This is why voluntarism works

[Green Arrow]

8-year-old boy pays off fellow students' overdue lunch accounts (http://www.wthr.com/story/24882434/2014/03/04/8-year-old-boy-pays-off-fellow-students-lunch-accounts)


A single act of kindness has grown into a national effort - and it was all started by an 8-year-old.

Cayden Taipalus is a third grader at Challenger Elementary School in Howell, Mich. He saw another child get denied a hot lunch because there was no money on his lunch account. The child instead was offered a cheese sandwich.


Cayden went home that day and asked his parents what he could do to help. Together, they created "Pay It Forward: No Kid Goes Hungry." Cayden called family, friends, neighbors and even took back cans to raise money to pay off low income kids' delinquent lunch accounts at school. Last Monday, he handed over the fruits of his labor: $64, which paid for around 150 lunches.


As more people heard about his efforts, more donations came in until Cayden was able to expand his project to help children at other schools. Now his goal is to reach all of the elementary schools in his county.


To do that, he and his parents set up a page on the crowdsourcing website FundRazr with a goal of $12,000 by March 28. As of Tuesday morning, they had already raised more than $11,000.

I love it when it takes children to show statists how FOS they are.

[The Xl]

Children are far more benevolent and less ruthless, on average, than teenagers and adults.

Not sure if this particular situation applies to voluntarism working on a large scale full of adults.

[Ravi]

If they offered him a cheese sandwich because his parents apparently forgot to put money in his account, how did he go hungry?

[Green Arrow]

If they offered him a cheese sandwich because his parents apparently forgot to put money in his account, how did he go hungry?

Giving a child a cheese sandwich as opposed to a hot lunch is like giving a person gruel and expecting them to be fit and healthy. Not going to happen.

[The Xl]

Giving a child a cheese sandwich as opposed to a hot lunch is like giving a person gruel and expecting them to be fit and healthy. Not going to happen.

Some of these school lunches aren't going to make anyone fit and healthy either, honestly.

Really cool of this kid though.

[Ravi]

Giving a child a cheese sandwich as opposed to a hot lunch is like giving a person gruel and expecting them to be fit and healthy. Not going to happen.
I would guess that a cheese sandwich would be better for him than the swill they serve as a "hot lunch".

[Chris]

8-year-old boy pays off fellow students' overdue lunch accounts (http://www.wthr.com/story/24882434/2014/03/04/8-year-old-boy-pays-off-fellow-students-lunch-accounts)



I love it when it takes children to show statists how FOS they are.



Great example of how voluntaryism can start small and spread big.

[The Xl]

I would guess that a cheese sandwich would be better for him than the swill they serve as a "hot lunch".

Depending on the school, this is a possibility, sadly.

[Ravi]

Looks like that the school gave the kid a free sandwich proves that statism works. lol

[Green Arrow]

I would guess that a cheese sandwich would be better for him than the swill they serve as a "hot lunch".

Depends on the school. At my schools, it was generally pretty healthy. Healthier than just bread and cheese, and the hot lunches served to boost our energy and fill us up at the same time.

[Matty]

Giving a child a cheese sandwich as opposed to a hot lunch is like giving a person gruel and expecting them to be fit and healthy. Not going to happen.


overdramatic bullshit

[Green Arrow]

Looks like that the school gave the kid a free sandwich proves that statism works. lol

You'd have to define "works" to make that argument.

[Matty]

8-year-old boy pays off fellow students' overdue lunch accounts (http://www.wthr.com/story/24882434/2014/03/04/8-year-old-boy-pays-off-fellow-students-lunch-accounts)



I love it when it takes children to show statists how FOS they are.


It's pathetic when an 8 year old has to do what a sorry assed parent won't do.

[Chris]

Looks like that the school gave the kid a free sandwich proves that statism works. lol

It wasn't free, ravi, TANSTAAFL. Statism fails.

[Chris]

It's pathetic when an 8 year old has to do what a sorry assed parent won't do.


Perhaps the progressive state keeps the parent in poverty.

[Ravi]

Depends on the school. At my schools, it was generally pretty healthy. Healthier than just bread and cheese, and the hot lunches served to boost our energy and fill us up at the same time.
Here's the menu. It's typical swill, hot dogs, burgers, corn dogs, tacos.....

http://www.howellschools.com/files/filesystem/elementary%20lunch%20menu%202013-2014.pdf

Yeah, a cheese sandwich would be what I'd prefer my child to eat.

Not saying the kid doing the program doesn't have a good heart. But all he's really doing is raising money for the school.

[Green Arrow]

It's pathetic when an 8 year old has to do what a sorry assed parent won't do.

It is, but it's a mark of approval on this kid's parents for obviously raising him pretty damn well. It's impressive to see an eight year old doing what most adults wouldn't.

[Green Arrow]

Here's the menu. It's typical swill, hot dogs, burgers, corn dogs, tacos.....

http://www.howellschools.com/files/filesystem/elementary lunch menu 2013-2014.pdf

Yeah, a cheese sandwich would be what I'd prefer my child to eat.

Not saying the kid doing the program doesn't have a good heart. But all he's really doing is raising money for the school.

It's one of those "random acts of kindness" and an impressive show of charity for a child.

[Matty]

Perhaps the progressive state keeps the parent in poverty.


then they need to get their sorry asses off the couch and into the school to arrange for the taxpayers to provide a free lunch to their babies, or perhaps they could take their food stamps and buy some lunch materials and pack a lunch.

[Green Arrow]

then they need to get their sorry asses off the couch and into the school to arrange for the taxpayers to provide a free lunch to their babies, or perhaps they could take their food stamps and buy some lunch materials and pack a lunch.

The thread topic isn't the parents, it's this eight year old boy's stunning act of charity and voluntarism vs. statism.

[The Xl]

Somewhat off topic, but I think a lot of these kids have problems learning and focusing because of the garbage they it, be it at school or at home.

[Ravi]

Somewhat off topic, but I think a lot of these kids have problems learning and focusing because of the garbage they it, be it at school or at home.
Very true. And the lunch times are awful, most kids have about 10 minutes to scarf down their food. At least in upper grades. Maybe the elementary kids get more time.

[Matty]

The thread topic isn't the parents, it's this eight year old boy's stunning act of charity and voluntarism vs. statism.


then why did you deviate and talk about cheese sandwiches and fruit? Cheese is milk and dairy, protein, bread is carbohydrates, and the fruit rounds out a nice lunch. hell I make cheese sandwiches at home.

[Green Arrow]

Very true. And the lunch times are awful, most kids have about 10 minutes to scarf down their food. At least in upper grades. Maybe the elementary kids get more time.

When I was in elementary, we had about 30 minutes. It's one of the things I'd change if I ever meet my goal of becoming Superintendent of Public Instruction.

[Green Arrow]

Somewhat off topic, but I think a lot of these kids have problems learning and focusing because of the garbage they it, be it at school or at home.

Very true, but unfortunately, without reinforcement from parents, there's not a whole lot schools can do about it.

[Chris]

then they need to get their sorry asses off the couch and into the school to arrange for the taxpayers to provide a free lunch to their babies, or perhaps they could take their food stamps and buy some lunch materials and pack a lunch.

I agree, parents should care and do more, but it can't be forced, and I recall going to bat for my son when he was in high school with a lousy teacher who just couldn't believe a parent had challenged her authority, a typical attitude of schools these days. Fortunately her display of rage happened in a meeting I'd arranged with principal and counselor and her days were numbered.

As for your recommendations, perhaps if we relied less on the state people would rely more on themselves, as the kid in the OP demonstrates.

[The Xl]

Very true, but unfortunately, without reinforcement from parents, there's not a whole lot schools can do about it.

I think both schools and parents are ignorant when it comes to nutrition.

It would behoove schools to hire a nutritionist. Public schools as well. I mean, fuck it, if we're going to waste a bunch of money, might as well do things correctly.

[Mister D]

I think both schools and parents are ignorant when it comes to nutrition.

It would behoove schools to hire a nutritionist. Public schools as well. I mean, fuck it, if we're going to waste a bunch of money, might as well do things correctly.

It's not rocket science. It's truly amazing how ignorant people remain with regard to basic nutrition. It's sheer laziness.

[Chris]

Somewhat off topic, but I think a lot of these kids have problems learning and focusing because of the garbage they it, be it at school or at home.

Oh God, you just reminded me the swill they served at school. :vomit: But what do you expect at statist schools?

I brought lunch from home fortunately.

[The Xl]

Oh God, you just reminded me the swill they served at school. :vomit: But what do you expect at statist schools?

I brought lunch from home fortunately.

Me too. Never once had school lunch, in fact.

[The Xl]

It's not rocket science. It's truly amazing how ignorant people remain with regard to basic nutrition. It's sheer laziness.

Agreed.

[Bob]

8-year-old boy pays off fellow students' overdue lunch accounts (http://www.wthr.com/story/24882434/2014/03/04/8-year-old-boy-pays-off-fellow-students-lunch-accounts)



I love it when it takes children to show statists how FOS they are.

Think about it for a moment.

Government in the form of schools, denied hot lunches to kids.

Kids who felt bad for kids took action.

Yes, kids are better than government. They are still innocent.

[Bob]

Oh God, you just reminded me the swill they served at school. :vomit: But what do you expect at statist schools?

I brought lunch from home fortunately.

I went to high school for 4 years and am trying to recall if I ate at the school cafeteria. I know I carried lunch to school though.

[The Xl]

Very true. And the lunch times are awful, most kids have about 10 minutes to scarf down their food. At least in upper grades. Maybe the elementary kids get more time.

The whole school system is a joke, frankly. Especially public schools.

[Matty]

I agree, parents should care and do more, but it can't be forced, and I recall going to bat for my son when he was in high school with a lousy teacher who just couldn't believe a parent had challenged her authority, a typical attitude of schools these days. Fortunately her display of rage happened in a meeting I'd arranged with principal and counselor and her days were numbered.

As for your recommendations, perhaps if we relied less on the state people would rely more on themselves, as the kid in the OP demonstrates.

Exactly! If we can't force responsibility on parents then don't force it on the taxpayers either. Pack the damn lunch

[Chris]

I went to high school for 4 years and am trying to recall if I ate at the school cafeteria. I know I carried lunch to school though.



Hell, I had to walk to school, 2 miles, uphill both ways! (Stole that from Dr. Who I think.)

[Mainecoons]

That's nothing, I had to walk to school FIVE miles each way in howling blizzards....in Phoenix Arizona no less.

[Chris]

Exactly! If we can't force responsibility on parents then don't force it on the taxpayers either. Pack the damn lunch

Parents need to be re-educated.

I think part of the problem is the economy went bad a ways back and both parents ended up working and depending on school to babysit, and the schools adopted the same attitude.

[Green Arrow]

I think both schools and parents are ignorant when it comes to nutrition.

It would behoove schools to hire a nutritionist. Public schools as well. I mean, fuck it, if we're going to waste a bunch of money, might as well do things correctly.

That's one of the first things I'd do, if put in charge of schools. I'm a fairly good campaigner, so I think I could get parents on my side, too.

[Green Arrow]

Exactly! If we can't force responsibility on parents then don't force it on the taxpayers either. Pack the damn lunch

You lobby your school district to institute Darwinism on your district's children, then. But don't expect people in districts not yours to do the same.

[The Xl]

That's one of the first things I'd do, if put in charge of schools. I'm a fairly good campaigner, so I think I could get parents on my side, too.

If we're going to spend a shit-ton of money on statism, it might as well.....errmm......work? Novel concept, I know.

[Chris]

If we're going to spend a shit-ton of money on statism, it might as well.....errmm......work? Novel concept, I know.

Heard that before, when statism fails it's because not enough was spent, just spend more.

The OP kid probably spent no money on his solution.

[Green Arrow]

Parents need to be re-educated.

I think part of the problem is the economy went bad a ways back and both parents ended up working and depending on school to babysit, and the schools adopted the same attitude.

You touched on the problem. School these days is more like tax-funded daycare to most parents these days. That's one area me and my wife don't budge on. When we have kids, we'll be involved in their education and school every day.

[Green Arrow]

Heard that before, when statism fails it's because not enough was spent, just spend more.

The OP kid probably spent no money on his solution.

