Proof that Anarchy = Destruction of Society
- Thread starter kingofsp
- Start date
I find it frustrating that a lot of people who oppose anarchy make the assumption that the only reason people are good is because of the government and the threat of the government punishing them.
The problem is we are pretty far developed, so if we got rid of government at this moment, we'd be screwed. See there are crazy people in the world, whether they have illegal firearms, or control your food supply like your favorite supermarket. The people controlling the food you buy and air you breath (by not pumping fumes and acid rain into it) have to be regulated. Other wish they could stick a "grade A" label on your meat, when it really shitty meat, you eat it then you die. Understand?
If we were in times where large corporation did not control your lives to such a huge degree, tv commercials of the "safe" cars you buy, the clothes you wear, your home, or restaurants you visit (food inspectors), then we could be in some serious shit, and become the puppets of people with already power and no government to protect us.
Government is suppose to protect and keep order with its citizens, but not enslave them like some governments of the world. Think about your way of living and what your dependant on corporation do you have? Do you really trust them to have your best interest without a police/government watching them?
The only crazy people I worry about are the ones in government.
Yes, because without government to regulate their competition out of existence, a company could only succeed by serving their customers better than their competitors. A company that wants to profit (i.e., serve its own interest) can only get me to part with my money by doing something better than the competition. It's through government interference that the consumer becomes marginalized. Please study economics. You are actually supporting the very things that cause the problems you mention. I used to believe in this myth of the government as my mommy, there to protect me from the evil corporate boogeyman in the closet, but that isn't how things work. Corporations that do bad things are almost always able to do these things because of government. That isn't to say there aren't exceptions, but they are rare and the companies involved typically don't stay in business.
Weird, cause I do run my own business with employees and all, but that's besides the point. In fact you can PM some people on here which can vertify this information, but then again, that's besides the point.
I am not stating we need government jn our lifes 24/7, but that the government is suppose to create and set standards which make our lives comfortable.
Ask yourself, what would happen if a multi-billion dollar coglomerate, like, oh lets say BP or exxon all of a sudden did not have some government accountability. They have enough money to wage war and control whole nations, spill their oil everywhere like in the Gulf of Mexico, and no fines or punishment.
What about no SEC? Maddoff would have been preforming his ponzi scheme for a longer time, without a police or government body to eventually stop him. What about the Facebook IPO? The SEC is now looking into Morgan Stanley, and whether they told their top investors to not jump in, and feed the FB stock to us lower mortals. The government is not perfect at stoping or solving all problems, but without standards, how would your computer be able to talk to my computer or be on this forum? What if comcast decides not to allow wickedfire for its customers? Who will stop them? It will not be enough to just say, customers will rise and stop using them. A majority of these corporates operate as semi-monopolies, so think about the quality of life we enjoy and ask yourself, even if it was on Family Guy, can some of it be true? When people cant find jobs or money to buy things, what will they resort too?
I have no problem going all anarchy, i hate the IRS and the central bank and think they are robbing this nation. Lets do this!!! First let me get all my ammo, but there will be consequences.
I
They would have zip right now if government wasn't around to protect them with limited liability protection as a corporation.
They would have been sued out of existence. Yes, sued, without government enforcing it. If you seriously think the only thing deterring oil company executives from destroying the environment is the prospect of a Tony Montana style shootout with the cops, I would love to hear about your reasoning behind that.
No SEC, again, Maddoff would be sued out of existence. Does it really benefit society to have him locked up in a cage? We're spending millions of dollars a year now to keep him incarcerated. At least those millions won't be buying anything nice, or supporting any other businesses. Isn't it ironic that Maddoff is still living off of other peoples millions?
There is also the tiny detail that Maddoff was investigated multiple times by the SEC and they never found a hint of any wrongdoing. Great job guys. Who took down Mr. Untouchable? His son. If you call that a success of government, allow me to show you this broken watch I'm selling, it still works twice a day.
Hope they don't investigate me next. Anyone who asked me about investing in Facebook, I told them to wait for the hype to cool down, and don't count on this being a buy and hold stock like a regular brick & mortar business. Tech companies have a tendency to lose a lot of value quickly, and never recover.
Same way it does now. The only thing the government regulates is IP numbers, but a shadow network has always been possible. We could have an agorist internet network set up fairly easily and quickly.
You circumvent whatever blocks they put in place. If you can't do that, you decide whats more important, an ISP that is going to block what you like on a whim, or the freedom to view and read what you want.
What's the point in subscribing to comcast is they had no content? What's the point of subscribing to comcast if everything you enjoy is unavailable? Why would you pay for something that offered little value to you personally?
Yet, there are still a minority of ISP's and cable providers who are not monopolies who would cater to you.
What would you resort to? What would your family members resort to? What would your neighbors resort to? What would your neighborhood resort to?
Can you even point out the people you can confidently say "this will be one of the guys pillaging our homes and raping errbody". If you can even answer that, how do you know he would? Has he been to prison? Important question, because if he's been to prison and is still a criminal, it is clear that government isn't really stopping him from doing anything.
That's the PR spin. Some people out of the benevolence of their hearts are going to help guide humanity towards a better existence.
Moral heroes like George Bush, Barack Obama, Tony Blair etc. All jesus-like in character, newtownian in their intellect.
I don't mind if you or anyone else believes this stuff. I just don't want your support to translate into criminals thinking they have moral cover to attack my wealth and freedom.
Concerns about Madoff's business surfaced as early as 1999, when financial analyst Harry Markopolos informed the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that he believed it was legally and mathematically impossible to achieve the gains Madoff claimed to deliver. According to Markopolos, he knew within five minutes that Madoff's numbers didn't add up, and it took four hours of failed attempts to replicate them to conclude Madoff was a fraud.
He was ignored by the Boston SEC in 2000 and 2001, as well as by Meaghan Cheung at the New York SEC in 2005 and 2007 when he presented further evidence. He has since published a book, No One Would Listen, about the frustrating efforts he and his team made over a ten-year period to alert the government, the industry, and the press about the Madoff fraud.
Bernard Madoff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Two notes...
First, let's address "government accountability" on BP, presumably with regard to the Deepwater Horizon spill. From here:
Where do you think the $1 billion reserve comes from? Not BP. Not directly, anyway. The state taxes the oil producers on each barrel, a tax that gets passed to you and me. In other words, if you're the state, you socialize the cost amongst the peons and peasants, hiding it as best you can.
That is not accountability for BP. That is protection. If you want true accountability, you privatize every inch of the world, to the extent that an individual is willing to buy/homestead it. That includes the oceans. I'm not going to go into the logistics of privatizing the oceans, but Walter Block does a good job here:
Water Privatization (PDF)
Second, regarding having the resources to wage war... it is unlikely a company driven by profit, and forced to contend with competitors, would devote resources to waging war. War is expensive. War is unprofitable, except to the state and its friends (e.g. Halliburton, Blackwater, etc.).
Apple has a lot of resources. Walmart has a lot of resources. They do not wage war to take over nations. In Walmart's case, they pay bribes (ref. Mexico) to do business with fewer obstacles. Bribery goes on in the U.S., too. From Jeffrey Tucker:
Anarchy is consistent with the libertarian principle of non-aggression. When I go into Starbucks to buy a cup of battery acid, I experience anarchy. When I buy toilet paper at Walmart, I experience anarchy. And somehow, in some magical way, things run smoothly. There is no violence. There is no need for ammo.
You say "there will be consequences," as if anarchy automatically means raping, murdering, and pillaging. This goes on today, often by those sworn to protect citizens. Starbucks has competition. Walmart has competition. The badge-carrying, murdering, thieving, raping cops? No competition.
I'll take anarchy, thanks.
couple of questions to help me better understand no-government point of view:
1. how exactly do you privatize water, roads, or anything else, if there is no government? whom do you pay for the ownership and who decides who gets to own what?
2. when you sue someone (BP, Maddof...) who gets the power to enforce it? Blackwater?
3. if you privatize roads you create a monopoly since it's impossible for competition to build new roads over someones existing roads. how do you fix that?
4. how exactly do you privatize air to fix pollution?
1. how exactly do you privatize water, roads, or anything else, if there is no government? whom do you pay for the ownership and who decides who gets to own what?
2. when you sue someone (BP, Maddof...) who gets the power to enforce it? Blackwater?
3. if you privatize roads you create a monopoly since it's impossible for competition to build new roads over someones existing roads. how do you fix that?
4. how exactly do you privatize air to fix pollution?
The way it was originally done before government. Property rights.
Lockean Homesteading theory isn't bad.
Whoever has a profit in enforcing it.
You can't fix material scarcity, which is exactly why you don't want a monopoly running things.
Pollution is damage. Damage against you or your property is a harm. The legal system originated around compensating and handling conflicts which involve harm.
50% of people when confronted with anarchy tend to go;
"But who will build the roads?"
Which no offense, is the most unimaginative reason to have a government. So someone builds roads and schools.
The truth is, and this is how I came to anarchy, is that if people want roads, someone will provide roads. We don't worry about where cheeseburgers or video games are going to come from, the market provides them with minimal government interference in their origination. We don't worry about the government providing video hosting or movies, or cell phones.
If you're interested in more detail, let me know. There are also another dozen or so anarchists here who can articulate these and other solutions.
There are alot of response which I will have to go back to later on, but my one question is, If there is no government, that means there is no courts. Where the the hell are you going to sue these people? And who will enforce your settlement?
Please, explain to me how you can sue someone when there is no government to enforce your settlement? Anarchy is defined as a state without government or law, Am I missing something? How can you sue someone with no courts??? There is no law!
p.S. I will go one by one and respond to each piece of the point outlined.
Please, explain to me how you can sue someone when there is no government to enforce your settlement? Anarchy is defined as a state without government or law, Am I missing something? How can you sue someone with no courts??? There is no law!
p.S. I will go one by one and respond to each piece of the point outlined.