You're right, many of them do, my mistake. Of those individuals I was only familiar with writings about liberalism by von Mises and libertarianism by Rothbard. I'm not familiar with any of the others. Though looking them up, a lot of these guys are historians and political scientists. Who, if you ask me tend to speak from a more idealistic perspective than do economists. I personally disagree with the viability of such systems. I find it hard to believe that it could result in anything but massive inequality. Which, left to its own devices, would inevitably result in the reformation of a governing system. Ultimately, an anarchic world is one where money trumps all. As technology advances, material inequality will only get worse. Much like communism, anarchy is only an ideal. In practise it's pretty far fetched in my opinion.
what doesn't work exactly? What if I were to tell you the only difference is taxes. The united states of America was founded on the notion that small local governments are better at representing people than one large government. This is why the tenth ammendment was written. And also the idea that taxes are essentially theft Taxation without representation means that the people have a say in weather or not the taxes are benefiting the tax payers, and weather or not taxation is excessive. There is no reason taxes cannot be voluntary, and some government services only be provided to tax payers (such as libraries). People say if taxes were voluntary then people wouldn't pay them. I say bullshit. There are many ways to incentivise it without force. At this point we are talking about small local governments with voluntary taxes (free market.government) or anarchy that works without the absense of law One other misconception is that the rich will buy free market governments. I say this is not the case. We already have a ssystem where the richest people essentially own the government. The reason is because the power is centralized and the poor don't have "bribing" rights essentially. If governments were smaller scale and taxes were voluntary, this would shift the power from the top 1% (who only own 50% of te wealth) to a more level.playing field where the masses have a say (seeing as they have the other 50%) The concentration of power and force that is big government is what enabled banking cartels and.corperatism Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
What is a free-market government? Would this government still claim a monopoly on the initiation of force? Also, taxes, by defnition cannot be voluntary: noun 1.a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc. 2.a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand. If a government cannot mandate a tax, impose a currency by fiat, or initiate the use of force, then it would operate like a business, right? For other posters wondering about anarchy: Think of instances where animals and people create spontaneous order with no central planning or hierarchy. When two people play a game of chess there is no third party who controls the movement of chess pieces. Both players agree to play the game because they both see benefit in doing so so long as they both follow the rules. This is voluntary association with mutual benefit. This is a simple principle that allows society to operate and grow. When a flock of birds fly, there is no lead bird (unless we are talking about a gander of geese). The group stays together for each individual birds benefit and the path of their flight is chosen by many varying factors. If one individual bird were to choose the course for the entire flock, it would not be able to process the same information that other birds are recieving and would not be as adaptive as a leaderless group that is recieving many pieces of information per bird. The same could be said for traffic flow. While drivers tend to agree upon the same set of rules and obey traffic lights/signals and road rules, there is no single governing authority that controls the travel of individual vehicles. This is relevant to an anarchic sytem of order, because there are rules while there are no rulers. Spontaneous order is more adaptive, more responsive, more egalitarian, more efficient, more reliable/stable, and requires voluntary participation (something which governments simply look past). Spontaneous order is obviously a more prefferable system of organization. http://youtu.be/Op1hdgzmhXM http://youtu.be/4phFYiMGCIY http://youtu.be/XH-groCeKbE http://youtu.be/0DsBkmK91e0 http://youtu.be/NRzwJzOnDwM http://youtu.be/hjJbZllETz8
anarchy? How can a company claim a monopoly in a free market? Forgive my word choices. I simply meant to point out that military, police, and courts, would still exist absent coercive theft Yes. Forgive my word choices Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Semantics. Try reading the posts we made about how society would operate without the institution of monopolized force, legitimized violence, and coercive theft (government) Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
