Comments requesting or needing replies from AIYH

[dalebert]

Some of these I may reply to myself. Some not. Sometimes it seems like the same old questions being re-hashed and it feels like those are exactly the sorts of questions that various libertarian blogs and forums are constantly addressing. But I figure if someone asks for a response or just rehashes some of this stuph, I'll post them here because they're often from old posts that people are responding to as they go through the archives and so may not be seen by readers. I'll also post a link back to the original post because if you answer it here, the poster is not likely to see it.

[dalebert]

Hi.  I'm new to this comic, and am enjoying it. I've always believed that society would be better off with little government, and have been calling myself a social libertarian since I gained the age of majority.
I'm learning a great deal about anarchist ideals from this site (and more from the commentary on each page) and I've some questions to put out there for you all.  Please view these in the spirit that I'm sending them:  I'm putting out some points (or counter-points, depending on how you choose to view them) in the hopes that someone will be able to either support them or refute them rationally.  (From what I've seen, this little proviso is not needed on this site, but I always put it out there when talking politics, especially on the net.)

One of my big libertarian buts is that corporations and businesses are just as capable of oppressing a people as a government.  In addition to being able to use violent force in the case of armed goons, a business can also starve a people into submission, simply by removing their income from them.  Admittedly, in a strong and thriving economic environment, with abundant resources, this last act is not effective because of the individual's ability to gain employment elsewhere.  Yet there are places in this world, and in this country, where a couple of industries, or even a single industry, are the only source of employment available to a population.  A good example of this is the coal strikes of the early twentieth century.  In this situation, the people were under physical, emotional, and economic abuse.  Gainful employment elsewhere was no option, because there was no where else to be employed.  The viable arable land was diminished due to the presence of the coal mines, and
the workers were being forced to go into debt (to the company they worked for!) simply to put a roof over their heads, and food on the table.  After large and violent uprisings against the mines and often the local authorities, the miners would gain concessions from their employers.  Yet eventually, these gains would be removed when the company thought it could safely do so.  This cycle lasted for nearly fifty years.  It still happens, but now the miners, through the unions and their willingness to revolt, have won from the government legal rights which aide them in their fight against the mines.  Abuses still happen, and the miners still have to strike, but with the added weight of the legal system behind them, their struggles tend to be shorter, less frequent, and to bring more lasting gains.
My question is this:  In an anarchist society, how could such a situation be resolved?  Legal recourse would seem to necessitate a state with the ability to back up its law with violent force.  Yet without the weight of law behind it, how could a movement such as that started by the strikes win out?  Simply killing the mine owners and collectivizing the mines under their former employees seems to be a short-sighted and rather morally unappealing option.

This is an example of why my political views on the economy tend to be rather socialist.  I view the wealth and wealth giving resources in this society as being rather akin to water, and to be treated as one treats water rights.  If my land has a stream running through it, I own that water and to do with it as I will.  Yet I do not have the right to damn up the water, and deny it to my neighbor, because he has as much right to the water from our collective stream as I do.  I do not have to the right to use so much myself as to deny it to him, or to pollute it at my end so badly that he cannot use it at his.  Wealth is much the same in our modern society.  Subsistence farming is for much (if not most) of our population no longer a viable option as a livelihood, especially in the cities.  The only really effective way to put food on the table, clothes on one's back, and a roof over one's head, is to work for a company.  A company that is undoubtedly out for its bottom line: the
acquisition of wealth.  Who are the ones watching the bottom line?  The men at the top.  Their acquisition of this wealth is much more efficient if they pay their employees the lowest possible wages, so they do this.  Their employees lack recourse, because all the other companies have seen how well low wages help the bottom line as well.  Opening one's own business is rarely effective and always difficult, because the large ones are able to use the wealth they've accumulated to undercut the prices of the competing small business(es), and the small business owner if put in a difficult situation.  Even if he manages to keep afloat, he will have to do so by employing similar tactics as the large companies, i.e., keeping his profits up by keeping his employees wages low.  Thus a vicious cycle is generated and perpetuated.
The problem with all of this, from the position of the employee at the bottom, is that it is exceedingly difficult to live on a low wage.  The cost of living is often just too high.  This problem can be treated by taking loans, but loans are by definition, borrowed wealth, and this in turn just sends more wealth to the top, where it tends to accumulate and stagnate, at the cost of the man at the bottom.  (If anybody believes in the "trickle down" theory, I rebut with the "Vimes' Boots" theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimes#Vimes.27_Boots )
The easiest way (and so far as I have been able to see, the best way) to remedy this situation is through the forced redistribution of wealth through socialist measures.  These measures are not possible without the threat of force (or the government, same diff) and I do not see how an anarchist society would be able to deal with such problems.  Strict free market tactics just haven't been proven to work, as shown during the Irish Potato Famine.
Phew.  Sorry to talk your ears off (or write, as the case may be), but I'm hoping the people here will be able to offer some good arguments for why an anarchist society could work in these cases.

