8 ms·

If you make this a choice between the surveillance super state and anarchy, you'll get the super state. Everyone knows we need some kind of government. It's d

If you make this a choice between the surveillance super state and anarchy, you'll get the super state. Everyone knows we need some kind of government. It's definitely hard to imagine the NSA being defunded, but that is rooted in a culture that is less concerned with government compliance with law and more with "reasonable" outcomes. The inability to control institutions, and the establishment of those institutions as powers in their own right, is the logical consequence.

BCM43 13y ago
Everyone knows we need some kind of government. That depends on either your definition of government or everyone.
snitko 13y ago
Everyone knows we need some kind of government I don't. Many people I know don't either. So what if we don't really need any kind of government?
- krapp 13y ago
  I think that we would still have governments because organizing into collectives to assert power and control resources is inevitable as long as inequalities between people and scarcity of resources exist.
- positr0n 13y ago
  I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.
  - oleganza 13y ago
    So violence in Somalia is not acceptable to you, but allowing your government a lot of violence is acceptable? If people in Somalia cannot find out a way to avoid violence it does not mean it's not possible in principle, or that government is somehow "good".
    - mpyne 13y ago
      My government has not once engaged in violence to me or my family. The one possible exception is my sister (I wasn't there when she was arrested), but you steal $10,000 worth of silver from an in-law to feed your drug habit and I can't say I'd be surprised that the government gets involved. P.S. On that note, how does anarchy account for thieves?
      - oleganza 13y ago
        Did you pay taxes lately? Have you ever been disappointed by what government does with your taxes? Why haven't you tried to withhold your participation by not paying taxes? E.g. if you dislike the war in Iraq, what stopped you from not paying a part of your taxes? Also, even if you are hard-core fan of taxation, your neighbour may be not. If he also disagrees with the gov on the same matter as you, but decides to withhold some amount of taxes, would you call the cops to arrest him? Or will you let him do his thing and be disappointed if cops find out? Either way, you will notice there is violence behind taxation. Anarchy is not some structure imposed on people. When I advocate for non-violent solutions, it's not me who needs to prove anything. It's the advocates of violence need to prove why all of a sudden generally undesirable violence becomes totally valid when done by a man in a special costume. You yourself live 95% of your life in anarchy. You voluntary interact with people you like and avoid people you dislike. You avoid bad districts, you put locks on your bike, purchase insurance, enjoy security video cameras. Ultimately, with modern technology, people can be ostracized economically without any violence whatsoever. You'd need violent action only in extreme case of personal assault, but that's outside of morality. Morality is needed to avoid such situations in the first place.
        harryh 13y ago
        The tremendous success of governments over the past several thousand years, as well as the even greater success of democratic governments over the past several hundred doesn't count as evidence in their favor?
        mpyne 13y ago
        Like you just said, the government can already generally enforce their laws just fine without violence. If you go try to beat up the policeman when they come at you with a signed warrant, or ever point a gun in their direction, then don't be surprised when they don't decide to just roll over and die. This is, again, consonant with you mention about personal assault. But don't try to brush away the question: What does an anarchist propose to do about thieves? Rapists? Murderers? Apparently your answer will not involve violence and will involve sterning telling people to be moral to each other. But I'm not worried about people who are moral, I'm worried about people who aren't.
  - ferdo 13y ago
    Let's not forget that other governments have helped to turn Somalia into what it is today.

BCM43 13y ago

Everyone knows we need some kind of government. That depends on either your definition of government or everyone.

snitko 13y ago

Everyone knows we need some kind of government I don't. Many people I know don't either. So what if we don't really need any kind of government?

krapp 13y ago
I think that we would still have governments because organizing into collectives to assert power and control resources is inevitable as long as inequalities between people and scarcity of resources exist.
positr0n 13y ago
I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.
- oleganza 13y ago
  So violence in Somalia is not acceptable to you, but allowing your government a lot of violence is acceptable? If people in Somalia cannot find out a way to avoid violence it does not mean it's not possible in principle, or that government is somehow "good".
  - mpyne 13y ago
    My government has not once engaged in violence to me or my family. The one possible exception is my sister (I wasn't there when she was arrested), but you steal $10,000 worth of silver from an in-law to feed your drug habit and I can't say I'd be surprised that the government gets involved. P.S. On that note, how does anarchy account for thieves?
    - oleganza 13y ago
      Did you pay taxes lately? Have you ever been disappointed by what government does with your taxes? Why haven't you tried to withhold your participation by not paying taxes? E.g. if you dislike the war in Iraq, what stopped you from not paying a part of your taxes? Also, even if you are hard-core fan of taxation, your neighbour may be not. If he also disagrees with the gov on the same matter as you, but decides to withhold some amount of taxes, would you call the cops to arrest him? Or will you let him do his thing and be disappointed if cops find out? Either way, you will notice there is violence behind taxation. Anarchy is not some structure imposed on people. When I advocate for non-violent solutions, it's not me who needs to prove anything. It's the advocates of violence need to prove why all of a sudden generally undesirable violence becomes totally valid when done by a man in a special costume. You yourself live 95% of your life in anarchy. You voluntary interact with people you like and avoid people you dislike. You avoid bad districts, you put locks on your bike, purchase insurance, enjoy security video cameras. Ultimately, with modern technology, people can be ostracized economically without any violence whatsoever. You'd need violent action only in extreme case of personal assault, but that's outside of morality. Morality is needed to avoid such situations in the first place.
      - harryh 13y ago
        The tremendous success of governments over the past several thousand years, as well as the even greater success of democratic governments over the past several hundred doesn't count as evidence in their favor?
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Like you just said, the government can already generally enforce their laws just fine without violence. If you go try to beat up the policeman when they come at you with a signed warrant, or ever point a gun in their direction, then don't be surprised when they don't decide to just roll over and die. This is, again, consonant with you mention about personal assault. But don't try to brush away the question: What does an anarchist propose to do about thieves? Rapists? Murderers? Apparently your answer will not involve violence and will involve sterning telling people to be moral to each other. But I'm not worried about people who are moral, I'm worried about people who aren't.
- ferdo 13y ago
  Let's not forget that other governments have helped to turn Somalia into what it is today.