Achieving Anarchy

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

What's your vision of how we should go about establishing more territory for liberty and what's your personal chosen area of action?

My vision is total power perspective. Maximize power like you're in a war. Argumentation is only a part of a wider set of tools. Bring on the McNukes bio weapons psy-ops and everything. A.I. and genetic engineering. Cryptography, assassination markets/networks. Meme wars.

One thing that must be maintained at all times, is safe heavens for people to run to. You don't want the whole world to turn into venezuela at once, so that you can run away. Hopefully with pure reproductive success we are able to increase our numbers, this is my ultimate perspective: that we should win by pure Darwinism. Decide like this: If you are in a biological war does X help you?

Meme wars are only temporary sedatives, the root is genetics.

My personal choice is financial NGO financing other liberty helping NGOs.

Tax avoidance networks

Creating action oriented networking platforms to combat social isolation of our minority. Yes there's liberty.me minds, and others. But they are not action oriented.

Ultimately I'm likely to build a dynasty, why trust strangers when you can have children? blood-ties seem like a good start for any high trust operations.

 

[M.2]

I haven't read the book, so please be patient with me. I have so far only read Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy.
The question I always wanted to ask anarchists is: Do you want to be left alone, do you want your society to be left alone, or do you want everyone to leave everyone alone?

- If you want to be left alone, I suppose you can move to a remote uninhabited location where no government has the power to reach you, like Greenland, Northwestern Territories, Siberia, or if you don't like the cold, then Western Sahara, Sahara Desert, Australia, Patagonia, or the Congo Jungle. In Australia, there a number of recognised micronations that the Australian government never touches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Micronations_in_Australia

- If you want your immediate relatives to be left alone, why don't you move to one of the freest countries in the world, like New Zealand, Chile, Switzerland, or Monaco? Dismantling a smaller government is much easier than a big one. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/50034-which-is-closest-to-ancap-paradise/#comment-454254

-If you want everyone to be left alone, then what have you done so far to reach that goal?

 

 

[ofd]

Quote

My vision is total power perspective. Maximize power like you're in a war. Argumentation is only a part of a wider set of tools. Bring on the McNukes bio weapons psy-ops and everything. A.I. and genetic engineering. Cryptography, assassination markets/networks. Meme wars.

You forgot fast food, weaponized autism, and the smell of your own farts.

[RamynKing]

9 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

 why don't you move to one of the freest countries in the world, like New Zealand, Chile, Switzerland, or Monaco? Dismantling a smaller government is much easier than a big one. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/50034-which-is-closest-to-ancap-paradise/#comment-454254
 

def a long term goal!

Quote

-If you want everyone to be left alone, then what have you done so far to reach that goal?

like some have said, it could be a 200 year process. nobody is quite sure on the best course of action. We can't really see the results of what we do in real-time at this juncture.

i'm of the opinion that building up our morality again is a good starting point. So I chip away where I can. Spreading good philosophy. Strategic political action. Agorism. If you've got ideas, i'm open!

 

[Garrett]

I'm pretty sure we can't get directly from here to anarchy through strictly military means and out-reproducing all the R selected population.

 

Once violent force becomes the mode of transition, historically the violence begins a life of its own and begins to consume souls of both the victims and the perpetrators. I simply don't see how a free society can be primarily born of violence. At most violence may come in the form of a small minority of people fighting for the last gasps of state power, and free people defending themselves. Any more than that and you've got a problem of the mentality of violence in the culture, which is inherently self defeating to a free people.

Rather it will have to come through most people desiring anarchy, and simply ignoring the demands of the extraction class. That will never happen when R selected people dominate, so there will have to be a natural dying off, unfortunately. When K selected people become dominant, and good philosophy is more pervasive, then we have a chance. I would be very surprised if that happens in our natural life times.

