Post by: freakazoid on August 28, 2007, 09:20:40 PM
Quote
If they are examples of anarchy, I'll have some government please. If you think they had it better, then you are naive.
Living a simple life sure does suck?
Quote
I prefer your pictures of wannabe revolutionaries in black. Better that anarchism be represented for the adolescent daydream that it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbIpgGKtj5Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzjuE5ahetA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUig0lFHDDw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR7dNntU5oI
^^ Man would you just look at that young whippersnapper.
Quote
The North American indians did not fare well against a better organized invading government. I'll take my risks with a government... worts and all.
So you would of sided with the Nazis if you thought that they were going to win?
Quote
If there were no government, within ten minutes a couple busybodies would get together to form one. laugh
And you would have all of the anarchist fighting them.
Quote
From what I understand, those anarchists who aren't merely looking for a good time throwing stones and acting rowdy believe that society can cooperate via voluntary contracts and "syndicates."
That's because the media doesn't show why they did what they did.
In this you kind of get an inside look, sort of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ9iQoSW9jk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVmfQzo7NHo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM1Mghp32Fk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dYh7KqR3n4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjrRRbbvc30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cd3m5wqwZ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaZVzQOm-_U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwSCDgdB5fc
Quote
Show me a single historical example of a stable anarchy. Just one.
What do you mean by stable?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA5.html And again, the Indians.
From the Notes On Virginia by Thomas Jefferson.
Quote
This practice results from the circumstance of their having never submitted themselves to any laws, any coercive power, any shadow of government. Their only controuls are their manners, and that moral sense of right and wrong, which, like the sense of tasting and feeling, in every man makes a part of his nature. An offence against these is punished by contempt, by exclusion from society, or, where the case is serious, as that of murder, by the individuals whom it concerns. Imperfect as this species of coercion may seem, crimes are very rare among them: insomuch that were it made a question, whether no law, as among the savage Americans, or too much law, as among the civilized Europeans, submits man to the greatest evil, one who has seen both conditions of existence would pronounce it to be the last: and that the sheep are happier of themselves, than under care of the wolves. It will be said, that great societies cannot exist without government. The Savages therefore break them into small ones.
There is also a really great quote about the Indians from the Journals of Lewis and Clark but it is currently in storage,
When I get it out I'll post it. But what it pretty much states is that the "Chiefs" were not kings, they were just a wise person.You know some of you with responses like,
Quote
They don't seem to realize that if you tear down what exists, the historical odds are you won't like what replaces it at all.
sound a lot like the anti-gunners. They say that people can't be trusted with guns, your saying that people can't be trusted without government. It is just "common sense" laws. If you can't trust the people without government then how can you trust people with guns? Or do you think that there should be restrictions on firearms? What do you need a full-auto rifle for? After all they are only made for killing. <_<
Post by: The Rabbi on August 28, 2007, 11:51:21 PM
A believer in anarchy who can't spell and uses specious reasoning. Gotta love it. Welcome to the forum. Sit back and enjoy the recoil.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 29, 2007, 01:53:06 AM
Post by: Jamisjockey on August 29, 2007, 02:35:45 AM
Post by: lee n. field on August 29, 2007, 03:36:32 AM
Quote
I was gonna start a thread on anarchy. No fair.
<shrug>. In good anarchist fashion, start your thread on anarchy.
Yet another way Linux is superior: the Debian Anarchism FAQ. (Alas, last I looked this was covered only the Euroleft claptrap variant of socialist anarchism, not the American style "libertarianism on steroids" free market anarchism.)
Post by: MechAg94 on August 29, 2007, 06:09:55 AM
Quote
They don't seem to realize that if you tear down what exists, the historical odds are you won't like what replaces it at all.
