Paging Poster xsanguine

Not a call out, but just curious about something. You have referred to yourself as a mini-anarchist a few times, and I was wondering how that differed from anarchy? I looked around before asking, and could only come to the conclusion that it possibly departed from anarchy over property (in some way or another). Is that correct?

Sup, TN.

Minarchist. It differs from anarchism simply by the existence of a state. It's referred to as a "night watchman" society. There are varying levels, unlike anarchism which is pretty self-explanatory;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism
"In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions."

I couldn't even get a Wiki page....but it looks like I was spelling it wrong. Anyway, this sounds much classical liberalism (something in the mold of John Locke), which is now probably an orthodox libertarianism.  Is the a fair assessment?

Turtleneck wrote:I couldn't even get a Wiki page....but it looks like I was spelling it wrong. Anyway, this sounds much classical liberalism (something in the mold of John Locke), which is now probably an orthodox libertarianism.  Is the a fair assessment?

Very similar, yes. However, the distinction between the two, while subtle, is centered around market forces. In the John Locke mold of libertarianism you have a state, while modified and stripped down heavily, still exists outside of any market (not just budget). Defense, courts, police, etc. are all static institutions under that setup. In a minarchist setup those functions are heavily dependent on the market forces of the time. I know it's a dirty word to those I generally identify with... but it's that (*gulp*... free) market that determines the size, scope, and even functionality of those municipalities. Libertarianism still allows (even if not desired) for some all-encompassing federal institution whereas minarchism aims for a more localized solution and certainly rejects the federal model. Minarchism follows the non-aggression principle for addressing "governing", or whatever you'd call it... libertarianism is more keen on the tyranny of the majority model that we're currently using.

I've always maintained anarchism is the only moral choice to make... but minarchism is the realistic choice one could make. But, people have been wrong about society for as long as there's been a society, though... so maybe after I'm dead and dust I could be proven wrong, one way or the other.

Thanks for the reply. If I may, I have a few other questions.

What is the justification for placing defense, police, and other public services under the direction of the market? That seems rather dangerous. Like you, I have little faith in a centralized authority and prefer community governance. However, it seems as if you are just turning over authority to market forces without any regulation. The problem here is that the private sector is another place of authority that undermines freedom and limits our development. How do you control for this, or is it a matter of disagreement? While the concept of the state is flawed, free markets have proven to be equally as flawed. Finally, you mention anarchism as the moral choice. So why not anarchism? If it is the only moral choice, then why is not the only choice?

Turtleneck wrote:Thanks for the reply. If I may, I have a few other questions.

Ask as many questions as you'd like, TN; I'm more than happy to answer and even more eager to discuss. I'm also, by no means, any sort of authority on the subject and don't claim to be... my research into the matter is an ongoing interest for me. I guess that is obvious and goes without saying... but just want to make clear I'm not married to any particular idea or ideals... this just happens to be the neighborhood my current leanings on the matter have found themselves, for now.

Turtleneck wrote:
What is the justification for placing defense, police, and other public services under the direction of the market? That seems rather dangerous.

That's certainly a valid fear. For me it's justified by organically determining each of those services' value rather than it being arbitrarily assigned by forces that found their way into making those decisions through a system of forced taxation controlled through the threat of violence. Look at the police forces we have now... we have towns with populations in the mere thousands that have police forces that have tanks, for crying out loud. Every town now has a SWAT team... and also find every opportunity to use that SWAT team. Every warrant served for a pot dealer now involves no-knock home invasions by individuals suited up for war.

We've been using our sickeningly over funded military for imperialism and even much darker aims that results in thousands upon thousands upon thousands of deaths around the world all for simple business interests (the businesses themselves don't fund these armies... forced taxation does)... to this very day. That seems much more dangerous, to me.

Turtleneck wrote:
Like you, I have little faith in a centralized authority and prefer community governance. However, it seems as if you are just turning over authority to market forces without any regulation.
The problem here is that the private sector is another place of authority that undermines freedom and limits our development.

What authority is the private sector going to exercise? In a free market, the private sector is being "voted" on or out practically everyday... consumers fund those private companies up until they are no longer useful or cease providing a service desired by those consumers. Now if or when those entities begin to flex "authority" is when consumers stop purchasing from them or another entity comes along and provides the service better, cheaper, or without the authority that perhaps spurned those consumers in the first place.

Turtleneck wrote:
How do you control for this, or is it a matter of disagreement? While the concept of the state is flawed, free markets have proven to be equally as flawed.

This is where I have to disagree, entirely, TN. When have free markets been proven to be flawed? I'm not even aware of a time in history where a free market has existed... let alone a mature free market allowed to blossom.

Turtleneck wrote:
Finally, you mention anarchism as the moral choice. So why not anarchism? If it is the only moral choice, then why is not the only choice?

