Freedomain Radio

I had this strange thought. I feel like I should share it with people, and maybe this can be addressed in Stef's book. So The general methodology for FDR is to help people enlighten themselves, and then once enough people are enlightened, we can begin dismantling the state, if this is not true I would like to know, that is the impression I have been getting from the start of the podcast series.

.So considering how violently individuals react to our ideas, I am wondering if like 15% of our country becomes anarchistic or in the same ball park as us morally, I am wondering what exactly the Culture's reaction is going to be to our ideas. It wouldn't be a first if the state/culture tried to kill or make things miserable for free marketers/anarchists.  I am not worried now because frankly Market Anarchy is one of hundreds of fringe Philosophies . But the points between when we are just big enough to be noticed and too small to defend ourselves is what I am worried about. A bunch of people running down the streets yelling "Down with the Kings" get hanged. One guy just gets called crazy (and then usually he is hanged, but not hanging people today is called tolerant) .

My proposed soloutions to this are,,,

    Don't talk about fight club. No demonstrations or mass media advertising. Just spread the word person to person, to the point where the culture does not notice us til it is to late. 

   Move to areas with weak state power and start a new society, by weak state power, I mean places with a small military and police force. 

It seems like people get annoyed at theory/speculation questions. I don't know why I see that or why people would be. Have these questions been asked before.

One of the things about free domain radio is that Stef and alot of people here really don't like the whole "living in the woods" solution.  They want to live in society without being shot or without having to flee. 

Anyway if you want to start a fight club im in just pm me or whatever

We are far way from that in my opinion. I am more worried that we would become some collateral damage like the gypsies and gays during the nazi regime.

Another option is to joke about it, but be dead serious at the same time. Former kings in europe usually had a court joker, who could say everything without getting his head chopped off, because he was 'only joking'. Still, as people laugh about it you know they connect, because if you had said something completely ridiculous, they would stare in bewilderment. Humor is subliminal messaging.

I have always tried to use humor in the service of truth...

Well in the latest podcast, Nihilism, which was wonderfull btw, Stef said that the culture will try to kill us, or wants us to die. Right now suicide is the main way this happens. (I think the way we personify culture is funny, but thats a different topic for a different time). But if there are enough of us the people atatched to this Virus may resort to other methods. I mean, states and cultures kill eachother for sport, I can't even begin to think of what they would want to do with us.

The process we see on a small scale is:

1. Ignore

2. Slander

3. Attack? (am I missing any steps?)

So right now they are ignoring us, then they will slander Market Anarchists, then what next? Court Trials? Fake Terrorist Attacks?

AdamInSin:

Move to areas with weak state power and start a new society, by weak state power, I mean places with a small military and police force

So, your idea is to take advantage of a weak power to seize control over a geographic area.  If you did that, how could you possibly complain about a state doing the same thing?

It seems to me that the only way you could establish an anarchist state (LOL) would be according to the same rules you were going to run it on.  Specifically, you would have to get people to agree to it.  Trade to mutual advantage.  However, I can't see how you will get a state to agree to abolish itself, so you will have to be very careful.

If we assume that you will initially have a small number of people on your side, then you will only be able to control a small geographic area.  It makes no sense to try to get a portion of a state to become anarchistic because the rest of the state will simply stop you.  So you would have to transplant your organization to a small state.  One that is small enough for your group to control.  Then you can spread the word and get all the people in that state to agree to "go anarchistic" at the same time.  Since the neighboring states respect the boundaries of the small state they MIGHT not feel the need to interfere.  However, the presence of a large group of anarchists who just "killed" a state on one of their borders will worry them.  Either it works, and their citizens will want to become anarchistic too, or it doesn't work, and it becomes an incredibly destabalizing influence as all those people leave the anarchistic area for the security and prosperity of the neighboring states.  Either one is bad for the survival of the neighboring states.  I think they will try to stop you.  If they can't stop you, they will do their best to ensure the "experiment" doesn't work.  Then they could simply expand their own states boarders in the name of bringing humanitarian aid and order to the poor, misfortunate failed-anarchists.

If we assume that you initially have a large number of people on your side, then we have to wonder whether or not they actually are on your side.  My research indicates that while anarchists all believe that they should abolish the state, they don't agree on anything else.  Since you can't assert central control over anarchists, you have no way of ensuring that they are all working out of the same play book.  You won't be able to get them to agree to a coordinated plan, you won't be able to get them to stay on message, you won't even be able to get them to all be polite.  Your ideas, which might be very good, will be mixed up with a lot of other ideas which probably won't be.  People outside the movement will lump you all together, look at the worst as examples of all, and reject you all.  The the state will take steps to stop you from causing trouble.

