Wikileaks

exact33 wrote:

The world is not a great place without government - and I dont like the intrusiveness of the US Government but some form of government has to be in place.

the world is not a great place period. while i naturally recognize that there are some benefits to having certain governments, i think the cost is too high. anarchy (as in a lack of government) can, has, and does work. experiments in anarchy, like experiments in democracy, have been conducted throughout history to success. ill be the first to say that the current lifestyles enjoyed by a lot of the developed world would probably crumble if the shift from government to non-government was immediate, but we are pretty damn decadent anyhow.

exact33 wrote:

but it was not the original intent of the colonies to break from England. If their grievances would have been addressed in a manner they liked, things would be very different today. Like I said - protest all you want. Knock yourself out. But if you do something illegal - I hope they come and arrest you. King broke law - even if the law was unjust and was arrested for it. Are all laws just? - nope. I just think change ought to come by legal means.

whether or not the colonies first attempted to appeal to the british powers has no real bearing on whether or not they eventually found it conscionable, right, and even necessary to break the law. they, like king, came to the point where obeying the law no longer suited them. whether or not statements were ironic, in light of our past, had nothing to do with why i myself think lawbreaking is irrelevant, however; my two stated points were that laws are illegitimate and laws are arbitrary.

if we cannot empower states, states decisions are invalid. and, as the old saying goes, might does not make right. sure, the state can send the cops, feds, or military after me, but that doesnt somehow make the law "right". since we cannot sell away our freedom, whatever laws, be they just or unjust, have no hold over any of us.

as for arbitrariness, you have to remember that governments are arbitrary---theyre just groups of people that a couple people agree have power. under the right circumstances, anyone can make a law. laws change based on whether youre in this minute or last minute, this inch of the ground or that inch of the ground, this race or that race. its all imaginary and completely arbitrary. theres no reason to recognize something that has no lasting coherence, cohesion, or connection to truth, or goodness, or justice.

and speaking of arbitrariness....whose laws are we supposed to obey? the world has more than a couple nations, and they all have laws governing everyone on earth. oftentimes these laws overlap or conflict. who should we be submitting to?

bassman wrote:

Given the choice between anarchy and government, I'll take government every time. Government does stupid things and abuses it's power all too often, usually in the form of taxes and exessive regulation, but that's still better than every man for himself and no rules at all in the liberal sort of ideal world where people magically get along without anyone having to deal with the bad guys who want to kill us all simply because we don't believe like they do.

i think you might be underestimating the evils of government. here are just a few examples of government at work:

america:
-genocide and concentration camps (double on the concentration camps---dont forget the japanese)
-institutionalized slavery and lasting racism
-nuclear assault on civilians

worldwide:
-genocide
-institutionalized rape, torture, and murder

im not just talking random people doing things, im talking about government orders. this isnt even covering what people have done while abusing government power. these werent the acts of desperate individuals using power for their own purposes, these were acts the governments conceived to further the goals of nations. intentional anarchy has never been so ridiculously destructive and evil.

also, i think youre very misinformed about the nature of anarchy. anarchy isnt "every man for himself" and not "having to deal with the bad guys who want to kill us all". intentional anarchy should be about community---no world can work without people working together. democracy is just as much "every man for himself" as anarchy is, really. as for "bad guys", i dont see how anarchy cant deal with bad guys.....if you have trouble, you have some choices: negotiate, fight, run. it seems like youre imagining that people lose all cohesion once the state is gone, but thats a lie. i can say that confidently because this is more than theory, its fact---anarchist communities have thrived in the past, and will in the future.

