Freedomain Radio

John:

If society excused 'state-like' behavior on behalf of DROs, it wouldn't be stateless.  "In reality" if a stateless society caught even the slightest whiff of an accusation that a DRO representative acted in a manner resembling a state, that DRO would be shut down faster than the 2006 Duke lacrosse team - candle-light vigils and all.

actually, i'm not at all convinced that that's true.
i find it very likely that, after the collapse of the government,
there will be as many socialistic communities as anarchistic ones.
of course, they will all be voluntary:
people will choose to be involved in the socialism,
and the children won't have any reason to stay.

of course, people who don't want to work will be the ones involving themselves in socialism, for the most part.
the ones who are willing to work will be less willing to let the slothful reap the benefits,
so the socialistic DROs will likely rapidly fail,
but they will still exist, even if only temporarily.

i'm even more sure that democratic communities will occur,
and they will be considerably more fruitful than socialistic ones,
though still will likley ulitmately fail.

AESTHETE:

John:

If society excused 'state-like' behavior on behalf of DROs, it wouldn't be stateless.  "In reality" if a stateless society caught even the slightest whiff of an accusation that a DRO representative acted in a manner resembling a state, that DRO would be shut down faster than the 2006 Duke lacrosse team - candle-light vigils and all.

actually, i'm not at all convinced that that's true.
i find it very likely that, after the collapse of the government,
there will be as many socialistic communities as anarchistic ones.
of course, they will all be voluntary:
people will choose to be involved in the socialism,
and the children won't have any reason to stay.

of course, people who don't want to work will be the ones involving themselves in socialism, for the most part.
the ones who are willing to work will be less willing to let the slothful reap the benefits,
so the socialistic DROs will likely rapidly fail,
but they will still exist, even if only temporarily.

i'm even more sure that democratic communities will occur,
and they will be considerably more fruitful than socialistic ones,
though still will likley ulitmately fail.

How can a society be said to have abolished a given violent institution if it still tolerates the open practice of that violent institution?

If I can openly practice chattel slavery on my plantation (without it being immediately shut down by others) then it cannot be said that the society I live in has abolished the institution of slavery.  Similarly, if I can openly practice 'government-like' activity with my DRO than it cannot be said that the society I live in has abolished the institution of government.

I know it is difficult for someone raised in this society to imagine a future society that would shut down a DRO accused of 'government-like' activity faster than the 2006 Duke lacrosse team, but if you go far enough back in history you will find societies whose members you would have a hard time convincing that a future society would instantly shut down a rich white collegiate sports team because a few of their members were accused of raping a black stripper.

i'm actually quite unfamiliar with this 'abolishment of government' thing.
as far as i'm aware, our free-market society would come about after state collapse,
which involves no 'abolishment'.

it's probably virtually impossible to abolish all state-like activities in an area as large as the united states,
and in an area as brain-washed as the united states.

people in this country are convinced that democracy is good.
DROs are made of individuals, and you can't really argue otherwise.
stef posits that what is true for individuals is true for groups,
and so if individuals like democracy, so will groups.

i don't really understand, then, how all government-like activities would be abolished.

AESTHETE:

a better example would be somebody voluntarily buying land in the knowledge that Genghis Khan taxes anybody in that area.
he didn't put the gun in their face,
they saw him holding up a gun, and put their face infront of it.

AESTHETE:

i'm actually quite unfamiliar with this 'abolishment of government' thing.
as far as i'm aware, our free-market society would come about after state collapse,
which involves no 'abolishment'.

it's probably virtually impossible to abolish all state-like activities in an area as large as the united states,
and in an area as brain-washed as the united states.

people in this country are convinced that democracy is good.
DROs are made of individuals, and you can't really argue otherwise.
stef posits that what is true for individuals is true for groups,
and so if individuals like democracy, so will groups.

i don't really understand, then, how all government-like activities would be abolished.

Governments collapse all the time.  South Americans can measure the longevity of their governments in RPMs, revolutions per minute!  Even in places where the government has collapsed for an extended period of time, like Somalia, the people are most certainly NOT anarchists.  If you were to poll the average Somali and the average American about the 'acceptable' powers of government, you would find the average Somali FAR more tolerable of a totalitarianism than the average American - they just won't accept clans other than their own having that power.