sound a lot like the anti-gunners. They say that people can't be trusted with guns, your saying that people can't be trusted without government. It is just "common sense" laws. If you can't trust the people without government then how can you trust people with guns? Or do you think that there should be restrictions on firearms? What do you need a full-auto rifle for? After all they are only made for killing. <_<
You misunderstand what I said. I was pointing out that those idiots who want anarchy need to read history and realize that something WILL replace the existing govt after they finish tearing it down. History tells us that the new govt will almost certainly be something much worse than what they are under now. If they really want something better, they need to either work within the system or come up with a better idea and plan than just anarchy (the absence of govt). It is naive.sound a lot like the anti-gunners. They say that people can't be trusted with guns, your saying that people can't be trusted without government. It is just "common sense" laws. If you can't trust the people without government then how can you trust people with guns? Or do you think that there should be restrictions on firearms? What do you need a full-auto rifle for? After all they are only made for killing. <_<
A more famous man said that the purpose of govt is to control man's vices. There will always be govt because there will always be idiots, psychopaths, warlords, and greedy SOB's who think things will be better if only they were in charge and everyone did what they want cause they are smarter. The Founders of this nation decided that if they can't get along with no govt, then they might as well come up with the least offensive govt they could imagine that would still be effective. Our current govt is certainly a bit distant from that original ideal, but it is still better than a lot of alternatives. Personally, I don't think most of those anarchists know anything about any of this. If they did, they wouldn't be so quick dump the current system.
IMO, true anarchy sounds a lot like the original communist idea. Everyone would just work together for their own good. The problem is that it ignores the fact that men can be very evil and ambitious. Some people just aren't satisfied unless they have power and control over others if not themselves. There has to be some system of govt to deal with that, even if it is just a town meeting. I guess anarchists imagine spontaneous vigilante mobs will take care of it.
Post by: Euclidean on August 29, 2007, 06:23:05 AM
I also don't think there's ever been a true anarchy except maybe in the Stone Age. Even the Native American tribes had councils, chieftains, etc. There was a clear chain of command and rules for making decisions.
Instead, I subscribe to minarchism, the idea of the smallest, most limited, least intrusive state possible.
Post by: MechAg94 on August 29, 2007, 06:37:06 AM
Post by: Tallpine on August 29, 2007, 06:40:47 AM
Quote
There will always be govt because there will always be idiots, psychopaths, warlords, and greedy SOB's who think things will be better if only they were in charge and everyone did what they want cause they are smarter.
Trouble is that all the idiots, psychopaths, warlords, and greedy SOB's get elected to run the govt
Post by: wooderson on August 29, 2007, 07:19:14 AM
Radicalism is most useful in applying theory and strategy to the world as it is. Utopianism is well and good and we should all have our utopian ideals - but if you're focused only on Nirvana, you've basically made yourself useless in this world and probably set yourself up for a lifetime of heartbreak and bitterness. In that way I've always considered myself something of a 'pragmatic radical.'
In truth, I'd probably best be termed a "moral anarchist" - dogma and ideology not being something I'm comfortable. My political beliefs, such as they are, are grounded in a refusal to abdicate moral autonomy to the state, religion, etc..
Post by: griz on August 29, 2007, 07:47:29 AM
Quote
A more famous man said that the purpose of govt is to control man's vices.
I'm probably picking over semantics here, but a vice is a bad habit such as getting drunk all day or gambling all your money away. Controling vices should not be the govt's purpose. It should gaurd against harm by others, not by ourselves. At least in my view.
Post by: MechAg94 on August 29, 2007, 08:43:48 AM
Quote
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
http://www.bartleby.com/133/1.html
Post by: tyme on August 29, 2007, 09:21:09 AM
Quote
History tells us that the new govt will almost certainly be something much worse than what they are under now. If they really want something better, they need to either work within the system or come up with a better idea and plan than just anarchy (the absence of govt). It is naive.
History also tells us that a trip across the Atlantic takes weeks, dense things don't fly, and those beautiful lights in the sky are signs put there by an omnipotent, anthropomorphic being.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 29, 2007, 10:20:07 AM
Quote
History tells us that the new govt will almost certainly be something much worse than what they are under now. If they really want something better, they need to either work within the system or come up with a better idea and plan than just anarchy (the absence of govt). It is naive.
History also tells us that a trip across the Atlantic takes weeks, dense things don't fly, and those beautiful lights in the sky are signs put there by an omnipotent, anthropomorphic being.
And some of us believe that those things in the sky really were put there by an Omnipotent being. You want to believe in a nothing that exploded, that's your privilege.
Post by: tyme on August 29, 2007, 10:25:25 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on August 29, 2007, 10:30:59 AM
Right, because social scientists have human nature, psychology, and sociology all figured out.
Your argumentation skills are rapidly deteriorating. Just because something isnt 100% doesn't make it zero percent. And it doesn't take a social scientist to know what will happen in a given situation.
Post by: roo_ster on August 29, 2007, 12:45:23 PM
Anarchism is yet another utopian philosophy that relies heavily on an ignorance of history and human nature to make it sound viable. We've had quite enough of those in the last 200+ years*, thank you, and the mass graves full of those who were ground up by the utopian mill are are a warning to the living to strangle such impulses in the cradle.
* French Revolution being a fine starting point for the utopian impulse that has plagued us
Post by: Tallpine on August 29, 2007, 01:13:48 PM
Quote
Why do folks think that the Indians lived in anarchy? Every account of their lives and societies is suffused with chiefs, elders, charismatic warriors, and meetings of same who direct the tribe. They were humans & humans are social critters.
They managed to live without central government, overseas wars, income taxes, prisons, and the war on drugs. That they had developed a social order is proof that "anarchy" does not equal chaos, which is what some/most people wrongly insist the word means.
Native American culture was by no means utopia, though it is an example of voluntary social order arising without direction from central government (monopoly of force).
Post by: The Rabbi on August 29, 2007, 03:00:55 PM
Quote
Why do folks think that the Indians lived in anarchy? Every account of their lives and societies is suffused with chiefs, elders, charismatic warriors, and meetings of same who direct the tribe. They were humans & humans are social critters.
They managed to live without central government, overseas wars, income taxes, prisons, and the war on drugs. That they had developed a social order is proof that "anarchy" does not equal chaos, which is what some/most people wrongly insist the word means.
Native American culture was by no means utopia, though it is an example of voluntary social order arising without direction from central government (monopoly of force).
They also lived without cities, internet access, easy foreign travel, and ready and cheap communications.
If you want to go back to the standard of living of 16th century Indians, go right ahead. We'll write.
Post by: Tallpine on August 29, 2007, 04:35:53 PM
Quote
They also lived without cities, internet access, easy foreign travel, and ready and cheap communications.
Except for the cities (with their gang wars, drug dealers, & prostitutes), nobody else had that stuff in the 19th Century either
As far as equating lack of government with lack of technology - yeah, I forgot about all those govt research projects that developed the horseless carraige, interchangeable parts, assembly lines, personal computers, washing machines, ... etc
Post by: The Rabbi on August 29, 2007, 05:11:08 PM
Quote
They also lived without cities, internet access, easy foreign travel, and ready and cheap communications.
Except for the cities (with their gang wars, drug dealers, & prostitutes), nobody else had that stuff in the 19th Century either
As far as equating lack of government with lack of technology - yeah, I forgot about all those govt research projects that developed the horseless carraige, interchangeable parts, assembly lines, personal computers, washing machines, ... etc
Right. And society was much different then. Your point?
Those particular research projects would have been impossible without
-Patents
-Contract law
-Stable currency
-Roads
-Eminent domain.
Post by: MechAg94 on August 29, 2007, 06:17:16 PM
The Indians did not live in anarchy. They had govt. It wasn't the same as our govt, but it certainly wasn't anarchy.
Post by: MechAg94 on August 29, 2007, 06:20:12 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on August 29, 2007, 06:27:06 PM
Quote
Native American culture was by no means utopia, though it is an example of voluntary social order arising without direction from central government (monopoly of force).
A lot of Indian women would probably disagree with that. No overseas wars? You have never heard of Indian tribes fighting each other? A number of tribes had central government also. It wasn't just one villiage that defeated Custer.
Post by: Euclidean on August 29, 2007, 07:13:40 PM
Those particular research projects would have been impossible without
-Patents
-Contract law
-Stable currency
-Roads
-Eminent domain.
-Patents
-Contract law
-Stable currency
-Roads
-Eminent domain.
Exactly. The Rabbi gets it. It's not that government is inherently good or that it is responsible for improvements in the human condition (it's not), it's that it's sometimes necessary.
For instance, how does one privately regulate and issue patents? How can private parties make contracts between each other without a court system? Who issues currency?
Roads I would argue with a little bit, as it's in the interest of private industry to build roads (Coca Cola and Budweiser can't sell lots of beverages without roads) and I bet that a privately owned self regulating industry could supply those needs. Sounds like a good CATO study for some government major.
But back on topic, the state is a necessary evil. Government is a human innovation, we just need a better form of it.
Post by: Tallpine on August 30, 2007, 08:48:28 AM
Quote
A lot of Indian women would probably disagree with that.
Women in our culture did not have the rights back then that they have today.
Quote
No overseas wars? You have never heard of Indian tribes fighting each other?
Specifically, why I said "overseas." There were a lot of intertribal conflicts, but nowhere near the scale of European wars, for example. Why are big wars okay but little wars bad...?
Quote
A number of tribes had central government also. It wasn't just one villiage that defeated Custer.
The Little Big Horn was the one instance of the western tribes working together to fight the whites. In their tribal/clan mentality, they could not even conceive of the consolidation of the US govt. After the LBH, they pretty much thought they had won and the issue was settled once and for all. Likewise, when the Nez Perce crossed from Idaho into Montana, they assumed that they would be at peace with these "Blue Coats" as they always had been before. Their mistake was shown at Big Hole.
Quote
The Indians did not live in anarchy. They had govt. It wasn't the same as our govt, but it certainly wasn't anarchy.
Ok, which is it...? They had "government" but since they lived in "anarchy" they didn't have patents, contract law, etc ...?
(I'm combining issues from several posters here)
Post by: MechAg94 on August 30, 2007, 09:38:50 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on August 30, 2007, 09:52:36 AM
Quote
Women in our culture did not have the rights back then that they have today.
Women still didn't do all the farm work, etc as well. That comment was mainly in reference to your mention of who had a "monopoly of power". Not important to the discussion. Quote
Specifically, why I said "overseas." There were a lot of intertribal conflicts, but nowhere near the scale of European wars, for example. Why are big wars okay but little wars bad...?
Limiting the discussion to overseas wars for a people who weren't capable of going overseas seems like screwed up logic to me. Inter-tribal conflicts were their version of an overseas war with another country. They were big wars to the Indians, not little at all. Also, you can say what you want, but the Sioux nation was huge. It was much bigger than most countries and empires ever were in Europe. Quote
The Little Big Horn was the one instance of the western tribes working together to fight the whites. In their tribal/clan mentality, they could not even conceive of the consolidation of the US govt. After the LBH, they pretty much thought they had won and the issue was settled once and for all. Likewise, when the Nez Perce crossed from Idaho into Montana, they assumed that they would be at peace with these "Blue Coats" as they always had been before. Their mistake was shown at Big Hole.
You are the one who said they had no central govt, not me. Lots of tribes had central govts of one sort or another. Just because they weren't as big as the United States of America doesn't invalidate the comparison. The fact that the Indians did not understand total war with logistics and supply doesn't change it either. Quote
Ok, which is it...? They had "government" but since they lived in "anarchy" they didn't have patents, contract law, etc ...?
(I'm combining issues from several posters here)
As I said before, Define Anarchy for us then. Anarchy is not limited govt or libertarian govt. Just because the systems set up by that government are not the same as the systems of our government doesn't change what it is.
(I'm combining issues from several posters here)
Post by: Tallpine on August 30, 2007, 10:07:41 AM
Now, define "government"
(my definition would be "an entity claiming and enforcing a monopoly on the use of force over a specified territory")
Post by: wooderson on August 30, 2007, 10:11:15 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on August 30, 2007, 10:36:27 AM
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/anarchy
Quote
Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>
3 : ANARCHISM
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>
3 : ANARCHISM
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/anarchy
Quote
an·ar·chy audio (nr-k) KEY
NOUN:
pl. an·ar·chies
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
NOUN:
pl. an·ar·chies
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
Post by: wooderson on August 30, 2007, 10:45:00 AM
"1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups" - the first part is an overstatement, as the latter half ("free association of individuals and groups") may well be definable as a de facto local 'government.'
Post by: Tallpine on August 30, 2007, 11:57:42 AM
If government (the state) is the "solution", then what are the "problems" ?
Granted there are a number of problems to which government is purported to be the solution. But a rational discussion might include enumerating those problems and discussing various possible solutions, of which government might only be one.
Rabbi: might you be willing to enlighten us on the "pre-kings" era of the children of Israel? I know they had "judges" but I'm not sure that they had a formal "state" at that time. (sounds somewhat like the Brethonic system of Ireland) I do know that the prophet Samuel warned them about taking on a king like other nations, who would enslave them with taxes and take their sons to fight wars. It's been a while since I read that stuff.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 30, 2007, 03:14:54 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 31, 2007, 12:30:17 PM
(my definition [of govt.] would be "an entity claiming and enforcing a monopoly on the use of force over a specified territory")
Why would you say that?