 

That leaves us with the onerous task of building a philosophy that we will only be able to enjoy on the personal level, and not the societal level. Take heart, if you had to pick one, freedom on the personal level is much better.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

On 8/17/2017 at 7:39 AM, Maker42 said:

simply ignoring the demands of the extraction class.

and when they knock at the door, do what? Well if you have good military grounds, I'd give it a shot.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

All but one, good posts, thanks!

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

On 8/11/2017 at 6:59 AM, Mishi2 said:

I haven't read the book, so please be patient with me. I have so far only read Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy.
The question I always wanted to ask anarchists is: Do you want to be left alone, do you want your society to be left alone, or do you want everyone to leave everyone alone?

- If you want to be left alone, I suppose you can move to a remote uninhabited location where no government has the power to reach you, like Greenland, Northwestern Territories, Siberia, or if you don't like the cold, then Western Sahara, Sahara Desert, Australia, Patagonia, or the Congo Jungle. In Australia, there a number of recognised micronations that the Australian government never touches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Micronations_in_Australia

- If you want your immediate relatives to be left alone, why don't you move to one of the freest countries in the world, like New Zealand, Chile, Switzerland, or Monaco? Dismantling a smaller government is much easier than a big one. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/50034-which-is-closest-to-ancap-paradise/#comment-454254

-If you want everyone to be left alone, then what have you done so far to reach that goal?

 

 

What I want is not to be left alone. It's to have a sovereign free market empire exist.

[Garrett]

9 hours ago, Magnetic Synthesizer said:

and when they knock at the door, do what? Well if you have good military grounds, I'd give it a shot.

I suggest waiting until they so much lack power that you can brush them off your porch kind of like a yapping little dog.

To introduce more violence is something difficult to stop once it starts. Look at the history of Ireland. They turned to violence to attempt an overthrow of british rule. America had the advantage of a great big ocean, making the british supply chain of violence untenable in length. So America could fight a more direct military conflict. Ireland being more directly under the boot heal of the empire had to turn it into asymmetric warfare (terror and assassination). To this day their culture is still suffering from the horror.

Do you really want a super-bloody conflict because you don't have the patience and foresight to let them die off on their own? Sure, a little self defense here and there is great. But you were talking nuclear weapons. Are you kidding me???

The difficult part with the path I suggest is for K selected individuals to allow the R selected hordes to die a death natural to their own consequences. This has proven historically difficult. Even now the more K selected are breathlessly trying to save the life of every R selected African, having no idea the horror that will and even now sometimes does ensue if/when they were actually successful. A low IQ, R selected population in a low resource region must cull itself one way or another. When the virtue signalling westerners succeed too much in saving too many babies' lives, their population explodes, and then they naturally turns to genocide and civil war in their own horrific manner of culling population. Hey west! Stop that!

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

On 8/23/2017 at 5:04 PM, Maker42 said:

Ireland being more directly under the boot heal of the empire had to turn it into asymmetric warfare (terror and assassination). To this day their culture is still suffering from the horror.

 

tell me more about this

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

On 8/23/2017 at 5:04 PM, Maker42 said:

???

The difficult part with the path I suggest is for K selected individuals to allow the R selected hordes to die a death natural to their own consequences. This has proven historically difficult. Even now the more K selected are breathlessly trying to save the life of every R selected African, having no idea the horror that will and even now sometimes does ensue if/when they were actually successful. A low IQ, R selected population in a low resource region must cull itself one way or another. When the virtue signalling westerners succeed too much in saving too many babies' lives, their population explodes, and then they naturally turns to genocide and civil war in their own horrific manner of culling population. Hey west! Stop that!

I agree. Hopefully there's a way for realistic oriented K selected people.

[Garrett]

3 hours ago, Magnetic Synthesizer said:

tell me more about this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence

 

This war for independence started with the assassination of 2 British-backed police (RIC) by the IRA (not the retirement account), escalated to "Bloody Sunday" which included the assassination of 14 more British agents. The brits retaliated by killing a bunch of civilians at a football match later that day. The war bled over (sorry for the pun) into sectarian violence, and many bombings between catholics and protestants took place. Thousands died in what amounted to a guerrilla war. The body count is small compared to other things, but the insidious part is that the violence will just not go away.