No.  Government will be abolished like ever other violent institution that has already been abolished throughout history - by rejecting the false moral arguments necessary to propagate such institutions, false moral arguments inculcated by our families from a very early age.

John:

No.  Government will be abolished like ever other violent institution that has already been abolished throughout history - by rejecting the false moral arguments necessary to propagate such institutions, false moral arguments inculcated by our families from a very early age.

maybe i have no faith ,
but it seems like this 'abolishment of government' is very, very dependant on a large portion of the population agreeing with us,
and i'm not sure about the likelihood of that.

maybe we can pull it off,
but idk.

AESTHETE:

i wonder: why don't we anarchists secure our freedom before the government falls?
why don't we buy some territory, somewhere in New England maybe,
and be safe from whatever possible dictatorship arises from the ashes of the fallen america.

Yeah, brother, that's pretty much where my head leads me.

Of course, we run the risk of being the next demonized then executed "radicial extremist encampment", but there doesn't seem to be any risk in not doing something along these lines, just sure failure.

Call it a militia or whatever you wish, it's what I'm aimig for.

AESTHETE:

John:

No.  Government will be abolished like ever other violent institution that has already been abolished throughout history - by rejecting the false moral arguments necessary to propagate such institutions, false moral arguments inculcated by our families from a very early age.

maybe i have no faith ,
but it seems like this 'abolishment of government' is very, very dependant on a large portion of the population agreeing with us,
and i'm not sure about the likelihood of that.

maybe we can pull it off,
but idk.

This conversation isn't really about abolishment of government, it is about accepting the scientific method as the only valid means of distinguishing truth from falsehood.  The immorality of the State is merely one conclusion born of that methodology which has not yet been proven false.

So to not have faith that this one conclusion will ever be realized by the necessary critical mass of the public means one of two things:

(1)  You don't have faith that the immorality of the state will continue to be proven true via the methodology.

or

(2)  You don't have faith that enough people will ever be capable of breaking through the psychological barriers preventing them from accepting the immorality of the state as true.

If it's (1) then please continue to voice your concerns and possible objections on this board so that none of us will be in error.  If it's (2), then please explain further why you think some psychological barriers are insurmountable when so many seemingly insurmountable barriers have been overcome in the past.  Thanks!

blackacidlizzard:

AESTHETE:

i wonder: why don't we anarchists secure our freedom before the government falls?
why don't we buy some territory, somewhere in New England maybe,
and be safe from whatever possible dictatorship arises from the ashes of the fallen america.

Yeah, brother, that's pretty much where my head leads me.

Of course, we run the risk of being the next demonized then executed "radicial extremist encampment", but there doesn't seem to be any risk in not doing something along these lines, just sure failure.

Call it a militia or whatever you wish, it's what I'm aimig for.

My thinking on this issue is that if America is ready for the stateless society, then we won't need to move to our own territory.  If it is not ready, then it will crush any attempts for us to be self-determined with the same overwhelming brutality it used to crush so many other self-determined societies around the world in the last 50 years.  See "Killing Hope:  U.S Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II" by William Blum for a full reference.

høna:

is a system ok aslong as people have chosen it voluntary?

there's no "people". system is OK only as long as each individual chosen it voluntary. Group cannot chose anything for you (they may want you to do something, but it's not up to them). Country (government, DRO, what else) has to provide value for you, and if you don't see value in it, you can withdraw at any time unless you voluntarily signed a contract. 

Which means:

• if you don't support what your government does, yet you're threatened into paying taxes, this is extortion.
• if you chose to use an independent currency provider and some country's government "arrests" it's assets, it's theft and blackmail
• if your country's central bank prints currency they don't have assets to cover, this is theft

Edit: I guess what i was trying to say is that all we need to to is call things with their true names. It's not fun, but at least we won't think there's a "system", we'll know there's a violent gang operating

John:

maybe i have no faith :P,
but it seems like this 'abolishment of government' is very, very dependant on a large portion of the population agreeing with us,
and i'm not sure about the likelihood of that.

maybe we can pull it off,
but idk.

