would literally force me to not associate with everyone around me, and that is far from viable, or desirable. I will tell them that I believe they are wrong and they need to reexamine the ethical implications of their position. 

 

You spoke of it as if it was a simple disagreement, which is not true. The explanation I offered was specifically worded to reflect that it doesn't matter if you agree with them or not, taxation is theft. If you see the theft and continue to associate with them, you are complicit in their support of theft. Whether you associate with them or not is your decision, so long as you're aware of the decision and its implications.

 

Are you familiar with the against me argument? A lot of people support violence because it's been glossed over with propaganda and often only discussed in the abstract. If you walk them through the understanding that by voting anything, they're encouraging that people with guns come and steal FROM YOU to pay for their stuff. The problem isn't that they don't think theft is unethical, it's that they think taxation isn't theft.

 

I wasn't sure if/where to share

, so I'll post it here. Maybe it will be of use to you. I especially like the non-confrontational approach it takes.

 

This is assuming that religion and government are the only cause of suffering which is undeniably false.

 

I don't see where that connection was made. The root of suffering is irrelevant. Your claim was that amid suffering, people look to a higher power. I pointed out that this is an effect of perceived higher powers. In the event that it was believed no higher power were present, a person would have no choice but to forge ahead based on their own merits.

 

You spoke as if higher powers exist because people suffer and seek out a higher power. I was pointing out that seeking out a higher power only exists where a higher power is believed to be.

 

Furthermore, I reject your claim that religions and States are formed out of personal suffering looking for a solution. These things are created by people who wish to exploit those who cannot resists it, possibly because they are suffering.

 

You seem to be going out of your way to excuse people who would use violence to accomplish their goals. Additionally, it seems as if this belief is based on a fundamental lack of understanding of how these problems come to be.

[Openeye]

 

You spoke of it as if it was a simple disagreement, which is not true. The explanation I offered was specifically worded to reflect that it doesn't matter if you agree with them or not, taxation is theft. If you see the theft and continue to associate with them, you are complicit in their support of theft. Whether you associate with them or not is your decision, so long as you're aware of the decision and its implications.

 

Are you familiar with the against me argument? A lot of people support violence because it's been glossed over with propaganda and often only discussed in the abstract. If you walk them through the understanding that by voting anything, they're encouraging that people with guns come and steal FROM YOU to pay for their stuff. The problem isn't that they don't think theft is unethical, it's that they think taxation isn't theft.

 

Your objection to the simplicity of the disagreement is noted. 

 

Sure friends of mine advocate stealing from part of my paycheck, but so does pretty much the entire populace of the western world. Hell they advocate for the government to steal from them personally, and this is why they do not see it as an issue. 

 

Disagreements on what to do in a society have always existed and will always exist. So I do not see their advocacy of taxation as a reason for deFOO because I am not a moral absolutist who believes everyone should be painted with the same brush as a child molester or abuser for a flaw in their belief system. They believe taxation is not theft as you stated, this is leaps and bounds different than saying that murder or rape is ethical. 

 

The only reason to completely disassociate yourself from certain individuals, groups, or cultures would be if their beliefs/actions conflict with your very existence and your physical and emotional well being. 

 

 

 

I don't see where that connection was made. The root of suffering is irrelevant. Your claim was that amid suffering, people look to a higher power. I pointed out that this is an effect of perceived higher powers. In the event that it was believed no higher power were present, a person would have no choice but to forge ahead based on their own merits.

 

Perhaps, but man has the ability to conceptualize non existent entities. So a government need not be present for a group of people to decide to create a hierarchical structure. Certain people would undoubtedly believe that such a "higher power" is not necessary but that does not mean that everyone would.

 

 

 

You spoke as if higher powers exist because people suffer and seek out a higher power. I was pointing out that seeking out a higher power only exists where a higher power is believed to be.

 

The key word there is "believed". Man can believe anything he or she wants and usually ends up attempting to implement those beliefs in the world despite those beliefs being false. This is evident by the fact that at some point in the history of humanity religion did not exist and was created and manipulated by those who could not explain certain phenomenon and could not stand the suffering in their lives. Felling guilty about something? Well lets just create a fictional being who will forgive you! Feels better doesn't it!?

