THUNDERDOME!!

[MagikFingerz]

Would be dope to know Bard's reasoning for that claim.

Is that a tasteless joke about illegal drugs?

Sorry, I just had to

[Harvonsgard]

Depending on the state and/or date you're reading it, haha.

[rousselle]

Anarchism is one thing, but Solipsism is... also one thing. Literally.

History is littered with attempts at building genuinely anarchistic communes. Witness the ones created in New York State and New Jersey back in the... 1800's was it? They all failed within twenty years or so, IIRC. (I stand corrected: the longest-surviving such community was the Oneida Community (1848-1881). So... *just over* thirty years.)

Whereas my own dabbling at solipsism has been going pretty strong for decades at this point, and shows no signs of stopping.

As far as you know.

[GandalfPC]

Would be dope to know Bard's reasoning for that claim.

Well I think most of it came from “true anarchy” which are few and far between - usually someone(s) in charge in some fashion

[Harvonsgard]

However, in a purely speculative ballpark, considering the limitations mentioned earlier, a true anarchy exceeding 1,000 individuals likely wouldn't have lasted more than a few decades at most, potentially even less.

That part was what I was referring to. With the premise of purely speculative ballpark, it's interesting that it came up with two kinda specific numbers regarding size and endurance. Numbers that seem to be taken from the history. So why would it put up the premise of pure speculation if in the end it just averaged historical numbers?

[GandalfPC]

Oh, they love to do that - especially after making you give them the third degree to get a straight answer - to attempt to associate their earlier answers with the final answer. Programming hokum

[rousselle]

However, in a purely speculative ballpark, considering the limitations mentioned earlier, a true anarchy exceeding 1,000 individuals likely wouldn't have lasted more than a few decades at most, potentially even less.

That part was what I was referring to. With the premise of purely speculative ballpark, it's interesting that it came up with two kinda specific numbers regarding size and endurance. Numbers that seem to be taken from the history. So why would it put up the premise of pure speculation if in the end it just averaged historical numbers?

If you look at the main kinda-anarchist movements in the US that made the attempt, that size range and that longevity tracks:

Oneida (Oneida, NY, 1848-1881), Modern Times (Brentwood, Long Island, also in New York, 1851-1864), and Brook Farm (Brook Farm, Massachusetts, 1841-1847).

So, in this case, I'd say that Bard wasn't really off-base.

That said... while I *was* a history major, it's possible that my own memory is faulty, so you may want to look those up and see if I got the deets right.

Ooh, I didn't look up population sizes, but again, my memory of learning about these folks when I was in college (roughly 100 years ago) tracks with the idea that 1,000 was probably at the high end of the general range.

[hsbc]

As an admitted AI skeptic I really dislike this new trend of turning to a black box for answers -- check out this Wikipedia article on primitive communism, which has a section on "example societies", and references

Also, Category:Utopian communities

[Adamthinks]

As an admitted AI skeptic I really dislike this new trend of turning to a black box for answers -- check out this Wikipedia article on primitive communism, which has a section on "example societies", and references

Yeah, AI has some neat uses, but I wouldn't trust it for reliable information at all.

[th4mo]

Yeah, AI has some neat uses, but I wouldn't trust it for reliable information at all.

I've heard the same thing said about Wikipedia... Though I'll admit I still use it a bazillion times a day!

[Adamthinks]

Yeah, AI has some neat uses, but I wouldn't trust it for reliable information at all.

I've heard the same thing said about Wikipedia... Though I'll admit I still use it a bazillion times a day!

With Wikipedia you can at least check the sources.

[hsbc]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_ ... _Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

[th4mo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_ ... _Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

That's pretty funny.... sourcing Wikipedia to verify Wikipedia's accuracy. You sly dog.

[Harvonsgard]

If you look at the main kinda-anarchist movements in the US that made the attempt, that size range and that longevity tracks:

Oneida (Oneida, NY, 1848-1881), Modern Times (Brentwood, Long Island, also in New York, 1851-1864), and Brook Farm (Brook Farm, Massachusetts, 1841-1847).

So, in this case, I'd say that Bard wasn't really off-base.

That's not the point. Bard should have said, "based of historic dates..." instead of "in a purely speculatic ballpark...". Maybe it's just nitpicking on my part but for me those are pretty different things.

[th4mo]

So the only references to Anarchic societies are ancient, tiny, short-lived, or all of the above??? Not to mention that most of the modern examples exist within the framework and laws of a much larger state. I haven't heard anything yet to prove that it's nothing more than a pipe dream. If you're arguing in favor, then maybe you can provide some actual evidence that Anarchy is viable on a meaningful scale.
Saying that Anarchy still has to obey the "rules" of sociology, physics and biology seems like a silly argument. Was that supposed to be a joke?

