Before we promote anarchy should we not try a functioning democracy?

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

I'm often amazed by the level of discussion people, who think most politicians are corrupt, go into over all sorts of policy details.

 

I think engaging in these debates adds credibility and hope where there should be none and distracts from what we should be doing, which is continuously driving the discussion back to the founding problem we have with any form of elected government.

 

For a democratic decision to be made, voters must be able to make an informed choice.

 

For voters to make an informed choice, candidates must be transparent and honest about what they intend to attempt and, once elected, be accountable to trying primarily to achieve those things.

 

When you buy a sandwich you have the right to a list of ingredients and money back guarantee if those ingredients are missing.

 

When you buy a service that is not provided you have the right to you money back.

 

When you buy a candidate (with your vote, worth about £42k over 5 years in the UK) you have very few rights.

 

So when you do engage in a high end political discussion, or interact with a seemingly lovely stranger on your doorstep who sings the praises of another stranger  who the would like you to vote for. Please drive the discussion back to where it should be.

 

Do not vote for a strangers stranger without requiring them to provide you with the 'Voter Consumer Rights' you and your community need and deserve to be protected from rip off merchants.

 

If an educated public can not even request facts from representatives seeking election...we are far from ready for functioning anarchy.

 

https://www.facebook.com/smart.voter.org/photos/pb.1415501838715507.-2207520000.1443447230./1625156991083323/?type=3&theater

 

Please consider the system suggested in http://smart-voter.org

[NotDarkYet]

"If an educated public can not even request facts from representatives seeking election...we are far from ready for functioning anarchy."

 

 

Nope.  The exact opposite conclusion is correct.  That is an argument for anarchy.  

 

 

If people can't be trusted to control their own body/property, then by definition they can't be trusted with violent control of the bodies and property of others via democracy.

 

Ponder that last sentence.  Really really ponder it.  

 

Group A: Can (must) use violence.

Group B:  Must never use violence.

 

You can't base a society on two contradictory rules and expect violence, theft, and evil to decrease.

 

---

 

Welcome to the boards

[Koroviev]

Wasn't this tried back in 1776, and aren't we seeing the results of it today?

[Mister Mister]

Hey, welcome and thanks for your question.  I had a few thoughts to offer.
 

Do not vote for a strangers stranger without requiring them to provide you with the 'Voter Consumer Rights' you and your community need and deserve to be protected from rip off merchants.

I don't entirely understand this.  How do you require a politician to provide you with rights?  The whole problem with democracy and the social contract is that it is completely lopsided.  In a Common Law Contract, if one party violates the agreement, the contract is void.  Like you said, there ought to be a money back guarantee.  In the "social contract", however, the fact that a politician failed to fulfill a promise, or that the government violates the constitution (which you and I never signed in the first place), is not a legal justification to not pay taxes.  The sandwich metaphor is entirely inappropriate, because I can choose from many sandwich restaurants, make my own sandwich from ingredients I get from the grocery store, or not buy a sandwich at all.  Why shouldn't it also be this way for security, education, roads, banking, currency, charity, and so on?  The appropriate metaphor for the government is the mafia and their protection racket, except the mafia doesn't have the propaganda of flags and speeches and constitutions to convince people that it is moral and necessary.

Another issue with democracy that really cuts right to the heart of what this show is about, is that, often people are voting for the government to do things which are immoral.  To take an extreme example, in Uganda recently, the majority of people voted for a law which would put homosexuals to death.  Is that a "functioning democracy"?  If you, like me, are appalled at this, then wouldn't you say there is a higher standard of what is right and wrong than what the majority opinion is?  Just like there is a higher standard of what is true and false than what people believe throughout history.  If Stef is right, that there is an objective means to determine morality, then having people vote on laws is as crazy as having people in the Middle Ages vote on science.  I understand the appeal of something like this SMART-voter thing, the idea that if we can just tweak the system it can work!!! But as long as most people don't have a basic understanding about right and wrong, and DON'T KNOW that they don't know, there is no substitute for the spread of rational ethics, which is still in it's very early stages.

[Will Torbald]

I'm often amazed by the level of discussion people, who think most politicians are corrupt, go into over all sorts of policy details.

 

I think engaging in these debates adds credibility and hope where there should be none and distracts from what we should be doing, which is continuously driving the discussion back to the founding problem we have with any form of elected government.

 

For a democratic decision to be made, voters must be able to make an informed choice.

 

For voters to make an informed choice, candidates must be transparent and honest about what they intend to attempt and, once elected, be accountable to trying primarily to achieve those things.

 

When you buy a sandwich you have the right to a list of ingredients and money back guarantee if those ingredients are missing.

 

When you buy a service that is not provided you have the right to you money back.

 

When you buy a candidate (with your vote, worth about £42k over 5 years in the UK) you have very few rights.

 

So when you do engage in a high end political discussion, or interact with a seemingly lovely stranger on your doorstep who sings the praises of another stranger  who the would like you to vote for. Please drive the discussion back to where it should be.

 

Do not vote for a strangers stranger without requiring them to provide you with the 'Voter Consumer Rights' you and your community need and deserve to be protected from rip off merchants.

 

If an educated public can not even request facts from representatives seeking election...we are far from ready for functioning anarchy.

 

https://www.facebook.com/smart.voter.org/photos/pb.1415501838715507.-2207520000.1443447230./1625156991083323/?type=3&theater

 

Please consider the system suggested in http://smart-voter.org

 

Your criticism with the democratic system currently used is correct, I believe. However, fixing a democracy won't make people wish for anarchy because, if the system works, why change it? Your asking "before we promote life, how can we make death seem nicer?" or something like that.

[thebeardslastcall]

Anarchy is the only functional democracy. 100% unanimous votes for everything. I call it sovereign democracy. It's not a republic, which you can't keep.

[McBeer]

The democracy IS functioning. Do you not like how it is functioning? Too bad, that's democracy.

[Carl Green]

Capitalism (within anarchy) is essentially voting with your money. Every issue is separated nicely for everyone and everyone can vote accordingly to how they see fit. It also allows for multiple outcomes or even outcomes that weren't foreseen. It is as direct a way as possible to determine what people want. We don't need a more accountable situation, we need an actually accountable situation.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

"If an educated public can not even request facts from representatives seeking election...we are far from ready for functioning anarchy."

 

 

Nope.  The exact opposite conclusion is correct.  That is an argument for anarchy.  

 

 

If people can't be trusted to control their own body/property, then by definition they can't be trusted with violent control of the bodies and property of others via democracy.

 

Ponder that last sentence.  Really really ponder it.  

 

Group A: Can (must) use violence.

Group B:  Must never use violence.

 

You can't base a society on two contradictory rules and expect violence, theft, and evil to decrease.

 

---

 

Welcome to the boards

 

Group A: Can (must) use violence.

Group B:  Must never use violence.

 

You can't base a society on two contradictory rules and expect violence, theft, and evil to decrease.

 

I don't see that as a valid analogy.

 

If you can't walk should you attempts to run would be more appropriate.

 

Trying to contextualize your AB as a contradiction.

 

Group A: Require no obligation to follow their mandate when controlling public money.

 

Group B: Say exactly what they are going to support and do not attempt to profit.

 

I'm saying what we need is

 

Group A: Request contractual obligation and stand as a candidate if denied.

 

Group B: Must list activities and follow them to get elected.

 

It's really very simple. Under an Anarchic system where a local community has formed, the successful local anarchist merchant will have to sell goods and services honestly, if not, he will loose his trade or perhaps get murdered.

 

Because there is no possible Local accountability in the products and services of a politician we must adopt the same principles as we do with online shopping and payment. I think even anarchists can agree that we would not have online shopping without the consumer rights we have devised.

 

However, if..as an anarchist, you were stupid enough to transfer your family home to you children through a solicitor, They could then just take it and paid some thugs with 10% of the profit to keep you away or kill you off.

 

So if your not enlightened enough to require an accountable mandate from your political candidate, you're surely a dodo in an anarchic system.

[Koroviev]

Group A: Can (must) use violence.

Group B:  Must never use violence.

 

You can't base a society on two contradictory rules and expect violence, theft, and evil to decrease.

 

I don't see that as a valid analogy.

 

If you can't walk should you attempts to run would be more appropriate.

 

Trying to contextualize your AB as a contradiction.

 

Group A: Require no obligation to follow their mandate when controlling public money.

 

Group B: Say exactly what they are going to support and do not attempt to profit.

 

I'm saying what we need is

 

Group A: Request contractual obligation and stand as a candidate if denied.

 

Group B: Must list activities and follow them to get elected.

 

It's really very simple. Under an Anarchic system where a local community has formed, the successful local anarchist merchant will have to sell goods and services honestly, if not, he will loose his trade or perhaps get murdered.

