NationStates Jolt Archive

The idea that government is violent seems farfetched. While it's true that some governments have been less than nice, this sort of accusation is too radical, isn't it? Could the government, the protector of justice and safety, be violent. Could government support other coersive organizations? The conventional answer is no. Such claims are preposterous. Government, especially US government, is in general a good thing that helps more people than it hurts.

To start, think about how many genocides there have been. How many have been done by government? The vast majority of them. How many have been done by anarchists? None. It was not dissidents or anarchists that killed Jews or other people deemed unworthy by Nazi Germany. It was not anarchists who killed indigenous peoples in the Americas. It was governments or organizations supported by governments that did these things.

We can all agree that war is bad. There have been hundreds of wars. One is too many. How many of them were started by governments and authoritarian organizations supported by governments? Pretty much all of them. In fact, there have been only two wars involving anarchists on a large scale. The first was between the Makhnovists and the Red and White armies. The second was between fascist and anti-fascist forces in Spain.

Was World War II fought by anarchists? No! Was the American Civil War fought by anarchists? No! Almost all wars have been between governments. Doesn't this say something? Probably not. Anarchists have been outnumbered by supporters of government since anarchism began. These aren't the only pieces of evidence that government is violent, though. Let's look at others.

How does a government maintain it's power? What makes it the official ruler of a piece of territory? Why can't someone just declare themselves 'dictator of the world'? The answer is police and military. They have the ability to enforce claims on property and enforce the will of the government on the people. They receive their orders from the government.

If the police and military make the government official, then how do they do that? The answer is violence. Laws are enforced through violence by armed officials. The military uses violence to define and sometime expand the borders of the government's power. Together, they form the violent enforcers of the will of the government.

What this means is that a government is based on the principle of "might makes right". It is this principle that underlies gangs and terrorist organizations. The truth is that government, like gangs or Al Qaeda, is based on using violence to enforce it's will on others. It has certainly killed more people than ELF, which is usually considered a terrorist organization.

Terrorism is generally defined as using the threat of force to intimidate people into submission, usually in a political context. All governments use some form of police or military, which are violent, to enforce their will. Thus, they would definitely qualify as being terrorist organizations. Remember that governments have actually carried out their threats numerous times.

The obvious objection is that government is different from gangs because it protects rather than abuses us. By that reasoning, Al Qaeda isn't a terrorist organization if it opposes serial killers. Obviously, this isn't the case. If a gang uses force to protect the drug trade that many people supporting the gang gain from, then the gang would qualify as a government. What it is doing is no different than the government enforcing property "rights".

Timothy McVeigh may have killed 150 people in the Oklahoma City bombing, but the US government killed thousands in Japan with nuclear bombs. It's very hypocritical of the government to condemn non-government terrorism, but keep quiet about their own terrorism. In short, government is in fact a form of terrorism.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

So the antithesis of government, the state of nature, equals no violence?

Not according to Locke...

So the antithesis of government, the state of nature, equals no violence?

Not according to Locke...

Ooh, so Locke said my view is wrong, now I've changed my mind. :roll: I should point out that Locke engaged in the slave trade. That's really the type of person whose authority on government should be unquestioned, isn't it?

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

To start, think about how many genocides there have been. How many have been done by government? The vast majority of them. How many have been done by anarchists? None.
I'll start my response here, with the tacit assertion that genocides are predominantly carried out by governments.

I notice that you miss out the two more recent genocides, those of Rwanda and the Balkans. As the most recent they best reflect the "current" mind set of governments and in both cases they were carried out during areas hit by civil war. Now, by any stretch of the imagination a civil war will fit the "conventional definition" of anarchy (being the abscence of rules).

There was no government and millions died.

Now compare this to what we can call your "target audience", ie those living in western democracies, how many genocides have been carried out in the last few decades by those governments? None.

I'll also add that responding with sarcasm to counter arguments really doesn't help your case.

To start, think about how many genocides there have been. How many have been done by government? The vast majority of them. How many have been done by anarchists? None.
I'll start my response here, with the tacit assertion that genocides are predominantly carried out by governments.

I notice that you miss out the two more recent genocides, those of Rwanda and the Balkans. As the most recent they best reflect the "current" mind set of governments and in both cases they were carried out during areas hit by civil war. Now, by any stretch of the imagination a civil war will fit the "conventional definition" of anarchy (being the abscence of rules).

There was no government and millions died.

Now compare this to what we can call your "target audience", ie those living in western democracies, how many genocides have been carried out in the last few decades by those governments? None.

I'll also add that responding with sarcasm to counter arguments really doesn't help your case.

I notice that you miss out the two more recent genocides, those of Rwanda and the Balkans. As the most recent they best reflect the "current" mind set of governments and in both cases they were carried out during areas hit by civil war. Now, by any stretch of the imagination a civil war will fit the "conventional definition" of anarchy (being the abscence of rules).

Gangs represent the conventional definition of anarchy, but not real anarchism. They are also authoritarian. Anarchism is by definition opposed to authority. I seriously doubt that Rwanda and the Balkans were composed of confederations of anarchist communes.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I notice that you miss out the two more recent genocides, those of Rwanda and the Balkans. As the most recent they best reflect the "current" mind set of governments and in both cases they were carried out during areas hit by civil war. Now, by any stretch of the imagination a civil war will fit the "conventional definition" of anarchy (being the abscence of rules).

Gangs represent the conventional definition of anarchy, but not real anarchism. They are also authoritarian. Anarchism is by definition opposed to authority. I seriously doubt that Rwanda and the Balkans were composed of confederations of anarchist communes.
I never said they were - I said the Balkans and Rwanda were areas beset by the conventional definition of anarchy. The conventional definition being the lack of rules/restraint. I know that Anarchism is the lack of rulers, but I'm not talking about the lack of rulers in this case, I'm talking about the lack of rules - conventional anarchy.

To boil it down:
Break down of Governments = Break down of Society = Lack of Rules

And the genocides require: Lack of Rules.

WW2 is a nice example to wave around of governments carrying out a genocide but it's not a common thing: Genocides are carried out by thugs and murderers when there is no set of rules to stop them - conventional anarchy.

I never said they were - I said the Balkans and Rwanda were areas beset by the conventional definition of anarchy. The conventional definition being the lack of rules/restraint. I know that Anarchism is the lack of rulers, but I'm not talking about the lack of rulers in this case, I'm talking about the lack of rules - conventional anarchy.

To boil it down:
Break down of Governments = Break down of Society = Lack of Rules

And the genocides require: Lack of Rules.

WW2 is a nice example to wave around of governments carrying out a genocide but it's not a common thing: Genocides are carried out by thugs and murderers when there is no set of rules to stop them - conventional anarchy.

But that isn't what real anarchism is. You are missing the point. The genocides I know about are done by racists supporting governments or other authoritarian organizations, not anarchist communes.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

But that isn't what real anarchism is. You are missing the point.
Eh, I think you are mate: You're saying Governments are violent and give genocides as an example and I'm showing examples when they're carried out in the abscence of government.

I know the difference between conventional anarchy (as defined by, say, dictionary.com) and Anarchism - I've spent plenty of time around The Flag (http://flag.blackened.net/forums/) and I've read plenty of debates before.

Eh, I think you are mate: You're saying Governments are violent and give genocides as an example and I'm showing examples when they're carried out in the abscence of government.

So basically, you think that ordinary people commit genocide whenever governments can't agree on who rules what? No, it doesn't work like that. More likely, it's soldiers killing civilians. They are the ones with the weapons. These soldiers work for a government and NOT for an anarchist movement.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

The reason most genocides and the like are carried out by a government is because a genocide requires cold and calculated killing on a mass scale, something a government with proper resources can do. Most violence without a government is disorganized and on a smaller scale simply because they can't organize to do accomplish killing off an entire race or population.

So basically, you think that ordinary people commit genocide whenever governments can't agree on who rules what?
Dude, read the italics, I'm talking about conventional anarchy: There were no rules, no body acting as a restraint and hundreds of thousands of people died. Rwanda was a genocide carried out with machettes, this is not military only hardware, this is something almost everyone has easy access to.

No, it doesn't work like that. More likely, it's soldiers killing civilians.They are the ones with the weapons.
See above, it was civilians the vast majority of the time.

These soldiers work for a government and NOT for an anarchist movement.
When the government's not there the soldiers work for themselves.

And I'm not talking about any anarchist movement, I'm talking about (back to the italics, look real close) the conventional definition of anarchy as used by the vast majority of people speaking the english language.

Dude, read the italics, I'm talking about conventional anarchy: There were no rules, no body acting as a restraint and hundreds of thousands of people died. Rwanda was a genocide carried out with machettes, this is not military only hardware, this is something almost everyone has easy access to.

Last time I checked, conventional anarchy and real anarchy are nothing alike. One is rule by gangs and the other is freedom and equality. Stop with the strawman attacks.

I'm talking about real anarchism versus government, not "conventional" anarchy versus government.

When the government's not there the soldiers work for themselves.

Not true. In the American Civil War, the soldiers fought for a specific side. If you want an example of a civil war with anarchism in it, the Spanish civil war is what you are thinking, but the anarchists didn't exactly commit genocide.

And I'm not talking about any anarchist movement, I'm talking about (back to the italics, look real close) the conventional definition of anarchy as used by the vast majority of people speaking the english language.

That would be a strawman attack on anarchism. Don't critique the wrong thing.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

To hell with it Ill burn my people to hell if they do not work. See the key is getting their trust. As soon as you get that you own them. As my nations grows they think that they have power. Ha, i will make them grow here thinking that so that like a farm i will harvest them and then trap futrue genrations for labor for money and profit.!!

The very concept of the 'Nation State' embodies violence. The commonly accepted definition of a nation state is, after all, based on the state controlling all legitimate sources of violence. Institutions like the courts and the military exist to protect and reproduce the state monopoly on violence.

This does not neccesarily mean that government is wrong as there other reasonable conceptions of government. Feudalism for instance with it's 'Noblesse Oblige' is a good example.

This does not neccesarily mean that government is wrong as there other reasonable conceptions of government. Feudalism for instance with it's 'Noblesse Oblige' is a good example.

Actually, feudalism was based on force, too. You think serfs voluntarily obeyed the authority of the feudal lords? No, they were almost slaves.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

How does a government maintain it's power? What makes it the official ruler of a piece of territory? Why can't someone just declare themselves 'dictator of the world'? The answer is police and military. They have the ability to enforce claims on property and enforce the will of the government on the people. They receive their orders from the government.

If the police and military make the government official, then how do they do that? The answer is violence. Laws are enforced through violence by armed officials. The military uses violence to define and sometime expand the borders of the government's power. Together, they form the violent enforcers of the will of the government.

What this means is that a government is based on the principle of "might makes right". It is this principle that underlies gangs and terrorist organizations. The truth is that government, like gangs or Al Qaeda, is based on using violence to enforce it's will on others. It has certainly killed more people than ELF, which is usually considered a terrorist organization.


Well, government cannot exist through might alone. It has to receive a mandate from enough of the masses that it becomes the dominant establishment. For instance: the Iraqi Governing Council is not currently an actual governing council, because it does not have the credit of any reasonable chunk of the Iraqi people.

I do have fairly anarchist leanings, but I think government is necessary, and since it is we might as well make it the least evil possible.

Well, government cannot exist through might alone. It has to receive a mandate from enough of the masses that it becomes the dominant establishment. For instance: the Iraqi Governing Council is not currently an actual governing council, because it does not have the credit of any reasonable chunk of the Iraqi people.

True, police won't even enforce laws if they don't believe in the orders of the government. Ideology is important to provide a justification for government.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

This does not neccesarily mean that government is wrong as there other reasonable conceptions of government. Feudalism for instance with it's 'Noblesse Oblige' is a good example.

Actually, feudalism was based on force, too. You think serfs voluntarily obeyed the authority of the feudal lords? No, they were almost slaves.


I think serfs aboyed the authority of the feudal lords due to social and religious custom. Feudalism is the process whereby serfs contribute force to their lords in the form of military service. Your perception here is that the serf's are somehow oppresing themselves in doing so. Dont get me wrong I am not arguing in favour of the modern nation state because i am not. Nor would i argue in favour of a return to feudalism. All i am trying to point out is that not all forms of government can be tarred with the same brush.

I think serfs aboyed the authority of the feudal lords due to social and religious custom. Feudalism is the process whereby serfs contribute force to their lords in the form of military service. Your perception here is that the serf's are somehow oppresing themselves in doing so. Dont get me wrong I am not arguing in favour of the modern nation state because i am not. Nor would i argue in favour of a return to feudalism. All i am trying to point out is that not all forms of government can be tarred with the same brush.

Are we talking about the same socio-economic system. I'm talking about the precursor to capitalism where the lack of industry means that land is the means of production. The feudal lords demand a certain amount of unpaid labor from the serfs and get it through force.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I was ferring to Feudalism in a more medieval sense. Feudal authority being established through personal loyalty generated from a bottom up process. Serf offers service to landlord who in turn promises a certain amount of military labour to regional lord etc and the biggest lord of the lot gets to be king. Certainly there is coercion inherent in such a stystem as the king is always the one who can suceed militarily. The state however does not maintain a monopoly on violence in the same manner that a modern state does.