Well, I'm certainly an advocate of anarchism, in theory... the reason why I stress minarchism is because any change towards anarchism would need to be gradual in order to succeed and part of that gradual evolution includes minarchism on the way. If society did succeed in implementing a lean minarchist philosophy, anarchism would simply be an inevitability.

xsanguine wrote:

Ask as many questions as you'd like, TN; I'm more than happy to answer and even more eager to discuss. I'm also, by no means, any sort of authority on the subject and don't claim to be... my research into the matter is an ongoing interest for me. I guess that is obvious and goes without saying... but just want to make clear I'm not married to any particular idea or ideals... this just happens to be the neighborhood my current leanings on the matter have found themselves, for now.



That's certainly a valid fear. For me it's justified by organically determining each of those services' value rather than it being arbitrarily assigned by forces that found their way into making those decisions through a system of forced taxation controlled through the threat of violence. Look at the police forces we have now... we have towns with populations in the mere thousands that have police forces that have tanks, for crying out loud. Every town now has a SWAT team... and also find every opportunity to use that SWAT team. Every warrant served for a pot dealer now involves no-knock home invasions by individuals suited up for war.

We've been using our sickeningly over funded military for imperialism and even much darker aims that results in thousands upon thousands upon thousands of deaths around the world all for simple business interests (the businesses themselves don't fund these armies... forced taxation does)... to this very day. That seems much more dangerous, to me.



What authority is the private sector going to exercise? In a free market, the private sector is being "voted" on or out practically everyday... consumers fund those private companies up until they are no longer useful or cease providing a service desired by those consumers. Now if or when those entities begin to flex "authority" is when consumers stop purchasing from them or another entity comes along and provides the service better, cheaper, or without the authority that perhaps spurned those consumers in the first place.



This is where I have to disagree, entirely, TN. When have free markets been proven to be flawed? I'm not even aware of a time in history where a free market has existed... let alone a mature free market allowed to blossom.



Well, I'm certainly an advocate of anarchism, in theory... the reason why I stress minarchism is because any change towards anarchism would need to be gradual in order to succeed and part of that gradual evolution includes minarchism on the way. If society did succeed in implementing a lean minarchist philosophy, anarchism would simply be an inevitability.

All very interesting, but I am not sure I am following. Let me start with a basic question. How can a state-less society exist in the presence of a market system? I am not sure the two can be separated, and I would argue that the market creates a need for the state. Market economies encourage habits - individualism and competition - that undermine the sense of community necessary to replace the state. How will your market differ in terms of a process of socialization that does not threaten the sense of community you will need for cooperative governance?

At first, it seems great to divide the state from those services before re-introducing them on the basis of actual need rather than assumptions about need. However, I have concern about the relationship between services and market forces. Since the market encourages concentrations of wealth and power, or at least facilitates such concentrations, what stops the private sector from acting as an authority similar to that of the state? While you say the power of consumer, I have doubts the consumer can stand up to the private sector over time.  For example, if police forces are in the hands of powerful private sector actors, has the power of the consumer been rendered moot by the power of violence now possessed by private sector actors? I am not sure that I trust a private sector to act in the best interests of the community. While you say that businesses do not fund armies, you admit that much state action is done on behalf of businesses. If this is true, in the absence of the state, I suspect the private sector would find a way to replace the power of the state with the power of its own recourses. With its ability to marshal resources, I suspect the same imbalance of power between individuals and the state would arise between individuals and the private sector.

Do you think there is a reason why a truly free market (without state intervention) has never existed? Would that not be like a football game without officials? While we consider Adam Smith to be the father of capitalism, even Smith had moral reservations about implications of free markets. Overall, the need to profit in a competitive environment seems to beg some sort of regulation. Overall, I am not sure we can have both a stat-less society - a society governed by community norms - and a market economy.

Turtleneck wrote:

All very interesting, but I am not sure I am following. Let me start with a basic question. How can a state-less society exist in the presence of a market system? I am not sure the two can be separated, and I would argue that the market creates a need for the state. Market economies encourage habits - individualism and competition - that undermine the sense of community necessary to replace the state. How will your market differ in terms of a process of socialization that does not threaten the sense of community you will need for cooperative governance?

Perhaps it's me that is confusing things by using wrong terminology or assuming some understanding of my own principles.

When I talk about a free market, all I'm talking about is individuals trading objects or services with a perception of value. I'm not seeing a need for the state in that equation. I can certainly see where they could be perceived as useful and we can obviously point out the areas in which they have taken part in our current mixed economy.... but I don't see them as necessary and in fact I see them as harmful. I guess that's the entire argument from my side; That a state is not only unnecessary but also a great source of problem based on their need to use violence and force against individuals in order to guide the market as they (the state) sees fit... rather than letting individuals determine what the market does via purchasing power. To me, that's where real voting occurs.

When we get down to it... that's really what my source issue is with the state; they eliminate any individual's claim to being free based on their purpose and tactics with which they assert those purposes. Being a free man and living a life free of force from another man or men should be standard.

Turtleneck wrote:
At first, it seems great to divide the state from those services before re-introducing them on the basis of actual need rather than assumptions about need. However, I have concern about the relationship between services and market forces. Since the market encourages concentrations of wealth and power, or at least facilitates such concentrations, what stops the private sector from acting as an authority similar to that of the state?

