What is Government? What is Anarchy?

[bostonterrierowner]

Perhaps it's naive but I choose to believe that humans are born inherently good, and not evil. .

Even if 99% of us are indeed good, the remaining 1% is more than enough to make things ugly .

[bostonterrierowner]

“State” institutions (centralized governments) are parasitic monsters created by us with no power but what we give them to rule, steal, threaten and exploit — that is not the same as socially co-operative government (of which many have existed, some more effective & peaceful than others).

According to my judgment each human being on the face of this planet will inevitably fall under some form of coercion/authority unless he/she is smart, ruthless enough to subdue others. To prevent open brutal servitude, sexual exploitation, child labor, starvation etc. the mightiest thug on the block has to be the government enforcing laws, stopping "races to the bottom".

"Laissez faire" system as this bow-tie wearing "gentleman" seems to be advocating won't simply work because such an arrangement will never create enough jobs and for sure won't provide any social safety net. According to Tuckers of this world people are the masters of their lives and if they happen to be poor and miserable it's because they are lazy.

[arc300]

According to my judgment each human being on the face of this planet will inevitably fall under some form of coercion/authority unless he/she is smart, ruthless enough to subdue others.

Hi, BTO, you say that "each human being on the face of this planet will inevitably fall under some form of coercion...", whereas I'd say that no human being needs to wait to fall under some form of coercion because we are born into it, and, like the fish who knows nothing of the water in which he swims, we know nothing of the state that dictates, through all the various forms of media, how we are to spend our lives.

You say that to prevent "open brutal servitude, sexual exploitation, child labor, starvation etc.", we need government. I have two things to say to that. First, we have had states and governments for much of history, AND, simultaneously, we have had " open brutal servitude, sexual exploitation, child labor, starvation etc.". So, at the very least you'd have to say that the institutions of state and government have been doing a poor job of preventing these atrocities, or you might go so far as to wonder whether states and governments actually create or sustain them.

Secondly, I think your comment shows that you are not distinguishing between a state and a government. I see nothing inherently wrong with the idea of government - groups of men and women joining together to pool resources and knowledge so that the sum of their combined energies might be greater than its parts - but I DO see something wrong with a State - groups of men and women working behind the scenes to secretly pull the levers of power, to cause the valuable resources and energy created by the majority to flow in ways that benefit those few conspirators, rather that the real owners of those resources - the good people who created them.

[bostonterrierowner]

We are on a wrong track here. I am just a realist not a state power enthusiast.

"...First, we have had states and governments for much of history, AND, simultaneously, we have had " open brutal servitude, sexual exploitation, child labor, starvation etc..."

Highly complex and vast in size state organizations are the very recent phenomenon, they started with New Deal in the 1930s.

"...groups of men and women joining together to pool resources and knowledge so that the sum of their combined energies might be greater than its parts ..."

Any examples of succesful projects ?

"...groups of men and women working behind the scenes to secretly pull the levers of power, to cause the valuable resources and energy created by the majority to flow in ways that benefit those few conspirators, rather that the real owners of those resources - the good people who created them..."

Synomosiai - one word summarizing aforementioned, neat definition of outcomes ALL human agreements/associations gravitate to, as noticed by the ancient Greeks. Agree 100%!

So our argument is really about human nature. You are free to believe in Utopian, loving communities "pulling resources" together for equitable common good. I say it's naive and naivety is privilege of children not men. You will end up fucked, badly when some clever, ruthless and better armed dudes figure out that there is a bunch of resourceful do-gooders ready to be subdued and leached on.

We need states because with them our existence is safer. Am I glad with what is going on? Fuck no!

[Maat]

BTO, I guess this should be called a Hobbes vs Kropotkin analysis I normally avoid debates involving ideological beliefs (i.e. subjective and emotional, by definition) but because assumptions and hypotheses need empirical and historical evidence with referenced examples for research, I’ve included some here for those interested.

Firstly, to clarify, “anarchy” means “no ruler”, not “no rules”, [from Greek anarkhiā, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without] and all stateless societies work by co-operative mechanisms that maintain consistent order in accordance with their respective cultural norms and needs.

…dismantling the central government will put the humankind right in the Mad Max reality where the most powerful/ruthless thug rules by pure force. ...

