7 ms·

And that my friend is why Anarchy or Libertarian Socialism is the only choice for proper governance.

api 13y ago
As a fellow left-libertarian, thanks for mentioning libertarian socialism. My thought for a long time has been that the most practical (as in achievable today in the real world) and best government for actual human beings who want to be free would be a very minimal non-invasive and efficient government with a negative income tax and possibly some kind of non-profit health cost sharing system. Other than the rest of the standard stuff, it would be minimal and stay out of things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
- dmix 13y ago
  Rather than gambling on one political idea, why not open certain smaller states to experimentation of new political structures, and stop trying to make one massive old machine work better (ala startups vs mega-corporations). There is zero competition of ideas in political science. Mostly variations of the same thing happening in every country (big powerful state, mixed social/capitalist economies).
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    >There is zero competition of ideas in political science I think this is because political science, to me, seems like a lagging indicator of whats going on in the political sphere of the world (at least when it comes to "current issues"). It is also very telling that established powers feel very threatened by Nihilists, anarchists, activists, Lulzsec, Anonymous, twenty-somethings who haven’t talked to the opposite sex in five or six years, yet academics seem to not be able to clearly frame what is really going on (maybe to the benefit of those who are marginalized by the status quo for that knowledge will most assuredly be used against them). Though Hayden hinted about it, there are some fundamental things going on here that stand in the way of such analysis, after all one cannot truly fight that of which one does not understand…
    - inthewind 13y ago
      I wonder if they really do feel threatened?
      - cinquemb 13y ago
        I wonder that to, but only time will tell.
        inthewind 13y ago
        Probably only when their lives, loved ones and assets are at risk. But those with more are probably less likely to be in the thick of it, when the peasants revolt - and start to kill each other.
        cinquemb 13y ago
        Well right now, their assets are definitely at risk, so there must be some fear there. Peasants, the vast majority, to me, seem far too distracted with the machinations of the corporate state, which allow cover for ghosts to move within the machine…
  - ferdo 13y ago
    > There is zero competition of ideas in political science. It's hard to compete when the government claims a monopoly on violence and will use it against non-violent citizens.
  - alan_cx 13y ago
    Because it will be killed off by the massive old machine which needs the status quo to survive. Might be a stretch, but take Cuba for an example.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > There is zero competition of ideas in political science. This is definitely not true. > Mostly variations of the same thing happening in every country (big powerful state, mixed social/capitalist economies). That's politcoeconomic engineering, not political science. And its not the same thing going on everywhere -- you see lots of things that don't meet that in the world, as well as a pretty broad range of "socialist/capitalist" mixes with pretty divergent poles -- its just that the succesful ones look pretty similar. But then, that's true of successful designs in many engineering domains.
  - throwit1979 13y ago
    Rather than gambling on one political idea, why not open certain smaller states to experimentation of new political structures, and stop trying to make one massive old machine work better This was tried. It was called The United States of America. The 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution delegated an enormous amount of powers to the states to try their own experiments, with the federal government standing by to adjudicate interstate disputes and maintain standards of currency and commerce. Then Lincoln came along.
    - IanDrake 13y ago
      >Then Lincoln came along. If only our public schools taught kids the real meaning of the war of northern aggression.
      - simonebrunozzi 13y ago
        Can you elaborate? I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on this. (I am a foreigner and certain things can escape the little I know about US).
        IanDrake 13y ago
        I'll attempt to be brief: 1: The civil war was not, by definition, a civil war. The south never fought for control of the north. The definition of a civil war is both side fighting for control of the whole. 2: The states joined the union of their own volition, they weren't conquered. The "Civil War" changed the notion of free states. Now the states are subservient by force to the federal government. 3: Lincoln didn't free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation decreed that slaves in rebel states were free. Slave states loyal to the north got to keep their slaves. So, Lincoln freed slaves in lands he had no control over. 4: Lincoln oversaw the first national conscription law in which the government is allowed enslave citizens to war. You can't be a free country AND force people to their death. Lincoln is popularly considered the angel of liberty to an enslaved people, but in reality he did more to enslave all of us to an all powerful federal government.