Meanwhile, Democracy and Capitalism, despite all of their evils (of which there are many) have presided over the most dramatic improvements in general quality of life in all of human history.

Two of my favorite quotes:
"democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried" (Churchill)

and

"We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" (King)

Let's not forget that truly representative democracy is exceedingly new. The first country to let women vote AND run for political office was Finland in 1906 (according to wikipedia ). There are people alive today who had parents who lived before real democracy existed. There are many people still alive in the US who lived through the Civil Rights era (some would argue that era hasn't ended yet, but I'm talking about the 60's). And people whose grandparents were slaves (we've barely passed the point where living Americans had PARENTS that were slaves). Sorry to be so US-centric, but that's just what I know best. I do know that Mauritania was the last country in the world to ban slavery, in 1981!!! Even then, there were no laws to enforce that ban until 2007! We in developed countries take so much for granted, and forget how smurfing slow global change can be.

People love to point out the evils and hypocrisies of the US as a "global model for democracy", but I say we're a work in progress, just like everyone else.
Yes, i have serious complaints and fears. But I am also grateful for a government that (in no particular order):

• protects our most treasured natural areas for the enjoyment of future generations

• protects the quality of the air and water

• disincentivizes my neighbor (or neighboring countries) from doing bad things to me

• ensures the quality of our food

• prevents unscrupulous entities from selling me poisonous, defective, or dangerous products

• provides basic education to everyone

• ensures the safety of financial deposits

• builds roads and other infrastructure

• fosters and funds research and innovation

• maintains a professional army so average citizens can live in peace

• prevents my neighbor from building an oil refinery or tannery next door

• ensures that hospitals will treat me when I am bleeding out

• provides some sort of safety net for the old, infirm, otherwise unable to provide for themselves, or the victims of the many unfair and devastating events that can befall people

Admittedly, this is just a random list off the top of my head. And you can certainly argue about the effectiveness and integrity of any government or government agency in achieving these goals, or rightfully criticize government overreach. But that doesn't change that these are just a few of the things that governments ARE FOR, and that are impossible to do efficiently without centralized authority (or the biggest bully, if you prefer).

These are all things that I consent to be taxed for (at a reasonable rate) and cede some individual liberty for.
That is the meaning of the social contract. You may say it's a bad deal. I say show me anything better (that works for more than 100,000 people).

(as for drugs? Yes: legalize, regulate, and tax the shit out of all of them. that's obvious. But you can't cherry pick, you also have to work on addressing ALL the other social ills.)

[Harvonsgard]

I appreciate the thunderdome worthy post. Limme grab me gloves...

Saying that Anarchy still has to obey the "rules" of sociology, physics and biology seems like a silly argument. Was that supposed to be a joke?

Not sure what the punchline of that joke would be. I'd say it's common sense. Anarchy means as pointed out literally the absence of hierarchy. But of course every social interaction follows a hierarchy. I'm a father to my offspring. That's a hierarchy. My boss let's me do certain stuff at work because they know I have more competence in certain fields. That's a hierarchy. My boss still has the final say in stuff. That's a hierarchy .
So to be clear with anarchy every sane anarchist is referring to the absence of as much non-consensual hierarchy as possible. Just to make that clear so that we both know what I mean. I quite dislike the label for above reasons but when it comes to political philosophy it's the closest to my stance so I use it for having a consensus sake.

I agree with your pros of capitalism and democracy. A lot of your post reads like you think I wouldn't acknowledge that. I do though. But A) I don't live my life looking at the rear mirror. I think about the next steps and I guess we both can agree that there is quite some room for improvement in humankind and most importantly B) the existence of something doesn't deny its existence under different circumstances. All of your arguements pro-government sound like you wholeheartedly believe these things are only possible due to the government. Which is just plain and simply wrong.
As for your list:

• Nice you have a National Park (and I visited quite some of them - they're gorgeous indeed. The Grand Canyon is quite literally one of the reasons why I started to think in bigger categories than just myself). How many landstripes are changed for dams or mining though?

