Anarchy is Dumb
- Thread starter SUP3RNOVA
- Start date
A Government run society is like the Matrix. Most people don't even realize that they are not free. More often than not, they believe they can't live without it, because they were born into that world.
It's the wool that's pulled over their eyes.
It's the wool that's pulled over their eyes.
For fucks sake. That is GOVERNMENT. Government is strong and imposes it's well armed will on the people.
I tried to stay out of this thread, I didn't even read the first 2 pages because there is no point, debating just further entrenches the people arguing, this however was just too ripe.
Obvious statement is obvious, maybe that is why they can't see it. I really don't know why G and others try to educate them tbh. Maybe it is some deep seated hope that if he even gets one person to think outside of the way they have been conditioned to think, that it may be worth it.
tldr
humanity is an infant. doesn't matter what kind of system (or lack of a system) you have in place.
likewise when we evolve to a certain point, it won't matter either.
The root of the problem is that we are an infant species still grappling with our primitive natures, still evolving morally, spiritually, and socially (and now on a much bigger scale).
long way to go boys.
humanity is an infant. doesn't matter what kind of system (or lack of a system) you have in place.
likewise when we evolve to a certain point, it won't matter either.
The root of the problem is that we are an infant species still grappling with our primitive natures, still evolving morally, spiritually, and socially (and now on a much bigger scale).
long way to go boys.
I won't be doing this forever. It's not efficient to focus on winning over individuals. You drop the ideas, see who picks up on it, provide more info, debate the guys who want to troll or be stupid, use them to leave a deeper explanation, and eventually move on.
These discussions don't mean a lot today. They will 30 years from now.
I cannot speak for others, but I'll give you my perspective. Those who support the state threaten my safety and well-being. They may do it indirectly, similar to hiring an assassin to hit a mark, but it changes nothing. Their actions threaten me and those I love.
I have tools at my disposal to change this situation - if not immediately, then for future generations. Some tools are vehicles of violence, and will shed blood. Others are nonviolent. They use use persuasion and logic to chip away at inconsistencies. I use the latter group.
I avoid debates online. My tolerance level for nonsense is low, and thus I find no joy in them. My work is with folks I meet in real life. People I can look in the eye and shake their hand. That's where I'm most effective.
I am a salesman, selling an idea. Like any good salesman, I hit the hot prospects and ignore the tirekickers. There are so many people interested in the notion of living without state violence that planting seeds of anarchy is easy. And I cannot justify the time it takes to respond to and persuade trolls and idiots. There are much easier prospects to convert.
And if they convert one day, they might tell others. I've done so. guerilla has done so. scottspfd82, pfgannon, and others have done so. That is how ideas spread. And this idea is ripe to spread like a virus. Think of that old hair commercial from the 70s: "And she told two friends, and they told two friends, and they told two friends, and they told..."
States are going to implode. When they do, there will be a number of systems that can established in their place. Some are better and some are much worse. Spreading this idea gives voice to what I believe is the only acceptable option.
That's why I do it.
The more I read about it, the more I am convinced anarchy is the most natural way. Not sure what I was trying to argue about earlier in this thread.
I do it for a lot of selfish reasons too.
I like arguing (not with dumb people). I learn a lot by arguing with intelligent people.
A few years ago, I was part of a community of super smart people, probably 80% were smarter than me, and I loved the discussions. We constantly tested ideas and checked boundaries. There were no sacred cows.
Seriously, it is exhilarating to start a conversation with someone, and they understand opportunity costs, Lockean Homesteading, etc. You don't even have to explain or repeat that taxes are theft because it's not only understood, it's already incorporated into the ideas which will be discussed.
These posts, while I don't mind doing them (most of the time), it's like putting on your shoes. Over and over again. You keep putting on your shoes. One day, you get lucky, and you can tie the laces.
But you never leave the house, because the discussion never advances that far. Next thing you know, you're back to putting your shoes on.
People are entitled to believe whatever they want. In a lot of cases, people believe things which are implicitly and explicitly dangerous to me. I try to be tolerant of this because I can't do much, if anything, to change it, and because you can't reason with people who rationalize violence.
I don't resent a Lion for wanting to eat me, I don't resent ignorant people for wanting to enslave me.
I have made my peace with that. On the one hand, I don't want to have done nothing, and on the other hand, I know that profound change is probably beyond my conventional lifetime.
Deep down, I am hoping for the singularity.
Wrong, very wrong. If I support the current structure of government in most countries, maybe, but I don't. I'm not arguing for another US government, I do not like the US government. I am arguing for government, a system of centralized rules to keep a society running fluidly. Just because the US (or other) court systems are fucked up does not mean the concept of a court is evil. Governments can hold fair elections, regulate term lengths, hold accountability, etc. Human error clearly corrupts this philosophy and then you end up with things like current states of government, but it's kind of foolish to believe the same group of humans would operate better under anarchy. You would have the same corrupt bastards doing even worse things because there is no accountability held. I've read many arguments and watched many videos on how security, accountability, and courts are handled without government, and none of them are convincing.
You're arguing a strawman here. You argue the philosophy of anarchy and use it to combat current forms of government, not the philosophy of government. A "state" does not have to forcefully use violence against you to function. The philosophy of government is to not use violence against innocent people.