 

Because there is no possible Local accountability in the products and services of a politician we must adopt the same principles as we do with online shopping and payment. I think even anarchists can agree that we would not have online shopping without the consumer rights we have devised.

 

However, if..as an anarchist, you were stupid enough to transfer your family home to you children through a solicitor, They could then just take it and paid some thugs with 10% of the profit to keep you away or kill you off.

 

So if your not enlightened enough to require an accountable mandate from your political candidate, you're surely a dodo in an anarchic system.

 

Ah, but the difference is that with anarchy it is a one to one contractual obligation whereas a democracy is a many to one contractual obligation. In anarchy I can choose not to do business with said anarchist merchant and go about my merry way. Whereas in a democracy the only time I can "chose" not to do business with said "anarchist merchant" is if the majority of other citizens decide they don't want to do business with him either. Also, not only am I contractually obligated to whatever the current majority decides, but so are my children, and their children, and their children, etc. On top of all of that the only merchants I can "chose" to do business with are those who have already been bought and paid for by those who have some interest in them gaining power. 

 

If someone is not enlightened enough to make a good decision in an anarchic society it only effects them. If they aren't enlightened enough to make a good decision in a democracy it effects everyone.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

Hey, welcome and thanks for your question.  I had a few thoughts to offer.

 

I don't entirely understand this.  How do you require a politician to provide you with rights?  The whole problem with democracy and the social contract is that it is completely lopsided.  In a Common Law Contract, if one party violates the agreement, the contract is void.  Like you said, there ought to be a money back guarantee.  In the "social contract", however, the fact that a politician failed to fulfill a promise, or that the government violates the constitution (which you and I never signed in the first place), is not a legal justification to not pay taxes.  The sandwich metaphor is entirely inappropriate, because I can choose from many sandwich restaurants, make my own sandwich from ingredients I get from the grocery store, or not buy a sandwich at all.  Why shouldn't it also be this way for security, education, roads, banking, currency, charity, and so on?  The appropriate metaphor for the government is the mafia and their protection racket, except the mafia doesn't have the propaganda of flags and speeches and constitutions to convince people that it is moral and necessary.

 

Another issue with democracy that really cuts right to the heart of what this show is about, is that, often people are voting for the government to do things which are immoral.  To take an extreme example, in Uganda recently, the majority of people voted for a law which would put homosexuals to death.  Is that a "functioning democracy"?  If you, like me, are appalled at this, then wouldn't you say there is a higher standard of what is right and wrong than what the majority opinion is?  Just like there is a higher standard of what is true and false than what people believe throughout history.  If Stef is right, that there is an objective means to determine morality, then having people vote on laws is as crazy as having people in the Middle Ages vote on science.  I understand the appeal of something like this SMART-voter thing, the idea that if we can just tweak the system it can work!!! But as long as most people don't have a basic understanding about right and wrong, and DON'T KNOW that they don't know, there is no substitute for the spread of rational ethics, which is still in it's very early stages.

Check out SMART-voter.org as a concept. It's pretty simple. As your candidate to sign a contract to propose as a matter of priority support (not pass) certain policies. If none of your representatives will...it's time for you tor present.

 

What honest representative would refuse to prioritize most of these.

 

pic.twitter.com/lCOUbMU4YF

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

"If an educated public can not even request facts from representatives seeking election...we are far from ready for functioning anarchy."

 

 

Nope.  The exact opposite conclusion is correct.  That is an argument for anarchy.  

 

 

If people can't be trusted to control their own body/property, then by definition they can't be trusted with violent control of the bodies and property of others via democracy.

 

Ponder that last sentence.  Really really ponder it.  

 

Group A: Can (must) use violence.

Group B:  Must never use violence.

 

You can't base a society on two contradictory rules and expect violence, theft, and evil to decrease.

 

---

 

Welcome to the boards

Wrong analogy. Mine is don't ask society to run when it can not even walk yet.

 

In terms of Group A and Group B

 

99.9% are group A and wish to elect 0.1% Group B who looks out for their best interest and not abuse the innate ability to cheat and get rich. They want a political market of representation.

 

0.1% To get into group B you must have teams of people and media promoting you for months, you are allowed to say anything that you will be uncountable to AFTER the election. The political market makes representation impossible.

 

Check out the idea behind SMART-voter.org. It's just common sense.

