Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Anarchy = True Freedom?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
That is not the kind of war he was referring to.
He was referring to wars such as Iraq, Vietnam, both World Wars, the Napoleonic Wars, in which the war was funded by forced state taxation on people who otherwise would not have been involved.
Irrelevant. I have given an example of a war fought for ideological purposes which were of no relevance to "the elitist few" which you rely on for your predicate to form the argument that people would not fight wars because they are NASTY and and and THE GOVERNMENT WANTS YOU TO FIGHT FOR THEM :PAnd you talk of a "precedent." Do you mean this to be a reason why more libertarian policies should be applied?
No, the statement I made was self explanitory if you know the definitions of the words involved. I suggest looking up the word "precedent" first.
0 -
-
Obviously your understanding of war is little deeper than childrens cowboys and Indians.
The American War ended with a new state, and the british gone. A whole new country was formed and everyone went about their business.
The Iraq War ended with a new ish state, but the Amercian most certainly not gone. Now for 7 years they have spent billions and billions maintaining a presence there. Same in Afganistan.
And yet you are saying these wars cost the same?
0 -
Obviously your understanding of war is little deeper than childrens cowboys and Indians.
The American War ended with a new state, and the british gone. A whole new country was formed and everyone went about their business.
The Iraq War ended with a new ish state, but the Amercian most certainly not gone. Now for 7 years they have spent billions and billions maintaining a presence there. Same in Afganistan.
And yet you are saying these wars cost the same?
No, lrn2 read
>>"But you've gotta realise wars are only fought for the interests of the few elite at the top. Most common people don't want a war. Its too expensive, too horrific and too tragic!" -af the fragile0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
af_thefragile wrote: »Okay, i said it there. So things should be clear now.
Yep, wars are fought for ideological purposes as well as for greed, so you have no guarantees that people will not fight each other over ideals in an anarchic state just as they did before.af_thefragile wrote: »It was a rhetoric. Kinda sarcastic even. No, the libertarian/anarchic state is achieved by people taking responsibility for themselves and then realising they don't need a central government to tell them how to live.
Yeah, mine was pretty sarcastic too, I was just letting you know how absurd things look from my perspective- my apologies
af_thefragile wrote: »Why would one starve to death?
He has the freedom to go get a job!
He has the freedom to starve to death or live in an anarchic state which tells him how to live on a more local level. Which kind of makes me wonder what the point in converting to anarchism is in the forst place.af_thefragile wrote: »I said this before, in anarchy people are free to do as they will as long as they're not harming anyone. Violence comes under harm. So no, thats not anarchy. If they're having peaceful protests and such, thats fine.
I see what you are trying to get at. However, my point is that the anarchic model is not feasible and that people need a deliberative, majority constituted state to regualte. I think you may have an idea of my case against getting rid of the state at this point.af_thefragile wrote: »No. In anarchic state you have a lot more freedom than you'll ever have in a commie state. The societies can decide on controversial matters such as drugs, prostitution, abortion, gay marriage etc. whether it wants to legalise these things or take a more conservative stance. The people can vote for these laws rather than let some guy decide all of this for them. So people get a society they like. For example if Dublin is very liberal and decides it wants to legalise all these things (drugs, prostitutes, abortion...), while Galway takes a more conservative stance and decides it doesn't want all these things in its society and makes them illegal. People who want to live in the liberal society of Dublin can move there. People who wanna get away from all the junkies and prostitutes of Dublin can move to the clean conservative Galway.
I agree with the assertion regarding communism. Socialism does not imply communism.af_thefragile wrote: »The difference here from a commie state is that each county/society is free to decide how it wants to rule itself and the laws it wants as opposed to the central government deciding this for all of the country.
And also we libertarians put a lot of focus on people taking responsibility for their actions and basically being solely responsible for what they do. If in Dublin, some dude ODs on some drug, he's gotta pay the hospital bills for his treatment. The state isn't gonna pay for his ****ups. This will make people think twice before the decisions they make.
Each county/ society, is still basing its constitution on majority opinion/ deliberative methods and hence subjecting a minority to the majority will. Even if this minority chooses to leave, the case will still be the same in the next place they move to. In order for deliberation to have a vehicle for putting the peoples will into place, there needs to be a state. No matter how small you make it, there is still a government present.af_thefragile wrote: »Just mentioned the structure. Its not the wild west (although if a society wants to live that way they're free to). It just means the people of the society rather than some politician dude, is free to make the rules and laws of their society for themselves without the influence of some central government rule. There would be a small central government though dealing with foreign policy, defense and common law of the state (mentioned this earlier).
And if this "politician dude" is required to preform his duties transparently to the public, what is the problem? As for the structure, the problem I have is that anarchy itself has no structure, as each locality would have a different structure based on how the people wanted it, and there would be no way of telling how they would interact with one another, so no comparison can be made with one of the rigid modern models for the purpose of showing how it would fix any of their problems. Also, I must add that you really seem to be putting "freedom" on a much higher level than standard of living which I would regard as the initial purpose of society to begin with. Thoughts?af_thefragile wrote: »Also say you are living in this anarchic state and you don't find any society that fits the way you wanna live your life like, then you could maybe get together a bunch of people who share your ideals of society and set up your own mini society. You're free to do that to.
This is anarchy/liberty.
I'm aware of that, and it still does not solve the problem of cumulative small compromises on the basis of reciprocal determinism.af_thefragile wrote: »!
No, you can't. Anarchy is you're free to live however you want as long as you don't harm anyone else. Why do you keep forgetting the second part of that definition...?!
And what is stopping you? Its a lovely ideology (im sure), however, like all polarised ideologies, it is subject to corruption, as is innate to human nature (which is why I think communism is forever damned). Just because something starts out with trying to achieve a goal like "absolute freedom" or "love for thy neighbour", does'nt mean that it will not be used by malcontents. You remember the point I made about the man who can choose to starve of compromise? And your rebuttal that him and his like-minded pals can form their own society?Guess what option number 4 is when there is no state to tell him and his buddies what is ethical conduct when one is malcontented. Modern society is organised in such a way as to redress problems and regulate and act in the interest of the people (which is the purpose of the deliberative aspect of socialism, which you ignore). Just because a few clever fatcats skim some milk off the top does not mean that we need a "revolutionary vanguard" (in the words of kickoutthejams) and total dissolution of society. If anything, we need to give people greater access to the activities and achievements of their elected officials, and greater powers to hold them to account.af_thefragile wrote: »According to what Marx said.
Marx wrote the communist manifesto. => communism
I was talking about socialism. Communism subsists in socialism, but is not implied by it by any means. Socialism is the broadest political ideology out there.
Also, you completely ignored the Swedish example I gave.0 -
-
-
I should be studying for my exams... but well, last one for the day...
Why would you need to fight when no one is forcing you to do anything. No one is imposing their ideology onto anyone else. We don't wanna tell people how to live their lives. We just wanna make sure people are free to live their lives the way they want to as long as they don't harm anyone else.pagancornflake wrote: »Yep, wars are fought for ideological purposes as well as for greed, so you have no guarantees that people will not fight each other over ideals in an anarchic state just as they did before.
He also has the freedom to go find a place he feels fit for himself or else go form his own little society with other people who share his ideologies. And he still has the freedom to get a job, walk into a store and buy food. No one is stopping him from doing any of those.Yeah, mine was pretty sarcastic too, I was just letting you know how absurd things look from my perspective- my apologies
He has the freedom to starve to death or live in an anarchic state which tells him how to live on a more local level. Which kind of makes me wonder what the point in converting to anarchism is in the forst place.
There is no definite anarchic model of state. All the anarchic model of state says is that the central government has very little rule over the local councils/societies. The societies are free to run themselves however they want.I see what you are trying to get at. However, my point is that the anarchic model is not feasible and that people need a deliberative, majority constituted state to regualte. I think you may have an idea of my case against getting rid of the state at this point.
So what does socialism say? Actually i think i know the answer to that...I agree with the assertion regarding communism. Socialism does not imply communism.
The way i see is that everyone gets their desirable place to live in.Each county/ society, is still basing its constitution on majority opinion/ deliberative methods and hence subjecting a minority to the majority will. Even if this minority chooses to leave, the case will still be the same in the next place they move to. In order for deliberation to have a vehicle for putting the peoples will into place, there needs to be a state. No matter how small you make it, there is still a government present.
The conservatives get to set up their conservative society while the liberals can get to set up their liberal society. All the conservatives can live happily in their conservative society while all the liberals can live happily in their liberal society. People are also free to move between society as they will. All of this under the libertarian/anarchic state.
The best way of finding of if anarchy will work is to give it a fair trail.And if this "politician dude" is required to preform his duties transparently to the public, what is the problem? As for the structure, the problem I have is that anarchy itself has no structure, as each locality would have a different structure based on how the people wanted it, and there would be no way of telling how they would interact with one another, so no comparison can be made with one of the rigid modern models for the purpose of showing how it would fix any of their problems. Also, I must add that you really seem to be putting "freedom" on a much higher level than standard of living which I would regard as the initial purpose of society to begin with. Thoughts?
Also the problem with this politician dude is that he becomes to disconnected from the people of the state. He becomes to inaccessible to the people. No one can easily meet him, share their ideas with him, tell him about their problems etc. Also this guy now gets to impose his ideologies over the whole state leaving no room for the conservatives or liberals to go form their society the way they'ld like to. In the societies under the libertarian state, the people are more connected with their representative (not leader) as its a relatively small society and every person has an equal say in it.
