Some thoughts on why I'm an anarchist - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The 'no government' movement.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14103305
When I consider what I don't like about the government it is not so much that they have a monopoly on power or that it is immoral, nor do I feel some longing for tribalism or the like.

I simply dislike the monopoly on ideology that it has by neccesity.

I am an individualist at heart, and what I dislike about government is that be you a communist, fascist, or liberal you must live in the ideology of the state. I have no choice but to live under the current regime of liberal-capitalism no matter my thoughts on it.

I also dislike it's monopoly on morality. When I live under the laws of the government those laws can only represent one view of right and wrong, but I do not believe there is such a single moral truth.

This is what I truly desire from anarchism, not necessarily that a collective government cannot exist but hat it cannot force you to stay.

What I want is a system under which any ideology or moral system can exist so long as any individual can know of the alternative societies and groups and be able to leave for them at any time.

When we argue about economics we cannot prove ourselves right or e other wrong, especially when the argument is about the subjective rightness or wrongness of systems. So too is it impossible to prove or disprove an organization of society or moral code.

We cannot even manage to measure the relative merits of systems by objective measures.

I wish to find or create a system under which any group can live out their own beliefs and goals in piece, a world where individuals decide their values and live them.

What is required for this?

A meta system must exist under which all these systems run, it would consist by whatever means of the rules that allow these societies.

All individuals must be able to know about and move to another group.

Any group that attempts to force subjects to stay or hide the other systems from the subjects or propagandize against other groups must not only be deterred but disbanded by the other groups.

Groups must be prevented from fighting each other and a system must be in place to resolve differences between groups.
#14103314
I wish to find or create a system under which any group can live out their own beliefs and goals in piece, a world where individuals decide their values and live them.


Some systems must inevitably consume others to survive, you would have to restrict those for it to work (defeating your whole object).


Groups must be prevented from fighting each other and a system must be in place to resolve differences between groups.


So you would have a state to enforce your ideas? :lol:
Last edited by Decky on 11 Nov 2012 03:01, edited 1 time in total.
#14103328
I sympathize with your distaste for the state's monopoly on power, but I wonder if there is any workable way around this. You cannot opt out of your family, nor erase the influences of the first decade of your life. You cannot opt out of the culture you were born into. You cannot opt out of the economic system you live under.

Will you not pay your taxes? Will you refuse to carry a driver's license? Then you are not really an anarchist, at least not yet. You are, like most of the rest of us here (I include myself), just someone who's unhappy with the way things are.

You may rebel against the status quo, but the very act of rebellion is both an act of obeisance to and an acknowledgement of the hegemony of the system from which you flee. You may choose to fight, but the choice to become a fighter distances you from your fellow men: you can no longer exist in a natural state of grace with those around you, but instead adopt a life of struggle against that which others will simply accept.

By rejecting the world order you condemn yourself to a life of unhappiness, without necessarily providing any clear path out of the wilderness for those who follow.

But it is the unhappy people who end up changing the world. Perhaps you will get that chance...perhaps you will make that chance happen.

Good luck.
#14103330
mikema63 wrote:I am an individualist at heart, and what I dislike about government is that be you a communist, fascist, or liberal you must live in the ideology of the state. I have no choice but to live under the current regime of liberal-capitalism no matter my thoughts on it.

So, you like anarchy because it would make communists, fascists and liberals all happily live together?? :?: I don't know about communists (they seem like a dreamy utopian bunch), but surely neither fascism nor liberalism is compatible with anarchy, or with each other. You must misunderstand these ideologies very strongly...

mikema63 wrote:This is what I truly desire from anarchism, not necessarily that a collective government cannot exist but hat it cannot force you to stay. What I want is a system under which any ideology or moral system can exist so long as any individual can know of the alternative societies and groups and be able to leave for them at any time.

