Only anarchists can exist in society without feeling a compulsion to know everyone's business and control it. I can pass people on the street, and whether they are a Nazi, a Republican, or a Communist, it doesn't matter to me as long as they do not attack me or anyone else while I am around. They can have absolutely disgusting authoritarian personal views and "morals", but it doesn't matter as long as they do not act upon them. As an anarchist I understand that the lives of others are none of my business unless they choose to make it my business by initiating force.
Therefore, I do not "need" government to control other people. That would require a police escort for each of us, and while it seems this is where things are headed, it is not a good development, nor will it be successful at ending "crime".
I can get along just fine, left to my own devices. I find no reason to attack anyone, or steal from them. If they attack me or steal from me, I have more to fear from the responding enforcers than from the initial attack, especially if I am disobedient enough to solve the problem on my own.
I recognize that no one gets anything from government that wasn't stolen from someone else first. Society is a win/win game. Government upsets this balance and makes one side lose in every interaction. This causes aggravation and frustration and rips society apart at the seams; pitting "givers" against "getters". Then government uses the discord as another justification for its own existence.
Infrastructure and innovation, when attempted by government at all, cost too much and are pathetically anemic substitutes for what could be done without government constraints. Where would we be without government? Probably a few hundred years more advanced, is where. As an example of "government innovation": Government built already obsolete space shuttles in the 1970s from 1960's technology and didn't get around to flying them until the 1980s. Almost none of the original specifications or expectations were met by even this multi-billion dollar project, but this is how government "works". And these are the people who should be telling the rest of us how to live and prosper? Be warned, you are about to be "given" more government "innovation" than you can survive. "Obamacare" will mean "2009-level medical care"- well into the next century. It is inevitable.
So free yourself of the brainwashing. You are a sovereign individual. You are not your neighbor's keeper, nor are you his slave. Your obligations to him begin and end with the obligation to not initiate force. Don't meddle or ask anyone to meddle on your behalf. Accept your responsibilities and live your life. This is a very liberating way of life, yet it must be foreign to the authoritarians since it seems beyond their comprehension.
Comments
Space program is a great example... glad you brought it up. Who else.. other than the federal government could have ever even attempted such an effort as going to the moon, and completed the task in under a decade.
True to your belief, ultimately it led to the shuttle and by some measures mis-managed, but still if it were not for Govt. there would be no space, or any of the hundreds of technological advances it brought about.
Indeed without government to develop and lay the groundwork for space, the internet, modern highways etc.. we would be many years behind where we are.
I like government, and aside from providing fascinating dialog I could care less what your views are, and I dont NEED to know them or change them either.. you choose to make them available and I choose to dispute them for my own edification. The fear that I need to govern you or know you is mostly self-conceived.
I mean if anyone in government really cared to control you.. would you be able to post this ?
DLH- If you look at the history of the Apollo program, you will see that many knowledgable space enthusiasts see it as a boondoggle that sidetracked human space exploration... and from which it has never recovered. If it had been done privately, it might have been a few years later, but it would have been a reasonable step in a logical ladder- there would probably be humans living and working on the moon within a decade of the first landing. As it was, NASA dropped the ball after the propaganda value was exhausted.
Government prohibitions have made it exceedingly difficult for free-market space access, but it has been done anyway (scaled.com). Get NASA out of the way and let real human space exploration take off on its own.
Just because government wants to control everyone doesn't mean they are able to do so. You have read about the proposed government regulation and censoring of the internet, right? They want to, they just haven't been able to pull it off.
DLH - may I ask a question: - You mention that the fear that (I) have that *you* might need to govern (me) is mostly "self-conceived". Laying the subjective term 'mostly' aside; as an anarchist, I would never use force to make you act the way I want, nor would I use force to make you provide things I may deem necessary. That is, unless you initiate force against me, in which case I am merely defending myself. Moreover, I would never delegate someone else to perform the task of forcing you to behave thus.
Having said that, I wonder if you would offer the same courtesy. For example, I believe it is morally wrong to fund a police force with taxation. My guess is that you feel a state-run police force is necessary. Since I find it morally wrong to fund the police via taxation (that is, coerced donation) would you then allow me to opt out of this program, or would you consider this to be something that I need to be forced to fund - for my own benefit?
Also - regarding the space program, internet, etc... One can only wonder what information you have (prescience, omniscience, etc?) that leads you to make the claim that unless the government had been involved, these things would not have developed as quickly? From where I sit, knowing how the market operates, I'd argue the exact opposite: that State interference in these areas always retards development.
It seems awfully strange to make the claim that '...if it were not for Govt. there would be no space, or any of the hundreds of technological advances it brought about..."