Of course people lose cohesion once the rule of law is gone, look at what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, people were looting and even shooting at rescue helicopters. Now people in Europe are demonstating in the streets, setting stuff on fire and flipping cars over because the government has realized it can't continue to give people everything from cradle to grave and that eventually someone has to pay for all of it. As to the issue of genocide and torture and all that, we have made mistakes in the past but we are far more humane than any other country. If we had not nuked Japan the war would have gone on much longer and at a much higher cost in lives. Yes, there were concentration camps but at least we didn't put people in gas chambers and starve them to death or use them for heavy labor until they collapsed. In more recent events, we don't go around stoning people to death or cutting off heads in the name of God. Those guys down in Gitmo have an easier life than I do.

bassman wrote:

Of course people lose cohesion once the rule of law is gone, look at what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, people were looting and even shooting at rescue helicopters.

those things arent a loss of cohesion. and those things arent a requirement of anarchy. those are governed people that expect to be governed and suddenly arent. thats like taking a bunch of people that have lived in anarchy their whole lives and giving them a government, or drastically changing the government of a governed people. look at what happened when countries colonized the americas and invaded the existing nations---the conditions for the native americans got horrible and there was a lot of riotous conduct. the fact that peaceful, harmonious, constructive anarchist communities have existed in the past is sufficient to disprove your theory that government is needed to maintain social cohesion. ive already stated that. perhaps reading up on some of them would help you understand how they work. also, dont forget where we came from---the origin of modern humanity, hunter-gatherer societies, were usually without government and we survived quite well.

Quote :

As to the issue of genocide and torture and all that, we have made mistakes in the past but we are far more humane than any other country.

far more humane when? right now? with our institutionalized animal abuse and our sexist laws and our police brutality and our soldiers out shooting children and blowing civilians to hell and whatnot? i think a place could easily be a lot more civilized and humane. there are more progressive, peaceful, life-affirming nations in the world than the united states. countless die without healthcare yearly in america, and even more are homeless. there are tons of problems we face as a nation.

Quote :

If we had not nuked Japan the war would have gone on much longer and at a much higher cost in lives.

do you not see a difference between a soldier nuking a civilian and a soldier shooting another soldier? if you dont, i can explain the differences, because they are grave and rather pertinent here. if youre just saying that the ends justify the means, then i suppose we have reached a disagreement that could only be settled by something like everyone you love being at hiroshima in 1945. i dont know if even that could change your mind. i should point out, though, that your attitude justifies the 9/11 attacks.

Quote :

Yes, there were concentration camps but at least we didn't put people in gas chambers and starve them to death or use them for heavy labor until they collapsed.

our government being bad, but not the worst, is hardly a case for the superiority of government in general.

Quote :

In more recent events, we don't go around stoning people to death or cutting off heads in the name of God. Those guys down in Gitmo have an easier life than I do.

i dont think youd like to be tortured much. anyhow, we go around shooting people and blowing them up in the name of democracy and capitalism---not a whole lot of difference there to a lot of people.

Hey rawr!, i think i love you .
You seem to be an american who`s not blinded by religion, patriotism and ignorance.
@ bassman, if your attitude is representative for your nation, it`s a miracle that it`s not raining bombs over you from every corner of the world

Call it blindness if you like, I believe I live in the best country on the face of the earth where I am free to be religious, conservative, out-spoken about my patriotism, and hopeful that more people around the world will someday have the same freedoms as I do. I do NOT believe American military involvement can solve the worlds problems, oppressed people need to do what we did and come up with a form of government they can deal with. A big part of the problems in Iraq and Afganistan is that we erred in assuming the population actually wanted freedom, it seems that they are perfectly happy with the old tribal warlord system which puts us basically in the same situation as the Soviets were in in the 80's. It is a very difficult problem to fix at this point without causing even more chaos, if we just pull out now everyone who has cooperated with us will be killed 5 minutes after we leave, so I don't think that is a responsible choice. As to the raining bombs, several have tried and we are still here. Thank you for the stimulating discussion, gentlemen.

Olafsto wrote:

Hey rawr!, i think i love you .
You seem to be an american who`s not blinded by religion, patriotism and ignorance.
@ bassman, if your attitude is representative for your nation, it`s a miracle that it`s not raining bombs over you from every corner of the world

and the same can be said of those in the euro-states who believe they are the epitome of perfection. Perhaps Americans are not the only people to be blinded by their ignorance. The self-righteousness of the Euro's is amazing given the millions that they have slaughtered in recent history by godless, self serving men.

the fact is no government is perfect - and anarchy is not a solution either. People who preach anarchy rarely understand what they would be getting and wouldn't like it if they did get it. Its a lame attempt to be cool and try to scare others. Socialism is an alternative stepchild as it normally runs well at first but once they run out of others money to spend - it fails too. Is capitalism perfect - the obvious answer is no but in the end, not everyone is equal. Those who preach we should all be the same don't understand human nature.

rawr! wrote:

exact33 wrote:

The world is not a great place without government - and I dont like the intrusiveness of the US Government but some form of government has to be in place.

the world is not a great place period. while i naturally recognize that there are some benefits to having certain governments, i think the cost is too high. anarchy (as in a lack of government) can, has, and does work. experiments in anarchy, like experiments in democracy, have been conducted throughout history to success. ill be the first to say that the current lifestyles enjoyed by a lot of the developed world would probably crumble if the shift from government to non-government was immediate, but we are pretty damn decadent anyhow.

in the end, anarchy will not work. It just becomes might makes right. Those who can gather the most force will impose their will over those who cant and you are worse off than a democracy that at least tries to protect those who are less powerful. Do you propose that those who cannot function at a basic level just be swept aside?

rawr! wrote:

exact33 wrote:

but it was not the original intent of the colonies to break from England. If their grievances would have been addressed in a manner they liked, things would be very different today. Like I said - protest all you want. Knock yourself out. But if you do something illegal - I hope they come and arrest you. King broke law - even if the law was unjust and was arrested for it. Are all laws just? - nope. I just think change ought to come by legal means.

whether or not the colonies first attempted to appeal to the british powers has no real bearing on whether or not they eventually found it conscionable, right, and even necessary to break the law. they, like king, came to the point where obeying the law no longer suited them. whether or not statements were ironic, in light of our past, had nothing to do with why i myself think lawbreaking is irrelevant, however; my two stated points were that laws are illegitimate and laws are arbitrary.

if we cannot empower states, states decisions are invalid. and, as the old saying goes, might does not make right. sure, the state can send the cops, feds, or military after me, but that doesnt somehow make the law "right". since we cannot sell away our freedom, whatever laws, be they just or unjust, have no hold over any of us.

as for arbitrariness, you have to remember that governments are arbitrary---theyre just groups of people that a couple people agree have power. under the right circumstances, anyone can make a law. laws change based on whether youre in this minute or last minute, this inch of the ground or that inch of the ground, this race or that race. its all imaginary and completely arbitrary. theres no reason to recognize something that has no lasting coherence, cohesion, or connection to truth, or goodness, or justice.

and speaking of arbitrariness....whose laws are we supposed to obey? the world has more than a couple nations, and they all have laws governing everyone on earth. oftentimes these laws overlap or conflict. who should we be submitting to?

Law is a reflection of a society and its desire on how to organize its collective. If it willingly entered into, I I think it is legitimate. Where control is taken by force, this makes the argument of why anarchy is a poor substitute. If a society agrees on principles and they become law, I see nothing wrong with that. If you break the law, you are subject to the penalties. Do countries make bad laws - absolutely. No one is perfect and history is littered with bad decisions. That is not a reason to throw out all government. It is an opportunity to learn from mistakes to not repeat them.

exact33 wrote:

Olafsto wrote:

Hey rawr!, i think i love you .
You seem to be an american who`s not blinded by religion, patriotism and ignorance.
@ bassman, if your attitude is representative for your nation, it`s a miracle that it`s not raining bombs over you from every corner of the world

and the same can be said of those in the euro-states who believe they are the epitome of perfection. Perhaps Americans are not the only people to be blinded by their ignorance. The self-righteousness of the Euro's is amazing given the millions that they have slaughtered in recent history by godless, self serving men.

the fact is no government is perfect - and anarchy is not a solution either. People who preach anarchy rarely understand what they would be getting and wouldn't like it if they did get it. Its a lame attempt to be cool and try to scare others. Socialism is an alternative stepchild as it normally runs well at first but once they run out of others money to spend - it fails too. Is capitalism perfect - the obvious answer is no but in the end, not everyone is equal. Those who preach we should all be the same don't understand human nature.

Not sure of what self righteousness you are referring to, i have just as much bad things to say about our system as i have to say about yours. Believe me, there is no European country who`s even close to perfection.
It is hard to compare US and Europe because Europe is a continent of individual countries with independant laws and governments.
Patriotism is much stronger in the us, or at least that`s how it looks from over here. Sadly that makes people get overly defensive when others dare to critisize their ways. I believe we can learn a lot from listening to how we/our system looks from the outside. And i also believe that we should be critical and pay close attention to how our own government run our country.
I agree that anarchy is no solution, not sure what you mean by saying sosialism is an alternative as it is in fact quite the opposite. In a sosialist country you have a very strong state with lots of state ownership and regulations, high taxes, all schools, hospitals etc are public. not much individual freedom. Sounds like anarcy to you?

Olafsto wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Olafsto wrote:

Hey rawr!, i think i love you .
You seem to be an american who`s not blinded by religion, patriotism and ignorance.
@ bassman, if your attitude is representative for your nation, it`s a miracle that it`s not raining bombs over you from every corner of the world

and the same can be said of those in the euro-states who believe they are the epitome of perfection. Perhaps Americans are not the only people to be blinded by their ignorance. The self-righteousness of the Euro's is amazing given the millions that they have slaughtered in recent history by godless, self serving men.

the fact is no government is perfect - and anarchy is not a solution either. People who preach anarchy rarely understand what they would be getting and wouldn't like it if they did get it. Its a lame attempt to be cool and try to scare others. Socialism is an alternative stepchild as it normally runs well at first but once they run out of others money to spend - it fails too. Is capitalism perfect - the obvious answer is no but in the end, not everyone is equal. Those who preach we should all be the same don't understand human nature.

Not sure of what self righteousness you are referring to, i have just as much bad things to say about our system as i have to say about yours. Believe me, there is no European country who`s even close to perfection.
It is hard to compare US and Europe because Europe is a continent of individual countries with independant laws and governments.
Patriotism is much stronger in the us, or at least that`s how it looks from over here. Sadly that makes people get overly defensive when others dare to critisize their ways. I believe we can learn a lot from listening to how we/our system looks from the outside. And i also believe that we should be critical and pay close attention to how our own government run our country.
I agree that anarchy is no solution, not sure what you mean by saying sosialism is an alternative as it is in fact quite the opposite. In a sosialist country you have a very strong state with lots of state ownership and regulations, high taxes, all schools, hospitals etc are public. not much individual freedom. Sounds like anarcy to you?

Socialism is far from anarchy. I can't every buy into any system that limits individual freedom. In the US, we kicked imperialism to the curb when we kicked the British out and took control of our own country's destiny. Having been to Europe and hung out with folks (not just the tourist stuff), I did noticed that individuality is much more important to us in the US, it's in our DNA. Just look at the 2nd Amendment of the US constitution - it is there from two purposes - 1) protect your property and 2) so that the government can never take the means of revolt against an unjust government away from its citizens.

In Europe, the countries are smaller than the biggest US states and the people tend to have more group think than the US, which is a country made up of people from all over the world coming from different cultures and different views and thoughts. What works from a smaller country would never work in a country as big as the US.

Olafsto wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Olafsto wrote:

Hey rawr!, i think i love you .
You seem to be an american who`s not blinded by religion, patriotism and ignorance.
@ bassman, if your attitude is representative for your nation, it`s a miracle that it`s not raining bombs over you from every corner of the world

and the same can be said of those in the euro-states who believe they are the epitome of perfection. Perhaps Americans are not the only people to be blinded by their ignorance. The self-righteousness of the Euro's is amazing given the millions that they have slaughtered in recent history by godless, self serving men.

the fact is no government is perfect - and anarchy is not a solution either. People who preach anarchy rarely understand what they would be getting and wouldn't like it if they did get it. Its a lame attempt to be cool and try to scare others. Socialism is an alternative stepchild as it normally runs well at first but once they run out of others money to spend - it fails too. Is capitalism perfect - the obvious answer is no but in the end, not everyone is equal. Those who preach we should all be the same don't understand human nature.

