New Hampshire Underground

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Please log in on the special "login" page, not on any of these normal pages. Thank you, The Procrastinating Management

"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."  --Alexander Haig

Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: how to remove the government, without resulting in chaos?  (Read 3112 times)

KBCraig

  • Childish in charge
  • Global Moderator
  • Enemy of the State
  • *****
  • Karma: 2263
  • Posts: 13053
  • Spazzing for Freedom
Re: how to remove the government, without resulting in chaos?
« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2008, 01:24 PM NHFT »

Somalia is a bad example, since most of the violence stems from attempts to reinstitute a formal government.

That actually makes it a very good example.  :)
Logged

K. Darien Freeheart

  • Majorly Manchkin!
  • Freedom Fighter
  • *****
  • Karma: 435
  • Posts: 1729
  • Peace Fanatic
    • K. Darien Freeheart's Facebook
Re: how to remove the government, without resulting in chaos?
« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2008, 01:35 PM NHFT »

Quote
a friend of mine asked me if i knew of any free staters who had  the desire to go to a place where true anarchy exists, such as somalia.

Actually, while there was no govenment in Somalia I was quite intrigued by the idea of visiting there. Perhaps more as a symbolic token than anything. I would do it in a heartbeat if I decided I wanted to run a business since regulations and such would be dramatically easier to handle without regulations and because it would be a little "proof" that anarchy works.

Quote
so my question is this - why (in simple terms) is somalia a good/bad example of anarchy

Well, the biggest distinction between "anarchy" and "my vision of anarchy" is that ideally, the free market's "takeover" would be rooted out of choice. This isn't to say that my vision relies on the entire population of the planet suddently becoming "enlightened". I hold no belief that people will one day wake up and say "Okay, no more government". In my eyes, the key to a sustainable market anarchy will happen in a step down. Political activists will work on eliminating the monopolies government currently have and non-cooperative agorists will build and establish competing services, legal or not.

Over time, people will begin to have choices and for the various market reasons, people will (without being anti-state) choose to not do business with the government.

The key there though, is that the transition happen in a way that people see benefit in it. This didn't happen in Somalia, the previous government in Somalia was thrown off by a violent force and was rather sudden. It's not sustainable long term (in my eyes) because there will be a contingent who thinks that a government is the solution. Many of those people aren't blood thirsty power mongers (some may be) but people who haven't seen other solutions. Those solutions need to be in place before a sustainable, viable market anarchy can happen.

Quote
and how do we avoid a situation where violence and chaos breaks out in the sudden absence of government?

My honest opinion - you can't. Today, people are used to the idea of institutionalized violence. Even those of us who reject the idea have never actually seen a functional world without it. To many people, government really is as "unshakable" as gravity. You can't avoid chaos if gravity suddenly "turned off". If government collapses, but the only solution people can fathom is government, you will have chaos and bloodshed as people compete to establish a new government. This is why I call myself a voluntaryist AND agorist.

In Keene, trash collection is private. In most other places, it's a goverment run service. A lot of people object to the idea of "privatizing" trash collection because it's a change, not because they actually object to private trash services. If the ability to not think is removed, by government allowing competition or agorist business doing it anyway, those same people WILL choose the best trash collection service, however, once it's IN the market. I believe this aspect of competition is much more vitally important than education campaigns in the long run. People don't need to embrace liberty to simply make buying decisions that benefit them and if those choices are non-government options, the aggregate of them will still end in decreased power of the state.
Logged

bouncer

  • Independent Thinker
  • *
  • Karma: 5
  • Posts: 62
Re: how to remove the government, without resulting in chaos?
« Reply #17 on: October 06, 2008, 01:45 PM NHFT »

Somalia is a perfect example of what could happen !! Take a look at crime in say Detroit, Baltimore even parts of Los Angeles . What would happen there if the government didn't exist. Might makes right armed gangs would completely take over, It probably wouldn't happen in NH but it certainly would in some places !!!
Logged

Dave Ridley

  • This forum calls me an
  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 1535
  • Posts: 7162
Re: how to remove the government, without resulting in chaos?
« Reply #18 on: October 06, 2008, 01:47 PM NHFT »

way to much focus on the all but unachievable end, not enough on the achievable means
Logged

Caleb

  • a mind guerilla, chanting the mantra "peace on earth"
  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 973
  • Posts: 2851
    • Caleb's Corner
Re: how to remove the government, without resulting in chaos?
« Reply #19 on: October 06, 2008, 01:58 PM NHFT »

