Anarchy or Governent II

[Chris]

Wouldn't total anarchy produce even more bullying and tilted tables than a truly limited government?

Depends on what you mean by anarchy. If you mean total chaos, sure. The specific brand of anarchy I advocate, private-property, free-market, libertarian anarchy, then, no, I don't think so. I am against the State, not the existing social order, not the existing social customs, norms, traditions, institutions tied to a place in time. Despite the liberal project's great efforts to undermine all that I think people still have strong family, work and community ties whereby natural tendencies towards bullying, violence, oppression would be constrained.

[Chris]

Maybe and maybe not. You might have food, but little else. Coastal America would have imports. One bad weather year and much of middle America could be wiped out by drought and tornadoes that they don't seem to have had any historical problem with taking government charity to fix, nevermind the flooding of the Mississippi river. If that were to happen then middle America would have starvation and thus internal fighting for food and water. All of those bank loans keeping farms afloat would disappear. Seasonal labor to keep those massive industrial farms functional would disappear. Crops could rot in the fields. Hungry people could change sides. Middle America conveniently forgets how much help it gets from the rest of America when times are tough. Let's also not forget how much middle American agriculture is dedicated to non-food crops. Middle American cities are not going to survive on corn grown for biofuel. It's inedible. Let's not also forget all of the farm subsidies that allow farmers to make a living or the fact that family farms growing food crops are few and far between. Fewer than 5% of middle American farms are family owned and operated and are likely to grow more than a single crop. Most farm production is intended for export and concentrates on things like corn and wheat. I wouldn't be so certain that middle America would necessarily outlast the rest of America.

It would be a shame to be living in farm country and not have enough to eat.

Coastal America, with its greater dependence on centralized government, would be the first to collapse into chaos.

[donttread]

That is exactly what I suggest in the link I provided. There would still be a government but it would be ran by the people. All citizens who are mentally sound and are intelligent enough would be entered into a lottery and each year one of the citizens could be elected and be president for a year. This would be so that we all have a part to play, and one year term would make it so that there was never a chance for corruption. The president would just be the "voice" of the people the representative who enacted the will of the people. We would all have a say in how each dollar is spent and where. All citizens would be active participants in governance. Unless some are disabled or not mentally sound.

I am not solid on those ideas though they are just thoughts on peaceful and non corrupt ways we could change our nation. I would rather have this than war.

Do you have any ideas for a peaceful ideas to give the power back to the people?

The OP is just a deep looking exercise to see what the result would be if we went with the war version.

I think we'd be way better off with a congress chosen by lottery , but I'm not certain about president. Start with an amendment then congress by lottery. With strict adherence to the Constitution and it's limitations.

[donttread]

Maybe and maybe not. You might have food, but little else. Coastal America would have imports. One bad weather year and much of middle America could be wiped out by drought and tornadoes that they don't seem to have had any historical problem with taking government charity to fix, nevermind the flooding of the Mississippi river. If that were to happen then middle America would have starvation and thus internal fighting for food and water. All of those bank loans keeping farms afloat would disappear. Seasonal labor to keep those massive industrial farms functional would disappear. Crops could rot in the fields. Hungry people could change sides. Middle America conveniently forgets how much help it gets from the rest of America when times are tough. Let's also not forget how much middle American agriculture is dedicated to non-food crops. Middle American cities are not going to survive on corn grown for biofuel. It's inedible. Let's not also forget all of the farm subsidies that allow farmers to make a living or the fact that family farms growing food crops are few and far between. Fewer than 5% of middle American farms are family owned and operated and are likely to grow more than a single crop. Most farm production is intended for export and concentrates on things like corn and wheat. I wouldn't be so certain that middle America would necessarily outlast the rest of America.

It would be a shame to be living in farm country and not have enough to eat.

The factory farms would be abandoned or taken and as more mono-culture that soil is aching for rotation . Once the fighting started here we would find out just how many enemies we've made abroad effecting imports. Also the financial centers of the coast would collapse or be targeted. Rural electricity flow to the cities would fall day one or two.
It would be a mess all the way around but large urban areas would be the worst place to be.

[Captdon]

Marx was the epitome of authoritarianism. He saw the people only as a mass and didn't trust them.

The market, inasmuch as the government tries to manage it, is anarchistic. See Leonard E. Read's "I, Pencil."

I was thinking of his "governments will fade away." That will never happen. We have to decide what form of government not if we have one.

I mostly agree that the government should stay clear of the markets.

[Captdon]

Maybe and maybe not. You might have food, but little else. Coastal America would have imports. One bad weather year and much of middle America could be wiped out by drought and tornadoes that they don't seem to have had any historical problem with taking government charity to fix, nevermind the flooding of the Mississippi river. If that were to happen then middle America would have starvation and thus internal fighting for food and water. All of those bank loans keeping farms afloat would disappear. Seasonal labor to keep those massive industrial farms functional would disappear. Crops could rot in the fields. Hungry people could change sides. Middle America conveniently forgets how much help it gets from the rest of America when times are tough. Let's also not forget how much middle American agriculture is dedicated to non-food crops. Middle American cities are not going to survive on corn grown for biofuel. It's inedible. Let's not also forget all of the farm subsidies that allow farmers to make a living or the fact that family farms growing food crops are few and far between. Fewer than 5% of middle American farms are family owned and operated and are likely to grow more than a single crop. Most farm production is intended for export and concentrates on things like corn and wheat. I wouldn't be so certain that middle America would necessarily outlast the rest of America.

It would be a shame to be living in farm country and not have enough to eat.

You're talking as if this would be a multi-year event.


Actually, cutting the electric would be enough. I will bet that city folk( that's where most if you live) can't go a week without power. I will have all the food I need until you surrender,

I only said this to show you how fragile your society is.

[Captdon]

Depends on what you mean by anarchy. If you mean total chaos, sure. The specific brand of anarchy I advocate, private-property, free-market, libertarian anarchy, then, no, I don't think so. I am against the State, not the existing social order, not the existing social customs, norms, traditions, institutions tied to a place in time. Despite the liberal project's great efforts to undermine all that I think people still have strong family, work and community ties whereby natural tendencies towards bullying, violence, oppression would be constrained.

No, you are eliminating human nature. There is no utopia and your solution would never work.

[Chris]

No, you are eliminating human nature. There is no utopia and your solution would never work.

How am I eliminating human nature? How is what little you know of the anarchy I embrace is it utopian? And wouldn't work? People have a romantic view of the government that in theory works but in practice fails.

[The Xl]

Don't really care what happens really. I don't think anarchy would work, at least not at this stage, but I'm not particularly happy with the way things function in the government.

[Dr. Who]

You're talking as if this would be a multi-year event.


Actually, cutting the electric would be enough. I will bet that city folk( that's where most if you live) can't go a week without power. I will have all the food I need until you surrender,

I only said this to show you how fragile your society is.

Are you sure about that? Check out the map below and where the concentration of power plants are: