Marxist Libertarianism

Yourself isit

Brian? wrote: »

Why the aggression?

Why not respond. This is a thread about your philosophy. Explain it?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Yourself isit wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

Why the aggression?

Why not respond. This is a thread about your philosophy. Explain it?

The thread so far has been about a lot of things. Libertarian socialism hasn't actually been one of those things.

I'll respond when I have time, but can you drop the aggression.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't know how that challenges my point. When you win, and the system is working in your favor, you celebrate. When you lose narrowly, as the Democrats did in 2000 and 2016, and the Republicans did in 2012, you complain about the unfairness of the system.[/quote]

I didn't really challenge your point. You're correct. I just wanted it noted that the Republicans actually have no reason to complain about the EC.

johnp001

ScumLord wrote: »

Maybe I do. I've always read it as every man for himself, no state, no tax, if there is a community spirit it's not formalised. I say it's childish because it seems self serving with no plan for the bigger picture.

Brian? wrote: »

You do indeed. Essentially anarchism is striving for a non hierarchical structure based on voluntary participation. It's absolutely not about every man for himself. It's about the exact opposite.

I'll dig some reading material out for you anon.

I think that anarchism is something that is very widely misunderstood. The popular perception is that it is brutal and scary but its modern roots as defined by Kant (law and freedom without force) and Proudhon (the absence of a master, of a sovereign) couldn't be further from this considering that most of the terror and brutality in the world has been enacted by force on the part of those carrying out the orders of the legitimate authority of some sovereign or state.

In terms of anarchism being childish I would disagree strongly, under socialism/communism every citizen is effectively a dependent of the state
which serves to infantilize a population. In an anarchical situation every person is fully responsible for themselves and fully empowered to create a just society around them. Hence the increased value of voluntary co-operation between free people in order to provide for themselves and their futures.

Anarchy is not utopian, as some more coercive forms of government are in theory but when a society is unjust anarchy empowers and requires members of society to address and solve that through voluntary collaboration. With coercive government if society is unjust every citizen is subject to the injustice and complicit in its perpetuation.

In short, with anarchy you get to live in a society you create that is as fair, altruistic, sustainable, etc as the people who live in it.
The belief that a society imposed by force on a population by an authority would somehow be "better" than that which they would choose to create for themselves is not coherent.

mariaalice

johnp001 wrote: »

I think that anarchism is something that is very widely misunderstood. The popular perception is that it is brutal and scary but its modern roots as defined by Kant (law and freedom without force) and Proudhon (the absence of a master, of a sovereign) couldn't be further from this considering that most of the terror and brutality in the world has been enacted by force on the part of those carrying out the orders of the legitimate authority of some sovereign or state.

In terms of anarchism being childish I would disagree strongly, under socialism/communism every citizen is effectively a dependent of the state
which serves to infantilize a population. In an anarchical situation every person is fully responsible for themselves and fully empowered to create a just society around them. Hence the increased value of voluntary co-operation between free people in order to provide for themselves and their futures.

Anarchy is not utopian, as some more coercive forms of government are in theory but when a society is unjust anarchy empowers and requires members of society to address and solve that through voluntary collaboration. With coercive government if society is unjust every citizen is subject to the injustice and complicit in its perpetuation.

In short, with anarchy you get to live in a society you create that is as fair, altruistic, sustainable, etc as the people who live in it.
The belief that a society imposed by force on a population by an authority would somehow be "better" than that which they would choose to create for themselves is not coherent.

That great but answer me one question : I would love to drive in the bus lane and not be stuck in a traffic jam I am fairly sure I don't do it because I don't want to get caught braking the law get penalties on my licences and end up paying may more in insurance.

In a voluntary system we would obey because of what? in a free voluntary society want is the incentive to keep to the rules that are beneficial to society.

johnp001

mariaalice wrote: »

That great but answer me one question : I would love to drive in the bus lane and not be stuck in a traffic jam I am fairly sure I don't do it because I don't want to get caught braking the law get penalties on my licences and end up paying may more in insurance.

In a voluntary system we would obey because of what? in a free voluntary society want is the incentive to keep to the rules that are beneficial to society.

The incentive to keep to rules that are beneficial to society is to live in a society that enjoys those benefits.

ancapailldorcha

johnp001 wrote: »

The incentive to keep to rules that are beneficial to society is to live in a society that enjoys those benefits.