“It finally amounts to this, which also I believe–`That government is best which governs not at all’; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.” - Thoreau

Anarchy is something that is cultivated inside yourself. It isn't a political platform that you work for. When mankind has evolved socially to the point where the majority of men have cultivated interior freedom, that is when the state will cease to exist. Here's a quote from my blog page on anarchy:

Quote
Anarchy isn’t about throwing bombs. And it really isn’t even about destroying or undermining established governments. That’s because anarchy isn’t a political philosophy that one can hold with the aim of implementing it. Unlike a political party or movement, anarchy has no political platform. The platform of anarchy is fraternity and brotherhood. Anarchy starts with self-realization: realization that one is free, and because he is free he is also able to make things happen (either for good or for bad.) This process of self-realization leads to empowerment and the understanding that there is (and must be) personal responsibility for our actions; this realization enables the anarchist to interact with other people as other people, seeing through the pretentious titles and labels that people assume, and dealing with the other as a living, breathing, human being-a human being with intrinsic worth, but also a human being capable of making a difference in the world.

From this path of self-realization, the anarchist begins to realize that states are nothing more than agencies which threaten violence as a means of securing desired social aims. The anarchist realizes that social aims are best achieved by empowering the individual, not threatening him. He realizes that there are some people, (thankfully, a very few people,) who will not use their responsibility wisely; he accepts this rather than attempting to preemptively stop these people by adopting a form of society which ultimately removes the sense of responsibility and reflection of the people by prescribing a long list of “do’s and don’ts”; he recognizes this system as ultimately reinforcing the very behavior that it would seek to proscribe. The ultimate aim of the anarchist, then, is not to undermine the civil government. Rather, the aim of the anarchist is to help others to realize that they are free human beings, whose dignity cannot be affronted through numerous appeals to law and order. The anarchist wishes all men to see that a law cannot be obeyed because it is a law - but that all laws must submit to the judgment of human decency and the code of human ethics, and that the source of that judgment (the human conscience) is a facet of each individual’s perception of his own empowerment.

Thus, the anarchist does not seek disorder by destroying civil government, rather, he seeks to promote a society where individuals seek their own order cooperatively, and the state thus becomes superfluous.
Logged

K. Darien Freeheart

  • Majorly Manchkin!
  • Freedom Fighter
  • *****
  • Karma: 435
  • Posts: 1729
  • Peace Fanatic
    • K. Darien Freeheart's Facebook
Re: how to remove the government, without resulting in chaos?
« Reply #20 on: October 06, 2008, 02:15 PM NHFT »

Quote
Take a look at crime in say Detroit

When I lived in Detroit, the vast majority of crime was over drugs. When was the last time you say someone shot over distribution rights to Gatorade? Never, and if so, certainly not a newsworthy epidemic. Without govenment, this wouldn't be happening because "illegal" drugs like cocaine and cannabis would be handled in the exact same way the "legal" ones would - as business ventures run by consent and voluntary exchange. Advertising would replace gun shots in "who can sell here".

There's also the fact that Detroit's government is quite literally, one of the biggest criminal organizations. I'm not talking libertarian rhetoric here either. Detroit is the city where police frequently shoot deaf men for brandishing rakes and several examples of police brutality for saying things like "Fuck the police". More often than not, the police are directly involved with the underground - drugs and prostitution mainly. Not only do they have legitimized authority to use violence, but they perpetuate the illegitimate violence quite actively.

Quote
Baltimore

Somewhat of the same thing, except I think that Baltimore cops in general are just a bit more sadistic, though a bit less violent.

Quote
even parts of Los Angeles

Michigan, Maryland and California are your examples of why MORE goverment is good? Think about that for a minute. I'm assuming you've never lived in any of those states? Michigan has so much government that they're driving their economy into the core of the earth. They've got enough "Democrat" government opposing the "republican" government to give the impression that it's not so bad, but they're got assloads of government regulation nonetheless. Michigan in the mid 90's also began a "Tough on crime" campaign which increased the pentalties of drug crimes (see above comment about the majority of violence in Detroit being drug related) which increased costs to fund the police. More people with less money, a blackmarket that pays better than most legitimate business ventures due to the extreme regulation (when you can force Google out of Ann Arbor because the cost of recruiting U of M students it so high, you KNOW you've got issues) and you've got a LOT of people dealing in black market activities that get perpetuated by violence.

Michigan, and Detroit in specific, is the perfect example of a downward spiral caused by government's inability to respond to market signals and the govenrment reliance on force.

