Politics, statism, anarchism, racism; split from: Wall Observer thread

[NotLambchop]

This argument again.

After the collapse and then the following anarchy, who will be providing the electrical power to run your local wallet? who will provide/maintain the network infrasrtucture and routing, etc. to make BTC trades possible?


etc.

Someone willing to make a shitload of money providing services which are so desirable I imagine.

Seriously, is that so hard to imagine?

It's easy to imagine, the problem is there is no historical data showing anything similar.  None.
And when one government collapses, another one takes the reins.  Not anarchists.

[MrPiggles]

ITT: bunch of rich westerners who think that laws prevent them enjoying their lives to the max.

NITT: bunch of poor people who'd cut your throats with a broken bottle if it wasn't for the protection of governments.

[MrPiggles]

This argument again.

After the collapse and then the following anarchy, who will be providing the electrical power to run your local wallet? who will provide/maintain the network infrasrtucture and routing, etc. to make BTC trades possible?


etc.

Someone willing to make a shitload of money providing services which are so desirable I imagine.

Seriously, is that so hard to imagine?

It's easy to imagine, the problem is there is no historical data showing anything similar.  None.
And when one government collapses, another one takes the reins.  Not anarchists.

Nah, you get power vacuums where there is no government, except what happens is the biggest group of guys decide they'll form a government to rule over the others. You can't stop people doing it

[ErisDiscordia]

This argument again.

After the collapse and then the following anarchy, who will be providing the electrical power to run your local wallet? who will provide/maintain the network infrasrtucture and routing, etc. to make BTC trades possible?


etc.

Someone willing to make a shitload of money providing services which are so desirable I imagine.

Seriously, is that so hard to imagine?

It's easy to imagine, the problem is there is no historical data showing anything similar.  None.
And when one government collapses, another one takes the reins.  Not anarchists.

That's why I advocate evolution instead of revolution. Throw down your government and you'll get a new one which is just as bad. The way forward is to make government unnecessary. Like I said - maybe the case is that we needed governmental structures in order to get to the point of technological development we have now reached, but I propose that this status should be challenged and re-examined periodically.

I have a question for those people, who have taken a stance of "the government is necessary" in this debate. You may be convinced that it will stay necessary forever, regardless of whether you like it or not. But let's forget about that for a moment. The question is: "if it somehow turns out that a society doesn't need a government to function, what would be your reaction to that?". I mean would you be happy that we can get rid of the "necessary evil" after all or would you have a problem with that? Genuinely interested.

[spooderman]

ARGH so much shit in this thread.

Someone really just said anarchism is desired by privileged westerners? Sorry who is enslaving and maintaining the subjugation of the global working class? It's various governments and corporations (same thing).

How is it that the richest continent on the planet in terms of resources (Africa) has the poorest citizens?

Fuck you and your slave masters that have convinced you that their institutions are trustworthy.

[MrPiggles]

ARGH so much shit in this thread.

Someone really just said anarchism is desired by privileged westerners? Sorry who is enslaving and maintaining the subjugation of the global working class? It's various governments and corporations (same thing).

How is it that the richest continent on the planet in terms of resources (Africa) has the poorest citizens?

Fuck you and your slave masters that have convinced you that their institutions are trustworthy.

Africa is a good example of how anarchy actually turns out. The guy with the biggest stick/largest horde of AK47 wielding men becomes the leader, forms a government, robs everythign he can until a guy with a bigger stick/larger horde comes along.

. But let's forget about that for a moment. The question is: "if it somehow turns out that a society doesn't need a government to function, what would be your reaction to that?". I mean would you be happy that we can get rid of the "necessary evil" after all or would you have a problem with that? Genuinely interested.

That would be fantastic, if in the future we can find a way to make society function without the threat of force I'd be all for it

[NotLambchop]

This argument again.

After the collapse and then the following anarchy, who will be providing the electrical power to run your local wallet? who will provide/maintain the network infrasrtucture and routing, etc. to make BTC trades possible?


etc.

Someone willing to make a shitload of money providing services which are so desirable I imagine.

Seriously, is that so hard to imagine?

It's easy to imagine, the problem is there is no historical data showing anything similar.  None.
And when one government collapses, another one takes the reins.  Not anarchists.

That's why I advocate evolution instead of revolution. Throw down your government and you'll get a new one which is just as bad. The way forward is to make government unnecessary. Like I said - maybe the case is that we needed governmental structures in order to get to the point of technological development we have now reached, but I propose that this status should be challenged and re-examined periodically.

Can you think of an efficient mechanism for that?  Advocates of Democracy claim that it's already in place--periodic elections.  Sure, in reality that's pretty anemic, but what's the alternative?

I have a question for those people, who have taken a stance of "the government is necessary" in this debate. You may be convinced that it will stay necessary forever, regardless of whether you like it or not. But let's forget about that for a moment. The question is: "if it somehow turns out that a society doesn't need a government to function, what would be your reaction to that?". I mean would you be happy that we can get rid of the "necessary evil" after all or would you have a problem with that? Genuinely interested.

Of course people everyone would like to get rid of "necessary evil"--the "evil" part of the phrase strongly implies that.  The "necessary" part, OTOH, implies that it's necessary

[ErisDiscordia]

ARGH so much shit in this thread.

Someone really just said anarchism is desired by privileged westerners? Sorry who is enslaving and maintaining the subjugation of the global working class? It's various governments and corporations (same thing).

How is it that the richest continent on the planet in terms of resources (Africa) has the poorest citizens?

Fuck you and your slave masters that have convinced you that their institutions are trustworthy.

well sometimes I get angry like this, too...but then I tell myself that most of the people in opposition to the dismantling of government aren't evil or malicious. They just don't see it the way I do and genuinely seem to believe...

Anyway, no point in further cementing the stereotypical imagine of the angry rebel without a cause anarchist throwing molotovs at the IMF meeting. I do understand your frustration, though. I go back and forth between Robert Anton Wilsons endless optimism and George Carlins bitter cynicism saying "yeah fuck them if they're that stupid so let's just watch them burn and enjoy the show".

[NotLambchop]

...
Fuck you and your slave masters that have convinced you that their institutions are trustworthy.

No, we'll just keep fucking you instead.  Relax, u'll enjoy it more!

  ~Your Reptilian Overlords.

[octaft]

Fuck you and your slave masters that have convinced you that their institutions are trustworthy.

How does one derive "trustworthy" from "necessary evil?"

[MrPiggles]

well sometimes I get angry like this, too...but then I tell myself that most of the people in opposition to the dismantling of government aren't evil or malicious. They just don't see it the way I do and genuinely seem to believe...

Anyway, no point in further cementing the stereotypical imagine of the angry rebel without a cause anarchist throwing molotovs at the IMF meeting. I do understand your frustration, though. I go back and forth between Robert Anton Wilsons endless optimism and George Carlins bitter cynicism saying "yeah fuck them if they're that stupid so let's just watch them burn and enjoy the show".

I do like Robert Anton Wilson myself, and also George Carlin.

Frankly, short of us creating some super intelligent AI to watch over us and make sure we're not thieving from and killing each other when we get the opportunity I do not have faith in humanity not to do so.

Near where I live a migrant worker recently murdered another over a $1 or $2 gambling game. According to the rather gore-loving local police he nearly decapitated him (that's where I got my NITT idea from)

How would you prevent people like that from cutting each others heads off in your world without rules?

[Elwar]

The guy with the biggest stick/largest horde of weapon wielding men becomes the leader, forms a government, robs everythign he can until a guy with a bigger stick/larger horde comes along.

Welcome to every government in the history of the world.

[Ibian]

ITT: bunch of rich westerners who think that laws prevent them enjoying their lives to the max.

NITT: bunch of poor people who'd cut your throats with a broken bottle if it wasn't for the protection of governments.

The poor people would TRY. Funny thing, how much money you have has little to do with how you do in a bottle-throat-slitting contest. Not to mention people above a certain treshold would have people handling that part for them.

Big state vs no/small state isn't about money, anyway. It's about the kind of society we live in.

[ErisDiscordia]

. But let's forget about that for a moment. The question is: "if it somehow turns out that a society doesn't need a government to function, what would be your reaction to that?". I mean would you be happy that we can get rid of the "necessary evil" after all or would you have a problem with that? Genuinely interested.

That would be fantastic, if in the future we can find a way to make society function without the threat of force I'd be all for it

I suspect we all want to make the world a better place, but have wildly different ideas about how it actually works today and what is to be done peace

Can you think of an efficient mechanism for that?  Advocates of Democracy claim that it's already in place--periodic elections.  Sure, in reality that's pretty anemic, but what's the alternative?

Yes I can think of many alternatives but they would probably be no good. I argue the (admittedly rather difficult to defend) position that we have no way of knowing what a superior way of managing things will look like, because if we would, it would cease to be superior. This has to do with how chaotic systems tend to self-organize at higher levels of coherence without any known cause.

Self-organization is a process where some form of global order or coordination arises out of the local interactions between the components of an initially disordered system. This process is spontaneous: it is not directed or controlled by any agent or subsystem inside or outside of the system; however, the laws followed by the process and its initial conditions may have been chosen or caused by an agent. It is often triggered by random fluctuations that are amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized or distributed over all the components of the system. As such it is typically very robust and able to survive and self-repair substantial damage or perturbations. In chaos theory it is discussed in terms of islands of predictability in a sea of chaotic unpredictability.

Self-organization occurs in a variety of physical, chemical, biological, social and cognitive systems. Common examples are crystallization, the emergence of convection patterns in a liquid heated from below, chemical oscillators, swarming in groups of animals, and the way neural networks learn to recognize complex patterns.

This idea applied to societal organization basically means that free interaction between any and all people should produce levels of coherence which are more complex, more resilient against damage, more efficient (in terms of resource usage) and unexpected.

The way I see it is if I climb onto a pedestal now and start espousing ideas about how to fix this, that and the other part of society, what I am doing is claiming that I alone am smarter than all of the kings, presidents, committees, voters, bureaucrats etc. who ever tried tackling these problems. No I'm not and in recognizing this I am deferring to the wisdom of the crowds. But not in a simplified democratic manner of "let's each cast a vote and force everyone to do whatever the majority decides" that's not what I'm talking about at all. In fact when I am talking about anarchy I am not talking about chaos, not about the absence of rules, but the absence of one universal set of rules mandatory for everybody. The stability and resilience is a function of diversity.

Of course people everyone would like to get rid of "necessary evil"--the "evil" part of the phrase strongly implies that.  The "necessary" part, OTOH, implies that it's necessary

At the same time the "necessary" part says something about the personal bias of the speaker, not about the nature of the situation. Truth is we don't know.

[spooderman]

Fuck you and your slave masters that have convinced you that their institutions are trustworthy.

How does one derive "trustworthy" from "necessary evil?"

I wasn't replying specifically to your post, more the general gist of the placaters in here

And yes, I too flip between "forgive them for they know not what they do," and "fuck all of you, die you cunts."

It tends to be the lack of imagination that winds me up the most:

X is good.

Government did X.

Therefore government is necessary (and possibly something I'm massively in favour of) and there is NO WAY IMAGINABLE of achieving X without government.

And to carry on the "Africa" example, you just need to take what you are saying further until you end up with nukes. It is Africa's political elites the subjugate their populous' to their own ends.

Watch some fucking Chomsky.

[ErisDiscordia]

We will see another huge dump today. 380 by the end of the day. From here it's only 1 way and that's down.

Hey shroomsie talk about something else for a change. What's your opinion? do we need a government?

[justusranvier]

Near where I live a migrant worker recently murdered another over a $1 or $2 gambling game. According to the rather gore-loving local police he nearly decapitated him (that's where I got my NITT idea from)

How would you prevent people like that from cutting each others heads off in your world without rules?

How many things are wrong with this question?

Anarchism means without rulers, not without rules.

The world we have today, with rulers, failed to stop the migrant worker from murdering another migrant worker.

If a world without rulers also failed to stop the migrant worker, this would not represent a failure of anarchism any more than the murder that did happen represents the failure of government.

So your question itself is wrong.

We live in a world that, despite numerous laws and extraordinarily expensive law enforcement agencies, still fails to stop migrant workers for murdering each other over a $1 or $2 gambling game.

Why not live in a world where those murders also happen, but at least we don't have to pay the salaries of a bunch of people who fail to keep their promises to prevent it?

[Ibian]

How is it that the richest continent on the planet in terms of resources (Africa) has the poorest citizens?

Because they are niggers.

Not even kidding. They have an average lower IQ, they are less empathic than other races, I personally know two black teenagers who can't tell the time on an analog clock (didn't believe it until I saw it).

Africans are dumb, man. Goes against the PC code to say it, but that's how it is.

[MrPiggles]

And to carry on the "Africa" example, you just need to take what you are saying further until you end up with nukes. It is Africa's political elites the subjugate their populous' to their own ends.

Yeah, you're saying exactly what I said, the guy with the biggest stick becomes the elite.

Now you're blaming the guy with the biggest stick.

Before he came along, it was anarchy. Someone came along and took over.

You cannot prevent someone from taking over if you don't have anyone in charge.

[NotLambchop]

. But let's forget about that for a moment. The question is: "if it somehow turns out that a society doesn't need a government to function, what would be your reaction to that?". I mean would you be happy that we can get rid of the "necessary evil" after all or would you have a problem with that? Genuinely interested.

That would be fantastic, if in the future we can find a way to make society function without the threat of force I'd be all for it

I suspect we all want to make the world a better place, but have wildly different ideas about how it actually works today and what is to be done peace

Can you think of an efficient mechanism for that?  Advocates of Democracy claim that it's already in place--periodic elections.  Sure, in reality that's pretty anemic, but what's the alternative?

Yes I can think of many alternatives but they would probably be no good. I argue the (admittedly rather difficult to defend) position that we have no way of knowing what a superior way of managing things will look like, because if we would, it would cease to be superior. This has to do with how chaotic systems tend to self-organize at higher levels of coherence without any known cause.

Self-organization is a process where some form of global order or coordination arises out of the local interactions between the components of an initially disordered system. This process is spontaneous: it is not directed or controlled by any agent or subsystem inside or outside of the system; however, the laws followed by the process and its initial conditions may have been chosen or caused by an agent. It is often triggered by random fluctuations that are amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized or distributed over all the components of the system. As such it is typically very robust and able to survive and self-repair substantial damage or perturbations. In chaos theory it is discussed in terms of islands of predictability in a sea of chaotic unpredictability.

Self-organization occurs in a variety of physical, chemical, biological, social and cognitive systems. Common examples are crystallization, the emergence of convection patterns in a liquid heated from below, chemical oscillators, swarming in groups of animals, and the way neural networks learn to recognize complex patterns.

This idea applied to societal organization basically means that free interaction between any and all people should produce levels of coherence which are more complex, more resilient against damage, more efficient (in terms of resource usage) and unexpected.

But if such social systems were indeed more resilient, we would have Anarchist societies?