This is just a completely empty statement. I've been burgled before so if I were to ask what the disincentive for committing such a crime would be and what punishment it would entail, your answer is basically that burglary and theft wouldn't exist because people who would commit these crimes don't themselves want to be stolen from?

johnp001

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is just a completely empty statement. I've been burgled before so if I were to ask what the disincentive for committing such a crime would be and what punishment it would entail, your answer is basically that burglary and theft wouldn't exist because people who would commit these crimes don't themselves want to be stolen from?

It's not an empty statement, it really is just that simple!

Without a state law enforcement body the onus on members of society to prevent and address crime is much greater. An anarchical society does not preclude people from voluntarily collaborating to protect their own and each other's property.

The fundamental argument is that if a service is important people will pay for and organise it themselves. People have fundamental rights to their person and property and they can enforce or delegate these rights as they see fit.

ancapailldorcha

Translation, "Everyone for themselves" and "I'm alright, screw everyone else". There's a good reason that people won't vote for this nonsense. It falls apart upon the slightest bit of examination.

johnp001

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Translation, "Everyone for themselves" and "I'm alright, screw everyone else". There's a good reason that people won't vote for this nonsense. It falls apart upon the slightest bit of examination.

Absolutely the opposite. Everyone is responsible for themselves and is therefore highly dependent on each other as opposed to coercive government where everyone is subservient to the state and dependent on the state.
Where a complex code of laws exist the most beneficial course of action is to behave as selfishly as possible but not be fined/imprisoned/executed under the law (not synonymous with not breaking the law as all complex systems are subject to abuse and corruption)
Without a complex code of laws and where only fundamental rights to person and property exist the incentive is to collaborate positively with others in order to provide for your needs and wants.

As regards your second point I think the whole idea of anarchism is that it isn't something that you vote for, that would be minarchism - see diagram in previous post

PopePalpatine

So...how did Somalia work out when its government collapsed?

johnp001

PopePalpatine wrote: »

So...how did Somalia work out when its government collapsed?

Interestingly enough some research has been done on this subject...

George Mason University, VA wrote:

Better off stateless: Somalia before and after government collapse
Could anarchy be good for Somalia’s development? If state predation goes unchecked government may not only fail to add to social welfare, but can actually reduce welfare below its level under statelessness. Such was the case with Somalia’s government, which did more harm to its citizens than good. The government’s collapse and subsequent emergence of statelessness opened the opportunity for Somali progress.
This paper investigates the impact of anarchy on Somali development. The data suggest that while the state of this development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government. Renewed vibrancy in critical sectors of Somalia’s economy and public goods in the absence of a predatory state are responsible for this improvement. Journal of Comparative Economics 35 (4) (2007) 689–710. George Mason University,
MSN 3G4, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA.
More...

Obviously having a government collapse in the midst of long running civil war is a negative way to enter "anarchism". The Proudhon view was that anarchism can be unilaterally chosen by free people who refuse to comply with illegitimate force (i.e. force applied by an authority in excess of the defence of the intrinsic rights of those that it represents and who freely choose to delegate those rights to it)

ScumLord

johnp001 wrote: »

Absolutely the opposite. Everyone is responsible for themselves and is therefore highly dependent on each other as opposed to coercive government where everyone is subservient to the state and dependent on the state.

The state is basically a collaborative effort of the people. I don't think people have fully adjusted to the democratically run state just yet, we're still living under the impression that an elite control everything we do and we just have to do what they say. While in practice that's still true in a lot of ways the power is with the people, we're just too busy working and consuming light entertainment to care what the state does, we're happy to go along with what leaders say and don't want that responsibility.


Something I've learned in my working life is the vast majority of people just want someone that knows what they're doing to tell them what to do. Most don't want to be leaders or have responsibility for others. We are a very hyarcial animal.

PopePalpatine

johnp001 wrote: »

Interestingly enough some research has been done on this subject...