DP :oops:

I was ferring to Feudalism in a more medieval sense. Feudal authority being established through personal loyalty generated from a bottom up process. Serf offers service to landlord who in turn promises a certain amount of military labour to regional lord etc and the biggest lord of the lot gets to be king. Certainly there is coercion inherent in such a stystem as the king is always the one who can suceed militarily. The state however does not maintain a monopoly on violence in the same manner that a modern state does.

That goes against everything I've heard about feudalism, where the serfs have very little freedom.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I was ferring to Feudalism in a more medieval sense. Feudal authority being established through personal loyalty generated from a bottom up process. Serf offers service to landlord who in turn promises a certain amount of military labour to regional lord etc and the biggest lord of the lot gets to be king. Certainly there is coercion inherent in such a stystem as the king is always the one who can suceed militarily. The state however does not maintain a monopoly on violence in the same manner that a modern state does.

That goes against everything I've heard about feudalism, where the serfs have very little freedom.


Serfs had little freedom because they were poor and they did not own any land. Social convention (trying not to abuse christianity overtly here) was the only factor that kept a serf un-free.

Serfs had little freedom because they were poor and they did not own any land. Social convention (trying not to abuse christianity overtly here) was the only factor that kept a serf un-free.

I can't believe what I'm hearing. I thought all the feudalists died already. What economic system is it where the land owner uses force to make the non-owners work, but they aren't slaves.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

So the antithesis of government, the state of nature, equals no violence?

Not according to Locke...

Ooh, so Locke said my view is wrong, now I've changed my mind. :roll: I should point out that Locke engaged in the slave trade. That's really the type of person whose authority on government should be unquestioned, isn't it?
*shrugs*
I'm a lot more impressed by Locke's writings than yours.

Everyone, and thing, has the capability of being violent.

u wanker wwII was fight by anarchists look hittler took the prefict chance to make a nazi goverment or national socalist one he over though the chancler of germny at the time and became the fuaer ar king or as i would like to put it phyco who killed 6 millon inocent people well there is a fine line betwen insane and genuies well hittler crossed that

Serfs had little freedom because they were poor and they did not own any land. Social convention (trying not to abuse christianity overtly here) was the only factor that kept a serf un-free.

I can't believe what I'm hearing. I thought all the feudalists died already. What economic system is it where the land owner uses force to make the non-owners work, but they aren't slaves.



I dont think feudalism is a good system, i am just pointing out that your criticisms of government only apply to a certain type of government which is by no means universal.

I never said they were - I said the Balkans and Rwanda were areas beset by the conventional definition of anarchy. The conventional definition being the lack of rules/restraint. I know that Anarchism is the lack of rulers, but I'm not talking about the lack of rulers in this case, I'm talking about the lack of rules - conventional anarchy.

To boil it down:
Break down of Governments = Break down of Society = Lack of Rules

And the genocides require: Lack of Rules.

WW2 is a nice example to wave around of governments carrying out a genocide but it's not a common thing: Genocides are carried out by thugs and murderers when there is no set of rules to stop them - conventional anarchy.

of course, in both the former yugoslavia and rwanda the genocides were mainly planned and carried out by either the government forces directly or militias trained and supplied by them. and in the case of rwanda, the civilian population who faced the choice of joining in with the massacres or being a statistic in them.

Anarchy is not lack of rules. The rules are bottom up rather than top down. If the "conventional" definition of Anarchy is lack of rules then that's a semantic quibble of no relevance. Most examples of what is conventionally called anarchy are in fact civil wars between competing govts rather than a society where govt has been rejected by the vast majority.

Anarchists have committed genocide too. Many priests and small businessmen were murdered by the Spanish Anarchists. Many nuns were raped and murdered. This is partly why I don't think violent revolution is a good strategy.

But States are by far the worst culprits. In the 20th century over 160 million people were murdered by their own govts, over 200 million were killed if you also include interstate wars.

Letila, everybody realises that govts are violent. The key to making your point is that a) govt doesn't only engage in defensive violence (which would be justified) but also agressive violence, b) that this isn't magically justified just because they have shiny badges, c) that there wouldn't be even more violence without a govt.

a) Tax is systematic armed robbery, warfare is murder, conscription is slavery, arresting people for victimless crimes (drugs, prostitution, violating business regulations,.....) is pure agression tantamount to kidnapping.

b) The govt should obey the same morality as everyone else. Thus violence is only justified in defence. Exactly what it is okay to defend is debatable (yourself? others? property? honour?) but clearly your morality should say "agression is wrong" for some definition of agression. Neither a mandate from the pope, hereditary title or winning a popularity contest can legitimise agression. The reasons people accept govt agression are i./ Propaganda. They just don't realise that the Emperor has no cloathes. ii./ They think it is necessary for some "higher" purpose. (military defence, policing, aid to the poor, keeping people moral(!) ) The task of the anarchist is to point out that all govt services are either unnecessary or provideable without agression.

c) Both military and personal protection have historically (and fairly recently) been provided without the State and without agressive violence.

Serfs had little freedom because they were poor and they did not own any land. Social convention (trying not to abuse christianity overtly here) was the only factor that kept a serf un-free.

I can't believe what I'm hearing. I thought all the feudalists died already. What economic system is it where the land owner uses force to make the non-owners work, but they aren't slaves.



I dont think feudalism is a good system, i am just pointing out that your criticisms of government only apply to a certain type of government which is by no means universal.

All govts engage in and are defined by agressive violence. Democratic govts are among the most prolific agressors with their millions of niggling rules all enforced at bayonet point.

I was ferring to Feudalism in a more medieval sense. Feudal authority being established through personal loyalty generated from a bottom up process. Serf offers service to landlord who in turn promises a certain amount of military labour to regional lord etc and the biggest lord of the lot gets to be king. Certainly there is coercion inherent in such a stystem as the king is always the one who can suceed militarily. The state however does not maintain a monopoly on violence in the same manner that a modern state does.

That goes against everything I've heard about feudalism, where the serfs have very little freedom.


Serfs had little freedom because they were poor and they did not own any land. Social convention (trying not to abuse christianity overtly here) was the only factor that kept a serf un-free.

Serfs were to all intents and purposes slaves, owned by their landlord. The only difference between serfdom and classical slavery is that serfs were not sold as individuals: they were labourers tied to the land and were transferred from one lord to another along with the land. Social convention palyed a big part in keeping a serf un-free, true -- but that's partly because there wasn't a terribly good set of laws. Serfs were the property of their landlord and could not leave the land, get married, or pass on their patch of ground without the permission of the landlord.

It's important, though, to remember that none of this was part of a coherent system. "Feudalism", as a means of organising a society, does not exist. It is merely a conventional and highly stylised way of representing a manorial form of land-holding that was never universally applied, either across Europe or indeed within individual kingdoms. The classic "feudal pyramid", too, is a myth. Kings could be vassals of other kings, for certain estates (Alexander III of Scotland was a vassal of Edward I of England, for the Earldom of Huntingdon; Edward I himself was a vassal of the Philip IV of France, for the Duchy of Aquitaine. Which didn't mean that Edward I was the boss of Alexander III, and it certainly didn't mean that Philip IV was the boss of Alexander III). Knights could provide military service in return for money instead of land, holding "money fiefs"; or money could be paid in lieu of military service. Free peasant farmers could provide rent in cash or in produce, or in special commodities. Royal Burghs, and their outlying lands, could claim special exemptions. Or large areas of the country could be farmed by free smallholders, such as much of the Languedoc.

Sorry about this. I'm a medievalist, and "feudalism" is something of a dirty word. In short, serfs = slaves to all intents and purposes (unfree and treated as chattels), and "feudalism" = modern shorthand for a nonexistent system.

All govts engage in and are defined by agressive violence. Democratic govts are among the most prolific agressors with their millions of niggling rules all enforced at bayonet point.

What's your opinion of Rousseau's idea of the "Social Contract (http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_01.htm)"?

of course, in both the former yugoslavia and rwanda the genocides were mainly planned and carried out by either the government forces directly or militias trained and supplied by them. and in the case of rwanda, the civilian population who faced the choice of joining in with the massacres or being a statistic in them.
Thanks for giving a reasoned response, and I concede this one: There was undoubtably a military element in both Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia but certainly in Rwanda it boils down to genocidal hatred which hadn't boiled over when the government was in tact. On the flip side there was the trouble in Kosovo a few years ago, which does back up your point.

That would be a strawman attack on anarchism. Don't critique the wrong thing.
Please, don't scream straw man at counter arguments.

Anyway, to rehash what I've been saying: These genocides happened in situations of lawlessness, there was no government of whatever to restrain people. See how in Rwanda the genocides didn't happen when the Gov't was (relatively) stable? You said all genocides are carried out by Governments and I made a counter-point.

Now my Penguin Concise English Dictionary defines anarchy as:
absence of government; lawlessness causing political disorder; absence of order and discipline

That's the same kind of defintion that dictionary.com gives, that's the (note italics, again) conventional definition. Your definition - the definition I generally use - is very different, I know that, I'm not insinuating that Anarchists are genocidal, I'm saying that genocides take place in anarchy (note the small "a", I'm talking about the dictionary definition, not the political theory).

u wanker wwII was fight by anarchists look hittler took the prefict chance to make a nazi goverment or national socalist one he over though the chancler of germny at the time and became the fuaer ar king or as i would like to put it phyco who killed 6 millon inocent people well there is a fine line betwen insane and genuies well hittler crossed thatThis is a comma ,
This is a full stop .
This is a capital letter A
Using them (and a spell checker) would make your arguments much easier to follow.

america needs a revolution

Social contract? I never signed no stinking social contract. In the typical style of continental intellectuals Rousseau injects mystery and confusion into the argument to arrive at the astonishing conclusion "you agreed to it whether you agreed to it or not"!

For debunking the myth of the social contract see Lysander Spooner....

http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-0.htm

Social contract? I never signed no stinking social contract. In the typical style of continental intellectuals Rousseau injects mystery and confusion into the argument to arrive at the astonishing conclusion "you agreed to it whether you agreed to it or not"!

For debunking the myth of the social contract see Lysander Spooner....

http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-0.htm

Interesting link, thanks. I have similar feelings, although I think Rousseau's mysticism has more to do with the atmosphere of the early Enlightenment than with his continental origins. But what about a theoretical society where citizens did sign a real Social Contract?

I suspect the French Revolution would have taken a quite different path had Rousseau's woolly nonsense not been treated so reverentially.

Social contract? I never signed no stinking social contract. In the typical style of continental intellectuals Rousseau injects mystery and confusion into the argument to arrive at the astonishing conclusion "you agreed to it whether you agreed to it or not"!

For debunking the myth of the social contract see Lysander Spooner....

http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-0.htm

Interesting link, thanks. I have similar feelings, although I think Rousseau's mysticism has more to do with the atmosphere of the early Enlightenment than with his continental origins. But what about a theoretical society where citizens did sign a real Social Contract?
Even then, a contract which specifies future action cannot be considered legally enforceable. If I promise to paint your fence you can't force me to if I change my mind. If I accepted money on the promise to paint your fence you may legally force me to repay you, possibly with damages, but you still can't force me to paint.

Thus if everyone signed a social contract there would still be no justification for forcing them to abide by it, although reneging on it might damage their reputation for the future. Only contracts stipulating property transfers are justly enforcable. Thus, for instance, voluntary socialism is morally fine (though probably misguided). If people want to pool their resources that's fine, that's what a corporation is after all. But if someone wants to leave the commune you can't force them to stay and contribute (although they might have to forfeit their initial "investment").

You're right about Rousseau. But his irrational scribblings strongly influenced many continental scholars after him. I struggle to think on any continental philosophers who ever contributed anything useful. Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Kant etc just added confusion and ultimately suffering to mankind. Contrast this with the likes of David Hume, a champion of liberty, science and a world view free of metaphysics, and to a lesser extent, Locke, Russel, Adam Smith, J.S. Mill and Ayer.

I suspect the French Revolution would have taken a quite different path had Rousseau's woolly nonsense not been treated so reverentially.
Yes. The French people have never really grasped the concept of freedom.

I don't understand why the French "enlightenment" is so revered. Rousseau was anti-intellectual and Voltaire was an Anglophile who basically revered John Locke. The enlightened parts of the enlightenment were imported from Britain. The only Frenchman worth reading outside of mathematics is Frederic Bastiat.

Interesting link, thanks. I have similar feelings, although I think Rousseau's mysticism has more to do with the atmosphere of the early Enlightenment than with his continental origins. But what about a theoretical society where citizens did sign a real Social Contract?

Even then, a contract which specifies future action cannot be considered legally enforceable. If I promise to paint your fence you can't force me to if I change my mind. If I accepted money on the promise to paint your fence you may legally force me to repay you, possibly with damages, but you still can't force me to paint.

Thus if everyone signed a social contract there would still be no justification for forcing them to abide by it, although reneging on it might damage their reputation for the future. Only contracts stipulating property transfers are justly enforcable. Thus, for instance, voluntary socialism is morally fine (though probably misguided). If people want to pool their resources that's fine, that's what a corporation is after all. But if someone wants to leave the commune you can't force them to stay and contribute (although they might have to forfeit their initial "investment").