Post by: Tallpine on August 31, 2007, 12:48:37 PM
Quote
Why would you say that?
Because it is a correct - if not a dictionary - description.
Anyone else using force - except in extremely limited self defense, and sometimes not even then - is a "criminal." (see also, "vigilante")
Post by: zahc on August 31, 2007, 12:56:40 PM
Quote
Anyone else using force - except in extremely limited self defense, and sometimes not even then - is a "criminal."
I don't think you need the qualifier at all. Basically you can say anyone else using force not delegated to them by the state is a "criminal". You might be delegated authority to use force in self defense, but only because the state says you do. So really, the state is still holding an absolute monopoly of force.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 31, 2007, 01:32:38 PM
Post by: Tallpine on August 31, 2007, 01:46:47 PM
The best you can do is get a court judgement and then maybe the state employed and sanctioned "enforcers" will do it for you.Or in most places (Texas reportedly being an exception) try using deadly force to defend your property.
Or try telling the local LE agency that you don't want their services anymore and wish to hire your own security
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 31, 2007, 02:35:47 PM
You're telling me I can't throw someone out of my own house, by force? That would be illegal? Where? If there's just one place with a govt. that allows it, then your definition is wrong. There are plenty of places and situations where you can legally hire security personnel and/or use deadly force to defend your property. Even if there were not, that would not mean it is theoretically inconsistent with having a government.
The one way I could see government having a monopoly on force would be that the state sits in judgment over who used force and how. But they do that with a lot of other things, too. I think if I were to come up with an off-the-cuff definition of government, I would go with something like, "An entity exercising sovereign earthly authority over a territory" or similar. Force would be a side-issue.
Post by: wooderson on August 31, 2007, 02:45:47 PM
It refers to the ability to enforce laws and will on a broader scale. The United States is a viable state because the government has reserved for itself the threat of force - being able to jail or execute 'lawbreakers,' able to exert itself militarily, etc.. We don't have extra-governmental militias (considered legitimate) or vigilante 'justice.' Weber would likely argue that because self-defense is explicitly accounted for in most locales, the use of force to defend family has been sanctioned by the state.
Iraq, despite the pretenses of a government, is not a state because it does not have a monopoly on the ability to use violence to achieve its ends. The government competes with an external invader (or, arguably, two groups of invaders), militias, tribal law, etc.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 01, 2007, 02:54:35 AM
Post by: Firethorn on September 01, 2007, 08:08:46 AM
Quote
The 'monopoly of force' is one of Max Weber's criteria for defining a viable state. It isn't a reference to being able to defend oneself or even property - as with most theory, trying to interpret a broad heading with narrow exceptions will get you nowhere.
Perhaps a better description would be to have a monopoly on the offensive use of force.
A citizen killing an armed burglar in his house is one thing. A movie star hiring somebody to track down and kill a threatening stalker is another.
Remember, there are states where self defense is essentially illegal. The USA is being nice.
Post by: Tallpine on September 01, 2007, 10:29:56 AM
Anyway, it's good to start discussing definitions. Your "An entity exercising sovereign earthly authority over a territory" seems rather vague to me (what kinds of authority?) though most folks would just nod and say that sounds about right.
Post by: freakazoid on September 01, 2007, 10:41:29 AM
Quote
They also lived without cities, internet access, easy foreign travel, and ready and cheap communications.
If you want to go back to the standard of living of 16th century Indians, go right ahead. We'll write.
If you want to go back to the standard of living of 16th century Indians, go right ahead. We'll write.
Have you ever heard of Richard Proenneke? I could live quite comfortably with a simple life.
Quote
OK!
A believer in anarchy who can't spell and uses specious reasoning.
A believer in anarchy who can't spell and uses specious reasoning.
What?
Quote
Sit back and enjoy the recoil.
lol, I'm used to it. Especially form the THR forums
, when I could post there .edit - I forgot to add this. In response to the talk about the Bible.
1 Samuels 8
Quote
1 When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as judges for Israel. 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not walk in his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.
4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, "You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead [a] us, such as all the other nations have."
6 But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."
10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."
19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."
21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king."
Then Samuel said to the men of Israel, "Everyone go back to his town."