Maryland isn't as "lucky" as Michigan. In Maryland, the big government is almost entirely the nanny state liberal variety. The US Constitution says "the people's right to bear arms ... shall not be infringed" but take a look at what hoops Maryland required to get a handgun. Just two days ago there was a report on how the City of Baltimore wants to "step up" their gun seizure programs. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-md.ci.guns04oct04,0,7081652.story

One thing they noted... They're getting less guns off the street, and crime is dropping. Go figure.

The City Of Baltimore has a Gun Offender Registry, similar to the Sex Offender Registry.

I don't even need to go into my California has big government.

Quote
What would happen there if the government didn't exist.

A lot less people would die.

Quote
Might makes right armed gangs would completely take over

Why do you pay taxes? What happens if you don't? Stop when a car with flashing blue lights pulls behind you? Pay some people money for a little card that lets you drive on roads you pay for? Sell a medical service without asking permission? Deliver mail to a mailbox if you're not a member of a special club?

Seems that "might versus right" arguement cuts both ways.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2008, 02:21 PM NHFT by Kevin Dean »
Logged

Jared

  • Radical
  • ***
  • Karma: 89
  • Posts: 688
    • my music
Re: how to remove the government, without resulting in chaos?
« Reply #21 on: October 06, 2008, 04:58 PM NHFT »

i was reading an older discussion about somalia (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3104.60) tonight, because a friend of mine asked me if i knew of any free staters who had  the desire to go to a place where true anarchy exists, such as somalia. unfortunately, i did not know much about somalia, so i didn't make much of a response. so my question is this - why (in simple terms) is somalia a good/bad example of anarchy, and how do we avoid a situation where violence and chaos breaks out in the sudden absence of government?

How are we defining "chaos" here? Chaos in the classical sense, that everything has gone to the wolves? Or chaos in the sense that you have some random acts of violence within an over-arching framework that can be described as "orderly"? Because as far as I can tell, it's under a Statist system that we have chaos- routinely do we have murder, theft, and extortion engaged in.

That said I have no desire to go to Somalia- why? Well, for one it isn't a "true" anarchy. The presence of the United States, United Nations, and African Union are enough to convince me of this. Secondly, I don't desire to go to a barren nation with nothing for me to look at. That'd just be a shitty vacaction.

i'm referring to all hell breaking lose, violence in the streets, looting, that sort of thing.
Logged

Jared

  • Radical
  • ***
  • Karma: 89
  • Posts: 688
    • my music
Re: how to remove the government, without resulting in chaos?
« Reply #22 on: October 06, 2008, 05:17 PM NHFT »

those are some good responses, guys. i particularly liked what caleb and kevin dean had to say..you both seemed to be going down the same track of education and enlightenment as a path to anarchy. the talk about violence in the big cities interested me. the fact is, one of the biggest reasons for the more violent/primitive behavior in these places is that these are sanctuaries for big nanny governments. welfare, horrible schools, gun laws, and high taxes all create a more violent and primitive atmosphere....so maybe there would be widespread violence, looting, etc in these types of areas if the government suddenly disappeared. people would become frightened at the loss of their nanny state, and the fear would naturally lead to violence. maybe anarchy really cannot happen overnight and be successful, at least not in the current nanny state. the problem is, i feel that man, if anything, is devolving as government grows larger and more powerful. i think it could take a long time of reversing the current situation before people will be ready. ultimately, however, a lack of government is the only morally justifiable system (or lack of a system). at least that's how i feel.

i would really like to hear russell's opinion on this. i noticed in the older post that he had seemed to say that it would be a good thing if government disappeared tomorrow, rather then faced a more step by step decline. i'm still pretty open and undecided about this, so i'd like to hear justification for that thought process as well.
Logged

error

  • Heartbreaker
  • Freedom Fighter
  • *****
  • Karma: 584
  • Posts: 1734
    • Homeland Stupidity
Re: how to remove the government, without resulting in chaos?
« Reply #23 on: October 06, 2008, 09:13 PM NHFT »

A cultural shift is required if we are going to succeed in eliminating government. The beginnings of that shift are underway now, here, and accelerating that shift is one of the things we need people doing. I'll write more on this later.
Logged

dalebert

  • Middle Initials are T.M.I.
  • Insider
  • Enemy of the State
  • *****
  • Karma: 1876
  • Posts: 8000
  • Freedom- it's what's in your head
    • Prometheus Unchained
Re: how to remove the government, without resulting in chaos?
« Reply #24 on: October 06, 2008, 10:34 PM NHFT »

Somalia isn't appealing to us because it's just not very developed or advanced. That has nothing to do with it being with practically no central government now. It was undeveloped when it did have that government. You can't compare it to some governed country that happens to be more advanced and say Somalia sucks because there's no central government. You're not isolating government's influence in such a case. Somalia has become more prosperous since the central government collapse.

