8 ms·

> The only true worthwhile revolution comes when people realize they don't need anyone to rule them. When the majority realizes that, no more revolutions and vi

by scribu 13y ago

> The only true worthwhile revolution comes when people realize they don't need anyone to rule them. When the majority realizes that, no more revolutions and violence can follow. Indeed, in an anarchy, you don't have any regime to stage revolutions against. But violence? Oh, you'd get plenty of that. It would just be distributed, instead of organized: survival of the fittest.

snitko 13y ago
States did a great job convincing people that anarchy == violence. Yet what is the evidence for that? If you look at history, an average state over the course of, say, 10 years, murdered more people than the bloodiest of all anarchists did over his lifetime. And then you should also understand that anarchy doesn't mean no laws and policing. It means that people choose to live by the laws they want (and not by voting, but by becoming customers of different law firms) and people choose private protection agencies to pay to instead of being bitten by state police troopers if they disobey. If people decide they don't like the service, they stop paying and go to a competitor. Now try doing that with a state and taxation.
- ajuc 13y ago
  My law firm (also a protection service) has simple rules - in all conflicts with clients of other law firms our clients are right by default. We have the best security enforcers, so we can deliver on that rule, too. We may be expansive, but having your home burned cause you signed with inferior security provider is far more expansive, right? How exactly this situation differs from payign mafia for protection? At least with state there's just one mafia to pay off, and you can vote for the godfather every few years.
  - snitko 13y ago
    If that's the rule of your firm then it is going to go out of business pretty fast. Why? Because if you insist that your clients are always right then you will inevitably get into violent conflicts with other firms. Violence is expensive and since you can't really print money and raise taxes like governments do, you only have this limited amount of money from your customers. As a businessmen, you want to make money, not lose it. Thus, you'd have to really calculate whether it is better to lose a couple of your customers and money by not insisting they are right when they obviously are not, or lose a lot more money by getting into violent conflicts. Conflicts which, by the way, you will inevitably lose, because other firms don't have the rule you have and decide to resolve conflicts among themselves peacefully, while you, on the other hand, are at war with all of them. Apply logic to your hypothetical situation instead of FUD and you will see how things will work. Governments are simply monopolies on power and law and we know very well monopolies do not work out good for customers.
    - scribu 13y ago
      So if other firms can decide to resolve conflicts among themselves peacefully, then they can also decide to band together into a federation that serves their interests. Monopolies form because they're efficient. If you say that regular people will prevent that, then you're just back to having violent revolutions, except against monopolies, instead of governments.
      - snitko 13y ago
        Monopolies and cartels don't exist for long unless governments subsidize them or otherwise help by regulating the industry (and not allowing new players to disrupt the market). You will hardly find an example of a monopoly which was not supported by the government in one form or another. In the free market cartels break down very fast, because one member eventually decides to defect or because another powerful player comes to the market and realizes he can make a lot of money by providing customers with a better and cheaper service than the cartel members. Generally, if most people agree they don't want rulers, there will be no rulers. The only reason why governments keep their power is because the managed to convince people that the alternative is a complete chaos and destruction, while in reality it is only governments who create chaos and destruction on an unimaginable scale. Even the most oppressive government can't go for a long time using just force, it has to lie and convince people. If it can't, it is brought down.
        ajuc 13y ago
        Have you ever heard the term "natural monopoly"? It can form because of network effects, big upfront costs, market entry barriers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
        snitko 13y ago
        And to that I should respond with an article called "The Myth of Natural Monopoly" http://mises.org/daily/5266 http://mises.org/daily/5266
  - eatitraw 13y ago
    Well, you have to establish such protection agency first. You start your business, run advertising, etc. People come to you and pay for your services. Most people don't want to rob and kill other people, they want peace and protection, and they pay you for such things. Now, what incentive do you have to blindly protect every robber who payed you? If you try to prevent punishment of a robber, your current(as well as potential) customers won't view your services as desirable, and simply won't pay you. Then you go out of business. I think Murray Rothbard makes a better argument(while dissecting many common objections similar to yours). I recommend the chapter "Police, Law, and the Courts" from his book "For a new liberty: the libertarian manifesto" : http://mises.org/document/1010/For-a-New-Liberty-The-Libertarian-Manifesto http://mises.org/document/1010/For-a-New-Liberty-The-Liberta...
- nhaehnle 13y ago
  What you call anarchism is really a very specific subcategory called anarcho-capitalism. In any case, it is similarly naive as other strands of anarchism. Power vacuums will inevitably be filled. The question is: What do you want them to be filled with.
  - snitko 13y ago
    Calling something naive doesn't make it so. Saying "Power vacuums will inevitably be filled" doesn't make it true because you say so. What if there is no power vacuums and people don't want to be ruled by anyone? Is there anything to be filled then? What I personally consider to be naive is the idea that governance is inevitable, but that's no logical argument against government, so I don't go around saying it.
    - nhaehnle 13y ago
      Anarchism very explicitly calls for a power vacuum to be created. That's actually what the word means. Now, I can easily believe that a majority of people wouldn't want to be ruled by anyone, but what do you do about the minority who want to rule over the rest? Society needs a response against this minority, and this response needs to be organized somehow. Somebody will be in a role of organizing the defense of society against those who would seek to rule over it. But now it sounds as if that somebody (or somebodies) are in a pretty powerful position, no? This is why so many anarchists are so counter-productive. Of course the basic notions of allowing personal liberty and to be baseline-skeptical against authority are good. The thing is, you won't actually achieve personal liberty by just getting rid of any sort of government-like thing. It would be more productive to discuss what kind of government is best suited to protect personal personal liberty. Note that none of this is a defense of governments as they exist today. It is more a reminder that those who most seek to overthrow what they perceive to be the current oppressors are the most likely to end up being the future oppressors. Or, in comic form: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3246#comic http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3246#comic
      - snitko 13y ago
        > It is more a reminder that those who most seek to overthrow what they perceive to be the current oppressors are the most likely to end up being the future oppressors Precisely. This is why I'm no fan of revolutions. > Society needs a response against this minority, and this response needs to be organized somehow If I hire a protection/defense agency to guard against those who wish to rule me, this agency only has a very limited amount of money and power. It cannot tax me indefinitely and it cannot print money. If I suspect it does something wrong with my money, I go to a competitor - and trust me, there will be plenty willing to have my money and do a better job. Now, as I mentioned, this is only possible if people understand there need not be any force ruling them. If people think that they just need better rulers (like, I guess, they do in Ukraine, and like they do in Russia) then they are doomed to be enslaved by their rulers without regard for their interests. Thus, I agree with you that the vacuum has to be filled if it exists (if people believe they need a ruler), but if it doesn't exist then nothing can fill it. That's why I said the problem is in the people's minds, the problem is that they believe they need a better government.
- bananacurve 13y ago
  The problem with living in an anarchist collective is that no one does the dishes.
  - snitko 13y ago
    That's a very abstract statement. What kind of dishes are we talking about? Also, I'm not talking collectivism here. As was pointed out by another user, I'm talking about a specific form of anarchy which is anarcho-capitalism or market-anarchism. In my opinion, it is only governments which usually don't give a crap about their citizens. Or at best, they do give a crap, but it's still much much worse than private businesses, because there is no feedback loop in the form of prices and business-customer relationship.
    - bananacurve 13y ago
      The closest I have come to anarchy is off-campus housing. Are there examples of your ideas working in real life?
      - snitko 13y ago
        Think about how many things in our lives we do that governments don't control. We get married, we choose what to learn, what occupation to pick and what to work on, we choose whom to become friends with. All of those things are done in complete anarchy yet those are all very important things and decisions! No one in the western world who's in their right mind would suggest that it's a good idea for government to start controlling those things. Now how come I can't choose what laws I can live by? I don't see people suggesting we all vote for one specific kind of car we are all going to drive for the next 4 years. Yet when it comes to laws it is considered normal that one group suffers because another, slightly more powerful group, wants them to live by their rules. If you're talking about examples of societies with no government then there are a couple of those in history (Iceland and Ireland being two of them), but the more important point is that sometimes you don't have examples. If you went back to the 17-th century, would you find any example of a country where slavery was outlawed? Yet these days, it is gone almost completely and remains only in illegal forms.
- tripzilch 13y ago
  Who will take care of the disabled and the elderly? If your answer to that is to let it depend on the goodwill of the community/family (to do it themselves or pay syndicates to do it), you're setting things up for a large number of people to be left rotting in the streets.
marcosdumay 13y ago
Well, that's quite a jump from "people ... don't need anyone to rule them" into anarchy. Why do you think both concepts are equivalent?
- snitko 13y ago
  Actually that's what I meant, indeed, so he was spot on. Anarchy means no rulers. It doesn't mean absence of law and order and violent gangs of rapists running on the streets with molotov cocktails and baseball bats. Law and order are provided not by a violent monopolist (government), but instead by the free market.
  - marcosdumay 13y ago
    Yeah, ok, then you are jumping to the same conclusion, and my comment was completely orthogonal to the discussion. Anyway, still offtopic, I'm quite eager for the reasons why you both discard democracy (no rulers, but government exist) without even a comment (am I missing something that obvious?).
    - snitko 13y ago
      I don't suggest governments should exist. I think you had mistaken law and order for government. Think of it this way: law and order are services. Government is just one way of providing those services.

by scribu 13y ago

snitko 13y ago

States did a great job convincing people that anarchy == violence. Yet what is the evidence for that? If you look at history, an average state over the course of, say, 10 years, murdered more people than the bloodiest of all anarchists did over his lifetime. And then you should also understand that anarchy doesn't mean no laws and policing. It means that people choose to live by the laws they want (and not by voting, but by becoming customers of different law firms) and people choose private protection agencies to pay to instead of being bitten by state police troopers if they disobey. If people decide they don't like the service, they stop paying and go to a competitor. Now try doing that with a state and taxation.

ajuc 13y ago
My law firm (also a protection service) has simple rules - in all conflicts with clients of other law firms our clients are right by default. We have the best security enforcers, so we can deliver on that rule, too. We may be expansive, but having your home burned cause you signed with inferior security provider is far more expansive, right? How exactly this situation differs from payign mafia for protection? At least with state there's just one mafia to pay off, and you can vote for the godfather every few years.
- snitko 13y ago
  If that's the rule of your firm then it is going to go out of business pretty fast. Why? Because if you insist that your clients are always right then you will inevitably get into violent conflicts with other firms. Violence is expensive and since you can't really print money and raise taxes like governments do, you only have this limited amount of money from your customers. As a businessmen, you want to make money, not lose it. Thus, you'd have to really calculate whether it is better to lose a couple of your customers and money by not insisting they are right when they obviously are not, or lose a lot more money by getting into violent conflicts. Conflicts which, by the way, you will inevitably lose, because other firms don't have the rule you have and decide to resolve conflicts among themselves peacefully, while you, on the other hand, are at war with all of them. Apply logic to your hypothetical situation instead of FUD and you will see how things will work. Governments are simply monopolies on power and law and we know very well monopolies do not work out good for customers.
  - scribu 13y ago
    So if other firms can decide to resolve conflicts among themselves peacefully, then they can also decide to band together into a federation that serves their interests. Monopolies form because they're efficient. If you say that regular people will prevent that, then you're just back to having violent revolutions, except against monopolies, instead of governments.
    - snitko 13y ago
      Monopolies and cartels don't exist for long unless governments subsidize them or otherwise help by regulating the industry (and not allowing new players to disrupt the market). You will hardly find an example of a monopoly which was not supported by the government in one form or another. In the free market cartels break down very fast, because one member eventually decides to defect or because another powerful player comes to the market and realizes he can make a lot of money by providing customers with a better and cheaper service than the cartel members. Generally, if most people agree they don't want rulers, there will be no rulers. The only reason why governments keep their power is because the managed to convince people that the alternative is a complete chaos and destruction, while in reality it is only governments who create chaos and destruction on an unimaginable scale. Even the most oppressive government can't go for a long time using just force, it has to lie and convince people. If it can't, it is brought down.
      - ajuc 13y ago
        Have you ever heard the term "natural monopoly"? It can form because of network effects, big upfront costs, market entry barriers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
        snitko 13y ago
        And to that I should respond with an article called "The Myth of Natural Monopoly" http://mises.org/daily/5266 http://mises.org/daily/5266
- eatitraw 13y ago
  Well, you have to establish such protection agency first. You start your business, run advertising, etc. People come to you and pay for your services. Most people don't want to rob and kill other people, they want peace and protection, and they pay you for such things. Now, what incentive do you have to blindly protect every robber who payed you? If you try to prevent punishment of a robber, your current(as well as potential) customers won't view your services as desirable, and simply won't pay you. Then you go out of business. I think Murray Rothbard makes a better argument(while dissecting many common objections similar to yours). I recommend the chapter "Police, Law, and the Courts" from his book "For a new liberty: the libertarian manifesto" : http://mises.org/document/1010/For-a-New-Liberty-The-Libertarian-Manifesto http://mises.org/document/1010/For-a-New-Liberty-The-Liberta...
nhaehnle 13y ago
What you call anarchism is really a very specific subcategory called anarcho-capitalism. In any case, it is similarly naive as other strands of anarchism. Power vacuums will inevitably be filled. The question is: What do you want them to be filled with.
- snitko 13y ago
  Calling something naive doesn't make it so. Saying "Power vacuums will inevitably be filled" doesn't make it true because you say so. What if there is no power vacuums and people don't want to be ruled by anyone? Is there anything to be filled then? What I personally consider to be naive is the idea that governance is inevitable, but that's no logical argument against government, so I don't go around saying it.
  - nhaehnle 13y ago
    Anarchism very explicitly calls for a power vacuum to be created. That's actually what the word means. Now, I can easily believe that a majority of people wouldn't want to be ruled by anyone, but what do you do about the minority who want to rule over the rest? Society needs a response against this minority, and this response needs to be organized somehow. Somebody will be in a role of organizing the defense of society against those who would seek to rule over it. But now it sounds as if that somebody (or somebodies) are in a pretty powerful position, no? This is why so many anarchists are so counter-productive. Of course the basic notions of allowing personal liberty and to be baseline-skeptical against authority are good. The thing is, you won't actually achieve personal liberty by just getting rid of any sort of government-like thing. It would be more productive to discuss what kind of government is best suited to protect personal personal liberty. Note that none of this is a defense of governments as they exist today. It is more a reminder that those who most seek to overthrow what they perceive to be the current oppressors are the most likely to end up being the future oppressors. Or, in comic form: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3246#comic http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3246#comic
    - snitko 13y ago
      > It is more a reminder that those who most seek to overthrow what they perceive to be the current oppressors are the most likely to end up being the future oppressors Precisely. This is why I'm no fan of revolutions. > Society needs a response against this minority, and this response needs to be organized somehow If I hire a protection/defense agency to guard against those who wish to rule me, this agency only has a very limited amount of money and power. It cannot tax me indefinitely and it cannot print money. If I suspect it does something wrong with my money, I go to a competitor - and trust me, there will be plenty willing to have my money and do a better job. Now, as I mentioned, this is only possible if people understand there need not be any force ruling them. If people think that they just need better rulers (like, I guess, they do in Ukraine, and like they do in Russia) then they are doomed to be enslaved by their rulers without regard for their interests. Thus, I agree with you that the vacuum has to be filled if it exists (if people believe they need a ruler), but if it doesn't exist then nothing can fill it. That's why I said the problem is in the people's minds, the problem is that they believe they need a better government.
bananacurve 13y ago
The problem with living in an anarchist collective is that no one does the dishes.
- snitko 13y ago
  That's a very abstract statement. What kind of dishes are we talking about? Also, I'm not talking collectivism here. As was pointed out by another user, I'm talking about a specific form of anarchy which is anarcho-capitalism or market-anarchism. In my opinion, it is only governments which usually don't give a crap about their citizens. Or at best, they do give a crap, but it's still much much worse than private businesses, because there is no feedback loop in the form of prices and business-customer relationship.
  - bananacurve 13y ago
    The closest I have come to anarchy is off-campus housing. Are there examples of your ideas working in real life?
    - snitko 13y ago
      Think about how many things in our lives we do that governments don't control. We get married, we choose what to learn, what occupation to pick and what to work on, we choose whom to become friends with. All of those things are done in complete anarchy yet those are all very important things and decisions! No one in the western world who's in their right mind would suggest that it's a good idea for government to start controlling those things. Now how come I can't choose what laws I can live by? I don't see people suggesting we all vote for one specific kind of car we are all going to drive for the next 4 years. Yet when it comes to laws it is considered normal that one group suffers because another, slightly more powerful group, wants them to live by their rules. If you're talking about examples of societies with no government then there are a couple of those in history (Iceland and Ireland being two of them), but the more important point is that sometimes you don't have examples. If you went back to the 17-th century, would you find any example of a country where slavery was outlawed? Yet these days, it is gone almost completely and remains only in illegal forms.
tripzilch 13y ago
Who will take care of the disabled and the elderly? If your answer to that is to let it depend on the goodwill of the community/family (to do it themselves or pay syndicates to do it), you're setting things up for a large number of people to be left rotting in the streets.

marcosdumay 13y ago

Well, that's quite a jump from "people ... don't need anyone to rule them" into anarchy. Why do you think both concepts are equivalent?

snitko 13y ago
Actually that's what I meant, indeed, so he was spot on. Anarchy means no rulers. It doesn't mean absence of law and order and violent gangs of rapists running on the streets with molotov cocktails and baseball bats. Law and order are provided not by a violent monopolist (government), but instead by the free market.
- marcosdumay 13y ago
  Yeah, ok, then you are jumping to the same conclusion, and my comment was completely orthogonal to the discussion. Anyway, still offtopic, I'm quite eager for the reasons why you both discard democracy (no rulers, but government exist) without even a comment (am I missing something that obvious?).
  - snitko 13y ago
    I don't suggest governments should exist. I think you had mistaken law and order for government. Think of it this way: law and order are services. Government is just one way of providing those services.