That's because statists don't understand that they can't fix a problem by throwing money at it. I bet I could get the school system functioning ten times better for ten times cheaper.

[Green Arrow]

If we're going to spend a shit-ton of money on statism, it might as well.....errmm......work? Novel concept, I know.

That's my thing. Ideally, I'm an anarchist and I will go to my grave advocating for and building toward anarchy, BUT, as long as statists insist on stating, I'm going to develop concrete plans to get the state as "working" as possible.

[The Xl]

Heard that before, when statism fails it's because not enough was spent, just spend more.

The OP kid probably spent no money on his solution.

I agree with this. But if you're going to have a statist system, it shouldn't necessarily mean more money spent, just more wisely spent and more accurately distributed.

[Chris]

You touched on the problem. School these days is more like tax-funded daycare to most parents these days. That's one area me and my wife don't budge on. When we have kids, we'll be involved in their education and school every day.

We were lucky, one of us was usually at home - I've worked at home going on 20 years now.

[Green Arrow]

We were lucky, one of us was usually at home - I've worked at home going on 20 years now.

Yeah, one of us will always be home. Mostly because we're old fashioned and my wife does believe in gender roles within the home.

[Mister D]

Yeah, one of us will always be home. Mostly because we're old fashioned and my wife does believe in gender roles within the home.

They're partly based in biology.

[Green Arrow]

They're partly based in biology.

Okay, you've piqued my curiosity. Whatcha got?

[Mister D]

Okay, you've piqued my curiosity. Whatcha got?

Just my opinion. I could look up sources suggesting, for example, that young children are more closely connected to their mothers but I'm not that into it. At least not today.

[Green Arrow]

Just my opinion. I could look up sources suggesting, for example, that young children are more closely connected to their mothers but I'm not that into it. At least not today.

Fair enough.

[Mister D]

Fair enough.

I just think it's cool what you said. I'm old fashioned like that. :wink:

[Green Arrow]

I just think it's cool what you said. I'm old fashioned like that. :wink:

Yes, I was lucky to find me a refined, sophisticated, old fashioned Louisiana bride :)

[Mister D]

Yes, I was lucky to find me a refined, sophisticated, old fashioned Louisiana bride :)

So did my brother. :grin:

[Peter1469]

It is like Pay it Forward (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_it_forward).

[Peter1469]

I like it when people fill parking meters :smiley:

[Chris]

Just my opinion. I could look up sources suggesting, for example, that young children are more closely connected to their mothers but I'm not that into it. At least not today.

It's pretty much the norm so seems biological, but anthropology has found a number of examples of tribal societies where the women hunted and the men foraged and cooked. I'd say it has more to do with who gets pregnant, which is biological. :-D

[Max Rockatansky]

I went to high school for 4 years and am trying to recall if I ate at the school cafeteria. I know I carried lunch to school though.

Lunch cost money. I mostly brown-bagged it as a kid, but do recall eating school lunches too. I went to a different school about every year in different states and some on military bases, but I don't recall a connect on which was which regarding hot lunches or a bag lunch. Sometimes the old lunch pail with a thermos of milk or juice. I don't recall anything special. Maybe Batman (the old TV version), Man from U.N.C.L.E or Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.

[Peter1469]

I brought lunch because school lunch sucked. I do remember eating it every now and then.

[Mainecoons]

Gees, no kidding. I remember that too.

[Max Rockatansky]

It's pretty much the norm so seems biological, but anthropology has found a number of examples of tribal societies where the women hunted and the men foraged and cooked. I'd say it has more to do with who gets pregnant, which is biological. :-D

That's interesting. Cite a few please.

[Libhater]

I love it when it takes children to show statists how FOS they are.

Wait a minute here, I thought 'you' were a leftist, i.e. a statist? What am I missing here?

[Max Rockatansky]

They're partly based in biology.

My readings and education say it's largely based on biology. Human young need their mothers for sustenance for a couple of years and need close nurturing for several years after that. Women are naturally more nurturing than men. Not that women can't be uncaring assholes or men can't be nurturing. It's just a trend of genders.

An interesting article about stone age society: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/battered-skulls-reveal-violence/

The anarchist utopia some people dream about? Not likely. Just human beings being themselves unhindered by societal rules.

[Max Rockatansky]

I love it when it takes children to show statists how FOS they are.
Great example of how voluntaryism can start small and spread big.

It wasn't free, ravi, TANSTAAFL. Statism fails.
Agreed. The state takes over $2000/year out of my real estate taxes every year. Cut those school funds and let the little bastards fend for themselves! Give me back my taxes too, dammit!

[Matty]

I brought lunch because school lunch sucked. I do remember eating it every now and then.


It does suck, it gets thrown out anyway, most kids sip a little milk and eat dessert, the rest is tossed.

[Green Arrow]

Wait a minute here, I thought 'you' were a leftist, i.e. a statist? What am I missing here?

I am a leftist, but "leftist" does not mean "statist." There are anarchist leftists just as there are statist leftists. Some of the fathers (and mothers) of leftist thought were anarchists.

[Green Arrow]

Agreed. The state takes over $2000/year out of my real estate taxes every year. Cut those school funds and let the little bastards fend for themselves! Give me back my taxes too, dammit!

I'm curious how you got all that from my post.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm curious how you got all that from my post.

No state, no public schools, right? Just schools funded by parents and "volunteers".

[Green Arrow]

No state, no public schools, right? Just schools funded by parents and "volunteers".

Not really, no. You can still have public schools with actual teachers without a state to maintain them.

[Max Rockatansky]

Not really, no. You can still have public schools with actual teachers without a state to maintain them.
Of course you can. Who's going to pay for it? Would you have one-room school houses with one teacher for kids of all ages on every block or would you have a slightly larger school with 3-4 teachers and subdivide the kids into 3-4 classrooms? How would all of this be paid for? Would the teachers go begging door-to-door or would people simply drive by the little school and drop money in a box? Who makes sure the money is properly accounted for? What happens if there isn't enough "volunteerism" money? The teachers just let students go home early and they go to their "real" job? How do you envision such a system working Green Arrow?

I know I'm being harsh, if not downright assholish, in how I present this but I'm a realist. Pipe dreams are fun, but they're imaginary. Real world problems require real world solutions, not cloud castles. Funding schools is as important as monitoring what is taught in schools. Teachers need to eat too. They need to be able to care for themselves when they are sick and they need to save for the future when they retire.

[Chris]

That's interesting. Cite a few please.

Matt Ridley in The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves discusses it. If I have time later I'll thumb through the book and find it.

[Chris]

My readings and education say it's largely based on biology. Human young need their mothers for sustenance for a couple of years and need close nurturing for several years after that. Women are naturally more nurturing than men. Not that women can't be uncaring assholes or men can't be nurturing. It's just a trend of genders.

An interesting article about stone age society: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/battered-skulls-reveal-violence/

The anarchist utopia some people dream about? Not likely. Just human beings being themselves unhindered by societal rules.



Nice strawman that^^. Anarchy is not chaos, it's government by societal rules, norms, traditions, institutions, contracts and the like sans the artificial institution government.

[Chris]

Agreed. The state takes over $2000/year out of my real estate taxes every year. Cut those school funds and let the little bastards fend for themselves! Give me back my taxes too, dammit!

I think the point earlier was parents should be more involved instead of the state aka schools, and that people should volunteer to do more to help each other. Nothing like the typical sarcastic progressive response of letting "the little bastards fend for themselves" was advocated.

[Chris]

I am a leftist, but "leftist" does not mean "statist." There are anarchist leftists just as there are statist leftists. Some of the fathers (and mothers) of leftist thought were anarchists.


Green Arrow

Started reading Anarchism (http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-Documentary-History-Libertarian-Ideas/dp/1551642506/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1394289983&sr=1-2&keywords=anarchism+libertarian), a history in essays by anarchists, how it seems so many revolutions to free man from the state end up instituting another state, and am coming to the conclusion, however trivial, that statists are just frustrated anarchists, impatient to just let society take its natural course, so try to hurry it along, and fail.

[Chris]

Not really, no. You can still have public schools with actual teachers without a state to maintain them.

Was it this thread, no, another, I gave examples of socialist-like cooperatives pooling resources for granaries, markets, companies (Valve), entire towns (Marinaleda), certainly the same could be done for schools. As a capitalist however I would prefer private schools where competition would drive innovation and improvement and lower costs.

[Chris]

Of course you can. Who's going to pay for it? Would you have one-room school houses with one teacher for kids of all ages on every block or would you have a slightly larger school with 3-4 teachers and subdivide the kids into 3-4 classrooms? How would all of this be paid for? Would the teachers go begging door-to-door or would people simply drive by the little school and drop money in a box? Who makes sure the money is properly accounted for? What happens if there isn't enough "volunteerism" money? The teachers just let students go home early and they go to their "real" job? How do you envision such a system working Green Arrow?

I know I'm being harsh, if not downright assholish, in how I present this but I'm a realist. Pipe dreams are fun, but they're imaginary. Real world problems require real world solutions, not cloud castles. Funding schools is as important as monitoring what is taught in schools. Teachers need to eat too. They need to be able to care for themselves when they are sick and they need to save for the future when they retire.


Many of the founders saw the importance of education in maintaining liberty and some like Jefferson put together plans that were implemented. His was designed as a system of local schools, at the county level, fully and solely funded by locals. Some of the funding for local schools was directed toward higher education, state universities like the University of Virginia.

That was real, parts of the system still exist today--those parts not replaced by, overridden by federal control.

Your realism, max, is make believe. Like most progressives, you can't imagine society functioning without government, so talk of that seems unrealistic.

[Max Rockatansky]

Nothing like the typical sarcastic progressive response of letting "the little bastards fend for themselves" was advocated.


pathetic strawman ad hom

http://thepoliticalforums.com/search.php?searchid=866733

[Chris]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/search.php?searchid=866733

Where, max, if you claim logical fallacies, you must substantiate. What you said was a typical sarcastic progressive response to reducing or replacing government. You see it in discussion of education, you see it in discussion of ending wlefare, you see it in discussions of health care, etc etc etc. It derives from years of educational propaganda we can't do anything ourselves--Obama's you didn't build that.

[Max Rockatansky]

Where, max, if you claim logical fallacies, you must substantiate.

Which is why I posted the link of your affinity to toss out accusations of "strawman ad hom" whenever someone disagrees with you.

Your next favorite whine is the use of improper punctuation in quoting you. I find the former to be lame and the latter to be amusing.

[patrickt]

Nice strawman that^^. Anarchy is not chaos, it's government by societal rules, norms, traditions, institutions, contracts and the like sans the artificial institution government.

Which would be the total oppression of anyone "different". It's government by Homeowners Association.

The shining example of voluntarism might be our voluntary income tax.

[Chris]

Which is why I posted the link of your affinity to toss out accusations of "strawman ad hom" whenever someone disagrees with you.

Your next favorite whine is the use of improper punctuation in quoting you. I find the former to be lame and the latter to be amusing.

No, there I pointed out where you made crap up to launch your usual personal attack nonsense.

Here I didn't attack you for something you didn't say or do, but the idea behind what you said.

And what did you do, and continue to do, whine about it, instead of defending your idea. Hell, green challenged you as well, and you couldn't defend it with anything but BS.

Learn how to argue ideas, max, instead of people. As Eleanor Roosevelt put it, "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

[Max Rockatansky]

Which would be the total oppression of anyone "different". It's government by Homeowners Association.

The shining example of voluntarism might be our voluntary income tax.

True and, by it's own structure, couldn't be much larger than a HOA either. A small army could take it down, conscript those they want for soldiers, kill anyone in opposition and impose it's own rule upon the neighborhood before moving on to the next one. It's an old story obviously lost on those dreaming of pie-in-the-sky utopias.

[Chris]

Which would be the total oppression of anyone "different". It's government by Homeowners Association.

The shining example of voluntarism might be our voluntary income tax.


But if anarchy is governance without government how could it then be government? Now I'll certainly admit many an anarchist movement fails, frustrated, and degenerates into government, often oppressive, see the French Revolution for an example.

Anarchy would needs be voluntary and thus could not be coercive. Now my personal preference for the type of voluntary society I'd like to live in would be anarchocapitalism, but but my vision of anarchy would allow for any group of like-minded people to voluntarily form a community and run it however they like, Green would prefer socialism, Kilgram communism, a good number of people, apparently, would prefer some sort of cradle to grave statism.