Obviously having a government collapse in the midst of long running civil war is a negative way to enter "anarchism". The Proudhon view was that anarchism can be unilaterally chosen by free people who refuse to comply with illegitimate force (i.e. force applied by an authority in excess of the defence of the intrinsic rights of those that it represents and who freely choose to delegate those rights to it)

I just read through the concluding remarks by the author, this bit stood out to me:

Nor is [recognising improvements in Somalia's conditions since the fall of the Barre regime] to say that Somalia is better off stateless than it would be under any government. A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm but strong enough to support the private sector may very well do more for Somalia than statelessness. Further, Somalia’s improvement under anarchy does not tell us whether continual improvement is possible if Somalia remains stateless. It is possible that past some point, to enjoy further development, Somalia might require a central government capable of providing more widespread security and public goods.

oscarBravo

Insofar as I've given anarchism much thought, it strikes me as a system that can only survive in a post-scarcity world. As long as there is competition for resources, there will be an incentive to put one's own needs ahead of the greater good.

Brian?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Insofar as I've given anarchism much thought, it strikes me as a system that can only survive in a post-scarcity world. As long as there is competition for resources, there will be an incentive to put one's own needs ahead of the greater good.

Hence a non hierarchical system being the end state. I think the biggest misconception about an anarchists or libertarian socialists is that we want to throw a switch and reset society tomorrow as a stateless society. It can't happen that way and should never be attempted

The idea is that the functions of state are progressively devolved to the people, this requires a societal evolution that will take decades.

So yes a truly free, egalitarian society may require the creation of a post scarcity world. But equally a slow incremental evolutoon towards this goal can help eliminate scarcity of resources.

johnp001

ScumLord wrote: »

The state is basically a collaborative effort of the people. I don't think people have fully adjusted to the democratically run state just yet, we're still living under the impression that an elite control everything we do and we just have to do what they say. While in practice that's still true in a lot of ways the power is with the people, we're just too busy working and consuming light entertainment to care what the state does, we're happy to go along with what leaders say and don't want that responsibility.


Something I've learned in my working life is the vast majority of people just want someone that knows what they're doing to tell them what to do. Most don't want to be leaders or have responsibility for others. We are a very hyarcial animal.

That sounds completely in line with my own observations. The thing that drives me to philosophically contemplate an alternative are the possible consequences of this way of thinking.
e.g. what are the prospects for a sustainable future for the next generations? if we can't be trusted to preserve our prosperity and provide for ourselves in our old age why would the politicians we elect to manage our money take a more long term view than us ourselves who have to live with the consequences? Is there a possibility that the welfare state is a big ponsi scheme built up on a baby boom generation which will blow up as demographics shift and the population ages? Would any politician ever tell us if it was or will we only find out when it is too late?

Why are the taxpayers in the western world paying taxes for wars of aggression that are of no conceivable benefit to them? What are the consequences of this?

As comforting as it is to believe in a benevolent leadership that can be safely followed it is also perfectly plausible that our leadership could lead us into cruel, destructive and immoral actions as the legitimate authorities of many states have done in the past. How would we know that this was happening and what could we do about it?

johnp001

oscarBravo wrote: »

Insofar as I've given anarchism much thought, it strikes me as a system that can only survive in a post-scarcity world. As long as there is competition for resources, there will be an incentive to put one's own needs ahead of the greater good.

Self interest is what drives productivity and progress so the greater the scarcity the less that can afford to be wasted by the massive, inefficient, non-productive redistribution mechanism that socialist governments are.

Adam Smith wrote:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Coincidentally, Tom Woods published an interview yesterday describing the Brehon law based anarchic system that existed for generations in Ireland prior to plantation.

Yourself isit

Brian? wrote: »

Hence a non hierarchical system being the end state. I think the biggest misconception about an anarchists or libertarian socialists is that we want to throw a switch and reset society tomorrow as a stateless society. It can't happen that way and should never be attempted

The idea is that the functions of state are progressively devolved to the people, this requires a societal evolution that will take decades.

So yes a truly free, egalitarian society may require the creation of a post scarcity world. But equally a slow incremental evolutoon towards this goal can help eliminate scarcity of resources.

Your last sentence is guff. How is the post scarcity world to come about exactly by a "slow incremental evolution" of anarchism. That's more magical thinking. Going post scarcity will need capitalism using AI and automation to eliminate scarcity probably along a strong state to redistribute income. Some kind of universal wage.

And of course socialist anarchism wouldn't just eliminate the state but workers will apparently run their own factories. I don't see the incentive to overthrow the American owners of my company as they own the ip and pay my wages. The Dublin cooperative software without ip company won't make any money.

As for hierarchy not only are humans naturally hierarchical but complex societies need hierarchy. If we weren't hierarchical we'd have to learn to be.

FreudianSlippers

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's more that the "winning" side is never going to challenge a system which was fundamentally responsible for their victory. The fact that both sides complain about the system when they lose is more damning of the system than the fact that nobody complains when winning IMO. It's human nature really.

Brian?

Yourself isit wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

Hence a non hierarchical system being the end state. I think the biggest misconception about an anarchists or libertarian socialists is that we want to throw a switch and reset society tomorrow as a stateless society. It can't happen that way and should never be attempted

The idea is that the functions of state are progressively devolved to the people, this requires a societal evolution that will take decades.

So yes a truly free, egalitarian society may require the creation of a post scarcity world. But equally a slow incremental evolutoon towards this goal can help eliminate scarcity of resources.

Your last sentence is guff. How is the post scarcity world to come about exactly by a "slow incremental evolution" of anarchism. That's more magical thinking. Going post scarcity will need capitalism using AI and automation to eliminate scarcity probably along a strong state to redistribute income. Some kind of universal wage.

And of course socialist anarchism wouldn't just eliminate the state but workers will apparently run their own factories. I don't see the incentive to overthrow the American owners of my company as they own the ip and pay my wages. The Dublin cooperative software without ip company won't make any money.

As for hierarchy not only are humans naturally hierarchical but complex societies need hierarchy. If we weren't hierarchical we'd have to learn to be.

Can you not ask simple questions like this without the borderline insulting lead in?

If you're going to describe points as "guff" and "magical thinking" I'm not going to answer. It's unnecessary and lowers the tone.

Brian?

johnp001 wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

Insofar as I've given anarchism much thought, it strikes me as a system that can only survive in a post-scarcity world. As long as there is competition for resources, there will be an incentive to put one's own needs ahead of the greater good.

Self interest is what drives productivity and progress so the greater the scarcity the less that can afford to be wasted by the massive, inefficient, non-productive redistribution mechanism that socialist governments are.

Pure socialism is an anarchic philosophy though. It's the end goal.

Yourself isit

Brian? wrote: »

Can you not ask simple questions like this without the borderline insulting lead in?

If you're going to describe points as "guff" and "magical thinking" I'm not going to answer. It's unnecessary and lowers the tone.

There's no requirement to not criticise the post.

Anyway we are not much closer to working out the mechanics of Marxist libertarianism.

As for pure socialism wanting the state to disappear, that's the weakest part of Marxism. Not sure Marx said it - Engels did.

Brian?

Yourself isit wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

Can you not ask simple questions like this without the borderline insulting lead in?

If you're going to describe points as "guff" and "magical thinking" I'm not going to answer. It's unnecessary and lowers the tone.

There's no requirement to not criticise the post.

No requirement. But simple manners would be nice. I'm nice, by in large, can't you try being polite.

Anyway we are not much closer to working out the mechanics of Marxist libertarianism.

As for pure socialism wanting the state to disappear, that's the weakest part of Marxism. Not sure Marx said it - Engels did.

I don't think the term Marxist Libertarian is widely used to be fair. I certainly wouldn't use it. I'm a libertarian socialist.

To quote someone else:

We base ourselves on the heritage of Marxism. This does not mean that we accept all the ideas of Marx, let alone of those who claim to be his followers. Marxism is a point of departure for us, not our pre-determined destination. We accept Marx’s dictum that our criticism must fear nothing, including its own results. Our debt to Marxism will be no less if we find that we have to go beyond it

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Pete29

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Government is necessary. Without it, you're living in a state of nature which has no inherent sense of justice or fairness. If you truly want a free market place with no government restrictions, you would be choosing to live in The Stone Age.

Isn't marxist libertarianism a contradiction in terms?

MayoSalmon

Pete29 wrote:

Government is necessary. Without it, you're living in a state of nature which has no inherent sense of justice or fairness. If you truly want a free market place with no government restrictions, you would be choosing to live in The Stone Age.

Government is not necessary, justice is decided by society

Pete29

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Government is not necessary, justice is decided by society

Nonsense

Without constitutional government there's nothing to enforce any concept of justice. Justice becomes a thing human tribes go to war over. Government cements our concepts of justice in a way that is enforceable.

Name one time in human history where a lack of government has resulted in more prosperity, opportunity or freedom that exists today.

MayoSalmon

Pete29 wrote:

Name one time in human history where a lack of government has resulted in more prosperity, opportunity or freedom that exists today.

Sorry are you making my argument for me? That is precisely what I am saying. The very lack of government creates more prosperity which is evident today as it has been throughout human history

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That may be the case if all people are assumed to be rational actors, but that's a little bit like a physicist assuming spherical chickens of uniform density.

Pete29

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Sorry are you making my argument for me? That is precisely what I am saying. The very lack of government creates more prosperity which is evident today as it has been throughout human history

Sorry, either I'm not understanding you or you're not making sense, or we're not communicating properly.

You accept we live in countries with governments?

If you do, point to a time in human history where these types of governments didn't exist and society was just as good or better.

Do you think people living in the stone age had a better quality of life than we do now?

MayoSalmon

Pete29 wrote: »

Sorry, either I'm not understanding you or you're not making sense, or we're not communicating properly.

You accept we live in countries with governments?

If you do, point to a time in human history where these types of governments didn't exist and society was just as good or better.

Do you think people living in the stone age had a better quality of life than we do now?

This has very little to do with the presence of government though?

More government = less prosperity
Less government = more prosperity

Brian?

oscarBravo wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That may be the case if all people are assumed to be rational actors, but that's a little bit like a physicist assuming spherical chickens of uniform density.[/quote]

You don't need to assume all people are the same.

My reasoning is that people, individually, are naturally altruistic and good. With notable exceptions, sociopaths etc. . It's groups of people motivated and organised by a central unquestionable authority that perpetuate the real evils in the world.

Where is peak authority for you? At what point is too much government?

oscarBravo

Brian? wrote: »

You don't need to assume all people are the same.

I'm not assuming that all people are the same. I'm pointing out the fact that people don't dependably act in rational ways, and any theory of human behaviour that assumes they do is automatically doomed to failure.

My reasoning is that people, individually, are naturally altruistic and good. With notable exceptions, sociopaths etc. .

I think that's a questionable assumption at best. Some people are just dicks, without actually being sociopaths. And some people put their own self-interest ahead of the needs of others because they don't feel they have a choice.

It's groups of people motivated and organised by a central unquestionable authority that perpetuate the real evils in the world.

When I see a gross oversimplification like that underpinning a political philosophy, it's the sort of thing that makes me deeply wary of it.

I don't disagree that people do bad things when motivated by a central authority - but I reject out of hand the implication that individuals or ad-hoc groups are incapable of evil.

The core tenet seems to be that if you remove a central authority, people will instinctively band together to achieve good things, and that they won't band together to do bad things to other people. That strikes me as the sort of extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

Where is peak authority for you? At what point is too much government?

What's the SI unit for quantity of government?

As a committed centrist, I remain suspicious of any argument that says "too much of X is bad for you, therefore completely eliminating X is the perfect solution". It's a bit like suggesting that everyone move to the Atacama Desert to eliminate drownings.

johnp001

In response to the previous two posts I would tend to agree with some of the points Brian? makes regarding the good and altruistic nature of people.
It can be summed up as "Either man doesn't need government or he daren't have one" i.e. if people are bad then giving some of them more power and the right to initiate force is a terrible idea.

The advantage of voluntary societies compared to authoritarian ones where the state has a monopoly on force is that when people harm others the rest of society is empowered to resist.

So taking the assumption that people are generally good but will act badly sometimes then a population which is responsible for its own safety and prosperity will resist the destructive actions of a minority. Thus precluding the danger that a bad minority gain authority and a monopoly on force.

This is a highly likely occurrence (as proven by history) as if your intentions are to harm others then creating a system where you can do so with impunity is your top priority. If you have no bad intentions towards others you have no incentive to invest your time and effort in gaining and maintaining control and power over them.

Brian?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

You don't need to assume all people are the same.

I'm not assuming that all people are the same. I'm pointing out the fact that people don't dependably act in rational ways, and any theory of human behaviour that assumes they do is automatically doomed to failure.