I need to compromise cuz i don't have wings and hence i can't fly. I can live with that.I'm aware of that, and it still does not solve the problem of cumulative small compromises on the basis of reciprocal determinism.
I need to compromise cuz my state is taking away 4 months of my pay in the name of taxes and is stopping me from building my house the way i want it and for every single thing i decide to do, i need to first wait for ages to get the government's permission for it. I can't set up my business freely without the government screwing with it. I can't buy a car without the government taxing it. I can't buy a house without the government taxing it and the list goes on... Yeah, i can't live with that compromise.
Politicians are gonna get corrupt cuz you can't give one person the power to run a whole state and expect him to run it like a breeze. You can't give one person so much power. He is bound to **** up, he is bound to make decisions that are gonna effect many people's lives in the state adversely and he is also bound to get corrupt by all the power at his hands. He is also bound to get manipulated by lobbying corporations. And i already mentioned the disconnection of the leaders from the people they represent.And what is stopping you? Its a lovely ideology (im sure), however, like all polarised ideologies, it is subject to corruption, as is innate to human nature (which is why I think communism is forever damned). Just because something starts out with trying to achieve a goal like "absolute freedom" or "love for thy neighbour", does'nt mean that it will not be used by malcontents. You remember the point I made about the man who can choose to starve of compromise? And your rebuttal that him and his like-minded pals can form their own society?Guess what option number 4 is when there is no state to tell him and his buddies what is ethical conduct when one is malcontented. Modern society is organised in such a way as to redress problems and regulate and act in the interest of the people (which is the purpose of the deliberative aspect of socialism, which you ignore). Just because a few clever fatcats skim some milk off the top does not mean that we need a "revolutionary vanguard" (in the words of kickoutthejams) and total dissolution of society. If anything, we need to give people greater access to the activities and achievements of their elected officials, and greater powers to hold them to account.
What the libertarian/anarchic state does is to get rid of the root of this problem for once by getting rid of almost all of the powers of the central government and distributing them back into the hands of the local councils/societies.
Why should a state decide what proper ethical conduct is for everyone in the whole state. Some people like to life their life in a different way as others. Some people want their children to learn about sex education in school, other don't want their kids to be taught about sex at the young age. Some people want to legalise drugs like marijuana while others don't want that. Some people don't want prostitutes in their society while others are up for it. Some people think the dole is a waste of the countries wealth while others think its necessary to help the underprivileged. How is one state gonna make sure all of these people get what they want?
And then i believe Freedom is more important than standard of living.
People can live in the fanciest of places but still not be happy due to their lack of freedom. But people can be living in not very fancy(?) place and still be happy cuz they've alteast got the freedom to live their lives the way they want to and i can have the freedom to set up a business or service which can uplift my society without worrying about taking permission from the government or letting them regulate what i do with my business. And no, before you mention it, people in somalia aren't free. They're under the rule of gangs and rebel forces.
Okay, so i should have mentioned communism.Marx wrote the communist manifesto. => communism
I was talking about socialism. Communism subsists in socialism, but is not implied by it by any means. Socialism is the broadest political ideology out there.
Also, you completely ignored the Swedish example I gave.
And for the Swedish example, yes a Swedish guy can move to Ireland but he won't have as many rights here as the normal Irish citizen. Don't ask me exactly what rights he won't have cuz i'm not sure of that.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
raise taxes? thats your answer? turn what was suposed to be a truly free state into a militant state.
What do you mean here. I just threw out a random figure and you said it was unreasonable so I threw out another. How is this turning it into a militant state?and what about infrastructure? roads ect? you will whind up with a small populated state with extremly high taxes.
Private sector. Who have been proven to provide cheaper infrastructure in places like Britain.
I just dont get what your trying to say. Your accusing me of creating a high tax state, throwing out the things you see the state will need to do. But these thing are already in the current state. So it wouldn't get more expensive, how could it?whos gona keep track of tax dodgers?
Ideally the state controls only police and judicial sectors. So say you have dodged your annual tax and youve just got mugged. You go into the police to press charges - and whoa you havent paid your annual tax. Gtfo of the police station please, you havent paid for this service so you sure as hell wont be reaping the benefits.you have come up with some good counter points, but, what you describe doesnt sound like anarchy, it sounds like a blend of anarchy, democracy and capitalism
Well Im not proposing 100% anarchy, like some people would. Im proposing to reduce that government to a mini-government.
Which is maybe where we misunderstand each other. I meant the "mini" in terms of size of government, not geography. Sorry it was confusing.
And if you read the full thread, we envisioned these anarchist-like counties to be part of a bigger federal state. This federal state would get its money through the counties and would organize inter-relations. So for example a paramilitary rising occurs in Donegal, the federal government could request a certain number of police to be "lent" to Donegal from other counties.0
Advertisement