Income tax is theft.

[Chris]

True and, by it's own structure, couldn't be much larger than a HOA either. A small army could take it down, conscript those they want for soldiers, kill anyone in opposition and impose it's own rule upon the neighborhood before moving on to the next one. It's an old story obviously lost on those dreaming of pie-in-the-sky utopias.

My it's easy, max, to define anarchy in such a way that you can criticise it. But all you do is criticize your own invention of it.

You say "by it's own structure" but give no meaning to the phrase. What structure? Do you mean governmental structure? Or do you mean the sort of social order those who advocate anarchy think of when talking about anarchy.



A small army could take it down, conscript those they want for soldiers, kill anyone in opposition and impose it's own rule upon the neighborhood before moving on to the next one.

Explain then, max, why that doesn't happen now. Why, for instance, does the US not just march up to CA and do that? Or down to Mexico and do that? Account for this fact.



It's an old story obviously lost on those dreaming of pie-in-the-sky utopias.

Anarchy, like the free market, would be messy, dynamic, spontaneous in social order. Anything but perfection. How would that utopian? Why do you tend to think in absolutes?

[Max Rockatansky]

As Eleanor Roosevelt put it, "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
You should take your own advice instead of simply parroting the same old quote every time someone disagrees with you, Chris.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/search.php?searchid=866777

Let me invoke Eleanor Roosevelt again: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
I like what Eleanor Roosevelt had to say: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
~Eleanor Roosevelt
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
~Eleanor Roosevelt

Do try and rise above it, jillian.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
~Eleanor Roosevelt
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
~Eleanor Roosevelt
So much for trying to get back to the topic...

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
~Eleanor Roosevelt

I could go on for another dozen or so posts but I think everyone gets the idea.

[Chris]

You should take your own advice instead of simply parroting the same old quote every time someone disagrees with you, Chris.

Advice about what, max, criticising your opinions and ideas instead of, like you, criticizing people? And how is your harping on that on topic?

[Max Rockatansky]

Advice about what, max, criticising your opinions and ideas instead of, like you, criticizing people? And how is your harping on that on topic?

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
~Eleanor Roosevelt

Back on topic. While the poll linked below shows most Americans volunteer funds and/or time, I fail to see any evidence how a society could function larger than a neighborhood purely on volunteerism. It certainly couldn't function as a nation. Ergo, any state could easily take such a commune by force as history has shown for the past several thousand years.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166250/americans-practice-charitable-giving-volunteerism.aspx

Americans are well-suited for the task, as 65% say they volunteered their time to a religious organization or some other charity in the past year, and 83% say they donated money.

The percentages of U.S. adults who self-report volunteering time and money to charity have been high since Gallup first asked this in 2001. But the percentage of Americans who report volunteering is the highest to date, while donating money is on the low end of the range.

As noted above, those advocating an anarchist school system can't even supply evidence on how such a system would work, how it would function or how it would be sustained. It's easy to envision how a neighborhood one-room school house would work. While that may suffice for a purely agrarian culture, in a world of 7 billion people, they'd quickly be swallowed by a more efficient, more effective form of governance.

[Peter1469]

Nice strawman that^^. Anarchy is not chaos, it's government by societal rules, norms, traditions, institutions, contracts and the like sans the artificial institution government.

Yes, in theory.

[Max Rockatansky]

Yes, in theory.

Agreed. Theories are nice and I also like new ideas, but I'm not going to bet the farm or strap my ass to a theory. I want hard evidence. Proof. So far, across several threads, I've seen zilch regarding how an anarchist society would function and survive in the modern world.

[Green Arrow]

Of course you can. Who's going to pay for it? Would you have one-room school houses with one teacher for kids of all ages on every block or would you have a slightly larger school with 3-4 teachers and subdivide the kids into 3-4 classrooms? How would all of this be paid for? Would the teachers go begging door-to-door or would people simply drive by the little school and drop money in a box? Who makes sure the money is properly accounted for? What happens if there isn't enough "volunteerism" money? The teachers just let students go home early and they go to their "real" job? How do you envision such a system working @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868)?

I know I'm being harsh, if not downright assholish, in how I present this but I'm a realist. Pipe dreams are fun, but they're imaginary. Real world problems require real world solutions, not cloud castles. Funding schools is as important as monitoring what is taught in schools. Teachers need to eat too. They need to be able to care for themselves when they are sick and they need to save for the future when they retire.

The community would establish the schools and any parent who wanted to send their children there could pay into the community school fund. Same thing as now, just without forcing people to pay who may not even want to send their kids there.

[Green Arrow]

Which would be the total oppression of anyone "different". It's government by Homeowners Association.

The shining example of voluntarism might be our voluntary income tax.

The income tax is not voluntary, and thus is not voluntarism.

[Max Rockatansky]

The community would establish the schools and any parent who wanted to send their children there could pay into the community school fund. Same thing as now, just without forcing people to pay who may not even want to send their kids there.

Have you done the math on that? A single teacher making a measly $30,000/year, no benefits, no health care and 30 students would cost the parents of those 30 students $1000/year. Not bad, eh? Now we need to consider the school itself, electricity, maintenance, textbooks and other materials.

We're still talking a one-room schoolhouse, all kids in one grade, right? About 30 families. If we grow the school more, we need to start thinking how we're going to manage such a large entity. 100 students? A 1000? That's just the school. Let's not forget that everything else is going to be managed and funded the same way; the power plant, the water filtration system, the buggy whip factory, etc. Soon we'll have families attending so many meetings to manage these different things nobody will have time to do any actual work.

[Max Rockatansky]

The income tax is not voluntary, and thus is not voluntarism.

He was joking.

[Chris]

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
~Eleanor Roosevelt

Back on topic. While the poll linked below shows most Americans volunteer funds and/or time, I fail to see any evidence how a society could function larger than a neighborhood purely on volunteerism. It certainly couldn't function as a nation. Ergo, any state could easily take such a commune by force as history has shown for the past several thousand years.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166250/americans-practice-charitable-giving-volunteerism.aspx


As noted above, those advocating an anarchist school system can't even supply evidence on how such a system would work, how it would function or how it would be sustained. It's easy to envision how a neighborhood one-room school house would work. While that may suffice for a purely agrarian culture, in a world of 7 billion people, they'd quickly be swallowed by a more efficient, more effective form of governance.



My criticism was still about what you posted, max, not you personally.




While the poll linked below shows most Americans volunteer funds and/or time, I fail to see any evidence how a society could function larger than a neighborhood purely on volunteerism.

And yet societies did just that up until recent progressive times. Nor is personal incredulity much of an argument.



It certainly couldn't function as a nation.

Right, that would be antithetical to the notion of voluntaryism.



Ergo, any state could easily take such a commune by force as history has shown for the past several thousand years.

Already addressed earlier: "Explain then, max, why that doesn't happen now. Why, for instance, does the US not just march up to CA and do that? Or down to Mexico and do that? Account for this fact."



As noted above, those advocating an anarchist school system can't even supply evidence on how such a system would work, how it would function or how it would be sustained.

Already addressed earlier: "Many of the founders saw the importance of education in maintaining liberty and some like Jefferson put together plans that were implemented. His was designed as a system of local schools, at the county level, fully and solely funded by locals. Some of the funding for local schools was directed toward higher education, state universities like the University of Virginia."


Overall, you're still arguing against what I consider misconceptions of voluntaryism and anarchy.

[Chris]

Yes, in theory.

What theory are you talking about, peter? Which theory of government?

[Chris]

Agreed. Theories are nice and I also like new ideas, but I'm not going to bet the farm or strap my ass to a theory. I want hard evidence. Proof. So far, across several threads, I've seen zilch regarding how an anarchist society would function and survive in the modern world.



Oh I agree as well, theories of government are a didme a dozen. Like assholes and opinions, everyone's got one.

[Peter1469]

What theory are you talking about, peter? Which theory of government?

Look at a globe. It has landmasses subdivided by nations. Not collections of contractual communes. :wink:

[Chris]

Look at a globe. It has landmasses subdivided by nations. Not collections of contractual communes. :wink:

Artificial divisions. Naturalistic fallacy.

Peter, as usual, you just don't want to discuss this topic seriously or sincerely, so why bother?

[Max Rockatansky]

Look at a globe. It has landmasses subdivided by nations. Not collections of contractual communes. :wink:

Agreed. In fact, if we gave that globe a good spin, we'd be hard put to find any large areas of anarchism, "communes" or other such societies. For good reason too, they'd soon collapse under their own weight. Pastoral societies can't exist in areas the size of cities much less the size of even small nations.

[Max Rockatansky]

Artificial divisions. Naturalistic fallacy.

Peter, as usual, you just don't want to discuss this topic seriously or sincerely, so why bother?

More of your infamous "strawman ad hom" style of posting.

Peter is sincere and serious, but since he disagrees with your vision, you resort to comments like "naturalistic fallacy" and accusations of insincerity. That's bad faith posting, Chris.

[Chris]

More of your infamous "strawman ad hom" style of posting.

Peter is sincere and serious, but since he disagrees with your vision, you resort to comments like "naturalistic fallacy" and accusations of insincerity. That's bad faith posting, Chris.



Sorry, but he, and you, commit the naturalistic fallacy of arguing that what is (more what you perceive as is) is what should be. Pointing out the fallacy is a counterargument.

Your inventing my motivations is a straw man--don't like me pointing it out, stop bitching and stop doing it.

Another straw man is your twisting what I did say--"Peter, as usual, you just don't want to discuss this topic seriously or sincerely, so why bother?" -- into what I did not say, that "Peter is [NOT] sincere and serious." Saying he has not serious or sincere interesting in the topic is not saying he is not serious and sincere as you twist it.

Peter's argument is always the one or two word half-thought "theory" when in fact he is the one arguing government theories.

Stop talking about talking, max, and actually do some talking.

[Peter1469]

You are a clown. If you can't recognize reality, I can't help you. :smiley:

Run along and play, Chis in a contract based society.


Artificial divisions. Naturalistic fallacy.

Peter, as usual, you just don't want to discuss this topic seriously or sincerely, so why bother?

[Chris]

You are a clown. If you can't recognize reality, I can't help you. :smiley:

Run along and play, Chis in a contract based society.



Aw, poor peter, reduced to mere ridicule.


That, btw, max, is what people do when they can't disagree reasonably, act disagreeably.

[Codename Section]

Have you done the math on that? A single teacher making a measly $30,000/year, no benefits, no health care and 30 students would cost the parents of those 30 students $1000/year. Not bad, eh? Now we need to consider the school itself, electricity, maintenance, textbooks and other materials.

We're still talking a one-room schoolhouse, all kids in one grade, right? About 30 families. If we grow the school more, we need to start thinking how we're going to manage such a large entity. 100 students? A 1000? That's just the school. Let's not forget that everything else is going to be managed and funded the same way; the power plant, the water filtration system, the buggy whip factory, etc. Soon we'll have families attending so many meetings to manage these different things nobody will have time to do any actual work.


They actually make more than that in general.

http://www.nea.org/home/2011-2012-average-starting-teacher-salary.html

Even in Alabama where the cost of living is low, starting is $36, 201 a year. In Washington DC starting teacher's salaries is $51k.

[Max Rockatansky]

They actually make more than that in general.

http://www.nea.org/home/2011-2012-average-starting-teacher-salary.html

Even in Alabama where the cost of living is low, starting is $36, 201 a year. In Washington DC starting teacher's salaries is $51k.

I was deliberately low-balling it to avoid false accusations and other derailments of inflating costs. Even at $30K/year we can see there's a problem with the math. Raising their pay and factoring in healthcare and retirement plus the costs of the school itself only add to the problem.

This doesn't even address the issue of a fire department, where even volunteer one needs training and equipment, or police.

No police? Great! No laws means no crime in a Utopia!

Obviously running the equivalent of a small colony has limitations in what it can do. Running a small colony or commune in the middle of a modern world won't work simply because that modern world will force itself into the commune. Look at the Amish for an example.

[Codename Section]

No police? Great! No laws means no crime in a Utopia!