The notion of "sudden violence" cracks me up because it's implies that we're not having LOTS of violence right now. It's just that government monopolizes and legitimizes that violence so that people don't really pay much attention to it. You're worried about someone breaking into your house and taking your stuph? 7/8 of your stuph is being stolen continually right now! The U.S. is locking up a higher percentage of the people than any country in history. The drug war is perpetuating the vast majority of the crime we're having right now. And let's not forget the brown people we're killing by the thousands (millions really) who are worth just as much as white people. Let's not overlook all of this when we get our panties in a wad over potential "sudden violence".  ::)
Logged

bouncer

  • Independent Thinker
  • *
  • Karma: 5
  • Posts: 62
Re: how to remove the government, without resulting in chaos?
« Reply #25 on: October 07, 2008, 11:42 AM NHFT »

I'm not saying that the government is working in those cities in the US. And no I have not lived in those cities but I have spent weeks in those cities in most of the poorer areas. What I am saying is those areas have serious problems and taking all government out of those cities will cause worse problems than there are now. As far as the crime being over drugs I agree but legalizing will not change that unless the government taxes and regulates and then it might as well go back to being illegal and what will the poor do without government checks every month. What I'm saying is the current situation would worsen if government was gone at present we need to solve the social problems in ways thatdon't invole making the government any bigger.
Logged

K. Darien Freeheart

  • Majorly Manchkin!
  • Freedom Fighter
  • *****
  • Karma: 435
  • Posts: 1729
  • Peace Fanatic
    • K. Darien Freeheart's Facebook
Re: how to remove the government, without resulting in chaos?
« Reply #26 on: October 07, 2008, 12:26 PM NHFT »

Quote
What I am saying is those areas have serious problems and taking all government out of those cities will cause worse problems than there are now.

No, it wouldn't. Right now, people who don't harm people are being locked in cages by men with guns. Faster than any other nation in the world, in fact. China, with 1/6 of the world's population, has less people in prison than America, and Christianity is illegal there. So is speaking against the government or looking at porn. That speaks volumes and volumes to the violence initiated and perpetuated by the state.

Quote
As far as the crime being over drugs I agree but legalizing will not change that unless the government taxes and regulates

Do you really believe that or are you merely trying to be a troll? If you're trolling, so be it, I won't waste my time. If you truly believe that, you probably need to learn a bit about the nature of taxes (namely that pointing guns at people and demanding money is a really unethical thing to do). Additionally, if you really believe that, I'd like to know what you think makes a cannabis plant or a crack rock so "special" that the government has to tax it. Corn, which is a plant just like cannabis, grows even when the government doesn't tax it. It can be harvested, transported and sold without being taxed. Just because something "has always" been that way doesn't mean it's inherent to it's nature. Until people decided "We do not need Kings" everybody knew that kings were merely a way of life. Today, everybody "knows" that government is unavoidable and necessary, but like that whole "Sun circles Earth" thing, what everyone knew was wrong.

Quote
what will the poor do without government checks every month.

I'm guessing you're a (former?) Democrat? It seems, like myself, you've bought into the idea that govenment is merely the services that it provides people. In your eyes, the government vanishing is essentially roads going "poof" and welfare checks stopping! Think of the chaos that would cause.

Like most liberals (again, including myself at one point) you totally ignore the "government behind the curtain", so-to-speak. You ignore that minimum wage laws, which prevent poor unskilled workers from making themselves attractive to would-be first jobs. You ignore zoning restrictions that prevent people from starting home based businesses. You ignore the stipends that landowners would receive when the government is no longer forcing them to rent to the electric companies for free (do you think homeowners get PAID for having those electric poles up?). You ignore the people today (like nurses) who can't practice important trades become the govenrment licensing boards require five more years of study. Even if those poor people had less money, do you think that having nurses (instead of doctors) able to give vaccinations would help a poor family stretch their healthcare dollar? What about a vetrenarian giving stitches to minor wounds at $75 instead of the ER doing it for $200? Both professionals are equally trained and skilled, the procedure is the same regardless of the patient.

What you see is the "good" (ignoring for a moment, the violence the government requires to do ANYTHING) that would be gone, but you fail almost entirely to account for the potential that is limited at the point of a gun from good people all around the world.