 

If voters won't do that (under another brand, the concept is simple)..they are not ready for anarchy, in which there could be no online shopping etc because all trading contracts will be as loose as political contracts.

Ah, but the difference is that with anarchy it is a one to one contractual obligation whereas a democracy is a many to one contractual obligation. In anarchy I can choose not to do business with said anarchist merchant and go about my merry way. Whereas in a democracy the only time I can "chose" not to do business with said "anarchist merchant" is if the majority of other citizens decide they don't want to do business with him either. Also, not only am I contractually obligated to whatever the current majority decides, but so are my children, and their children, and their children, etc. On top of all of that the only merchants I can "chose" to do business with are those who have already been bought and paid for by those who have some interest in them gaining power. 

 

If someone is not enlightened enough to make a good decision in an anarchic society it only effects them. If they aren't enlightened enough to make a good decision in a democracy it effects everyone.

There is no enlightened decision in anarchy because you literally have to guess if you have more weapons than them when ripping someone off. The purpose of a society is that you have the right to be enlightened, and we are, no one can sell you a fake camera and keep your money. Ever been shopping in a Medina in morocco? Anarchic negotiating is a slow painful gamble.

[Carl Green]

Wrong analogy. Mine is don't ask society to run when it can not even walk yet.

 

Is society currently walking or running when it comes to democracy? How can we tell, is it by the level of freedom? If that's the case I think you might agree we're not even running with the current system... Might've been jogging at some point way back in the day, but definitely not now.

 

What is telling you that this analogy is accurate?

 

If anything this damn system is hobbling everyone, preventing everyone from ever being able to run.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

Is society currently walking or running when it comes to democracy? How can we tell, is it by the level of freedom? If that's the case I think you might agree we're not even running with the current system... Might've been jogging at some point way back in the day, but definitely not now.

 

What is telling you that this analogy is accurate?

 

If anything this damn system is hobbling everyone, preventing everyone from ever being able to run.

Are we talking about democracy or freedom.

 

Freedom. I suspect we are more free than we would be in an Anarchic scenario with different warring fractions developing limited ideals of what is acceptable enforced by the most brutal. 3rd world.

 

Democracy is irrelevant to individual freedom since it is supposed to be about what the average person would like the limits of the law to be. Since the vote is / person, that is the check / balance that stops the wealthy from rigging the laws. Since most voters want banksters in Jail rather than the banks (pension funds) fined, and lying politicians made to step down and definitely not take pay rise with a company they helped while 'serving', then I would say we are walking democratically.

 

The masses are resolved to the Democratic freedom limits that should be set on the representatives to profit from financial trickery and the revolving door, yet these clear democratically supported ideas are not being proposed and supported by elected officials.

 

We are running on Freedom (slavery to the rich is what happens when you have complete freedom), and democracy, which is supposed to ensure that Freedom is limited to one that is in the best interest of the common man..is not counteracting the dangers of anarchic Freedom...because the voting public have been duped into thinking that their vote is a process where they select one of several uncountable stranger for whome there is no central point of comparable reliable information, not that there can be any information! There are no facts because there is requirement to provide an accountable mandate. Much like a camera is required to list it's specifications and warranty terms etc  They still do their marketing, but clever consumers ignore that and look at the specs.

 

Presently we are unable to be 'clever consumers' in any situation of appointing a leader.

 

If we won't stand and offer facts..we can't complain.

 

If we won't do that...we are most certainly not going to find anarchy and prettier.

[MagnumPI]

 

Freedom. I suspect we are more free than we would be in an Anarchic scenario with different warring fractions developing limited ideals of what is acceptable enforced by the most brutal. 3rd world.

We are running on Freedom (slavery to the rich is what happens when you have complete freedom)

 

Your suspicions are irrelevant.

 

Care to back that up? This is a youtube level argument. Saying things doesn't make them true.

[Koroviev]

There is no enlightened decision in anarchy because you literally have to guess if you have more weapons than them when ripping someone off. The purpose of a society is that you have the right to be enlightened, and we are, no one can sell you a fake camera and keep your money. Ever been shopping in a Medina in morocco? Anarchic negotiating is a slow painful gamble.

 

I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Are you saying there are no "enlightened" decisions in a free market? Without government to tell us what to buy people revert to cavemen? As soon as government is gone everyone reverts to lower than the third-world? Have you ever heard of ebay? Etsy? When freedom is allowed things trend toward more innovative not less innovative. Also, even if everything you are claiming had any semblance of reality I'd take freedom any day over choosing between slave owners. 