True. A "true" social contract would have to be voluntary. But would it be necessary for non-contractees to physically leave the society? I can understand that a theoretical society might not want to have non-contributory or even nonconformist individuals within it, but would it not be possible to conceive of a society which tolerated non-contractees in its midst?

I'm not sure about "only contracts stipulating property transfers are justly enforcable". Would this not depend on there being an ideal property "blank slate", whereby property ownership is not, as it is so often today, merely the post-facto legalisation of past thefts, e.g. the various 18th and 19th century Enclosures and Clearances in the UK, or the forcible removals of indiginous peoples in the USA, Australia and elsewhere?

I suspect the French Revolution would have taken a quite different path had Rousseau's woolly nonsense not been treated so reverentially.

Yes. The French people have never really grasped the concept of freedom.

I don't understand why the French "enlightenment" is so revered. Rousseau was anti-intellectual and Voltaire was an Anglophile who basically revered John Locke. The enlightened parts of the enlightenment were imported from Britain. The only Frenchman worth reading outside of mathematics is Frederic Bastiat.

Probably it's got something to do with the 19th- and 20th-century cultures of anti-intellectualism and "muscular Christianity" in the UK. The French have never come up with an analogy for "too clever by half", for example. So while they paraded and honoured their intellectual heroes, we tended to pretend that ours didn't really exist. There is some historical revisionism now, though, and Hume is being restored to his place as a giant of the Enlightenment. To be fair, though, most of the Enlightenment thinkers -- with the possible exeption of Hume -- were still struggling out from under the religious mode of thought of the middle ages and Renaissance. They tended to fall into the same trap of removing God from the issue, and then struggling to find something to replace him with -- usually slapping in some faintly airy-fairy notion such as "Nature" or "the Invisible Hand", or even, ironically enough, "Reason".

True. A "true" social contract would have to be voluntary. But would it be necessary for non-contractees to physically leave the society? I can understand that a theoretical society might not want to have non-contributory or even nonconformist individuals within it, but would it not be possible to conceive of a society which tolerated non-contractees in its midst?

I'm not sure about "only contracts stipulating property transfers are justly enforcable". Would this not depend on there being an ideal property "blank slate", whereby property ownership is not, as it is so often today, merely the post-facto legalisation of past thefts, e.g. the various 18th and 19th century Enclosures and Clearances in the UK, or the forcible removals of indiginous peoples in the USA, Australia and elsewhere?.........

........Probably it's got something to do with the 19th- and 20th-century cultures of anti-intellectualism and "muscular Christianity" in the UK. The French have never come up with an analogy for "too clever by half", for example. So while they paraded and honoured their intellectual heroes, we tended to pretend that ours didn't really exist. There is some historical revisionism now, though, and Hume is being restored to his place as a giant of the Enlightenment. To be fair, though, most of the Enlightenment thinkers -- with the possible exeption of Hume -- were still struggling out from under the religious mode of thought of the middle ages and Renaissance. They tended to fall into the same trap of removing God from the issue, and then struggling to find something to replace him with -- usually slapping in some faintly airy-fairy notion such as "Nature" or "the Invisible Hand", or even, ironically enough, "Reason".

The institution of property is essential to this scenario. Lets say a bunch of socialists (for example) pool their resources and establish a commune in some area (which they jointly own, they're shareholders although they'd never put it that way). Since the property is theirs they have the right to exclude outsiders or not, whichever they prefer.

It is true that much property today was originally confiscated by force. But this doesn't mean there shouldn't be property rights, just that they've been violated in the past. As far as I can tell the libertarian theory goes like this...

If property is taken by force it still legally belongs to the original (individual or collective) owner and may be forcibly returned to them. If that owner then bequeathes the property to his children (or anyone else) then it legally belongs to his children who may in turn forcibly claim it back. If you could prove beyond reasonable doubt (as is required to prove guilt) that property was in the past stolen and that there is a person alive today with a legitimate claim then that person is entitled to seize back the property.

But this hasn't happened. The victims of the theft have generally left no evidence of who they wished the property passed on to. Thus the only way to treat that property is as unowned property. By libertarian theory unowned property may be claimed by whoever first brings it into production. If the stolen property was land then it belongs to the first person who farmed it after it became unowned. (or his employer if the worker had traded the right to own the fruits of his labour for a wage).

What you say about the enlightenment is interesting. It is a shame though that the superior British thinkers have for so long been regarded as 2nd rate behind a bunch of witch doctors. Hume made the breakthrough that made philosophy respectable, IMO.

True. A "true" social contract would have to be voluntary. But would it be necessary for non-contractees to physically leave the society? I can understand that a theoretical society might not want to have non-contributory or even nonconformist individuals within it, but would it not be possible to conceive of a society which tolerated non-contractees in its midst?

I'm not sure about "only contracts stipulating property transfers are justly enforcable". Would this not depend on there being an ideal property "blank slate", whereby property ownership is not, as it is so often today, merely the post-facto legalisation of past thefts, e.g. the various 18th and 19th century Enclosures and Clearances in the UK, or the forcible removals of indiginous peoples in the USA, Australia and elsewhere?.........

........Probably it's got something to do with the 19th- and 20th-century cultures of anti-intellectualism and "muscular Christianity" in the UK. The French have never come up with an analogy for "too clever by half", for example. So while they paraded and honoured their intellectual heroes, we tended to pretend that ours didn't really exist. There is some historical revisionism now, though, and Hume is being restored to his place as a giant of the Enlightenment. To be fair, though, most of the Enlightenment thinkers -- with the possible exeption of Hume -- were still struggling out from under the religious mode of thought of the middle ages and Renaissance. They tended to fall into the same trap of removing God from the issue, and then struggling to find something to replace him with -- usually slapping in some faintly airy-fairy notion such as "Nature" or "the Invisible Hand", or even, ironically enough, "Reason".

The institution of property is essential to this scenario. Lets say a bunch of socialists (for example) pool their resources and establish a commune in some area (which they jointly own, they're shareholders although they'd never put it that way). Since the property is theirs they have the right to exclude outsiders or not, whichever they prefer.

It is true that much property today was originally confiscated by force. But this doesn't mean there shouldn't be property rights, just that they've been violated in the past. As far as I can tell the libertarian theory goes like this...

If property is taken by force it still legally belongs to the original (individual or collective) owner and may be forcibly returned to them. If that owner then bequeathes the property to his children (or anyone else) then it legally belongs to his children who may in turn forcibly claim it back. If you could prove beyond reasonable doubt (as is required to prove guilt) that property was in the past stolen and that there is a person alive today with a legitimate claim then that person is entitled to seize back the property.

