POLITICS

[Wooderson]

RELEVANT

[Cuyir]

@Schidlersleest:

You're ignoring very prominent aspects of society that are barely ''held'' back by having a structured government. If the entity that is a government and its many branches would say ''fuck off, we're going to be in our bunkers'' the amount of chaos would reach almost hilarious levels. With laws and governments and all that we still end up behaving pretty inhumanly to each other. Just pay attention at Black Friday in the States soon, a really small and ''innocent'' example of human behavior with rules and guidelines.

You say anarchism ends and another government then rises from the ashes of the old. What then? You didn't really answer my question.

Lets say i'm a diabetic (i'm not). I have daily reminders of how shitty it is and what I have to do to make sure I don't get smacked upside the head by it. I have to watch my diet, I have to make sure to take my medication, make sure I eat, make sure I have quick snacks handy whenever I need them. It's a daily reality. That's how I see a government as. Obviously this is a pretty poor analogy but it sort of works.

If anarchism's only point is to topple the old and support the new then where's the progress? The group that wins out in the end will almost always be the one that is colder, better armed, more manipulative and more adjectives in that vein (look at history). I get the feeling that you view anarchism as an ideal but not a very practical ideal. Just a little speculative fantasy. That's what i'm getting. That and some serious distrust of governments. Considering their track record i'm not surprised.

Are governments flawed? Yes. Some are halfway decent, some are ok, some are quite harmless and others are the sort of governments that get anarchists up in a tizzy. But toppling it through chaos to install a government that was forged by chaos seems like 5 steps back and 2 steps forward.

I'm not saying we should all bow down to our rulers, bend over and take it like "responsible" citizens. I'm just saying you can live within a government without either having to be a pawn or a chest thumping would be revolutionary. There are many middle grounds.

And I'd like to reiterate that there hasn't been a government anywhere (from my very limited point of view, which I share with other people such as yourself) that i've liked but I can live under them without ''losing'' myself and becoming a pawn/sheep/whatever lingo people are using now.

[Ghieri]

And sorry, Batman is not an accurate representation of reality. The problem of crime could be solved right now if we had 10 batmen per country, but that's the point; it's fun to think about because it's a fantasy.

I didn't say batman, I said gotham city. Imagine gotham city without batman and the super powered human part.

[Alardem]

Anarchy? Try Somalia.

[i3670]

Anarchy? Try Somalia.

Well, no. Somalia is a kritarchy or anocracy, or both.

[SchnidlersLeest]

@Cuyir,

I agree that a lot of violence would erupt out of the government abruptly retracting itself, but that's because there are so many people who are dependent on the government at this point. Whether you or I want the government to close, however, it's going to happen. They're going to run out of money eventually, and in the case of the U.S. they've been printing and borrowing like crazy to make it seem like it hasn't already happened. It seems like other countries are following a similar path so this destruction is really global. When people stop getting their food stamps, or welfare checks, or social security checks, and all government employees are let off, you're going to see a lot of riots, and that's when the govt. will pull out the big guns and take defensive strategies against pissed off hungry citizens. Then people will REALLY see the violence inherent in the system; when they're shooting poor and dependent people.

Saying the government prevents chaos is as stupid as saying it progresses society. It's a 10,000 year old concept that has remained relatively the same with exception to its inheritance of new things from the free market. No progress has ever come out of a government and no progress ever will. And this is obvious because the government doesn't actually PRODUCE anything. The government takes wealth from others and uses it in their self interest.


And my argument against governments is fundamentally a moral one. We're in the 19th century. I'm arguing against slavery. You're telling me "Yeah, I don't like slavery, but you learn to live with it because just IMAGINE what would happen if we didn't have slaves doing field work. I'm not saying we should worship slavery, but find a middle ground."

The government is predicated on the initiation of force. What you're worried about happening if a government ceased? People initiating the use of force. See how that's a little contradictory?

The point of anarchism isn't to get rid of what's old and make actual progress. It's to give people freedom, which has historically been the only thing that has led any kind of progress.

[Paddy™]

In Steve Pinker's book "The Better Angels of Our Nature" he argues that it is the creation of governments which has been largely responsible for the extreme and persistent decline in violence our species has witnessed throughout the entire span of our history. When government has the monopoly on violence (criminal punishment, war, etc.) it removes the power to commit violence from the hands of individuals. This has - evidently - created a situation which has reduced the prevalence of violence from every angle you care to look at it, and continues to do so as generations pass by.

Whether or not one agrees with Steve is another matter, of course!

[SchnidlersLeest]

In Steve Pinker's book "The Better Angels of Our Nature" he argues that it is the creation of governments which has been largely responsible for the extreme and persistent decline in violence our species has witnessed throughout the entire span of our history. When government has the monopoly on violence (criminal punishment, war, etc.) it removes the power to commit violence from the hands of individuals. This has - evidently - created a situation which has reduced the prevalence of violence from every angle you care to look at it, and continues to do so as generations pass by.

Whether or not one agrees with Steve is another matter, of course!

Or perhaps it was the invention of nuclear weapons that made dictators less interested in starting wars because THEY might get vaporized. :p

...removed the power to commit violence from the hands of the individuals.

Show me what the government is without showing me individuals.

I would say the real reason for a psychological decline in the inclination for violence would be the accidental event of parents using less violence on children due to the standards of living having increased.

[Paddy™]

Show me what the government is without showing me individuals.

If someone commits a crime against another person they'll go the cops, rather than machete the person themselves. This is what I meant by "individuals".

I would say the real reason for a psychological decline in the inclination for violence would be the accidental event of parents using less violence on children due to the standards of living having increased.

I don't think Steve was arguing that the decline in violence was a psychological thing; we could very well be exactly as bloodthirsty as our ancestors. The data - according to Pinker - seems to show a correlation between the increase of governments and the decrease of violence of all kinds.

It's worth reading, the government angle is only one part of the book. He also talks about our romanticised ideas about the "noble savage" and how we assume, wrongly, that primitive or tribal peoples are by definition more moral and in touch with nature than modern day people, etc.

[SchnidlersLeest]

If someone commits a crime against another person they'll go the cops, rather than machete the person themselves. This is what I meant by "individuals".

Okay, so you meant to say that the power of violence was taken away from the people who weren't the individuals known as the "police." How is that a good thing?

I don't think Steve was arguing that the decline in violence was a psychological thing; we could very well be exactly as bloodthirsty as our ancestors. The data - according to Pinker - seems to show a correlation between the increase of governments and the decrease of violence of all kinds.

Well, I was referring to the data that has long been researched on how human children, or animals in general, respond to violence in their growth when they're young, and how it makes them more violent when they're fully grown, not any sort of fundamental change in our genetics from our ancestors.

It's worth reading, the government angle is only one part of the book. He also talks about our romanticised ideas about the "noble savage" and how we assume, wrongly, that primitive or tribal peoples are by definition more moral and in touch with nature than modern day people, etc.

I would say I have to agree with that; but the most romanticized ideal of an age-old ancient brutal tribal hierarchy is the government! An expansion albeit, but it's, at its core, a violent hierarchy that has been showered in moral nobility and righteousness for hundreds of years! And it is because of its age and because of its brutality that we must abandon it.