So, in conclusion, how are you going to establish anarchism according to the same rules you are going to run it on?

blueback:

AdamInSin:

Move to areas with weak state power and start a new society, by weak state power, I mean places with a small military and police force

 

So, your idea is to take advantage of a weak power to seize control over a geographic area.  If you did that, how could you possibly complain about a state doing the same thing?

It seems to me that the only way you could establish an anarchist state (LOL) would be according to the same rules you were going to run it on.  Specifically, you would have to get people to agree to it.  Trade to mutual advantage.  However, I can't see how you will get a state to agree to abolish itself, so you will have to be very careful.

If we assume that you will initially have a small number of people on your side, then you will only be able to control a small geographic area.  It makes no sense to try to get a portion of a state to become anarchistic because the rest of the state will simply stop you.  So you would have to transplant your organization to a small state.  One that is small enough for your group to control.  Then you can spread the word and get all the people in that state to agree to "go anarchistic" at the same time.  Since the neighboring states respect the boundaries of the small state they MIGHT not feel the need to interfere.  However, the presence of a large group of anarchists who just "killed" a state on one of their borders will worry them.  Either it works, and their citizens will want to become anarchistic too, or it doesn't work, and it becomes an incredibly destabalizing influence as all those people leave the anarchistic area for the security and prosperity of the neighboring states.  Either one is bad for the survival of the neighboring states.  I think they will try to stop you.  If they can't stop you, they will do their best to ensure the "experiment" doesn't work.  Then they could simply expand their own states boarders in the name of bringing humanitarian aid and order to the poor, misfortunate failed-anarchists.

If we assume that you initially have a large number of people on your side, then we have to wonder whether or not they actually are on your side.  My research indicates that while anarchists all believe that they should abolish the state, they don't agree on anything else.  Since you can't assert central control over anarchists, you have no way of ensuring that they are all working out of the same play book.  You won't be able to get them to agree to a coordinated plan, you won't be able to get them to stay on message, you won't even be able to get them to all be polite.  Your ideas, which might be very good, will be mixed up with a lot of other ideas which probably won't be.  People outside the movement will lump you all together, look at the worst as examples of all, and reject you all.  The the state will take steps to stop you from causing trouble.

So, in conclusion, how are you going to establish anarchism according to the same rules you are going to run it on?

First off, I think the idea of attempting to set up an anarchistic state is not feasible.  The only way it will come about is if people start to apply the anarchistic principles that they already live with to the remaining aspects of their lives where they still depend on state control, so it must come about through word of mouth.

That said, I think Somalia proves a good example of how difficult it would be for the neighboring countries to just "simply expand their own states boarders in the name of bringing humanitarian aid and order to the poor, misfortunate failed-anarchists."  Somalia has been without a government for nearly 20 years and in all that time, Ethiopia, the U.N., and the U.S. have attempted to exert some sort of control over the area and have failed miserably.  Not to say that Somalia is any example of a decent anarchic society, as they are basically a bunch of religious/tribal nutjobs, but they have shown the difficulty states will have with invading.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that there's no centralized authority, so the state would have to constantly keep tabs on every individual to keep such a region under control.  This not possible economically.  This lack of centralized authority means that there is no tax system to take over, which means they'd have to increase the taxes or the national debt of their own people in order to keep such minute levels of control of the population of an anarchic region.  This increase in taxes, plus the news of their own governments attempts at violent control of peaceful people that would come out of such a region, especially through the internet, would lead to so many problems on the homefront, the invading state would have to withdraw.

Well, event the term "anarchistic state" is not feasible.

Somalia is a good example of a place that no one wants any part of.  That being said, if any of its neighbors were successful enough to think about expanding their control then they probably would. . .but

States ARE centralized control.  If a state took over an area it would bring centralized control with it.  Along with centralized control would be taxes.  The invading state would use its guns and its lawyers to establish control over the population.  The state would not wander into the area, scratch its head over all the crazy anarchists and their crazy rules, and leave.  The best way to occupy a newly acquired territory is to send your own citizens to colonize it.  These citizens would help establish the order that the area was lacking before.

I'm pretty sure you shouldn't call the people of Somalia "peaceful."  If the area was peaceful there wouldn't be such a hard time bringing aid there.

Yes, the Westphalian model of a state has been accepted pretty much everywhere in the world.  So people are used to the idea that states stay within their own boundaries.  However, that is a very recent accomplishment by historical standards.  It is also not well supported as a profitable strategy in all situations.

AdamInSin:

The process we see on a small scale is:

1. Ignore

2. Slander

3. Attack? (am I missing any steps?)

Sometimes I feel rather happy with the fact of being ignored and even a little worried about having effect. Maybe this is the reason, we fear what is next.

blueback:

Well, event the term "anarchistic state" is not feasible.

