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
124678

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Brian.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26 ✭Brian.


    lol, i thought ye were saying that a population of around 100,000 people would have to pay 5% to 10% tax for a police force which obviously wouldnt be good enough. i meant militant state because with such small numbers a large proportion of the population would have to be in the police to protect themselves and their people from outside aggression.

    lol, makes more sense although i dont agree with privatising the roads and setting tolls up everywhere.

    i dont think this should be called anarchy, it needs another name. i thought the op wanted to give individuals absolute freedom from everyone outside their locality by setting up their own system.

    have you read jennifers government or something?

    ps

    why, when i gave an example earlier about someone down on their luck for an unintentional cock up, you practically said tough sh/t. but now you saying that a community should use goodwill to send police to a different community with internal security problems. why one and not the other?? if someone is born with health problems or a disability i think they would find it quite difficult to get health insurance.


  • Options
    #93
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Brian. wrote: »
    lol, makes more sense although i dont agree with privatising the roads and setting tolls up everywhere.

    The roads is a difficult one alright.

    Talking with in terms of our current system, I would suggest the following as appropriate. The government sets up a body or company, like the NRA, with SOLE responsibility for management of roads. This body is funded solely by road tax, petrol tax and tolls, of which it get 100% of. So the government gets none of the tax on cars and petrol, and none of the tolls. Except normal VAT.

    The tolls would be introduced on Motorways like in France. Upon entering the motorway system you get a ticket. On leaving you put this ticket int a machine which calculates kilometers driven. Then you get a rate, like 20c/km, to get the total price.

    If tolls were used such it would enable us to reduce fuel tax. Simultaneously, many roads such as estates would be given to residents associations. These associations pay to mainttain roads.

    Thus less roads for the NRA to manage, less tax on petrol

    Advantages
    • Only road users pay for using the road. You dont drive, you dont pay a bob.
    • The government at the moment abuses its authority by taxing petrol so high and using this tax for other things. It would not be able to distort the price of petrol. So you buy petrol and the money you pay goes towards fixing the roads you drive one.
    Brian. wrote: »
    have you read jennifers government or something?

    No, is it good?

    Btw, sorry again for misleading :)


  • Options
    #94
    af_thefragile
    Registered Users Posts: 7,171 ✭✭✭af_thefragile


    Final post. And so why i'm addressing only a few of the points you bought up.
    Brian. wrote: »
    lol, i thought ye were saying that a population of around 100,000 people would have to pay 5% to 10% tax for a police force which obviously wouldnt be good enough. i meant militant state because with such small numbers a large proportion of the population would have to be in the police to protect themselves and their people from outside aggression.

    lol, makes more sense although i dont agree with privatising the roads and setting tolls up everywhere.

    i dont think this should be called anarchy, it needs another name. i thought the op wanted to give individuals absolute freedom from everyone outside their locality by setting up their own system.

    You don't want an army of police now!
    Every society can set up its own policing system.
    Also i mentioned the state generating revenue to fund its services.
    And then people are free to keep firearms to protect themselves and are free to use them responsibly (they will be punished if they use it without any just cause). Why should only the bad guys have guns!
    I mentioned this right in the first post.
    Don't see anything too wrong with people keeping guns for their security.


    That point about the disabled people, yes, thats why there is charity to help such people.

    And a point i mentioned many times before but will mention it again to close my argument.
    We don't wanna tell people how to live their lives, we only wanna make sure they're free to live it the way they want to (as long as they don't harm anyone and all...).

    Hence we're only putting across a model of state in which the power is taken away from the central government and is distributed within the local councils/counties. A model in which the central government has very few roles and the economy is run on a free market model.
    Where people are more in control and more connect to the system of government, which they're free to design themselves for their society. Hence we're not stopping a society from becoming socialist, conservative, liberal etc. We're only giving the societies the freedom to become what they want as they will rather than have one system for the whole state which everyone would have to agree too without much choice.


  • Options
    #95
    Brian.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26 ✭Brian.


    im just a few chapters into it. its a good story, i dont know if youd like it. its just like how you describe your ideal, but i think it only really points out everything that would be wrong with that ideal. you should read it, if you lead this revolution you will be prepared to fix some of the inevitable problems that would come with it.

    about half the world gets "americanized", you should wiki it. its a bit complex.

    living in ireland all my life you tend to forget that their are proper countries out their with better infrastucture systems.........