  - quantumpotato_ 13y ago
    https://blueseed.co/ https://blueseed.co/
- oleganza 13y ago
  If I understand correctly, when I make a nice app for a friend and you find out how much did he pay me, you will take out your gun, point at me and force me to give you money to sponsor some people who you believe earn less than you think they deserve? This does not sound libertarian at all. How about: you do what you think is good for people and I do what I think is good for people. And we don't try to force each other to change our opinions. If you have something to say, put your gun down and make your arguments. Like we do here, over the internet. Edit: if you propose some tax system, who do you think should execute it? Who should carry a gun to force people to give money? Who will watch the people who carry guns? Who will decide when the force was applied incorrectly? Will you have a moral system when 50%+1 majority can switch morality of murder by 180 degrees?
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    You don't understand correctly. Socialism is simply worker control of the means of production, states, taxation, etc are entirely orthogonal. "Libertarian socialism" does not refer to social democracy, it refers to socialism. Furthermore, before the 1950s, "libertarian" meant socialist.
    - ferdo 13y ago
      "Libertarian" used to be the opposite of "authoritarian": "The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians." -George Orwell, 1948 Because of the debasement of language, "libertarian" can now mean "creepy rightwingy person" or "antigovernment nutjob", depending on which flavor of Statism one prefers.
      - steveklabnik 13y ago
        Totally. This is the underlying cause of why, since capitalist social and economic relations are inherently authoritarian. I believe by some sort of Rule of Discussions I am required to mention that Orwell was a socialist, to the point of picking up arms in Catalonia. Makes me chuckle every time I see a Republican quote 1984.
- PragueBob 13y ago
  As another avowed Left Libertarian (see http://twitter.com/praguebob http://twitter.com/praguebob profile): ditto!
snitko 13y ago
Left-anarchists never managed to convince me how are they gonna have this society in which everyone is equal and has no private property without forcing people not to. I mean, if everyone agreed, I'd have no problem with that. But I surely wouldn't and many people wouldn't as well.
BashiBazouk 13y ago
Ah, the fine art of replacing one tyranny with another.
UbuntuJon 13y ago
Being engulfed in a Leviathan (governed state) is a major contributing factor to what makes us civilised. We need a central government to enforce laws to stop us all killing each other. I personally don't want to live in a society where violent death is more likely than not. As for all property being public; where would be the motivation to work hard if you can bust your ass and still get the same money every month as lazy joe over there.
chongli 13y ago
Can someone explain to me why I shouldn't equate Anarchy with power vacuum? My view of all forms of government is that they are systems. Within these systems, people apply pressure or force in a manner according to their nature. Any system designed without due consideration given to the nature of people -- with a heavy application of game theory -- ought to be called naïve at best. Perhaps I need to better educate myself more about anarchy but I remain skeptical.
chm 13y ago
My only problem with such philosophies is that they tend to ignore human nature. Really nice in theory, but in practice, some thugs will always organize to control the masses. That's a lesson in History, not a dumb statement. One might argue that now it's different, people have access to much more information than before, and that given enough time to educate the public enough on these matters of government, the Anarchist or Libertarian movements could gain critical mass and truly work. I think not, simply because that would do nothing to change human nature. Most people, no matter how rational they can be in their everyday life, have emotions and desires, which aren't rational. Thus my impression that organized groups of people would always strive to control the masses.
- drcube 13y ago
  > Really nice in theory, but in practice, some thugs will always organize to control the masses. AKA "Government". Anarchy is about order without a state. Not chaos. It will take work, and probably incremental evolution rather than revolution, to get to that state. The goal is to become more free. Living under the boot of oppression -- whether from the government itself or a mafia-like criminal gang -- is not freedom.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    I still don't really understand how you can establish order without winding up with a body to direct & maintain that order, aka a governing body, aka a government.
    - tokenizer 13y ago
      Hello sliverstorm. I'm an anarchist. I don't want to tell you how to think at all but I seriously recommend this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5PbLLBfiM8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5PbLLBfiM8 It's fairly non biased, and explains what you're asking. Its position is more on anarcho-capitalism (what most of the world/our day to day consists of) while most anarchists will believe in collective labour and possession only property.
- 13y ago