And guess what. The violence continues to this day. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/09/irel-s07.html

I think the lesson is that violence, especially the assassination and terror type that inevitably crops up in asymmetric tactical situations, tends to get a life of its own, and is really hard to truly leave behind. Afghanistan is another example of guerrillas that started almost a 1/4 of a millennium ago are still fighting, both the empires that want to tame them (USA just being the latest in a long line) and among themselves.

[Garrett]

Sorry for quoting a socialist web site concerning the news of Irish violence. I guess I should have searched for a arnarchist news portal instead.

[JoinOrDie]

Somebody please explain to me how an anarchist society can exist given human nature. True anarchy could only exist in a society with no rules. As soon as you impose a rule on a group of humans you have to be willing to enforce that rule to the extent of violence and even death. Wouldn't the organization of individuals that have power to judge an individual as to compliance and then enforce these rules constitute a government?  Human nature is to collect resources for ones self and familiars. How do you stop an individual from amassing and controlling huge amounts of value? A handshake and an agreement toward economic equality is great for some people but there are those who it is in their nature to exploit those around them. Does an anarchist culture exclude these people? If so, How?

Are there examples of anarchist societies? I don't think it's possible given that someone in the society will be a natural leader and impose rules/violence to keep themselves so. It seems dictatorship is the end of the evolution of an anarchist society.

On a bigger scale, despite humans being social animals, it seems human nature is the unraveling of all types of societal structures. Communism and socialism are destroyed by greed and incompetence of the leaders. Democratic and republican governments are destroyed by the greed of the masses and leaders. Anarchy is destroyed first by the imposition of rules then transition to dictatorship.

I admit that I am a proponent of the constitutional republic, or rule of law to govern people. A society agrees to a group of rules and holds themselves individually personally responsible for compliance. The American example (as founded) of this assumes personal responsibility and the that the common person rise up to not only participate in their own government but to depose those who pose a threat to that system.

[M.2]

7 hours ago, JoinOrDie said:

Somebody please explain to me how an anarchist society can exist given human nature. True anarchy could only exist in a society with no rules. As soon as you impose a rule on a group of humans you have to be willing to enforce that rule to the extent of violence and even death. Wouldn't the organization of individuals that have power to judge an individual as to compliance and then enforce these rules constitute a government?  Human nature is to collect resources for ones self and familiars. How do you stop an individual from amassing and controlling huge amounts of value? A handshake and an agreement toward economic equality is great for some people but there are those who it is in their nature to exploit those around them. Does an anarchist culture exclude these people? If so, How?

Are there examples of anarchist societies? I don't think it's possible given that someone in the society will be a natural leader and impose rules/violence to keep themselves so. It seems dictatorship is the end of the evolution of an anarchist society.

On a bigger scale, despite humans being social animals, it seems human nature is the unraveling of all types of societal structures. Communism and socialism are destroyed by greed and incompetence of the leaders. Democratic and republican governments are destroyed by the greed of the masses and leaders. Anarchy is destroyed first by the imposition of rules then transition to dictatorship.

I admit that I am a proponent of the constitutional republic, or rule of law to govern people. A society agrees to a group of rules and holds themselves individually personally responsible for compliance. The American example (as founded) of this assumes personal responsibility and the that the common person rise up to not only participate in their own government but to depose those who pose a threat to that system.

Well, technically, mathemathically, theoretically, it can exist. It just has never existed before. All you need, is some very specific and high prerequisites to be fulfilled. 

What you need is:
1. A very high IQ population
2. A very highly educated populous
3. A highly militarized populous
4. Very favourable geopolitical circumstances
5. A lot of freedom to begin with
6. An absolutist value system based in UPB that everyone adheres to (this is the essence of it, but here is where Mr.Molyneux's math has run into difficulties)

Technically, even communism can exist. The question is not whether or not it can, but rather what is moral. And it is definitely true that it would be swell to have an AnCap paradise. Nevertheless, I argue from the Judeo-Christian side, but basically exactly what you say,  that due to the fallen nature of man, it cannot exist, and will never exist.