 

Finally aren't you kind of saying that if people don't have someone telling them what to do and how to behave they'll automatically revert to cheating and violence? I won't, and am not, will you? That seems like a very religious train of thought. Give people some credit, we're smarter than a lot of people think.

[Will Torbald]

erving', then I would say we are walking democratically.

 

The masses are resolved to the Democratic freedom limits that should be set on the representatives to profit from financial trickery and the revolving door, yet these clear democratically supported ideas are not being proposed and supported by elected officials.

 

We are running on Freedom (slavery to the rich is what happens when you have complete freedom), and democracy, which is supposed to ensure that Freedom is limited to one that is in the best interest of the common man..is not counteracting the dangers of anarchic Freedom...because the voting public have been duped into thinking that their vote is a process where they select one of several uncountable stranger for whome there is no central point of comparable reliable information, not that there can be any information! There are no facts because there is requirement to provide an accountable mandate. Much like a camera is required to list it's specifications and warranty terms etc  They still do their marketing, but clever consumers ignore that and look at the specs.

 

Presently we are unable to be 'clever consumers' in any situation of appointing a leader.

 

If we won't stand and offer facts..we can't complain.

 

If we won't do that...we are most certainly not going to find anarchy and prettier.

 

What do you need a leader for? Do you need a leader to decide what to have for breakfast? To tell you where to go to work? Nothing in your life is ruled by leaders. Have you appointed by democratic voting a leader for your own personal life who will run by you how to live? If you're not willing to do that for yourself, why impose it on us?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Democracy is inherently dysfunctional. It's just the majority forcing its will on the minority. Even the idea that everyone gets an equal vote is absurd given that that all provide different amounts of value and have wildly different skills and intelligence. 

So what you asking is us to do is to try make an inherently dysfunctional system functional. 

[Alan C.]

Democracy:

 

Take tens of millions of feeble-minded, credulous, envious, self-righteous, ignorant, vindictive, superstitious malcontents, misanthropes, and morons, ask them for their ill-informed, unqualified opinions about things which they know nothing about, then take the most popular ones and impose them upon the entire populace using the force of the State apparatus.

 

Exactly how is this supposed to make society better?

 

Most people can't even take care of themselves, but somehow their opinions about how everyone else should be forced to live are supposed to count for something.

[Carl Green]

Democracy is irrelevant to individual freedom since it is supposed to be about what the average person would like the limits of the law to be. Since the vote is / person, that is the check / balance that stops the wealthy from rigging the laws. Since most voters want banksters in Jail rather than the banks (pension funds) fined, and lying politicians made to step down and definitely not take pay rise with a company they helped while 'serving', then I would say we are walking democratically.

 

If not one person is an average person, what good is freedom for something that doesn't exist.

 

Only individuals exist. So only individual freedom is actually freedom. Make sense?

[Mister Mister]

Check out SMART-voter.org as a concept. It's pretty simple. As your candidate to sign a contract to propose as a matter of priority support (not pass) certain policies. If none of your representatives will...it's time for you tor present.

 

What honest representative would refuse to prioritize most of these.

 

pic.twitter.com/lCOUbMU4YF

Sorry it's really annoying that you come on here, presenting yourself as if you want to have an honest conversation.  I put some time and energy into crafting a response, that I thought would be thought-provoking, and instead of respond to ANY of the content of what I said, you just continue to push some agenda.  And you've done the same thing to many others here.  It's like talking to a television.

[shirgall]

A smart democracy would only have those who vote for something be liable for its costs.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

Wasn't this tried back in 1776, and aren't we seeing the results of it today?

My thought. Also a fun post: http://www.theonion.com/article/marxists-apartment-a-microcosm-of-why-marxism-does-1382

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

Demo-Cracy and the state make no sense. Since the state is against the power of the people.

Anarchy is democracy.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

Capitalism (within anarchy) is essentially voting with your money. Every issue is separated nicely for everyone and everyone can vote accordingly to how they see fit. It also allows for multiple outcomes or even outcomes that weren't foreseen. It is as direct a way as possible to determine what people want. We don't need a more accountable situation, we need an actually accountable situation.

Awesome, plus the more succesful tend to get more profits and vote more. Supposing the succesful have better judgement.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

Sorry it's really annoying that you come on here, presenting yourself as if you want to have an honest conversation.  I put some time and energy into crafting a response, that I thought would be thought-provoking, and instead of respond to ANY of the content of what I said, you just continue to push some agenda.  And you've done the same thing to many others here.  It's like talking to a television.

