Anti-politics

[John Edward Mercier]

Anarchy as in comparative 'the square root of one'... would need to be both positive and negative. As in voluntary order and voluntary chaos. Even our current system though involuntary carries both the order and chaos versions. The suggestion that a mass murderer, thief, rapist, child molester, etc... would be transformed under anarchy just doesn't seem rational to me.

[Russell Kanning]

I still don't comprehend people as expressing themselves as anarchists, then only seeing voluntary order as the lone possible outcome.

how about the other way around? ... I want to live in a voluntary order .... what would you call that?

[dysurian]

Anarchy as in comparative 'the square root of one'... would need to be both positive and negative. As in voluntary order and voluntary chaos. Even our current system though involuntary carries both the order and chaos versions. The suggestion that a mass murderer, thief, rapist, child molester, etc... would be transformed under anarchy just doesn't seem rational to me.

I'm not sure there is a system that will get rid of all murderers, rapists, etc. But without a government, there wouldn't have been something like 250 million people killed last century. Without government, I'd be able to keep, spend, or save about twice as much money because of their current theft. Without a government, there would be less rape, because the penal system wouldn't include crowding people into prisons. I'm not sure how many people there are out there who are currently not murderers, rapists, etc. for whom the only deterrent to committing these moral crimes is government. I'm currently not a murderer, thief, or rapist, and I'll tell you it's not because it's illegal and I'd possibly get put in jail. I don't do these things because I know they're wrong, and I know the terrible psychological effect it would have on me and on my victim. If government is the only thing standing in the way of a rapist, then I'd say that's a problem for licensed psychologists to work on with that person, but not a problem anarchy creates.

Also, the free market would disincentivize these crimes from happening in the first place, but I'm sure you've heard all about that, so I won't point out examples. I'm feeling a bit like the windbag of this thread, but I'm passionately interested in this stuff! 

[Auntie Republicrat]

Methinks "an" (without) "archy" (rule) may be contrary to human nature..Methinks absent the village idiot Republicrats coercing us, other entities (maybe the regional chapter of 'The Hell's Angels') will, rather quickly, fill the void..

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -- (attributed to Plato)

Methinks maybe the reason so many are disgusted with 'politics'/political competitions is that we understand the fraudulent nature of these 'competitions'..

..For example, in this country we have somewhat elaborate systems in place in order to decide "the championships" of mere sports competitions. (Btw, I like sports but doesn't it seem a little out of whack when hours upon hours of live tv, radio, media reportage,  etc. are devoted to decide who the ball champions are when the competitions/races for government office to decide who, in effect, has the power of life and death over us etc., are given such short shrift?!?!.

Think about it! It seems to me in honest competitions the participants, players, teams, etc. go at it head-to-head in numerous hard fought contests before a champion is crowned..
 
But in political 'competitions' we are all witness to the fraud:...phony, puny debates where the stinking Republicrat participants (My apologies to Ron Paul and maybe Mike Gravel alone and ever amongst these Republicrat stinkers!) are told the softball questions they will be asked beforehand!!

...In FACT, in political competitions it isn't so much the ACTUAL PARTICIPANTS who go head-to-head in honest debate. It's the stinking Republicrat surrogates:..the announcers, the "color men"..."the cheerleaders" if you will..(Rush stinking Windbag, Shill O'Rielly, etc. Republican/crat cheerleaders, smear-artists, liars, etc. scum)  

And so it is revealed...the competition of ideas about government aka "politics" is OBVIOUSLY a stinking fraud..my question is why do so many Republicrats and decent people continue to support, in any way, the Republicrat fraud artists who perpetuate this hideous spectacle...  

[dalebert]

Anarchy will not solve all problems. You've fallen for the notion that government is currently doing a good job of protecting us from those things. Government mostly just tries to "look busy" (note the drug war and all the tickets they give out for victimless crimes) while taxing us for that "service". I've always contended that it's not doing a good job at all but it is giving people an illusion of security. Taking that illusion away would make us safer because then people would start taking more personal responsibility for their own safety which really would make them safer.

[John Edward Mercier]

I believe that no system even a totalitarian one has only order... chaos might not be as noticed, but it exists. Sort of a Yin and Yang thing.

I have no illusions on 'government'.

The 'looking busy', I refer to as institutionalization. It occurs when something no longer serves a purpose, so other purposes are discovered for its continued existance.

[MaineShark]

The suggestion that a mass murderer, thief, rapist, child molester, etc... would be transformed under anarchy just doesn't seem rational to me.

They're welcome to be transformed into corpses, if they choose.

Without government, I'd be able to keep, spend, or save about twice as much money because of their current theft.

Eight times as much.  At least.

The income tax isn't the only tax or expense of government.  That's just part of it.  There are taxes on most products, taxes on fuel used to deliver the products, taxes on everything.  There are costs associated with complying with regulations.  With keeping records the exact way that the government requires.  With hiring "licensed" professionals.

At least 7/8, and as much as 9/10 (depending on whom you are) of your productive capacity is sapped by the government in one way or another.

Imagine working for 10 hours per week and living twice as well as you currently do.  That's anarchy for you.

Joe

[dalebert]

At least 7/8, and as much as 9/10 (depending on whom you are) of your productive capacity is sapped by the government in one way or another.

That's not even taking into account the kinds of technological progress and other innovations we may have made by now without being held back by government. Your estimate is probably still on the conservative side.

[MaineShark]

That's not even taking into account the kinds of technological progress and other innovations we may have made by now without being held back by government. Your estimate is probably still on the conservative side.

Indeed.  I like to play it safe in such things.

It's hard to put a monetary value on the "what-ifs," but I think getting a 900% raise (or increase in free time, or some ratio) would be a good incentive, without the need to worry about that...

Joe

[Pat K]

"Methinks "an" (without) "archy" (rule) may be contrary to human nature..Methinks absent the village idiot Republicrats coercing us, other entities (maybe the regional chapter of 'The Hell's Angels') will, rather quickly, fill the void.."


How does the Goverment stop, the Hells Angels
or any other criminal from coercing you now?

Answer they don't.
They may take a report and clean up the bodies.

[Lloyd Danforth]

I would rather risk the hit or miss problems that might occur in the absence of government that the 'institutionalized' problems that come with it

[Russell Kanning]

exactly ... the current police state couldn't be replicated by any smaller band of non-government criminals ... it takes a government to have this much control

[Auntie Republicrat]

Dalebert wrote: "You've fallen for the notion that government is currently doing a good job of protecting us from those things. Government mostly just tries to "look busy" (note the drug war and all the tickets they give out for victimless crimes) while taxing us for that "service". I've always contended that it's not doing a good job at all but it is giving people an illusion of security."

Methinks many/most of you are guilty of committing "the fallacy of reification" with respect to 'government'..

..i.e. you make claims that 'the government' 'did/does this' or 'did/does that'..when, in reality, "the government" is merely a concept and/or label..and hopefully, all of us can understand that concepts, labels, etc. don't/can't 'do' anything...only real, living people can, for example, 'look busy,' 'tax' us, etc. ad nauseam..'government,' in reality, can't 'look busy' or 'tax' us..

I view 'government' as 'organized force/coercion'..and I think anyone making claims that they can/would 'end government' are seriously mistaken..

..as humans are prone to dispute, coercion, etc. and WILL use 'government,' of some sort, initially and/or in response..

Although I certainly understand the frustration with 'government'..as it seems the most wise, prudent, etc. among us shun the stinking 'government'..leaving 'government' open to the most stoooooopid, easily-duped, loutish Republicrat types among us..

..but it seems there are some rather simple ways to improve the quality of 'government'..rather quickly, dramatically, imo..

('you may say that i'm a dreamer, but i'm not the only one')           

[John Edward Mercier]

Auntie, you'll find most of them have little background in basics. MaineShark talks about the taxing of fuel, but doesn't equate it with the cost of maintenance of roads. Does one believe that the system has inefficiencies? Point them out. For it is fact that it has no ROI, which is required of capitalism.

[J’raxis 270145]

If he is harmed in any way there is a small portion of responsibility that falls in a direct line on my shoulders for helping thrust him up into the blades that chop him to bits. This possibility has had more of an effect on me than any other reasoning for or against supporting Ron Paul for president. My support of him really can put blood on my hands, even if he won't be the one using aggressive force, because it quite literally could be his blood.

Ultimately, there's a chance that many of the freedom activists you're going to be working with in New Hampshire could be killed as a result of their activism—activism in which you would be involved. Will you refuse to attend a protest because of the small possibility that the cops might show up, might try to arrest some people, and ultimately someone might get shot?

It sounds to me like you were just looking for a rationale, and found one.