 

 

 

Furthermore, I reject your claim that religions and States are formed out of personal suffering looking for a solution. These things are created by people who wish to exploit those who cannot resists it, possibly because they are suffering.

 

I disagree (surprise) to an extent. I have no doubt that certain structures were created by those who wish to manipulate and rule. But to state such a thing as a universal fact is absurd. There have undoubtedly been those who had no interest in rule or control who created ideologies and organizations in attempt to help people. Early Christianity for example was not a creation of those who would rule, but was created out of the suffering and desperation of the populace of the middle east during one of darkest times in human history. It only became a source of rule once a government adopted it as a state religion.

 

 

 

Additionally, it seems as if this belief is based on a fundamental lack of understanding of how these problems come to be.

 

Then please educate me.

 

Sorry if I have come off as an ass. The subject of deFOOing from people who have disagreements with you reminds me to much of my Bishop at my church when I was young telling me that I should not associate myself with my friends because they were not Mormon. With out associating with people with opposite beliefs you have a risk of running into the great wall of confirmation bias. 

[dsayers]

Sure friends of mine advocate stealing from part of my paycheck, but so does pretty much the entire populace of the western world. ... With out associating with people with opposite beliefs you have a risk of running into the great wall of confirmation bias. 

 

The entire populace of the western world is not the same subset as associating with people, which is not the same subset as friends. There's a difference between handing money to the statist working the Taco Bell window who hands you your food and allowing him to be part of your life.

 

The pleasure of your company is a gift and you're talking about handing it to people who advocate violence against you. The whole reason statism persists to this day is because people choose comfort of conformity over principled living.

 

They believe taxation is not theft as you stated, this is leaps and bounds different than saying that murder or rape is ethical. 

 

It's really not. Even though the damage is greater, theft is morally identical to murder and rape. They are all immoral. The only difference between rape, murder, and "taxation is not theft," is the obfuscating cloud of propaganda. So by all means, dissipate the cloud for them. Help them to see clearly. By doing this, you give the greatest gift of all: responsibility. If they hide from the responsibility, then from that day forward, you are complicit to their support of violence.

 

Again, this is a decision that is yours to make, but in keeping with what I've just claimed, I am pointing this out to you so that you can be aware of that decision and its implications.

[Openeye]

The entire populace of the western world is not the same subset as associating with people, which is not the same subset as friends. There's a difference between handing money to the statist working the Taco Bell window who hands you your food and allowing him to be part of your life.

 

The pleasure of your company is a gift and you're talking about handing it to people who advocate violence against you. The whole reason statism persists to this day is because people choose comfort of conformity over principled living.

 

 

It's really not. Even though the damage is greater, theft is morally identical to murder and rape. They are all immoral. The only difference between rape, murder, and "taxation is not theft," is the obfuscating cloud of propaganda. So by all means, dissipate the cloud for them. Help them to see clearly. By doing this, you give the greatest gift of all: responsibility. If they hide from the responsibility, then from that day forward, you are complicit to their support of violence.

 

Again, this is a decision that is yours to make, but in keeping with what I've just claimed, I am pointing this out to you so that you can be aware of that decision and its implications.

 

Well without risking us just repeating the same things over and over again I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

I do not want to make an enemy out of somone who is an ally in spreading a positive message.

 

I thank you for your opinion.

[dsayers]

Well without risking us just repeating the same things over and over again I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

I do not want to make an enemy out of somone who is an ally in spreading a positive message.

 

I thank you for your opinion.

 

I found this post to be incredibly manipulative. I'm responding primarily for the sake of letting you know that I will not be so easily manipulated.

 

For starters, the only repetition has been on your side of the exchange. You said that you wouldn't disassociate from people over what you described as a simple disagreement. I clarified that what you were talking about wasn't a simple disagreement. To which you replied that it's not a simple disagreement, but you're still not going to disassociate from the same people. This is actually more than just repetition, it's a revelation of bigotry.

 

You first put forth your decision as if it was a rational acknowledgement of being a difference of opinion. When it was revealed that it wasn't in fact just a difference of opinion, but also an ethically polar opposite approach to resolution, you said that you would continue to hold your position. Which is manipulative in and of itself to first pass off your conclusion as if it was arrived at by a specific methodology (psuedo-rational acknowledgement of being a difference of opinion) when in fact the conclusion is held even in the absence of that methodology.