But this hasn't happened. The victims of the theft have generally left no evidence of who they wished the property passed on to. Thus the only way to treat that property is as unowned property. By libertarian theory unowned property may be claimed by whoever first brings it into production. If the stolen property was land then it belongs to the first person who farmed it after it became unowned. (or his employer if the worker had traded the right to own the fruits of his labour for a wage).

What you say about the enlightenment is interesting. It is a shame though that the superior British thinkers have for so long been regarded as 2nd rate behind a bunch of witch doctors. Hume made the breakthrough that made philosophy respectable, IMO.

True. A "true" social contract would have to be voluntary. But would it be necessary for non-contractees to physically leave the society? I can understand that a theoretical society might not want to have non-contributory or even nonconformist individuals within it, but would it not be possible to conceive of a society which tolerated non-contractees in its midst?

I'm not sure about "only contracts stipulating property transfers are justly enforcable". Would this not depend on there being an ideal property "blank slate", whereby property ownership is not, as it is so often today, merely the post-facto legalisation of past thefts, e.g. the various 18th and 19th century Enclosures and Clearances in the UK, or the forcible removals of indiginous peoples in the USA, Australia and elsewhere?.........

........Probably it's got something to do with the 19th- and 20th-century cultures of anti-intellectualism and "muscular Christianity" in the UK. The French have never come up with an analogy for "too clever by half", for example. So while they paraded and honoured their intellectual heroes, we tended to pretend that ours didn't really exist. There is some historical revisionism now, though, and Hume is being restored to his place as a giant of the Enlightenment. To be fair, though, most of the Enlightenment thinkers -- with the possible exeption of Hume -- were still struggling out from under the religious mode of thought of the middle ages and Renaissance. They tended to fall into the same trap of removing God from the issue, and then struggling to find something to replace him with -- usually slapping in some faintly airy-fairy notion such as "Nature" or "the Invisible Hand", or even, ironically enough, "Reason".

The institution of property is essential to this scenario. Lets say a bunch of socialists (for example) pool their resources and establish a commune in some area (which they jointly own, they're shareholders although they'd never put it that way). Since the property is theirs they have the right to exclude outsiders or not, whichever they prefer.

It is true that much property today was originally confiscated by force. But this doesn't mean there shouldn't be property rights, just that they've been violated in the past. As far as I can tell the libertarian theory goes like this...

If property is taken by force it still legally belongs to the original (individual or collective) owner and may be forcibly returned to them. If that owner then bequeathes the property to his children (or anyone else) then it legally belongs to his children who may in turn forcibly claim it back. If you could prove beyond reasonable doubt (as is required to prove guilt) that property was in the past stolen and that there is a person alive today with a legitimate claim then that person is entitled to seize back the property.

But this hasn't happened. The victims of the theft have generally left no evidence of who they wished the property passed on to. Thus the only way to treat that property is as unowned property. By libertarian theory unowned property may be claimed by whoever first brings it into production. If the stolen property was land then it belongs to the first person who farmed it after it became unowned. (or his employer if the worker had traded the right to own the fruits of his labour for a wage).

What you say about the enlightenment is interesting. It is a shame though that the superior British thinkers have for so long been regarded as 2nd rate behind a bunch of witch doctors. Hume made the breakthrough that made philosophy respectable, IMO.

Anarchists have committed genocide too. Many priests and small businessmen were murdered by the Spanish Anarchists. Many nuns were raped and murdered. This is partly why I don't think violent revolution is a good strategy.

That isn't technically genocide and it's one of the few examples of anarchist violence.

Please, don't scream straw man at counter arguments.

That is a strawman attack. Anarchism isn't the absence of rules. It's the absence of rulers.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I would have to agree that only governments (lets clear that up and say "organized groups") carry out genocide. It is really a very simple fact which says noting on the morality of governments or the lack there of. It is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for a single person to wage war on a race. And, if a person were to do so, it would take a very long time for that person to achieve the same results as a government attempting the same mission. Thus, you will not find the example of a man to hold up and say, "See, anarchists are just as bad as governments." My contention is that governments are amoral. However, the agents of government, those who possess power, can be morally judged. To this an anarchist would say, "Of course! Thats the whole point! Centralized and absolute power are evil!" Of course, such a saying is not true, the statement "absolute power corrupts absolutely" is better since I can think of absolute rulers who did good things, as well as bad. Nevertheless, in an anarchist scenario you would have small, yet frequent, acts of violence carried out all the time. But, A) no one would be able to stop them, unless they formed a small group for such a purpose (which right there breaks anarchism) and B) under anarchism suchs violence would be allowed, since there would be no morality imposed on anyone (that is the central pillar of anarchism) so eventually everyone would be cowed (in fact, if not officially) to the strongest and we would revert back to Feudalism.

The idea of the Social Contract is easy. If you are not alive at the time, how do you agree to it? Your parents are assumed to agree for you. Then, when you reach age of reason you can leave or you can stay. If you stay, you are agreeing to the social contract. (I would think this would seem obvious) As for immigrants, you have to pass certain qualifications to be let in. Why? It is the duty and prerogative of those in a society to agree who gets let in or not.

What you have to understand is that this is a REPRESENTATIVE government. No one will ever ask you your opinion on something -- that is a ridiculous position to hold. There simply are too many people. Instead, through your vote you can elect a candidate who (more or less) reflects the poublic opinion, but more importantly!, can refine the public opinion into something useful and worthy.

Everytime you vote you are, in exercise, agreeing to the Social Contract of the state (meaning government) you are voting in.

Everytime you vote you are, in exercise, agreeing to the Social Contract of the state (meaning government) you are voting in.

And if you don't vote, you still pay taxes. You don't consent to pay taxes. You do because the government uses force to make sure you do.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

You pay taxes because you are in the social contract. Not voting is an exercise of your free will as a citizen of that particular state. (They could make you vote, that would be part of your duty in that particular social contract.) The point is that they are not using force to keep you IN the social contract. You could move out. However, something prevents you from doing so. Thus, even if the particular contract you are under right now is not the ideal one, you are still making a statement about it (that perhaps it is the best of all the choices).


I do not live in the United States, by the way. I make no statement about THAT social contract.






Dux Mundi
It's life, only a few things will actually kill you. Move on.

You pay taxes because you are in the social contract. Not voting is an exercise of your free will as a citizen of that particular state. (They could make you vote, that would be part of your duty in that particular social contract.) The point is that they are not using force to keep you IN the social contract. You could move out. However, something prevents you from doing so. Thus, even if the particular contract you are under right now is not the ideal one, you are still making a statement about it (that perhaps it is the best of all the choices).


I do not live in the United States, by the way. I make no statement about THAT social contract.






Dux Mundi
It's life, only a few things will actually kill you. Move on.

