Originally Posted by Justin '77

But you -- and, like I said, people in general, do not like being ruled by other people. That is, by real, actual people fundamentally like themselves. The fact that systems of government all are that very thing is something that anarchism strives to bring to the awareness of increasing numbers of people.

And you have not succeeded, because your framing is flawed, your assumptions are flawed, and your attitude comes across as patronizing, in spite of the lofty rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Odin

If you are going to frame things that way, there is no way your dream society would keep a new "ruling class" from forming and thus "ruining" your society.

Maybe not. But making the possibility of things just ending up back where we left them a justification for not doing something in the first place is exactly the kind of apathy that statists such as yourself display, that helps perpetuate the power of the ruling class, and that anarchists are trying to overcome.

Society isn't ruined until everyone is dead. Statist thought would have citizens conflate society with 'the current system'. Of course, systems die all the time -- but that's hardly ever a bad thing, from the point of view of people.

Originally Posted by Kiff

And you have not succeeded...

Kind of presumptuous, declaring that someone else has failed to achieve their goals. I mean, were you able to take a complete inventory of everything I did over the course of my entire life (assuming, of course, that nothing else were to be added to that count) and compare it to the goals I had stated, you might be able to justify making such a bold judgement.

But you haven't seen even the smallest fraction of what has been, and there's still a lot more to go.

Originally Posted by Kiff

...because your framing is flawed, your assumptions are flawed...

You say those things as if they were actually true. But you have yet to offer a solid argument in support of them. There's no way for me to respond to baseless assertions...

Originally Posted by Odin

Good, trustworthy people earn the respect and deference of their fellows, and that confers authority on those individuals.

True. But what does that have to do with the 'authority' in the context of what pbrower and you argued against? That is, not 'moral authority and persuasion' (which no one -- particularly anarchists -- would argue isn't a feature of any person-society), but ruling other people (which is the defining feature of statist society).

The myth of philosopher-kings was one that died for lack of accord with reality a long time ago, too...

Originally Posted by Odin

There is nothing I hate more than trying to get something accomplished and struggling when it seems like nobody in particular is in charge and everyone is passing the buck.

Sounds like trying to get a road built in Yellowstone. MY am I glad somebody else is walking that puppy!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Maybe not. But making the possibility of things just ending up back where we left them a justification for not doing something in the first place is exactly the kind of apathy that statists such as yourself display, that helps perpetuate the power of the ruling class, and that anarchists are trying to overcome.

Society isn't ruined until everyone is dead. Statist thought would have citizens conflate society with 'the current system'. Of course, systems die all the time -- but that's hardly ever a bad thing, from the point of view of people.

Kind of presumptuous, declaring that someone else has failed to achieve their goals. I mean, were you able to take a complete inventory of everything I did over the course of my entire life (assuming, of course, that nothing else were to be added to that count) and compare it to the goals I had stated, you might be able to justify making such a bold judgement.

But you haven't seen even the smallest fraction of what has been, and there's still a lot more to go.You say those things as if they were actually true. But you have yet to offer a solid argument in support of them. There's no way for me to respond to baseless assertions...

Your problem is that you naively think that your ideal society is possible and so dismiss criticisms of it as just "apathetic statist indoctrination".

I wand good, open, transparent, effective, accountable government, not a pipe dream. You can rationalize your pipe dream all you want and call us critics names for calling it the pipe dream it is, but it is still a pipe dream. You guys are like the crackpots selling snake-oil using all the people criticizing and laughing at you as "proof" that you guys are profound geniuses being "kept down" by the "closeminded establishment", with references to Galileo and whatever. Just because many brilliant ideas were laughed at doesn't mean every idea that is laughed at is brilliant. They laughed at Copernicus, they laughed at Fulton, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

True. But what does that have to do with the 'authority' in the context of what pbrower and you argued against? That is, not 'moral authority and persuasion' (which no one -- particularly anarchists -- would argue isn't a feature of any person-society), but ruling other people (which is the defining feature of statist society).

The myth of philosopher-kings was one that died for lack of accord with reality a long time ago, too...