Human nature is permanent conflict, table tilting,fight for domination of one over another and it manifests itself from the very beginning of our lives.
...
According to my judgment each human being on the face of this planet will inevitably fall under some form of coercion/authority unless he/she is smart, ruthless enough to subdue others. To prevent open brutal servitude, sexual exploitation, child labor, starvation etc. the mightiest thug on the block has to be the government enforcing laws, stopping "races to the bottom".

No sudden break-down (“dismantling”) of any entrenched societal system is recommended (as I already explained), but what you've paraphrased is 17th Century Hobbesian theory (a favorite of State believers) which was based on a misunderstanding of human nature and shaped by the English Civil War (1642-1649) .

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was a royalist, who believed in absolute monarchy and that if people are left in their natural state “without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war” ... “where every man is enemy to every man” … “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Ref Leviathan Ch xiii

That was even contradicted by his contemporary, John Locke (1632-1704).


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7aHk-xV1oM [Note: video is now viewable (setting fixed)]

However, since they were both statists of their times, it’s Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921) I find more relevant and realistic, especially his ideas of Mutual Aid: A factor of Evolution — that mankind’s true nature is cooperation when not corrupted by government coercion.

He would have been pleased to know how many examples of stateless societies there really were that support his conclusions. From Ireland and Iceland to Africa and SE Asia.

But what is apparently not commonly known or mentioned (interestingly), is how much the early European immigrants and American revolutionary founders were inspired and influenced by the Indians’ social systems as living examples of real liberty without coercion — like the 6 Nations Iroquois League — as detailed in this well referenced book, Ch 1: http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nat ... /chp1.html

It also notes, “many writers (Franklin, Jefferson and Paine among them) were quick to point out that the Indian example could help shape the new nation, but that Europeans, with their cultural baggage, could not replicate ‘the primitive state’.” Which I would suggest probably had more to do with their inability to conceive anything that might impinge their acquisitive greed — especially for land and western expansion (being blocked by the English crown).

http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nat ... /chp2.html

Describing the Iroquois' form of government extensively, Colden wrote that it "has continued so long that the Christians know nothing of the original of it."[10]

"Each Nation is an Absolute Republick by its self, governed in all Publick affairs of War and Peace by the Sachems of Old Men, whose Authority and Power is gained by and consists wholly in the opinions of the rest of the Nation in their Wisdom and Integrity," Colden wrote. "They never execute their Resolutions by Compulsion or Force Upon any of their People." [11]

. "The Five Nations have such absolute Notions of Liberty that they allow no Kind of Superiority of one over another, and banish all Servitude from their Territories." [12]

Exemplar of Liberty: Native America and the Evolution of Democracy

The Six Nations: Oldest Living Participatory Democracy on Earth

Forgotten Founders: Benjamin Franklin, the Iroquois and the Rationale for the American Revolution (pdf)


Further ref:
http://www.peterleeson.com/Poking_Hobbes_in_the_Eye.pdf
http://www.notbeinggoverned.com/statist ... ibertopia/
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/ ... obbes.html

[brianv]

I always thought "Anarchy", like so many other words borrowed from Arabic, meant "Ana" meaning "I" and Rule. (Thanks for that article on Ireland Maat.)
Possibly connected is that I have trouble with "collectivist" "Anarchy". "Anarchist Movements", and the like. Conceived, by the "Statists" and berated by their media puppets? All men should be king IMO. No offence to the ladies, you can do the washing up

In hindsight now I know what the "Irish Troubles" were all about. State Building. I have pondered this question before, but it kind of makes sense now.

Meet the Murrays. "Anarchists" Noel and Marie (Jesus and Mary), man and wife who on *cough* Sept 11 1975, robbed a bank near Dublin and "killed" an off duty cop while making their escape. Image below courtesy of the clowns styling themselves as "state broadcaster". Sentenced to 40 years, reprieved from death sentence. Front page every day. Long gone down the Memory Hole. The "Terror of Anarchy" became the Official IRA of the late 60's which became the Provisional IRA of the 70's.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Ireland

Thinking further about it the "State Building" wasn't just aimed at Ireland, but England too. Rafts of new laws were introduced in both countries giving the men acting as "policemen" and those acting at "judiciary" greater powers. Politicians too. Think Thatcher! Thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens were jailed and criminalised in Ireland, people were forced into politics, religious divides encouraged. Bastards.

[Farcevalue]

The idea of government sounds good in theory, but in practice the track record of government as an agency of protection is abysmal. R. J. Rummel who coined the term democide, i.e. people murdered by their own governments, has done extensive studies and arrived at a total of 250 million outside of warfare.

