Anarchy = True Freedom?

af_thefragile

"Man knows no master save creating Heaven, Or those whom choice and common good ordain." - Thomas Paine.

I said a while ago i was gonna be gone from here, but well, this topic compelled me to come back here.

People keep getting mixed up a lot between the concept of society and government. From what i see anarchism promotes society but abolishes the government. And no central/federal government is the way towards true freedom for the people.

But then what exactly is true freedom? And can you call people living in a socialist state truly free?
Is freedom more important to us or is protection from foreign threats that can be secured by the military might of a large state like Russia, China, USA or UK (or EU?).
And can people really be free while living under the protection of a large socialist state to which they have duties and obligations towards?


It possibly comes down to weighing the benefits of an individual to the benefit of the collective state the individual is a part of.
I don't think there really has been a time in history where a society was anarchic. People were always under the rule of a king/emperor and when the world moved towards democracy people were under the rule of the state.











Now for my personal opinion...
I believe the perfect society is an anarchic society. But (and its a big but!) that won't be achieved until people can learn to take complete responsibility towards their actions for themselves. Like the quote from American History X "Used to blame everybody. I didn't get no answers cuz i was asking the wrong questions. You have to ask the right question, Has anything you've done made your life better?".
People are responsible to get their education, get their job, make their living, pay for their health treatment (the more you abuse your body, the more you'll have to pay for it!) and be morally obliged to give charity to help others who aren't as privileged as them.
This way people are rewarded for their achievements. People get back from the world how much they put in.
People have the right to protect themselves and can use firearms if they wish so. But people need to also be able to use the firearms responsibly. If they kill or injure someone without a just cause, they'll be punished for it. But surely a morally responsible and sane person wouldn't do that and so only the ones who deserve will be punished. Again people get back what they put in.

So finally to end with saying Freedom begins with the mind and then moves outward.
You can't experience freedom unless you've freed your mind first.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

I dont disagree with anything you have written, but is freedom a benefit or a goal of a particular system? In my own way of thinking I dont like big gov as it is at the heart of all the moral hazard we see around us today and since the sums dont add up how can it be other then a big ponzi scheme which will implode on itself. Hardly a moral or practical basis for a robust society.
The only nagging thought I have and feel free to put me straight is if you hang your hat on the concept of freedom, can somebody else come along and say, fairness is the ultimate goal of society, then you end up with an arbitrary battle over values?

turgon

I suppose a lot of people have ideas of the perfect way to live, and the way to be most "fair" and "free" etc etc. And I think the first instinct for these people is to force others to subscribe to their notion of life. In their mind, if everyone lived the way they want to we would all be happy.

Of course these people see the government/state as the means to put forth their moral order. That is possibly why the government can be so overbearing. Fundamentally people will have ideas about the right and moral way to live and will have a motivation to spread this.

The system you describe demands something huge of people; something very enormous in fact: restraint. They have to be able to look at conflicting ways of life and admit "this is not effecting me so its none of my buisness." And that is hard for anyone as I think the predisposition is to impose order.

Im not someone to fully believe in ideals, but as far as ideals go I would consider yours to be quite good. However the key part is forcing people to take responsibility for their actions. Telling people to pay for their own health. Telling people to pay for their own education. Telling people to take responsibility for their kids. And thats a big one.

The welfare state is another thing people would have to be "weaned" off of. Child benefit, the dole, the old age pension - these are all things which are often times not needed but given by an administration too afraid to lose votes. For democracy is a really bad system of governance. Giving power to the common man is dangerous, for even the common man seems to stupid to see that a millionaire pensioner doesn't need a medical card. Even people as "smart" as Fergus Finlay think it is bad to have an economist in government because he is not "of the people."

The sentence above is like Churchill's quote - something like "democracy is an awful system of government, but the best Ive seen". Maybe hes constrained himself too much, maybe the best we can imagine is no government.

Hmmm....if I was reading what I just said 6 months ago id be shocked. Damn boards.ie libertarians!