Modern nations don't generally keep their people in by force, with few exceptions... Most people already know of the alternative societies, and are able to leave for them. What are you talking about??

mikema63 wrote:A meta system must exist under which all these systems run, it would consist by whatever means of the rules that allow these societies. [...] Any group that attempts to force subjects to stay or hide the other systems from the subjects or propagandize against other groups must not only be deterred but disbanded by the other groups. [...] Groups must be prevented from fighting each other and a system must be in place to resolve differences between groups.

Sounds like you want some worldwide, international governing body with representatives from most nations, a la UN, an idea quite different from "anarchy".
#14103381
Why are non-Anarchists answering the question? Of course you people don't get or understand what he's about. :eh:

mikema63 wrote:I simply dislike the monopoly on ideology that it has by neccesity.


I can agree with this to a point, though I don't think the state is always wrong, I do usually find its way of being right annoying.

mikema63 wrote:I am an individualist at heart,


Ditto in the sense of "let me do my thing, as long as I'm not hurting anyone". In the sense that we should help each other out I think we should feel some obligation to do so, though I hesitate to legislate that all that much, except in terms of economic well being. In that case, clearly socialism is the answer. The kind where we all work, not social liberal states.

mikema63 wrote:I am an individualist at heart, and what I dislike about government is that be you a communist, fascist, or liberal you must live in the ideology of the state


Everyone is seizing on this and bleating about it, but I think you didn't mean this exactly. I think you meant to say people should be free to be whatever they like as long as, under your umbrella, they live and let live. If that means they are a given ideology or religion or whatever else, then so be it as long as they don't upset the ordered disorder. I can agree with this, though it would never be perfect.

As far as the rest of what you've going on down there, I'll dip into Utopian waters even though I don't, for one minute, believe we'll achieve any Utopia. To my way of thinking if you've built a good society, one most people appreciate, then many problems associated mainly with poverty and gross inequality go away on their own. Were such a society possible and achievable I could conceive of only one penalty for any action deemed worthy of being criminal: Permanent Exile. Be it murder, child molestation, whatever. The penalty is exile. At lower levels, what we'd call misdemeanors now, I'd like to see the community handle those things themselves (someone hoards too much... whatever, someone fights illegitimately, whatever...).

Point being, if anyone actually wanted to leave of their own accord, more power to them.

Don't know if that helps.

Decky wrote:So you would have a state to enforce your ideas?


This is one of the biggest issues. A society as I've described above would require a military/police force to defend itself from outside forces. I believe internal disputes could be solved in other ways.

quetzalcoatl wrote:I wonder if there is any workable way around this.


Of course there is.

quetzalcoatl wrote:You cannot opt out of your family, nor erase the influences of the first decade of your life. You cannot opt out of the culture you were born into. You cannot opt out of the economic system you live under.


What does any of this have to do with getting rid of the state, and I maintain that while you are stuck with the name (actually you can change it) and the blood you can pretty much opt out of everything you just listed. It's called: Moving!

quetzalcoatl wrote:Will you not pay your taxes? Will you refuse to carry a driver's license? Then you are not really an anarchist,


So the only way to be an anarchist is to refuse to pay taxes and not get a driver's license?

quetzalcoatl wrote:You may rebel against the status quo


Maybe it's revolution and not simple rebellion.

quetzalcoatl wrote:the very act of rebellion is both an act of obeisance to and an acknowledgement of the hegemony of the system from which you flee.


That doesn't make any sense at all. The fact that I don't acknowledge the state's authority means I acknowledge the state's authority? Sorry, you probably are making some point, but it isn't all that clear to me what you meant.

quetzalcoatl wrote:You may choose to fight, but the choice to become a fighter distances you from your fellow men


It also brings you closer to other fighters. Most likely people more like yourself.

quetzalcoatl wrote:you can no longer exist in a natural state of grace with those around you,


If you win, you are in a state of grace. Its as if you are assuming all is lost before its begun. I find that to the problem with most people. They are overwhelmed from the get-go by the state's power, and concede defeat before they ever fight anything. Besides, nature is conflict. While it may not be as safe, to say that is not graceful is an oversimplification.

quetzalcoatl wrote:By rejecting the world order you condemn yourself to a life of unhappiness, without necessarily providing any clear path out of the wilderness for those who follow.


