anarchy
by anarchy i mean this shit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism this is interesting to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism or just do w/e anarchy ftw
anarchy
by anarchy i mean this shit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism this is interesting to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism or just do w/e anarchy ftw
Last edited by trifling nincompoop; 06-06-2014 at 12:47 AM.
Everything reports to me.
Wikisocion
Socionics Links
Enneagram Links
A Socionics Test
Other Socionics Tests
Socionics Test Rating Project
Socionics types and Music Preference
Personality Traits of American Cities / Counties
Interesting Psychology Articles
Personality Traits Correlations
A Biased Reading List
Google Scholar Alerts
Type movie suggestions
Random Pictures Thread
Interesting Articles Thread
Best Countries To Emigrate To, Possibly
Just like in all of my personal relationships, I'd prefer voluntary interaction over forced 'virtue' through a monopoly on initiation of force.
If, however, anarchy meant disarray of social order.. I don't know. That's rarely a permanent state of matters while socialism can be a hell that will endure a lifetime.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
socialism, I think. but i have nothing to back it up.
socialism because anarchy will not last and It will be replaced by something new something random and revolution rarely leads to a better situation
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
You can fix socialism if it goes wrong. How do you control chaos should anarchy go wrong?
When has the state expanded to a large version and then voluntarily backed off because off it's inefficiency? Usually the reaction to inefficiency in government programs is throwing more money at it.
Give me an example of how this would happen and I can tell you possible cures that I can come up with that are not available in a society controlled by a state.How do you control chaos should anarchy go wrong?
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I mean complete lawlessness and chaos. Is there a way back from that in a way that would not involve government?
By contrast a lawless totalitarian state can be overthrown and reformed via revolution, democratic or violent, because all power is conveniently in one place.
Well, since there isn't any taxes being gathered, he must rely on building up an army with looted wealth. He would likely want to start from a wealthy and relatively disarmed population who haven't gotten around to pay for security for some reason, maybe some religious communities. Otherwise, he would just get shot like many robbers do in a society that doesn't trust that the police will come to rescue. Let's make it easier and say that he has enough charisma and status to gain followers from the poor and criminal underclass. The wealthy who are concerned would easily crowdfund a price on his head and maybe on the heads of his lieutenants. That should spark the attention of the poor and desperate in their ranks, not to mention making Genghis paranoid and probably deterring future criminals once his head is on a pike or whatever.
Of course a foreign state could have motives to fund this and then I'd be pretty scared, but the same solutions apply. Then again a society that has decidedly turn to statelessness would probably hoist banners and yell out "live free or die" and such.
Hiring protection and buying a gun goes a long way. Put up an internet campaign that will arm peaceful individuals aiming to protect and many anarchocapitalists would be happy to chip in by sending a couple of Bitcoins for a good cause. If I'd be scared on behalf of my neighbourhood, I might start, or at least join, the neighborhood watch.
Let's say that the Genghis from above still gets a hold of the people and starts demanding tributes and anyone who doesn't pay up gets violated.. well, I just described taxation and the state.
I don't think that the power lies in buildings but in guns whose bearers believe in the authority of those buildings, thrones, ballot boxes etc. Democracies are a pain in the ass to overthrow and make away since citizens uphold the notion that says "the govenrment is us" which is like saying that the jews exterminated themselves during Hit-ler's reign.
If you're a rich corporation trying to overthrow the state, then it's just business.
![]()
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
point is anything goes goes both ways and i dont know about you but id make quite a bit of cash from that situation
What would protect the consumer from being coerced into buying "protection" from a group offering something like this? A group with a lot of guns could have anything it wanted at the expense of everyone else right? I don't think most people would fight back if they knew they would die. People would adapt and put up. How would a freemarket prevent this kind of gang tyranny?![]()
From my observations Ti-creatives are bonkers - either commie or anarchist. Not to mention snitches, snitching to the forum word Police, being against calling the Police on your fellow man, of course. Equilibrium achieved...
![]()
Last edited by Absurd; 06-05-2014 at 07:31 AM.
Priceless.
Well, this is an obvious one: anarchy. Why would you choose a system that falls into diseconomies of scale over a system that finds the economies of scale? Also, its better to choose a minimalist government and then add to it than have a system that starts large. Its much harder, if not impossible, to downsize than it is to grow larger.
Aquagrah, tell your identical or whatever you type yourself now to kiike up or fingers be cut.
Why would PPAs have to patrol at all? Why would they need armed or uniformed enforcers? What would give the right of a PPA to enforce itself against people who aren't customers of that PPA or any other PPA?
PPAs may be a poor model of private law enforcement. Or maybe they only have limited applications under certain circumstances. Either way, @xerx, failures of imagination -- whether yours or mine -- aren't evidence of a problem that the free market process couldn't possibly reconcile.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Protection agencies need to physically have men on the ground in their customers' vicinities to act as watchdogs against burglary, vandalism and such. I'm not sure how else they'd be able to stop crime against their customers or convince people that they could make them feel safe.
Is there another way for people to protect their lives or physical assets in a libertarian society?