]This conversation isn't really about abolishment of government, it is about accepting the scientific method as the only valid means of distinguishing truth from falsehood.  The immorality of the State is merely one conclusion born of that methodology which has not yet been proven false.

So to not have faith that this one conclusion will ever be realized by the necessary critical mass of the public means one of two things:

(1)  You don't have faith that the immorality of the state will continue to be proven true via the methodology.

or

(2)  You don't have faith that enough people will ever be capable of breaking through the psychological barriers preventing them from accepting the immorality of the state as true.

If it's (1) then please continue to voice your concerns and possible objections on this board so that none of us will be in error.  If it's (2), then please explain further why you think some psychological barriers are insurmountable when so many seemingly insurmountable barriers have been overcome in the past.  Thanks!

Perfect. A+ post. Sums up the problem with how people perceive the "problems" of anarchy, as OP does.
 

John:

(2)  You don't have faith that enough people will ever be capable of breaking through the psychological barriers preventing them from accepting the immorality of the state as true.

If it's (2), then please explain further why you think some psychological barriers are insurmountable when so many seemingly insurmountable barriers have been overcome in the past.  Thanks!

people have qualms when they hear the term 'anarchism'.
generally, i think a large part of the country somewhat is more inclined to socialism than the free market as it is.
that's certainly true with my acquaintences.

communism was as unpopular in russia when people started seriously proposing it.
the only way they overcame that unpopularity was violence.

the only rational solution for us (it can't be violence, because that would be hypocritical)
is convincing people one person at a time.
that's pretty tedious.

do you have another method of securing our system?

AESTHETE:

John:

(2)  You don't have faith that enough people will ever be capable of breaking through the psychological barriers preventing them from accepting the immorality of the state as true.

If it's (2), then please explain further why you think some psychological barriers are insurmountable when so many seemingly insurmountable barriers have been overcome in the past.  Thanks!

people have qualms when they hear the term 'anarchism'.
generally, i think a large part of the country somewhat is more inclined to socialism than the free market as it is.
that's certainly true with my acquaintences.

communism was as unpopular in russia when people started seriously proposing it.
the only way they overcame that unpopularity was violence.

the only rational solution for us (it can't be violence, because that would be hypocritical)
is convincing people one person at a time.
that's pretty tedious.

do you have another method of securing our system?

OK so you believe that the false-morality of the state is a psychological barrier that a critical mass of human beings will never break through even though human beings of previous societies have been able to break through every other seemingly impenetrable psychological barrier leading to this one.

Sorry, that just seems rather arbitrary and chrono-centric to me - that there is a set immovable line of rationality that the human species is incapable of crossing.

Have you listened to podcast 450 on Libertopia yet?  Don't worry about how many other people you need to convince to free themselves until you yourself are free of all unchosen obligations in your own personal life.  Focusing so much on the easy impersonal political aspects of freedom may be a psychological mechanism to avoid making the tough choices needed to consistency apply those same principles to your personal life.

John:

Sorry, that just seems rather arbitrary and chrono-centric to me - that there is a set immovable line of rationality that the human species is incapable of crossing.

Right- if you are to believe in free will (or at least whichever non deterministic offshoot you accept), suggesting things like "mankind will never overcome the state" or "war is inevitable" essentially say that we don't have a choice in the matter. Like Rand would say, it's like playing a game with loaded dice.
 

chewgarus:

John:

Sorry, that just seems rather arbitrary and chrono-centric to me - that there is a set immovable line of rationality that the human species is incapable of crossing.

Right- if you are to believe in free will (or at least whichever non deterministic offshoot you accept), suggesting things like "mankind will never overcome the state" or "war is inevitable" essentially say that we don't have a choice in the matter. Like Rand would say, it's like playing a game with loaded dice.
 

i'm not saying that we can't overcome the state,
but it is similarly likely as overcoming religion,
and look how that's been going.

certainly, though,
and this is my view:
not everybody has to participate in this system (it is voluntary, after all).

after not so long, maybe, if we're right,
then the socialist communities in which everybody's on welfare and nobody produces anything,
and the communist countries in which efficiency is demanded by the leaders, and impeded by them too,
will see that we're prospering, financially/socially/economically,
and will follow.