 

Secondly, I am making truth claims. There is no agreement or disagreement. Either I am accurately describing the real world or I am not. If I am not, then I wish to be corrected so that I can more accurately describe the real world. If however I am, then saying agree to disagree just means that you're not interested in the truth. Which I grant you is totally your prerogative. But there is a difference between disagreeing on opinions and trying to pass off opinions as truth claims and bigotry as rationalized conclusions. You have done a fair amount of goalpost moving. Like talking about everybody in the western world as if this indicates an identical relationship to those whom we'd call friend.

 

I do not want to make an enemy out of somone who is an ally in spreading a positive message.

 

This sentence is provably false. The honest version would be, "I do not want to make enemies." The point of contention between us has involved the intentional extraction of yourself from people who advocate violence. People who advocate violence cannot be described as spreading a positive message. Making the qualifier of, "ally in spreading a positive message," expletive. You don't want to be viewed unfavorably by those spreading a negative message (using your terminology; I think positive/negative in this regard is inaccurate) or by those spreading a positive message. Therefore, "I do not want to make enemies," would be more accurate.

 

Again, who you choose to associate with and why are both entirely your decision. Ones that don't even need explaining. However, if you are going to explain them, you should be honest about it. Or if you are making truth claims that are either matters of opinion or just plain inaccurate, you cannot dismiss the clarification as being matters of opinions themselves. Truth claims are either accurate or they are not. This is what philosophy is for.

 

For a more in-depth look into my views on the use of the phrase agree to disagree, please check out this thread.

[Openeye]

 

I found this post to be incredibly manipulative. I'm responding primarily for the sake of letting you know that I will not be so easily manipulated.

 

For starters, the only repetition has been on your side of the exchange. You said that you wouldn't disassociate from people over what you described as a simple disagreement. I clarified that what you were talking about wasn't a simple disagreement. To which you replied that it's not a simple disagreement,

 

Actually no what I said is "one might not describe the disagreement as simple". "One" in this case is "you". I still think the disagreement is simple, that is why when you repeated the "fact" that it was not simple I noted your disagreement and moved on as I knew that was going no where.

 

 

 

Secondly, I am making truth claims. There is no agreement or disagreement. Either I am accurately describing the real world or I am not. If I am not

 

Actually there is agreement and disagreement here. I disagree with your assertion that people who support taxation are the same as murderers. I think that is a false claim and only can be "true" if one excepts that all unethical acts must be treated the same way. Again a position I reject because I am not a moral objectivest. 

 

 

 

People who advocate violence cannot be described as spreading a positive message. 

 

I was talking about you. You know that right? I don't want to make an enemy of "you" on this forum. That is what I meant.

 

Personally I think you are trying to push me out of this forum because my opinion slightly differs from your own, but I refuse to be intimidated by you.

 

It is amazing to me how I came to this forum to ask some simple questions about the realistic implementation of anarchism as as a social system given its current state. Alas it has dissolved into what I see as a pissing contest between two individuals who have a different interpretation on how people who hold an immoral position should be treated.

[dsayers]

Push you out? Pissing contest? Seems like projection to me.

 

Personally I think you are trying to push me out of this forum because my opinion slightly differs from your own

 

What to do about people in our lives who support violence is an opinion. Something I've said more than once that I understand is yours to choose as you see fit, for whatever reason, with no explanation required. Everything else I've offered in this thread have been factual clarifications and truth claims.

 

For example, whether to use violence or voluntary interaction to achieve our goals and solve problems is an opinion. Saying that the use of violence against people to make them do things they might not otherwise do is not just a simple disagreement is not an opinion. You claimed it was. I pointed it out that it wasn't. You set it aside because we weren't going to get anywhere. Which means either you're wrong and cannot admit it or I'm wrong and you cannot reveal it. Saying things like not getting anywhere or agree to disagree in regards to matters of fact is intellectual sloth and dishonest.

 

I disagree with your assertion that people who support taxation are the same as murderers

 

I didn't say that at all. I said that murder and theft are morally identical. In other words, between moral, immoral, and amoral, they share the same categorization. This is important because it's a lot easier to overlook theft if we view it as "not murder" instead of viewing it as immoral.