 

I have one agenda. That's voter consumer rights.

 

It started 3 years ago like that.

 

I had to develop an framework to neuter the arguments of candidate who argue that they need some flexibiility.

 

I stood because no-one else would (follow the campaign, started a year before with asking others to stand and me fund them) (money where mouth is) there is no revenue stream.

 

I naturally assume that everyone has a potential vested interest (especially in politics) that's why I put on my evil head and tried to come up up with a solution to each trick.

 

Regardless of my loss making no revenue vested interests. Does having consumer rights for every product or service except your political one not pose a fundamental problem?

 

Clue. If you think politicians lie to win election your answer is yes.

Demo-Cracy and the state make no sense. Since the state is against the power of the people.

Anarchy is democracy.

Anarchy is a free evolutionary market. Kinda OK when power is based on how big you are and how long your stick is. The moment you have automated 'kill, enslave, steal' drones...anachy can't operate democratically. Right now I suspect the 1% could overpower the 99%

If not one person is an average person, what good is freedom for something that doesn't exist.

 

Only individuals exist. So only individual freedom is actually freedom. Make sense?

No. Because the worst individual freedoms use their freedom to impose on anothers. The more peaceful type who wish to protect their children from slavery therefore agree a structure that ONLY limits the Freedom to impose on anothers freedom. For example the Freedom not to get beaten up and have your things stolen.

Democracy:

 

Take tens of millions of feeble-minded, credulous, envious, self-righteous, ignorant, vindictive, superstitious malcontents, misanthropes, and morons, ask them for their ill-informed, unqualified opinions about things which they know nothing about, then take the most popular ones and impose them upon the entire populace using the force of the State apparatus.

 

Exactly how is this supposed to make society better?

 

Most people can't even take care of themselves, but somehow their opinions about how everyone else should be forced to live are supposed to count for something.

I think the 90% have evolved to buy into the idea of do unto others as you would etc..The point of Voter Consumer Rights is to make them informed about the 0.01% who stand for election.

Awesome, plus the more succesful tend to get more profits and vote more. Supposing the succesful have better judgement.

70% vote so no worries about the top 10% winning if their candidates have to be honest to the remaining 60%

Democracy is inherently dysfunctional. It's just the majority forcing its will on the minority. Even the idea that everyone gets an equal vote is absurd given that that all provide different amounts of value and have wildly different skills and intelligence. 

So what you asking is us to do is to try make an inherently dysfunctional system functional. 

Democracy is indeed majority forcing it's will on the minority. Anarchy is the most strongest and most vicious doing what the hell they can to a peaceful society. You see that in the Middle Easy now. That's Anarchy, small Waring fractions. don't blame the religious head, take away that and you would perhaps have a few more factions.

What do you need a leader for? Do you need a leader to decide what to have for breakfast? To tell you where to go to work? Nothing in your life is ruled by leaders. Have you appointed by democratic voting a leader for your own personal life who will run by you how to live? If you're not willing to do that for yourself, why impose it on us?

I guess you have never worked in a business where lots of people collectively work together to produce something of value. I see government as a business. Their product is stability, sustainable growth, happiness and (should be) equality.

 

They must therefore 1 provide protection to populace from groups who wish to limit their freedom not to be assaulted or stolen from.

I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Are you saying there are no "enlightened" decisions in a free market? Without government to tell us what to buy people revert to cavemen? As soon as government is gone everyone reverts to lower than the third-world? Have you ever heard of ebay? Etsy? When freedom is allowed things trend toward more innovative not less innovative. Also, even if everything you are claiming had any semblance of reality I'd take freedom any day over choosing between slave owners. 

 

Finally aren't you kind of saying that if people don't have someone telling them what to do and how to behave they'll automatically revert to cheating and violence? I won't, and am not, will you? That seems like a very religious train of thought. Give people some credit, we're smarter than a lot of people think.

Ebay sellers are subject to state laws that protect the consumer should the product not arrive or not be to standard.

 

All I'm saying is that if candidates can lie about every policy they say they would support (in your case, the abolition of government and move towards an anarchic state). So, as a Rothschild, if you movement got a following, I would simply fund a really good fake Ararchist to stand as you candidate saying that they would do those things, if he did actually win (I'd make sure he lost some votes along the way doing something unpopular) he still would not call the bill. Much like Syrza defaulting on EU. False Flag operation.