But again... in absence of a free market having ever actually existed... we're using pejorative examples under unfree markets, like the one we're currently in, and assigning those eventualities to a theory based on what I view as incorrect association. I believe the way our market is structured right now encourages those concentrations of wealth and power... with an overpowering state that implements regulations, rules, fines, etc on behalf of the largest corporations in order to keep competition low and their dominance over particular industry intact. Which is how we get politicians doing favors for executives of large corporations doing favors for politicians doing more favors for executives of large corporations doing more favors for politician friends of these politicians doing more favors for big business friends of the initial big business executives.

By incorrect association I mean this, as an example; People hate Republicans (for good reason) ----> Republicans protect big business ----> Big business takes advantage of state in order to perpetuate an unfree market via Republicans (and Democrats but not necessary to point out in this example) ----> Those who push for free markets agree with Republicans in a lot of separate, unrelated issues ----> The people assume free markets are related somehow to big businesses taking advantage of the industry and market via politicians (the opposite of a free market).

Turtleneck wrote:While you say the power of consumer, I have doubts the consumer can stand up to the private sector over time.  For example, if police forces are in the hands of powerful private sector actors, has the power of the consumer been rendered moot by the power of violence now possessed by private sector actors?

What violence would these police forces be subjecting the consumer to and on behalf of which company? To force them to buy their products? At that point, if you have a company more interested in using violence to secure the funds of consumers... they would no longer be in the business of providing any sort of product or service.... they're in the business of robbing everyone. And they're convincing security forces to perpetuate the violence for them? And we're to assume everyone is just going to go along with that? It seems much easier to just provide a service and earning far more money than trying to become some piracy outfit.

Turtleneck wrote:
I am not sure that I trust a private sector to act in the best interests of the community. While you say that businesses do not fund armies, you admit that much state action is done on behalf of businesses. If this is true, in the absence of the state, I suspect the private sector would find a way to replace the power of the state with the power of its own recourses. With its ability to marshal resources, I suspect the same imbalance of power between individuals and the state would arise between individuals and the private sector.

Bill Gates, according to Forbes, is worth $72 billion dollars. In 2012, the budget for the United States military was $683.7 billion dollars for just that one year.

Bill Gates, the richest man in America.... could only fund the United States military, which hasn't exactly achieved it's goals against guys riding camels and living in mud huts (let alone a country of 330 million people, with the highest gun ownership per capita)... for just under 10 days.

Given how expensive it is to run a military campaign in order to steal limited funds from others... to spend that much money simply to try to control the masses to marshal resources I'm not sure he'll be able to recoup...

I would think he would just go back to pursuing another computer related endeavor... that worked out well for him in the first place.

I don't trust the private sector, either... which is why I don't want to give them a vehicle (government) with which they can corner and control and use their guns (which are maintained through threat of violence, taxation) in order to enforce laws that serve their very specific interests of control and domination of an industry. If that vehicle doesn't exist then that business has to rely on providing a superior product people will want to trade their resources for in order to acquire.

Turtleneck wrote:
Do you think there is a reason why a truly free market (without state intervention) has never existed?

Certainly. A free market has never existed because an anarchy has never existed. A market is either free or it isn't... once an entity that relies on force and violence to operate interjects itself, it is no longer a free market.

Although, if you're inferring a free market has not existed based on some perceived inferiority my response would be that a representative democracy did not exist until there was a representative democracy. As smart as we think we are, I guarantee 500 years into the future we'll look just as primitive to those then as we see those that lived 500 years ago now.

Turtleneck wrote:
Would that not be like a football game without officials?

I don't think I get the metaphor.

Turtleneck wrote:
Overall, the need to profit in a competitive environment seems to beg some sort of regulation.

In a free market, free society... you're free to profit or compete as much as you'd like or not. Regulations, in theory make sense, but they're most often just implemented through friendships made by the biggest businesses and politicians in an effort by those businesses to keep competition low. When small businesses can enter the market place without unnecessary hurdles... competition among businesses is higher, resulting in a lower price or better product or any number of things that benefit the consumer. That's when a consumer gets to have a say in the matter... when they are allowed to vote with their resources.

Turtleneck wrote:Overall, I am not sure we can have both a stat-less society - a society governed by community norms - and a market economy.

I answered a similarly worded statement up above.

I'm curious to hear an elaboration on the bolded, though...

serious question, xsaguine..

why isn't the NRA in Ferguson discussing the evils of government tyranny? What is your opinion?

Robert J Sakimano wrote:serious question, xsaguine..

why isn't the NRA in Ferguson discussing the evils of government tyranny? What is your opinion?

I'm not very familiar with the views of the NRA, to be honest, Sak. I come from a very liberal and Democrat voting immediate family, it's only been within the past 10 years or so that I've meandered from that status quo. I've always assumed the NRA to be the sister club of the Republican party (like Sinn Fein and the IRA). Which if that is accurate, I doubt they see a government of Republicans as government tyranny. Probably only when Dems are in office. Democrats and Republicans are virtually indistinguishable in that respect... actually, they seem to share far more similarities than differences... at least from where I'm sitting.