Ummm... lol wut? Who says that? I can be perfectly content to fuck shit up, while simultaneously showing people a better way. To be honest, I don't think you're all that familiar with real anarchy.

quetzalcoatl wrote:But it is the unhappy people who end up changing the world.
Many people have changed the world. I'd say guessing whether or not they were unhappy is a guess at best. Furthermore, there gets to be that evil word called "duty" where you begin to understand that your personal happiness may have nothing whatsoever to do with your role in life. If that's the case, then pursuing your own happiness at the expense of your duty is nothing short of decadence.

Don't get me wrong, I think you mean well enough here, and I am not being a dick with you on any level. I'm simply thinking you have a view that really hasn't spent a lot of time considering the things real anarchists do.

lucky wrote:So, you like anarchy because it would make communists, fascists and liberals all happily live together??


He didn't mean it that literally.

lucky wrote:I don't know about communists


Actually I find its their opponents that say that all the time, but most of the communists seem to understand that the system that want is not Utopian at all, but simply something better than capitalism.

lucky wrote:Modern nations don't generally keep their people in by force, with few exceptions... Most people already know of the alternative societies, and are able to leave for them. What are you talking about??


He's talking about the freedom to be whatever without having to accept the state's values,and don't give me any crap about the west being free and blah, blah, blah. Their most certainly are certain restrictions to living in the west, be they governmental or otherwise. If I go into town, pee on a flag, and say "All of our military troops are Imperialist faggots enforcing the value of the dollar by the point of a gun" I'm not going to live very long. This is what he means. At least, something along these lines.

lucky wrote:Sounds like you want some worldwide, international governing body with representatives from most nations, a la UN, an idea quite different from "anarchy".


Actually it sounds to me like he wants a loose confederation of agreeing, autonomous states at worst, and simply a coalition of cooperating people with loose political associations. What was Paradigm's terminology? Networks, not hierarchies? Something like that.
#14103384
I thought anarchists want small communities that don't interfere with one another, which is what the OP is suggesting. Of course, the individual communities would have to apply some sort of system of government, even if it were on a small scale.

I suppose a problem would be that some resources cannot be divided up. If some people want to prevent large scale environmental disasters, they will need cooperation among everyone, but the free-marketeers won't want to think about emissions and polutants.
#14103488
Demosthenes answered many of the problems that came up. :lol:

@hap many anarchists think our anarchic system and anyone who tries anything to different from that dies. :hmm:
#14103524
To my way of thinking if you've built a good society....

I disagree.

A "good" society? Mike is an anarcho-capitalist. For capitalism to work it requires a political organisation that preserves and defends the position and interests of the propertied classes.
Last edited by ingliz on 11 Nov 2012 15:23, edited 1 time in total.
#14103608
ingliz wrote:A "good" society?


Loosely speaking, something to be envied, and a place where people want to come.

ingliz wrote: For capitalism to work it requires a political organisation that preserves and defends the position and interests of the propertied classes.


Obviously, I'm not going to support anything like that. Don't get me wrong, I'm never going to challenge you on creation and/or structure of a true Marxist-Leninist state. I get that you're than man. :lol:

mikema63 wrote:My position is that if capitalism can't exist without that, then I am not a capitalist.


It appears he isn't a capital "A" An-Cap. I suspect, like many others, he simply doesn't want to be called something else out of cultural disdain for leftist labels. It's rather common in NA, as you well know.

Decky wrote:Keep going... :p

I knew you were too intelligent to stay Libertarian.