Not sure of what self righteousness you are referring to, i have just as much bad things to say about our system as i have to say about yours. Believe me, there is no European country who`s even close to perfection.
It is hard to compare US and Europe because Europe is a continent of individual countries with independant laws and governments.
Patriotism is much stronger in the us, or at least that`s how it looks from over here. Sadly that makes people get overly defensive when others dare to critisize their ways. I believe we can learn a lot from listening to how we/our system looks from the outside. And i also believe that we should be critical and pay close attention to how our own government run our country.
I agree that anarchy is no solution, not sure what you mean by saying sosialism is an alternative as it is in fact quite the opposite. In a sosialist country you have a very strong state with lots of state ownership and regulations, high taxes, all schools, hospitals etc are public. not much individual freedom. Sounds like anarcy to you?

I was referring to anarchy and socialism regarding might makes right. In both situations, the people with power get what they want. In a socialist state, there are the few who control the masses through the powers of the state whereas with total anarchy, use of power is just more explicit.

I will agree that there is a lot of differences in how residents of Europe and the US view one another. Having friends and associates from all over the world, it is interesting to see the stereotypes that people view one another with.

I will also agree that it is critically important to keep watch over government. for me, regardless of whether it is a Republican or Democrat, when the government ceases to do the will of the people, it is time to change it. I personally think the US government is too intrusive, is extremely wasteful and regulates things till they choke.

exact33 wrote:

in the end, anarchy will not work. It just becomes might makes right. Those who can gather the most force will impose their will over those who cant and you are worse off than a democracy that at least tries to protect those who are less powerful. Do you propose that those who cannot function at a basic level just be swept aside?

democracy is just as much "might makes right" as anarchy is---the people with the power make the rules. democracy is tyranny, its just tyranny in which select people have select ways to give select input that will have select consideration. the point of anarchy is to do away with the unequal distribution of formal power created by government. theres nothing to stop people from protecting the less powerful and less able in an anarchist community. there hasnt been a problem of power struggles in successful anarchist communities of the past, unlike governed communities. also, as i pointed out in a previous post, hunter-gatherer societies are generally non-hierarchical and worked well for thousands of years (and continue to work).

i think i should make something clear here, in light of what i read in another post of yours: theres a difference between no RULE and no RULES. there can be rules in an anarchist society without a government. the baseline is the golden rule, but additional rules can be added with social support.

exact33 wrote:

Law is a reflection of a society and its desire on how to organize its collective. If it willingly entered into, I I think it is legitimate. Where control is taken by force, this makes the argument of why anarchy is a poor substitute. If a society agrees on principles and they become law, I see nothing wrong with that. If you break the law, you are subject to the penalties. Do countries make bad laws - absolutely. No one is perfect and history is littered with bad decisions. That is not a reason to throw out all government. It is an opportunity to learn from mistakes to not repeat them.

there are two problems with your argument. the first has been addressed, which is that we cannot submit to government and be free. you disagree and unless there are new angles, i dont think we will get any further. the second is that not everyone under the rule of a government agrees to the principles/laws---the principles/laws are forced upon people. this is unjust and thus the model of government that involves such a thing is unjust.

one more thing: all power is "taken by force" in non-anarchistic states. it can be economic force, socioreligious force, military force, or something else, but the current distribution of power in a governed state is always the result of one group of people exerting their power over another. government is unequivocally inequality and oppression.

i think we can learn from the mistakes of government to create better governments, but government is an inherently immoral construct that runs counter to essential human rights/principles. even if everyone was happy and provided for by a government, id still oppose it because its philosophically and spiritually wrong---i refuse to compromise my humanity.

rawr! wrote:

exact33 wrote:

in the end, anarchy will not work. It just becomes might makes right. Those who can gather the most force will impose their will over those who cant and you are worse off than a democracy that at least tries to protect those who are less powerful. Do you propose that those who cannot function at a basic level just be swept aside?

democracy is just as much "might makes right" as anarchy is---the people with the power make the rules. democracy is tyranny, its just tyranny in which select people have select ways to give select input that will have select consideration. the point of anarchy is to do away with the unequal distribution of formal power created by government. theres nothing to stop people from protecting the less powerful and less able in an anarchist community. there hasnt been a problem of power struggles in successful anarchist communities of the past, unlike governed communities. also, as i pointed out in a previous post, hunter-gatherer societies are generally non-hierarchical and worked well for thousands of years (and continue to work).

i think i should make something clear here, in light of what i read in another post of yours: theres a difference between no RULE and no RULES. there can be rules in an anarchist society without a government. the baseline is the golden rule, but additional rules can be added with social support.

