Slutty Monarch explains Anarchy (with rebuttals)

[Maj]

The Great Fence Builder split this thread off from the Leakers! thread.

This is because the government should not have any secrets,

Why?

[angelfromanotherpin]

That's what I tried to tell him. But he seems to be all agitated about the idea that anyone could oppose all government secrecy.

This is because opposing all government secrecy is idiotic. DSM is probably concerned that you're stupid enough to play chicken with a train.

I strongly suspect you haven't thought your position through, like at all. Because a lot of government secrets are in fact individual people's secrets. By advocating against all government secrecy, you are in favor of unsealing all court records, all adoption records, all witness protection records, and all census records. The results would range from merely unfair, to personally tragic, to societally destabilizing.

And that's before we get to the part where outing all our spies and publishing the details of our military technology and broadcasting all our sensitive deployment orders would result in the senseless deaths of thousands of people and cripple our military's ability to function.

The government keeps a lot more secrets than it should. But some secrecy is not only desirable, it is fucking necessary. And some more secrecy than that is just common courtesy.

[Kaelik]

This is because the government should not have any secrets,

Why?

Because he is an anarchist. He believes the government shouldn't exist. There are some obvious corollaries, like, the government should have no secrets, take out no loans, no taxes, ect. But focusing on the positions at that scale is missing the point.

He thinks the police shouldn't exist, we are already talking to an insane person.

[infected slut princess]

Why?

The obvious answer is that the government is a criminal organization that by its nature violates the rights of its citizens.

But even from a "pro-democracy" perspective, the public can only decide on issues and voting for public officials if it knows what people in the government are actually doing. Also, since the public has to pay for what the government does, they should know everything about what they do. Anything else is unacceptable.

I strongly suspect you haven't thought your position through, like at all.

Actually, your incredulity over my position, and your uncritical acceptance of the proposition that "government should have secrets" proves that it is in fact you you has not bothered to think through your position. You accept the conventional wisdom which is the epitome of dangerous retardation.

cripple our military's ability to function.

Oh wouldn't that be a shame, we wouldn't want to impair the ability of the US military in its noble functions, like helping Karzai's friends rape little boys or bombing random families with brown skin.

He thinks the police shouldn't exist, we are already talking to an insane person.

The police sometimes do some good things, but in general they exist to enforce unjust laws of the state. People need protection and security, but the state's police rarely provide that for institutional reasons.

The real insane people are those who think the government will give us peace and prosperity. i.e. you and your team of idiots.

[Shrapnel]

Anyone else getting the image of a cloaked figure wielding a bomb labeled "Bomb"?

[Maj]

The obvious answer is that the government is a criminal organization that by its nature violates the rights of its citizens.

Thank you for the response.

Are you speaking of government in general, or just the US' specifically?

[Kaelik]

The police sometimes do some good things, but in general they exist to enforce unjust laws of the state. People need protection and security, but the state's police rarely provide that for institutional reasons.

The real insane people are those who think the government will give us peace and prosperity. i.e. you and your team of idiots.

Move to Somali where you don't have to worry about those evil bad government police and you can hire your pure child soldiers to protect you because there is absolutely no way that lethal force in the hands of private individuals could possibly be used to enforce unjust results. Then you could live in your paradise of no government, and I wouldn't have to deal with you at all.

[infected slut princess]

Are you speaking of government in general, or just the US' specifically?

In general.

Move to Somali where you don't have to worry about those evil bad government police and you can hire your pure child soldiers to protect you because there is absolutely no way that lethal force in the hands of private individuals could possibly be used to enforce unjust results. Then you could live in your paradise of no government, and I wouldn't have to deal with you at all.

Somalia has government.

If you love government so much, move to North Korea. Then the government will take good care of you and protect you and keep any unjust results from happening to you. Then you wouldn't have internet and I woudn't have to deal with you at all.

[Kaelik]

Somalia has government.

But in large territories, the goverment has no actual power, and so no one follows the laws, and they instead have purely private lethal force not subject to any laws that regulate the use of it. IE, your wetdream.

If you love government so much, move to North Korea.

If you love food so much why don't you eat 46 cows in the next five minutes. It's either that or never eat again. THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS!

[infected slut princess]

But in large territories, the goverment has no actual power, and so no one follows the laws, and they instead have purely private lethal force not subject to any laws that regulate the use of it. IE, your wetdream.

Right... roaming criminal gangs running around trying to steal, rape, and murder. In other words: mini-governments. Which I am against, and you are in favor of. So because of that, it seems Somalia is a place you might enjoy. So you are just confusing and confused.

[Koumei]

No, you idiot, they are not mini-governments. They are what you have when there is no government, or no effective government. They might represent the same thing you don't like about governments ("mean people who tell me what to do and who have more power than me"), but they're not the same thing.

Apparently, the only thing that will keep you happy is for you to be elected king of the world, or for the extermination of mankind so that nobody can boss you around like a big meanie.

As it stands, you are claiming the problem with Somalia is it has too much government. I think that might actually be crazier than normal for anarchists.

[Whipstitch]

I love it when the Libertarian types get down to the brass tacks and expose the fact that their worldview effectively treats all cooperation as being evil gubbmint all the way down.

[Kaelik]

Right... roaming criminal gangs running around trying to steal, rape, and murder. In other words: mini-governments. Which I am against, and you are in favor of. So because of that, it seems Somalia is a place you might enjoy. So you are just confusing and confused.

So let's try it this way, here are some premises that result in my conclusion that lack of government will inevitably look like Somali, you tell me which one or ones you disagree with:

1) Lethal Force exists.
2) Not all people will have equal access to lethal force.
3) People want things.
4) At least some people will choose to use lethal force on others to acquire things they want.
4a) The most likely target of the people in 4 is people with less lethal force.

Conclusion: Absent some centralized authority with greater access to lethal force than any other person or collective which promises punishment, some people will use their greater access to lethal force to take things they want.

If you are going to decry governments, and you are going to decry private armies, I really have no fucking idea what you think is going to stop someone from killing you and taking your stuff.

[infected slut princess]

Koumei:
There are many gangs of criminals in the world. Some are seen as legitimate and some are not. Some control just a couple of neighborhoods, others dominate huge nations.

The same way the Earth has different governments, Somalia has different "governments".

Criminal organizations can even operate within areas of government influence. Ever read The Godfather? The Mafia even has a justice system too.

As it stands, you are claiming the problem with Somalia is it has too much government.

Sure, that's true of all countries.

[infected slut princess]

Conclusion: Absent some centralized authority with greater access to lethal force than any other person or collective which promises punishment, some people will use their greater access to lethal force to take things they want.

Like Operation: Iraqi Freedom.

(EDIT: see next post)

If you are going to decry governments, and you are going to decry private armies, I really have no fucking idea what you think is going to stop someone from killing you and taking your stuff.

You know, I've traveled a lot and learned this: Wherever you go, you will probably have to pay off one protection racket or another. But some protection rackets are worse than others.

[Kaelik]

Like Operation: Iraqi Freedom.

This is where I respond to your complete non sequitur by directing you back to the issue:

Which of the fucking premises do you disagree with? If you don't disagree with them at all, explain how you can disagree with the conclusion. If you don't disagree with the conclusion, then fucking admit that, which leads me to:

If you are going to decry governments, and you are going to decry private armies, I really have no fucking idea what you think is going to stop someone from killing you and taking your stuff.

You know, I've traveled a lot and learned this: Wherever you go, you will probably have to pay off one protection racket or another. But some protection rackets are worse than others.

So... you believe that absent government you will be murdered in your sleep? Great, now that you have admitted that government is an improvement over no government and that you want government:

WTF is with all your goddam whining. If you recognize that government is literally the only thing preventing your imminent death then why the fucktarded shit are you whining about how it shouldn't exist, even though you want it and are lying, instead of talking about methods of making it better?

[infected slut princess]

Which of the fucking premises do you disagree with? If you don't disagree with them at all, explain how you can disagree with the conclusion.

None of the premises are an issue. But I think you are missing some premises. Your conclusion does not follow. Your conclusion implies that there should be one government for the whole planet. That is obviously a terrible idea, and is not established by the premises.

So... you believe that absent government you will be murdered in your sleep? Great, now that you have admitted that government is an improvement over no government and that you want government:

I don't know what this foolish argument is supposed to accomplish.

Surely even you must realize people do still actually get murdered in their sleep in places where there are governments. Like Operation: Iraqi Freedom.

[Kaelik]

None of the premises are an issue. But I think you are missing some premises. Your conclusion does not follow. Your conclusion implies that there should be one government for the whole planet. That is obviously a terrible idea, and is not established by the premises.

Um... what? How does my conclusion imply that there should be one government for the entire world? You might as well complain that my conclusion demands that I conquer the universe for all the sense you are making.

My conclusion is that absent collective action, shit sucks to the max. No part of that means that it can't suck to max with collective action, or any statement about the best form of collective action. Because that shit is way to high level for someone claiming that governments are criminal organizations and shouldn't exist. It is literally impossible to be a criminal without being under a government, so your strange nonsense doesn't even make sense to itself.

Once you admit that government is necessary and should exist, because only with government can shit suck to any level aside from the max, then and only then can any conversation occur about what the ideal scope and form of government would be.

I don't know what this foolish argument is supposed to accomplish.

Surely even you must realize people do still actually get murdered in their sleep in places where there are governments.

It is supposed to get you to admit that governments can makes things better, or keep them the same as the mythical no government land where everyone gets murdered in their sleep. And then, once you admit that, you can narrow your criticisms of specific governments to relevant issues worth discussing instead of saying "It is bad for the State of Sweden to provide food and housing for poor people because North Korea doesn't."

[infected slut princess]

Kaelik:

That's why you didn't understand the Operation: Iraqi Freedom reference. If you need a government to prevent everyone from murdering each other, you logically need a super-government to prevent all the governments and different people of different nations from murdering each other. Different governments of different territorial areas are in a state of anarchy relative to one another.

Absent some centralized authority with greater access to lethal force than any other person or collective which promises punishment, some people will use their greater access to lethal force to take things they want.

That was your conclusion.
--------------

It's actually hard to see how the state can represent an improvement over the "state of nature" where everyone supposedly murders each other to the max. The Hobbesian thesis is problematic, because even if you think people will murder each other to the max, the government is still made up of people. They would not change their natures just because they were part of the government. Sure, the state might make peace between Bob and Johnny, but only so it can plunder them more profitably. That's what protection rackets do. There is a contradiction inherent in the idea of a protector who exploits the protected.

The government is nothing more than a fancy kind of protection racket with a fancy excuse (divine right, vox populi, or whatever). The empirical observation that there are protection rackets everywhere, and that some protection rackets hurt their victims less than others, does not create moral justification for any of those protection rackets.

[Kaelik]

If you need a government to prevent everyone from murdering each other, you logically need a super-government to prevent all the governments and different people of different nations from murdering each other. Different governments of different territorial areas are in a state of anarchy relative to one another.

You sleep. Governments don't actually need to sleep. It is perfectly possible that all governments be equally capable of murdering each other at all times. The inequality of force the is inherent in individuals is not inherent in governments. Now frankly, I don't object to a single world government either, because Sweden is grand, and if Sweden ruled everything exactly like they do Sweden that would also be grand, but government's have qualities individuals do not.

the government is still made up of people. They would not change their natures just because they were part of the government. Sure, the state might make peace between Bob and Johnny, but only so it can plunder them more profitably. That's what protection rackets do. There is a contradiction inherent in the idea of a protector who exploits the protected.

If you and your friend get together, and he helps you move, and you help him move, who is the exploiter and who is being exploited? Is Obama exploiting me? Fuck no he isn't, I'm getting way the fuck more out of him than he is getting out of me, even if he is getting one six-millionth of his ability to shoot missiles (which frankly, he isn't, but presumably eventually I will pay taxes).

The government is nothing more than a fancy kind of protection racket with a fancy excuse (divine right, vox populi, or whatever).

No see, a protection racket is a specific thing. Protection is different than a protection racket. In a protection racket, someone shows up where you live, and says that they are going to break your shit unless you pay them. Protection is where you show up where someone else lives and offer to give them something in return for being protected.

Those are two different things. Most recognized states are the second one. The US isn't going to track me down and break my fingers for not paying them if I don't use their services. But just like you can't move into a home in an association without agreeing to their terms, you can't enter the US without agreeing to theirs. That doesn't mean homeowners are threatening to break your fingers.

The empirical observation that there are protection rackets everywhere, and that some protection rackets hurt their victims less than others, does not create moral justification for any of those protection rackets.

Yes it fucking does. Even aside from your failure of language, the fact that some things are better than others creates a moral justification for the things that are better. Since you agree that living under governments is better than not, you are agreeing that governments are morally justifiable as opposed to no governments.

Or else you are advocating that something is more important than the safety and happiness and continued existence of people. And if you are advocating for that, you have to damn well tell us what it is because I sure as fuck can't think of anything.

[infected slut princess]

It is perfectly possible that all governments be equally capable of murdering each other at all times. The inequality of force the is inherent in individuals is not inherent in governments.

I don't really understand this., If your "inequality of force" is not inherent in governments, it cannot be inherent in the individuals, because individuals compose the governmnt. If it's "perfectly possible/" that all governments be equally capable of murdering each other at all times (as was not the case for Operation: Iraqi Freedom), that must be true of individuals as well. The government is still a bunch of humans. Maybe you could explain this better, because I don't think it helps your case.

Anyway, I have no idea why it should matter care that you don't personally feel exploited by your government. Many people benefit from the state's actions. For example, the American defense industry is unlikely to feel it is being exploited by the US government. The banks around the world who get government bailouts are unlikely to feel like they are being exploited. Or maybe they still do. So what? I would certainly expect those who are enriched by means of the state would not feel they are being exploited!

The state is indeed a sophisticated form of protection racket. The state has no rightful claim to its territory, so your comparison to homeowners makes no sense. Since your torturous logic cannot escape the truth that states are protection rackets, you should insteadf try to justify why it is good to have a protection racket at all.

We have different views of morality. You seem to think something is justified just because something else is worse. I think this is s mistake . If one murder is bad, but two murders is worse, the one murder is not therefore justified. It's "better", but it's not a good thing. Same with protection rackets -- all of them are bad, but the ones that are less bad are not justified because other ones are worse.

[Kaelik]

I don't really understand this., If your "inequality of force" is not inherent in governments, it cannot be inherent in the individuals, because individuals compose the governmnt. If it's "perfectly possible/" that all governments be equally capable of murdering each other at all times, that must be true of individuals as well. The government is still a bunch of humans.

No. That is not actually how it works at all. You see, if all the individual parts of something at a very small level don't have a property, the greater whole can still have that property. All humans must sleep, inequality of force exists between sleeping people and awake people. Governments, despite being composed of people who sleep, do not need to sleep. This is really fucking basic.

If all the governments have fingers on nukes, then all the governments have equal ability to murderate each other. If all the individuals have their fingers on nukes, eventually they are going to have to sleep.

The state has no rightful claim to its territory, so your comparison to homeowners makes no sense.

I'm sorry you fucking retarded monkey shit, if the US government doesn't have rightful claim to territory then how the fuck do you think a homeowners association that derives it's right to property from the US government (or some other government) does have a rightful claim?

You need to take a step back and define how people obtain "rightful" claims to territory or property of any kind, because I can think of literally no possible system imaginable that gives you a rightful claim to your house, but doesn't give the US government a rightful claim to your house.

We have different views of morality. You seem to think something is justified just because something else is worse. I think this is s mistake . If one murder is bad, but two murders is worse, the one murder is not therefore justified. It's "better", but it's not a good thing. Same with protection rackets -- all of them are bad, but the ones that are less bad are not justified because other ones are worse.

You are skipping a step. You keep calling things bad, but compared to what? If the Swedish government is literally the best possible situation, then how the fuck do you go about calling it bad? You have already admitted that absent government is worse than with government, so if you can't name a single alternative that is better, then yes, the literal best possible universe is justified.

Propose any better system at all before you start calling something bad.

[nockermensch]

But in large territories, the goverment has no actual power, and so no one follows the laws, and they instead have purely private lethal force not subject to any laws that regulate the use of it. IE, your wetdream.

Right... roaming criminal gangs running around trying to steal, rape, and murder. In other words: mini-governments. Which I am against, and you are in favor of. So because of that, it seems Somalia is a place you might enjoy. So you are just confusing and confused.

Oh, I see. You define "government" as "humans doing things I don't like".

[violence in the media]

Is it still "government" if those people band together to rebuild your house after a tornado? What if they then decide that this was such a rousing success and good idea that everyone is going to do this the next time a tornado comes around? Is it government if they band together to prevent you from squatting in any of their yards when your house is in ruins because you wouldn't participate in the "rebuild houses" program earlier?

[hyzmarca]

Is it still "government" if those people band together to rebuild your house after a tornado? What if they then decide that this was such a rousing success and good idea that everyone is going to do this the next time a tornado comes around? Is it government if they band together to prevent you from squatting in any of their yards when your house is in ruins because you wouldn't participate in the "rebuild houses" program earlier?

Government is defined as a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. The question of what qualifies as legitimate is open for debate, but it is certainly the case that organizations which do not or cannot use force or threat of force to enforce their edicts are not governments.

However, roving bands of rapists are not governments, because they fail the monopoly on legitimate use of requirement. A roving band of rapist only qualifies as a government if it claims the exclusive right to rape within a given territory and enforces that claim.

I love it when the Libertarian types get down to the brass tacks and expose the fact that their worldview effectively treats all cooperation as being evil gubbmint all the way down.

Actual sane anarchists want a system where everyone takes it in turns being a sort of executive officer for the week but all decisions have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. Because expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you. If I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.