I'm against what a police officer represents in our current society, so the incident in Ferguson only further fuels that view. It's obvious the young man that was shot was not your model citizen, but unless he truly made a go at that cop, it's no reason to be killed.

The looting isn't exactly helping their cause, either. But maybe they should be allowed to police themselves, their own community? They're obviously not happy with the individuals and laws assigned to them by people they can't relate to and apparently don't relate to them. Here in NYC... if you call the cops, they will not show up. Period. I haven't experienced this just one or two or three or four or five times... this is just how it is... funny that I never see them pass up a chance to give out open container or possession of marijuana tickets. I've lost count how many times I've called the cops and no one shows up. I've gone to the precinct to file complaint after complaint and it never changes. When I have an issue, I call Shomrim patrol and Shomrim patrol only... which is the Hasidic volunteer police force. They show up within 3 or 4 minutes; ALWAYS. They don't have any authority to arrest anyone, but they sure as shit keep the neighborhood tight as a drum and one of the lowest crime rates in the borough... and it's surrounded by some very seedy areas.

xsanguine wrote:

I'm not very familiar with the views of the NRA, to be honest, Sak. I come from a very liberal and Democrat voting immediate family, it's only been within the past 10 years or so that I've meandered from that status quo. I've always assumed the NRA to be the sister club of the Republican party (like Sinn Fein and the IRA). Which if that is accurate, I doubt they see a government of Republicans as government tyranny. Probably only when Dems are in office. Democrats and Republicans are virtually indistinguishable in that respect... actually, they seem to share far more similarities than differences... at least from where I'm sitting.

I'm against what a police officer represents in our current society, so the incident in Ferguson only further fuels that view. It's obvious the young man that was shot was not your model citizen, but unless he truly made a go at that cop, it's no reason to be killed.

The looting isn't exactly helping their cause, either. But maybe they should be allowed to police themselves, their own community? They're obviously not happy with the individuals and laws assigned to them by people they can't relate to and apparently don't relate to them. Here in NYC... if you call the cops, they will not show up. Period. I haven't experienced this just one or two or three or four or five times... this is just how it is... funny that I never see them pass up a chance to give out open container or possession of marijuana tickets. I've lost count how many times I've called the cops and no one shows up. I've gone to the precinct to file complaint after complaint and it never changes. When I have an issue, I call Shomrim patrol and Shomrim patrol only... which is the Hasidic volunteer police force. They show up within 3 or 4 minutes; ALWAYS. They don't have any authority to arrest anyone, but they sure as shit keep the neighborhood tight as a drum and one of the lowest crime rates in the borough... and it's surrounded by some very seedy areas.

I appreciate your answer..

I'm just wondering why gun nuts aren't discussing real government tyranny in Ferguson - not the stuff they make up to scare suburban white people and knuckle-dragging rednecks.

I'm pretty sure we all know the answer.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

I'm pretty sure we all know the answer.

  

Politicians equate politics to warfare and effective leadership in war requires deception. Conceal your true belief system until you've won, then apply your principals. All politicians practice this method. Say one thing, do another. This is why all politicians are shitty people. It isn't that power corrupts but that "power attracts the corruptible".

xsanguine wrote:

Perhaps it's me that is confusing things by using wrong terminology or assuming some understanding of my own principles.

When I talk about a free market, all I'm talking about is individuals trading objects or services with a perception of value. I'm not seeing a need for the state in that equation. I can certainly see where they could be perceived as useful and we can obviously point out the areas in which they have taken part in our current mixed economy.... but I don't see them as necessary and in fact I see them as harmful. I guess that's the entire argument from my side; That a state is not only unnecessary but also a great source of problem based on their need to use violence and force against individuals in order to guide the market as they (the state) sees fit... rather than letting individuals determine what the market does via purchasing power. To me, that's where real voting occurs.

When we get down to it... that's really what my source issue is with the state; they eliminate any individual's claim to being free based on their purpose and tactics with which they assert those purposes. Being a free man and living a life free of force from another man or men should be standard.



But again... in absence of a free market having ever actually existed... we're using pejorative examples under unfree markets, like the one we're currently in, and assigning those eventualities to a theory based on what I view as incorrect association. I believe the way our market is structured right now encourages those concentrations of wealth and power... with an overpowering state that implements regulations, rules, fines, etc on behalf of the largest corporations in order to keep competition low and their dominance over particular industry intact. Which is how we get politicians doing favors for executives of large corporations doing favors for politicians doing more favors for executives of large corporations doing more favors for politician friends of these politicians doing more favors for big business friends of the initial big business executives.

By incorrect association I mean this, as an example; People hate Republicans (for good reason) ----> Republicans protect big business ----> Big business takes advantage of state in order to perpetuate an unfree market via Republicans (and Democrats but not necessary to point out in this example) ----> Those who push for free markets agree with Republicans in a lot of separate, unrelated issues ----> The people assume free markets are related somehow to big businesses taking advantage of the industry and market via politicians (the opposite of a free market).



