galenrox said:I think I'm more of an anti-statist or an anarchocapitalist. I was on an anarchist forum for a while, and they DESPISED me, especially since I pointed out that in true lawlessness, choosing an economic policy (since they all seemed to be communists) for everyone was contradictory, since the people would be in the position to decide for themselves whether to live as a commune or trade or whatever.
But yeah dude, I'm stoked, anarchy isn't a topic that comes up too often.
galenrox said:Well I take libertarianism as the means to the end, with the end being anarchy. If you take a kid and toss him into the deep end, he might drown, but if you teach him to swim, than eventually he can be eased into the deep end, so I think that government should be phased out over time, as we figure out the more complex aspects of surviving in an arachistic society, such as how to deal with poverty, insider trading, accounting issues, the processes by which a consumer becomes informed, because I am under the impression that for an anarchistic society to survive then everyone needs to be informed, or at least have the capability of being informed.
Also in dealing with monopolies, and so on, I'm sure you've thought of the same ****.
galenrox said:yeah, I'm a believer that humans crave order, at least to a degree, I just personally don't believe that government, and the formalness and beurocracy that comes with it is the way to have such order. I think common law would probably still exist, but it would be applied in a more practical manner, none of these set sentences and minimum sentences, etc.
Anarchist said:I'll just copy & paste what I said on the other thread:
I'm 100% anti-central government but I guess in a way I support a collection of local quasi-governments. They could simply be gatherings of residents within a particular territory or district or what have you and the people could come to a consensus on what behavior is and isn't to be tolerated. These "laws" or rules would be enforced the same way they currently are: with guns.
I'm pondered the idea of building prisons but, economically speaking, what incentive would there be?
Petty crimes could be punished through some form of forced community service (slavery), moderately severe crimes could be punished through some form of public physical abuse (beating, whipping) with the length/severity of the abuse coorelating with the seriousness of the offense and the worst crimes (rape, murder) could be punished by a simple public execution. Sounds primitive but I guarantee it would deter many criminals.
Australianlibertarian said:Capital punishment is not a deterent, otherwise there would be no murder in nations that practice capital punishment.
galenrox said:I have to say I'm in agreement with Australianlibertarian on the death penalty aspect of things, but I also see that in an anarchistic society such executions as somewhat inevitable. What I think the prevailing source of order would be social justice, the people respond as they deem appropriate. Another complexities is what to do with the crazy people (christian right, raging liberals, etc., people who, if in greater numbers would be dumb enough to think that they need to attack a different area to enforce their rules)
galenrox said:of course, and I'm pretty confident that the communities would find a way of having some sort of cohesiveness, and people would choose to live where they would fit in.
Your and my type of radicalism is not the type of radicalism I'm really thinking of. I'm talking about the radicals who approach situations where "I'm right, and I can't allow you to live like you do, but instead I will do whatever neccisary to make sure you live according to my rules", you know the combination between radical beliefs, egocentrism, idiocy, and a little pinch of jewish grandmother type of radicalism.
Anarchist said:galenrox, what are your views on a military?
Kelzie said:I'm just going to post one of my many, MANY issues with anarchy (come on, I'm a commie, what did you expect). I'll give you that most "groups" of people will form some kind of informal government. It's in human nature after all. And these informal "groups" might form some sort of connection with other neighboring "groups". Medical research would be gone. Gone. Wiped off the face of the planet. Governments give medical breakthroughs a way of not only spreading, but profiting. And that's why people do it. Nobody, but nobody is going to try and find a cure for cancer when it will only affect a couple thousand people. No money would be made. A government provides a connection between more people than we could do alone. That's why we created it in the first place.
galenrox said:yeah, our plan isn't perfect, but unlike you and your kind, we're actually trying to work these issues out BEFORE half the world decides to give our plan a shot, instead of pulling the whole "We thought it was a good idea, sorry for being responsible for the deaths of millions and ruining countless nations!" thing.
Kelzie said:And, might I add, you have WAY to much faith in corporations. Why do you think we have anti-monopoly laws? Because that is what corporations naturally do. They seek to maximize profits. Without those laws, they would stick it to the little people. They would have no reason not to. And as soon as one of the "little people" tried to challenge them by opening a rival, they would drop their price and put them out of business. We've seen it happen before. It will happen again without laws.
Anarchist said:I'm not advocating economically isolated communites, just socially diverse ones. The United States does plenty of business with countries like Saudi Arabia and we're worlds aprt in the social realm. A widespread market would very much reward medical research among other things through private loans through either banks or individual investors.
Anarchist said:Monopolies are only bad when they gouge prices and trample on their workers, both of which are perfect oppurtunities for competing companies to capitalize.
Kelzie said:A widespread market requires some kind of higher power to be functional. Unless you think the leader of a community has time to not only deal with the issues his community faces, but also trade agreements for, literally hundreds of thousands of other communities.
Anarchist said:The only power the market needs to be functional is the human motive to capitalize. And it wouldn't be up to the "leader" of a community to deal with these issues, there'd be plenty of people working in that arena.
galenrox said:Oh ho ho, I am quite a bit smarter than you give me credit for (and modest too!), and what you're talking about is merely what happened on the face, when in fact it was the massive beurocracy that inevitably comes with communism and socialism that made it possible for someone with a thurough understanding of beurocracy, politics (since, when taken away from the people, which communism and socialism inevitably do, things become pure politics), and brutality to take power. The more government there is, the easier it is to manipulate if you have the right skills.
galenrox said:yes, but then who's to say that it would not be possible to eliminate those problems through an informed public and a system of common law, without the presence of government?
Kelzie said:Hardly. A competing company does not have the resources that monolpolies have. We saw that before there were anti-monopoly laws in the US and in developing companies. It is almost impossible to compete with monopolies. They have too much capital and too big of a choke hold on the industry. If the market took care of them, the government wouldn't have created laws to.
Kelzie said:And how, pray tell, would you inforce a common law without a government?
And how would you keep the public informed? Through a media that no longer has to be semi-independent? With no authority requiring a media to publish the truth, how would you be sure that your newspaper is not publishing what the monopolies want you to hear?