• Government protects your air and water? Not when the tax revenue is big enough e.g. fracking gas

• If it would be true then why do we have robbers, murderers? You being a decent human is what disincentivizes your neighbor from doing you harm.
Spoiler - tasteless joke incoming: If you really think the police is the main reason you're still alive you must be a pretty big arsehole, lel.
As for neighbouring countries... ouch. Not a compelling arguement mate.
I'm sincerely glad that you can live in peace but government advocates love to forget that it was government funded military that disturbed the peace of quite literally the world just 80 years ago. Please consider all facts before praising government military next time. The people of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, amongst others, might wanna have a word with you there as well.
If you're supersold on government then maybe take your president serious, next time they warn you about the military industrial complex. Just sayin

• GMO - nuff said

• Let's see how all the microplastic stuff turns out, lel

• You call it education some might call it brainwashing. Especially when it comes to anything besides reading and math

• Sure, there never have been financial crashes in a government ruled country

• builds roads... This is such a meme in the libertarian/anarchist community you'll find a lot of good videos explaining you why this is such a dumb arguement

• Private companies don't do R'n'D anymore ? Language? Alphabets? The wheel? Cars? Boats? Trains? Telephone? 3-D printed full auto lower receivers (Cody Wilson is a hero) All government inventions?

• My neighbours don't build oil refineries because it's literally where their own houses are. Why wouldn't they build it close to an Autobahn or a harbour? Oh, it's exactly what they do for the sake of being economically feasible.

• I'll combine the next two points because they're pretty similar. How do you explain charities? Only for tax reduction or is it maybe - just maybe - that we are actual social beings that care for one and another?

What government advocates love to forget is that we had slavery and colonialism because the government granted and protected the rights for people to literally own other people.
Not to mention the government funding and protection that was used to get rid of the Natives in the first place .

I'll hope that leaves some food for thought. As for that part:

These are all things that I consent to be taxed for (at a reasonable rate) and cede some individual liberty for.
That is the meaning of the social contract. You may say it's a bad deal. I say show me anything better (that works for more than 100,000 people).

A) The social contract is made up. It's a political and sociological theory with the unproven axiom of the natural state being violent. What do you wanna argue about next? Vampires? Unicorns?

B) I'm glad you consent. I don't. That should be enough imho. Consent is key. If you don't think so we have a huge problem at hand.
Just because you lack the imagination of a society of consenting independent individuals having voluntary interactions I have to show you the blue print?
The huge difference between us two is that my pov doesn't force something onto you. Your government is forcing a lot onto me though.

I recommend some Nietzsche and Kropotkin or at least some Friedman (I mean the guy has kinda peace in his name )

[GandalfPC]

Saying that Anarchy still has to obey the "rules" of sociology, physics and biology seems like a silly argument. Was that supposed to be a joke?

Not sure what the punchline of that joke would be.

I’ll give it a whack…



Anarchist walks into a library, grabs a book on biology, and walks toward the exit.

The librarian, startled, says, "Whoa there! You have to check that out."

Anarchist scoffs, "I am checking it out. No law but my own."

Librarian sighs, and trips the anarchist as he passes. Picks up the book, and gently places it back on the shelf. "Gravity disagrees."

[rousselle]

Soooo...

This is a topic I've studied at length and I am LOVING this conversation.

Throwing in my tuppence: Just as a theoretically "pure" anarchy can't exist as such because human nature will require some agreements on how best to interact with each other, so too is a theoretically "pure" democracy and/or "pure" capitalist system impossible in practice for the same reason. Human nature will require the imposition of some additional agreements in order to keep the system humming along. Otherwise, at the first whiff of an imbalance of power, the winners will change the rules to favor them more strongly and that's the end of your theoretically pure community.

Yeah, the attempts at anarchist communities in the northeastern United States in the 1800s had the benefit of not needing to worry so much about foreign policy because they enjoyed the benefits of certain protections courtesy of their state and federal governments, but they were still decent attempts in the abstract. Ooh, and if you want to get a real insight into how human nature works, study why those communities imploded. It's kinda hilarious.

Anyway, we also have the theoretical "Libertarian" model, which is kinda "Anarchy Lite" or "Democracy Lite," depending upon how you look at it. So, here's my joke about what happens when theory encounters reality:

Q: How many libertarians does it take to stop a Nazi Panzer division?
A: None! The market will take care of it!

[Harvonsgard]

Lel. Nice one @Gandalf. Anarchy still doesn't mean no laws but it's a joke so we can let it slip... or trip.

As much as I understand where you're coming from @rouselle I can neither theoretically nor in reality agree with the axiom of human nature. Someone would have to define what human nature is in the first place and at least to my knowledge that has not been settled.
Am I human nature? Is Adolf Hitler? Ted Bundy? Mother Theresa? Max Stirner? Is creating human nature? Is destruction human nature? The average of all of that?
I can't agree with a system that says humans are bad so they need force to stay peaceful. It makes logically no sense anyways. We still have wars and murder so we conclusion would be we would need more force and more rules after all? We had that applied here btw. - didn't turn out great for quite a bunch of jewish dudes and neither for us in the end as well.

I always forget to mention my favorite logical fallacy. If we take the humans are bad as a premise. The solution to that is giving humans (who are appearantly bad) power over other humans? Or let humans vote on who they want to be in charge? Does only make sense if you think that human nature is good but if human nature is good then you don't need the power of a centralized government.

[Sir Toddalot]

All this talk about anarchy is making me want to reread The Man Who Was Thursday. Great novel by G.K. Chesterton, which touches on the subject of anarchy, and is a lot of fun to read. Maybe we should start a UC book club. Next we could read Beyond Good And Evil by Nietzsche for harvonsgard.

[Harvonsgard]

... we could read Beyond Good And Evil by Nietzsche for harvonsgard.

That might be the most beautiful thing I've read for a while.
I should indeed read more again though. I haven't touched a book for ages with the exception of good night stories of course. Selected stories of Paddington is the last book I've read completely... and then again...
and again... lel. I love Paddington though. Travelling undocumented and without a visa from Peru to London is pretty damn anarchist in my book. Not to mention that he sells art on a black market.

[th4mo]

!!!TLDR Warning!!!!

I appreciate the thunderdome worthy post. Limme grab me gloves...

Saying that Anarchy still has to obey the "rules" of sociology, physics and biology seems like a silly argument. Was that supposed to be a joke?

Not sure what the punchline of that joke would be. I'd say it's common sense.

This is a joke because everyone alive, no matter where they live, has to obey these rules. Talk about an irrelevant argument! Are you saying you can devise a society that ignores physics? I honestly thought you were trying to be cute with that.

Anarchy means as pointed out literally the absence of hierarchy. But of course every social interaction follows a hierarchy. I'm a father to my offspring. That's a hierarchy. My boss let's me do certain stuff at work because they know I have more competence in certain fields. That's a hierarchy. My boss still has the final say in stuff. That's a hierarchy .
So to be clear with anarchy every sane anarchist is referring to the absence of as much non-consensual hierarchy as possible. Just to make that clear so that we both know what I mean. I quite dislike the label for above reasons but when it comes to political philosophy it's the closest to my stance so I use it for having a consensus sake.

I get what you mean; I just return to the fact that this is a pipe dream for any population of people beyond the level of a small village. And it's not a new idea. it's probably the original form of human communities, and one that many peaceful-minded peoples have attempted through the ages, albeit unsuccessfully in the long run.

I agree with your pros of capitalism and democracy. A lot of your post reads like you think I wouldn't acknowledge that. I do though. But A) I don't live my life looking at the rear mirror. I think about the next steps and I guess we both can agree that there is quite some room for improvement in humankind and most importantly B) the existence of something doesn't deny its existence under different circumstances. All of your arguements pro-government sound like you wholeheartedly believe these things are only possible due to the government. Which is just plain and simply wrong.

Hey, we agree on some stuff Actually we often agree on stuff
But A) As I pointed out, Democracy is the newer idea here, not Anarchy. Truly representative democracy is in it's infancy, relative to human history. And how else are we supposed to judge these things except by examining and learning from history? I guess that's "looking in the rear mirror"? Maybe you have a crystal ball to read the future. If so, please DM me with the next lotto numbers. That will be the first time in my life I play the lottery!
B) Point granted. You can hypothesize all you want about what might have been, I suppose. Not sure where that gets us.
Yes, I do believe in government, as long as it is representative and is founded in the consent of the governed. Consent unfortunately does not mean that every single person agrees with every single thing that your government does. What it means is that everyone has an equal voice in the process. Some people are always going to be unhappy, even in an Anarchy, no? Obviously, the basic tenet of democracy is majority rule, but just as important are the checks and balances to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. And while some of the things I list MAY be possible privately versus publicly, I think they are done more efficiently and most equitably by a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people"; NOT by private interests.

On the other hand, your post reads like i think (the US?) government is perfect and unquestionable. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it should be obvious if you're paying attention and not just trying to score rhetorical points. Governments are made of people and people suck. There are abuses and corruption, laziness, pettiness, incompetence, bigotry, greed, and just plain evil in every human endeavor. But we're also capable of recognizing these qualities in ourselves and working together to be better, learn from our failures, and try to overcome our flaws. When there are 8 billion people in the world, "live and let live" and trusting that people are inherently good just doesn't cut it.

As for your list:

It's funny, none of your objections below actually refute the underlying aim that I am advocating. Instead they reinforce the idea that these protections ARE necessary, and governments just need to do them better than they currently are. Also, your responses are clearly biased towards the US government. I am speaking broadly about all representative democracies worldwide. Each has its own flavors, strengths and weaknesses, but I would argue that they share the fundamental values.

• Nice you have a National Park (and I visited quite some of them - they're gorgeous indeed. The Grand Canyon is quite literally one of the reasons why I started to think in bigger categories than just myself). How many landstripes are changed for dams or mining though?