 

So even you anarchists are arguing against the rights you would NEED to demand get what you want. And all that's required a contract (like you have inherently when you buy a sandwich) for what is effectively a 5 year deal involving all your wealth?

 

Really smart there dude.

[jpahmad]

 

. Anarchy is the most strongest and most vicious doing what the hell they can to a peaceful society. You see that in the Middle Easy now. That's Anarchy, small Waring fractions. don't blame the religious head, take away that and you would perhaps have a few more factions.

 

This is anarchy:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ZZJhTSjB8

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

Statism in all forms is immoral - that's pretty much where the topic begins and ends.

 

Instead of spending time trying to elect a master more efficiently, you could be helping to spread the ideas of peaceful parenting to help prevent people from desiring masters to begin with.

 

My question would be - why does this interest you so much?

I think you hit the nail on the head.

 

In a democracy are not supposed to 'elect a master'. You are supposed to appoint a trusted volunteers for a while to make fair judgements that tow the popular line.

 

This interests me because I see no way of creating change unless members of our community wake up to the idea that, when appointing someone into a position of responsibility (be it within an Anarchy) the worst of people will put themselves forwards.

 

To allow those people to lie and retain their position is so obviously, unbelievably stupid and irresponsible to your loved ones that I find it hard to believe that any rational person, who has been presented with an alternative option, should do so.

 

My route to activism, if you were, was that I started giving The Green Party money and was asked to stand as a local council 'paper' candidate.

 

Having interacted with some of the characters I became suspicious as to their apparent 'selfless' intentions. Having as selfless as you can get intentions and recognizing the need for accountability I felt that, to stand as someone I would vote for, I should make a contract. The Green party forbade me from doing so.

 

I did anyway.

 

I was the one of two Green candidate to come as high as second of about and one won, out of about 20 (I live in a very wealthy areas where 70% of voters vote conservative) the one that won had 20 activists campaigning for him for a month..and now he does nothing of value, diminishing the brand.

 

By standing for election I discovered all the other problems. The lack of state publication, the power of armies of activists going door to door campaigning on behalf of someone they have never met talking about issues that person will never hear.

 

I considered how to unrig the system, in the mind of the narcissist, until I had no way to circumvent acting on popular opinions I needed to suggest support for to get elected.

 

No matter which way I looked at it, voters had to be able to compare actions backed by accountability (just like any other service contract)

 

The clever bit was the idea that they COULD commit to proposing and supporting bills. Not successfully passing any bills. Any candidate who promises to pass a bill is a liar, US president could commit to an executive order.

 

I think you accept this status quo purely out of habit and were you to rule the world..required to set up a democracy..you would start under the terms I have described.

 

The problem comes in changing the bad habbits most of us still have and many are unaware of but, like any obvious improvement, this should happen organically. It just has to be simple.

 

Once some fair representatives stand, other voters will come to expect it a transparent comparable action plan. As soon as that happens every liar will be asked 'will you commit to that' for every cheap promise they deliver. Their 'We need to clean up the dirty money in politics' statement will be confronted with 'what bill will you commit to' and they will have no escape.

 

Once that's the norm..we can start talking about democracy..or anarchy if that is what we want.

 

At the moment we have a silent Oligarchy and they crush anarchists much more quickly and violently than democrats.

 

As an Anarchist under social democracy, as long as your freedoms do not infringing on someone elses freedom you would be largely left alone by the state enforcers. An Oligarchy will demand you do an ever increasing  amount of slave labour or provide funds in one of your lovely US private incarceration cash cows.

[Kurtis]

This is anarchy:

 

Interesting video. However, there are some areas where he falls short.

 

He says this society and their advanced tech showed up "surprisingly" out of nowhere. There is growing evidence that the accepted historical time line of modern human development is very wrong in that the dates need to be pushed back thousands of years. Graham Hancock's work is a good source for all the different archeological sites around the world which are pointing to this.

 

In the video it is also said that the Egyptians were the source of the "dominator" system that we are still in today. New evidence is also challenging this belief by showing that this only occurred at the end of the Egyptian society when the priest class gained power and invented the idea of buying spiritual salvation from imaginary dangers. For thousands of years prior to this the people that lived in that area had a society very similar to the one described in your video, a heterarchy of skilled people living in a society centered around water.