4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, "You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead [a] us, such as all the other nations have."
6 But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."
10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."
19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."
21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king."
Then Samuel said to the men of Israel, "Everyone go back to his town."
Matthew 6
Quote
24"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.
Leviticus 25
Quote
35 " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind [a] from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. 38 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.
39 " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
39 " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
Acts 4
Quote
32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
^^ Those are communist/anarchist ideas.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 01, 2007, 03:22:02 PM
The passage from Samuel concerned the form of government; it was not a call to anarchy. The Jews were already living in a strict theocracy. The passage from Acts just talks about charity and sharing, which happens under lots of governmental systems. The other passages are just totally unrelated to the subject.
Post by: Tallpine on September 01, 2007, 05:47:06 PM
Quote
The passage from Samuel concerned the form of government; it was not a call to anarchy. The Jews were already living in a strict theocracy.
The Hebrews had a cultural system (religious in this instance) that guided their society. And a set of judges (dispute resolution organization). Maybe not quite "anarchy" but certainly a mild system that might be termed a stateless society (of course they had no internet, either
). And they rejected that for a centralized state with a monarch, and the resulting taxes and enslavement.The whole point being looking for examples of successful societies without a formal government.
Post by: Stand_watie on September 02, 2007, 12:34:05 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
And some of us believe that those things in the sky really were put there by an Omnipotent being. You want to believe in a nothing that exploded, that's your privilege...
+1
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 02, 2007, 10:29:31 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 02, 2007, 12:15:32 PM
OK, so far we've got an anarchist system where you get executed for blasphemy or working on the Sabbath. Great.
Works for me.
Post by: Fly320s on September 02, 2007, 12:50:55 PM
Raise taxes to pay for national anarchy!!
Post by: Tallpine on September 02, 2007, 05:36:41 PM
Which reminds me ... yawn
Post by: Tallpine on September 03, 2007, 07:27:05 AM
Quote
Government is not eloquence, it is not reason. It is force. And like fire, makes a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
~ George Washington
~ George Washington
Post by: The Rabbi on September 03, 2007, 08:32:31 AM
Post by: Tallpine on September 03, 2007, 12:08:04 PM
Quote
This from the man who quashed the Whiskey Rebellion...
Proving that no government can be trusted
Post by: jeepmor on September 03, 2007, 10:14:21 PM
I enjoy all your arguments, but I have to take most folks position that anarchy is a pipe dream. Once you get enough people together, you need some order like firemen, policeman, hospitals and what not. It's just a fact that getting a lot of people together in one place, it's a natural order to institute standards and regulations on how commerce and such takes place. Currency for example, levels the playing field and creates a standard. Just as gold did before paper became the norm.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 04, 2007, 01:45:40 AM
Post by: Tallpine on September 04, 2007, 04:42:09 AM
Quote
Once you get enough people together, you need some order
Of course - but the question is whether that order is imposed by government, or maintained by some other social structures?
If people are capable of getting together and forming a government for the common good, why would they not be capable of developing other social structures to accomplish the same thing?
BTW, I do get outside - we have horses and I've taken several rides over the weekend. Though it's been really hot outside in the afternoons.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 04, 2007, 05:15:00 AM
Quote
Once you get enough people together, you need some order
Of course - but the question is whether that order is imposed by government, or maintained by some other social structures?
What is the practical difference between those two things?
Post by: Tallpine on September 04, 2007, 08:02:40 AM
Quote
What is the practical difference between those two things?
Basically, motivation versus brute force.
I suppose it only works well in cohesive societies, which tends to keep the scope smaller (which in itself is a good thing). Centralized societies with "one size fits all" rules are going to need to use more force to maintain order in all districts.
Some previous societies (and still our own to some degree) used social standards developed over a long time to maintain order. Violate, and you might be subject to shunning, banning (exile), or maybe corporal punsishment or execution in severe instances. Banning was pretty much a death sentence anyway unless you could find another society to take you in. Prisons were largely unknown, and pretty much impractical anyway, without a "state" (or king) to run them.
As much as I hate to admit it, I suppose religion plays a large role in developing a cohesive society. But behavioral standards and customs are probably more important to many individuals than a specific faith. Those customs would include things like how land ownership is determined, how transactions are accomplished, etc. Even today, most human interaction consists of voluntary exchanges that do not require state management. There are exceptions of course, and that is where you get into "dispute resolution."