 

I still think the disagreement is simple

 

Well if you think pointing guns at people is a simple disagreement, we have little more to discuss.

[Openeye]

 

Push you out? Pissing contest? Seems like projection to me.

 

 

What to do about people in our lives who support violence is an opinion. Something I've said more than once that I understand is yours to choose as you see fit, for whatever reason, with no explanation required. Everything else I've offered in this thread have been factual clarifications and truth claims.

 

For example, whether to use violence or voluntary interaction to achieve our goals and solve problems is an opinion. Saying that the use of violence against people to make them do things they might not otherwise do is not just a simple disagreement is not an opinion. You claimed it was. I pointed it out that it wasn't. You set it aside because we weren't going to get anywhere. Which means either you're wrong and cannot admit it or I'm wrong and you cannot reveal it. Saying things like not getting anywhere or agree to disagree in regards to matters of fact is intellectual sloth and dishonest.

 

 

 

When having a discussion concerning a complex subject there will undoubtedly be disagreement. Due to the various number of positions concerning the subject and the conflicting data presented disagreement is "simply" expected.

 

So perhaps you are correct to say that the disagreement is not simple and that the process for said disagreement is in fact by its nature complex. So the phrase I should use is "expected" disagreement.

 

 

 

I didn't say that at all. I said that murder and theft are morally identical. In other words, between moral, immoral, and amoral, they share the same categorization. This is important because it's a lot easier to overlook theft if we view it as "not murder" instead of viewing it as immoral.

 

Okay so if the person who holds the position that taxation is justified and a person who murders are not the same why disassociate yourself from a person or persons who holds that position on taxation? 

 

I expect that you will bring up the "against me" argument, an argument that I disagree with Stef on. 

 

No doubt that everyone I would ask the question to (according to Stef) would outright deny using force against me. I believe them. Despite them voting against my (and their own) interests if I was not to pay my taxes they still would not want to see me imprisoned or killed. In fact if I committed any crime (save perhaps murder or rape which are far more emotionally charged) they would not want to see the initiation of force used against me.

[Mike Fleming]

 

I cannot imagine that any single state (now or within the foreseeable future) can dissolve to form an anarchistic one.  The consensuses required in society for a stable and truly free market to be established seems to be in all honesty somewhat unrealistic. There is not even consensus on which immoral system to use in modern society, so how can we expect hundreds of millions if not billions of individuals to voluntarily give up government when there is such fundamental disagreement on the subject?

 

 

It has never been a requirement for a majority or even a large amount of the population to be required to make significant social changes and I don't believe this will be the case for anarchy either.  Just a motivated, irate minority.

 

It's always useful to do the numbers in a situation like this so lets do them for America.  The population is 300 million to round it off to the nearest hundred million.

 

Now, let's say you can convince one in every 20 people to be an anarchist.  So that's 15 million people or 5% of the population.  Now let's say you could convince, say, a 1/3 of them to stand up together and not pay their taxes regardless of what the government does.  That's 5 million people.  What is the government going to do?  Well, it's going to start making an example of them, but if they all stand solidly there is no way they are going to get them all processed through the justice system, much less put them all in jail.   Think about this and what it would lead to in society...

 

Majority of people are not required.  They will just follow along with what is easiest.  And if the easiest thing is not paying their taxes, then that is what they will do, if they can stand behind a whole lot of committed people.  We just need to get to a certain place and a certain number of committed people and the rest will follow along.  Without taxes, government collapses, and people set up free market services to replace government ones.

 

Anarchy with no violence on our part required.

[dsayers]

Anarchy with no violence on our part required.

 

I really enjoy voluntary ways of ending coercion. Imagine what would happen if just 1/3 of the enforcer class rejected the claim that they belong to a different moral category than every other human on the planet? That number would soon grow to 2/3 as those who were on the fence find strength and allure in the original 1/3. We know that the psychopaths in power wouldn't step down and actually start doing the enforcing themselves.

 

I enthusiastically make this case any time I come across revolutionists. The US was proof that violent overthrow only leads to violent replacement. Besides, a peaceful paradigm shift would serve as a beacon for those who accept the moral argument but find it impractical.

[Openeye]

It has never been a requirement for a majority or even a large amount of the population to be required to make significant social changes and I don't believe this will be the case for anarchy either.  Just a motivated, irate minority.