What violence would these police forces be subjecting the consumer to and on behalf of which company? To force them to buy their products? At that point, if you have a company more interested in using violence to secure the funds of consumers... they would no longer be in the business of providing any sort of product or service.... they're in the business of robbing everyone. And they're convincing security forces to perpetuate the violence for them? And we're to assume everyone is just going to go along with that? It seems much easier to just provide a service and earning far more money than trying to become some piracy outfit.



Bill Gates, according to Forbes, is worth $72 billion dollars. In 2012, the budget for the United States military was $683.7 billion dollars for just that one year.

Bill Gates, the richest man in America.... could only fund the United States military, which hasn't exactly achieved it's goals against guys riding camels and living in mud huts (let alone a country of 330 million people, with the highest gun ownership per capita)... for just under 10 days.

Given how expensive it is to run a military campaign in order to steal limited funds from others... to spend that much money simply to try to control the masses to marshal resources I'm not sure he'll be able to recoup...

I would think he would just go back to pursuing another computer related endeavor... that worked out well for him in the first place.

I don't trust the private sector, either... which is why I don't want to give them a vehicle (government) with which they can corner and control and use their guns (which are maintained through threat of violence, taxation) in order to enforce laws that serve their very specific interests of control and domination of an industry. If that vehicle doesn't exist then that business has to rely on providing a superior product people will want to trade their resources for in order to acquire.



Certainly. A free market has never existed because an anarchy has never existed. A market is either free or it isn't... once an entity that relies on force and violence to operate interjects itself, it is no longer a free market.

Although, if you're inferring a free market has not existed based on some perceived inferiority my response would be that a representative democracy did not exist until there was a representative democracy. As smart as we think we are, I guarantee 500 years into the future we'll look just as primitive to those then as we see those that lived 500 years ago now.



I don't think I get the metaphor.



In a free market, free society... you're free to profit or compete as much as you'd like or not. Regulations, in theory make sense, but they're most often just implemented through friendships made by the biggest businesses and politicians in an effort by those businesses to keep competition low. When small businesses can enter the market place without unnecessary hurdles... competition among businesses is higher, resulting in a lower price or better product or any number of things that benefit the consumer. That's when a consumer gets to have a say in the matter... when they are allowed to vote with their resources.



I answered a similarly worded statement up above.

I'm curious to hear an elaboration on the bolded, though...

Never got back to you on this. I am sure have been sitting around waiting for my reply, so my sincerest apologies...

All joking aside, there might be a merely definitional issue at play. When you say free market, I am assuming you mean free market capitalism. However, some anarchists advance mutualism as an replacement for free market capitalism. I am no expert, but from my understanding mutualism requires a free market but deemphasizes surplus value. I think this is were I am confused. I am under the impression that you are referring to free market capitalism. If so, I can expand on my previous post and provide some clarification. If not, we might actually be in agreement.

Turtleneck wrote:

Never got back to you on this. I am sure have been sitting around waiting for my reply, so my sincerest apologies...

All joking aside, there might be a merely definitional issue at play. When you say free market, I am assuming you mean free market capitalism. However, some anarchists advance mutualism as an replacement for free market capitalism. I am no expert, but from my understanding mutualism requires a free market but deemphasizes surplus value. I think this is were I am confused. I am under the impression that you are referring to free market capitalism. If so, I can expand on my previous post and provide some clarification. If not, we might actually be in agreement.

No worries... although I would ask for a little clarification myself... any chance you could expand on the bolded? Particularly the italicized...

Reeeeaaalllly late Edit: And I'm just asking so we can define it so that I don't go off on my usual long-winded TL;DR and then find out I'm completely off about the definition. :bom

And I'm a fan of Turtleneck the message board poster... so take all the time ya need, brotha-man. I get it, sometimes you lose interest in discussing a particular subject temporarily. Happens to me a lot.

Turleneck,

This is relevant to the thread... it's a gentleman, Stefan Molyneux who runs the #1 philosophy podcast on iTunes, on the Joe Rogan podcast (another very popular podcast) from a month ago.

The entire podcast is very interesting but Stefan is probably the most well-known contemporary anarchist/minarchist... at least that I know of. Anyways, I meant to say the entire podcast is interesting (if you got some time to spare), but he specifically gets into a discussion about anarchism, minarchism, and that entire ordeal at about 12:00 in.



Stefan has been on Joe's podcast three times now... so feel free to watch his others if you have any interest in it.

I appreciate having my very first call out thread (thanks to TN!), but the title to focus on the discussion of ushering in the age of voluntary enlightenment. I find the topic interesting even as someone who still doesn't quite buy anarchism as a working society but feels more of a minarchist/Nightwatchmen society is more appropriate, despite the need for initiation of force/violence (taxation).

"People who wish to do evil congregate to the state... people in power are the people who want power and want to get over the rules they impose on others... people who want to do evil gravitate to where you're exempt from the moral rules, which is at the top of the state apparatus."



Alex Jones has some crazy conspiracy theories but his being a conduit for Molyneux to engage him on the topic of how those who seek power (narcissistic sociopaths) are the ones that fill the statist ranks. Expecting government to solve anything is a tragic misjudgement of what the state actually represents; theft by violence via narcissistic sociopaths.