 

There are other details mentioned in that video that I'd like to discuss, but I don't want to sidetrack this post.

 

These new findings are important to this discussion, as this data shows that for thousands of years, at the start of advanced human societies around the globe, the natural state for humans was to build peaceful heterarchical societies. The idea that we "need" oppressive masters to create order and peace is merely a fabrication started relatively recently in our modern state of being.

 

As we know, this idea is still very strongly believed today. However, it is merely a construct of misinformation and lies. Much like the twisted "truths" that come with abusive family systems, the current historical "truth" is yet another layer of this same technique of oppression.

 

The truth will set us free.

[Koroviev]

I definitely agree with your intentions, however it's clear to me that this cannot be achieved through government. If there was a "democracy" where all of the citizens are not forced at the end of a gun to pay into, that I am free to choose not to participate in, and that allows me to be free to come up with better ways of doing the things that "government" is attempting to do, and held those in power accountable for their actions. Well first I'd argue that that's not a "government", but second I'd be all for it. That is a free market, that is anarchy.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

I definitely agree with your intentions, however it's clear to me that this cannot be achieved through government. If there was a "democracy" where all of the citizens are not forced at the end of a gun to pay into, that I am free to choose not to participate in, and that allows me to be free to come up with better ways of doing the things that "government" is attempting to do, and held those in power accountable for their actions. Well first I'd argue that that's not a "government", but second I'd be all for it. That is a free market, that is anarchy.

Almost all major infrastructure project, although stolen through capitalism now, were created through the scale of communal investment that can only be achieved by a democracy. Doing everything yourself better is a long slow process, we also have the problem that you need to protect your family from the worst of people. If your child survives your death and grows up, what will they do to the family that grows up in the home you build before it was taken?

[Koroviev]

Almost all major infrastructure project, although stolen through capitalism now, were created through the scale of communal investment that can only be achieved by a democracy. Doing everything yourself better is a long slow process, we also have the problem that you need to protect your family from the worst of people. If your child survives your death and grows up, what will they do to the family that grows up in the home you build before it was taken?

 

Doing things my own way does not mean on my own. I'd obviously still hire other people to help and since I do not have to get a majority vote to get the projects I want to get done I am not limited by the factors that limit government projects. 

 

Why is it that you think without some government/god/overlord telling people what to do everything will descend into violence and gang warfare? Even if it did would that not open up a HUGE market niche for protection services (obviously with these protection services I'd want reassurance that they would not try to gain power over me and would be extremely skeptical until I could know for sure)? Especially if we focus on good/peaceful parenting, why do you think people never raised around violence would resort to violence (and the popular conception of anarchy) simply because the threat of the state is gone? Not to mention in an anarchist society (true anarchist not popular anarchist) people would be held even more accountable for their actions because the few "evil" people would not have the guns of the state to go hide behind.

[NotDarkYet]

I'm so confused.

 

Do you, or do you not want to impose your leaders on me?

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

Delusional.  I'm outta here.

I feel like I did.

 

What don't you understand.

 

Your A B scenario in my mind is does not describe the scenario. I suspect I was more focused on the solution and the the 'loaded' question. I confess I'm hoping you etc will get into the habit of asking politico's (canvassers, candidates) just for the bills the candidate is willing to be obliged to propose and support. Even if your not interested in voting it's a great way of telling them to piss off from the higher moral ground.

 

Reverting to the title of my question, ignoring the opening statement for the analgy. .

 

 

A: People who are willing to make blind emotional decisions when appointing representatives (who must at least appear to be acting for the common good under common law) Governmnet Democracy

B: Would be able to achieve a better consensus on decisions and act efficiently in structure made up of many individuals or limited commual groups with their own militias..or none?

 

I suspect not.

[Kurtis]

Statism in all forms is immoral - that's pretty much where the topic begins and ends.

 

Instead of spending time trying to elect a master more efficiently, you could be helping to spread the ideas of peaceful parenting to help prevent people from desiring masters to begin with.

 

My question would be - why does this interest you so much?

  

 

I think you hit the nail on the head.

 

You never answered Michael's question.

 

You basically said that statism interests you because you're interested in statism.

 

But why does it interest you so much?

 

Why in your very long response did you not even reply to Michael's point about peaceful parenting?

 

As a side question of my own, how many podcasts have you listened to? If you started at show #1, I think you'd find answers to many of your questions. Perhaps you'd even find the answer to Michael's question.