It makes sense considering the entity tasked to protect operates under model that violates the protection directive in order to fund services that may or may not be requested by the protectees.

For the protection racket, statists have set the bar quite low.

Somalia is often cited example by those forced by birth into, as well as being proponents of state enclaves, of what life would be like without the infrastructure of a government. A more instructive comparison would be Somalia with a government to Somalia without a government. Currently, by most available metrics, Somalis in general are faring much better under anarchy than they were under a state. Somalia has advanced cell phone service, a consistently declining mortality rate and a better standard of living than some of its African neighbors.

http://www.observatori.org/paises/pais_ ... omalia.pdf
http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=so&v=29

There are so many contradictions inherent in states to begin with that the adage about not talking religion or politics at a dinner party makes perfect sense, as both are founded on ideas that cannot be defined or measured and are generally exceedingly fraught with emotion.

[simonshack]

*


WHY ALL GOVERNMENTS FEAR MAX (Nebraska)


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiL-q-U-Umc

(A hat tip to my Norwegian pen pal El Buggo - for finding this priceless MAX video)

[Maat]

I always thought "Anarchy", like so many other words borrowed from Arabic, meant "Ana" meaning "I" and Rule. (Thanks for that article on Ireland Maat.)
Possibly connected is that I have trouble with "collectivist" "Anarchy". "Anarchist Movements", and the like. Conceived, by the "Statists" and berated by their media puppets? All men should be king IMO. No offence to the ladies, you can do the washing up

In hindsight now I know what the "Irish Troubles" were all about. State Building. I have pondered this question before, but it kind of makes sense now.

Hail, king Brian! That’s fine as long as all women are queen too

I’m no fan of “collectivism” in the modern Euro-political/ideological sense either, but voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit without compulsion has apparently worked well historically.

If humanity is to have any hope of regaining sanity and real freedom in this world, there will have to be a shift in cultural consciousness — perhaps to the kind of equalitarian (reciprocal) gender balance that was the lynchpin of most stateless societies like the Iroquois League.

Although the US Senate finally (grudgingly) acknowledged on record that the Iroquois Confederacy’s system of governance was used (plagiarised) by the Euro-centric (Patriarchal) American framers for their constitution, Res 133, October 5, 1988, it’s just buried in State bum paper now & still not taught in state schools, of course. More significantly, it highlights why the lop-sided, parasitic monster the US government has become was inevitable — by ignoring & eliminating the most critical factor, integral to the original, that ensured a self-regulating power balance: the women.

The most successful, harmonious societies were matrilineal & matrilocal, such as the majority of Indian tribes (Lenape, Cherokee etc.). So it was the Clan Mothers of Iroquois society that maintained balance with their power to veto war, nominate the sachem (council “chiefs”) and to sack ‘em!


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK7OmIDmiB8


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ka7HgmQYDw


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ive7OW8P8A
“If you want a piece of the ‘American pie’, just don’t forget who owns the bakery” — Tiokasin Ghosthorse, Lakota


Interesting how that little town of Max's public facilities were organized by the women, eh Simon?
Population 57; Ancestry: English, Scots-Irish, Swedish + 2 Native American

[Critical Mass]

We are indeed slaves to the system... but as bostonterrierowner points out this system is not as bad as an Anarcho-state or a failed state.

I note that the majority of Cluesforum readers & contributors come from relatively wealthy & well ordered states... there's not much time to worry about psyops in a place like South Africa.

As anybody who has ever worked a day in their lives should be aware of... people need managing otherwise nothing gets done... or done right. Obviously the quality of management is often variable.

My own particular view on this is that, at the very least, taxation should be voluntarily paid rather than forcibly extracted at the butt of the gun*.

You think the government is doing a good job keeping the streets clean & protecting us from bands of marauding Belgians? Then tip 'em some cash... either way leave me out of their various insane power grabs.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNIgztvyU2U


* The biggest hoax of all is probably that of 'assumed consent'... can any scientists or academics show me where this 'assumed consent' is & how I can get it back?

[Maat]

We are indeed slaves to the system... but as bostonterrierowner points out this system is not as bad as an Anarcho-state or a failed state.

I note that the majority of Cluesforum readers & contributors come from relatively wealthy & well ordered states... there's not much time to worry about psyops in a place like South Africa.