[EDIT: The 2nd Amendment doesn't sound like a serious proposal to me, since most people don't have the dexterity to use guns (which does require training), are afraid of doing so, or don't have the time to constantly be guarding their homes. The 2nd amendment would leave power in the hands of self-proclaimed vigilante authorities which are just as likely to turn their guns on the people they're protecting. At least that's the way I figure.]
Last edited by xerx; 06-08-2014 at 02:28 PM.
How do you ensure against non-material damages like your kids being killed or seized by a pedophile on their way to school?
If crime became rampant because PPAs are a bad business model, would insurance stay a good business model if they had to keep on paying people for damages?
I am a strict pacifist, and while I am not prepared to debate the point philosophically at this time, I am not entirely convinced the initiation of force is appropriate even in retaliation against those who have initiated against you. Similarly, employing "thugs" to enact force on transgressors on your behalf is no less an immoral act of tyranny.
A third idea is what's called a kritarchy. In this model, replace PPAs with third party mediation services that are mutually recognized by disputing parties for hearing complaints and assessing restitution.
edit: There are both historical and contemporary examples of practicing kritarchies in both ancient Israel and modern day Somalia respectively, along with a few other parts of the globe.
@MensSuperMateriam
I appreciate your weighing in on the topic. You raise many good points on all sides, though I disagree with your conclusions about oligopolies. There is enough evidence on both sides to suggest they would either, (at best) never form or be short-lived and not as far reaching as they could be today; or at worst, evolve themselves into one of the traditional models of statism we are presently familiar with. Perhaps I am wrong to question the course of history and that I should recognize the "establishment", as it were, to be in place for a reason and that this must be the way of things.
But on the other hand, there have been many establishments throughout the course of human history. Not one of them exists to this day. Instead, newcomers have taken their place. Just as the end of the Ottoman Empire gave way to the caliphate Republic of Turkey, and the fall of the Romans gave way to multiple independent European nation-states, including the early Britannic Empire, one thing is clear: civilizations come and go, and others evolve still.
I think it's possible that with the success of the human species to this point, and the level to which our technology has advanced, conventional governments are quickly becoming an outmoded form of organizing human society. I think we are fast approaching a point (if we have not surpassed it already) where a world as interconnected and "turned on" as ours is actually being held back by antiquated forms of social and economic management. Civil rights movements are, perhaps, one example of what a society will do when it's upset with the status quo and wishes to break away from the tyranny of tradition.
I think humanity is ready for something new.
You could be right. I am more convinced about my general argument against polarization than the particular ones about anarcho-capitalism, that's simply how I have "mentally simulated" the evolution of this system. Could you offer the examples you've mentioned, about the oligopolies fading away or becoming traditional goverments? I'm really curious.
We're very far from "the maximum of entropy", so the system will keep evolving and changing. I agree about that.But on the other hand, there have been many establishments throughout the course of human history. Not one of them exists to this day. Instead, newcomers have taken their place. Just as the end of the Ottoman Empire gave way to the caliphate Republic of Turkey, and the fall of the Romans gave way to multiple independent European nation-states, including the early Britannic Empire, one thing is clear: civilizations come and go, and others evolve still.
But all of them have in common any form of at least partially regulated government. And where others empires have fallen, new ones have raised. Empires have not ceased to exist; and with this example in mind, those less regulated empires have easily collapsed or being engulfed by competitors. Persians, mongols...
This is a two sided sword; if empires tend to collapse we can say the less the government the better it would be; but why new ones have appeared then? The struggle of the opposites...
What could happen to China if we cease to regulate it inmediately? Uncle Sam approves... (I know it's more complicated, just an example).
It could be said that once there's no empire, no one could "unnaturally" take advantage. But that's like thinking in primitive societies with small governments. The more they evolve and communicate with each other, the bigger structures have appeared.
I'm not sure of having the answer, but one thing is clear. If something has happened it's because it could happen, so we have to infer that there was centain tend for this thing to happen. That's like one person says X human behavior is unnatural; how can something natural produce an unnatural result? It's a contradictio in terminis.
Maybe under new conditions, what happened before is not the most statble state now; but it was then, and it's still natural. And what we're thinking it's the most natural state for today or even tomorrow, could result to be something completely different...
I don't see humanity so homogeneous, culturally or economically. I agree anyway that classical forms/methods are outdated and new forms will appear. What I'm not so sure is how these new forms will be. Maybe what you said, or maybe we all end like borgs, or maybe something radically different...I think it's possible that with the success of the human species to this point, and the level to which our technology has advanced, conventional governments are quickly becoming an outmoded form of organizing human society. I think we are fast approaching a point (if we have not surpassed it already) where a world as interconnected and "turned on" as ours is actually being held back by antiquated forms of social and economic management. Civil rights movements are, perhaps, one example of what a society will do when it's upset with the status quo and wishes to break away from the tyranny of tradition.
I think humanity is ready for something new.
I'm not a luddite, by the way, more like its opposite, transhumanist.
