Originally Posted by Matt1989

P.S. Use the quote button.

What form of coercion would be appropriate to force use of the quote button? ™

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The progress from feudalism to free enterprise showed a simplification of economic relationships -- not increased complexity.

The rules became simpler, but the output of economic and cultural activity became more complex and more valuable. Strict rules make a society simple, predictable, stable. This isn't ideal because when you're standing still you're really falling behind.

There's no simpler and truer rule than non-aggression, and when we achieve that as a species, our culture and science will be as infinitely complex as our law is simple. "Do unto others" is not "Make others do as the council decrees"

If Democracy is the ultimate form of social expression, I do fear that we'll eventually vote in favor of extinction given enough repetitions of the ballot. Our "max production always" economic policy and "global dominance at any cost" foreign policy is just as popular as it is destructive.

Utopian, whatever. I'm not looking for a finish line. I want to make sure we're driving in the right direction.

So modern Somalia is the shining light in the contemporary world as the anarchist haven?

Nuff said.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

So modern Somalia is the shining light in the contemporary world as the anarchist haven?

Nuff said.

Exactly as much as China is a shining example of the centrally planned state.

Somalia is, if anything, a reminder of the consequences of imperialism. We're in the process of invading again, so let me know how that works out for them.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Is all philosophy playing games? I sure hope not!

Not all philosophy is playing games, but I'm still tempted to think that Sturgeon's Law does apply.

Through my first several years of college, I pursued philosophy rather heavily. I got disappointed when I realized that the premises underlying most philosophical systems were often cultural biases or wishful thinking. It is one thing to say there is a right to live without coercion. It is another thing to say that man is a social animal that forms groups, acquires territory, selects leaders, and makes rules. A right to live free of coercion... what evidence does one have to support that it exists? How could one begin to prove such a right in any objective sense? On the other hand, one can study human behavior.

Thus, I switched my emphasis to writers like Robert Audrey, Conrad Lorentz, Toffler, Toynbee, Strauss and Howe. I would like to see an understanding of human kind based more on emperical observation.

Thus, just from my approach to understanding human kind, I am not as appreciative of the high philosophical approach as many.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

(I created this thread because discussions about the merits of libertarianism and anarchism were taking over other threads. If you find this thread to be a time-waster -- not saying that you think this Bob... just throwing it out there -- then don't click it. It only appears in the New Posts section one week of the month, even if the new posts do come quite quickly.)

As an approach to focusing discussions of the merits of libertarianism and anarchism into one place, this thread is a great success. For a while it was very difficult to discuss any subject on any thread without high risk of diversion.

I think many of the 'statists' are still reacting to the diversions. If the anarchists and libertarians are not yet ready for prime time, the statists are. We see immediate problems that must be solved now. These statist solutions have been frequently rejected by the anarchists on abstract theoretical bounds without alternate solutions being suggested.

There is a common wisdom expressed in many ways. Fish or cut bait. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

I can't really object to abstract philosophy. I see philosophy as a way to explore problems that are not yet approachable by observation or experiment. When one has no way to ask questions about a field that can be shown to be true or false, one is stuck with a philosophical approach. Sometimes something useful comes out of the philosophy. Personally, I would rather lean hard towards asking questions that can be shown to be true or false. That is what draws me to theories of history such as turning theory, Toffler's waves of civilization, or Toynbee's slow cycles of civilizations.

Thus, I seem to be working harder to propose ways anarchy might possibly grow and spread than the anarchists. I don't see anything desirable or likely, but I'd still like to impose a shadow of reality on the pie in the sky.

So long as this thread reduces the need for the anarchists to spam abstract philosophy onto threads attempting to be grounded and practical, this thread is serving a useful purpose. If the statists are talking about todays problems and proposing practical solutions, I'm not liking said solutions being rejected on the grounds of a philosophical system that cannot provide alternate approaches.

Originally Posted by independent

The same old justification of tyranny for the fear of chaos...

If the serfs can leave their land, it will be chaos for England!

If education spreads to the masses it will be the ruin of civilization!

If commoners were allowed to have a society where all are free and none are coerced, America would soon look like a zombie movie!

Oh, please! Yea, we have to pay our taxes, see that money go to things that individually disgusts us, and we get pulled over if we drive too fast. But, tyranny?

If they could speak, I wonder if the countless millions that lost their lives under or fighting against real tyranny, real totalaritism would weep, throw-up or laugh their asses off at our puffed-up lives and aggrievements.

Originally Posted by independent

We progress toward anarchy. We evolve. The desire to follow fades and the desire to lead replaces it. We've killed all the kings or turned them in to tokens - we seem to have progressed for it. Why should we now crown the captains of industry and the engineers of political machines with the same powers our ancestors found to be oppressive? But don't look back too long, look forward...

The debate is practically useless. Soon enough, we'll be fragmented across the solar system. Smashed up into tribes all over again. Centralization and control are both already dead, even if the mainstream hasn't caught up yet.