Btw expand upon "free your mind."
If it involves narcotics ill need a number for your dealer too

af_thefragile

silverharp wrote: »

The only nagging thought I have and feel free to put me straight is if you hang your hat on the concept of freedom, can somebody else come along and say, fairness is the ultimate goal of society, then you end up with an arbitrary battle over values?

But isn't freedom fair?
Like in the anarchic society people get back exactly what they put in. I believe it couldn't get any more fair than that. If a person is committed to working hard, be innovative etc. he is contributing to the society greatly and in return is being rewarded for his efforts greatly too. A person by working hard can become rich, get rewarded for his efforts, become a role model for other people to strive towards, ultimately helping and bringing up the society. I really don't think being rich is a bad thing. People like Bill Gates worked hard to get to where they are. He contributed to the society by giving us all affordable and easy to use computers. He became a role model for people to look upto. He got great rewards for his work and he is also helping many poor through his charity work.
On the other hand old Joe living round the corner dropped out of school, worked as a janitor, lived an ordinary life for he never tried hard enough to achieve anything, became an alcoholic and died of liver failure.
How could it be fair if Bill Gates and old Joe end up getting the same rewards for the amount of work they put in?

In a "fair" no class socialist society a person who is more intelligent and hardworking ends up getting the same rewards as a person who doesn't put in as much effort as him. Where is the fairness there?
When a person too lazy to go to college to get a good education and a good job ends up sitting at home on social welfare, he's living a better life than a person working hard 9 to 5 to pay off his bills!
Also an intelligent person with an innovative idea and plan can't put it into action cuz he can't create enough capital for it. He'ld have to give away his idea to the state for them to implement it and he'ld get very little reward for it in return.

Finally to critique the socialist state, there is no such thing as equality in the socialist state. There is always the bureaucrats over the proletarians. The case of "all men are equal but some men are more equal then others!".

af_thefragile

To turgon:

I believe the whole "common men are too stupid to have common sense" thing is nothing more than socialist propaganda. It restricts people from growing out of their bounds and limitations. What makes men "common". On what basis can men be divided into the "common" and the "bureaucrats/aristocrats". Men grow through learning and experience. If they're not allowed to do that, humanity will not progress and we'll be still caught up in the same problems we were a century ago!

When you put a certain responsibility on a person, you are commanding that person to grow! The best way to do this is not to force it on the people but instead by taking away the safety net from under them. Cuz you cannot force anything onto a person. Forcing your ideals onto a person will only make him rebel. But instead leaving him all along by himself will lead him to take action and responsibility for himself. Putting him back according to the natural order of nature. You've gotta watch where you step!

Free your mind corresponds to being free to think for yourself. Something that takes quite an effort! But there's no noting as free lunch!
As for the drugs, i think they usually do quite the opposite of freeing your mind. Me being an artist, i like to have the ability to be creative without the need to alter my mind by the use of drugs. Works better when you can control your mind and direct it towards opening your third eye consciously than letting DMT do it for you!...

But then again, i'm not a preacher cuz i preach people to think for themselves!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

thesunwashot

af_thefragile wrote: »

People have the right to protect themselves and can use firearms if they wish so. But people need to also be able to use the firearms responsibly. If they kill or injure someone without a just cause, they'll be punished for it. But surely a morally responsible and sane person wouldn't do that and so only the ones who deserve will be punished. Again people get back what they put in.

This seems like a baffling statement to me. Who does this punishing? Who decides when a line has been transgressed? Who sets that line in the first place? If you abolish a governmental structure, how do the laws get set? What is to stop the bullies/greedy/immoral/etc taking over. This seems to me to be the major flaw in anarchism.

I'm pretty convinced that a democratic system is the only fair way. Sadly most democracies are also run by the bullies/greedy/immoral/etc but if the elected representatives were more responsible to the needs of the population, we might get a system that worked more effectively and was endorsed by the public who are a part of it.

af_thefragile

thesunwashot wrote: »

This seems like a baffling statement to me. Who does this punishing? Who decides when a line has been transgressed? Who sets that line in the first place? If you abolish a governmental structure, how do the laws get set? What is to stop the bullies/greedy/immoral/etc taking over. This seems to me to be the major flaw in anarchism.

I'm pretty convinced that a democratic system is the only fair way. Sadly most democracies are also run by the bullies/greedy/immoral/etc but if the elected representatives were more responsible to the needs of the population, we might get a system that worked more effectively and was endorsed by the public who are a part of it.

This is exactly what people get wrong about anarchism. Thats why i first mention anarchy promotes society but abolishes government as in a central/federal government. In anarchy the society rules itself. The members of the society come together to form their own laws and their own police in a way that all the people who're a part of the society agree to. So say taking Ireland as an example. Every county would have its own set of rules and laws and its own police force formed by the residents of that community. If anyone didn't like the way one county works, they have the freedom to just simply move out and join another one which they like more. People voting by the power of just stepping out.

So say if Dublin decides it wants to be communist but Galway likes anarchism, instead of converting whole of Ireland to communism or anarchism, Dublin can be communist while Galway functions as an anarchic county. People in Dublin who don't like the communist rule and prefer the anarchic one can move to Galway and vice versa. People have the freedom to chose the way their society is run and also have the freedom to leave the society if they don't like it.

And Ireland can remain as an intact state, it doesn't mean Ireland breaks up into its individual counties as separate states. Ireland could/will be the collective state composed of all the individual self governing counties and it could deal with Foreign Policies, common law and such (like say how the EU was initially proposed to be for Europe). People in Ireland would be Irish and free to roam around and settle down wherever they like within Ireland. Just Ireland wouldn't have much central power over the states. It has to be a state for the people, not a state for the few elite bureaucrats. And this is what happens most of the time. Democracy ends up in a bunch of these bureaucrats competing for their personal gains and ideals while the people of the state end up being left out of the equation.

Anarchy leaves the greedy politicians redundant. It funnels back the power from the central state back into the hands of the people and their societies.
Every individual has a say in the society. The society has the power to decide how it wants to rule itself.

You can also check out Thomas Paine's constitution of united states. It could maybe fit for a libertarian anarchic state.

AngryHippie

anarchic systems could work in a sparsely populated system or dare I say it planet, but unfortunately, our human instinct to go forth and multiply means that we can only do it if we are prepared to compromise our liberties to accomadate the liberties of those who surround us, for this to work, some form of civil service must be in place, this has to be agreed upon and you end up back at democracy in some form, or a police state. Right now we are caught up in a nanny state where we are as mentioned above mortgaging the next generation to pay for the excesses (greed moreso than hedonism imo) of this one.

af_thefragile

^I say an easier way to solve this is by diving the planet/country/city into its individual societies. Letting them decide for themselves how they wanna rule their society/community. The state not composed of one big macro-economy/macro-community but rather small individual micro-economies/micro-communities.

Yes when things get too big, they get hard to control. So why let things get that big in the first place? Like i mentioned in my previous post, i don't say chop up countries into its individual districts. A country even as big as Russia or China can still remain intact but chop up the countries central power into its individual districts. The country composed of members of all the individual communities. Going back to Thomas Paine's composition of america.'


We are caught in a nanny state cuz we have let ourselves get caught. We haven't been smart enough and we let ourselves get manipulated by greedy politicians or can i mention corpocracy?
We are working for the gains of the few elite at the top of the pyramid. All this has taken place because of our inability to think for ourselves and take responsibility for our actions. Or have we been fooled into shutting down our mind and responsibilities by manipulative politicians, bankers and greedy industrialists who constantly keep coming up with more cleaver ways to fool us into buying their bull ****! And we are so easily fooled!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ionix5891

Can we pack all anarchists on a plane to Somalia to experience anarchy and lack of government and collapse of society for themselves

af_thefragile

ionix5891 wrote: »

Can we pack all anarchists on a plane to Somalia to experience anarchy and lack of government and collapse of society for themselves

And send all the socialists to North Korea?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ionix5891

af_thefragile wrote: »

And send all the socialists to North Korea?

they have socialism in north korea?! hahahahahahaaa please dont mix up "stalinist" type of communism with socialism, Ireland is more "socialised" than North Korea we pay people to sit on their arses and i dont see anyone starving

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

5*n=??? (where n is 0 or a very small number)

its not hard to grow when you have nothing to begin with after your country has been in civil war for 20+ years and cant fall any more, if they have it so fine and dandy why are they resorting to piracy unlike the neigbouring countries which arent exactly rich themselves? why are people in both countries mentioned starving??


and finally why dont you move to somalia if its so great? @somaliafella will quickly learn the difference beteen ak47 and ak74 :pac:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

af_thefragile wrote: »

But isn't freedom fair?....

Cheers, I'm just grumpy because being a parent I dont even have the freedom to have a lie in on a Sat.:D

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its a great viewpoint and even as an academic exercise it shows a mirror to how much of our rights we have signed away.
My view is that the current system will break to some extent over the next 10or 20 years and we may see if we are lucky some kind of gold based money system. Will the system break to such an extent that centralised gov. will collapse entirely, I doubt it but I do believe we will see a generation shift away from the central planning we have seen for the last 100 years

af_thefragile

ionix5891 wrote: »

they have socialism in north korea?! hahahahahahaaa please dont mix up "stalinist" type of communism with socialism, Ireland is more "socialised" than North Korea we pay people to sit on their arses and i dont see anyone starving

Just like they have anarchism in Somalia according to you...

And wait a couple of years, you'll find more people starving in our "socialised" Ireland than there will be in N. Korea!

ionix5891

look i agree with some of the points of yee libertarians/anarchists/whatever

such as too much intervention in markets being a bad thing

BUT (and thats a bug but) social structures and "governments" set us apart from primitive human tribes and primates, even tho i have strong beliefs in free trade and capitalism i do realize that things such as education, fire fighters, police can not be done by provided private enterprise, you can not rely on private enterprise to provide fair legal system, and you definatelly can not hope that private enterprise will make laws that will only be fair to anyone but themselves

the alternative is a wild west anarchy, every man for himself, as has been the case up to about 3000 years ago for most of human existence

Leonid

Interesting topic. In counter to this though, You should check out John Rawls use of the 'original position' to support his theory of justice as fairness. Personally I'd prefer to live in a state that balances liberty with equality. The separation of state into autonomous units free to experiment politically is interesting. Though I doubt it would suit such a trade dependant country as Ireland. The regional direct democracy linked to central national government, that you mentioned is outlined by Marx. just thought I'd put that in there.

Capt'n Midnight

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose.
Kris Kristofferson

"They had nothing to loose and were willing to risk it all"


Anarchy is great if you are very rich and very powerful, no one to rein you in. It would be nice to live without rules, but looking at what happens after revolutions, it seems to just be a power grab.


Somalia as an example , WOW just WOW

dsmythy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A problem i see here is lets say someone has been living in a tuatha, for arguments sake, for 20 years under a particular set of rules but then around them the majority of people decide to change the rules. This new system is not to the persons liking so they are pretty much forced to either accept the new system or move away from their home of many years.

That particular person doesn't seem free to me. Sure they have two options but neither of them may be desirable.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

af_thefragile

Leonid wrote: »

Interesting topic. In counter to this though, You should check out John Rawls use of the 'original position' to support his theory of justice as fairness. Personally I'd prefer to live in a state that balances liberty with equality. The separation of state into autonomous units free to experiment politically is interesting. Though I doubt it would suit such a trade dependant country as Ireland. The regional direct democracy linked to central national government, that you mentioned is outlined by Marx. just thought I'd put that in there.

Just to note on equality. I believe equality is a myth. No two people are equal. And this is destroying society currently with all this political correctness and giving minorities preference over others.
Libertarians look at every person as an individual. Not as a white guy or a black guy or Irish or English a catholic or muslim, we just look at them as a person. And the person gets back from the society exactly how much he puts in. If he works hard he gets more rewards, if he's a lazy slob, we'll he better work hard or he's gonna fall off the field!

I believe you can't get anymore equal than that. Where you judge people according to their abilities as opposed to their background what socialists tend to do, uplift the minorities, lower classes etc. It only ends up creating more racial and social tension between the people.

And about trade, i believe if anything, it'ld improve trade. Cuz it abolishes most of the taxes, businesses can operate more freely and it'ld also attract many foreign businesses to set up their bases in the state bringing in revenue to the state. So basically it'ld make Ireland a tax haven. Businesses can expand more freely, people will have more money in their pocket (due to no or very low income tax) and there would be loads of jobs as such a society would also encourage entrepreneurship, setting up many innovative new local businesses which progress the society and attracting foreign ones as well.

And i'll look up on Marx's theory into a bit more detail... I was reading Das Kapital back in my commie days but then i became a libertarian and started studying the austrian school of economics instead...



And then i really can't see whats so wrong about the every man for himself notion.
Isn't that how it really is? You've gotta work hard to get anywhere in life. You can't just sit there and hope someone else will do your work for you and become successful. Even in a socialist state. Yes, if you don't wanna work, you'll have the dole to keep you alive in the socialist state but do you really deserve someone else to pay for your laziness or incompetence?

And then how many times do i have to reiterate the fact that anarchy promotes society. Its not wild west, do what you want, no laws, no rules type of society. Its a proper structured society with its own laws and policing. Where the society is free to decide how it wants to rule/govern itself and there is no external force out there to impose any rules or laws on the people of the society. Its better than the hunter gatherer society cuz this society is community based rather than based on might.

I do ask you all to read Common Sense by Thomas Paine, to get a better understanding of libertarianism and the libertarian state. Actually there's even a new pamphlet Common Sense Revisited which is a revised version of Paine's original Common Sense but for the 21st century.
Common Sense was the single most popular pamphlet published that incited americans to start their revolutionary war for independence.

Leonid

af_thefragile wrote: »

And i'll look up on Marx's theory into a bit more detail... I was reading Das Kapital back in my commie days but then i became a libertarian and started studying the austrian school of economics instead...

On the austrian school, I posted this in the other thread (which seemed to kill it). http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/191.html

turgon

Does anybody think theres any potential for a libertarian/liberal movement/political party in the near future?

af_thefragile

turgon wrote: »

Does anybody think theres any potential for a libertarian/liberal movement/political party in the near future?

I'ld love to see one. I have noticed a growing number of libertarians lately. A lot can be contributed to the efforts and rational and logical talks of people like Ron Paul and Daniel Hannan. But a libertarian political party is still a little far off imo. The libertarian agenda puts a lot of responsibility onto the individual and thats something people haven't been used to lately and the libertarian policy won't work if you implement one policy but leave out another one. For the system to work, you've gotta implement it completely cuz all the little different aspects and policies of the system compliment one another towards the advancement libertarians speak of.

Saying that also as i mentioned earlier the Libertarian system focuses around the individual. The common person and its not gonna succeed until people learn to become responsible for their decisions and actions and start to think for themselves. No social security, no free education, no free healthcare would be a huge change for people to cope with.

This brings us to the historical dilemma. People won't be able to adjust to the huge change bought about by the implementation of the libertarian system in a day. But at the same time people won't be motivated enough to fight for a transitional phase thats midway between centralism and libertarianism, neither am i sure how well it would work. Like Bakunin said, the people overthrowing the old order must immediately live in freedom or they'll lose it.