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/11/07/tyranny-is-built-out-of-libertarian-buts/#comments

[Tom Sawyer]

Can't seem to get to your site right now...
Says Database Error

[dalebert]

Can't seem to get to your site right now...
Says Database Error

Yeah, Ron and I are trying to reach Jeremy but I think his phone is off.

[dalebert]

I don't suppose anyone lives near Jeremy who can go knock on his door, do they? 

[dalebert]

The site is back up. There's another comment I want to post here that has similar qualities. 

[dalebert]

Anarchy is never permanent. It is a tool. This tool gets rid of what you dont like to replace it with what you do like.

Anarchy is simply a society without rulers, but more often political and organizational chaos.

Anarcy is shortly lived, since after the laws of the land are erased, theft, murder, rape and utter disrepsect of neighbor ensues(without correction). People will be restricted of movement(freedom) since they will have to guard their property and loved ones twenty four seven, since the society is practicing lawlessness.

Sooner or later the People will ask for help and for the chaos to stop. The people who will stop it will most likely be the very people who caused it and they will set up a government.

Government was implemented to set up laws. For Freedom doesnt mean " to be lawless". Anarchy implements lawlessness.

People have long believed in placing people incharge like a sheriff to guard the property of others so that they could go work in the feilds and so on.

Ultimatly we have two choices, an oligarchy(ruled by a few powerfull people) or a Republic(ruled by law) since Anarchy never lasts.

Out of Anarchy comes a Government then the Government becomes a problem then Anarchy again and up pops another Government  then Anarchy then Government then Anarchy....

See a pattern?

With a Republic the people are ruled by law, if the Government gets too big the people must be vigilent since Liberty demands it. Not getting involved helps no one and is counter productive.

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/10/14/if-you-vote-you-cant-complain/#comments

[J’raxis 270145]

Can't seem to get to your site right now...
Says Database Error

Yeah, Ron and I are trying to reach Jeremy but I think his phone is off.

Sorry about that. I'm beginning to think it's time for a bigger server...

[dalebert]

The Blank
November 17th, 2008 at 7:41 pm

Do any of you know why your country went off the gold standard?

It was because the french were buying up all the American currency they could, taking it back to France and melting it down for the gold

it was ruining your economy

so going back of the gold standard could cause the same thing to happen again

Reply by clicking here

[dalebert]

For the love o...!

How in the Hell does someone read this

"Do I want the government to recognize gay marriage? Hell, no. I want them out of marriage and everything else and I wouldn't get a government marriage even if I could."

and then ask me this?

"Dale, I think a supposed anarchist gay is one who wants to enjoy the same violently-gained loot that straight married people have. In other words, not an anarchist at all. I would say the flawed means is trying to work from the top down: seeking state approbation and state-forced financial benefits, rather than trying to convince individuals to voluntarily give benefits.

What are you seeking when you say you want the government to lift the ban on gay marriages? What do you mean by the government's ban?"

Do you understand the words that are comin' outta my mouth?!

[dalebert]

Because Burke Says

that's not what happened. But the libertarians keep taking things out of context and spewing misinformation like the bunch of hypocritical children they are.

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/11/19/because-burke-says/#comments


Is Secession a Pipe-dream?

You dont speak for all of New Hampshire. I like how the free-staters have decided they have the right to take away other people's property for their own naive political crusades.

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/11/14/is-secession-a-pipe-dream/#comments

[dalebert]

Prolly doesn't really deserve a response, but I thought someone might want to see the type of reaction you get from a person who is particularly insecure about who knows what and deeply troubled by a little gay humor.

Yea freedom and shit, if thats your excuse for being gay and damaging your ass, and acting like a fairy all the time then fine. Idiot.