I see a secular trend as well, but not toward anarchy. Rather, toward a more perfect union where the freedom to look out for oneself is coupled more perfectly with a society/government that provides the means to look out for one another. A much more sophisticated way of being than the constant whinning of me, me, me.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

What isn't so widely known about the feudal system is that the feudal social order was one of exaggerated complexity, one in which the social order defined itself around the idea that the rural magnates were the backbone of public safety from barbarian invasions. Feudalism implied an elaborate system of inherited rights and duties -- and the rights of the big landowners (of which the reigning monarch was the biggest one of all) had a counterbalance in the inherited duties of the serfs.

The progress from feudalism to free enterprise showed a simplification of economic relationships -- not increased complexity.

This might be true in some senses, but I'd tend to believe that modern societies need more accountants and lawyers as a percentage of the total population than during feudal days. While one might possibly argue that the theory used to be messier back then, modern societies are more complex in having lots of rules, regulations, types of goods and ways of moving them.

Originally Posted by independent

The debate is practically useless. Soon enough, we'll be fragmented across the solar system. Smashed up into tribes all over again. Centralization and control are both already dead, even if the mainstream hasn't caught up yet.

Apollo 11 astronaut Michael Collins wrote a book on space flight titled Carrying the Fire. Why the title? If one is carrying a fire from one place to another, how does one proceed?

Very very carefully.

Robert Heinlein popularized a very libertarian view of life among the stars, where anyone might build a spaceship in their back yard, fly off, find a new planet, and start a new civilization in a sparsely populated high resource world with lots of peace, land and plenty. This reflected the optimism one might expect of his time.

It also reflects before ecology thinking. There is an assumption of infinite expansion on an infinite frontier, that humans will always be able to exploit nature freely without thoughts of conservation or limits.

It does not reflect space flight as we are apt to know it in the foreseeable future. Space ships are going to remain expensive, complex and dangerous in the near term. Any off planet colonies are going to be very hostile to human life. Big governments and big corporations are going to be required to make the large projects work. The culture will be highly disciplined, with checklists, count downs and safety checks, as one false move will be fatal.

In short, I don't have any confidence in your projection of the future.

Originally Posted by independent

Exactly as much as China is a shining example of the centrally planned state.

Somalia is, if anything, a reminder of the consequences of imperialism. We're in the process of invading again, so let me know how that works out for them.

As regards Somalia, I would argue that it also shows the persistence of the civilization instinct even in the face of constant adversity. The Xeer system is still going strong, and what you see is that in the brief interregnums between colonial powers buttfucking the Somalis, their level of living springs up with a speed unmatched by anything statist.

Even a militarily-weak stateless society is an astoundingly resilient thing -- assertions of its collapsing at first contact with a band-united-under-a-ruler notwithstanding. Somalia actually presents a pretty resounding proof of that.

from Independent regarding Somalia as the given example of anarcho/libertarianism in the world today

Exactly as much as China is a shining example of the centrally planned state.

If you check in this thread, it was Matt who used the example of Somalia. No progressive person who believes in the necessity of government has used China as an example of doing a state right. There are over 150 nations which have functioning governments in the world. Sadly, all Matt had to pick from was Somalia and I am not even sure if that usage is completely accurate.

Of course, he also mentioned medieval Iceland .... that does not exactly fit in with the current world we live in though does it?

Originally Posted by playwrite

If they could speak, I wonder if the countless millions that lost their lives under or fighting against real tyranny, real totalaritism would weep, throw-up or laugh their asses off at our puffed-up lives and aggrievements.

Or alternately they would cheer us on for trying to save things before they deteriorated to the level where loss of lives would be necessary. I suspect they fought and died because they had to, not just because it was the more badass thing to do.

See, Matt? hm's game was to get someone to answer his non-question and then turn right around and make up a reason why their answer didn't count (and then do his little victory dance). It makes him feel better, but it's so tedious...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Or alternately they would cheer us on for trying to save things before they deteriorated to the level where loss of lives would be necessary. I suspect they fought and died because they had to, not just because it was the more badass thing to do.

What exactly do you think they would 'get it up' for? Taxes? Stimulus? Public Option? Death panels?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I suppose one might mix and match the above approaches. Wait for a the government to fail, protest the reason for failure, base the protest at a new community using a style of consensus that might be scaled up... all the while talking like a pirate. Arrrrrr. Ah, well. I tend to agree with Kurt. It is early to be filling up one's garage with tents, clothing, rations that don't spoil, weapons, ammunition, first aid kits and bull horns, to be ready to pull a Wounded Knee when the opportunity arises.

Arrrr....

You're nine days late. International Talk Like A Pirate Day was the Sunday before last.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I can't speak for Matt, but I certainly am not missing it.

