Anarchism or Statism? A Voluntarist's Perspective
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-02-2013, 04:49 PM
RE: Anarchism or Statism? A Voluntarist's Perspective
(25-02-2013 02:35 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "Society places more value over money than life itself... so it does make the world go around but in a very damaging way."

Logical contradiction is illogical. If society invents money, then money can't control society. Oh and, God makes the world go around, silly. Laugh out load

"We need to change society by making the priorities of life something
more than defining success by the amount of digits or paper we have next
to our names.. which at the minute is limitless."


Agreed. And you can't do that by pointing guns at people.

The part where he said money controlled society was my favorite imaginary part also.

Also, keep in mind that this is just a quote, and not from myself; but how would you respond:

"If you could imagine any one obtaining [this] power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another's, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another's faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice."

Basically, what are you arguments against social contract theory?

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 05:11 PM
RE: Anarchism or Statism? A Voluntarist's Perspective
"Also, keep in mind that this is just a quote, and not from myself; but how would you respond:"

It's a sad thing that anyone would regard him as an idiot. People do good when they could as easily do bad every day, without supernatural powers.

Regarding social contracts.... I've never signed one and no one I know has ever signed one. It's said that the US constitution is a social contract and that's fine with me. I didn't sign it. I can only best describe social contracts by quoting someone who was much smarter than I....
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing,
or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a
government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In
either case it is unfit to exist.”

Lysander Spooner, circa 1860

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 10:50 AM
RE: Anarchism or Statism? A Voluntarist's Perspective
(25-02-2013 05:11 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "Also, keep in mind that this is just a quote, and not from myself; but how would you respond:"

It's a sad thing that anyone would regard him as an idiot. People do good when they could as easily do bad every day, without supernatural powers.

Regarding social contracts.... I've never signed one and no one I know has ever signed one. It's said that the US constitution is a social contract and that's fine with me. I didn't sign it. I can only best describe social contracts by quoting someone who was much smarter than I....
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing,
or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a
government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In
either case it is unfit to exist.”

Lysander Spooner, circa 1860

It's a thought experiment, expert from the Ring of Gyges. Most people when doing these types of thought experiments, will admit to a willingness to commit acts either immoral, illegal or just otherwise destructive to a society, if they have good reason to believe that they will be able to get away with it, with a benefit to themselves e.g. a society with no state, and no justice system and authoritarian law. They will also come off as kind of judgmental, in a negative way, toward the people who wouldn't.

A social contract isn't supposed to be something that is real. The theory, in general, is based on a set of ideas that people agree with and follow, on the basis that others will agree and follow, as well. It's basically the main argument behind states, in general, with at least some extent of authoritarian power of law.

The main problem, as most see it, for human beings, is the struggle for resources. People need certain resources for basic survival, then expanded for comfort and happiness. Not every person has access to all of those resources, especially not all of those resources, at the same time. Taking that along with the human history of wars and conflicts for resources, there is an assumed "state of nature"., in which people formed tribal sorts of bonds, in smaller groups, fighting together within certain areas, and against other formed groups, for resources. The argument would then go: in order to prevent this "state of nature" a social contract, forming a larger state, to encompass the smaller groups, bring them together under common agreements and cooperation, on a set of ideas that people would agree on, as long as others agreed on them, which is basically the essence of modern states, modern societies, with modern laws.

The obvious argument against social contract is just to deny the premise of a "state of nature", even given our current conflicts over resources and historical conflicts, and just saying that without a state we wouldn't go back to an even larger conflict and war; but I was just curious to see what your point of view was against that basic ideas behind social contract theory, since you seem to be advocating stateless society.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 01:13 PM
RE: Anarchism or Statism? A Voluntarist's Perspective
@bbeljefe

You are advocating an all reserve force. That is a terrible idea IMO. Even training monthly, you get rusty, because your once a month training isn't enough for people to get training that will provide them with usable experience. Instead what you get is between your 12 yearly weekend drills is mostly work that is created by your very existence. 2 of the twelve drills is going to require physical tests to ensure the men and women are up to standards, 1 a year is going to dedicated to ensure medical and dental stuff is up to snuff, 2 a year is going to be dedicated to promotion testing and promotion boards, then you have to ensure that security clearences are being maintained (which includes financial training), you have to spend time every drill planning for room and board for your reservists, food for everyone, etc, etc. The list goes on, and no one ever gets training on their supposed job when it comes time for action. This is even more true for reservists in the Navy, because it's impossible to simulate working on a warship in the middle of say Nebraska, or Colorado, or Tennessee. Reserve forces are necessary, because they can be made ready, but it takes time, you need an immediate response team for threats. You need an Active Duty component in times of peace, full stop.

Additionally how are you financing this? You say the same people who do it now, but that is taxpayers and their aren't any in without a government. Donations only? That'll be a laugh.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 06:20 PM
RE: Anarchism or Statism? A Voluntarist's Perspective
"~since you seem to be advocating stateless society."

WTF?? What should I do to make it obvious... Wink

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 06:29 PM
RE: Anarchism or Statism? A Voluntarist's Perspective
"Additionally how are you financing this? You say the same people who do
it now, but that is taxpayers and their aren't any in without a
government. Donations only? That'll be a laugh."

Thanks for the details. As I've said before, I'm not qualified to decide how a militia is structured. But that's not a problem, because there are plenty of people who are.

As for who pays... have you ever insured anything you own in the absence of being forced to by the state? I presume you own a gun for protection. If so, did the state require you to buy that gun?