  • Options
    #96
    af_thefragile
    Registered Users Posts: 7,171 ✭✭✭af_thefragile


    Brian. wrote: »
    im just a few chapters into it. its a good story, i dont know if youd like it. its just like how you describe your ideal, but i think it only really points out everything that would be wrong with that ideal. you should read it, if you lead this revolution you will be prepared to fix some of the inevitable problems that would come with it.

    about half the world gets "americanized", you should wiki it. its a bit complex.

    living in ireland all my life you tend to forget that their are proper countries out their with better infrastucture systems.........

    I might check out the book too...
    Might help me with the novel i'm working on myself!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    I did wiki it, but it wasnt on BookMooch and Im strapped, as well has having about 20 books on my shelf.

    I wouldnt want any revolution. I think the libertarian ideals can be started within the current framework. The constitution can always (be attempted to) be amended to give greater local autonomy and restrictions on the power of government.

    Something like the roads policy I outlined wouldnt even need a different system.


  • Options
    #98
    Brian.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26 ✭Brian.


    instead of americanization we could start irishization...

    everyone in the world will will be showing up for work on a monday morning hungover.......

    abrakebabra on every street corner.........

    everyone standing around talking about the weather.....:pac:


  • Options
    #99
    af_thefragile
    Registered Users Posts: 7,171 ✭✭✭af_thefragile


    turgon wrote: »
    I did wiki it, but it wasnt on BookMooch and Im strapped, as well has having about 20 books on my shelf.

    I wouldnt want any revolution. I think the libertarian ideals can be started within the current framework. The constitution can always (be attempted to) be amended to give greater local autonomy and restrictions on the power of government.

    Something like the roads policy I outlined wouldnt even need a different system.

    Actually the only thing one would need to do to implement the libertarian ideals is to go back to the original constitution. What the constitution originally said about people's rights and freedom and the government framework.

    The last thing we need is a revolution. The best way to implement libertarianism is to first make people aware of their liberty and freedom and appreciate it along with people starting to take responsibility for their actions. Once people become aware of this, they can start to realise we can do better ourselves what the state is doing for us.

    But first people need to get aware. Especially of the modern monetary system, and how this fiat based system has lead to all of these economic problems and how the fiat system needs a government to regulate it tightly or else it'll spiral out of control like it did with the economic collapse.
    And even the government regulation will not stop it from self destruction.
    Though there are people at the top who're gaining massively from this. Those are people who run the major banks of the world whom we/the government owes all this imaginary debt to.

    But thats a totally different debate. Won't get into that. Though i'll have to say the first objective of the libertarian state would have to be to end the central/federal bank and go back to sound money based on gold or something proper. A libertarian state running on today's fiat money system and banking system will go up in ashes faster than Hitler's Germany!

    Anyway, i'm drifting away... so i'm off!


  • Options
    #100
    Sgt. Sensible
    Closed Accounts Posts: 443 ✭✭Sgt. Sensible


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    The only person I can see here that's confused about what anarchist principles are is you.

    Why you persist in pretending to subscribe to a political philosophy that is diametrically opposed to capitalism, and especially the kind of capitalism Ayn Rand cultists wibble about, is your own business but unless you want to keep making yourself look foolish, you should stop and do some reading and the like.

    I'm not an anarchist or anything, but I just cringe with embarrassment when I read ahistorical nonsense like yours. There's a good documentary on anarchism in Spain here to get you started.



  • Options
    #101
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 18,416 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Sgt. Sensible wrote: »
    The only person I can see here that's confused about what anarchist principles are is you.

    Why you persist in pretending to subscribe to a political philosophy that is diametrically opposed to capitalism, and especially the kind of capitalism Ayn Rand cultists wibble about, is your own business but unless you want to keep making yourself look foolish, you should stop and do some reading and the like.

    I'm not an anarchist or anything, but I just cringe with embarrassment when I read ahistorical nonsense like yours. There's a good documentary on anarchism in Spain here to get you started.

    Can you write a few lines on the general conculsions/points of it ? you didnt make any points so I don't know what you are trying to get at

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #103
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Oh well this is just hilarious, DF being accused of not knowing what anarchism was and not being an anarchist. :D

    Tbh Sgt. Sensible, I think were the ones cringing.


  • Options
    #104
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    Sgt. Sensible wrote: »
    The only person I can see here that's confused about what anarchist principles are is you.

    Why you persist in pretending to subscribe to a political philosophy that is diametrically opposed to capitalism, and especially the kind of capitalism Ayn Rand cultists wibble about, is your own business but unless you want to keep making yourself look foolish, you should stop and do some reading and the like.
    Surely anarchism is a vibrant living community of diverse views not a rigid single ideology. How else is it going to work?