Notice how Letila discredits the anarchist genocides as being "not true anarchists"

Now, couldnt I just argue that govts that commit genocides are not true governments?

And finally, maybe theres been more death under government because there are no anarchist societies.

You lose bud.

You pay taxes because you are in the social contract. Not voting is an exercise of your free will as a citizen of that particular state.

A social contract enforced by violence.

The point is that they are not using force to keep you IN the social contract. You could move out.

To where? Show me a country without taxes that I can go to without paying hundreds of dollars.

However, something prevents you from doing so. Thus, even if the particular contract you are under right now is not the ideal one, you are still making a statement about it (that perhaps it is the best of all the choices).

I don't think you get it. The government uses force to make you pay taxes. All this stuff about social contracts is a distraction from that fact.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Taxes pay for roads, pipes, and other basic things to makes a city survive.

Taxes pay for roads, pipes, and other basic things to makes a city survive.

I'm sure they do. That doesn't mean I chose to pay them. Need I also point out that they pay for war and telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies?

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

You clearly are a true anarchist. That is fine, and I truly respected your opinion, thought I disagree. One last point: you speak true, you will not find a tax-free government. Government needs money to operate somehow and that is how they get it. So, if that is your contention, I will cede it. I will argue that taxes are necessary, however, to support public works. If you say they also go to support war and things YOU dont support, well they also go to fund things I (capital I for emphasis) don't support. But THAT, is a different topic.

I would have to agree that only governments (lets clear that up and say "organized groups") carry out genocide. It is really a very simple fact which says noting on the morality of governments or the lack there of. It is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for a single person to wage war on a race. And, if a person were to do so, it would take a very long time for that person to achieve the same results as a government attempting the same mission. Thus, you will not find the example of a man to hold up and say, "See, anarchists are just as bad as governments." My contention is that governments are amoral. However, the agents of government, those who possess power, can be morally judged. To this an anarchist would say, "Of course! Thats the whole point! Centralized and absolute power are evil!" Of course, such a saying is not true, the statement "absolute power corrupts absolutely" is better since I can think of absolute rulers who did good things, as well as bad. Nevertheless, in an anarchist scenario you would have small, yet frequent, acts of violence carried out all the time. But, A) no one would be able to stop them, unless they formed a small group for such a purpose (which right there breaks anarchism) and B) under anarchism suchs violence would be allowed, since there would be no morality imposed on anyone (that is the central pillar of anarchism) so eventually everyone would be cowed (in fact, if not officially) to the strongest and we would revert back to Feudalism.

The idea of the Social Contract is easy. If you are not alive at the time, how do you agree to it? Your parents are assumed to agree for you. Then, when you reach age of reason you can leave or you can stay. If you stay, you are agreeing to the social contract. (I would think this would seem obvious) As for immigrants, you have to pass certain qualifications to be let in. Why? It is the duty and prerogative of those in a society to agree who gets let in or not.

What you have to understand is that this is a REPRESENTATIVE government. No one will ever ask you your opinion on something -- that is a ridiculous position to hold. There simply are too many people. Instead, through your vote you can elect a candidate who (more or less) reflects the poublic opinion, but more importantly!, can refine the public opinion into something useful and worthy.

Everytime you vote you are, in exercise, agreeing to the Social Contract of the state (meaning government) you are voting in.
This is exactly the gibberish I was referring to when I said, "Social contract? I never signed no stinking social contract. In the typical style of continental intellectuals Rousseau injects mystery and confusion into the argument to arrive at the astonishing conclusion "you agreed to it whether you agreed to it or not"! "

Firstly, Anarchism is not pacifism. Libertarians would use violence to protect people and property from criminals. The only central claim of Anarchism is that the state is unnecessary and immoral.

The idea that parents may bind their children by a contract is absurd and doesn't stand up to reason. You say I could leave the country which is true BUT I can't take my land with me. If govt is truly by consent then I would be able to declare my property no longer part of my ex-country.

It is neither the duty nor perogative of SOCIETY to decide who gets in, it's the duty of the property holder. I can decide who gets into my property and you decide who gets into yours. But you have no right, individually or in concert with my neighbours, to tell me I can't have foreigners on my land. The land does not belong to the govt, it belongs to the landowners. Even the land the govt does claim to "own" was either directly confiscated or payed for by stolen money and so any claim of ownership is rubbish.

And even if I did once vote for a govt, and even if this did constitute consent, I still have a right to withdraw that consent at any time.

Stop telling me I "really" agreed to something when the fact that I blatently did not is obvious to any child capable of understanding the word "agree". Next you'll be telling me the Jews "really" agreed to the haulocaust since Hitler took power legally and democratically.

How many have been done by anarchists? None.

Because you're all really disorganised? Or because your tofu diet leaves you too weak to actually get off your ass and get doing some mass-murdering? Or because so few people listen to you that you can never get enough anarchists together for long enough to actually organise a decent size extermination of untermenschen?
Or because you're too busy being middle class over-simplifying bitching girlies?


You know, you could flip your argument the other way round. How many anarchist groups or supported collectives have made major scientific discovveries? How many anarchists have put a man in space? How many anarchists have set up international aid and health movements? How many anarchists have actually done anything other than live in a dream world devoid of all human wants, desires and emotions other than their own? Because that's a pretty damn selfish, un-worker like way to think and live, you know.

You know, you could flip your argument the other way round. How many anarchist groups or supported collectives have made major scientific discovveries? How many anarchists have put a man in space? How many anarchists have set up international aid and health movements? How many anarchists have actually done anything other than live in a dream world devoid of all human wants, desires and emotions other than their own? Because that's a pretty damn selfish, un-worker like way to think and live, you know.
Many Anarcho-capitalists have done high quality research in economics (Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, Bryan Caplain, and Nobel prize winners Buchanan and Tullock have had good things to say about Anarchism, I'm not sure if they truly advocate it though) Friedman also has a PhD in physics. (his dad Milton is also a Nobel prize winning economist). Bruce Benson is also a world leader in the economics of law.

Jan Narvesson is a well known philosopher and the famous Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick championed the Ultra minimal state which is very nearly anarchism.

The writer/welder/gun smuggler/Anarchist Karl Hess, who was imprisoned for not paying taxes on the grounds that they are theft, was speech writer for many politicians including Barry Goldwater and (ugghh) Richard Nixon. He was editor of a large newspaper by age 22. When he died the governor of Virginia called him "the kindest man in the state".

Herbert Spencer is a famous Sociologist. Edmund Burke was formerly an anarchist but went on to be (gasp!) prime minister of Britain. At least 1 Anarchist (Harry Brown) has received over 1 million votes in the US in recent times.