If you listened to the Joe Rogan Experience podcast with Stefan he discusses the "inherited society". We accept our society based on alpha primate principles because that's what we've inherited through the thousands of years of human evolution... I saw this graphic that explains it perfect, in my opinion;



And a 'heh'



OMGZ who's gonna build the roads!!???!

yo, what up xsanguine..

do you find it as funny as I do that a) republicans are rooting for an Ebola outbreak in America so they can blame the Kenyan Muslim for it and b) that while rooting for Ebola.. and trying to scare intellectually-challenged Americans.. they're also advocating the removal of their healthcare?

republicans are a fun bunch to watch..

Robert J Sakimano wrote:yo, what up xsanguine..

do you find it as funny as I do that a) republicans are rooting for an Ebola outbreak in America so they can blame the Kenyan Muslim for it and b) that while rooting for Ebola.. and trying to scare intellectually-challenged Americans.. they're also advocating the removal of their healthcare?

republicans are a fun bunch to watch..

Republicans have been a funny bunch since they thought continuing the Bush Dynasty was a good idea.

To be fair, the Democrats seem to think continuing the Bush Dynasty policies are okay as long as a guy with a D next to their name is the one doing it.

Fox News has never missed an opportunity for false hysteria. I feel like I'm watching Dustin Hoffman and Morgan Freeman (my favorite actor) in the sequel to Outbreak.

How's everything been going for ya, Bob? Letting anything magical pass through those ears lately?

xsanguine wrote:

Republicans have been a funny bunch since they thought continuing the Bush Dynasty was a good idea.

To be fair, the Democrats seem to think continuing the Bush Dynasty policies are okay as long as a guy with a D next to their name is the one doing it.

Fox News has never missed an opportunity for false hysteria. I feel like I'm watching Dustin Hoffman and Morgan Freeman (my favorite actor) in the sequel to Outbreak.

How's everything been going for ya, Bob? Letting anything magical pass through those ears lately?

those committed to political ideology are doomed for a long life.. at least I can laugh and point at them, though.

I've been kinda busy of late and haven't had much of a chance to dig through some new music.. the Lucero live record is good.. pretty well captures their live performances..

other than that, on a somewhat consistent rotation of Springsteen (I have The River record on shuffle right now in the background - would've made for a hell of a one-album release)

Ryan Adams' new record is worth listening to, by the way.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:those committed to political ideology are doomed for a long life.. at least I can laugh and point at them, though.

I've been kinda busy of late and haven't had much of a chance to dig through some new music.. the Lucero live record is good.. pretty well captures their live performances..

other than that, on a somewhat consistent rotation of Springsteen (I have The River record on shuffle right now in the background - would've made for a hell of a one-album release)

Ryan Adams' new record is worth listening to, by the way.

DOOD! My buddy got tickets to see Ryan Adams at Carnegie Hall and, bless his heart, asked me to go. Very excited.

I haven't listened to the Boss in awhile... I've been listening to country lately (don't laugh). But I think I'm going to binge a little this evening.

What is your opinion on his records after the breakup of the E Street Band? I'm sure you dig them, but how do you feel they stack up with the others?

xsanguine wrote:

DOOD! My buddy got tickets to see Ryan Adams at Carnegie Hall and, bless his heart, asked me to go. Very excited.

I haven't listened to the Boss in awhile... I've been listening to country lately (don't laugh). But I think I'm going to binge a little this evening.

What is your opinion on his records after the breakup of the E Street Band? I'm sure you dig them, but how do you feel they stack up with the others?

from all reports I've heard and read, the Ryan Adams tour is going really well - keep me posted!

I don't really listen to a ton of Springsteen post-Born in the USA. If I do, it's more of the solo stuff - Ghost of Tom Joad is brilliant. I'm vaguely familiar with The Rising stuff but definitely beyond that I kind of tuned out.

That's not to say that it isn't quality material - especially when you consider all the filthy tripe out there that passes as music. I'd say the worst Springsteen tune on the worst Springsteen album is still better than anything else you're going to hear on the radio....

I haven't seen Bruce since about 2002 or so - I made it to 3-4 of The Rising shows.. went to some of the 1999-2000 shows, as well - and a some prior to that. But nothing will ever capture the magic of Darkness on the Edge of Town, Born to Run, Greetings, The Wild, the Innocent and the E Street Shuffle, The River, etc. I still listen to songs that I have literally heard thousands of times and am amazed that single person can write such complex, vivid tunes - especially at the age that his best songs were written..

I mean, really? He wrote Thunder Road when he was 24 years old?

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I still listen to songs that I have literally heard thousands of times and am amazed that single person can write such complex, vivid tunes - especially at the age that his best songs were written..

Dude. Two words. Jungleland. One word.

xsanguine wrote:

Dude. Two words. Jungleland. One word.

Is this thread now about Taylor Swift?

The Boss. Lest you wanna reignite the anarchism train... that's always a fun game around voting season.

But if not... we can go in the direction of Madame Taylor Swift...

I find Springsteen boring and all about supporting establishment.