The formation of a libertarian party would certainly be a step forward but i think what we need more is a movement than a party. We don't need another guy standing up for election ready to impose his ideals on us. That is exactly what want to get rid of. We need to make people realise what freedom means to them and take responsibility to think for themselves and their actions. Going back to Thomas Paine again, we need to teach people about Liberty through Common Sense! So that they can first free their mind and then fight for their liberty!

"What would happen if there was a war and no one turned up for it?"

af_thefragile

Also to add a little note:

Anarchy is a very romantic idea. Its something that poets and artists have dreamed of for centuries. The notion of a free man exempted from the rule of any king or emperor. He is free to travel the earth and live wherever he wishes learning and gaining wisdom from all the different people he meets as he journeys through the wonders of this planet. He is free to live by his own rules and moral code. He doesn't have any duties or obligations to anyone (but his creator?). He knows and lives what freedom really is.

And then also there is the anarchist rebel. The outlaw, fighting the oppression of the establishment. He doesn't give into the laws placed upon him. He lives by rules and principles that are his alone. Like Robin Hood or V from V for Vendetta.

Try writing a story about a commie hero!
Though that is exactly what I'm doing right now...

Leonid

af_thefragile wrote: »

Try writing a story about a commie hero!
Though that is exactly what I'm doing right now...

Well there are lots of books from socialist/anti-capitalism views:The Grapes of Wrath, death of a salesmen and so on.

thesunwashot

af_thefragile wrote: »

This is exactly what people get wrong about anarchism. Thats why i first mention anarchy promotes society but abolishes government as in a central/federal government. In anarchy the society rules itself. The members of the society come together to form their own laws and their own police in a way that all the people who're a part of the society agree to. So say taking Ireland as an example. Every county would have its own set of rules and laws and its own police force formed by the residents of that community. If anyone didn't like the way one county works, they have the freedom to just simply move out and join another one which they like more. People voting by the power of just stepping out.

So say if Dublin decides it wants to be communist but Galway likes anarchism, instead of converting whole of Ireland to communism or anarchism, Dublin can be communist while Galway functions as an anarchic county. People in Dublin who don't like the communist rule and prefer the anarchic one can move to Galway and vice versa. People have the freedom to chose the way their society is run and also have the freedom to leave the society if they don't like it.

And Ireland can remain as an intact state, it doesn't mean Ireland breaks up into its individual counties as separate states. Ireland could/will be the collective state composed of all the individual self governing counties and it could deal with Foreign Policies, common law and such (like say how the EU was initially proposed to be for Europe). People in Ireland would be Irish and free to roam around and settle down wherever they like within Ireland. Just Ireland wouldn't have much central power over the states. It has to be a state for the people, not a state for the few elite bureaucrats. And this is what happens most of the time. Democracy ends up in a bunch of these bureaucrats competing for their personal gains and ideals while the people of the state end up being left out of the equation.

Anarchy leaves the greedy politicians redundant. It funnels back the power from the central state back into the hands of the people and their societies.
Every individual has a say in the society. The society has the power to decide how it wants to rule itself.

You can also check out Thomas Paine's constitution of united states. It could maybe fit for a libertarian anarchic state.

From what you say, you have a great deal of faith in each person to do the right thing. You argue that people will come together and form their own laws and police them, but how? You are saying my post is wrong but you don't explain how you foresee this happening. If a group or individual takes over a community using violence, people can't "just simply move out". How are those who don't want to live in harmony with your system to be accommodated?

You are advocating a state of nature approach here but acting like each person will think and act in the same way and reach some kind of harmony. Whilst it might be a nice idea, humans are not good at getting along. Power struggles always occur.

The best run any group has had at implementing anarchism was in Spain when people grouped to oppose Franco. Although this was a noble attempt at putting the principles into action, it was like minded people in opposition to another way of life rather than a whole state living peacefully as anarchists and it all ended very badly when the communists turned on them under Soviet instruction. By all rights you would think these groups would work together not against each other...