That's why we have these things called ELECTIONS, people vote on who they think should have authority, and if they don't like what they are doing they can "vote the bums out".

Originally Posted by Odin

Your problem is that you naively think that your ideal society is possible and so dismiss criticisms of it as just "apathetic statist indoctrination".
...

woah for a minute there I thought you were describing yourself Odin.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Sure, it's tough. I'm fairly sure such a society isn't even achievable in my lifetime. When asking for specific policy changes, you're asking about incremental improvements. Anarchism is a description of the overall long term goal. That's why I can advocate a new kind of city government (with taxes) above and I'm not violating my principles. That city would be a net gain, an evolution toward a less coercive society.

Do you see what I mean when I feel you're being unfair? I don't need to describe what the anarchist ideal society is any more than liberals or conservatives or anyone else does. In fact, people generally don't talk about politics or economics that way -- and they never do when getting down to practice. Libertarianism informs how I'm going to evaluate policy, it doesn't lay out an immutable 10-step process for achieving utopia.

I may just be on a different schedule. We are currently in a crisis era. I see a number of vital issues that must be addressed to call said crisis successful. These include green energy, failed states, ethnic conflict, and representative democracy's inability to focus on the greater good rather than the interests of the wealthy. At core, technology may be increasing efficiency so much that full employment is difficult without expending resources on stuff that we really don't have the resources to do. Thus, resource shortages, unemployment, idle angry young males, and anarchy in the ugly sense of the word.

I don't know how well these basic problems can be addressed in the short term of the next decade or so, but if they aren't addressed shortly they might not be addressed for another four generations. I do anticipate a lot of green infrastructure being build during the approaching high. Thus far, I am not seeing enough crisis transformation to leave me content. Thus, I anticipate the next generation of prophets will have a good deal to complain about.

I am half anticipating the next generation of prophets to be the green generation. I anticipate the values will require limiting population to match limited resources available. I anticipate the climate will be changing enough to force significant migrations. I think it could be ugly enough that the upcoming awakening might involve as much actual change as the 1960s awakening. I don't think the human race will be able to dither, bicker and daydream until the scheduled next crisis.

Thus, the ability to solve short term real world problems is more important to me than an abstract desire for a less coercive government. Hey, I don't particularly like coercion, and if those who care about coercion have a real approach to minimizing it, fine. Still, I see society (and government as long as governments exist) needing to be focused to the common good rather than profits for the capitalist ruling class. If in the process society can be made less coercive, fine. However, there are problems out there much more serious than coercion. If they aren't seriously addressed soon, coercive government is not going to be an important issue come the next awakening when the new values are supposed to be proclaimed.

In any given crisis, one or two of the most important issues confronting society will be addressed firmly. Other issues are left for another day. We seem to be in crude agreement that coercive government is an issue that is going to be left for another day. I don't see it as coming to the top of the queue in this crisis or the next. If you want to daydream about the crisis after that, I can't stop you, but I can't foresee what the world will be like that far out.

Originally Posted by Odin

Your problem is that you naively think that your ideal society is possible and so dismiss criticisms of it as just "apathetic statist indoctrination".

I wand good, open, transparent, effective, accountable government, not a pipe dream. You can rationalize your pipe dream all you want and call us critics names for calling it the pipe dream it is, but it is still a pipe dream. You guys are like the crackpots selling snake-oil using all the people criticizing and laughing at you as "proof" that you guys are profound geniuses being "kept down" by the "closeminded establishment", with references to Galileo and whatever. Just because many brilliant ideas were laughed at doesn't mean every idea that is laughed at is brilliant. They laughed at Copernicus, they laughed at Fulton, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Hey, aren't you being a little hard on Bozo? He was a decent entertainer who contributed to society in his own way. He doesn't deserve to be associated with the anarchists. ™

I am such a funny clown
I like to travel round and round
The Circus is my home
I always seem to roam

In a rocket ship I soar
I explore the ocean floor
But you must know, I'll never go
Unless you come along!

Bozo, Bozo
Alwyas laughs, never frowns
Bozo, Bozo
Bozo the Clown!

