NationStates Jolt Archive

Link to main election thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=472095

The Anarchy at Any Cost Party


Manifesto:

I. The Anarchy at Any Cost Party (AACP or the Double ACP) embraces the basic principle that mankind will benefit from anarchy and that national government of any form is at best unnecessary and at worst a threat to the pursuit of happiness.

II. The AACP sees government’s only current legitimate use as a means to destroy itself.

III. The AACP does not favor one style of anarchy over another.

IV. The AACP’s main purpose is to break down government from the inside. We believe this will result in a number of possible outcomes, all beneficial. If the free market is as strong as economic liberals claim it to be, it, on its own, will retain an acceptable standard of living and gradually phase out the rapidly decaying government. If they are wrong, then without government intervention society will polarize between the capitalists and the proletariat. The proletariat will inevitably rebel against this order and take control of the means of production, resulting in fair distribution of resources. The AACP understands that it is likely that different areas will develop at different paces and emerge with different anarchic systems, but asserts that these different areas will have nothing to gain by interfering with each other negatively.

V. The AACP will seek to destabilize government by whatever means necessary and at any cost to society, but the following means are currently accepted:

A. Disband the military gradually by cutting off spending over time.

B. Lower and restrict taxes over time in an attempt to build up the national debt and prevent the government from amassing a reserve in an attempt to collapse the government under its own weight.

C. Gradually cut of funding to national law enforcement and regulatory agencies until
they are unable to carry out their objectives.

D. Remove the government from the private affairs of the citizens it claims in order dissociate society with the government.

E. Cut off funds to government controlled law enforcement and remove firearm restriction to encourage the communities and individuals to protect themselves and to arm the proletariat for a possible future revolution.

F. Promote groups that seek to harass, blackmail, humiliate, assassinate and otherwise inhibit those that do not work towards anarchy in the government.

G. End all welfare projects and public medical care to disassociate society from the government, but also to either let the free market take over or push the poor into deeper poverty and destroy the middle class creating outrage against capitalists.

H. Retain public education as a means to drain the budget and encourage Anarchism in our youth.

VI. The AACP is not a “silly” party.

VII. Representatives in parliament will be chosen democratically by the members of party, but will be removed if they do not follow the manifesto. Membership in the party is open to all sincere applicants.

So, yeah, there it is. Submit comments, questions or criticisms if you wish.

Members:
Undelia
Gruenberg
Aggretia
Madnestan
JRV

Any nation under this will die a horrible death.

Any nation under this will die a horrible death.
That’s kind of the point…

It is? Then... Good job!

I like it! :D

I like this. If you need a 'second', I'll oblige.

EDIT: Question: ultimately, there would, I assume, not really be any 'foreign policy' to speak of. But in the interim, what would it be?

I second the motion!

Sounds like Ancapistan. I approve.

I like this. If you need a 'second', I'll oblige.
I’ll add you to the list of members that I’ll add to the OP.
EDIT: Question: ultimately, there would, I assume, not really be any 'foreign policy' to speak of. But in the interim, what would it be?
That’s actually something I’ve been trying to come up with myself. I suppose it would involve indirectly supporting anarchist movements abroad.

Beyond that, promoting good relations with other nations and giving excessive amounts in foreign aid to drain the treasury. If you think you have a better idea, just say so.
I second the motion!
I assume that means you want in.

Well, in terms of foreign policy, I would personally suggest:

- Sign and ratify assorted disarmament treaties, to further limit military power [I'm not sure about this one - after all, most weapons of this sort couldn't reasonably be used to suppress an internal populace]
- Withdraw from the United Nations, and create a new organization which does not enshrine statism in its charter
- Support, and fund, similarly-motivated organizations world-wide
- Further support, if indirectly, any groups whose actions will destabilise state governments

- Withdraw from the United Nations, and create a new organization which does not enshrine statism in its charter

I'm just curious, but rather than one central organisation, couldn't several smaller organisations be created. They'd be small enough to infiltrate national borders, but large enough to maintain guard.

So, this party bills itself as the anti-party?