[JoinOrDie]

Interesting. I have had that question burning for years and never could get a satisfactory answer. I do have 2 questions. 1) Why the militarization? Because an armed society is a polite society?  and 2) What is UPB?. It sounds like it should be a commonly held belief system (non-diest pseudo religion) which might make an anarchist society look like a theocracy.

I think that all theoretical forms of government have existed and may even have been benevolent for a short time. A lot of these ideas gained political power in the early 1900s. It doesn't take long for power to corrupt, however, and eventually all governments fall to the dark aspect of human nature. I believe that the founders of the US recognized this fact and wrote in their papers that good men need to keep vigilant for tyranny and destroy it upon sight to renew the service aspect of their government.

I have always thought that these idiots you see going around with their masked faces, anarchist flags, and violence are the last people that could live in an anarchist society.

Thank you,

JN

[M.2]

1 hour ago, JoinOrDie said:

1) Why the militarization? Because an armed society is a polite society?
2) What is UPB?. It sounds like it should be a commonly held belief system (non-diest pseudo religion) which might make an anarchist society look like a theocracy.

3.I think that all theoretical forms of government have existed and may even have been benevolent for a short time. A lot of these ideas gained political power in the early 1900s. It doesn't take long for power to corrupt, however, and eventually all governments fall to the dark aspect of human nature. I believe that the founders of the US recognized this fact and wrote in their papers that good men need to keep vigilant for tyranny and destroy it upon sight to renew the service aspect of their government.

4. I have always thought that these idiots you see going around with their masked faces, anarchist flags, and violence are the last people that could live in an anarchist society.

1. We live in the real world and you can't have nice things unless you are willing to defend it. Switzerland knows this, America knows this, Singapore knows this. If you are dependent on someone else for protection, you are not free. Which means there is no AnCap paradise.
2. Well, Mr.Molyneux has written about UPB. I found the 2 books to be very thought-provoking, but also very raw. He does not really present a complete value system that could ever compete with a robust system like Christianity or Islam for example. It is rather just a method for distinguishing between right and wrong.

3. Pretty good examples I have heard for AnCap societies are the Wild West, Medieval Genoa and Venice. The issue is that even of they were truly AnCap, they don't exist anymore. So clearly they were doing something wrong. Same goes for the US. 300 years is not a very long time for a country, especially if you compare to countries like France or Denmark. And yet, the US is collapsing before our eyes. So they clearly did something wrong. And all those who worship the US Constitution should be intellectually honest about it.

4. It's supposed to be a phase. I had my anarchist (that kind) phase around the age of 18 and 19. And then I grew out of it. Just like my communist phase lasted 2 weeks when I was 12, up until my mother reminded me that she grew up in communism and didn't like it very much.

[JoinOrDie]

The longevity of the old European powers was due to hereditary monarchy for the most part. In todays terms, dictatorship. Rule by the whims of a person. The US is theoretically governed by the rule of law. If Constitutional principles still applied and citizens still actually wanted to be free, that is, would accept the responsibility that freedom requires, the US may not be in the condition it is.

40 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

all those who worship the US Constitution should be intellectually honest about it.

Not sure what you mean by this. Please clarify. 

[M.2]

15 hours ago, JoinOrDie said:

The longevity of the old European powers was due to hereditary monarchy for the most part. In todays terms, dictatorship. Rule by the whims of a person. The US is theoretically governed by the rule of law. If Constitutional principles still applied and citizens still actually wanted to be free, that is, would accept the responsibility that freedom requires, the US may not be in the condition it is.

Respectfully, I don't think you know how monarchies work. But here is a thread where we discuss that.https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/49464-debating-monarchy/?tab=comments#comment-449491

15 hours ago, JoinOrDie said:

Not sure what you mean by this. Please clarify. 