Geez. They younger generations really don't know Bozo...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Kind of presumptuous, declaring that someone else has failed to achieve their goals. I mean, were you able to take a complete inventory of everything I did over the course of my entire life (assuming, of course, that nothing else were to be added to that count) and compare it to the goals I had stated, you might be able to justify making such a bold judgement.

I wasn't speaking about your personal goals and ambitions. I was speaking about anarchism as a movement (or mindset, if you don't like that term). It just does not seem moral or workable.

But you haven't seen even the smallest fraction of what has been, and there's still a lot more to go.You say those things as if they were actually true. But you have yet to offer a solid argument in support of them. There's no way for me to respond to baseless assertions...

Well, sometimes I speak out of sheer frustration.

I do have some concrete ideas for moving away from the undesirable situation that the US finds itself in right now. They don't involve abolishing the state, but I do think they go in the right direction.

1) End the "war on drugs." It would save millions of dollars in law enforcement and incarceration, and would free up resources to help people who need treatment.

2) Go back to paper ballots, or at least some form of voting that is open-sourced and not run by private corporations like Diebold.

3) Stop acting like an empire in foreign affairs. Withdraw our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and give more humanitarian assistance where it's needed. Encourage, educate, but don't force other countries to embrace more democratic ways of governance.

4) Put the misguided idea of "corporate personhood" away for good. Corporations should not have the same rights as individuals.

5) Get rid of "No Child Left Behind" and go back to teaching subject matter rather than constantly preparing for standardized tests.

6) Single-payer health care. The system we have now is criminally wasteful and unreliable.

7) Instant run-off voting, and direct election of the President.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I do have some concrete ideas for moving away from the undesirable situation that the US finds itself in right now. They don't involve abolishing the state, but I do think they go in the right direction... (snip)

All possible and implementable. That is the sort of 'incremental' change that seems possible during the current crisis. Enough such incremental changes might sum up to something effectively revolutionary.

Originally Posted by Odin

Your problem is that you naively think that your ideal society is possible and so dismiss criticisms of it as just "apathetic statist indoctrination".

Actually, the problem is that no criticisms have been all that damaging. The general idea held by most anarchists is that a stateless society is not going to last and be satisfactory until people actually want there to be no State. If you take a look at the brief periods of statelessness (or near-statelessness) throughout the world, they have been pretty successful (compared to the old order, that is--Somalia included) but didn't last particularly long.

I wand good, open, transparent, effective, accountable government, not a pipe dream. You can rationalize your pipe dream all you want and call us critics names for calling it the pipe dream it is, but it is still a pipe dream. You guys are like the crackpots selling snake-oil using all the people criticizing and laughing at you as "proof" that you guys are profound geniuses being "kept down" by the "closeminded establishment", with references to Galileo and whatever. Just because many brilliant ideas were laughed at doesn't mean every idea that is laughed at is brilliant. They laughed at Copernicus, they laughed at Fulton, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Kind of a nasty strawman. We've all been indoctrinated by the U.S. government; that's what they do. The correct way to go about judging certain actions, in my opinion, is to use reason, and not surrender your moral autonomy to the State. (Of course, once can still come up with pro-state conclusions--but I suspect that state propaganda has a huge effect on forming political opinions.) You can call anarchism a pipe dream all you want; no one is going to surrender their claim to being an anarchist because of it. Even if anarchism is something that is realistically unattainable in the near-future; it does not follow that the State is legitimate or that a state of anarchy is undesirable. So, not many anarchists are really going to be affected by your assertions.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

You can call anarchism a pipe dream all you want; no one is going to surrender their claim to being an anarchist because of it. Even if anarchism is something that is realistically unattainable in the near-future; it does not follow that the State is legitimate or that a state of anarchy is undesirable. So, not many anarchists are really going to be affected by your assertions.

I think it basically comes down to the fact that democrats like Taylor and I (I prefer that term to the more cultish "statists") believe that transformation of the state is more desirable than its abolition. I see abolition as regression to lawlessness and survival of the (economically, mentally, physically, fill-in-the blank) fittest. I see transformation as progress toward a system that is simple, fair, inclusive, flexible enough to respond to outside changes but stable enough to maintain order -- in short, what the Founders were looking for plus what we've learned in the last two hundred years.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I may just be on a different schedule. We are currently in a crisis era.

I would make the same argument regardless of what turning we were in. Specific policy proposals are always in the here-and-now. But, the overall thrust of one's politics has an eye toward the future.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

In any given crisis, one or two of the most important issues confronting society will be addressed firmly. Other issues are left for another day. We seem to be in crude agreement that coercive government is an issue that is going to be left for another day. I don't see it as coming to the top of the queue in this crisis or the next.

Are you sure? Civil liberties concerns have been a major component of the run-up to this Crisis and that's an issue cluster where coercive government is front-and-center. Furthermore, the main reason the tea party types look so silly complaining about "socialism" is that they've just spent the last 8 years apologizing for coercive government. Also, I would argue that the strong push on the left for government that is more open, accountable and participatory would, if successful, have a major damping effect on the state's capacity for abuse.

Or to put in more general terms, the perception of whether the government is working for you or against you is always the major issue in a Crisis. Look at how Odin and Justin are arguing about cynicism. Liberals desperately want a government that they feel is a net benefit to most people -- something they can cooperate with rather than be coerced by. From a libertarian perspective, that's not really achievable in this Crisis, but we can certainly get closer to that goal.

Matt - lets cut to the chase here and get down to the nitty-gritty.

What exactly do you see happening in the future that is going to make your hope and dream come true? By that I mean what is going to take the world from point A where we are today with organized government all the way to point Z - your dream of an anarchastic society?

Except for #6, most libertarians would be in agreement. And as for #6, the health care system in this country is so screwed up that single payer probably would be a net gain. I just don't support it because it would be a significant roadblock to achieving an even better arrangement.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I do have some concrete ideas for moving away from the undesirable situation that the US finds itself in right now. They don't involve abolishing the state, but I do think they go in the right direction.

1) End the "war on drugs." It would save millions of dollars in law enforcement and incarceration, and would free up resources to help people who need treatment.

2) Go back to paper ballots, or at least some form of voting that is open-sourced and not run by private corporations like Diebold.

3) Stop acting like an empire in foreign affairs. Withdraw our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and give more humanitarian assistance where it's needed. Encourage, educate, but don't force other countries to embrace more democratic ways of governance.

4) Put the misguided idea of "corporate personhood" away for good. Corporations should not have the same rights as individuals.

5) Get rid of "No Child Left Behind" and go back to teaching subject matter rather than constantly preparing for standardized tests.

6) Single-payer health care. The system we have now is criminally wasteful and unreliable.

7) Instant run-off voting, and direct election of the President.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Except for #6, most libertarians would be in agreement. And as for #6, the health care system in this country is so screwed up that single payer probably would be a net gain. I just don't support it because it would be a significant roadblock to achieving an even better arrangement.

What would be a better arrangement?

Originally Posted by Odin

If people think all politicians are scoundrels then only scoundrels go into politics, the negativism and cynicism feeds on itself, perpetuating corruption while the wannabe utopians whine and play armchair revolutionary and everyone else tunes out.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I think it basically comes down to the fact that democrats like Taylor and I (I prefer that term to the more cultish "statists") believe that transformation of the state is more desirable than its abolition. I see abolition as regression to lawlessness and survival of the (economically, mentally, physically, fill-in-the blank) fittest. I see transformation as progress toward a system that is simple, fair, inclusive, flexible enough to respond to outside changes but stable enough to maintain order -- in short, what the Founders were looking for plus what we've learned in the last two hundred years.

Cynicism does have value. While a more open and participatory government would be more respectable and less abusive, it is catastrophic folly to act as if you have such a government hoping that your optimism will make it flower into being. Hope without change just means eating more bullshit.

In the Clinton era, there were a lot of good criticisms coming from the right. Clinton was criticized on fiscal policy, civil liberties, foreign adventurism, federalization of education, etc. Then Bush came into office and all of a sudden we have runaway spending, NCLB, Patriot Act and wars that make Clinton's adventures look like Boy Scout hikes -- and where was the criticism on the right? Nowhere. They just took it. They cheered it on.

I'd really appreciate it if liberals didn't do the same thing with Obama. You voted for change you can believe in, but so far you're just believing you're going to get change. The opposite of cynicism isn't optimism, it's delusion.

As for CoS' comment, transformation of the state almost certainly has to come before abolition. We're on the same train, you just want to get off at an earlier stop.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

What would be a better arrangement?

Well, the whole payment system for health care is broken. We've forced people into insurance (via subsidies), when what we really want is to be able to subscribe to a doctor(s). Prior to WWII, many Americans did exactly that through something called lodge practice. Fraternal orders used to more than just bingo clubs for old people. They used to provide social services -- and they were cheap too. A few days wage for the average worker bought a full year of access to a doctor at any time for the member and their whole family. You can't get insurance that cheap.

What happened to lodge practice? The AMA suppressed it. They created doctor's licensing exams that relied on high English proficiency to block new immigrants from practicing (lodge practice had a high proportion of immigrants). They also did this to encourage fee-for-service medical care, rather fee-for-term-of-access care. This was more lucrative, and through various "safety" regulations they were imposing a soft ban on the practice. Then WWII came, and the tax break for employer provided health insurance was introduced tilting the playing field for good.

(Add to this medical equipment patents, drug patents, cost shifting from Medicare to insurance, insurance reserve requirements and today the average cost of medical access is more than a month of the average worker's pay -- and it's unreliable.)

Basic reliable medical coverage should cost at most $500 a year for a family of four. But that would mean shifting the ground rules of the health care market away from insurance and fee-for-service. Markets can, and have, handled this problem. This system would deliver cheap, quality care without denials of coverage and without a state bureaucracy making blanket decisions about what should and should not be paid for.

Originally Posted by Odin

Your problem is that you naively think that your ideal society is possible and so dismiss criticisms of it as just "apathetic statist indoctrination".

Not at all. I merely recognize that cooperation is not only possible, but a natural emergent property of personhood. I also recognize that ability-to-react is a critical feature in aiding system survival, and that the closer a thing is to a stimulus, the more reactive it will be to it. That (plus my admitted bias in favor of persons) leads me to see as desireable a maximum of distribution in social affairs. That means, by the way, not the 'ideal society' that statists are limited to arguing over, but a recognition that there can be no such thing. Your talk of such makes as much sense as telling an agnostic that he is claiming to speak for the "One True God" -- that is, it speaks of your own blinders, rather than of the subject of your criticism.

Since I lack the statists faith in the status quo as the Only Way, I am not limited in seeing a particular limiting factor on distribution prior to 'total'. That said, I wouldn't argue that every statist argument I've seen is mere doctrine. However, even the 'monkeysphere' argument -- probably the best I've come across -- for the feasibility of decentralism beyond a certain point proved much weaker in the face of the very real prediliction of humans to use tools to augment their natural physical limitations.

I want good, open, transparent, effective, accountable government, not a pipe dream.

Wow. Who's the naive one here? The flying orange unicorn I want is absolutely reasonable by comparison; assuming genetic engineering continues moving forward, it will in not a terribly long time be a real thing -- you want people to be angels.

Just because many brilliant ideas were laughed at doesn't mean every idea that is laughed at is brilliant. They laughed at Copernicus, they laughed at Fulton, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Absolutely true. Of course, if my position rested only on the fact of its unconventionality -- that wouldn't be much of a good position at all. Fortunately for me, it rests on the fact that, so far, it hasn't met a counter-argument that does more than modify or enhance it. I'm happy to find out I'm wrong, though, so please take your best shots at any of my ideas.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Cynicism does have value. While a more open and participatory government would be more respectable and less abusive, it is catastrophic folly to act as if you have such a government hoping that your optimism will make it flower into being. Hope without change just means eating more bullshit.

There's nothing wrong with healthy skepticism. Cynicism goes too much in the other direction -- being unable to see much of anything as good or positive.