api 13y ago

As a fellow left-libertarian, thanks for mentioning libertarian socialism. My thought for a long time has been that the most practical (as in achievable today in the real world) and best government for actual human beings who want to be free would be a very minimal non-invasive and efficient government with a negative income tax and possibly some kind of non-profit health cost sharing system. Other than the rest of the standard stuff, it would be minimal and stay out of things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

dmix 13y ago
Rather than gambling on one political idea, why not open certain smaller states to experimentation of new political structures, and stop trying to make one massive old machine work better (ala startups vs mega-corporations). There is zero competition of ideas in political science. Mostly variations of the same thing happening in every country (big powerful state, mixed social/capitalist economies).
- cinquemb 13y ago
  >There is zero competition of ideas in political science I think this is because political science, to me, seems like a lagging indicator of whats going on in the political sphere of the world (at least when it comes to "current issues"). It is also very telling that established powers feel very threatened by Nihilists, anarchists, activists, Lulzsec, Anonymous, twenty-somethings who haven’t talked to the opposite sex in five or six years, yet academics seem to not be able to clearly frame what is really going on (maybe to the benefit of those who are marginalized by the status quo for that knowledge will most assuredly be used against them). Though Hayden hinted about it, there are some fundamental things going on here that stand in the way of such analysis, after all one cannot truly fight that of which one does not understand…
  - inthewind 13y ago
    I wonder if they really do feel threatened?
    - cinquemb 13y ago
      I wonder that to, but only time will tell.
      - inthewind 13y ago
        Probably only when their lives, loved ones and assets are at risk. But those with more are probably less likely to be in the thick of it, when the peasants revolt - and start to kill each other.
        cinquemb 13y ago
        Well right now, their assets are definitely at risk, so there must be some fear there. Peasants, the vast majority, to me, seem far too distracted with the machinations of the corporate state, which allow cover for ghosts to move within the machine…
- ferdo 13y ago
  > There is zero competition of ideas in political science. It's hard to compete when the government claims a monopoly on violence and will use it against non-violent citizens.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  Because it will be killed off by the massive old machine which needs the status quo to survive. Might be a stretch, but take Cuba for an example.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > There is zero competition of ideas in political science. This is definitely not true. > Mostly variations of the same thing happening in every country (big powerful state, mixed social/capitalist economies). That's politcoeconomic engineering, not political science. And its not the same thing going on everywhere -- you see lots of things that don't meet that in the world, as well as a pretty broad range of "socialist/capitalist" mixes with pretty divergent poles -- its just that the succesful ones look pretty similar. But then, that's true of successful designs in many engineering domains.
- throwit1979 13y ago
  Rather than gambling on one political idea, why not open certain smaller states to experimentation of new political structures, and stop trying to make one massive old machine work better This was tried. It was called The United States of America. The 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution delegated an enormous amount of powers to the states to try their own experiments, with the federal government standing by to adjudicate interstate disputes and maintain standards of currency and commerce. Then Lincoln came along.
  - IanDrake 13y ago
    >Then Lincoln came along. If only our public schools taught kids the real meaning of the war of northern aggression.
    - simonebrunozzi 13y ago
      Can you elaborate? I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on this. (I am a foreigner and certain things can escape the little I know about US).
      - IanDrake 13y ago
        I'll attempt to be brief: 1: The civil war was not, by definition, a civil war. The south never fought for control of the north. The definition of a civil war is both side fighting for control of the whole. 2: The states joined the union of their own volition, they weren't conquered. The "Civil War" changed the notion of free states. Now the states are subservient by force to the federal government. 3: Lincoln didn't free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation decreed that slaves in rebel states were free. Slave states loyal to the north got to keep their slaves. So, Lincoln freed slaves in lands he had no control over. 4: Lincoln oversaw the first national conscription law in which the government is allowed enslave citizens to war. You can't be a free country AND force people to their death. Lincoln is popularly considered the angel of liberty to an enslaved people, but in reality he did more to enslave all of us to an all powerful federal government.
- quantumpotato_ 13y ago
  https://blueseed.co/ https://blueseed.co/
oleganza 13y ago
If I understand correctly, when I make a nice app for a friend and you find out how much did he pay me, you will take out your gun, point at me and force me to give you money to sponsor some people who you believe earn less than you think they deserve? This does not sound libertarian at all. How about: you do what you think is good for people and I do what I think is good for people. And we don't try to force each other to change our opinions. If you have something to say, put your gun down and make your arguments. Like we do here, over the internet. Edit: if you propose some tax system, who do you think should execute it? Who should carry a gun to force people to give money? Who will watch the people who carry guns? Who will decide when the force was applied incorrectly? Will you have a moral system when 50%+1 majority can switch morality of murder by 180 degrees?
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  You don't understand correctly. Socialism is simply worker control of the means of production, states, taxation, etc are entirely orthogonal. "Libertarian socialism" does not refer to social democracy, it refers to socialism. Furthermore, before the 1950s, "libertarian" meant socialist.
  - ferdo 13y ago
    "Libertarian" used to be the opposite of "authoritarian": "The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians." -George Orwell, 1948 Because of the debasement of language, "libertarian" can now mean "creepy rightwingy person" or "antigovernment nutjob", depending on which flavor of Statism one prefers.
    - steveklabnik 13y ago
      Totally. This is the underlying cause of why, since capitalist social and economic relations are inherently authoritarian. I believe by some sort of Rule of Discussions I am required to mention that Orwell was a socialist, to the point of picking up arms in Catalonia. Makes me chuckle every time I see a Republican quote 1984.
PragueBob 13y ago
As another avowed Left Libertarian (see http://twitter.com/praguebob http://twitter.com/praguebob profile): ditto!

snitko 13y ago

Left-anarchists never managed to convince me how are they gonna have this society in which everyone is equal and has no private property without forcing people not to. I mean, if everyone agreed, I'd have no problem with that. But I surely wouldn't and many people wouldn't as well.

BashiBazouk 13y ago

Ah, the fine art of replacing one tyranny with another.

UbuntuJon 13y ago

Being engulfed in a Leviathan (governed state) is a major contributing factor to what makes us civilised. We need a central government to enforce laws to stop us all killing each other. I personally don't want to live in a society where violent death is more likely than not. As for all property being public; where would be the motivation to work hard if you can bust your ass and still get the same money every month as lazy joe over there.

chongli 13y ago

Can someone explain to me why I shouldn't equate Anarchy with power vacuum? My view of all forms of government is that they are systems. Within these systems, people apply pressure or force in a manner according to their nature. Any system designed without due consideration given to the nature of people -- with a heavy application of game theory -- ought to be called naïve at best. Perhaps I need to better educate myself more about anarchy but I remain skeptical.

chm 13y ago

My only problem with such philosophies is that they tend to ignore human nature. Really nice in theory, but in practice, some thugs will always organize to control the masses. That's a lesson in History, not a dumb statement. One might argue that now it's different, people have access to much more information than before, and that given enough time to educate the public enough on these matters of government, the Anarchist or Libertarian movements could gain critical mass and truly work. I think not, simply because that would do nothing to change human nature. Most people, no matter how rational they can be in their everyday life, have emotions and desires, which aren't rational. Thus my impression that organized groups of people would always strive to control the masses.

drcube 13y ago
> Really nice in theory, but in practice, some thugs will always organize to control the masses. AKA "Government". Anarchy is about order without a state. Not chaos. It will take work, and probably incremental evolution rather than revolution, to get to that state. The goal is to become more free. Living under the boot of oppression -- whether from the government itself or a mafia-like criminal gang -- is not freedom.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  I still don't really understand how you can establish order without winding up with a body to direct & maintain that order, aka a governing body, aka a government.
  - tokenizer 13y ago
    Hello sliverstorm. I'm an anarchist. I don't want to tell you how to think at all but I seriously recommend this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5PbLLBfiM8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5PbLLBfiM8 It's fairly non biased, and explains what you're asking. Its position is more on anarcho-capitalism (what most of the world/our day to day consists of) while most anarchists will believe in collective labour and possession only property.
13y ago