I assume then, that private enterprise would have absolutely no interest in any technological advancement, and that only a state organism is ever interested in improving life and advancing knowledge.
Really strange thoughts there!
For example, I am not a government agent, and yet I am very interested in space travel, etc...
DHL, on the "Space Program". Let me suggest another tack. Consider the earlier "Age of Exploration", where state funded explorers(or companies operating with state charter and authority) went about "discovering" things. We are supposed to see this as a great accomplishment.
Guess what, 500 years before Columbus(and perhaps even longer-much longer)Norsemen, operating under a very loose feudal system-essentially no state as such-crossed the N. Atlantic and established colonies in Newfoundland, Greenland and Iceland. How is that possible? And why? And could not the same thing occur again?
You guys are hard core contrarians
some of you telling me that the Apollo program sidetracked human space exploration. Of course all this is speculation because until recently there was NO ONE ELSE involved in human space exploration aside from 2 governments.
Not surprising, it was a huge undertaking, with risks that cannot be imagined and no sure payoff of any sort. Right.. private industry was gonna jump all over that in 1965. Has it gone astray since ? sure it has. Does that do anything to lessen the achievement that exploring the mood was no.
You guys are never going to gain any traction with this deny everything, no compromise approach. You will always be relegated to standing in the corner with your arms crossed and a pout on your face until you realize that you need to work/compromise with others to make any headway.
The free world needs skeptics, doubters like you but you need to be willing/able to SEE the world as most of the rest of the world does first. Give an
DLH- Just last week I was reading an article by a space industry insider who was very critical of the government's space program for the same reasons as I am. I have been trying to find it again in order to use it as a reference, but have been unable.
You would be wrong if you see the libertarian/anarchist position as "standing in the corner with your arms crossed and a pout on your face". I am not pouting or grumpy. I will not help harm others, though.
I also know there is no compromise with those who think it is OK to take what belongs to others, even if you promise to use the stolen property in good ways. It is not OK to initiate force against the innocent no matter what silly uniform you wear or what "laws" you are enforcing.
I simply recognize that, as Ayn Rand said, in any compromise between food and poison, poison wins. But, as someone who adheres to the ZAP I am free to live by my principles no matter what chaos surrounds me. That is a great feeling.
"Contrarian"? Well, when I see evil, am I just supposed to nod in approval or ignore it? Not me. I would be hiding Jews in the attic. There is only a difference in degree between the harm caused by any governments; the basic foundation is always the same: You belong to the state/"society"/the common good. That is just wrong.
I am not trying to change society, at least not as a unit, because I see individuals, not collectives. The headway I make is by making individuals rethink what they have been supporting, or see what they have been ignoring. The world doesn't have to change for me to succeed. Maybe this is why I am not as bitter or disappointed as you seem to think I am.
I do think I understand how the majority sees the world. I just realize they are looking through brainwashed eyes. Is there really any value in seeing the world as the majority sees it, if the majority is wrong? After all, most people are superstitious in one way or another, but it's still silly.
Kent,
Most of the "anarchists" (I use quotations because there are a lot of nuances involved with the term, and many people use the same word to mean different things. I am using it as people who have simply described themselves as anarchists.) have formed some sort of ideology that eventually collapses into utilitarianism. You, on the other hand, seem to only value the individual, rather than the collective. (As do I. Which is why, though I think anything beyond a small community working together to get things done is too large a government to refrain from hurting people and making their lives less autonomous and personally rewarding.) But I have never called myself an anarchist because of the ones I have encountered. Can you possibly shed some light on my confusion and the distinctions within anarchism?
My comments stand.
You read an article that points out flaws in the space program, calling it a boondoggle. Not big surprise, a 40 year program, trillions of dollars to take people from high altitude, to space, to the moon and now a space station.
Rather than acknowledging that it was a fantastic undertaking that will forever stand as one of the truly great achievements of man.. you condemn the entire undertaking embarking on a string of speculation of what ifs about private industry that can never be proven. Do your readers just take all that in hook line and sinker ?
Totally inflexible, plain stubborn as you repeat the mantra "anything goverment = everything bad". Sure it appeals to a certain limited mindset but any thinking person understands the world ISN'T that black and white.
The world needs skeptics and people to watch the governments, as no government should ever be blindly trusted.. but what you do here is as thought provoking and as useful as blind devotion to Govt.
Hi DLH -
The travels to space are a fantastic undertaking - a great achievement. It does not change the morality of the situation, however. The State funds ALL of its endeavors by coercion. It steals the money it needs.
Hence, regardless of the amazing outcome, the core problem is still the same. The MEANS to achieve the ENDS are wrong. Amazing breakthroughs in medicine were achieved by evil means in the 1930's by the Nazis. I will never argue that the end justifies the means.