Might I suggest some great reading for you? Dr. Mary Ruwart's book "Healing Our World In An Age Of Aggression" does a lot to break down the myths that govenrment manages to do anything positive. Of course, it breaks is down into several areas, from labor laws to medical care to education and all of that good stuff. You can read the first edition online for free at http://ruwart.com/Healing/rutoc.html
Logged

dalebert

  • Middle Initials are T.M.I.
  • Insider
  • Enemy of the State
  • *****
  • Karma: 1876
  • Posts: 8000
  • Freedom- it's what's in your head
    • Prometheus Unchained
Re: how to remove the government, without resulting in chaos?
« Reply #27 on: October 07, 2008, 12:34 PM NHFT »

Do those cities have gun laws preventing people in those poorer areas from arming themselves? I guarantee a drop in crime if that changes. Now, if the government were suddenly not present like... instantly, while people remain unarmed due to oppression that was still in place right up to that point, then yes, there will be a period of chaos. If they're dependent on checks and the checks suddenly go away, then yes, the dependence that government has fostered along with the economic depression it creates will mean things will get worse for a bit. Eventually they would reap the massive economic benefits of a free market and the truly poor would be a very rare thing.

It's all academic, of course. It's really little more than a silly game to try and predict what WOULD happen because that's not the way a government goes away- overnight, unless it's kind of inevitable and unavoidable and is the fault of the government itself being so god awful bad that it rapidly collapses, except perhaps in these temporary situations where there is a sudden vacuum of government for a short while due to some disaster; again unavoidable and not really relevant to a discussion about permanent government alternatives.

If it's the result of a culture shift away from supporting the government, which is likely the only thing that will actually get us more freedom, it would tend to be a gradual replacement of government power with voluntary replacements. More and more people would gradually lose faith and begin to withdraw their support, quit playing the political games and running on the democracy hamster wheels designed to feed the legitimacy illusions, avoiding taxes and fees whenever possible, starving the beast, having no irrational guilt about participating in the gray and black markets which would avoid yet more taxes and feed a healthier free market economy. They'd stop turning people in for victimless crimes or providing false witness against their neighbors, etc. The government would weaken simultaneously with the growth of healthier, moral institutions. I don't know that authoritarian models of government, or violent attempts at such models would ever go away completely, but they'd certainly lose more and more of a stranglehold on us because individuals would have changed in the crucial ways necessary to perpetuate freedom and prosperity.

It's a fallacy to think of it as a binary thing, as in we have government and then BOOM, we have anarchy. In actuality, there is only moral action and immoral action and a continual spectrum in the collective sense. We want to move toward the moral end of that spectrum toward more voluntary activity and less crime, authoritarian government merely being a subclass of crime, which also happens to be a very effective type of crime.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2008, 12:41 PM NHFT by dalebert »
Logged

AnarcSyn

  • Groucho Marxist
  • Liberty Lover
  • *
  • Karma: 0
  • Posts: 27
  • buddhist anarcho-syndicalist
Re: how to remove the government, without resulting in chaos?
« Reply #28 on: October 17, 2008, 09:29 PM NHFT »

AnarchoMartyr Wrote:
"Don't try and co-opt another one of our terms- first it was libertarian, and now it's going to be voluntary/voluntarist."

----------------------------------------------------------------------


sure glad the co-opting of terms by "libertarians", "anarcho"-capitalists has been brought up...

tho i try not to hyphenate the anarchism reflected here, the co-opting of historic anarchist terms and theory to somehow rationalize its use by "libertarians" can be, at times, disconcerting...

to point this out further, and if i may, i suggest the following piece from Anarchist Writers entitled "A reply to "Capitalist Praise For Anarcho-Syndicalism"

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/reply-to-capitalist-praise-for-anarcho-syndicalism

enjoy, and as always
Be Well

ps: sorry for not getting a good handle on the quote function...  i'll keep practicing  ;)
« Last Edit: October 17, 2008, 09:31 PM NHFT by AnarcSyn »
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • Revolutionary
  • ******
  • Karma: 1040
  • Posts: 2269
Re: how to remove the government, without resulting in chaos?
« Reply #29 on: October 19, 2008, 07:50 AM NHFT »

Proudhon never fully developed a position. Even the position on labor changed relative to an understanding of specialization (skill) and productivity. The position relative to real estate was formed based on feudalism. And is even being reassessed under modern capitalism, where the relative nature of productive value leads to the most efficient means to be renting rather than owning real estate.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up