Even Noam Chumpsky has done important work in linguistics or something. Lysander Spooner ran a private post service until congress banned it and he was also an anti-slavery campaigner and constitutional lawyer. Count Leo Tolstoy wrote 2 of the worlds most famous novels, War and Peace, and Anna Karenina. There are probably thousands of Anarchists doing everyday jobs who you just don't know are Anarchists.

At least one Anarchist is doing scientific research into the origin of fermion masses (particle physics), or would be if he weren't talking to you.

You know, you could flip your argument the other way round. How many anarchist groups or supported collectives have made major scientific discovveries? How many anarchists have put a man in space? How many anarchists have set up international aid and health movements? How many anarchists have actually done anything other than live in a dream world devoid of all human wants, desires and emotions other than their own? Because that's a pretty damn selfish, un-worker like way to think and live, you know.
Many Anarcho-capitalists have done high quality research in economics (Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, Bryan Caplain, and Nobel prize winners Buchanan and Tullock have had good things to say about Anarchism, I'm not sure if they truly advocate it though) Friedman also has a PhD in physics. (his dad Milton is also a Nobel prize winning economist). Bruce Benson is also a world leader in the economics of law.

Jan Narvesson is a well known philosopher and the famous Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick championed the Ultra minimal state which is very nearly anarchism.

The writer/welder/gun smuggler/Anarchist Karl Hess, who was imprisoned for not paying taxes on the grounds that they are theft, was speech writer for many politicians including Barry Goldwater and (ugghh) Richard Nixon. He was editor of a large newspaper by age 22. When he died the governor of Virginia called him "the kindest man in the state".

Herbert Spencer is a famous Sociologist. Edmund Burke was formerly an anarchist but went on to be (gasp!) prime minister of Britain. At least 1 Anarchist (Harry Brown) has received over 1 million votes in the US in recent times.

Even Noam Chumpsky has done important work in linguistics or something. Lysander Spooner ran a private post service until congress banned it and he was also an anti-slavery campaigner and constitutional lawyer. Count Leo Tolstoy wrote 2 of the worlds most famous novels, War and Peace, and Anna Karenina. There are probably thousands of Anarchists doing everyday jobs who you just don't know are Anarchists.

At least one Anarchist is doing scientific research into the origin of fermion masses (particle physics), or would be if he weren't talking to you.

Mneh, my little tirade was totally crap. Obviously anarchists have done a great deal for the world, but not supported by anarachist collectives. If the world was run by anarchist principles (some of which I value very highly) there simply couldn't be the organisation to let all these people do all these great things. Without some system of governance and organisation and, to some extent, capitalism, there couldn't be the publishing houses that distribute Tolstoys work, or the newspapers that Hess worked on. We need governmnet to help us organise these things and to protect us. Government means we have to spend less time and energy defending ourselves and so can spend more time doing stuff like writing War and Peace or Particle Physics. It's a dreamy personal philosophy with small parts that can be adapted for a decent, socially minded society, but not a system of living which can be imposed upon nations.

My main point was yes, governments have a massive force of power. They can use this for genocide, but hell, they can use it for good that people simply wouldn't be able to do on their own.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist as are most of the people I cited. I have no problem with organisation, free markets or agents of protection: as long as they aren't funded by theft (taxation). Division of labour is good. It's not dreamy since every part of the programme has worked at many times and places accross history including industrialised societies. It's very practical. I don't know many anarcho-capitalists I would describe as naive.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist as are most of the people I cited. I have no problem with organisation, free markets or agents of protection: as long as they aren't funded by theft (taxation). Division of labour is good. It's not dreamy since every part of the programme has worked at many times and places accross history including industrialised societies. It's very practical. I don't know many anarcho-capitalists I would describe as naive.


Ahh. Well, I can more see the point to Anarcho-capitalists than anarcho-communists. I'm swinging that way. I believe government should keep out of peoples private lives alot more, but I don't regard tax as theft as I support the governments role in helping large portions of society which, due to the nature of society, can't help themselves. I don't think charity works for huge systems.

To where? Show me a country without taxes that I can go to without paying hundreds of dollars.

Monaco I believe

I'm an anarcho-capitalist as are most of the people I cited. I have no problem with organisation, free markets or agents of protection: as long as they aren't funded by theft (taxation). Division of labour is good. It's not dreamy since every part of the programme has worked at many times and places accross history including industrialised societies. It's very practical. I don't know many anarcho-capitalists I would describe as naive.


Ahh. Well, I can more see the point to Anarcho-capitalists than anarcho-communists. I'm swinging that way. I believe government should keep out of peoples private lives alot more, but I don't regard tax as theft as I support the governments role in helping large portions of society which, due to the nature of society, can't help themselves. I don't think charity works for huge systems.
Tax is still theft, all you are saying is that you approve of theft in these circumstances. Perhaps you wouldn't support big govt programs if you understood that they don't help the poor.

a) On net, the tax system does not redistribute from rich to poor much if at all. Furthermore, the poor who pay taxes are not the same poor who receive them. Many programes redistribute from poor to rich (e.g. university subsidies)

b) Without the welfare state and high taxes there'd be less people needing help and more money with which to help them. Wages would be high and rapidly rising, involuntary unemployment would be unheard of. As for those who physically cannot work charity can cope, probably better than the state does.

c) Giving someone a welfare cheque doesn't help them. Next week they're in exactly the same position, except they might have learned to become dependent on others. Private charity "helps people to help themselves".

I'm an anarcho-capitalist as are most of the people I cited. I have no problem with organisation, free markets or agents of protection: as long as they aren't funded by theft (taxation). Division of labour is good. It's not dreamy since every part of the programme has worked at many times and places accross history including industrialised societies. It's very practical. I don't know many anarcho-capitalists I would describe as naive.


Ahh. Well, I can more see the point to Anarcho-capitalists than anarcho-communists. I'm swinging that way. I believe government should keep out of peoples private lives alot more, but I don't regard tax as theft as I support the governments role in helping large portions of society which, due to the nature of society, can't help themselves. I don't think charity works for huge systems.
Tax is still theft, all you are saying is that you approve of theft in these circumstances. Perhaps you wouldn't support big govt programs if you understood that they don't help the poor.

a) On net, the tax system does not redistribute from rich to poor much if at all. Furthermore, the poor who pay taxes are not the same poor who receive them. Many programes redistribute from poor to rich (e.g. university subsidies)

b) Without the welfare state and high taxes there'd be less people needing help and more money with which to help them. Wages would be high and rapidly rising, involuntary unemployment would be unheard of. As for those who physically cannot work charity can cope, probably better than the state does.

c) Giving someone a welfare cheque doesn't help them. Next week they're in exactly the same position, except they might have learned to become dependent on others. Private charity "helps people to help themselves".

And Trojan, the idea of Letila living in Monaco is hilarious. :lol: