8 ms·

Well it's not that they are binded by the left-right paradigm, it's just that they've already agreed that authoritarianism (up?) is worse than libertarianism (d

Well it's not that they are binded by the left-right paradigm, it's just that they've already agreed that authoritarianism (up?) is worse than libertarianism (down?), and then proceed to debate the finer points of collectivism versus individualism (right and left). Much better than ignoring the up and down completely like neo-liberal and neo-conservative politics. From the mainstream, we see plenty of disheartening policies that both left and right anarchists would agree on. That said, the problem I think about it what you've mentioned. How do we convince collectivist thinkers that taxes are the use of force? How do we convince individualists that some services need to be established by the collective itself and not an offshoot (syndicate/business)? Our problems are what you've mentioned. Too much left-right and not enough up and down talk. This opens us all up to authoritarian centrists who believe that title to be impossible because of the golden mean...

seabee 13y ago
> authoritarianism (up?) is worse than libertarianism (down?) Hence the 'political compass'[0] although even that is a gross simplification of political opinions and realities. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass
- tokenizer 13y ago
  But still a thousand times better than the traditional left right divide that most of the populace stops learning at.
anoncowherd 13y ago
>> How do we convince individualists that some services need to be established by the collective itself and not an offshoot (syndicate/business)? We don't, because you're talking about imposing some "services" on other people, which always happens through coercion. We should both be aware that coercion is bad, mm'kay? "But who will build the roads?!" is like asking an anti-slavery activist "but who will pick the cotton?!" - the correct answer is: "who fucking cares? Slavery is immoral and needs to stop." Punishing people for attempting to keep their property (ie. taxation) is immoral too. It's plain to see, for everyone who allows himself to.
- sanoli 13y ago
  So you're saying public education is immoral, and public health care is immoral. Maybe for the taxpayer it is. I doubt it seems immoral for the child of some poor parents. Or for someone seriously ill who can't afford to go to the private doctor, no matter if they chose not to plan for the future and be financially sound.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    You're overlooking a couple of important things here: 1) Public education is shit anyway, and mostly just meant to indoctrinate us into the Cult of Statism. 2) Private schools would do a vastly better job, for a small fraction of the price. I'm sure you agree on public schools being bad quality, to put it mildly. You might not agree on the indoctrination aspect, but hey, if we want to change things for the better, we can always write to our representatives and of course, vote! Vote the bums out! All hail The Land Of The Free! As for private schools doing a better job, you probably know how competition works. You get better stuff for lower prices.
    - sanoli 13y ago
      But what are you saying should be done instead, a voucher system where families would decide which school to put their money into, or just abolish public funding for education altogether, and let each family fend for themselves?
      - tokenizer 13y ago
        Well considering the cost of the Dept. of Education is 71.9 a year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget#Total_revenues_and_spending http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budg...), that would work out to 20$ a year for a population of 360 Million. Adjusted for Youth, which is around 73.9 Million (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/01/census-number-of-youthful-americans-shrinks/1#.Uq9BjPRDuLQ http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012...), we're looking at about 972$ per youth per year. Thats what the governments pays now for the entire system. The teachers, the building costs, the supplies, etc. If we really wanted to have an alternative to public schooling, IMO (I'm an anarchist) it couldn't be done with a voucher system. The best solution is to question school as an institution. It was primarily for very young children and for reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Education_in_the_United_States#Growth_of_public_schools http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Education_in_the_Uni... We need to rethink these institutions and consider the technological advantages. My solution would be to put half of that 70 billion into Libraries, and make the accomodable for children during the day. Make it completely optional.

seabee 13y ago

> authoritarianism (up?) is worse than libertarianism (down?) Hence the 'political compass'[0] although even that is a gross simplification of political opinions and realities. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass

tokenizer 13y ago
But still a thousand times better than the traditional left right divide that most of the populace stops learning at.

anoncowherd 13y ago

>> How do we convince individualists that some services need to be established by the collective itself and not an offshoot (syndicate/business)? We don't, because you're talking about imposing some "services" on other people, which always happens through coercion. We should both be aware that coercion is bad, mm'kay? "But who will build the roads?!" is like asking an anti-slavery activist "but who will pick the cotton?!" - the correct answer is: "who fucking cares? Slavery is immoral and needs to stop." Punishing people for attempting to keep their property (ie. taxation) is immoral too. It's plain to see, for everyone who allows himself to.

sanoli 13y ago
So you're saying public education is immoral, and public health care is immoral. Maybe for the taxpayer it is. I doubt it seems immoral for the child of some poor parents. Or for someone seriously ill who can't afford to go to the private doctor, no matter if they chose not to plan for the future and be financially sound.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  You're overlooking a couple of important things here: 1) Public education is shit anyway, and mostly just meant to indoctrinate us into the Cult of Statism. 2) Private schools would do a vastly better job, for a small fraction of the price. I'm sure you agree on public schools being bad quality, to put it mildly. You might not agree on the indoctrination aspect, but hey, if we want to change things for the better, we can always write to our representatives and of course, vote! Vote the bums out! All hail The Land Of The Free! As for private schools doing a better job, you probably know how competition works. You get better stuff for lower prices.
  - sanoli 13y ago
    But what are you saying should be done instead, a voucher system where families would decide which school to put their money into, or just abolish public funding for education altogether, and let each family fend for themselves?
    - tokenizer 13y ago
      Well considering the cost of the Dept. of Education is 71.9 a year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget#Total_revenues_and_spending http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budg...), that would work out to 20$ a year for a population of 360 Million. Adjusted for Youth, which is around 73.9 Million (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/01/census-number-of-youthful-americans-shrinks/1#.Uq9BjPRDuLQ http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012...), we're looking at about 972$ per youth per year. Thats what the governments pays now for the entire system. The teachers, the building costs, the supplies, etc. If we really wanted to have an alternative to public schooling, IMO (I'm an anarchist) it couldn't be done with a voucher system. The best solution is to question school as an institution. It was primarily for very young children and for reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Education_in_the_United_States#Growth_of_public_schools http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Education_in_the_Uni... We need to rethink these institutions and consider the technological advantages. My solution would be to put half of that 70 billion into Libraries, and make the accomodable for children during the day. Make it completely optional.