My reasoning is that people, individually, are naturally altruistic and good. With notable exceptions, sociopaths etc. .

I think that's a questionable assumption at best. Some people are just dicks, without actually being sociopaths. And some people put their own self-interest ahead of the needs of others because they don't feel they have a choice.

I like my assumptions to be questionable . I'm certainly not dealing in absolutes. I would disagree about some people just being dicks, I would say they have been nurtured by environment into becoming dicks. Change the environment, change the man. I specifically mentioned sociopaths as most authoriatarian leaders displayed the hallmarks of being narcissistic sociopaths; Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pinochet, Suharto etc.

If you take away the environment that allows people like this to exert power and influence over others the impact of their personality disorder is greatly diminished. Wouldn't you agree?

It's groups of people motivated and organised by a central unquestionable authority that perpetuate the real evils in the world.

When I see a gross oversimplification like that underpinning a political philosophy, it's the sort of thing that makes me deeply wary of it.

I don't disagree that people do bad things when motivated by a central authority - but I reject out of hand the implication that individuals or ad-hoc groups are incapable of evil.

The core tenet seems to be that if you remove a central authority, people will instinctively band together to achieve good things, and that they won't band together to do bad things to other people. That strikes me as the sort of extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. [/quote]

Unfortunately it's evidence that's difficult to provide. We are stuck on an authoritarian merry go round.

Where is peak authority for you? At what point is too much government?

What's the SI unit for quantity of government?[/quote]

dB/bureaucrat

As a committed centrist, I remain suspicious of any argument that says "too much of X is bad for you, therefore completely eliminating X is the perfect solution". It's a bit like suggesting that everyone move to the Atacama Desert to eliminate drownings.

I understand your scepticism. But if flip the question and ask "why do we need centralised governments"?

oscarBravo

johnp001 wrote: »

...a population which is responsible for its own safety and prosperity will resist the destructive actions of a minority. Thus precluding the danger that a bad minority gain authority and a monopoly on force.

Great. What about the destructive actions of a majority?

johnp001

johnp001 wrote: »

So taking the assumption that people are generally good but will act badly sometimes then a population which is responsible for its own safety and prosperity will resist the destructive actions of a minority. Thus precluding the danger that a bad minority gain authority and a monopoly on force.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Great. What about the destructive actions of a majority?

You have removed the start of the sentence in your quote above which gives the required context.

If a majority of people are inherently destructive then a government that is representative of the people will be similarly destructive. However, I don't think humanity could have over a hundred of thousands of years as the dominant species on the planet without being innately co-operative. Homo Sapiens were not the physically strongest hominid so by supplanting physically stronger species they probably demonstrated a capacity to co-operate more effectively.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

johnp001

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

True but in a wider context if villages A,B and C in a particular area spend their time raiding each other then the net effect is that less time is spent in the area on productive tasks and the total wealth of the area goes down.
If villages D,E and F trade and interact co-operatively then they maximise productivity, increase their wealth, receive migration of useful immigrants from the villages impoverished by violence and eventually assimilate the villages A,B and C into the system that produced the greater prosperity in the long run.

I haven't read the book you refer to but undoubtedly it is correct that there was a lot of conflict before civilization, there must also have been a lot of peaceful co-operation though for civilization to come about.

N.B: To clarify, this post is just a long-winded way of agreeing with the third paragraph above.

ScumLord

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't think that's a fair assessment of primitive peoples. when people were tribal I don't think we have a lot of evidence that they spent all that much time fighting. We do have plenty of evidence we traded extensively across massive areas.

Slavery back then also wasn't quite the same as the slavery we know of today. It was often used to repay debt, as a punishment for crime and sometimes it was preferable to be the slave of someone with power and resources than to try surviving on your own in the wild.

Native Americans would be another example, they would take white people captive to replace tribe members killed in battle. Those white people would take on the roles of the tribe member they were replacing and could live good lives. It shows that the group/tribe was something they placed above the individual.

I think ancient cultures had better societies in many ways. Just look what the Egyptians achieved in the pyramids. The planning and knowledge that went into something that was built by farmers in their spare time shows what can be achieved when a group of people work towards something. We've completely lost that ability today, we strive towards nothing in the modern world, we're just random strangers consuming products aimlessly.