I'm just curious, but rather than one central organisation, couldn't several smaller organisations be created. They'd be small enough to infiltrate national borders, but large enough to maintain guard.
Well, my point was basically that for an anti-statist party, the United Nations is pretty much anathema.

Well, my point was basically that for an anti-statist party, the United Nations is pretty much anathema.
I see. I thought you were thinking of a larger organisation to light the spark for anarchy in other nations.

Holy shit, this is the best form of government ever!

*applies seal of approval*

I see. I thought you were thinking of a larger organisation to light the spark for anarchy in other nations.
Well, that too. I was sort of assuming that AACP would act as a global federation of sub-parties.

Well, in terms of foreign policy, I would personally suggest:
- Sign and ratify assorted disarmament treaties, to further limit military power [I'm not sure about this one - after all, most weapons of this sort couldn't reasonably be used to suppress an internal populace]
It would be good to get nuclear disarmament treaties if possible.
I personally do have a problem with addressing foreign relations in a manifesto beyond what can be implied, mostly because international relations are always shifting.
- Withdraw from the United Nations, and create a new organization which does not enshrine statism in its charter
Now I do like that idea.
- Support, and fund, similarly-motivated organizations world-wide
- Further support, if indirectly, any groups whose actions will destabilise state governments
Good on a nation by nation basis, but like I said, nothing that I believe needs to be addressed in a manifesto.

A nation's foreign policy tends to flow from their domestic one, and like you said, it will eventually be irrelevant.

Well, that too. I was sort of assuming that AACP would act as a global federation of sub-parties.
Ahw. What do you believe is the best method? Smaller organisations have the advantage of being easily rebuilt and more difficult to catch, but they don't have enough to create large ripples.

A nation's foreign policy tends to flow from their domestic one, and like you said, it will eventually be irrelevant.
Yes, ok, I wasn't thinking foreign policy would be a main thing, and anyway, it should be adaptable. I think the primary aim should be the abolition of the state at home, so as to lead by example.

Well, that too. I was sort of assuming that AACP would act as a global federation of sub-parties.
Without the concept of nationhood, there is nothing to keep us from cooperating with foreign nations, after all.
I think the primary aim should be the abolition of the state at home, so as to lead by example.
Yep.
Holy shit, this is the best form of government ever!

*applies seal of approval*
Are you not currently involved with another party? If not I gladly welcome you. Your vague responses are can be mind-numbingly frustrating. A powerful weapon indeed.

The United Democratic Communist Party is already essentially anarchist, or at least close enough for me; I'll keep to that one.

The United Democratic Communist Party is already essentially anarchist, or at least close enough for me; I'll keep to that one.
They speak of nationalization in their manifesto, a lot of it, and make no attempts to arm the masses.

lol. I do really like this one, but i'm still with the UDCP.

Can I be a "party friend"? :D

They speak of nationalization in their manifesto, a lot of it,

Meaning popular ownership, not state ownership. They make their intentions very clear. The phrasing could be worked on, admittedly, but it's good enough for me.

and make no attempts to arm the masses.

I don't believe they advocate gun control, and I have no problem with the party not being adamantly in favor of violent revolution.

lol. I do really like this one, but i'm still with the UDCP.

Can I be a "party friend"? :D
I don't see why not.
Meaning popular ownership, not state ownership. They make their intentions very clear. The phrasing could be worked on, admittedly, but it's good enough for me.
It's not just the wording. It's the imagery. I mean Lenin?
I don't believe they advocate gun control, and I have no problem with the party not being adamantly in favor of violent revolution.
We don't adamantly advocate it eigther. It's just one scenario.

It's not just the wording. It's the imagery. I mean Lenin?

I'm talking about the UDCP, not the Militant Leftist Party.

I'm talking about the UDCP, not the Militant Leftist Party.
Oh, my apologies. You were just posting an awful lot in there and my insomnia induced sleep deprivation is getting to me.
No, the UDCP is alright, I suppose. A tad too sappy and ideological for my tastes and they offend my sensibilities on a number of levels, but good people.

Quiggly! Purchase guns as rapidly as possible, and get me some of those boys from Executive Outcomes! We're taking over! Woohoo!