I do want to get back to the conversation about anarchy. I just got busy and lost track of the conversation. Nobody told me message boarding was going to require thought. I will try to post something soon and we can get back at it.

Turtleneck wrote:I find Springsteen boring and all about supporting establishment.

I do want to get back to the conversation about anarchy. I just got busy and lost track of the conversation. Nobody told me message boarding was going to require thought. I will try to post something soon and we can get back at it.

Hah, no worries, brotha. Whenever you wanna revisit I'll be here.

heh

So how do you feel about human nature? To me this is the starting point for the validity of anarchy. If by nature we are selfish, then government becomes necessary. If by nature we are not selfish, and are willing to cooperate with each other because we recognize that individual well-being is associated with the well-being of the community, anarchy becomes possible.

I guess I am asking this: Is the corruption in politics and the desire to control others a natural human instinct? In other words, people seek power, and when they gain power they naturally lord over others? Or is all of this a product of a society that socializes us to be be greedy and competitive.?

Like I said, this is the starting point for me. We cannot scientifically test human nature for a definitive answer, but it almost seems like we have to accept one or the other.

Turtleneck wrote:So how do you feel about human nature? To me this is the starting point for the validity of anarchy.

I think it's a starting point regardless... whether we're finding validity in anarchy or statism. The same people are going to exist regardless what type of government you have or if you have no government at all.

I would rather not create and universally admire a system which creates the vehicle for those predisposed to dominance and control over others. Then when you add (the legal fiction of) corporations and those predisposed to greed you have quite a powerful combination of the ugly parts of human nature being given direct and absolute control over other people's lives. Give those guys the monopoly of violence over what everyone else can do (appeals to the alpha primates) and monopoly of force over citizen's personal finances (appeals to greed) and I think it's obvious we got what we were gonna get.

Turtleneck wrote:
If by nature we are selfish, then government becomes necessary. If by nature we are not selfish, and willing to cooperate with other because we recognize that out individual well-being is associated with the well-being of the community, anarchy becomes possible.

I'm not sure we're by nature selfish... we did evolve from apes and like them we are social creatures. Trying to survive entirely on your own off the grid is near impossible and very few people can do it... being on the far selfish side of the spectrum is not conducive to survival.

Turtleneck wrote:
I guess I am asking this: Is the corruption in politics and the desire to control others a natural human instinct? In other words, people seek power, and when they gain power they naturally lord over others? Or is all of this a product of a society that socializes us to be be greedy and competitive.?

I certainly believe it's natural human instinct. We evolved from apes... so we definitely inherited the behavioral alpha primate system. I and many others would argue that's where the concept of government comes from in the first place... it's just a system we've inherited and over the years has been modified as we've evolved further and further away from the primitiveness of the ape swinging through the trees in the jungle.

Turtleneck wrote:
Like I said, this is the starting point for me. We cannot scientifically test human nature for a definitive answer, but it almost seems like we have to accept one or the other.

Yeah, we can't really scientifically test... but I think it's fair to state that we most likely obtained our behavioral patterns based on our shared genetics with our ancestors.

TN,

Do I gotta wait another 4 months to continue this conversation or wha?

Privatize profits... socialize losses.

That's the greatest gift government has given to the 1% (besides slavery). And they've given many A+ gifts.

yo, xsanguine..

what's up, dude? What albums you been listening to lately?

Robert J Sakimano wrote:yo, xsanguine..

what's up, dude? What albums you been listening to lately?

Sup, Bob....

I'm... alright. Just got back from a trip to Michigan to see the folks, first time in a few years... kinda weird. Then I come back and it's weird and everything just seems weird. Not sure where my place is, ya know? Did you experience anything similar moving from down south?

I drive (I hate flying, very afraid) to and from so I actually have been downloading podcasts cause music fatigues me and starts causing me to dose off but when I needed a break from Dan Carlin or Stefan Molyneux or Joe Rogan I was listening to some Oasis... their first two albums.

xsanguine wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:So how do you feel about human nature? To me this is the starting point for the validity of anarchy.

I think it's a starting point regardless... whether we're finding validity in anarchy or statism. The same people are going to exist regardless what type of government you have or if you have no government at all.

I would rather not create and universally admire a system which creates the vehicle for those predisposed to dominance and control over others. Then when you add (the legal fiction of) corporations and those predisposed to greed you have quite a powerful combination of the ugly parts of human nature being given direct and absolute control over other people's lives. Give those guys the monopoly of violence over what everyone else can do (appeals to the alpha primates) and monopoly of force over citizen's personal finances (appeals to greed) and I think it's obvious we got what we were gonna get.

Turtleneck wrote:
If by nature we are selfish, then government becomes necessary. If by nature we are not selfish, and willing to cooperate with other because we recognize that out individual well-being is associated with the well-being of the community, anarchy becomes possible.

I'm not sure we're by nature selfish... we did evolve from apes and like them we are social creatures. Trying to survive entirely on your own off the grid is near impossible and very few people can do it... being on the far selfish side of the spectrum is not conducive to survival.