  • Options
    #105
    Sgt. Sensible
    Closed Accounts Posts: 443 ✭✭Sgt. Sensible


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    What anarchist organisations are you involved in. Can you name any anarchist organisations? Giz a few bars of A Las Barricadas then! Do you not yearn for a strong leader like Thatcher or her pal Pinochet to destroy leftist organisations like trade unions? There are a few reasonably accurate labels to describe people with those kind of political views but 'anarchist' is not one of them.
    2) Rand did indeed argue against anarchism, most notably in her essay "The Nature of Government"—but this is evidence only of the vibrant debate among libertarian/minarchist/anarchist thinkers about the proper role of the state.
    Yes I know that ultra capitalists like Rand (do you ever read anything by anyone other than this cult figurehead?) are opposed to anarchism and when it comes down to it, for all their claptrap about freedom from the state, they always look to state institutions like the army and police to protect the assets of the wealthy from the mob, thanks for that.
    3) Until you come up with an actual argument, rather than a series of dismissive declarations and a YouTube video, the only one looking foolish here is you.
    The video features 2 hours of interviews with veterans of the Spanish Civil War talking about how and why anarchism was put into practice. If one wishes to learn about this subject, it seems to me that their views and experiences are going to hold rather more weight than anything the likes of you can come up with. Would you agree? They discuss the collectivisation and self management of land and industry and so forth, no mention of privatising lamp posts or anything else really.

    Privatise the lamp posts ffs. If you'd tried that in Spain (or makhnovist Ukraine), you would've got shot (or chopped up with sabres), that is if you hadn't already scuttled over to the fascist side with most of the rest of the property owning classes. :D


  • Options
    #106
    Sgt. Sensible
    Closed Accounts Posts: 443 ✭✭Sgt. Sensible


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    Surely anarchism is a vibrant living community of diverse views not a rigid single ideology. How else is it going to work?
    True, but collective property ownership, and the abolition of the employer/employee relationship is at the root of all anarchist theory and practice. That ain't what confused language manglers like DF are in favour of.


  • Options
    #107
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    Sgt. Sensible wrote: »
    True, but collective property ownership, and the abolition of the employer/employee relationship is at the root of all anarchist theory and practice. That ain't what confused language manglers like DF are in favour of.
    That might be one particular strand, but in a situation with no state those who that view are going to have to coexist with other versions of anarchism some of which may not be related to what we might call traditional European left-anarchism.

    It is quite possible that there will be some who are happy to voluntarily enter into an employer/employee relationship. The attraction of anarchy for many is that there's no state to tell them what they can or can't do on a voluntary basis. If you are going to prohibit employer/employee relationships, who is going to enforce that?


  • Options
    #108
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Sgt. Sensible wrote: »
    True, but collective property ownership, and the abolition of the employer/employee relationship is at the root of all anarchist theory and practice. That ain't what confused language manglers like DF are in favour of.

    Sgt. Sensible, you dont know what you talking about. As SkepticOne says, there is not one rigid definition of anarchism. Afaik your up against a guy with a degree in economics and politics. With that kind of nonsense ^^ your just not going to get anywhere.

    Edit:
    Andrew Heywood, Key Concepts in Politics wrote:
    ...the anarchist preference for a stateless society in which free individuals manage their own affairs through voluntary agreement and cooperation has been developed on the basis of two opposing rival traditions: socialist communitarianism and liberal individualism.

    Some would say anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism.


  • Options
    #109
    Sgt. Sensible
    Closed Accounts Posts: 443 ✭✭Sgt. Sensible


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    That might be one particular strand, but in a situation with no state those who that view are going to have to coexist with other versions of anarchism some of which may not be related to what we might call traditional European left-anarchism.

    It is quite possible that there will be some who are happy to voluntarily enter into an employer/employee relationship. The attraction of anarchy for many is that there's no state to tell them what they can or can't do on a voluntary basis.
    Sorry, but in such an instance, which would involve a very bloody conflict to start with, what would "anarchists" who want to carry on as capitalists and employers possibly have in common with those who want to abolish class divisions and private property? They would surely be on the side of whoever safeguards property rights would they not?