Fair enough, but I must wonder at what cost are all of these supposedly positive measures implemented? My skepticism of any and all economic policies comes from the belief that an unadulterated market arises out of the emergent properties inherent in social cooperation and mutual agreements. Interventionism, by contrast, always presents a disruption to this otherwise smooth-sailing matrix of voluntary interactions by individual actors within the socio-economic framework. So even if a policy appears to have a positive effect on the surface, it is always at the expense of an alternative, non-coercive option which has the potential to be either just as good or even better in a utilitarian sense. The parable of the broken window, as described by C.F. Bastiat in 1850, comes to mind.
(We've covered this via Visitor Message, if anyone's keeping score.)
It's impossible to tell at this point, but I'm also not in a position to be writing prescriptions for all of humanity's ills. That would actually be counter to my principles concerning the sovereignty of man and our freedom of volition (not to mention my assertion that economic calculation, as under socialism, is impossible). But I'm supremely confident in nature's tendency to produce spontaneous order, and I think this trend has no less application to naturally-occurring fractal patterns as it does to deliberate human action with purposeful intent. It can not be helped, it's simply the way of things. It is my position that violence, coercion, and the subjugation of men by other, evil men subvert these emergent properties of human cooperation and synergy, and represent the primary source of human suffering worldwide.
Even though human populations can be divided by culture and geography, I think technology has gone a long way in bridging these gaps and will continue to do so even long after our death. This, I believe, portends very good things for the future of our species if we ever manage to dispense with traditional patterns of politico-economic organization and embrace the unknown.
There is a theory called the infant-industry theory which says that many companies wouldn't eventually become profitable without prolonged heavy investment; ex: it took 17 years for Toyota to become internationally competitive and couldn't have done so without government investment and tariffs on imports.
If the Japanese state hadn't taken the difficult leap to industries up the value chain, the Japanese would now be pursuing their comparative advantage by exporting fish and rice and importing American trucks. Japan would have become an unsophisticated agrarian society and an American protectorate (with all the power disparity that implies). Now that Japan has a strong industrial infrastructure, the Japanese can pursue their comparative advantage by importing resources while exporting advanced technology.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Hardly I could disagree with the personal values you have. Ideally I would like, at least in essence (details should be studied apart) the same things you're proposing for myself and the rest of humankind.
But... have you considered the possibility that such "evil actions", purposeful perturbation of "natural order" (like the empire example I made) are in fact part of the same natural, spontaneous order?. That's my point, and what I meant when I said that something natural cannot produce an antinatural result, because this is a contradiction. Humans are a natural products, after all, so its behavior is regulated by the same rules that apply to the rest of Nature.
Coercion, violence, subjugation of men by other, are causes of individual suffering. Yes. But if we forget for a moment about subjetive questions like morality and suffering, the picture could change. I will use a very handy example. Religion. I'm an atheist myself and athough I do not know for sure I would bet also you are (or at least agnostic). I do no like to be forced to believe irrational things, and coherently, I desire the same freedom for others.
But let's take a look to former, less evolved societies. Suppose there's a group of people (tribe, clan, whatever) named A, who has no belief or at least common belief, based in the "freedom of thought" principle. There's also a group of people named B who has a common belief, achieved by cohercion if necessary. Individuals would be happier in A because they're free to choose. In B, as a way to justify what's happening, the tenets of the belief include the "this is the only true religon" and "everybody who is not with us is against us". B is united by a common ground who gives them a common purpose. B would be likely the cause of conflict between these two groups, and all things equal, due to uniformity in thought and purpose, the group who will most likely survive to the conflict is B.
B survives -> As are assimilated or eliminated -> B previals and get stonger, And the cicle repeats, with C...
This is based in the memetics theory or Richard Dawkins, which, imo, has a lot of sense. Societies, as superstructures, would evolve in a comparable way as living beings do. But the rules are the same and works more of less in the same way. The survival of the fittest [society].
From this POV, it does not matter how fair it is, but how well it works. Eusocial insects are a good compative example.
All of these ways of organizing humans and economy happened because they could happen, and prevailed [when did] because they worked. They were part of the spontaneous order because as living beings, we are also part or it, so our behavior has to be. Dinosaurs extinguished, but they were still products and part of the natural order...
I agree with you that such natural state of things which could have worked in past times is, fortunately, outdated. New ones will happen, and those rigid structures cannot work much longer [at least in the same way] because the improvement in the distribution of information makes societies much more dynamic.
No one can prevent a religious zealot to be exposed to rational ideas that could make he/she to question his beliefs. Maybe some of them will still refuse to abandon their positions, but some of them will do it because they're not anymore forced to only know what they knew until such moment...
Agree.Even though human populations can be divided by culture and geography, I think technology has gone a long way in bridging these gaps and will continue to do so even long after our death. This, I believe, portends very good things for the future of our species if we ever manage to dispense with traditional patterns of politico-economic organization and embrace the unknown.
Last edited by MensSuperMateriam; 06-17-2014 at 08:43 PM.
LEL. Crusties got intellectual.
Neither are possible. There are too many humans and we are too
uncivilized.
I would choose to kill myself rather than witness and live during those tribulations
that either would bring.
Lel.