Modern Anarchy: Justification

Without getting into to much detail, it has become clear to me over the past couple months that government needs us more than we need it. It is paid through an immense income tax which saps profit from our own labor and is contingent on our support to exist. When most Americans are asked what our government does, they will say that it protects us. Protects us from what? While we enter baseless wars with middle eastern countries, noone protects those at home. Wealth in America is completely disproportionate and politics, dominated by corporate lobbying, has done little to prevent this. In fact, during the past 20 years, the record shows that wealth has become increasingly concentrated in the upper percentage of elite in this country.

Meanwhile those who perform essential work--such as fishing, harvesting, and other practices which bring us the base items necessary for survival--are paid in relatively low wages. In fact, to make work one must employ others and exploit a percentage of these people's labor. This is why the boat owner benefits the most from the practice of fishing, or why the potato factory owner gets paid ten times what the person who picks potatoes gets.

So the working question is would America be better without government or with a severely reduced government. While some of my reasoning is outlined here the main tenets are covered in full detail within this blog:

http://tidesofinequity.blogspot.com/

 

You haven't given much thought to the consequences of live without government, have you?

I'm not happy with the disparity of income, but it's a bit safer than having gangs of armed thugs in charge of the country raping and pillaging as they please.

.

 

Oh, you mean the US military? Yes, I agree that we'd be much better off without them.

 

You must be a member of the Tea Party. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prevents the U.S. Military from being used against American citizens. There are no military troops on the streets of America acting in any other capacity than citizen.

But then, why let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good argument.

.

 

Nope. Sorry. The Tea Party is merely the latest instance of working class people feeding the mouth that bites them.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! You didn't follow the events following Hurricane Kathrina, did you? That is so laughable, it doesn't even deserve a refutation. You are a rare person insofar as I'd say you WOULD benefit from watching the news, at least a little bit.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about American citizens, so I have no idea where you got that. I was talking about the US military gangs' habit of killing, kidnapping and molesting hundreds of thousands of innocent people abroad.

Such as the fact that the US military is made of gangs of armed thugs who kill, kidnap and molest at their own discretion? Yes, I see why you wouldn't want to take that into account.

 

anarchy + monetary system =

, etc


anarchy - monetary system = equilibrium

 

Boguskyle, is this a reference to "anarcho-capitalism"? Because I am not an "anarcho-capitalist." I do agree that "anarcho-capitalism" leads to these things, but Anarchism and monetary systems do not add up to gangs that murder and pillage. I think you are confusing "monetary systems" with economic inequality, capitalism, etc. In fact, a monetary system based on labor, where each individual receives the full product of his labor, is the most egalitarian way to organize an economy.

 

Well you can move to Somalia and give it a try to see what happens when government collapses.

 

its a reference to a resource-based economy.

you don't think anarcho-capitalism would lead to pillaging/theft? hmmm idk what to say to you. it perpetually exists right now even without anarchy. and as for murder, it perpetually exists especially if there are possible incentives or motives.

i think anarcho-capitalism is kind of a contradiction.

i'm not confusing monetary systems with economic inequality/capitalism. i mean monetary systems as every kind including communism, socialism, capitalism, etc.

and i couldn't disagree more that labor-based economies are the most egalitarian

 

To have capitalism, you need government. You need something to enforce contracts, deals, property rights, ect vs hoping someone with more guns than you doesn't come along.

 

No government =/= Anarchism

Anarchism is the belief that all hierarchies are unjustified. Government is only one of them, arguably the most important one, but not by far the only one (in other societies, tribalism, sexism and ageism are far more important than statism; in our societies, capitalism is more important than statism). Certainly Somalia can be described as a stateless society, and it has made great strides economically and socially, but it's not explicitly Anarchist in nature. In actuality, Somalia is probably best described as a feudal theocracy.

To a certain extent the violence in Somalia is due to the anticipation of a new government, with each faction fighting for supremacy. In fact, it was proven a while ago that the US financed many Somali warlords.

 

You seem to have read my last message very badly. I said the exact opposite of what you attribute to me. I said:

I do agree that "anarcho-capitalism" leads to these things [i.e. gangs of armed thugs pillaging]

Then are you plainly wrong. Monetary systems in and of themselves are not unethical.

What is more egalitarian than each person receiving the full product of their labor?

 

Actually anarchy is literally defined as the absence of government:

Somalia is in fact not true anarchy, because different clans and factions fight over the land and have various levels of control. This is exactly would would happen anywhere else which lacked government.

 

No, a lack of government does not imply tribalism. If people have no other goals but to belong to a group, then yes, some form but tribalism will be the necessary consequence. Anarchism is an explicit commitment to socialism, and thus rejects both possibilities.

Quoting a dictionary definition for a technical subject is not a valid argument, especially when we're talking about people's beliefs. Sorry.

 

Actually it's completely valid since anarchy both by definition and collequially refers to a belief of no government and always has and for the near future will. Sorry.

Also socialism is lots of government, both in historical use and also by definition, it's the step to communism where government can then be destroyed.

 

oh ok. I'm confused as to why you wrote the second part then:

this is certainly not the first time i've been told this, and this is definitely not the last time. these sentences mean nothing to me and to this conversation/debate

people receiving their resources and products with or without labor. thats more egalitarian. and that view has always become corrupted and failed, but that is with a monetary basis of belief and a dependency on labor and without appropriate/developed technology.

edit: with what i said this^^^: what's egalitarian is without the dependance of labor

 

Only if you are trying to straw man the belief of actual Anarchists. It is true that before the rise of capitalism, Anarchism referred more generally to anti-Statism. But Anarchists of the present time understand both the exploitative aspects of capitalism as well as the importance of sexism, racism, etc. This is why the definition you refer to is invalid in the context of what actual current Anarchists believe.

No. The basic definition of socialism is: an economic system where the means of production are not owned by private individuals. Socialism can be statist or Anarchist.

 

this is certainly not the first time i've been told this, and this is definitely not the last time. these sentences mean nothing to me and to this conversation/debate

 

You can't change definitions to suit your own beliefs. Anarchists as a whole believe in no government, it's the definition of the word, it's how it's used, anything else refers to something that is not anarchy. Socialism requires a state. Pick up a dictionary.

 

Once again, dictionary definitions are not relevant to technical topics. Look at wikipedia, which is an updated encyclopedia, and therefore has much more current and in-depth definitions.


Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations.
...
There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[5] Strains of anarchism have been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.[6][7] Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[8][9] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics. However, anarchism has always included an individualist strain [10] supporting a market economy and private property, or morally unrestrained egoism.[8][11] Some individualist anarchists are also socialists.

Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.