Under a "state", dispute resolution is monopolized by government, which then backs up its verdict with monopolized force. But who is to say that a society is not only capable of but would be better off with competive systems of dispute resolution? You might argue that we already do that now with private arbitration, but that only serves to support and not negate the proposition.
Violent crimes against persons and property would tend to be met with reciprocal violence in defense, unfettered by state rules of monopolized force. There are examples of this in our own society: for instance when there was a police strike in a city and crime went down instead of up, because the criminals were more afraid of citizens than the police.
No society is going to be "utopia" but that shouldn't prevent discussion and striving for something maybe better than what we live in now. A few hundred years ago in most of Europe, a monarchy was the only conceivable option. But then those unruly children in the British Colonies in North America got this wild idea about a "democratic republic." Why should we assume that we have reached a pinnacle of perfection, especially when we seem to be slipping into democratized tryanny?
Post by: The Rabbi on September 04, 2007, 08:10:00 AM
Quote
What is the practical difference between those two things?
Basically, motivation versus brute force.
That is a difference that stems only from the size and cohesiveness of the group, not from any fundamental difference. And Plymouth Colony used a lot of brute force.
As for alternate means of dispute resolution, there are plenty in the U.S. Muslims (I think) have their own courts, Jews I know have their own courts, people use arbitrators of various kinds all the time. The only difference between those and the gov't courts is the ability to use force to back up a ruling.
Post by: Tallpine on September 04, 2007, 08:19:34 AM
Quote
The only difference between those and the gov't courts is the ability to use force to back up a ruling.
Okay, there's your difference then
Quote
Plymouth Colony used a lot of brute force
Yeah, and a lot of their spiritual/intellectual descendants seem to be running the government.
Post by: roo_ster on September 04, 2007, 08:24:00 AM
Quote
Once you get enough people together, you need some order
Of course - but the question is whether that order is imposed by government, or maintained by some other social structures?
What is the practical difference between those two things?
Tallpine's and others' anarchism seems an awful lot like Athenian democracy:
* Little/no permanent gov't.
* Big projects taken on by prominent citizens for their own reasons.
* Big decisions effecting the community put to a vote of all and addressed with ad-hoc solutions.
The main difference between Tallpine Anarchism and Athenian democracy would be that the decisions assembly of citizens could not be enforced if one member did not want to go along?
Post by: wooderson on September 04, 2007, 08:25:34 AM
Quote
What is the practical difference between those two things?
To move on a tangent, this is one of the issues I have with American libertarians (or god help us, Objectivists) - the view that 'force' and 'power' are wielded only by a 'government.' (ex. - the state can legalize interracial marriage all it wants, but if the local culture is actively hostile to interracial couples, then...)This is the prime difference between left-'anarchists' and anarcho-capitalists/Objectivists/et al. - opposition to hierarchies vs. opposition to government. The former would argue that the latter's society would essentially devolve into de facto feudal states led by an aristocracy of wealth.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 04, 2007, 10:55:20 AM
Quote
The only difference between those and the gov't courts is the ability to use force to back up a ruling.
Okay, there's your difference then
The one system is voluntary by all members, the other theoretically is.
Quote
Plymouth Colony used a lot of brute force
Yeah, and a lot of their spiritual/intellectual descendants seem to be running the government.
[/quote]
great response.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 04, 2007, 12:39:19 PM
Quote
Plymouth Colony used a lot of brute force
Yeah, and a lot of their spiritual/intellectual descendants seem to be running the government.
That would be nice, but I fear our current ruling class (meaning all parties) is not quite up to that standard of intelligence, virtue or common sense.
Post by: Tallpine on September 04, 2007, 02:58:38 PM
Quote
That would be nice, but I fear our current ruling class (meaning all parties) is not quite up to that standard of intelligence, virtue or common sense.
Oh, so we're still a little short in the religious persecution department ?
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 04, 2007, 06:27:12 PM
Post by: Tallpine on September 05, 2007, 06:59:49 AM
It's another good argument for de-centralization.
I just don't want them running everything for the rest of us, even though you would be more than happy with that.
No one really wants to discuss how a stateless society might be organized, so I will say no more.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 05, 2007, 07:37:29 AM
No one really wants to discuss how a stateless society might be organized, so I will say no more.