That’s actually something I’ve been trying to come up with myself. I suppose it would involve indirectly supporting anarchist movements abroad.Eh, wouldn't that make the other nations angry? And you'd be left without effective central government to fight back when they come knocking?

Eh, wouldn't that make the other nations angry? And you'd be left without effective central government to fight back when they come knocking?
You can't fight an anarchistic society anymore than you can fight Somalia. You'd basically have to defeat every single person, or group of persons, and watch them the whole time.

You can't fight an anarchistic society anymore than you can fight Somalia. You'd basically have to defeat every single person, or group of persons, and watch them the whole time.
Either that or pull of what our ancient ancestors did. Threaten or bribe other folks to help you out, and then start bashing skulls as a group.

Either that or pull of what our ancient ancestors did. Threaten or bribe other folks to help you out, and then start bashing skulls as a group.
Well yes. Personally I believe that the tendency of humans is to form more and more complex groups which will develop some form of leadership, which then becomes a government of some kind. I think the same would happen when you introduced anarchism.

But that's not the topic of this thread, so I'll stop it.

Well yes. Personally I believe that the tendency of humans is to form more and more complex groups which will develop some form of leadership, which then becomes a government of some kind. I think the same would happen when you introduced anarchism.

But that's not the topic of this thread, so I'll stop it.
As shall I, tally ho!

Tired of Statist Bullshit? Vote AACP.

Anarchy!
It just makes sense.

Boo!

I may have a fairly positive view of human nature, but it doesn't stretch that far.

Smith: Tax is needed to fund a minimum level of free education for all. Without this the economy cannot perpetuate itself.

Ricardo: Tax is needed to fund a military force to provide security for the nation, otherwise entreprenurialism is cut down significantly due to fears of insecurity.

Polanyi: Governments need to impose a system of tax to keep societies stable. The market is contract based. How will these contracts be enforced? Especially as it will be very likely to be profitable for one side to want to break a contract. Perhaps a legal system? How will this be funded without allegations of bias? A 'neutral' third party places a tax to fund the legal system. Without a functioning legal system the market economy distroys the basis on which it is able to function.

Keynes: Tax enables governments to be able to reduce idle human resources and maximise economic efficiency.

Gramsci: The capitialist system cannot reproduce itself without society being at ease with itself. Since the capitalist system is inherrently the cause of poverty for a large part of society, many may wish to change the system. Redistribution of wealth helps pacify the masses and manufacture their consent.

I've paraphrased the arguements of quite a few thinkers there from various backgrounds (I won't tell anyone if you won't tell anyone that two of them were Marxists).

Smith: Tax is needed to fund a minimum level of free education for all. Without this the economy cannot perpetuate itself.
Either the enfettered free market or the proletariat will provide education just fine.
Ricardo: Tax is needed to fund a military force to provide security for the nation, otherwise entreprenurialism is cut down significantly due to fears of insecurity.
A military is unnecessary in the modern world. Private security or an armed proletariat will be enough.
Polanyi: Governments need to impose a system of tax to keep societies stable. The market is contract based. How will these contracts be enforced? Especially as it will be very likely to be profitable for one side to want to break a contract. Perhaps a legal system? How will this be funded without allegations of bias? A 'neutral' third party places a tax to fund the legal system. Without a functioning legal system the market economy distroys the basis on which it is able to function.
If capitalism prevails, private security can pick up the slack where the government lets off. Unlike the government, citizens will have a choice about which service to use.

If communism prevails, there will be no need for contracts.
Gramsci: The capitialist system cannot reproduce itself without society being at ease with itself. Since the capitalist system is inherrently the cause of poverty for a large part of society, many may wish to change the system. Redistribution of wealth helps pacify the masses and manufacture their consent.
If the free marker can not survive a lack of government, the proletariat will erase the need for wealth redistribution.

I'm going to take a look at your fiscal policy, seeing as how economics plays a vital role in your intents to bring down the government.

A. Disband the military gradually by cutting off spending over time.

Less deficit spending/ budget surpluses. If the latter, might pay off parts of the national debt.

C. Gradually cut of funding to national law enforcement and regulatory agencies until
they are unable to carry out their objectives.

Less deficit spending/higher surpluses. If the latter, might pay off parts of the national debt.