Why would you start committing crimes all of a sudden? I wouldn't because morals stop me.

In Iraq, the armed population with neighborhood self-policing kicked out AQ pretty quick. When we left and they stopped by going back to standard IP shit got real again.

Vigilant citizens are the way to go.

[Max Rockatansky]

Why would you start committing crimes all of a sudden? I wouldn't because morals stop me.

In Iraq, the armed population with neighborhood self-policing kicked out AQ pretty quick. When we left and they stopped by going back to standard IP shit got real again.

Vigilant citizens are the way to go.
Who says I'd be the one committing the crimes? I say because in any population of human beings there are always a few who do.

Vigilante justice isn't perfect. While you may applaud the actions of the Iraqis running off terrorists, did you see any punish people for adultery? In the US we hanged a bunch of women for being witches. Do you think they were guilty?

[Codename Section]

Who says I'd be the one committing the crimes? I say because in any population of human beings there are always a few who do.

Right. A few. I don't believe if there was no law about stealing that people would steal because there is no law. I can drink right now and don't. I wouldn't do heroin if it were legal, either.

People who commit crimes lack moral values. Laws don't change who you are into someone better. With or without them there will be immoral people.

I can't believe I'm saying this considering I haven't been a regular church goer since my mom made me back before the marines, but we'd do better to shit can the law, hand everyone a gun, and bring back religion.



Vigilante justice isn't perfect. While you may applaud the actions of the Iraqis running off terrorists, did you see any punish people for adultery? In the US we hanged a bunch of women for being witches. Do you think they were guilty?


You're all over with this one.

1. Vigilant citizens protecting their home isn't vigilante justice where you hunt down whoever and kill them.
2. Punishing them for adultery in Iraq? No, Afghanistan yes. It's a backwater bumfuck place and I never said they were vigilant citizens. I said the Iraqis were.
3. We hanged witches in Massachusetts under the order of the Governor of Massachusetts. That would be the state. Also, it was a land grab.

[Chris]

Why would you start committing crimes all of a sudden? I wouldn't because morals stop me.

In Iraq, the armed population with neighborhood self-policing kicked out AQ pretty quick. When we left and they stopped by going back to standard IP shit got real again.

Vigilant citizens are the way to go.


This was similar to my response to earlier statements statist governments could just invade and wipe out voluntary or anarchist areas. Just as why "you start committing crimes all of a sudden," why would states suddently start invading other territories and wiping out the people there--why, for instance has the US not done that to Canada or Mexico?

[Ethereal]

Children are far more benevolent and less ruthless, on average, than teenagers and adults.

Not sure if this particular situation applies to voluntarism working on a large scale full of adults.

If you start with the misanthropic assumption that teenagers and adults are generally malevolent and ruthless, then of course voluntarism won't work, but then neither will any other system of government. Or are we to believe that people stop being malevolent and ruthless once they're given a coercive monopoly over other people?

[Ethereal]

Looks like that the school gave the kid a free sandwich proves that statism works. lol

And the fact that this kid and his parents gave him the money to get a better meal proves that voluntarism works better.

[Chris]

If you start with the misanthropic assumption that teenagers and adults are generally malevolent and ruthless, then of course voluntarism won't work, but then neither will any other system of government. Or are we to believe that people stop being malevolent and ruthless once they're given a coercive monopoly over other people?

Seems to me the opposite is true, people become more, much more malevolent toward each other, collectively so given a coercive monopoly over others.

[Ethereal]

Seems to me the opposite is true, people become more, much more malevolent toward each other, collectively so given a coercive monopoly over others.

That is obviously the case to anyone that bothers to look past superficial platitudes and statist propaganda. Virtually every atrocity in history, whether it was a war or a genocide, was committed by the state and its agents, all in the name of "public safety and order" or some such nonsense. Yet we're supposed to quake in terror at the thought of an anarchist paradigm ruled by natural law and by voluntary association, as if it could be any worse than the butchery and enormity of centuries of statism.

[Max Rockatansky]

People who commit crimes lack moral values. Laws don't change who you are into someone better. With or without them there will be immoral people.Whose moral values? Yours? If you believe there is a universal moral value(s), I'd love to hear it along with proof it exists. For example, in Roman society is was moral to commit infanticide. If a baby was born defective, it was considered moral to leave it on a barren hillside to die of exposure rather commit it to a lifetime of misery. Spanish Catholics considered it moral to forceably convert New World natives to Christianity....then take all of their gold for the Church. In the US it was considered moral to hang witches and destroy Native American culture out of Manifest Destiny. So, please, tell me there is a universal morality which every anarchist locality understands and will abide.


1. Vigilant citizens protecting their home isn't vigilante justice where you hunt down whoever and kill them.
2. Punishing them for adultery in Iraq? No, Afghanistan yes. It's a backwater bumfuck place and I never said they were vigilant citizens. I said the Iraqis were.
3. We hanged witches in Massachusetts under the order of the Governor of Massachusetts. That would be the state. Also, it was a land grab.
1. Protecting one's family and home is just. Catching criminals is just. Making right a wrong is just. Hunting down and killing someone who stole your truck, an ear of corn from your field or other perceived slight is not just.
2. They considered it moral, correct? Are you going to tell them they are immoral motherfuckers? In an anarchist world, how could you impose your morality on another commune? What is your reaction to 1-10 communes imposing their morality on you?
3. Disagree. It was society that demanded it. If it was a dictator who imposed a decree to hang witches and people disagreed, do you think they would have hung 19 people so willingly? The Salem witch trials were more about human greed, jealousy and, as I so often refer, human nature. It's why we need a Constitutional government of the people to protect our rights. YMMV http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/a-brief-history-of-the-salem-witch-trials-175162489/

[Mister D]

Whose moral values? Yours? If you believe there is a universal moral value(s), I'd love to hear it along with proof it exists. For example, in Roman society is was moral to commit infanticide. If a baby was born defective, it was considered moral to leave it on a barren hillside to die of exposure rather commit it to a lifetime of misery.

Spartan society you mean.

[Max Rockatansky]

Spartan society you mean.
Romans. I have no doubt the Spartans would do such a thing, but do not recall reading it as I do with the Romans.

http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/infanticide-roman-empire-110505.htm

As this ^^^ article notes, it was a pretty common practice in the ancient world. Morality changes. There is no such thing as a universal morality.

[Chris]

For the universality of morality found in our justifications and condemnation read Hadley Arkes' First Things. For a more natural law view of it read Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty. For an evolutionary view, read Matt Ridley's The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation.

[Mister D]

Romans. I have no doubt the Spartans would do such a thing, but do not recall reading it as I do with the Romans.

http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/infanticide-roman-empire-110505.htm

As this ^^^ article notes, it was a pretty common practice in the ancient world. Morality changes. There is no such thing as a universal morality.

Interesting stuff. I remember reading or watching something about a mass of human remains near an ancient brothel.

That bit about the hillside though. That was Sparta.

[Mister D]

lol It's in your article.


Nearly 100 infants all died at Ashkelon at about the same full-term age. They were not buried, but instead were cast into a sewer that ran beneath a brothel. Researchers suspect that most such victims were suffocated to death.

[Max Rockatansky]

Again, morality changes.

[Chris]

Again, morality changes.

People's sense or perception of it might in the process of what Aquinas called discovering it through right reason.

Nor are men angels.

[Green Arrow]

Have you done the math on that? A single teacher making a measly $30,000/year, no benefits, no health care and 30 students would cost the parents of those 30 students $1000/year. Not bad, eh? Now we need to consider the school itself, electricity, maintenance, textbooks and other materials.

We're still talking a one-room schoolhouse, all kids in one grade, right? About 30 families. If we grow the school more, we need to start thinking how we're going to manage such a large entity. 100 students? A 1000? That's just the school. Let's not forget that everything else is going to be managed and funded the same way; the power plant, the water filtration system, the buggy whip factory, etc. Soon we'll have families attending so many meetings to manage these different things nobody will have time to do any actual work.

Is your way the only way to manage schools?

[Max Rockatansky]

Is your way the only way to manage schools?

Not at all. I keep asking for examples of a better way and asking questions. Is your way immune to questions? Is your way to say "STFU and just follow orders"?

Is your way to just roll the dice and see what happens without any questions, any planning, any forethought? Don't you see a problem with that method?

Ever hear of the Donner Party? They just barged ahead too without much thought about the problems and consequences. It didn't end well.

[Green Arrow]

Not at all. I keep asking for examples of a better way and asking questions. Is your way immune to questions? Is your way to say "STFU and just follow orders"?

Is your way to just roll the dice and see what happens without any questions, any planning, any forethought? Don't you see a problem with that method?

Ever hear of the Donner Party? They just barged ahead too without much thought about the problems and consequences. It didn't end well.

No, my way is not free from questioning. That will never be the case. I'd just appreciate it if you'd ask me and my fellow anarchists what we would do, instead of asking us if we'd do things your way.

[Max Rockatansky]

No, my way is not free from questioning. That will never be the case. I'd just appreciate it if you'd ask me and my fellow anarchists what we would do, instead of asking us if we'd do things your way.

I do ask. Often it devolves into what you just did, me being labeled a statist or someone giving bullshit answers like "it's been mentioned before", You should read XXXX or something equally evasive.

I asked a question about the economics of running a school system (along with everything else) totally on charity and voluntarism. I doubt it would work due to my experience with volunteers so I asked you and others how you think it would work. What I'm getting is accusations that I didn't ask the questions in a format to your liking. That, sir, is evasive. Your choice, but I doubt you'll get many converts that way.

[Green Arrow]

I do ask. Often it devolves into what you just did, me being labeled a statist or someone giving bullshit answers like "it's been mentioned before", You should read XXXX or something equally evasive.

I asked a question about the economics of running a school system (along with everything else) totally on charity and voluntarism. I doubt it would work due to my experience with volunteers so I asked you and others how you think it would work. What I'm getting is accusations that I didn't ask the questions in a format to your liking. That, sir, is evasive. Your choice, but I doubt you'll get many converts that way.

Let's not pretend you're interested in conversion, Max. You're not, and your discussion tactics are evidence of this. You try to frame the debate in such a way that we are forced to defend YOUR idea of what our philosophy is. I could answer every one of your questions without ever actually getting to explain my own philosophy, because all I'm doing by answering your questions is telling you how your system would not work as voluntarist anarchy.

You're discussing this issue with me, Max, not Chris. I don't make accusations. I answer your questions until I feel your questions are no longer relevant to my philosophy. You're the one acting like us forum anarchists have not had hundreds of discussions explaining our philosophy in full. kilgram in particular posted a thread just a couple days ago specifically outlining a plan for education in an anarchist society. You're plenty good at looking up individual posts when it helps you tear down a person. Why don't you put those search skills of yours to positive use and find that thread.

If you're actually interested in discussion, that is.

[Max Rockatansky]

Let's not pretend you're interested in conversion, Max. You're not, and your discussion tactics are evidence of this. You try to frame the debate in such a way that we are forced to defend YOUR idea of what our philosophy is. I could answer every one of your questions without ever actually getting to explain my own philosophy, because all I'm doing by answering your questions is telling you how your system would not work as voluntarist anarchy.

You're discussing this issue with me, Max, not Chris. I don't make accusations.Thanks for the clarification vis–à–vis Chris. ;)

I think I see the problem in our discussion: I'm asking for facts, "do the math", evidence. You want to talk philosophy. Fine, I, too want "world peace", but I also want to save every puppy and kitten in the world. Neither is going to happen because the real world deals in reality. The former is centuries away and requires things we don't have such as unlimited energy. The latter is impossible. A better solution is to support programs neutering pets and feral dogs and cats. Reality, not philosophy.

[Green Arrow]

Thanks for the clarification vis–à–vis Chris. ;)

I think I see the problem in our discussion: I'm asking for facts, "do the math", evidence. You want to talk philosophy. Fine, I, too want "world peace", but I also want to save every puppy and kitten in the world. Neither is going to happen because the real world deals in reality. The former is centuries away and requires things we don't have such as unlimited energy. The latter is impossible. A better solution is to support programs neutering pets and feral dogs and cats. Reality, not philosophy.