But the enforcement of any rules is done by those who have the power to do so over those that cannot stand up to the power. You are still subject to someone who has the ability to force their will upon you, until you can stand up against it. You still have inequality as power is concentrated in those with the the ability to enforce their will. The biggest difference is now I have the ability to sue or petition for relief in a situation whereas in a society without government, all I can do resist and hope I can beat the opposing party.

exact33 wrote:

Law is a reflection of a society and its desire on how to organize its collective. If it willingly entered into, I I think it is legitimate. Where control is taken by force, this makes the argument of why anarchy is a poor substitute. If a society agrees on principles and they become law, I see nothing wrong with that. If you break the law, you are subject to the penalties. Do countries make bad laws - absolutely. No one is perfect and history is littered with bad decisions. That is not a reason to throw out all government. It is an opportunity to learn from mistakes to not repeat them.

there are two problems with your argument. the first has been addressed, which is that we cannot submit to government and be free. you disagree and unless there are new angles, i dont think we will get any further. the second is that not everyone under the rule of a government agrees to the principles/laws---the principles/laws are forced upon people. this is unjust and thus the model of government that involves such a thing is unjust.

one more thing: all power is "taken by force" in non-anarchistic states. it can be economic force, socioreligious force, military force, or something else, but the current distribution of power in a governed state is always the result of one group of people exerting their power over another. government is unequivocally inequality and oppression.

i think we can learn from the mistakes of government to create better governments, but government is an inherently immoral construct that runs counter to essential human rights/principles. even if everyone was happy and provided for by a government, id still oppose it because its philosophically and spiritually wrong---i refuse to compromise my humanity.[/quote]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

exact33 wrote:

But the enforcement of any rules is done by those who have the power to do so over those that cannot stand up to the power. You are still subject to someone who has the ability to force their will upon you, until you can stand up against it. You still have inequality as power is concentrated in those with the the ability to enforce their will. The biggest difference is now I have the ability to sue or petition for relief in a situation whereas in a society without government, all I can do resist and hope I can beat the opposing party.

the only required rule would be freedom itself, therefore the power of individuals will be used to enforce the freedom of individuals, as opposed to government where the power of state is used to enforce the will of state (a lack of freedom and individual goals). the use of power of one individual over another is only tolerated in an anarchist community in defense of freedom (if at all), so the argument that the defenseless will be the victims is invalid---only those provoking injustice are subject to one or more people acting against them, and they have proven themselves to be sufficiently powerful to act. if you are referring to disturbers of the peace, obviously they will be in the minority in any intentional anarchist community and can be dealt with (for example kicked out) if they are infringing on the rights of members.

there is also the distinction between one person, in their own right, defending himself, and a government enforcing group rules, philosophically, morally, and practically. these differences are the crux of our discussion, not whether or not defending must happen. and to note, there is a difference between institutionalized and natural power discrepancies; the president, for example, has an immoral, preventable difference in power from from me whereas a taller, larger framed 28 year old has what is more or less a natural, unpreventable difference in power from me.

and, as ive continually said, the spirit of intentional anarchism is generally the spirit of human community---theres plenty of help to be found for whatever situation you would find yourself in. a common mistake people in this thread are making is assuming absolute division in anarchism when that is obviously not the case, theoretically or historically. maybe reading up on how anarchist communities/societies work would help eliminate these misconceptions you guys are suffering from. if anarchism was good enough for our ancestors, i dont see why it wouldnt be good enough for us now.

i think we have been losing sight of the fact that government doesnt inherently provide any services, even the enforcement of laws, and anarchism can provide every service that government does. the real issue here is whether or not government is valid as an institution.

Once again - I am soooo thankful that you guys are keeping this civil. rawr! - you are obviously new here but i appreciate you playing by our friendly rules and keeping it intelligent. bassman - I personally do not agree with anything you have said, but I also appreciate you being a big man. Alex - Happy New Year Brother. That is why the HoM rules -and all other boards suck.

mc666 wrote:

UNCLE SAXON wrote:

Censorship in any form blows.

totally agree.

Yeah! Smurf those sticks