__________________________________________________ Government noun 1.<div>the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: 2.the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed:<div>monarchical government; episcopal government. </div>3.the governing body of persons in a state, community, etc.; administration. 4.a branch or service of the supreme authority of a state or nation, taken as representing the whole:<div>a dam built by the government. </div>5. the particular group of persons forming the cabinet at any given time:\t<div>The prime minister has formed a new government. \t\t the parliament along with the cabinet:\tThe government has fallen. \t </div>6.direction; control; management; rule:<div>the government of one's conduct. </div>7.a district governed; province. 8.political science. 9.Grammar. the extablished usage that requires that one word in a sentence should cause another to be of a particular form:<div>the government of the verb by its subject. __________________________________________________ As we can see, our current definition of government relies upon the presence of certian actors who exercise authority or rule over others. In an anarchistic society, individuals govern their own actions and are not subject to edicts or mandates imposed by another agency or individual. Anarchy <div><div>1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups <a>The word "anarchy" is from the Greek, prefix an (or a), meaning "not," "the want of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus archos, meaning "a ruler," "director", "chief," "person in charge," or "authority." Or, as Peter Kropotkin put it, Anarchy comes from the Greek words meaning "contrary to authority." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 284] </a> ____________________________________________________________________ A "free-market" government is not anarchy. Anarchy is an absence of government. A free-market is an absence of government. </div> </div></div></div>
It is not semantics. Any form of law, rules, guidlines, conformity, is not anarchy. Anarchy cannot work. â— F â—† T â—† W â—
Yuri how can you believe in anarchy that isn't based in NAP? Thought you weren't a believer in the principal bat mobile
Rules exist within Anarchy. Rulers do not exist within Anarchy. Please refer to my earlier post. You seem to be confusing hierarchy and order - the latter does not neccessitate the former. Anarchy 1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups <a>The word "anarchy" is from the Greek, prefix an (or a), meaning "not," "the want of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus archos, meaning "a ruler," "director", "chief," "person in charge," or "authority." Or, as Peter Kropotkin put it, Anarchy comes from the Greek words meaning "contrary to authority." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 284] </a>
Colt, I've been to Vietnam. The traffic isn't quite as harmonious as YouTube makes it out to be. You try crossing the street in that traffic and then tell me that our "centralized planning" system of crosswalks and street lights is ineffective. That being said, you do realize that Vietnam is a Socialist country, right? It's full name is the "Socialist Republic of Vietnam". If that is your best example of anarchy working, then you haven't convinced me of anything.
Once again I pretty much agree with you except what you're describing is not anarchy in its purest form and that is what I'm referring to. You're still talking about local organized bodies. I'm sorry but there are so many things beyond just taxes that become much harder as a result of anarchy. Do you really think anarchy is achievable in modern day america cause I don't? I don't think it would be the end of the world like some people say but I think it would be more detrimental to our society than the current system, even if it is fucked.
I've been to the Philippines and the traffic is also chaotic. This is one of many examples of spontaneous order and is certainly not a "best example". Also, I am not sure if the fact that Vietnam is a Socialist country actually makes any difference in the events of the video, or if you are just pointing out that I can't really provide any example of spontaneous order occuring in a stateless society because there are arguably no stateless societies in our current times (except the possibility of uncontacted tribes, although our observations show that they too are hierarchically structured; chiefs). So in terms of a utilitarianist or consequentialist perspective I really have nothing to offer. From an ethical standpoint, I find Voluntaryism or Anarchism to be superior to other forms of societal organization. Convincing people that voluntary association and universal adherence to non-aggression is prefferable is rather hard though. I am basically asked to prove that something could exist by providing proof that it already exists.
Yes, of course. How else do you prove something to be true, and not just a science experiment or a figment of your imagination? If I asserted that unicorns were real, would you simply take my word for it?
Saying that unicorns exist is different from asserting that spontaneous order and voluntary association will lead to a freer and more stable society. Saying that murder exists is different from saying that murder is immoral. My post refers to instances of spontaneous order and gives examples. I do not claim Anarchy currently exists in society. I do not see how I the burden of proof rests upon me when I am not making a claim that something exists without providing proof. I don't see your example as really being applicable in this situation.
Damn pen, you're still at it? What definition of anarchy are we using by the way? No hierarchy? No forced upon leaders like we have today? Chaos? Purge?? Hell, I'm still trying to figure out how government works. It's a dangerous and inefficient mess, especially in a country full of ignorance. Unfortunately, the bad men with guns, money, and power see us as too good of assets to just let be. Although, I will admit, it doesn't help that the captured generations born into such an inefficient way of life consist mainly of either eager or apathetic followers. Don't worry humans, we'll get it right one day.