If you can imagine a world where billions of humans have no impact on the natural world, that's pretty neat. I hope we get there someday. In the meantime, we need development. I much prefer the process in western democracies, where citizens have actual input into how these decisions are made, and can even stop the most egregious projects through protests and legal challenges. Challenges that are only available because of government policies and regulations. Do you think more environmentally destructive projects happen in Germany, Sweden, and the USA, or in China, Russia, and North Korea?

• Government protects your air and water? Not when the tax revenue is big enough e.g. fracking gas

Do some research into what the situation was like before all the government environmental protections were put into place in the US and other countries. You honestly think the situation is worse now? These environmental policies were demanded by popular movements that forced their governments to act. Who else would have done this? The weakness of current environmental laws is evidence of the continuous assault on these institutions by industry and private interests since the day they were conceived. It is only the people who already HAVE clean air and clean drinking water who can be fooled into thinking that the Clean Water Act and the EPA are fascist government overreach. There is lots of room for improvement, and competing societal impulses that work in favor of things like fracking, but who else do you suggest is going to protect the common goods like air and water? Or do you believe that the tragedy of the commons is fantasy as well?

• If it would be true then why do we have robbers, murderers? You being a decent human is what disincentivizes your neighbor from doing you harm.
Spoiler - tasteless joke incoming: If you really think the police is the main reason you're still alive you must be a pretty big arsehole, lel.

Sure, i get the joke. And i also am a fan of "don't start none... there won't be none". But seriously, how naive can you be?

Bad things only happen to bad people? Seriously? Good innocent people are targeted every day by the unscrupulous in all kinds of ways. Maybe you are too clever, too strong, or too protected to be a victim now. Maybe. But as you get older and you start to lose some of your mental acuity, you are going to be more vulnerable. Children, the elderly, and all kinds of other vulnerable people are preyed upon all the time. Are these people not decent? seriously dude? what the actual smurf?

Maybe if we lived in a perfect utopian anarchy there wouldn't be anyone who was tempted to prey on the weak. Get real! The fact that crime still exists doesn't mean that police are useless. "Defund the Police" was popular in privileged woke circles. In actual high-crime areas, residents actually want MORE police. And yes, of course we need more accountability and oversight and plenty of other improvements in our policing. In lots of places, the police ARE the criminals. But again, all of the places where these problems are the worst tend to have the least representative forms of government.

As for neighbouring countries... ouch. Not a compelling arguement mate.
I'm sincerely glad that you can live in peace but government advocates love to forget that it was government funded military that disturbed the peace of quite literally the world just 80 years ago. Please consider all facts before praising government military next time. The people of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, amongst others, might wanna have a word with you there as well.
If you're supersold on government then maybe take your president serious, next time they warn you about the military industrial complex. Just sayin

I'll admit that this is one of my weakest points, as I am no fan of military adventurism and colonialism, and I have plenty to be upset about with recent (and not so recent) American foreign policy.
I was really trying to limit my point to national defense. And having an army doesn't mean that no one is ever going to attack you. I never made that ridiculous assertion. My point is that if my country is attacked, my (imaginary) children would not be forced to fight unless the shit really hit the fan (i'm most likely too old). That is true for most democracies with professional armies. And yes, we all love to shit on the US for being a global bully, but the countries that might want to have a word with you in our favor include all the former subjects/victims of the Third Reich and the empire of Japan, and many of the former Soviet Socialist Republics and Warsaw Pact. Lastly, I'll just point out that the rise of truly representative democracies worldwide coincided with the collapse of many global colonial empires. Correlation but not causation? I'm not so sure.

• GMO - nuff said

As I've said before, the system isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean that the idea of a government agency to protect food quality is stupid. Where do you think there are more food quality protections? France, Germany, and Italy? Or Russia, China, and Libya? I'm not a fan of GMO. I don't think that we understand the science well enough yet to unleash this stuff into the wild, and I'm afraid that the horse has left the barn already. But GMO crops did not originate from any government; they were the product of commercial attempts to capture the market. It's only because of government intervention that we have any regulation of GMOs at all. Some people believe that consumers are responsible for informing themselves and making wise decisions about what they buy. Those people should recognize that the only reason food products have to include labels with ingredients, nutritional information, and GMO warnings, is because of government regulations. Industry fought every single one of those requirements tooth and nail. I for one am glad i don't have to spend hours and hours researching what goes into my foods just so that I can be an informed shopper.

• Let's see how all the microplastic stuff turns out, lel

I'm not even sure what this means... Are you blaming governments for... the existence of plastic???
Did I say plastic was good? No? Well it is actually, it's amazing! that's why there is so much of it. Unfortunately, it's also terrible! Kind of incredible how many things can be true simultaneously, isn't it?
This is getting to be a tired old trope, but where do you think the government is doing as much as possible to deal with the problems of plastic? China? Russia?

• You call it education some might call it brainwashing. Especially when it comes to anything besides reading and math

Sure, brainwashing... great argument. Look, I'm not going to pretend that the reasons for public education are 100% altruistic. An educated population is more productive and serves the economy. But you know who benefits from that? all of us. And let's even go so far as to simply teach every child in the world to read and do math, as you suggest. That would be an awesome achievement for the betterment of the world!!! But where is the incentive for any private entity to give free education to every impoverished kid on the planet? Beyond some pitifully insufficient charitable efforts, it just ain't happening without government.

• Sure, there never have been finacial crashes in a government ruled country

Man, these are some weak arguments, dude. As someone once famously said: "the existence of something doesn't deny its existence under different circumstances". The difference is that we have learned from things like the great depression to institute the FDIC, and various other financial disasters have led to other important market protections. It's not perfect, and people with more talent and greed that the rest of us are still finding new ways to game the system and water down government regulation efforts. But man, I'd certainly rather have them than not. If the banks collapse in Germany, will your money be safe? Or do you hate banks and keep all you funds in crypto or under a mattress? If you had two choices of where to stash your life savings, would you choose the bank protected by the FDIC, or the Deposit Insurance Agency of Russia?

• builds roads... This is such a meme in the libertarian/anarchist community you'll find a lot of good videos explaining you why this is such a dumb arguement

So, what? we don't need roads? All roads should be toll roads? I'm not going to do a search for dumb memes that try to score points for lolz. Support your point yourself. Besides, I've already said that anarchy is a pipe dream, so what do i care what kind of memes are popular in the "community"?

• Private companies don't do R'n'D anymore ? Language? Alphabets? The wheel? Cars? Boats? Trains? Telephone? 3-D printed full auto lower receivers (Cody Wilson is a hero) All government inventions?

What a bizzarre list of examples! You think language, the alphabet, the wheel, and boats are the result of "RnD"? Besides, anything that predates the invention of democracy is kind of irrelevant to this discussion. And sure, the others came later as a result of private innovation, but you are mistaking my point. I am talking about basic research vs applied research. The vast majority of basic scientific research is government-supported. There just isn't enough commercial upside for corporations to invest in tons of basic science. Instead, they take the results of scientific breakthroughs that are the product of public funding, and apply those breakthroughs to create products that can be monetized. I figured you already understood this. Or, new companies are started by students graduating from university, building on what they learned as a result of largely government-funded research and education (even at private universities). Again, this is not just altruism from the government. Innovation is a major driver of the economy and a nation's global success against its competitors. But this is exactly HOW governments foster innovation, BY funding basic research. To give an example that will probably trigger the anti-vaxxers out there (i hope that's not you - mandates can and should be argued, but vaccine science should not): The covid vaccine was only able to be developed as rapidly as it was because the drug companies were able to build off of a solid basis of decades of NIH-sponsored vaccine research into corona viruses. Until the pandemic occurred, there was no incentive for Pfizer and Moderna to spend millions producing a coronavirus vaccine, so they didn't. But imagine where we would be if they had to start decades' worth of research from zero in 2020. Also, satellite communications, GPS, and the internet, just to name a few technologies that have a "minor" impact on our daily lives, all started as the products of military (i.e. government) research and funding.

• My neighbours don't build oil refineries because it's literally where their own houses are. Why wouldn't they build it close to an Autobahn or a harbour? Oh, it's exactly what they do for the sake of being economically feasible.

So in your utopian anarchic society, no one lives next to an autobahn or a harbour? all people are confined to residential areas? sounds like zoning to me. No one is allowed to buy or trade residential property for commercial purposes? sounds like development restrictions to me. Oil refinery was an intentionally outlandish example. But if economic feasibility is the only limit, I'm sure we can both think of things that our neighbors could do with their land that are little less extreme, but we still wouldn't want to live next to. Sure, you're free to move, but maybe you're kind of attached to your home?

• I'll combine the next two points because they're pretty similar. How do you explain charities? Only for tax reduction or is it maybe - just maybe - that we are actual social beings that care for one and another?

Nothing I said negated the existence of charities. Just because humans suck, doesn't mean that they aren't also kind, generous, and caring. See above regarding more than one thing being true at once. It's interesting that the US consistently ranks near the top of the most charitable countries in the world. Why do you think that is? I would argue its at least partially because the social safety net is much worse here than in other democracies. Swedish people (as an example) don't have to give a lot to charity (at least internal charities), because their government provides so many services so much better than we do. You could also argue that they don't have as much disposable income to donate because they are taxed so heavily, and that's an interesting argument to have: Are they getting their money's worth for the amount of taxes they pay? I'd argue yes, but I don't live there. And as a reliable source of social safety nets, I'd argue that charitable donations have several downsides. Donations are targeted; popular causes are always going to be over-funded while less popular but no-less-important needs may be ignored. Times of financial crisis, when social safety nets are most needed, are exactly when charitable donations decline. And the largest share of private donations go to some form of religious charity, which tend to impose their own moral values when re-distributing those funds.

What government advocates love to forget is that we had slavery and colonialism because the government granted and protected the rights for people to literally own other people.
Not to mention the government funding and protection that was used to get rid of the Natives in the first place .

I'll return to your very wise contention that the occurrence of a bad thing under one condition doesn't preclude the occurrence of that bad thing under different conditions. Slavery has been around since the beginning of time. it existed even among some of the most basic tribal societies. Human are primates. Take a look at how other primates live and treat "outsiders". it's a brutal world no matter how peaceful and idyllic you'd like it to be. I'll also remind you again of Churchill's quote that democracy is a bad form of government. Yes, lots of bad things have happened, continue to happen, and will happen in the future under democratic governments. What you have failed to argue in any meaningful sense is that there is a better alternative out there.

I'll hope that leaves some food for thought. As for that part:

These are all things that I consent to be taxed for (at a reasonable rate) and cede some individual liberty for.
That is the meaning of the social contract. You may say it's a bad deal. I say show me anything better (that works for more than 100,000 people).

A) The social contract is made up. It's a political and sociological theory with the unproven axiom of the natural state being violent. What do you wanna argue about next? Vampires? Unicorns?

It's no more or less made up than any other social theory or construct, like anarchy. And if you think it's unproven that humans are violent by nature, I just don't know what to say. Have you ever seen a two-year-old that didn't get its way? refer again to my comment about other primates. We all contain the capacity for violence; in fact we contain multitudes! And yes, actually unicorns and vampires do exist, at least in human consciousness. I could go to just about any place in the world and mention unicorns or vampires and they would know exactly what I'm talking about, even as fictional creations.

B) I'm glad you consent. I don't. That should be enough imho. Consent is key. If you don't think so we have a huge problem at hand.
Just because you lack the imagination of a society of consenting independent individuals having voluntary interactions I have to show you the blue print?
The huge difference between us two is that my pov doesn't force something onto you. Your government is forcing a lot onto me though.

Consent is crucial, but unfortunately it doesn't end there. Not with 8 billion people on the planet. You think there's a single smurfing thing that 8 billion people are all going to agree on? Unfortunately, things happen, and decisions have to be made. That's why governments that are based on consent of the governed are needed, but they existentially have to have mechanisms for allowing for dissent, and at times overruling it. 100% consent is not a thing because it will never happen. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one". Yes, this has wild amounts of potential for abuse, and we are constantly trying to find ways to prevent that abuse. Like a broken record: you haven't shown me anything better yet!

I recommend some Nietzsche and Kropotkin or at least some Friedman (I mean the guy has kinda peace in his name )

Those are just some "made up" words by some made up people
Seriously though, as you might have guessed, i prefer John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and Thomas Jefferson.

[Sir Toddalot]

I should indeed read more again though. I haven't touched a book for ages with the exception of good night stories of course. Selected stories of Paddington is the last book I've read completely... and then again...
and again...

I get this! I have a huge stack of unread books that keeps getting bigger. I used to be able to read 5 books a week when I was in school, now I’m lucky if I read 10 books a year. I do listen to a lot of audiobooks, but I don’t consider that reading, and I don’t get as much out of it.

[Harvonsgard]

Yah, I feel the same way about audiobooks.

@th4mo
I followed your warning and only skimmed through your lenghty posts. I would have read it in full but skimming it and reading things like:

Bad things only happen to bad people? Seriously?

; I really don't get if you deliberately misinterpret or if my English is that bad. In either case it does not make sense to further elaborate.
You can proclaim as much as you want, that it is just and right to force something onto others, it doesn't make it actually true and/or just no matter how you try to twist it. The fact that you need abstract things like the social contract, the greater good, human nature to justify it says it all.

[rousselle]

i prefer John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and Thomas Jefferson.

Q: What did the philosophy major say when asked, "can you recommend a philosopher who wrote on how to treat his fellow man?"

A: "I. Kant"

[th4mo]

@th4mo
I followed your warning and only skimmed through your lenghty posts.

Sorry, I went a bit overboard, and felt bad about that later...

I would have read it in full but skimming it and reading things like:

Bad things only happen to bad people? Seriously?

; I really don't get if you deliberately misinterpret or if my English is that bad. In either case it does not make sense to further elaborate.

We can drop this if you want, I guess. I'm not out to harass you. I am actually trying to understand where you're coming from, even if i think you're wrong. that's why I keep asking you to provide some support for your claims. In case you're sincerely doubtful: Your English, while not perfect, is very high level. So I don't think that's the problem. Your actual statement was this:

You being a decent human is what disincentivizes your neighbor from doing you harm.

On its face, that statement may make a certain amount of sense to some people. But the corollary to this statement is: "You being an indecent human is what incentivizes your neighbor to do you harm"; is it not? That's really NOT a very big jump to "bad things happen to bad people". So please explain to me how I deliberately misinterpreted what you said?

Honestly, I don't think the first statement is true either. Rather, it should be: Your neighbor being a decent human is what disincentivizes your neighbor from doing you harm. If your neighbor is not a decent human, then they will do you harm regardless of who you are (if they think the risk is worth the reward), because by definition they are not decent.

You can proclaim as much as you want, that it is just and right to force something onto others, it doesn't make it actually true and/or just no matter how you try to twist it. The fact that you need abstract things like the social contract, the greater good, human nature to justify it says it all.

You can call me a fascist all you want, it doesn't make it actually true either. The idea that 8 billion people can somehow live together in perfect harmony without anyone ever having to do anything they don't want to? Well that sounds like Neverland to me.

[Harvonsgard]

Appreciate your concerns but no worries at all, there is no harassment going on.

After re-reading and inserting some edits I should give a TL;DR warning, too, lel.

It's a pretty philosophical topic imho, so I try to not be too TL;DR that's why some arguements are shortend for the sake of not ending in an essay or a book, haha.
So let me eloborate on the "You being a decent..."
We both understand and most likely agree that the world ain't black and white, right? Your corollary (sincerely appreciate teaching me a new word) is correct as well. That doesn't mean though that bad stuff only or exclusively happens to bad people. I never said or implied that.
You can of course be the most saint-like folk on the planet and some horrible stuff can happen to you because you've met the wrong person at the wrong time in space. Everything in life imho is an amalgamation of a multitude of factors.
So my point is, what ultimatively protects your life is an amalgamation of being a decent human, being somewhat caring for your community, being somewhat capable to defend yourself but possing no thread to others at the same time, being aware of your surroundings and so on and so forth. Sounds reasonable?

I'm sure that there are indeed some folks out there who might not do shit because there is the government monopoly on violence but A) I'd say it's the minority of the populus and B) who protects me against the folks that don't give a shit about ending up in jail? You know, those folks that have no qualms to pull the trigger (or even worse) just for $10 in my pocket? I would answer that with aforementioned.

To understand you better, am I right that your premise is in general that human nature is violent? Gimme proof of that please. No anecdotal evidence but some facts.
I'm not convinced since, I've seen a lot of documenteries about primates who are quite peaceful (Gorillas, Bonobos). But I've seen documentaries about chimps that raid and even cannibalise other tribes as well. I've seen just recently a documentary about humans. Anthropologists found first signs for violence and war when bigger settlements and overproduction came into place. So there are cases to be made for both imho. And there is no definite answer amongst scientists and even philosophers to my knowledge. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

So my synthesis would be: humans in nature are a social, caring and peaceful being unless they see a disadvantage and tribalism kicks in.

I didn't call you a fascist. Not sure why you would write that other than maybe being exaggorative?
Same goes for 8 billion people In perfect harmony? Where did I ever proclaim anarchy is the cure for everything wrong in our society? And where did I proclaim nobody never has to do something s/he doesn't want to? There will always be compromises to be made but how do you get to a true compromise when one side holds most of the power?
I'm simply convinced, due to a lot if factors in my life, that the more self-reliant a human is and the more responsibility he has for his life the less ignorant he becomes.

I am actually trying to understand where you're coming from, even if i think you're wrong.

I think I made it pretty clear where I'm coming from. We both seem to agree that forcing someone to something s/he doesn't want is in general not the right thing to do? Am I correct here?
You don't want to have to do research about food so you think the FDA is a good thing. I on the other hand have to do reasearch about politics and who to vote for, just to be fucked for four years because promises made during the campaign are not upheld? Sounds like an imbalance to me.
Why don't you and everyone agreeing with the FDA fund that and I fund projects that I deem worthy to support? I don't wanna be forced to fund wars. I don't wanna be forced to pay for government television. To change these two things alone I would have to become a full time politician or lawyer.

[hsbc]

I don't wanna be forced to pay for government television.

Just noting that the US doesn't have television license fees

[Harvonsgard]

Err... your point being what exactly??? Like for real .

[hsbc]

Just a detail Sorry?