Chris Byrne over at The Anarchangel , posted an interesting and informative video. In fact the two teenagers in residence will be viewing it shortly.
But Chris waves the red flag of political common sense, and of course, one of the “Bulls(hitters) of Anarchy” charge to the fore, in his comments.
First let me state, I am all for someone being “idealistic”. I imagine we all are to some degree or another, depending on the cause. HOWEVER, don’t most people, upon applying reason, logic, the reality of “the way things are”,
and human nature (both pluses and minuses of same), tempering their idealism, come to the conclusion(s) this would be great, in a perfect world … but it ain’t agonna work here?
Yes, I am beating the semi-comatose horse, otherwise known as Anarchy. And the following is from Chris’s comments. I brought it over here. Read it and weep:
Mr. Byrne, why would I ignore this video? I’m more than willing to point out its inconsistencies.
First things first, however. You yourself said that every man has an absolute right to his labor and the fruits of his labor. How do you reconcile that belief with your belief that taxation (the taking of property through force or threat thereof) is just?
Now, concerning the video. There are a few straw men having the stuffing beaten out of them. The narrator says that in an anarchy, everyone is an island. He intimates that no one can band together to provide mutual protection, or even hire a third party to provide protection of one’s home or property. Bull. Anarchists are not black-clad, sulky goth teenagers chucking molotov cocktails at WTO meetings. Those are socialist delinquents. Anarchists hold the bizzare claim that no one may initiate violence or fraud against any other man. Now, it doesn’t take a state apparatus with a God-bestowed policeman complete with a shiny badge and “authoritah” to protect another man’s home or goods for pay. I remember the times when people were squalling because ambulance services were being de-monopolized: taken out of the control of the local states. In a competitive market, services became cheaper, more efficient, and of a better quality. I remember those good old days when people mocked the idea, “Oh, anarchy, where private companies run the roads. Haw!” Well, yes, actually. Bankrupt state after bankrupt state are selling off their garbage-quality roads to private companies, who, in fact, will be funding them with a pay-as-you-go toll system. The state of California sold off some of the roads there to a private company, and they’ve been running more efficiently, with less traffic, and on better roads ever since.
You don’t believe in anarchy. That it could ever work. Yet as others have said before me, it is precisely what already exists among the several States all over the world. There is no State of States ruling over all. No final arbiter of disputes. Sometimes, States go to war. That happens. But for the most part, the people who live under various States interact peacefully, in a mutually beneficial manner.
Statists are unable to separate “society” and “State” in their minds. Society can and does exist without the State. Society is a mutually beneficial system of voluntary interactions among men. Throw a monopoly on violence into a society, and you have slavery, to one degree or another. Under this particular system of States, we work for our masters about 40% of every day.
I’m not sorry that I am unable to rationalize the act of taking a gun and forcing non-violent people to pay money, and to imprison or kill them if they resist. Even if the money is going to an orphanage for mentally retarded crippled children. The end does not justify the means. Though moral consequentialists might say the end does justify the means, I could prove to them in about 30 seconds that they don’t really believe such nonsense.
Now, here is a video for Statists. It is very simple. There aren’t even any voices speaking. But it lays out the tenets of liberty very well. Mr. Byrne, I think you will find many things you agree with. And if you were able to follow true axioms to their ultimate and logical conclusions, you too would become an anarchist.
Ok, took a look a kboe’s youtube link. On the plus side, the music IS soothing. On the negative side …
Damn it people! Yeah, in a perfect world, with perfect, or near-perfect, humans, something very much like an Ancarchist Utopia, might just work. We ain’t perfect, or even close to being perfect. It won’t work. It can never work.
Until some body of human kind are able to arrive at a form of social/cultural/political harmony that is better then (the original form of ) our Representative Republic. That is about as good as we are going to find.
Great flick Chris!! And you are correct sir, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Guy S, “Not being perfect” does not justify the action of initiating violence, just as, “I was angry, I’m not perfect” does not justify hauling off and hitting someone.
There is no doubt that a Constitutional Republic is less evil than some States in the world. That does not mean it is good.
” … as I have said before, the difference between a “government” and a “state” is that one is run by a group of people who believe they have the right to initiate violence against non-violent people.
There is a difference between initiating force and using force to defend oneself or another. Do you see the difference? It is just for a group of people banding together or voluntarily paying another to protect what is theirs. It is wrong, on the other hand, for a group of people to think that because for the sole reason that they are more numerous, that they have the right to impose their wills on other people at gunpoint.
And you sir, miss (intentionally or otherwise) my point entirely. Isn’t it ironic that the very self same human nature which allows men to dream of a Utopian (in this case Anarchistic) society, is the same thing which prevents if from ever being a viable societal state. Our own failings prevent this from being a realist option. *sigh*
Guy, I never said an anarchic society would be utopian. I simply said that it is the only moral type of society. I said that the imperfections in men, the fact that people do initiate violence against others, does not justify initiating violence against others as a means of stopping others from initiating violence.
The taxation-based coercive state requires violence against innocent people. That is immoral and unjust. You cannot give moral support to any institution founded upon initiating violence against non-aggressors.
But then, I’ve heard lots of people say, “Ha… the Golden Rule. How quaint. Too bad people don’t live by it.” Saying that most people do not live by the Golden Rule is not a justification for refusing to live by the Golden Rule, is it?
the imperfections in men, the fact that people do initiate violence against others, does not justify initiating violence against others as a means of stopping others from initiating violence.
Aside from getting a headache reading (and rereading just to be sure) the above, just one question comes to mind. How in the bloody hell, are you supposed to stop others (be they alone, in small groups, mobs, or nation-states) from initiating violence?
Appeasement never works, history has shown us that (repeatedly). And “half-stepping” in “limited combat” or “free-fire only zones”, only prolongs the pain, and suffering one ultimately seeks to resolve/prevent. The only proper answer when the wolf(s) comes to your door…is kill the wolf(s) without hesitation.
Guy S. You don’t stop others from initiating violence. You stop their violent acts. But you do not have the right to do that through taxation. Because taxation is, in itself, an initiation of violence.
Violence is only just if used in self-defense directly against an aggressor. Is that not true?
Folks, just taking Kolbe’s last statement … “You don’t stop others from initiating violence. You stop their violent acts.”. Huh??!! If an individual, group, or state, is “initiating violence” (and someone correct me if I am wrong) they are in the process of being violent are they not?? Which makes them “an aggressor”. Which would make “violence” (as you put it) justified. And this is just the last sentence in a montage of ( I will give him points for good intentions … anything to help him pave the way toward the ultimate ending place where those with good intentions end up.) well intentioned pseudo-philosophical glop, destined to give the reader intellectual heart burn.
Still, perhaps I missed something. This is your opportunity to come rally at my side, or join forces with the intellectually stunted. The floor is open.
It has been (quite correctly) brought to my attention, in my passion to showcase a drinker of the Anarchist kool-ade, that I stepped over the boundaries of civility on the net. The party involved was kind and gracious enough to allow me the use of his comments for this post, after we exchanged a message or two.
The fact remains (best of intentions or not) I was wrong. And so I publicly apologize here. Chris, please excuse my cloddish behavior. It will not happen again. In any case, I have also modified what was used, leaving only the comments from myself and the party this post is about.
And yes, the floor is still open.