It's why I always have an interest in communism and socialism. Individual humans are next to useless, all our power comes from cooperation. when you can aline a large group of people to a common cause there is borderline nothing they can't achieve.

Brian?

ScumLord wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't think that's a fair assessment of primitive peoples. when people were tribal I don't think we have a lot of evidence that they spent all that much time fighting. We do have plenty of evidence we traded extensively across massive areas.

Slavery back then also wasn't quite the same as the slavery we know of today. It was often used to repay debt, as a punishment for crime and sometimes it was preferable to be the slave of someone with power and resources than to try surviving on your own in the wild.

Native Americans would be another example, they would take white people captive to replace tribe members killed in battle. Those white people would take on the roles of the tribe member they were replacing and could live good lives. It shows that the group/tribe was something they placed above the individual.

I think ancient cultures had better societies in many ways. Just look what the Egyptians achieved in the pyramids. The planning and knowledge that went into something that was built by farmers in their spare time shows what can be achieved when a group of people work towards something. We've completely lost that ability today, we strive towards nothing in the modern world, we're just random strangers consuming products aimlessly.

It's why I always have an interest in communism and socialism. Individual humans are next to useless, all our power comes from cooperation. when you can aline a large group of people to a common cause there is borderline nothing they can't achieve.[/quote]

Libertarian socialism is all about cooperation. What's good for the individual is good for the collective and vice versea.

oscarBravo

johnp001 wrote: »

If a majority of people are inherently destructive...

Straw man. I didn't say that a majority of people are inherently destructive; I said that it's a mistake to assume that people will always act rationally.

I completely agree that a world in which people traded freely would be a better world than one in which people form in-groups and fight with other in-groups. That's practically a self-evident truism. And yet, people do both.

Why do people elect leaders who promise to bomb other countries into the stone age, when it's self-evident that the world would be a better place if they peacefully did business with them instead? Because people aren't rational.

That's my core point, and it's the one that's being glibly ignored. If your political philosophy is predicated on people acting rationally, your political philosophy is hopelessly idealistic, because people don't and won't act rationally.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Right, but you're basically ignoring my point except insofar as you can find a way to use it to reinforce yours.

Let's accept, for the sake of argument, that a society in which there was no central authority would self-organise in a way that was completely peaceful and prosperous. I don't think that has been satisfactorily demonstrated, but let's imagine it's the case.

Let us then imagine that a faction within such a society became persuaded by a charismatic strongman that that faction was inherently more deserving than non-members of the faction, and that such a faction allowed itself to be organised in a hierarchical power structure that takes resources by force from the non-members. You could come up with any number of names for such a faction: the Mafia, or the Party, or the Church, or the Company... the point is that a society that depends for its survival on people simply never deciding to become part of such a faction seems somewhat vulnerable to me.

Would the world be a better place if such factions didn't form? Sure. Does that mean that people will realise that it makes more sense not to form such factions than to form them? I doubt it. People don't act rationally.

Suryavarman

mariaalice wrote: »

That great but answer me one question : I would love to drive in the bus lane and not be stuck in a traffic jam I am fairly sure I don't do it because I don't want to get caught braking the law get penalties on my licences and end up paying may more in insurance.

In a voluntary system we would obey because of what? in a free voluntary society want is the incentive to keep to the rules that are beneficial to society.

There wouldn't be roads there in the first place because you wouldn't have a Government to build them in the first place.

Suryavarman

Three questions:

We once had complete anarchy across the globe but then Governments were created. Why won't that happen again?

How does a world without a state fight a terrorist organisation such as ISIS?

Presumably an anarchic state would have no central bank, so how are recessions staved off? How are recoveries sped up? (Okay, maybe there are 4 questions.)

Pete29

MayoSalmon wrote: »

This has very little to do with the presence of government though?

More government = less prosperity
Less government = more prosperity

Of course is has to do with the presence of government. If someone commits a crime against you, tries to steal your property or infringe upon your liberties/freedom, you turn to government to protect you with the power the people have consented to give it.

My question to you is: can you point to any time in human history where no government has been established and people lived in general peace, prosperity and freedom?

I'm not arguing for a large government. I'm arguing there is a basic level of government that is essential to protect people from the unjust encroachments of others.

Is it your view there should be no government at all?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.