Turtleneck wrote:
I guess I am asking this: Is the corruption in politics and the desire to control others a natural human instinct? In other words, people seek power, and when they gain power they naturally lord over others? Or is all of this a product of a society that socializes us to be be greedy and competitive.?

I certainly believe it's natural human instinct. We evolved from apes... so we definitely inherited the behavioral alpha primate system. I and many others would argue that's where the concept of government comes from in the first place... it's just a system we've inherited and over the years has been modified as we've evolved further and further away from the primitiveness of the ape swinging through the trees in the jungle.

Turtleneck wrote:
Like I said, this is the starting point for me. We cannot scientifically test human nature for a definitive answer, but it almost seems like we have to accept one or the other.

Yeah, we can't really scientifically test... but I think it's fair to state that we most likely obtained our behavioral patterns based on our shared genetics with our ancestors.

xsanguine wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:So how do you feel about human nature? To me this is the starting point for the validity of anarchy.

I think it's a starting point regardless... whether we're finding validity in anarchy or statism. The same people are going to exist regardless what type of government you have or if you have no government at all.

I would rather not create and universally admire a system which creates the vehicle for those predisposed to dominance and control over others. Then when you add (the legal fiction of) corporations and those predisposed to greed you have quite a powerful combination of the ugly parts of human nature being given direct and absolute control over other people's lives. Give those guys the monopoly of violence over what everyone else can do (appeals to the alpha primates) and monopoly of force over citizen's personal finances (appeals to greed) and I think it's obvious we got what we were gonna get.

Turtleneck wrote:
If by nature we are selfish, then government becomes necessary. If by nature we are not selfish, and willing to cooperate with other because we recognize that out individual well-being is associated with the well-being of the community, anarchy becomes possible.

I'm not sure we're by nature selfish... we did evolve from apes and like them we are social creatures. Trying to survive entirely on your own off the grid is near impossible and very few people can do it... being on the far selfish side of the spectrum is not conducive to survival.

Turtleneck wrote:
I guess I am asking this: Is the corruption in politics and the desire to control others a natural human instinct? In other words, people seek power, and when they gain power they naturally lord over others? Or is all of this a product of a society that socializes us to be be greedy and competitive.?

I certainly believe it's natural human instinct. We evolved from apes... so we definitely inherited the behavioral alpha primate system. I and many others would argue that's where the concept of government comes from in the first place... it's just a system we've inherited and over the years has been modified as we've evolved further and further away from the primitiveness of the ape swinging through the trees in the jungle.

Turtleneck wrote:
Like I said, this is the starting point for me. We cannot scientifically test human nature for a definitive answer, but it almost seems like we have to accept one or the other.

Yeah, we can't really scientifically test... but I think it's fair to state that we most likely obtained our behavioral patterns based on our shared genetics with our ancestors.

I tend to disagree that the same people will exist in either anarchy or statism. To a great degree, I see people as conditioned by their social world. This includes social and political institutions. To me, many of these institutions - and you named many of them in your second paragraph - corrupt people. I feel that if we are pre-disposed to certain behaviors; if we lust for domination and are inherently greedy, there is little hope for a state-less society. Without the state and the order it provides via its monopoly of violence, people would run roughshod over each other. the most well intended social institutions would not be able to overcome our nature.

I could say that if corrupt institutions socialize us to be ugly, then well intended institutions could do the opposite. However, I am more inclined to think that if we are innately bad, corrupt institutions only bring that out and well intended institutions would have little influence in the opposite direction. Because of that, I am left to think that we are not so bad. We are fairly rational and privilege survival, and maybe we can cooperate in place of a central authority.

The notion of selfishness is pretty interesting. We are certainly self-interested, but that is not the same as selfish. Selfish is a dangerous path to walk. I am not sure living off the grid constitutes selfishness, but stealing and harming others for your own personal gain certainly points toward selfishness. The question becomes whether or not this is natural behavior or social behavior learned from our environment? The latter is something we can overcome, but I am not sure we can overcome nature.

At the end of the day, I am not sure anarchy really ever deals with the issue of human nature. I can only assume that it finds goodness in human beings, as finding humans to be naturally ugly is a real blow to a philosophy that values freedom over authority.

xsanguine wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:yo, xsanguine..

what's up, dude? What albums you been listening to lately?

Sup, Bob....

I'm... alright. Just got back from a trip to Michigan to see the folks, first time in a few years... kinda weird. Then I come back and it's weird and everything just seems weird. Not sure where my place is, ya know? Did you experience anything similar moving from down south?

all the time.

I might not experience that weirdness to the degree that you do because a) I've been living in East Lansing for 20 years now, I have a family here, part of the community, etc.. East Lansing is "home" now.. and b) I get back to North Carolina quite a bit.. probably 3-4 times a year.

but I know that weird feeling you're talking about.. sort of like being a stranger in your own house.

X, say something interesting. It's getting boring in here.

Something interesting.

I've just exhausted myself of political/social topics lately. I'll get back to it when I'm more in the mood, I promise.

It does not have to be about politics. How is the weather today?

Pretty nice. Suppose to get up to 80 again.

Upstate?