D. Remove the government from the private affairs of the citizens it claims in order dissociate society with the government.


As far as the private affairs go, this would definitely mean a reduction in court costs. In the extreme, courts could be eliminated entirely, thus saving a massive amount of money. I assume by regulatory agencies, you mean things like the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Less deficit spending/higher surpluses. If the latter, might pay off parts of the national debt.


E. Cut off funds to government controlled law enforcement and remove firearm restriction to encourage the communities and individuals to protect themselves and to arm the proletariat for a possible future revolution.

Less deficit spending/higher surpluses. If the latter, might pay off parts of the national debt.

G. End all welfare projects and public medical care to disassociate society from the government, but also to either let the free market take over or push the poor into deeper poverty and destroy the middle class creating outrage against capitalists.

Definite decrease in deficit spending/budget surpluses. If the latter, might pay off parts of the national debt.

B. Lower and restrict taxes over time in an attempt to build up the national debt and prevent the government from amassing a reserve in an attempt to collapse the government under its own weight.

Alright, you've just cut a huge portion of the budget out. How much is really left to accrue a huge deficit, and, from that, a debt? Your tax cuts would just make the surplus not quite as large.

Ah, but...

H. Retain public education as a means to drain the budget and encourage Anarchism in our youth.

There's a portion of the budget you don't seem to want to cut, so that the budget surpluses that would incur wouldn't be quite as high. But the reason why seems to be that public education somehow automatically encourages Anarchism in youth. How is this so? It is arguable that, because schools are filled with time and behavioral regulations with a clearly defined authority controlling the rest of the system, that public education would be a detterent against anarchism. If you were to teach anarchism in the schools, it would probably not work, seeing as how the system would be speaking one way and doing the other (they'd want to keep control over the schools, after all, and continue their behavioral melding of and regulation of students).

If this is so, would you be willing to cut the budget for public education instead, seeing as how it interferes with your agenda? Among other problems coming from ending attempts to educate the public, your fiscal policy would be in danger, in that the deficit still wouldn't be as spectacularly high as you all would want it to be (Without public education, you'd have effectively eliminated most of the places that government spends a specific amount of money on.)

You might argue that you will first increase spending where possible and create the national debt, before you let the debt crush it and force the government to drop the funding of the previously listed groups (which accounts for most, if not practically all, government spending.) However, the initial increase in spending would further bond the government to society and make it more important in the lives of the people, and increase its scope and power. Therefore, the people would be less receptive to anarchy, as the government would be doing various things for them, things that it would not have been able to do without the increased spending, as well as engendering it into their daily lives and society.

The process to bring down the government would be more lengthy, if it is at all possible, as its strength would be increased. Because the people would want to keep the services from the government, due to their having to not do it themselves and the government having more engendered itself into society, they would likely be willing to endure a tax increase in order to retain the services they don't want to do themselves, or (directly) pay for.

Effectively, you're working against your own goals.

The only problem I have with this manifesto is that collapsing the government through debt is going to collapse the economy as well due to the nature of our monetary system. We should instead seek some more stable way of eliminating the government while not ruining the economy. There's probably enough government property to sell at auction to start making up the debt, maybe we could also ensure a slow reduction in government power to allow society time to adapt. This way we might have anarchy without caos.

Easily the best party available. I would like to join as a member.

The Lunacy Party. Anarchy At Any Cost, including the well-being of mankind and the pursuit of happiness, right?

smecks says yes

Easily the best party available. I would like to join as a member.
Ok. Added.

The election is over. It appears we shall receiving one seat in parliament. As the manifesto says, we determine the representative democratically.

I nominate myself for the position, seeing as how I started the party and am quite active in the forums.

The rest of you chime in and let the party know if you agree or not.

Yes, I definitely think you should take the seat.

I too would like to join!

I too would like to join!
Never too late I suppose.

In theory, I am against putting you in that position, since having one so dominant figure as the head of the party, beeing founder, leader and the representative in parliament is against the whole idea of Anarchism. The power should be spread as wide, =to as many people, as possible.

Technically however you have the support of the majority of this party for the job, including me, and are (so far) the only willing person... So yea.

Go ahead.