That, of course, is what motivates me to try to hash things through with you all -- there's only really a very, very small hurdle separating us; it was a hurdle which I used to stand on the other side of, too; I'd like to either help other people get over it or be convinced that I need to come back.

I doubt that I'm going to come over to your side, and I really am not interested in pushing you back over to mine. Which is cool. I do have fun getting into abstractions with you guys.

I just get tired of the snark and what I perceive as condescension from time to time.

And, you know, if the anarcho-pocalypse does happen, and people of the future have found a way to do it right, more power -- or, uh, freedom! -- to them.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

If you check in this thread, it was Matt who used the example of Somalia. No progressive person who believes in the necessity of government has used China as an example of doing a state right.

Switzerland popped into my head earlier today while I was pondering this question. I wonder how either the democrats or the anarcho-libertarians would see that country?

Originally Posted by Matt1989

You're nine days late. International Talk Like A Pirate Day was the Sunday before last.

Does this imply The State is safe for another year? ™

On another equally serious note, I'm not quite sure of my proper direction. For quite a while now, I've been clicking the left pointing arrow icon for all of my posts. I vaguely recall Mr. Saari using the right pointing arrow, so I thought the board needed a correction.

I've been thinking about it lately, though. I think on the Anarchist - Libertarian thread only, I might start using the right arrow...

from Justin

See, Matt? hm's game was to get someone to answer his non-question and then turn right around and make up a reason why their answer didn't count (and then do his little victory dance). It makes him feel better, but it's so tedious...

I give Matt credit for putting something out there..... which is a lot more than you did despite all the bragging and posturing and then coming up bone-dry empty with nothing.

Originally Posted by playwrite

What exactly do you think they would 'get it up' for? Taxes? Stimulus? Public Option? Death panels?

Who knows? Maybe dog licensing or seat belt laws or any number of petty tyrannies we hardly even notice in the background would be what rubbed them wrong.

Or maybe this kind of thing instead. You never know. The only thing for sure is that they were the kind of people who weren't simply content to sit and petition and Hope for a Leader to Change things...

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Switzerland popped into my head earlier today while I was pondering this question. I wonder how either the democrats or the anarcho-libertarians would see that country?

I don't know much about it from the inside, of course (I didn't even get the eight-hour stopover in Zurich I was hoping for in August ). It certainly seems like it is better in some ways, worse in other ways, than other places...

As I may have made clear elsewhen, I rather liked Russia. There were laws, and government (lots of both), sure... but on the human-scale, they didn't really matter in a way that made itself felt. If you wanted to do something, the only thing to really stop you was how willing the people around you would be to let you get away with it (and to a similar extent, how you wanted to live with them). And since they were people just like you, it was always possible -- frequently desireable -- to reason with each other and come to mutually-acceptable understandings. It was about what kind of person you were and how you dealt with the people around you. As long as you stayed out of the rulers' way, they left you alone and could be safely ignored.

Hardly paradise, but certainly a good place.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Of course, he also mentioned medieval Iceland .... that does not exactly fit in with the current world we live in though does it?

Yes, but neither would the republics of Greece and Rome have been directly relevant to the political debates of the Enlightenment era. It didn't stop the classical liberals from making those analogies -- nor did it particularly stop them from winning the day, either.

The demand for "present day examples" is not a good argument. To make that argument you have to act as if all good ideas have already been implemented, which is nonsense.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

The demand for "present day examples" is not a good argument. To make that argument you have to act as if all good ideas have already been implemented, which is nonsense.

That's the only argument you get from homo establishmentus. It's what his worldview is based on...

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Switzerland popped into my head earlier today while I was pondering this question. I wonder how either the democrats or the anarcho-libertarians would see that country?

big mountains, cows with bells, very nice-looking Heidi's


At Interlaken, you can take a cog train up to Jungfrau's glacier where they've hollowed-out a series of ice tunnels. With boots, you can put your shoulder against the wall and run/slide around like your inside a Slurpee. At the summit ski lodge, they have telescopes where you can look back at the glacier clift and possible see the bodiy of a not-so-lucky climber frozen into the icy clift. They use to leave them up there for years - sort of a Libertarian thingee. But now, because of all the climber traffic the Maiden gets these days, they just let them age for a month or so - I think the state removes them. Some would call that civil progress, but I'm sure Justin, Kurt et al will take offense.

The world we live in today is radically different in almost every way from past historical eras. Failure to recognize that reality reduces one to using such absurd examples as medieval Iceland in a discussion if anarcho libertarianism has a chance in todays modern world. When the best you can do is medieval Iceland, you might as well throw in the towel.

Maybe Kurt Horner is right and all the good ideas have not yet been seen. I certainly hope not. Sadly, we know the idea of anarcho-libertarianism and its not one of those miracle advancements on the horizon be it near or distant.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Maybe Kurt Horner is right and all the good ideas have not yet been seen. I certainly hope not.

That's a typo, right?