A cage is still a cage, gilded or not.

Unfortunately, trying to use any currently “well ordered” State as a “not as bad” argument by comparison with post-collapse transitions, like South Africa et al, is ironically flawed — by the simple fact that those dysfunctional societies were all created by oppressive States from generations of abuse (mental, cultural, financial and physical). When original cultures are fragmented, destroyed and corrupted for years by a ruling State, the aftermath of its collapse is generally chaotic until some socially viable cohesion can be reestablished. It's even more ironic when they have been so conditioned to State control that they are only changing one type for another.

That’s also why most Russians install dash-cams in their cars now, for self-protection against police corruption, rampant extortionists and road rage assault. http://jalopnik.com/why-russians-are-ob ... ms-5918159

Larken Rose does have a lot of good points, e.g.

Here's a fun challenge for statist fear-mongers: can anyone name me a single "warlord" gang, or organized crime syndicate, or significant street gang, that was not either armed and/or funded by "government," and does not feed off of black markets CREATED by "government" (drugs, guns, gambling, prostitution)? In other words, when it comes to these scary Mad Max gangs we're supposed to fear if we didn't have a ruling class, can anyone point me to one that exists in the real world that does not exist entirely BECAUSE of "government"?

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auf1rehiA-4

[hoi.polloi]

people need managing otherwise nothing gets done... or done right.

-1

The biggest hoax of all is probably that of 'assumed consent'... can any scientists or academics show me where this 'assumed consent' is & how I can get it back?

+1

[Critical Mass]

A cage is still a cage, gilded or not.

Either way that's why I say taxation should be voluntary... which, lets face it, under virtually all circumstances would mean an extremely small government.

If I turned out to be correct I'm sure voluntary donations for an adequate policing system would take place... if you turned out to be correct then they should dwindle into nothing.

It also has the beneficial side effect of rendering all silly 'left vs right', 'face vs heel', 'nasty statist vs head in the clouds' style quasi-debates rather pointless.

People would contribute what they want to contribute... which is bound to be pretty insubstantial for any one individual.

[brianv]

A cage is still a cage, gilded or not.

Either way that's why I say taxation should be voluntary... which, lets face it, under virtually all circumstances would mean an extremely small government.

If I turned out to be correct I'm sure voluntary donations for an adequate policing system would take place... if you turned out to be correct then they should dwindle into nothing.

It also has the beneficial side effect of rendering all silly 'left vs right', 'face vs heel', 'nasty statist vs head in the clouds' style quasi-debates rather pointless.

People would contribute what they want to contribute... which is bound to be pretty insubstantial for any one individual.

Which leaves the door wide open for the Government PSYOPS artists to trap everybody into paying TAX and peoples houses being burned and robbed by protection racketeers who go by the name of "Insurance Companies"... which is exactly what has been happening for centuries across the globe. I'd prefer an extremely no government. Adequate policing of whom exactly? The government? Those who pay tax? If I don't pay tax, am I at the mercy of those who do? Smeg off!

[Critical Mass]

Which leaves the door wide open for the Government PSYOPS artists to trap everybody into paying TAX and peoples houses being burned and robbed by protection racketeers who go by the name of "Insurance Companies"... which is exactly what has been happening for centuries across the globe.

Obviously nothing will change without people first becoming aware that lies & liars exist... hence Cluesforum.

ANY system, including 'anarchy', can be potentially deceived... "temporary emergency measures have been put in place until the crisis is over".

Unless you intend to populate your pristine stateless utopia* with supreme omniscient beings who can 'spot a lie from a million miles away'... deception will still need to be a concept that people must be aware of & be allowed to freely discuss.

I'd prefer an extremely no government.

Cool

Adequate policing of whom exactly?

Protection racketeers (like those that rule over us today), murderers, thieves, antisocial personality types... that kind of thing. Seven billion people... not all of them wish to skip, play, hold your hands & sing kumbaya.

The government?

The 'government' would, hopefully, be controlled by its own inherently small size. No matter the quality of any conceivable psyop you're not going to net as much money as you can with enforced taxation.

Those who pay tax? If I don't pay tax, am I at the mercy of those who do?

Err... are you imagining a "I paid for the police... save me" badge or government receipt attached to ones tunic or something? Either way... no & no.



* I suspect you'd need an 'Anarchic government' to enforce the 'anarchy'... it too will need paying for.