 

It is true that major social changes occur due to the protests of a minority. However no major social change has ever come close to what us anarchists are suggesting. All revolutions have manifested out of the suffering of its participants, but they have all resulted in either the creation of a centralized state that is slightly less violent, or a centralized state that is even more violent. No state has ever been founded on the idea that governments should not exist. 

 

Save one..arguably...

 

Anarchist Spain is the only fairly modern example of a revolution that resulted in an anarchist state, but unfortunately it no longer exists. Its failure is a perfect example of the concerns I have risen. It was not enough that the populace who desired change within Spain actually cooperated and manifested their vision, because it was destroyed by both internal dissent and external forces. 

 

I hate to say it but it leads me to believe (at least by using Spain as an example) that the Anarchist state is weak in comparison to its more aggressive and lucrative fascist neighbors. If the US for example dissolved and became a completely anarchist society how would it hope to compete against China, or the EU now that it no longer has the ability to collect taxes from its people?

 

This is why in my OP I mentioned consensus, because without it the state will continue to exist. Given that such a consensus (at least at this moment) is impossible leads me to my original assertion that the Anarchist state is a futurist vision dependent on a resource and technological revolution.

 

I do not mean to be pessimistic. I'm just trying to be realistic. We have obviously taken the first steps in achieving our vision; I think the internet for example is the first true piece of technology that supports an anarchist society.

[dsayers]

I hate to say it but it leads me to believe (at least by using Spain as an example) that the Anarchist state is weak in comparison to its more aggressive and lucrative fascist neighbors.

 

Under statism, the entirety of the population is stolen from everyday. Innocent people are called guilty, property gets seized, people are kidnapped, injured, and murdered, all at the hands of the state, with perceivably no way to resist. This is the description of an incredibly weak population. The very idea that you think that "not theft" can't work serves as proof to how ravaged our very minds are by this perpetual predation.

[Openeye]

Under statism, the entirety of the population is stolen from everyday. Innocent people are called guilty, property gets seized, people are kidnapped, injured, and murdered, all at the hands of the state, with perceivably no way to resist. This is the description of an incredibly weak population. The very idea that you think that "not theft" can't work serves as proof to how ravaged our very minds are by this perpetual predation.

 

How can you have a society that embraces anarchism when the majority of the population disagrees with it? If an anarchist society came to be do you think everyone would accept it?

 

That is the entire purpose of this thread and I have yet to hear (save Mike who addressed it) any answer that comes close to addressing that segment of my post.

 

I never said that "not theft" can't work. I said an anarchist society can not compete against a society that does not embrace "non theft". This is because a state that uses taxes can invest large sums of money into programs that its citizenry can benefit from (despite the inefficiency of said programs) and into technology that further extends the power of the sate. Not only that but it can prop up any massive corporations it may have with that money as well. So how does a business in an anarchist society hope to compete against a massive corporation supported by the state?

 

"Non-theft" would work fine I believe, but only in a society that fully embraces the idea of anarchism which again would require that all states cease to exist.

[dsayers]

If I lived in a world where there was someplace without coercion, I would move there. So would others. Places that had coercion would have less people with which to compete against others with and the free society would have increased incentive to do business where there is no coercion. Both of these would cause this tipping of the scales to accelerate. Others who felt they didn't have a dog in the race would take notice. Before long, the demand for freedom would be overwhelming.

 

I realize that that is an incredibly simplistic description of how it might happen, but it is realistic. That's why until that day, we need to help people to think, help them to not abuse their children, help them to understand that violence is what failed us. Empires will fall and when they do, if the population has these assets, they will not be begging for another coercive demagogue to step up and save them. Each mind we save, the further along the process I mentioned above will be when it begins.

[Mike Fleming]

It is true that major social changes occur due to the protests of a minority. However no major social change has ever come close to what us anarchists are suggesting. All revolutions have manifested out of the suffering of its participants, but they have all resulted in either the creation of a centralized state that is slightly less violent, or a centralized state that is even more violent. No state has ever been founded on the idea that governments should not exist. 

 

Save one..arguably...

 

Anarchist Spain is the only fairly modern example of a revolution that resulted in an anarchist state, but unfortunately it no longer exists. Its failure is a perfect example of the concerns I have risen. It was not enough that the populace who desired change within Spain actually cooperated and manifested their vision, because it was destroyed by both internal dissent and external forces. 

 

I hate to say it but it leads me to believe (at least by using Spain as an example) that the Anarchist state is weak in comparison to its more aggressive and lucrative fascist neighbors. If the US for example dissolved and became a completely anarchist society how would it hope to compete against China, or the EU now that it no longer has the ability to collect taxes from its people?

 

This is why in my OP I mentioned consensus, because without it the state will continue to exist. Given that such a consensus (at least at this moment) is impossible leads me to my original assertion that the Anarchist state is a futurist vision dependent on a resource and technological revolution.

 

I do not mean to be pessimistic. I'm just trying to be realistic. We have obviously taken the first steps in achieving our vision; I think the internet for example is the first true piece of technology that supports an anarchist society.

 

You are taking one instance, that, well let's say for argument's sake was a failure because I really don't know enough about the situation to comment on it.

 

But this was a different time in the history of world.  Different education, different technological levels, etc.  It could be argued that true anarchist thought, especially when it comes to economics did not develop until the late 20th century.  Plus, this would have been an isolated incident in a thoroughly statist continent in the time of a great depression and WW2.  I'm not sure you can draw proper inferences from it.

 

Looking at one instance that has been tried and saying that makes it hopeless signals a lack of imagination to me.  It's clear that libertarian and anarchist thought is on the rise.  I postulated a possible situation that might arise from this.  Others could probably come up with others.  I honestly can't see why you are so pessimistic.   I think you need to talk a lot more and think it through a lot more.  Sorry if that sounds condescending.  If you are expecting immediate gratification, then yes, you will be disappointed.  I have been doing this for a few years now and expect to be doing it for many more years before we ever reach an anarchic situation.  It may not even happen in my lifetime.  But if I've left the world better than I found it, and helped plant the seeds of a true freedom, then my life will have been worthwhile.

 

My advice, don't get worked up over this stuff expecting immediate results because you'll just burn out.  Slow and steady wins the race.  Focus more on the freedoms in your own life particularly in regards to your family before you focus too much on the state.  You may find much of the freedom you are looking for by dealing with, or detaching yourself, from a bad family situation.

[cynicist]

I hate to say it but it leads me to believe (at least by using Spain as an example) that the Anarchist state is weak in comparison to its more aggressive and lucrative fascist neighbors. If the US for example dissolved and became a completely anarchist society how would it hope to compete against China, or the EU now that it no longer has the ability to collect taxes from its people?

 

Ha are you kidding? You think people who live in a statist hellhole having their earnings taxed at ridiculous rates wouldn't be fleeing in droves to the tax free Ancapistan? Not to mention an anarchist society wouldn't limit people with patents or fees for things like licensing or have any limitations on trade. I don't see how a state could possibly compete when it comes to wealth or innovation. Maybe you could explain the idea a bit further, as I don't see how taxing citizens to shower a corporation with money is going to make a state more wealthy. (the point of a state is to transfer wealth from the many to the few, why would they steal from people just to try and out-compete a free society? And how would you imagine that to be more efficient than a free market?)

[Kevin Beal]

Also, anarchist Spain was communist and violent. Not the best example

[Openeye]

Ha are you kidding? You think people who live in a statist hellhole having their earnings taxed at ridiculous rates wouldn't be fleeing in droves to the tax free Ancapistan?

 

I'm not sure since such a place currently does not exist. Since there is no large support for anarchism in the modern world why would we assume people would just give up on statism if such a society existed? Simply because they will not be taxed anymore? That does not make much since to me since the vast majority of the population supports taxation and supports the legtiamacy of the state.

 

I don't see how a state could possibly compete when it comes to wealth or innovation.

 

Do you really think that innovators who start with limited resources can compete against a large conglomerate supported by subsidies?

 

If a farmer for example wanted to sell produce to his local community how is he going to compete against a large chain store that gets its produce from the farmers competitors who get massive tax breaks and tax dollars from a state?

 

The only way to prevent that would be to not trade with states that still use fascist economic models, but there would be no way to prevent such trade due to the NAP and the rejection of protectionism.

 

 

(the point of a state is to transfer wealth from the many to the few, why would they steal from people just to try and out-compete a free society? And how would you imagine that to be more efficient than a free market?)

 

Well I would say that can be true, but I tend to view the state as more of a force that's driven by power via control.

 

The state is not always malevolent (its immorality is independent from its intentions). In fact modern western governments I truly believe want to help their citizens, because a happy citizen is a happy worker and a satisfied citizen is satisfied with the state. Someone who greatly benefits from social programs is not necessarily going to give them up due to some ethical conflict. Human beings always look for the easiest way to survive, and resisting government is far from easy.

 

The state would not necessarily be the one who is competing against the free society. It would be the corporations within said state competing against private owners within the free society. This is perfectly reasonable because the free society promotes free trade.

 

Also, anarchist Spain was communist and violent. Not the best example

 

Well they were not communists, at least in no way comparable to authoritarian communism. To say that there was only one anarchist movement in Spain and that it embraced communism is not true. There were multiple anarchist philosophies at play before, during, and after the Spanish civil war. Anarcho-individualism for example was one of the major philosophies embraced during that time. It was even respected by the anarcho-communists and the anarcho-syndicates.

 

Many were violent that is true. No one can excuse the use of violence against the rural religious and the priests of the churches, or the rioting that resulted in the anarchists gaining power in the areas they has popular support.

 

That being said the majority of their violence would not be considered a violation of the NAP as they were defending themselves from Franco and his allies.

 

The biggest mistake they made was accepting help from the Soviet Union and cooperating with the loyalists instead of declaring independence. The communists controlled the Popular Front so it was no surprise that they would use their propaganda and superior numbers to attempt to destroy the anarchists which was probably their goal if Franco was defeated. It is also worth to note that if the communists and Popular Front did not disarm the anarchist militias the anarchist revolution may not have been crushed so easy and Franco would have had a harder time advancing.

 

 

My advice, don't get worked up over this stuff expecting immediate results because you'll just burn out.  Slow and steady wins the race.  Focus more on the freedoms in your own life particularly in regards to your family before you focus too much on the state.  You may find much of the freedom you are looking for by dealing with, or detaching yourself, from a bad family situation.

 

Thanks for the comments Mike!

[cynicist]

I'm not sure since such a place currently does not exist. Since there is no large support for anarchism in the modern world why would we assume people would just give up on statism if such a society existed? Simply because they will not be taxed anymore? That does not make much since to me since the vast majority of the population supports taxation and supports the legtiamacy of the state.

 

We don't need Ancapistan to exist in order to know that people prefer to be taxed less. People are leaving California to go to Texas for this very reason. We also just know logically that people don't want to be taxed more because it requires violence to do so. People don't support higher taxes on themselves, they want higher taxes on others in order to pay for benefits that they do support.

 

Do you really think that innovators who start with limited resources can compete against a large conglomerate supported by subsidies?

 

If a farmer for example wanted to sell produce to his local community how is he going to compete against a large chain store that gets its produce from the farmers competitors who get massive tax breaks and tax dollars from a state?

 

The only way to prevent that would be to not trade with states that still use fascist economic models, but there would be no way to prevent such trade due to the NAP and the rejection of protectionism.

 

Why do you think only small farmers would live in Ancapistan? Businesses already move to more favorable tax climates, and zero taxes seems to be pretty damn favorable to me. So compare a massive chain store that gets a tax break, to one that pays zero taxes. If a business is receiving a subsidy from the state, that means that money is being taken from another area, one that will be far more competitive in Ancapistan as a result.

 

I'm not sure since such a place currently does not exist. Since there is no large support for anarchism in the modern world why would we assume people would just give up on statism if such a society existed? Simply because they will not be taxed anymore? That does not make much since to me since the vast majority of the population supports taxation and supports the legtiamacy of the state.

 

I certainly don't assume everyone would give up on statism, or that it's not beneficial to many. My point is that the economic engine (business) that powers a statist society would not be able to compete with one in a free society that doesn't deal with taxes or regulations, and that it only gets worse over time as people who do not benefit as much from the state move to get the benefits of a free society. I think the transition will be similar to what is occurring with Bitcoin right now. At first there will be lots of problems as people try to figure out how to get things done, but over time things will stabilize and the inherent efficiency of the system will cause it to surpass the alternatives.