    There are different strands of anarchism certainly, but as DF correctly points out there are general principles, which if you read its history and especially study Spain where it was hugely widespread, you'll find they're the ones I mentioned. Unfortunately for the likes of DF, anarchism has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the privatisation of lamp posts. (still laughing at that).
    If you are going to prohibit employer/employee relationships, who is going to enforce that?
    That's one for anarchists to answer, I'm not one, but afaik, in such cases, individuals who wished to remain outside collectivised enterprises could do so and work away on their own but were not allowed employ anyone or utilise collective equipment or tools.
    turgon wrote: »
    .
    You are?


  • Options
    #110
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #111
    Sgt. Sensible
    Closed Accounts Posts: 443 ✭✭Sgt. Sensible


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Beg pardon, it's more like 90 minutes but from the title '(History of spanish anarchism (1 of 10)' I actually thought you'd be capable of working out that it was part 1 of 10 and be able to find the rest all by yourself. Part 1 here, the other parts are linked on the page.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naFl66sPbTk


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Sgt. Sensible
    Closed Accounts Posts: 443 ✭✭Sgt. Sensible


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    I already know that capitalism and anarchism are mutually exclusive, ta. You failed to tell me what anarchist organisations you belong to. Are you an anarchist in your room?

    Btw, if you don't fancy the subtitles, there's also a BBC docu on the war here which reiterates my points about the general principles of anarchism but sadly fails to make any mention of lamp post privatisation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUS0MWrkmCE


  • Options
    #113
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    Sgt. Sensible wrote: »
    Sorry, but in such an instance, which would involve a very bloody conflict to start with, what would "anarchists" who want to carry on as capitalists and employers possibly have in common with those who want to abolish class divisions and private property? They would surely be on the side of whoever safeguards property rights would they not?
    What they would have in common is that they believe in the absence of a state. Realistically, if you abolish the state, you are going to have people with varying political viewpoints coexisting. I think we can agree on that. They are not all going to be, for want of a better phrase, traditional European left-anarchists. You are saying that there's going to be bloody conflict from the start. But one of the claims of the anarchists is that people don't need the state to maintain order, but rather that people can coexist peacefully together without coercion.

    This is the central contradiction of left-anarchism.


  • Options
    #114
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #115
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Sgt. Sensible wrote: »
    You are?

    Someone who knows that all anarchists arent the same.


  • Options
    #116
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Anarchism is lazy.

    Individuals and interest groups must sacrifice some of their liberty for the greater good of society. When they don't do this, and when individuals and groups persue their own interests exclusively and to the detriment of the public good then everyone ultimately suffers.

    The Republican nation state is the only political system that guarantee's liberty and safety in adequate measure. All other systems have had the effect of either eroding liberty or eroding safety.

    In other words, Hobbesian states of nature are not good things.


  • Options
    #117
    Belfast
    Registered Users Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭Belfast


    Sgt. Sensible wrote: »
    I already know that capitalism and anarchism are mutually exclusive, ta.

    No they are not.

    Free-market anarchism
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism

    WHY I CALL MYSELF A FREE MARKET ANARCHIST
    AND WHY I AM ONE by BRIAN MICKLETHWAIT
    http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin067.pdf

    Anarcho-capitalism
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

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


  • Options
    #118
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #119
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Why and How? Think about it for a second. Its pretty clear why and how.


  • Options
    #120
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Though I will say this, because I suppose some of it needs pointing out.

    Every person wants to achieve the greatest amount of liberty for themselves, but if every person really does attempt this they do so at the expense of others, specifically the weak and vulnerable. Its basic human nature. All power is and should be controlled by each other - in other words, the creation of a societal balance of power where the people balance the power of the government, the rule of law balances the power of governments and peoples (Hence the great see saw of liberty) and governments balance the powers of the people within an accountable and roughly democratic system.

    It has flaws, but I'd much rather sacrifice some of my own liberty in order to guarantee my safety.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Belfast
    Registered Users Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭Belfast


    Denerick wrote: »
    Though I will say this, because I suppose some of it needs pointing out.

    Every person wants to achieve the greatest amount of liberty for themselves, but if every person really does attempt this they do so at the expense of others, specifically the weak and vulnerable. Its basic human nature. All power is and should be controlled by each other - in other words, the creation of a societal balance of power where the people balance the power of the government, the rule of law balances the power of governments and peoples (Hence the great see saw of liberty) and governments balance the powers of the people within an accountable and roughly democratic system.

    It has flaws, but I'd much rather sacrifice some of my own liberty in order to guarantee my safety.

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty, nor safety." BENJAMIN FRANKLIN


Advertisement