I, too, believe in reality. It's why I'm choosing to actively engage your state and work toward changing it through your own mechanisms, rather than just sitting on my ass in front of a computer ranting about how much it sucks. This does not mean I am not also working toward anarchy. Quite the contrary, I'm aiming to effect the gradual change that would eventually allow anarchist communities to flourish, without "burning down" everything you love about this government system.

It's also why I have worked painstakingly hard for the past (almost) four years making sure that my anarchist structure could actually work and be successful. It is a realistic model, and still anarchist. Contrary to what you believe, anarchism is very realistic. Anarchy is the natural state of man. Ireland maintained an anarchist existence for over a thousand years before they finally transitioned into a statist society. Every day, billions of humans react consistently with voluntarism in their daily lives.

I would argue that it is you who is not being very realistic. You argue that without the state, the world would essentially descend into chaos. Yet, both history and current human reactions show that this is not the case.

[Max Rockatansky]

I would argue that it is you who is not being very realistic. You argue that without the state, the world would essentially descend into chaos. Yet, both history and current human reactions show that this is not the case.
Without "the state"? Is that another "you're a statist"accusation? I'm sure you know the definition of "statist" and clearly I am not one despite the accusations by certain self-declared anarchists.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr is credited with saying "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins". We don't need a "state" to swear fealty to and tell us what to do ala' 1984. What we do need are laws to delineate where my rights end and yours begin. Marriage laws aren't about church and "the sanctity of marriage". They're about delineating laws regarding married couples such as not requiring a spouse to testify against another or what happens to communal property of one spouse falls ill or dies. The question of custody of children in the event of a divorce or death of a spouse.

Without a set of mutually agreed upon rules, people would do as they please. What some people do may not please others and, inevitably, disputes may happen. In order to preserve the peace and to ensure justice is done, "governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". That's not Statism no matter how many times that insult is thrown. That's simply trying to find a peaceful means to ensure justice for all and resolve disputes without violence.

If you think mankind can peacefully exist with his fellow man in a lawless environment while competing for resources, history shows you are wrong.

[Green Arrow]

Without "the state"? Is that another "you're a statist"accusation? I'm sure you know the definition of "statist" and clearly I am not one despite the accusations by certain self-declared anarchists.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr is credited with saying "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins". We don't need a "state" to swear fealty to and tell us what to do ala' 1984. What we do need are laws to delineate where my rights end and yours begin. Marriage laws aren't about church and "the sanctity of marriage". They're about delineating laws regarding married couples such as not requiring a spouse to testify against another or what happens to communal property of one spouse falls ill or dies. The question of custody of children in the event of a divorce or death of a spouse.

Without a set of mutually agreed upon rules, people would do as they please. What some people do may not please others and, inevitably, disputes may happen. In order to preserve the peace and to ensure justice is done, "governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". That's not Statism no matter how many times that insult is thrown. That's simply trying to find a peaceful means to ensure justice for all and resolve disputes without violence.

If you think mankind can peacefully exist with his fellow man in a lawless environment while competing for resources, history shows you are wrong.

"Statist" is no more an insult or an accusation than "anarchist" is. It's simply a term to distinguish non-anarchists from anarchists. If you really wish to engage in discussions on the internet, you may want to grow a thicker skin.

[Alyosha]

Of course you can. Who's going to pay for it? Would you have one-room school houses with one teacher for kids of all ages on every block or would you have a slightly larger school with 3-4 teachers and subdivide the kids into 3-4 classrooms? How would all of this be paid for? Would the teachers go begging door-to-door or would people simply drive by the little school and drop money in a box? Who makes sure the money is properly accounted for? What happens if there isn't enough "volunteerism" money? The teachers just let students go home early and they go to their "real" job? How do you envision such a system working @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868)?

I know I'm being harsh, if not downright assholish, in how I present this but I'm a realist. Pipe dreams are fun, but they're imaginary. Real world problems require real world solutions, not cloud castles. Funding schools is as important as monitoring what is taught in schools. Teachers need to eat too. They need to be able to care for themselves when they are sick and they need to save for the future when they retire.

You're equating realism with maintaining the status quo. In recent years hackschooling has developed (also called unschooling) and those kids test higher than students put through a standard, routine, cookie-cutter school program. This is because people learn more quickly by doing and dissecting than lecturing and repeating.

You don't need "one room school houses" necessarily, and that's the problem with your mode of thought. It's very status quo based. There is no organic thinking, just basing all the presumptions upon what's been done, not what can be done.

As we learn more and more about the human brain, our physiology, and evolutionary biology we understand the distinction on how people learn and more and more studies show that lecture based and classroom based is not ideal. If we accept that there are more philosophies in the world than those we were taught or adhere to then we can begin to question, what is the purpose of school?

Is it to learn?
Is it to learn how to learn?
Is it just to get a job later in life?

And ultimately, we should always ask: what is the purpose of life? I believe it is to embrace happiness and experience pleasure. How does school or how we live now do that?

[Alyosha]

Agreed. Theories are nice and I also like new ideas, but I'm not going to bet the farm or strap my ass to a theory. I want hard evidence. Proof. So far, across several threads, I've seen zilch regarding how an anarchist society would function and survive in the modern world.

Well, perhaps then you and @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) can show me governments that have never turned arms on their citizens, fallen to corruption, embraced cronyism, and/or always promulgated human rights and freedoms.

You both are embracing a system where the evidence shows that it has been and always will fall to corruption, decay, and violence.

[Alyosha]

If you start with the misanthropic assumption that teenagers and adults are generally malevolent and ruthless, then of course voluntarism won't work, but then neither will any other system of government. Or are we to believe that people stop being malevolent and ruthless once they're given a coercive monopoly over other people?


Very true. I actually believe adults are kinder than children. South Park was more correct than we want to believe. Evolutionary instinct causes children to understand only survival and desire. Parents take those instincts and apply morals and discipline.

[Alyosha]

Whose moral values? Yours? If you believe there is a universal moral value(s), I'd love to hear it along with proof it exists. For example, in Roman society is was moral to commit infanticide. If a baby was born defective, it was considered moral to leave it on a barren hillside to die of exposure rather commit it to a lifetime of misery. Spanish Catholics considered it moral to forceably convert New World natives to Christianity....then take all of their gold for the Church. In the US it was considered moral to hang witches and destroy Native American culture out of Manifest Destiny. So, please, tell me there is a universal morality which every anarchist locality understands and will abide.


Every age has its own moral values, but the basic Golden Rule of "do unto others" is common sense applied to religious adherents. The libertarian NAP (non-aggression principle) is basically that.

At this point you are arguing for argument's sake because he was right. Laws don't stop people from committing crimes. They don't create invisible walls around humans. They create standards upon which to punish you after you've committed one.

Morality and spirituality prevent more crime by creating a reason to not do harm to others and an incentive, as well. You get no earthly reward for charity, but you do in heaven. You get no bonus points for loving your neighbor and not harming them in society, but you do in heaven.

This is why religions were utilized and why they worked even in tribal societies as far as keeping peace.

[Peter1469]

Well, perhaps then you and @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) can show me governments that have never turned arms on their citizens, fallen to corruption, embraced cronyism, and/or always promulgated human rights and freedoms.

You both are embracing a system where the evidence shows that it has been and always will fall to corruption, decay, and violence.

Yes, governments rise and fall in cycles.

[Chris]

I do ask. Often it devolves into what you just did, me being labeled a statist or someone giving bullshit answers like "it's been mentioned before", You should read XXXX or something equally evasive.

I asked a question about the economics of running a school system (along with everything else) totally on charity and voluntarism. I doubt it would work due to my experience with volunteers so I asked you and others how you think it would work. What I'm getting is accusations that I didn't ask the questions in a format to your liking. That, sir, is evasive. Your choice, but I doubt you'll get many converts that way.



IOW, it amounts to you being given answers but ignoring them for invented personal slights.

Go back again and read my posts on Jefferson's plan which was not mere theory but implemented and not in just Virginia but throughout most of the US till the federales took over.

[Chris]

Let's not pretend you're interested in conversion, Max. You're not, and your discussion tactics are evidence of this. You try to frame the debate in such a way that we are forced to defend YOUR idea of what our philosophy is. I could answer every one of your questions without ever actually getting to explain my own philosophy, because all I'm doing by answering your questions is telling you how your system would not work as voluntarist anarchy.

You're discussing this issue with me, Max, not Chris. I don't make accusations. I answer your questions until I feel your questions are no longer relevant to my philosophy. You're the one acting like us forum anarchists have not had hundreds of discussions explaining our philosophy in full. kilgram in particular posted a thread just a couple days ago specifically outlining a plan for education in an anarchist society. You're plenty good at looking up individual posts when it helps you tear down a person. Why don't you put those search skills of yours to positive use and find that thread.

If you're actually interested in discussion, that is.



It does get tiresome.

[Chris]

Without "the state"? Is that another "you're a statist"accusation? I'm sure you know the definition of "statist" and clearly I am not one despite the accusations by certain self-declared anarchists.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr is credited with saying "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins". We don't need a "state" to swear fealty to and tell us what to do ala' 1984. What we do need are laws to delineate where my rights end and yours begin. Marriage laws aren't about church and "the sanctity of marriage". They're about delineating laws regarding married couples such as not requiring a spouse to testify against another or what happens to communal property of one spouse falls ill or dies. The question of custody of children in the event of a divorce or death of a spouse.

Without a set of mutually agreed upon rules, people would do as they please. What some people do may not please others and, inevitably, disputes may happen. In order to preserve the peace and to ensure justice is done, "governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". That's not Statism no matter how many times that insult is thrown. That's simply trying to find a peaceful means to ensure justice for all and resolve disputes without violence.

If you think mankind can peacefully exist with his fellow man in a lawless environment while competing for resources, history shows you are wrong.




Without a set of mutually agreed upon rules, people would do as they please.

Thanks, max, that's a decent, succinct description of anarchy. It's what many of us mean when we speak of voluntary association and voluntary exchange.

My guess though is you think you described the state. But how can that be when in a state, from hierarchical monarchy to direct democracy you can never achieve mutual agreement but merely the authority of the monarch or a majority.

[Chris]

Every age has its own moral values, but the basic Golden Rule of "do unto others" is common sense applied to religious adherents. The libertarian NAP (non-aggression principle) is basically that.

At this point you are arguing for argument's sake because he was right. Laws don't stop people from committing crimes. They don't create invisible walls around humans. They create standards upon which to punish you after you've committed one.

Morality and spirituality prevent more crime by creating a reason to not do harm to others and an incentive, as well. You get no earthly reward for charity, but you do in heaven. You get no bonus points for loving your neighbor and not harming them in society, but you do in heaven.

This is why religions were utilized and why they worked even in tribal societies as far as keeping peace.



It is precisely such rules of thumb as the golden rule, or silver, or the related NAP, that morality resides, they are a part of our nature as reasoning social human beings, not a list of rules like the 10 Commandments, but a set of guidelines or principles by which we judge human action and justify or condemn it.

[The Xl]

If you start with the misanthropic assumption that teenagers and adults are generally malevolent and ruthless, then of course voluntarism won't work, but then neither will any other system of government. Or are we to believe that people stop being malevolent and ruthless once they're given a coercive monopoly over other people?

You'd see the exact same problems you see now. I've always asserted this.

People will be ruthless no matter what the system. It's naive to believe these problems will just disappear or get better by getting rid of the state. Another power, maybe multiple powers, will rise and take the place of the state. It's human nature.

[The Xl]

Very true. I actually believe adults are kinder than children. South Park was more correct than we want to believe. Evolutionary instinct causes children to understand only survival and desire. Parents take those instincts and apply morals and discipline.

It's nearly impossible to make that case. Kids can be bullies and things of that nature, but they aren't responsible for mass war, genocide, racism, and other horrible things that have been perpetrated by adults.

[Chris]

You'd see the exact same problems you see now. I've always asserted this.

People will be ruthless no matter what the system. It's naive to believe these problems will just disappear or get better by getting rid of the state. Another power, maybe multiple powers, will rise and take the place of the state. It's human nature.


Right, but with power distributed among the people, where would the few ruthless attain their power? It is, I contend, only when power is centralized in the state that the ruthless can seek and the state sell such political favors. In another thread we're discussing the oppresive nature of religion which I believe happens only in collusion with the state. The corrupt nature of corporations and unions colluding with the state is only too well known.