There doesn't seem like much to discuss since that's pretty much an oxymoron. You can look at insular communities living in heterogeneous states and get some idea. I am thinking of Jewish communities in E.Europe pre-WW1, overseas Chinese, Bahai in Iran, probably a few others. None of them, afaik, is a model of personal freedom and individuality. Virtually all of them rely on communal pressure to conform to ideals to maintain their identity.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 05, 2007, 12:43:07 PM
No, I think it's great for the Puritans to go off and form their own community....I just don't want them running everything for the rest of us, even though you would be more than happy with that.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! No, not really. They'd expel me for heresy, and I'd have to go found Connecticut, or something.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 06, 2007, 02:31:27 PM
And neither will work because they deny the basic selfish nature of all men and the basically destructive nature of some men. Some people just get their kicks off power. I doubt Karl Marx ever envisioned Stalin, but he helped create him.
Post by: wooderson on September 06, 2007, 02:52:08 PM
Quote
So what is the difference between this Anarchism and Karl Marx's communism? Sounds like essentially the same thing to me.
There was a major and acrimonious divide between the Marxists and the 'libertarians' at the time of the First International. Bakunin considered Marx to be an authoritarian figure and generally felt that a government-level 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would become a self-perpetuating ruling class. (nb: this was almost fifty years before Lenin, vanguardism and the Bolsheviks instituting one-party rule - the anarchists were rather prescient in their critiques)Like many modern democratic socialists and anarchists, the early groups were influenced economically by Marx but didn't hold to his political aims.
Quote
I doubt Karl Marx ever envisioned Stalin, but he helped create him.
Arguable, but irrelevant as a critique of the ideology (or broader ideas).Jesus didn't envision the Inquisition, but 'no Jesus no Inquisition.' (And yes, if not for Christianity they would have simply persecuted under a different guise - but I daresay history has shown us that a dictator doesn't need Marx to justify his reign either.)
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 06, 2007, 04:18:21 PM
So what is the difference between this Anarchism and Karl Marx's communism? Sounds like essentially the same thing to me.
If I recall correctly, Marx believed that after the proletariat took control and the New Communist Man became the norm, the state would "whither away," resulting in harmonious anarchy. But I haven't read about that stuff for a few years, now, may be fuzzy on the details.
Post by: freakazoid on September 17, 2007, 08:34:36 PM
And this thread should be moved to the politics section.I have finally got my Journals of Lewis and Clark out of storage.
Lewis, Monday August 19, 1805
" each individual is his own sovereign master, and acts from the dictates of his own mind; the authority of the Cheif being nothing more than mere admonition supported by the influence which the propiety of his own exammplery conduct may have acquired him in the minds of the individuals who composed the band. the title of cheif is not hereditary, nor can I learn that there is any cerimony of instalment, or other epoh in the life of a Cheif from which his title as such can be dated. in fact every man is a chief, but all have not an equal influence on the minds of the other members of the community, and he who happens to enjoy the greatest share of confidence is the principal Chief."
Quote
If I recall correctly, Marx believed that after the proletariat took control and the New Communist Man became the norm, the state would "whither away," resulting in harmonious anarchy. But I haven't read about that stuff for a few years, now, may be fuzzy on the details
That is the gist of it. Socialism would lead to communism which would leave to anarchy, because the state was supposed to "whither away", which we anarchists know will not be the case.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 18, 2007, 05:39:28 AM
Quote
I doubt Karl Marx ever envisioned Stalin, but he helped create him.
Arguable, but irrelevant as a critique of the ideology (or broader ideas).Post by: wooderson on September 18, 2007, 10:16:49 AM
Post by: gunsmith on September 18, 2007, 07:48:36 PM
Modern anarchist conform to the unwritten rules of their little cliques, the "young whippersnapper"
in the op would be laughed out of any NY squat run by so-called anarchist.
Modern anarchist are all little hitlers who never read Kropotkin and have no clue what the Haymarket was.
In the 1980's I was very involved in the so called anarchist movement and found out that they are all wannabe dictators PERIOD.
The modern Conservative belief in less government is a million % better then the modern anarchist who consistently vote for liberals.
Noam Chompsky, the anarchist savior, is just another liberal anti gunner who happens to have a gift for the written word.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 21, 2007, 09:04:52 PM