Somalia is a good example of a place that no one wants any part of.  That being said, if any of its neighbors were successful enough to think about expanding their control then they probably would. . .but

States ARE centralized control.  If a state took over an area it would bring centralized control with it.  Along with centralized control would be taxes.  The invading state would use its guns and its lawyers to establish control over the population.  The state would not wander into the area, scratch its head over all the crazy anarchists and their crazy rules, and leave.  The best way to occupy a newly acquired territory is to send your own citizens to colonize it.  These citizens would help establish the order that the area was lacking before.

I'm pretty sure you shouldn't call the people of Somalia "peaceful."  If the area was peaceful there wouldn't be such a hard time bringing aid there.

Yes, the Westphalian model of a state has been accepted pretty much everywhere in the world.  So people are used to the idea that states stay within their own boundaries.  However, that is a very recent accomplishment by historical standards.  It is also not well supported as a profitable strategy in all situations.

 

Where would the colonizing citizens from the invading state go?  With every piece of land owned and defended by the individuals and their DROs, what would the colonizing citizens have to gain attempting to get a foothold in a place that would treat them rightly as criminals?  Also, you said guns and lawyers would be used to establish control.  But how would lawyers have any say in a system that didn't recognize their authority?  Also, this is not like the 19th century where colonizing powers had a large technology advantage.  Successful colonization at the barrel of a gun ended once people ended up at about an equal level in terms of firepower.   When insurgents can take down a multi-million dollar bomber with a couple of stinger missles that cost a few thousand dollars, the colonizers suddenly have a big challenge on their hands.

And yes, I never said Somalia is peaceful.  They are not an example of an an-cap society.  They are just an example of a society without a centralized government that has avoided repeated attempts at establishing control over the past 20 years.

And "anarchistic state" is an oxymoron.  I typically try to stick with "anarchistic region" or area or land, though I do fall back in the common usage sometimes.

The invading state would simply evict every anarchist living in the area they had their eye on who didn't cooperate.  That is one of the things a large, powerful, tax-fueled military is good for. . .making people do what you want them to do.  The state wouldn't even be doing anything wrong.  The rest of the world recognizes state's rights to exist, not individual's rights to tell states to fuck off.  Since the citizens of the world still think their states are pretty good ideas, because they haven't embraced anarchism, they will not care too much about what is happening. 

The states of the world would actually have an interest in ensuring that the anarchy experiment failed.  A successful colony of anarchists threatens the existence of all the states.

Would the entire group of anarchists band together to save one anarchist?  Would an anarchist risk his life and property for an anarchist on the other side of the colony who was being evicted by a powerful state?

I'm not saying this exact scenario would happen, just that it could.  A state expanding into the stateless area occupied by anarchists could simply force all of them out of the area it was interested in and put its own citizens there.  Would anarchists try to fight the state to get "their" land and property back?  Could the displaced anarchists fight the state for their land while at the same time working hard enough to maintain a place in the DRO controlled anarchist colony?  Are a group of anarchists capable of collective effort on the scale necessary to fight a state? 

The question of whether a group of anarchists could fight a state can be summed up with Iraq and Afghanistan.  A couple hundred dollars per fighter, of which the fighters make up a small percentage of the local population, can get the US to expend billions.  What is more the people in Iraq and Afghanistan who are fighting a state actually want a state.  Colonizing or even just setting up puppet governments is immensely expensive and bin Laden will probably live to see the day the US bankrupts itself and its citizens.

An anarchist society would most likely develop a defense strategy.  Acquiring a nuke being the most formidable, but unlikely.

I would say that there couldn't be a peaceful anarchic society, the utopia we imagine, when other states exist.  What I mean by this is that when there are governments, free trade doesn't really exist.  Even Hong Kong wasn't 100% free trade back in its recent heyday.  An anarchic society would most likely develop guild-like associations to negotiate with other states.  Some companies would negotiate on their own once they were financially large enough to be taken seriously.  I think the interactions with the rest of the world would prevent or deter a true free society due to compromises in negotiations plus an initial free society most likely would be within a small geographic region, which by nature would limit choices of the people living in that region.

t

PintOGuinness:

Acquiring a nuke being the most formidable, but unlikely.

A problem I'm having with the nuke scenario is that practically it will be a bluff, since it would in no way be reasonable to drop a bomb that affects innocent citizens, because that would contradict the anarchistic values.

Yes, that is quite true -- I can imagine that an anarchist society would probably try and develop a very person-specific disabling technology if it were to face any kind of external threat, in order to paralyze the leaders of a possible aggressor.

The reason that nuclear weapons are so effective as a deterrent is that they have the capacity to harm or kill the leaders who are pursuing war, who suddenly find themselves to be enormously pacifistic when they face the threat of war directly.

Stefan Molyneux:

I have always tried to use humor in the service of truth...

 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=c-X5Hgbc688&NR=1