[Codename Section]

You'd see the exact same problems you see now. I've always asserted this.

People will be ruthless no matter what the system. It's naive to believe these problems will just disappear or get better by getting rid of the state. Another power, maybe multiple powers, will rise and take the place of the state. It's human nature.


So let me understand this. A monopoly on force, humans unable to fight back or retaliate against infringement, doesn't breed ruthlessness? How does this work in your head?

I'm the only guy in the room with a gun. Who has the power?

I'm one of ten guys in the room with a gun? Who has the power?

Opposing powers equalize each other. It's why having nukes both here and in the USSR prevented war.

[Codename Section]

It's nearly impossible to make that case. Kids can be bullies and things of that nature, but they aren't responsible for mass war, genocide, racism, and other horrible things that have been perpetrated by adults.

Right, because they have no power or money. WTF?

[The Xl]

Right, because they have no power or money. WTF?

Right, that's true. But now, the burden of proof is on you to prove that they'd do a better job at those horrible things.

[The Xl]

So let me understand this. A monopoly on force, humans unable to fight back or retaliate against infringement, doesn't breed ruthlessness? How does this work in your head?

I'm the only guy in the room with a gun. Who has the power?

I'm one of ten guys in the room with a gun? Who has the power?

Opposing powers equalize each other. It's why having nukes both here and in the USSR prevented war.

When did I say the state and their monopoly on force doesn't breed ruthlessness?

You're assuming the power held will be equal, and that the average civilian will hold any power at all.

[Peter1469]

What is the state? Just us.



You'd see the exact same problems you see now. I've always asserted this.

People will be ruthless no matter what the system. It's naive to believe these problems will just disappear or get better by getting rid of the state. Another power, maybe multiple powers, will rise and take the place of the state. It's human nature.

[The Xl]

Right, but with power distributed among the people, where would the few ruthless attain their power? It is, I contend, only when power is centralized in the state that the ruthless can seek and the state sell such political favors. In another thread we're discussing the oppresive nature of religion which I believe happens only in collusion with the state. The corrupt nature of corporations and unions colluding with the state is only too well known.

The state makes it easy and convenient for these corporations, true, but money and influence will always bring power, and those with it would probably assemble armies and weaponry.

[Peter1469]

Ali? :wink:


So let me understand this. A monopoly on force, humans unable to fight back or retaliate against infringement, doesn't breed ruthlessness? How does this work in your head?

I'm the only guy in the room with a gun. Who has the power?

I'm one of ten guys in the room with a gun? Who has the power?

Opposing powers equalize each other. It's why having nukes both here and in the USSR prevented war.

[The Xl]

What is the state? Just us.

The state does the bidding of big corporations and other special interests, not us, really. We'd be at their mercy in an anarchist system, as well.

[Peter1469]

The state does the bidding of big corporations and other special interests, not us, really. We'd be at their mercy in an anarchist system, as well.

It is "us" doing the bidding of the special interests. The same "us" that will be in an anarchist system. The big benefit to the anarchist system is that it is necessarily small scale. It would certainly work for a while, until it evolved back into government.

[Codename Section]

It is "us" doing the bidding of the special interests. The same "us" that will be in an anarchist system. The big benefit to the anarchist system is that it is necessarily small scale. It would certainly work for a while, until it evolved back into government.

That might have been true in the horse and carriage days or even 30 years ago but technology is changing us all as much as I hate to admit that.

[Codename Section]

Right, that's true. But now, the burden of proof is on you to prove that they'd do a better job at those horrible things.

No one has let kids run a country, dude. However, you can tell what happens when you give them toy weapons. Uncle Drew's been hit with swords, hit with water balloons, and shot up with super soakers. You can also look at what kids do to each other on the playground when given the opportunity.

Bullying, as you've pointed out in other threads, is a huge problem in schools. As bad as rape, right?

[Chris]

What is the state? Just us.

That's a standard liberal/statist argument, we are the government. Imagine a thought experiment where the mafia takes over a neighborhood and demands payment for protection, and because you choose to live there, insists that implies you agree to their authority. If you do are you the mafia? Absurd.

[Chris]

The state makes it easy and convenient for these corporations, true, but money and influence will always bring power, and those with it would probably assemble armies and weaponry.



Will it? I still contend that is true only if power is centralized in the state which provides the political means. In a system where power is distributed among society, the people, corporations are left only with economic means, iow, providing what people value in exchange for profit.

[Alyosha]

The state does the bidding of big corporations and other special interests, not us, really. We'd be at their mercy in an anarchist system, as well.

Why is that? In an anarchist system, unlike this one, you could physically assert your rights against these corporations. You cannot do that now. Your recourse is to pay an expensive attorney or find one willing to go on contingency. In an anarchist system an angry mob could have surrounded BP after the oil spill and shaken the money out of them or...worse.

[Chris]

The state does the bidding of big corporations and other special interests, not us, really. We'd be at their mercy in an anarchist system, as well.

How so? How, sans the state, would a corporation take anything from you?

[Chris]

It is "us" doing the bidding of the special interests. The same "us" that will be in an anarchist system. The big benefit to the anarchist system is that it is necessarily small scale. It would certainly work for a while, until it evolved back into government.



Same question, how so?

Under the current system corporation produce what people value, attain profits, and buy favors from the state, which keeps the the in power and the corporation wealthy through redistribution of wealth. Now remove the state altogether from that picture. Where will corporations and special interests purchase political favors?



The big benefit to the anarchist system is that it is necessarily small scale.

The source of this theoretical necessity?

[The Xl]

Why is that? In an anarchist system, unlike this one, you could physically assert your rights against these corporations. You cannot do that now. Your recourse is to pay an expensive attorney or find one willing to go on contingency. In an anarchist system an angry mob could have surrounded BP after the oil spill and shaken the money out of them or...worse.

Good luck to the small town that asserts their rights against a huge corporation gone rouge with an army that has modern weaponry.

It all boils down to the same thing, in the end.

[The Xl]

How so? How, sans the state, would a corporation take anything from you?

Uhh......force.

[The Xl]

No one has let kids run a country, dude. However, you can tell what happens when you give them toy weapons. Uncle Drew's been hit with swords, hit with water balloons, and shot up with super soakers. You can also look at what kids do to each other on the playground when given the opportunity.

Bullying, as you've pointed out in other threads, is a huge problem in schools. As bad as rape, right?

Well played, and you've got a decent memory on you. In any case, it's not as bad as mass war, genocide, etc.

At worst, children would be as bad as their older counterparts. It'd be hard to top them.

[The Xl]

Will it? I still contend that is true only if power is centralized in the state which provides the political means. In a system where power is distributed among society, the people, corporations are left only with economic means, iow, providing what people value in exchange for profit.

The state is the mechanism that allows these corporations to get away with mass theft with a false perception of legitimacy, and without the use of force from said corporations. That's all.

[Alyosha]

Uhh......force.

You can fight back with force when there is no monopoly on it. That's a far fairer situation than we have now.

[Chris]

Uhh......force.



OK, so now we're back to code's question, why don't they do that now, and my question, why doesn't the state do that now? Why doesn't Keystone just conquer a path for their pipeline? Why doesn't the US just march in and conquer Canada?

[Chris]

You can fight back with force when there is no monopoly on it. That's a far fairer situation than we have now.



A ways back I reported how in Stockton, CA, with the economy poor and the city unable to protect the streets, neighborhoods are forming watches, and forming coalitions with other neighborhoods throughout the city and outlying area. Why not the Stockton, CA, coalition for coalitions with other cities? Detroit, MI, too, is doing the same, though in cases the protection comes as well from private security companies. So now you have cities forming coalitions, and private security companies forming coalitions of mutual protection, taking advantage of economies of scale and the like....

And, what, Shell Oil is going to go to war, with the very customers it needs to sell oil and gas to in order to fund their corporate military? And what if Shell Oil conquered a vast territory, that it now must not only protect from invasion by British Petroleum, but police against internal violence, and provide food, clothing and shelter. Wait a minute, Shell Oil is in the business of making profits, which in this though experiment it has just consumed and then some.

And what are we talking about here but the very statist system we now have. Statists provide their own counterarguments against the state.

[Green Arrow]

What is the state? Just us.

The state is not us, Peter1469. The state is an extremely small segment of the population, often chosen by only 51% of the population.

[Max Rockatansky]

Every age has its own moral values, but the basic Golden Rule of "do unto others" is common sense applied to religious adherents. The libertarian NAP (non-aggression principle) is basically that.

At this point you are arguing for argument's sake because he was right. Laws don't stop people from committing crimes.

1. Thank you for agreeing that morality changes. That it isn't universal. The "Golden Rule" is just a peace treaty; I won't fuck with you, but you don't fuck with me. It works for many people, but not all people.

2. Please point to where I said or implied that laws stop crime. Locks aren't for dishonest people since dishonest people will simply cut them. Locks are for honest people to help them avoid temptation or tell them there is a limit in place. Laws work the same way. They also, as you should know but appear not to, allow society to prosecute people under a particular statute. How could a society prosecute a person for murder or rape if there wasn't a law against it? Just do it on a whim? What if someone want to prosecute me for drinking beer on the Sabbath? How could they do so unless there was a law against it?

[Green Arrow]

Good luck to the small town that asserts their rights against a huge corporation gone rouge with an army that has modern weaponry.

It all boils down to the same thing, in the end.
The Xl, rogue, not rouge. Sorry, OCD.

[The Xl]

OK, so now we're back to code's question, why don't they do that now, and my question, why doesn't the state do that now? Why doesn't Keystone just conquer a path for their pipeline? Why doesn't the US just march in and conquer Canada?

Because they don't need to at this moment. The government gives them what they want with a false perception of legitimacy from the general public.

[The Xl]

@The Xl (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=865), rogue, not rouge. Sorry, OCD.

Haha, my bad.

[The Xl]

You can fight back with force when there is no monopoly on it. That's a far fairer situation than we have now.

You could try, sure. An largely untrained, perhaps unarmed, civilian population vs a well trained mercenary army that's better equipped? Sounds like a squash match to me.

[Chris]

1. Thank you for agreeing that morality changes. That it isn't universal. The "Golden Rule" is just a peace treaty; I won't fuck with you, but you don't fuck with me. It works for many people, but not all people.

2. Please point to where I said or implied that laws stop crime. Locks aren't for dishonest people since dishonest people will simply cut them. Locks are for honest people to help them avoid temptation or tell them there is a limit in place. Laws work the same way. They also, as you should know but appear not to, allow society to prosecute people under a particular statute. How could a society prosecute a person for murder or rape if there wasn't a law against it? Just do it on a whim? What if someone want to prosecute me for drinking beer on the Sabbath? How could they do so unless there was a law against it?



I think you're confusing, and Alyosha stated clearly, what people value morally at different times and places with the universal basis of those values like the Golden Rule. What you're arguing is sort of what ravi once argued that Jefferson because he owned slaves could not have adhered to the principle all men are created equal when in reality under the historical circumstances of his time he actually did.

[Chris]

Because they don't need to at this moment. The government gives them what they want with a false perception of legitimacy from the general public.



Because it would defy public opinion.

[The Xl]

Because it would defy public opinion.

The state and corporations already do plenty that defy public opinion. The public does nothing, maybe whine about certain things. They don't stop or change it.

[Chris]

The state and corporations already do plenty that defy public opinion. The public does nothing, maybe whine about certain things. They don't stop or change it.

They may push the envelop but push too far and the public would reject them. Ultimately all power rests with the people. We can always undo what we did:


...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness....

[The Xl]

They may push the envelop but push too far and the public would reject them. Ultimately all power rests with the people. We can always undo what we did:

If what we see isn't the breaking point, then the civilian threshold is outrageously high. I mean, look what both the state and corporate America get away with now.

- Special interests profit(Prison industry, defense attorneys, prosecutors, cops, etc) from throwing people in a cell for literally no real reason. Said occupations make a killing and would be worth next to nothing if their market wasn't artificially propped up.

- Military Industrial Complex makes a killing from fraudulent wars and imperial adventures

- People get sick and die and get no compensation or criminal prosecution from corporate mishaps, like oil spills and things of the like.

- Regulating bodies like the FDA frequently give people a false sense of security in regards to dangerous products, things that make people ill or even cause death, and the general public does nothing.