In the Clinton era, there were a lot of good criticisms coming from the right. Clinton was criticized on fiscal policy, civil liberties, foreign adventurism, federalization of education, etc. Then Bush came into office and all of a sudden we have runaway spending, NCLB, Patriot Act and wars that make Clinton's adventures look like Boy Scout hikes -- and where was the criticism on the right? Nowhere. They just took it. They cheered it on.

I'd really appreciate it if liberals didn't do the same thing with Obama. You voted for change you can believe in, but so far you're just believing you're going to get change. The opposite of cynicism isn't optimism, it's delusion.

No, I think cynicism is delusion of another flavor. I'm not sure exactly where the dividing line is, but I've run across too many irrational doom-and-gloomers out there.

I am going to give Obama some time before I declare his presidency a failure and my support for him a mistake. It has been a mixed bag so far, to be sure. I will keep watching, participating, and pushing where needed.

I would respectfully ask not to be labeled a cultist, statist, Obama-bot, or any of those other inaccurate and derogatory terms.

As for CoS' comment, transformation of the state almost certainly has to come before abolition. We're on the same train, you just want to get off at an earlier stop.

Perhaps. But I simply don't see how a society based on a predominant philosophy of self-interest and unregulated freedoms can help but sow the seeds of its own destruction.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Well, the whole payment system for health care is broken. We've forced people into insurance (via subsidies), when what we really want is to be able to subscribe to a doctor(s). Prior to WWII, many Americans did exactly that through something called lodge practice. Fraternal orders used to more than just bingo clubs for old people. They used to provide social services -- and they were cheap too. A few days wage for the average worker bought a full year of access to a doctor at any time for the member and their whole family. You can't get insurance that cheap.

What happened to lodge practice? The AMA suppressed it. They created doctor's licensing exams that relied on high English proficiency to block new immigrants from practicing (lodge practice had a high proportion of immigrants). They also did this to encourage fee-for-service medical care, rather fee-for-term-of-access care. This was more lucrative, and through various "safety" regulations they were imposing a soft ban on the practice. Then WWII came, and the tax break for employer provided health insurance was introduced tilting the playing field for good.

(Add to this medical equipment patents, drug patents, cost shifting from Medicare to insurance, insurance reserve requirements and today the average cost of medical access is more than a month of the average worker's pay -- and it's unreliable.)

Basic reliable medical coverage should cost at most $500 a year for a family of four. But that would mean shifting the ground rules of the health care market away from insurance and fee-for-service. Markets can, and have, handled this problem. This system would deliver cheap, quality care without denials of coverage and without a state bureaucracy making blanket decisions about what should and should not be paid for.

Sounds good, but how do you get the medical profession to buy into it?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Wow. Who's the naive one here? The flying orange unicorn I want is absolutely reasonable by comparison; assuming genetic engineering continues moving forward, it will in not a terribly long time be a real thing -- you want people to be angels.

Genetic engineering? (wtf?)

And you're being disingenuous. Nobody's looking for "angels." That's exactly the point. Maybe Taylor could have written "more open, transparent, effective government" and you just might not have jumped all over it. But, really, you know better. It's implicit in what he's always said here.

Originally Posted by Odin

That's why we have these things called ELECTIONS, people vote on who they think should have authority, and if they don't like what they are doing they can "vote the bums out".

But you said you wanted "Good, trustworthy people earn[ing] the respect and deference of their fellows"

Do you really think that's what elections are or achieve? What planet do you live on?

I think Kurt put it well a bit ago -- just behaving as if a thing was the way you want it is no way to get it to actually be that way. You argue in favor of the model you have by describing the (quite different) system you want.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Absolutely true. Of course, if my position rested only on the fact of its unconventionality -- that wouldn't be much of a good position at all. Fortunately for me, it rests on the fact that, so far, it hasn't met a counter-argument that does more than modify or enhance it. I'm happy to find out I'm wrong, though, so please take your best shots at any of my ideas.

What ideas? What I'm mostly hearing lately is that any idea specific enough to be implemented is 'incremental,' only revolutionary ideas count, and the world isn't ready for revolution. (The fourth turning, apparently, isn't the right time?) Thus, the only proper thing to do is to daydream about pie in the sky some centuries in the future?