As for the black and white - yes, indeed, it is black and white. It is wrong - always wrong, to initiate force against another. It is always wrong to steal money from person 'A' in order to help person 'B'. Just because you want to live in this manner does not negate the immorality of the situation. It just means you are willing to abandon moral principles to get things done. Some of us spend our time finding ways to avoid that.
You're right. I don't need public schools, or roads or stoplights or police departments. I can teach myself, drive just fine over the rocky ground, and fight crime with my machete. I prefer to play my soccer games without a ref, and eat food from places that don't believe in inspections. Hey, I trust the banks and the insurance companies. They'll do what's right--they'll play fair if government would just leave them alone. I would love to live on the island with Piggy in The Lord of the Flies--what fun--or perhaps move to the Sudan where anarchy rule--no taxes! AND I'll get to put out my own fires and start my own heart beating again.
DLH- The future of humanity is in space. If we do not move off-world we are doomed sooner or later. This means that human space exploration is incredibly important. However, there is no undertaking so important that it justifies taking property that belongs to people who would rather not hand it over. Theft is theft no matter how you try to justify it. A back-alley mugger is no different morally than an IRS agent. Both back up their threats with force. If you do not pay "your" taxes, agents of the government will escalate the situation until you either "pay up" or you are killed. Now, if you wish to give a percentage of your income to NASA, or a private space company, go right ahead. Just don't demand that others do the same.
Rachel- Public schools have nearly destroyed education in a little over 100 years. You would do better without them. Roads can exist without government, just as they have in the past. Some day our descendants will be amazed we ever settled for pathetic government roads. Stoplights could also exist without government, although a better way for helping people avoid collisions (which should be the only reasons the signals exist) is probably possible. Referrees are voluntary; coercive government is not. See the difference? Rules are OK; Rulers are not. Why should only the state set cleanliness standards for food service? Why do people still get food-borne illnesses with government on the case? Fire-fighting and emergency medical care are also completely separate from government. The depth of the brainwsahing is apparent when you can't accept or even see that fact.
Also, Rachel- As far as your Lord of the Flies scenario- I hope you are joking. Would you really behave that way if you did not have the guns of government aimed at you to keep you in line? Or, are you just hinting that this is how your friends and/or neighbors would react to freedom?
nmsu1984- Sorry for the delay in answering. Life, and Examiner glitches, got in the way.
Most of the people who call themselves "anarchists" really have no objection to Rulers, they just want their own goons to rule society rather than the current goons. Most of them are socialists of some type.
The roots of the word "anarchy" (an archos) simply mean "without ruler (or king)". Common usage has burdened the word with connotations of chaos. The nihilists who incorrectly claim the term add to the confusion. I don't like chaos, which is precisely why I don't like government.
You don't need a babysitter in order to peacefully live your day-to-day existence. Why should you need one at all for any reason?
There are many words used to describe the same concept. Some people refuse to use any labels at all. The main thing is, do not harm those who have not attacked or stolen from you. Call yourself whichever label you prefer, or none at all.
DHL,
If you want to toss about imperious statements about other people's views being somehow contorted, you may want to refrain from anti-intellectualism yourself. That "space shot" everyone is supposed to revere-well I do revere it, however I don't give the "state" any credit for it. Go educate yourself-as you seem to think everyone else should do. There are individuals with names who deserve credit for developing the technology-Chinese monks for developing gunpowder and rudimentary rockets, a guy named Congreve for giving them some control(and a red glare in a certain song), a Russian math teacher for finding a fuel to weight formula, a one Robert Goddard who developed a load carrying rocket-and the vision to go to space with one.
Guess what, the Taoist monks who developed gunpowder were political outcasts, and Goddard and the Russian worked without State support(until Goddard later took military contracts-key word:later, as in after patenting)
The only person there who actually directly worked for a state was Congreve, and he, well umm, he stuck a stick on the back of a rocket so it would fly straight-to more efficiently kill.( I forgot to mention Hale-nineteenth century as well) And there of course is the state's only interest in rocketry-it use as a weapon. What do you think the "space race" was all about? Academic chest puffing....or nuclear brinkmanship?
At any rate, the work and ingenuity of many wildly creative minds-independent of state control or sanction in most cases-developed the technology to get to the Moon-it would be nice if you would refrain from desecrating their memory by giving the credit to a bureaucracy hell bent not on the furthering of mankind, but the more efficient distribution of radioactive material. To do otherwise is to deny reality in exchange for propaganda.
By the way-why have we not gone back to the Moon, and why can't Richard Branson go, if it is such a "grand" thing.
Posted a response/analysis of Rachel's post on one of my blogs at
nwlibertarian.blogspot.com - too long to post here:
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!