It's both the state and corporations that commit these sins. They've crossed the line many times over, and nothing. The civilians can't even be bothered to play this fake game correctly and vote in the right politicians, what makes you think they'd go as far as to actually rebel?

[Alyosha]

You could try, sure. An largely untrained, perhaps unarmed, civilian population vs a well trained mercenary army that's better equipped? Sounds like a squash match to me.

What were our revolutionaries compared to the British? How about Al Qaeda against the US forces?

[Alyosha]

1. Thank you for agreeing that morality changes. That it isn't universal. The "Golden Rule" is just a peace treaty; I won't fuck with you, but you don't fuck with me. It works for many people, but not all people.

They are then amoral or immoral depending on your definition of moral. Still have no idea how this makes your argument better or worse when the point is that people do or don't do things based on morality over law since law changes every second.

[Chris]

If what we see isn't the breaking point, then the civilian threshold is outrageously high. I mean, look what both the state and corporate America get away with now.

- Special interests profit(Prison industry, defense attorneys, prosecutors, cops, etc) from throwing people in a cell for literally no real reason. Said occupations make a killing and would be worth next to nothing if their market wasn't artificially propped up.

- Military Industrial Complex makes a killing from fraudulent wars and imperial adventures

- People get sick and die and get no compensation or criminal prosecution from corporate mishaps, like oil spills and things of the like.

- Regulating bodies like the FDA frequently give people a false sense of security in regards to dangerous products, things that make people ill or even cause death, and the general public does nothing.


It's both the state and corporations that commit these sins. They've crossed the line many times over, and nothing. The civilians can't even be bothered to play this fake game correctly and vote in the right politicians, what makes you think they'd go as far as to actually rebel?



Well, now we agree. But consider the state uses the media and education to sell itself ala 1984.

But my argument remains without the state corporations would not attain power.

[Ethereal]

You'd see the exact same problems you see now. I've always asserted this.

If you'd see the exact same problems, then why have a preference for one system over the other?


People will be ruthless no matter what the system.

Why the generalization? It hasn't been my experience that "people will be ruthless". I've been all over the world and the majority of people I've interacted with were decent people just trying to get by in life. It's the people in power who have a tendency to be malevolent and ruthless.


It's naive to believe these problems will just disappear or get better by getting rid of the state.

Nobody said or implied that "these problems will just disappear" if there was no state, but why is it "naive" to believe they would get better? Are people more or less likely to be "ruthless" if they have a coercive monopoly over others?


Another power, maybe multiple powers, will rise and take the place of the state. It's human nature.

This is just an assumption. Why should that be the case under a voluntary paradigm?

[Ethereal]

What is the state? Just us.

I'm not part of the state anymore than I'm a part of the local mafia.

[Ethereal]

The state makes it easy and convenient for these corporations, true, but money and influence will always bring power, and those with it would probably assemble armies and weaponry.

The masses hold the real power. Millions can easily stand against a few. The only thing stopping the masses from keeping these tyrants in check is a psychological oppression that keeps them mystified and subservient. It's a trick, nothing more.

[Peter1469]

Granted.

Metaphorically the state is us. And we collectively make it what we want.


The state is not us, @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10). The state is an extremely small segment of the population, often chosen by only 51% of the population.

[Peter1469]

I'm not part of the state anymore than I'm a part of the local mafia.

I was speaking collectively.

[Ethereal]

The state does the bidding of big corporations and other special interests, not us, really. We'd be at their mercy in an anarchist system, as well.

Why would "we" be at the mercy of Walmart or Bank of America or any other big corporation under an anarchist system? They rely entirely on voluntary exchange and association to make money and stay in business, and the added expense of fielding a private military would obliterate their profit margins. The ONLY way they can violently impose themselves on other people is when they pass the cost of their imposition onto the state, with its virtually unlimited supply of tax dollars and FIAT money.

[Ethereal]

I was speaking collectively.

The "collective" is a mere abstraction. It cannot act or exist in any real, tangible sense. It can have meaning if there are shared assumptions and values between individuals, but without that sense of shared meaning, the "collective" becomes a totalitarian construct that assimilates the individual and their inalienable rights.

[Peter1469]

It is an abstraction. But it still is us. If we as a people really wanted a different government, we would make that happen. Americans just go through the motions because things are not bad enough for them to act and demand a change.


The "collective" is a mere abstraction. It cannot act or exist in any real, tangible sense. It can have meaning if there are shared assumptions and values between individuals, but without that sense of shared meaning, the "collective" becomes a totalitarian construct that assimilates the individual and their inalienable rights.

[The Xl]

What were our revolutionaries compared to the British? How about Al Qaeda against the US forces?

This civilian population doesn't have the ambition for freedom and the stones that they did.

[Codename Section]

This civilian population doesn't have the ambition for freedom and the stones that they did.


Our active duty and combat vets would and there are a lot of us. It's what makes the government so nervous.

[The Xl]

If you'd see the exact same problems, then why have a preference for one system over the other?


It's a matter of minimizing the symptoms.



Why the generalization? It hasn't been my experience that "people will be ruthless". I've been all over the world and the majority of people I've interacted with were decent people just trying to get by in life. It's the people in power who have a tendency to be malevolent and ruthless.



The ruthless few will always rise and find a way to dominate the apathetic majority. Most times, said majority will just go along with it, and even if they disagree, they won't fight it.



Nobody said or implied that "these problems will just disappear" if there was no state, but why is it "naive" to believe they would get better? Are people more or less likely to be "ruthless" if they have a coercive monopoly over others?



You're assuming monopolies or duopolies wouldn't exist in a stateless society. I do not share that opinion.


This is just an assumption. Why should that be the case under a voluntary paradigm?



Because it's human nature, and the same interests who manipulate government would not be going away in a stateless society. You're assuming everything would be peachy. I do not hold that same opinion.

[The Xl]

Our active duty and combat vets would and there are a lot of us. It's what makes the government so nervous.

Be that as it may, you guys are a fraction of the population.

[Ethereal]

You could try, sure. An largely untrained, perhaps unarmed, civilian population vs a well trained mercenary army that's better equipped? Sounds like a squash match to me.

An untrained civilian population in Iraq and Afghanistan was able to stand against the most powerful and advanced military on the planet for over a decade. Asymmetric warfare virtually negates the advantages of technological and numerical superiority enjoyed by conventional military forces. Fighting an asymmetric war against a civilian population is insanely costly and unpopular. Why would any corporation do that when they can simply provide a valuable service at a competitive price and make good profits?

[The Xl]

Why would "we" be at the mercy of Walmart or Bank of America or any other big corporation under an anarchist system? They rely entirely on voluntary exchange and association to make money and stay in business, and the added expense of fielding a private military would obliterate their profit margins. The ONLY way they can violently impose themselves on other people is when they pass the cost of their imposition onto the state, with its virtually unlimited supply of tax dollars and FIAT money.

I don't believe banks would hold the same power in a stateless society, especially if fiat national currencies were ended, honestly. It would be organizations that have tangible goods and resources.

[Codename Section]

Be that as it may, you guys are a fraction of the population.

A larger fraction than AQ was and they kicked the shit out of us for a long time.

[The Xl]

An untrained civilian population in Iraq and Afghanistan was able to stand against the most powerful and advanced military on the planet for over a decade. Asymmetric warfare virtually negates the advantages of technological and numerical superiority enjoyed by conventional military forces. Fighting an asymmetric war against a civilian population is insanely costly and unpopular. Why would any corporation do that when they can simply provide a valuable service at a competitive price and make good profits?

The pampered people of this country would be unable to engage in the type of warfare those in the Middle East do, nor would they have the desire to do so.

Why would they battle civilian populations? For the same reason the state and corporations exercise power and control over the civilian population currently, wealth, power, among with other things.

[The Xl]

A larger fraction than AQ was and they kicked the shit out of us for a long time.

The geography and temperament differences are too great for that comparison to be valid, imo.

[Codename Section]

I don't believe banks would hold the same power in a stateless society, especially if fiat national currencies were ended, honestly. It would be organizations that have tangible goods and resources.

And what's the incentive for Walmart to use force on you? It would cut into their profit margins and for what purpose?

[The Xl]

And what's the incentive for Walmart to use force on you? It would cut into their profit margins and for what purpose?

Who said it would be Walmart, specifically?

[Codename Section]

The geography and temperament differences are too great for that comparison to be valid, imo.

How is this?

[Ethereal]

The pampered people of this country would be unable to engage in the type of warfare those in the Middle East do, nor would they have the desire to do so.

The type of warfare is just asymmetric warfare, and it doesn't take any particular bravery or intelligence to leave explosive devices on the road or to snipe patrols from hundreds of meters away. That is why it is so effective, because it takes very little formal training and discipline to do. And if an oil company tried to militarily conquer Americans, you better believe they would rise up and fight. All it takes is a few thousand people and you have a very formidable insurgency, one that will exact heavy costs on any force.


Why would they battle civilian populations? For the same reason the state and corporations exercise power and control over the civilian population currently, wealth, power, among with other things.

Do you have any idea how expensive it is to fight an asymmetric war against a decentralized insurgency? How much money has been thrown away in Iraq and Afghanistan? It would bankrupt any company in a matter of years.

[The Xl]

How is this?

America is filled with sophisticated cities and a papered population.

[The Xl]

The type of warfare is just asymmetric warfare, and it doesn't take any particular bravery or intelligence to leave explosive devices on the road or to snipe patrols from hundreds of meters away. That is why it is so effective, because it takes very little formal training and discipline to do. And if an oil company tried to militarily conquer Americans, you better believe they would rise up and fight. All it takes is a few thousand people and you have a very formidable insurgency, one that will exact heavy costs on any force.



They might not have to fight this war in a traditional way. The could operate in a similar manner that the state does. Either way, I don't think anyone in this country is game for any sort of war inside the country, with the exception of ex military.



Do you have any idea how expensive it is to fight an asymmetric war against a decentralized insurgency? How much money has been thrown away in Iraq and Afghanistan? It would bankrupt any company in a matter of years.



That would be assuming the two situations were identical.

[Codename Section]

America is filled with sophisticated cities and a papered population.

And?

[The Xl]

If it was as easy as you guys assert, we wouldn't see the problems we see today, state or no state.

[The Xl]

And?

And? You don't see the problem with asserting that the two situations are the same or remotely similar?

[Codename Section]

They might not have to fight this war in a traditional way. The could operate in a similar manner that the state does. Either way, I don't think anyone in this country is game for any sort of war inside the country, with the exception of ex military.

You said that corporations would wage war if the state didn't. IF the state decided to wage war against us, we'd do better than ok. If a corporation tried it, it would not exist.

A company exists to make money and profit, not run at a deficit. It is not like the state. Using force would not be profitable.



That would be assuming the two situations were identical.

Why aren't they? Can you tell us why Walmart would use force against people?

[Codename Section]

And? You don't see the problem with asserting that the two situations are the same or remotely similar?

I'm not the one asserting they are--that was you. I don't think that if the state didn't exist that Target would send troops into my neighborhood. I think it would try to sell me stuff.

[Codename Section]

If it was as easy as you guys assert, we wouldn't see the problems we see today, state or no state.

What is "easy"? Are you stating that we should all just say, fuck it, lets turn against the government? There is a huge responsibility to revolution. You end up dragging in other people that maybe didn't want to do it. IF the government turned on us, that's different, but I'm not going to use violent force when not everyone wants a stateless society.

That's like shitty.

[Ethereal]

In 2012, Exxon-Mobile's income before taxes was $78.7 billion: http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:XOM&fstype=ii

How in the world could this company, which is one of the largest in the world, ever hope to field an army, let alone conquer wide swaths of land, with such meager funds? We spent trillions in Iraq and still lost. Are we to believe that a company with a measly $78 billion in annual before tax profits has the incentive, let alone the ability, to wage costly wars of conquest against the very people they rely on to stay in business?

[The Xl]

You said that corporations would wage war if the state didn't. IF the state decided to wage war against us, we'd do better than ok. If a corporation tried it, it would not exist.

A company exists to make money and profit, not run at a deficit. It is not like the state. Using force would not be profitable.



Why aren't they? Can you tell us why Walmart would use force against people?