Sorry, I'll clarify. The American Civil War was clearly a constitutional crisis. And since then, instead of improving on it, they have only made the constitution worse, which we can judge by the results; less liberty all-round. I don't think anyone debates that.
There was clearly something wrong with the constitution to begin with if it allowed for such transgressions against liberty. The Swiss also had a constitutional crisis that led to a civil war, but they managed to recognise the problem, and they introduced even more freedom to the cantons. This is what the US should have done.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

The Swiss also had a constitutional crisis that led to a civil war, but they managed to recognise the problem, and they introduced even more freedom to the cantons. This is what the US should have done.

Very interesting. A civil war that turned for the better? please tell me more about it.

[JoinOrDie]

9 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

There was clearly something wrong with the constitution to begin with if it allowed for such transgressions against liberty.

I have often wondered about how the framers of the constitution could write such a document regarding liberty, freedom, natural rights, etc. while slaves were cooking their dinners and working their lands. This irony was not lost on them but they felt that the economic realities of large landowners at the time required slaves. If they would have stuck to the ideals of universal natural rights, slavery could have disappeared overnight and the free market would have favored ideas that got the work done without such savage tyranny. The economic engine that was fueling the new country could have been so much more if people were rewarded for their work instead of trying to profit from the gross inefficiencies of forced labor. The fact is if the framers freed their slaves they could have gone bankrupt. This would only be a temporary reset but they were unwilling to forgo a few years profits for their beliefs. They chose their current and mid term economic viability over their convictions of liberty. In this they failed.

They literally put their lives on the line and were hunted and driven to live in the wilderness for the Declaration of Independence but couldn't give up a little land for the constitution.

 

10 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Respectfully, I don't think you know how monarchies work.

Yeah, sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're an idiot than to open your mouth to prove it. Wise words I usually try to live by but you caught me. I'll be checking out that thread for sure. Thanks.

[M.2]

19 hours ago, Magnetic Synthesizer said:

Very interesting. A civil war that turned for the better? please tell me more about it.

The 1847 Sonderbund War was a very small, but significant civil war between the authoritarian liberal protestants (there is a familiar oxymoron) and the more conservative catholics. In short, some catholics did not fancy the impositions of the protestants, and revolted against the Federal Government. The conclusion of the war, although the Government won, resulted in all-round greater freedom for the cantons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderbund_War

11 hours ago, JoinOrDie said:

I have often wondered about how the framers of the constitution could write such a document regarding liberty, freedom, natural rights, etc. while slaves were cooking their dinners and working their lands. This irony was not lost on them but they felt that the economic realities of large landowners at the time required slaves. If they would have stuck to the ideals of universal natural rights, slavery could have disappeared overnight and the free market would have favored ideas that got the work done without such savage tyranny. The economic engine that was fueling the new country could have been so much more if people were rewarded for their work instead of trying to profit from the gross inefficiencies of forced labor. The fact is if the framers freed their slaves they could have gone bankrupt. This would only be a temporary reset but they were unwilling to forgo a few years profits for their beliefs. They chose their current and mid term economic viability over their convictions of liberty. In this they failed.

They literally put their lives on the line and were hunted and driven to live in the wilderness for the Declaration of Independence but couldn't give up a little land for the constitution

That is a very healthy way to look at the original constitution, I think. But all that could be forgiven, if only they had ammended the constitution in a good direction afterwards. It was Mr.Molyneux who first planted doubts in my head about the way the American Civil War is portrayed today. In looking closer into it, I have realised what a catastrophe it was for personal liberty, despite the abolition of slavery. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-W5fGCAzOk

11 hours ago, JoinOrDie said:

Yeah, sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're an idiot than to open your mouth to prove it. Wise words I usually try to live by but you caught me. I'll be checking out that thread for sure. Thanks.

Nobody was born all-knowing. As long as you are willing to learn, you are all right. Besides, everyone makes bs from time to time; even Mr.Molyneux.