What I'm saying is that if people feel they need to be protected by a military they will pay to be protected by a military. And since the military protection in a stateless society would actually, truly be only a defensive organization, the cost would be much, much smaller than it is in a statist society.

This is one of the great contradictions of statism. You guys argue that taxation is voluntary and that people agree to pay these taxes because they want the services the state provides... i.e. the military. And then, when I come along and say well great then, if everyone wants it, then just let everyone pay for it without the state waving guns in their faces. Oh but then how the story changes... WHO WILL PAY?!?!?!?


I thought you wanted to pay. Tongue

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 06:51 PM
RE: Anarchism or Statism? A Voluntarist's Perspective
Well, I don't fall under the category in those addressed in the "you guys" portion, but I do think that indirect taxation would be necessary to form a military which is capable of effectively defending itself. I don't have the same faith in people that you do, and I would probably only voluntarily pay for a military in dire straights, as would the vast majority of people in any country. This is by far the biggest qualm I have with Voluntaryism. The other problem I have with it is there should be a small government in place to ensure the freedoms of individuals, that is the branches of government that we have. The biggest obstacle would be ensuring a way that the government isn't corrupted and too powerful. It is a problem we as humans will always have, but on the other hand I would say that Voluntaryism is a bit short-sided when it comes to ensuring liberties from powerful people, and national defense as you have not offered any solution which I think has a snowballs chance in hell of effectively working. I will stick to Libertarianism, but I do applaud your general outlook and think that many could learn from your perspective.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 07:12 PM
RE: Anarchism or Statism? A Voluntarist's Perspective
"~as you have not offered any solution which I think has a snowballs chance in hell of effectively working."

I feel ya brother. I can say the exact same thing to statists (political libertarians are statists, btw.) and, I've got empirical evidence on my side. You guys have had the smallest state known to man and it grew to the largest in less than 300 years. Hell, the US experiment in representative democracy is an abysmal failure when compared to the monarchies that operated in England for centuries. This country was formed, ostensibly, over a 5% tariff. I think anyone in the US today would be tickled to death if just one of the myriad taxes they pay on everything were as low as 5%.

So essentially, what you and so many others are arguing, is that voluntarism could lead to another state. Well... then what's the problem? We already have a state. It's like, if you have cancer and I have a pill that cures cancer, are you going to refuse to take it because in the future, you might wind up having a heart attack? Of course not, we fix the problems we can when we can and if new (or the same) problems crop up in the future, we address them then.

One last thing... how many new technologies would we have if the attitude of investors was that the inventor had to be able to tell them exactly how every possible, conceivable aspect of the proposed technology would work before they would fund it?

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 08:07 PM
RE: Anarchism or Statism? A Voluntarist's Perspective
(26-02-2013 07:12 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "~as you have not offered any solution which I think has a snowballs chance in hell of effectively working."

I feel ya brother. I can say the exact same thing to statists (political libertarians are statists, btw.) and, I've got empirical evidence on my side. You guys have had the smallest state known to man and it grew to the largest in less than 300 years. Hell, the US experiment in representative democracy is an abysmal failure when compared to the monarchies that operated in England for centuries. This country was formed, ostensibly, over a 5% tariff. I think anyone in the US today would be tickled to death if just one of the myriad taxes they pay on everything were as low as 5%.

So essentially, what you and so many others are arguing, is that voluntarism could lead to another state. Well... then what's the problem? We already have a state. It's like, if you have cancer and I have a pill that cures cancer, are you going to refuse to take it because in the future, you might wind up having a heart attack? Of course not, we fix the problems we can when we can and if new (or the same) problems crop up in the future, we address them then.

One last thing... how many new technologies would we have if the attitude of investors was that the inventor had to be able to tell them exactly how every possible, conceivable aspect of the proposed technology would work before they would fund it?
You are right, I am a statist. I am just for a smaller state than most. I fully acknowledge that the experiment got corrupted, no arguments here. So how do we prevent that? In a way we were a victim of our success. America became powerful...then men being what they are and being part of the state...well you know what happened. So how do you prevent it and still be successful? I dunno, maybe it's impossible. Your way is as well, the only difference is my way offers better solutions to the problems I've been talking about. Oh, and I was never arguing what you accused me of arguing. I was just arguing that having no state at all is a bad idea for the reasons states in my last couple of posts.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 10:08 PM
RE: Anarchism or Statism? A Voluntarist's Perspective
"You are right, I am a statist.~"

What was I thinking? Yes, you are a statist but more accurately, you're a minarchist. Which, of course, is an anarchist who hasn't done all the research. Tongue But seriously, I get it. I disagree with you but I get it. I started out a modern liberal, then republican, then political libertarian, then a minarchist/classical liberal and now an anarchist. I gave up my Libertarian Party membership and voting along with it about four years ago.

"In a way we were a victim of our success."

That is so true. The new United States was such a magnet for entrepreneurship that people thrived here and wealth sprang up (along with technology) faster than it ever had in human history. And then... the people in the government saw all that wealth and the ne're do wells in the free market flashed that cash in their faces... in return for legislation that would make them even more wealthy. So yeah, the state grew because there was money to be had. How can you stop it? You can't stop it because in every human society, there are a certain number of people who lack morals. When you have a democracy, it's only obvious that those who lack morals are going to be drawn to the power that government offers. In the end, the only way to stop evil people from abusing the masses is to not create a government that they can use for their own purposes.

But, if you can find a a way to organize society with a state that cannot use coercion and cannot be corrupted, count me in. I'm not wed to the name anarchist. I'm wed to the principles of voluntary interaction and peace.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: