Do you want Anarchists to have Nuclear Weapons?

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by Gilby

And if he were to become the head of the monster, that can only be a good things to the anarcho-capitalist cause.

As long as anyone can give you your freedom you'll never be free. BTM

What about anarchy-collectivism vs Ayn Rand?

[harper]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

What about anarchy-collectivism vs Ayn Rand?

That's hardly fair. Ayn Rand is dead so anarchy-collectivism can easily win that bout.

[MrBoogiejuice]

Originally Posted by Gilby

My support for Ron Paul is simply because achieving an advanced anarchist society in my lifetime is probably not likely. He is also likely an anarchist himself.

So you don't think the route to anarchist society is through bottom-up collective action to create non-heirarchical institutions to replace the current system?

Originally Posted by Gilby

To achieve an anarchist society, you need the people in that society to have the knowledge of what anarchy really is, as well as knowing the problems that is caused by the existence of the state. Ron Paul is educating the masses and bringing many people to look deeper into what libertarianism and anarchy is.So by supporting Ron Paul, I am helping to bring that message to many more people than I could otherwise do. And if he were to become the head of the monster, that can only be a good things to the anarcho-capitalist cause.

I'm with you on necessity of education to bring about social change. The most successful experiment in anarchy a Western country's seen in modern-ish history was built upon more than a decade of concerted effort put into promoting independent education for the working class. Read about Francesc Ferrer's Modern School movement for some interesting ideas on how to hasten political consciousness.

Originally Posted by Gilby;1519766Anything about anarcho-capitalism or the austrian school of economics is good. Here is a good starting point: [url

http://www.mises.org[/url]

I'm sorry Gilby but I simply don't equate anarcho-capitalism as being part of the anarchist tradition. The most interesting part of anarchist philosophy is its critique of power, intrinsic to which is an understanding of how privately owned capital is responsible for an enormous power imbalance in society. Going back to the very beginnings of modern anarchist thought it has been an explicitly collectivist and anti-capitalist philosophy which aims at the emancipation of the working class from the clutches of wage labour and privately owned capital - barring thinking from the odd wingnut like Stirner.

You shouldn't confuse anti-statism/fundamentalist individualism with anarchism. George Woodcock's 'Anarchism' is a good overview of the more influential anarchist thinkers through history starting with Godwin. For a more contemporary look at anarchist movements through history 'Black Flame's' a good read and for some interesting examples of more current societies that draw inspiration from anarchist thought Gelderloos' 'Anarchy Works' is good. Though not necessarily a book about anarchist philosophy, I really, really enjoyed Graeber's latest book: 'Debt: The First 5000 years' particularly for his perspective on how communism (anarchism being libertarian communism) ought to be viewed not as an over-arching superstructure to aim for, but as a way of behaving and interacting that exists already between all sorts of people. His critique of the standard narratives of economic history is brilliantly compelling - everyone ought to read it. I have the e-book if anyone would like it e-mailing to them.

Anarcho-capitalism has so many contradictions as a philosophy and rests upon the completely a-historic notion that markets can exist independently of the state, or that markets can be created without there being coercion. Read up on the enclosure acts and the poor laws that were enacted at the beginnings of the industrial revolution in order to move people away from their more or less self sufficient communities and into the new factories to become a part of the labour market required by the factory owners in order to make textiles which, until the destruction of the Indian textile industry by the British East India Company under the auspices and protection of the British crown, had been produced to much higher quality than the new mechanised looms could produce.

[Nurse Ben]

That's hardly fair. Ayn Rand is dead so anarchy-collectivism can easily win that bout.

Harper, didn't you know that a true anarchist state can bring the dead back to life you can read into that what one all you want!

So my son says to me, in response to my concerns over his teen buddies being at our house without adult supervision: "they aren't the kind of people who do the sort of things you're worried about".

My response went something like this: "Alex (that my son's name), if you consider that it takes a lifetime to learn about life and to approach a modicum of understanding for human nature, and being that i am about half way through my life, I already know enough to seriously doubt the valididty of what you are telling me".

It amazes me that people don't seem to learn from history. All you need to do is look around you, talk to people who are a generation or two older than you,learn what it is that makes them tick now, then simply envision yourself in their shoes twenty to thirty years from now.

Will Gilby still be in love with anarchy at age sixty, nah.

But it sure is fun watching him go through the paces...

So Billy, having a bomb is really not all that, what I want is to set one off. Can we do that at your house first?

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by Nurse Ben

Will Gilby still be in love with anarchy at age sixty, nah.

But it sure is fun watching him go through the paces...

It's going to be pretty hard to convince me that I need someone else to rule over me.

Contrary to what MrBoogiejuice might tell you, anarchy simply means "without a ruler," so it encompasses many different types of stateless societies.

[BillyTheMountain]

anarchy means chaos and disorder, as in "when the kindergarten teacher left the room, it was complete anarchy."

I guess that's similar to Gilby's definition, because that's what happens in a kindergarten class when there is no ruler.

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by Nurse Ben

All you need to do is look around you, talk to people who are a generation or two older than you,learn what it is that makes them tick now, then simply envision yourself in their shoes twenty to thirty years from now.

And when you were a teenager, did you do that? Or did you believe the situation was different, since so much has changed since your parents' generation. Like most teenagers seem to do.

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

I guess that's similar to Gilby's definition, because that's what happens in a kindergarten class when there is no ruler.

I guess the question is if you had anarchy for all ages, how different would it be from that classroom of kindergarteners?

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

anarchy means chaos and disorder, as in "when the kindergarten teacher left the room, it was complete anarchy."

I guess that's similar to Gilby's definition, because that's what happens in a kindergarten class when there is no ruler.

Don't hit. Don't push. Don't hurt. Don't steal. That's what I was taught in kindergarten, if not before that. In other words, I was taught the non-agression principle. The basis of libertarianism.

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by MrBoogiejuice

So you don't think the route to anarchist society is through bottom-up collective action to create non-heirarchical institutions to replace the current system?

I think you have to attack the current status quo from every possible angle you can. Ron Paul is an educator, and while I do not believe that we can gain control of the mafia and turn them into charity workers, I think that helping Ron Paul become popular and get him into the political discussion will bring awareness to the liberty movement and end up educating many people about the virtues of the golden rule, the non-aggression against others.

Unfortunately, the government has way too many restrictions on us and we are prevented from creating the bottom-up institutions that will replace it, so working to minimize the state from within may be a good path to achieving true freedom, as this may happen to eliminate the laws that prevent those institutions from coming into existence. The other path is to wait for the government to collapse, which it will, but if the people are not educated about anarchy, then it will probably just result in another authoritarian government to replace it, and we will experience the anarchy that BillTheMountain describes, which is the chaos and disorder that happens just after a state collapses.

So, yes, it is a dilema. Do I work to make the state collapse sooner rather than later, or do I try to promote people to become part of the state that will roll it back. I choose both, as they are usually not a competing choice. I can support Ron Paul, but just stay home on election day since my vote is statistically meaningless, and just allow the worst of two evils to prevail.

[Nurse Ben]

And when you were a teenager, did you do that? Or did you believe the situation was different, since so much has changed since your parents' generation. Like most teenagers seem to do.

When I was a teen, I was a know it all, mostly because of he way I was trained; I had parenting problems to say the least.

In response to my parent's exxample I made a number of different choices:

First, I waited until I was 35 to get married.
Second, we raised our children without corporal punishment, so no spanking, screaming, or any sort of aggresive verbal or physical "corrections".
Third, we taught our children to think, feel, and communicate.

I practice child psychiatry, so I have lived by the motto: do as you tell others to do.

You know, Gilby is correct, but only in an ideal world; we don't live in an ideal world, nor will we ever live in an ideal world. Human's are animals, and though we have advanced cognitive functioning, our animal nature takes precedent. Might is right because it works.

Someone, anyone, read the Forever War, it's a science fiction story that is loosely based on the Vietnam conflict, it won a Hugo and Nebula awards. It tells a funny story, quite poignant really, that perfectly describes human nature and our choices. In the end, we get Gilby's reality, but it's not quite the promised utopia.

So Gilby, if you don't want or need someone to manage you and yours, then who will protect you from them and theirs? And how and what will be done to protect you, if at all, since we won't have any rules or anyone to tell anyone how to do what needs to be done. Isn't that anarchy?

Are you familar with feminism? There are three types (yes, that's not really true, but in academia they like to keep things simple) Conservative, Liberal, and Radical. To keep it simple, conservative feminist are more conservative than the society in which they live, so they would be more inclined to agree with how society is structured. Liberal feminists see the male hegemony as overly oppressive and seek to alter that rules that control society. Radical feminists see the system as being fundamentally flawed, such that only a complete tear down and rebuild would solve social inequalities.

The problem with complete tear downs is that the resulting "improvement" is not always an improvement.

What I find most interesting about your comments about being controlled is that our government has far fewer controls over the population than nearly every other developed nation, so what more could be "thrown out" without throwing the baby out too?

So, here we sit, the peak of economic prosperity has passed, natural resource abundance is finally on the downswing, jobs are scarce, population growth is matched by the growth in the disparity between the economic worth of the rich and poor, as a society we are never expected to match the relative net worth of our parents.

You want anarchy? I say it's already here and growing by the minute! As tax revenues decrease, we will gradually be unable to afford basic services, education, police, fire, trash, recycling, all will be reserved for the wealthy. How long until basic freedoms are controlled, not by govt, but by the principal of might.

Gilby, your anarchy sounds familiar, and it scares me, because I know that the time is coming, probably not in my lifetime, but soon enough. So my question for you is this: when all the controls are gone, who is going to protect you?

[Nurse Ben]

"First They Came for the Jews"
By Pastor Niemoller

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I think that helping Ron Paul become popular and get him into the political discussion will bring awareness to the liberty movement and end up educating many people about the virtues of the golden rule, the non-aggression against others.

Are you serious? You think a politician can help instill the golden rule, as a member of the government, a government that you don't want controling you, and that very same government is now going to be charged with pushing golden rule. Okay, so I followed your civics 101 thread and I saw some intersting stuff, I especilly liked the line about government only making policy that benefits everyone equally. Okay, let's see how that might work...I believe the golden rule might not benefit everyone equally

[harper]

Originally Posted by Nurse Ben

When I was a teen, I was a know it all

Why did you quit? The rest of us didn't.

Originally Posted by Nurse Ben

...when all the controls are gone, who is going to protect you?

Originally Posted by Nurse Ben

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the weapons and I did not speak out because I was not a weapons owner.

Then they came for me and I was utterly helpless, completely defenseless, and totally, irrevocably screwed. (But at least I still had that warm, fuzzy, righteous feeling when I went baaaa, like a sheep.)

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by Nurse Ben

Are you familar with feminism? There are three types (yes, that's not really true, but in academia they like to keep things simple) Conservative, Liberal, and Radical. To keep it simple, conservative feminist are more conservative than the society in which they live, so they would be more inclined to agree with how society is structured. Liberal feminists see the male hegemony as overly oppressive and seek to alter that rules that control society. Radical feminists see the system as being fundamentally flawed, such that only a complete tear down and rebuild would solve social inequalities.

are the last the anarchy-feminists?

[Nurse Ben]

What gives me a real giggle is someone saying they were raised to live by the golden rule, but they want unlimited access to weapons.

So, are the weapons for guarding the gold?

Why did you quit? The rest of us didn't.

I don't know that I quit being a know it all, I just don't spend as much time arguing over differences of opinion; why argue when you're right

are the last the anarchy-feminists

Yeah, in a sense, all feminist theory more or less advocates for a change in "the system". My doctoral research utilized feminist theory, my advisors and the faculty were political economists, so you can guess how well we got along

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by harper

Then they came for the weapons and I did not speak out because I was not a weapons owner.

Then they came for me and I was utterly helpless, completely defenseless, and totally, irrevocably screwed.

Okay, rewrite. They didn't take my weapons. Then they came for me and I had two rifles and a pistol. They had an APC, teargas, and 20 guys with automatic weapons. I think the outcome is about the same, but maybe with more expended ammo.

If you and your neighbors (if anyone else is left) formed a militia you might have a better chance, but if your government is doing the above stuff, they might not be too open to that idea either...

Originally Posted by Nurse Ben

What gives me a real giggle is someone saying they were raised to live by the golden rule, but they want unlimited access to weapons.

Because he knows a thing about human nature as well. Golden rule as the standard, weapons to protect against all the non-standard people out there.

Originally Posted by Nurse Ben

I don't know that I quit being a know it all, I just don't spend as much time arguing over differences of opinion; why argue when you're right

Wait a minute. Didn't you say you were married??