It depends on the corporation and how the action was received from the public. If the state was abolished, and some company or companies promised to fill the void, you'd have a massive part of the citizen population that would back them, so long as the empty promises they told them were convincing enough.

Maybe not Walmart, maybe a mercenary or weapons corporation. Maybe contractors. You already have people in this country willing to oppress the freedom of others with force, be it the police, or the military, or other things of that nature. Why would that change with the absence of the state?

[The Xl]

I'm not the one asserting they are--that was you. I don't think that if the state didn't exist that Target would send troops into my neighborhood. I think it would try to sell me stuff.

You seem caught up on stores like Target and Walmart. I'm not really talking about organizations like that.

I was asserting that the US and the Middle East are wildly different because......well, they are wildly different.

[The Xl]

In 2012, Exxon-Mobile's income before taxes was $78.7 billion: http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:XOM&fstype=ii

How in the world could this company, which is one of the largest in the world, ever hope to field an army, let alone conquer wide swaths of land, with such meager funds? We spent trillions in Iraq and still lost. Are we to believe that a company with a measly $78 billion in annual before tax profits has the incentive, let alone the ability, to wage costly wars of conquest against the very people they rely on to stay in business?

You can't really use dollars as an example because that wouldn't be at play in a stateless society.

[The Xl]

What is "easy"? Are you stating that we should all just say, fuck it, lets turn against the government? There is a huge responsibility to revolution. You end up dragging in other people that maybe didn't want to do it. IF the government turned on us, that's different, but I'm not going to use violent force when not everyone wants a stateless society.

That's like shitty.

People can't even be bothered to vote people out who are stealing their wealth and freedoms. They aren't combating anything with force, under any circumstance. Not now, anyhow.

[The Xl]

I have errands to run. I'll continue this conversation later tonight.

[Ethereal]

You can't really use dollars as an example because that wouldn't be at play in a stateless society.

I can use dollars because they are money, and money would still exist in a stateless society. Their before tax profit gives you a rough idea of how much resources and wealth the company has at its disposal. Training one US Marine costs millions of dollars. It's beyond ridiculous to suggest that a measly entity like Exxon-Mobile would have either the incentive or the ability to field an army that could conquer thousands or millions of free people scattered across wide swaths of land when they could simply sell their product and make billions. The only entity capable of engaging in that sort of costly and unpopular activity is a state. They don't need to worry about things like profit or satisfying the consumer. They can afford to waste billions, even trillions of dollars waging insane wars of occupation and destruction.

[Codename Section]

It depends on the corporation and how the action was received from the public. If the state was abolished, and some company or companies promised to fill the void, you'd have a massive part of the citizen population that would back them, so long as the empty promises they told them were convincing enough.


If the state was abolished voluntarily why would this happen?

This might happen if there was a natural disaster or something but that's not what we're all talking about.



Maybe not Walmart, maybe a mercenary or weapons corporation. Maybe contractors. You already have people in this country willing to oppress the freedom of others with force, be it the police, or the military, or other things of that nature. Why would that change with the absence of the state?

I had a cop talk shit to me because I had a USMC haircut. I couldn't really do anything about it. If there was no monopoly on force his teeth would have been in his stomach. The only thing that stops people defending themselves against bullies is the fear of the loss of their freedom.

[Codename Section]

People can't even be bothered to vote people out who are stealing their wealth and freedoms. They aren't combating anything with force, under any circumstance. Not now, anyhow.

How would they vote them out with only 2 choices?

[Max Rockatansky]

People can't even be bothered to vote people out who are stealing their wealth and freedoms. They aren't combating anything with force, under any circumstance. Not now, anyhow.

Yet the anarchists expect these same people to run and defend a thriving culture.

[Max Rockatansky]

How would they vote them out with only 2 choices?
There are plenty of choices, but most vote for one of the two main flavors.

[The Xl]

I can use dollars because they are money, and money would still exist in a stateless society. Their before tax profit gives you a rough idea of how much resources and wealth the company has at its disposal. Training one US Marine costs millions of dollars. It's beyond ridiculous to suggest that a measly entity like Exxon-Mobile would have either the incentive or the ability to field an army that could conquer thousands or millions of free people scattered across wide swaths of land when they could simply sell their product and make billions. The only entity capable of engaging in that sort of costly and unpopular activity is a state. They don't need to worry about things like profit or satisfying the consumer. They can afford to waste billions, even trillions of dollars waging insane wars of occupation and destruction.

You can't use the dollar in regards to the worth of a company currently, because while their would obviously be currency or currencies in a stateless society, we don't know who would be worth what.

If an organization had a large quantity of resources that had inherent value, they could engage in nefarious activities on a large scale.

[The Xl]

If the state was abolished voluntarily why would this happen?

This might happen if there was a natural disaster or something but that's not what we're all talking about.



What if the state was abolished with a 55% majority? You'd have about half the people yearning for and supporting a state like entity. The void would be there, and it would undoubtedly be filled.



I had a cop talk shit to me because I had a USMC haircut. I couldn't really do anything about it. If there was no monopoly on force his teeth would have been in his stomach. The only thing that stops people defending themselves against bullies is the fear of the loss of their freedom.



And if what you assert is correct in your society, then the opposite holds true. Someone can randomly punch someone in the mouth and claim that the other guy was "talking shit."

[The Xl]

How would they vote them out with only 2 choices?

Their are two mainstream parties, but a host of other ones. The apathetic public can't be bothered to research and vote for them, sadly. Which is why it's laughable to suggest that they'd rebel if some imaginary line was crossed.

[The Xl]

Yet the anarchists expect these same people to run and defend a thriving culture.

Sadly, I have to reluctantly agree here.

An anarchist system could work. Flawlessly, in fact. Not today though, not with a population like this.

[The Xl]

There are plenty of choices, but most vote for one of the two main flavors.

Right. The people of the country can't even defend their rights through our process, they just pick who they're told to, be it because the "lesser of two evils" argument, or actually believing the empty promises of a side.

They won't be physically fighting back against anything.

[Codename Section]

Yet the anarchists expect these same people to run and defend a thriving culture.

No we don't. By the time voluntarism is capable of working it will be long after people learned the lesson of apathy. If it could work now, it would.

As you can see how poorly our current system runs, with 2 bad options and less than half of all people enthused enough to vote, there's no promise of better until we are better.

[Chris]

Yet the anarchists expect these same people to run and defend a thriving culture.


Cultures are not "run". They are not designed and managed. Culture, like social orders, such as economies, are emergent properties of a people.

[Chris]

You can't use the dollar in regards to the worth of a company currently, because while their would obviously be currency or currencies in a stateless society, we don't know who would be worth what.

If an organization had a large quantity of resources that had inherent value, they could engage in nefarious activities on a large scale.


Why wouldn't we know that the same way we know it today? Prices are not inherent in things but emerge from the subjective valuations of people despite governments sometimes trying to fix them. Various laws of economics like supply and demand would continue without the state.

[Codename Section]

People also have wrong expectations. Voluntary communities won't be the size of states in general. That makes it a lot easier.

[Chris]

Sadly, I have to reluctantly agree here.

An anarchist system could work. Flawlessly, in fact. Not today though, not with a population like this.


And I agree with this. Anarchy cannot be brought about violently, the result would be just another state--consider the bloody French revolution. It needs to be brought about voluntarily through education. These arguments serve a purpose.

[Codename Section]

There are plenty of choices, but most vote for one of the two main flavors.

There aren't plenty of choices because without money you can't run and election laws require a million signatures to even get on the ballot. Gary Johnson had both the DNC and RNC suing and quibbling his voter signatures to keep him out, same with Ron Paul in the primary.

We have a dirty system that guides us to one of two choices that both suck.

[Chris]

People also have wrong expectations. Voluntary communities won't be the size of states in general. That makes it a lot easier.

But the small communities--it wouldn't matter if this community was capitalist, the next socialist, and the other even statist--would form coalitions for purposes of specialization and trade, for mutual security and defense, you would still have larger social orders such as religions, scientific academies, boys scouts, fans of David Bowie, and so on uniting people as they do now. I think it's one of the basic misconceptions of anarchy that under it society would devolve into small isolated groups.

[Green Arrow]

What if the state was abolished with a 55% majority? You'd have about half the people yearning for and supporting a state like entity. The void would be there, and it would undoubtedly be filled.

The other 45% would be free to form their own statist communities.

[nathanbforrest45]

I went to a Catholic Elementary school in the 1950's. My lunch 4 times a week, Monday through Thursday for eight years was a hot dog with ketchup, mustard and relish and a bowl of vegetable soup. On Friday's it was an egg salad sandwich and a bowl of tomato soup. Both of the soups were Campbell's. I had a choice of "white milk' chocolate milk, or orange juice. I always picked white milk in Friday's and poured some into my soup and had Cream of Tomato soup. Each item was 10 cents paid for each day. I went without lunch one time when I spent my lunch money on something else and the school would not feed me for free. It was a valuable lesson, one that is not taught today.

[Alyosha]

I went to a Catholic Elementary school in the 1950's. My lunch 4 times a week, Monday through Thursday for eight years was a hot dog with ketchup, mustard and relish and a bowl of vegetable soup. On Friday's it was an egg salad sandwich and a bowl of tomato soup. Both of the soups were Campbell's. I had a choice of "white milk' chocolate milk, or orange juice. I always picked white milk in Friday's and poured some into my soup and had Cream of Tomato soup. Each item was 10 cents paid for each day. I went without lunch one time when I spent my lunch money on something else and the school would not feed me for free. It was a valuable lesson, one that is not taught today.


My Catholic school would have fed us.

[Bob]

I went to a Catholic Elementary school in the 1950's. My lunch 4 times a week, Monday through Thursday for eight years was a hot dog with ketchup, mustard and relish and a bowl of vegetable soup. On Friday's it was an egg salad sandwich and a bowl of tomato soup. Both of the soups were Campbell's. I had a choice of "white milk' chocolate milk, or orange juice. I always picked white milk in Friday's and poured some into my soup and had Cream of Tomato soup. Each item was 10 cents paid for each day. I went without lunch one time when I spent my lunch money on something else and the school would not feed me for free. It was a valuable lesson, one that is not taught today.

In the late 40s, and in the 5th grade, Mom spread out we kids to various family members. I was taken down into the San Joaquin Valley to live in two tents, one we slept in, the next had the cooking place and table, and my aunt served me for school lunch, scrambled eggs. It got so I could not stand the taste of scrambled eggs. Fortunately she had planted a garden a bit from the "mess tent? so I had some good vegetables.

I still recall not having shoes and walking on that hot valley land over stickers to school and back. Finally Mom showed up with shoes. Trouble was, they were dress shoes and they cut into my ankles so I could not stand wearing them.

I dreaded those egg sandwiches though. I used to try to swap them with other kids.

[Max Rockatansky]

There aren't plenty of choices because without money you can't run and election laws require a million signatures to even get on the ballot. Gary Johnson had both the DNC and RNC suing and quibbling his voter signatures to keep him out, same with Ron Paul in the primary.

We have a dirty system that guides us to one of two choices that both suck.Are you advocating that more money must be allocated to people to your liking or that Americans are free to donate to whom they choose?

This link breaks down the sources of donations for the 2012 Presidential election. I doubt previous elections would be much different.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/#out

http://oi59.tinypic.com/zjv0n9.jpg


While there are limits on both corporate and individual donations, what do you propose to make those people give more money to the Libertarian Party, Socialist Party, the Green Party, the Justice Party and all the other parties that run for election?

[Chris]

There aren't plenty of choices because without money you can't run and election laws require a million signatures to even get on the ballot. Gary Johnson had both the DNC and RNC suing and quibbling his voter signatures to keep him out, same with Ron Paul in the primary.

We have a dirty system that guides us to one of two choices that both suck.



It's a feedback cycle like you hear with a guitar and amplifier. The corporations and unions feed the politicians campaign donations to the duopoly because they're powerful, making them more powerful, and the duopoly keeps redistributing wealth their way, and so the corporations and unions feed them more, making them richer.

The progressive mind will ask how can we regulate the corporation's campaign contributions to force the money elsewhere when the solution is to regulate and limit government corruption.

[Chris]

My Catholic school would have fed us.

From voluntary contributions.