Agreed.
#14103724
Demosthenes wrote:Why are non-Anarchists answering the question? Of course you people don't get or understand what he's about. :eh:

What question? Nobody will eve understand anything if you only talk to the converted.
What does any of this have to do with getting rid of the state, and I maintain that while you are stuck with the name (actually you can change it) and the blood you can pretty much opt out of everything you just listed. It's called: Moving!

No you can't.
You can flee as fast you can, but you can never escape your history, both on an individual level and on a societal level. You don't ever start from zero, you start from the particular point in the social matrix where you were deposited.
So the only way to be an anarchist is to refuse to pay taxes and not get a driver's license?

You're being somewhat obtuse. At some point you stop talking about making the journey, and actually make the first step on the journey.
That doesn't make any sense at all. The fact that I don't acknowledge the state's authority means I acknowledge the state's authority? Sorry, you probably are making some point, but it isn't all that clear to me what you meant.

Very well, I will switch to linear mode.

By rebelling (or revolting) you acknowledge that the state has become, at least for you, so all-powerful and ubiquitous that there is no longer space for you to make a life. Thus it is no longer enough for you to ignore the state, resist it, or make some alternative arrangements with like-minded people within its matrix. You must smash the state - it's very existence becomes an unbearable thorn in your side. Although not quite on the level of becoming a commissar, this is an act of obeisance. The psychological burden this imposes is nearly unbearable: it is no accident that the founders of neo-conservatism were Marxists.

What is the specific nature of this psychological burden? Constantly remaining on the cusp of rebellion (often for decades) without ever taking the first step to commit. Whether it is not paying taxes or something else is irrelevant, it is the act of commitment that frees you from the deadening stasis.

Ummm... lol wut? Who says that? I can be perfectly content to fuck shit up, while simultaneously showing people a better way. To be honest, I don't think you're all that familiar with real anarchy.

Probably true.
#14103729
It appears he isn't a capital "A" An-Cap.

Mike, capital "A" or not, believes 'that capitalists derive no fundamental advantage from the exploitation of workers, that the workers derive no fundamental disadvantage from their exploitation by capital, that workers would derive no fundamental advantage from ceasing to be exploited, that the condition of being exploited does not entail an ‘interest’ in the cessation of class exploitation, that the relations between capital and labour have no fundamental consequences for the whole structure of social and political power, and that the conflicting interests between capital and labour are all in the eye of the beholder'.

Why do you choose to defend his position?


:eh:
Last edited by ingliz on 11 Nov 2012 19:07, edited 1 time in total.
#14103751
Well the last two, that the relationship behind labor and capital has consequences and that the conflict is not in the eye of the beholder I certainly believe.

Don't see why I shouldn't. Somebody is wrong the other is right on the issue.

What I want is not to impose my position but to allow others to follow their path. If it turns out I'm wrong I'll not only move but most every worker will move out of the capitalist communities as well and capitalism will smply collapse.

No need to go and kill me. ;)
#14103799
Somebody is wrong the other is right on the issue.

Don't be silly.

This is not a moral dilemma, there is no right and wrong, what is "right" for labour is "wrong" for capital and vice versa.


:lol:
#14103874
But I'm a laborer and I don't necessarily see all these wrongs.

Morality is subjective anyway so no one can make claims about right and wrong.

If you convinced all the workers that liberal capitalism was absolutely and morally good and you could make them happy and believe its in their intrests. Then it may as well be.
#14103924
If you convinced all the workers that liberal capitalism was absolutely and morally good and you could make them happy and believe its in their intrests. Then it may as well be.

You have already conceded that labour and capital's interests conflict.

Mike wrote:conflict is not in the eye of the beholder I certainly believe.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 11 Nov 2012 21:44, edited 1 time in total.
#14103928
Two sides of any transaction always have conflicting interests, e better the deal for one the worse off the other (relatively).

Capital and labor are two sides of a transaction so I cannot see why it would be contested. :?:

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]