What Is Anarchy?

[Nikephoros_Phokas]

"Anarcho-capitalism"(sic) is not anarchism. It is just an intellectual circle jerk movement at its finest. All they want to do is have capitalism usurp the role of the state, have corporations take over the roles of police, army, establishing law, etc. Such a form of capitalism is nothing other than a state but with another name.

 

Personally, I find it hard to respect alot of anarchists, their analyses of world events take too much of an economic and ideological character. Most anarchists would anaylse the Israel-Palestinian conflict by concluding that both states are just as bad because they are states, and as anarchists are against all states, would say the solution lies in finding the real enemy of the Israelis and Palestinians is the same; their own governments and their own capitalists, but that is quite a shallow anaylsis. Much as I cannot respect anarchists for their tendency to put ideology above realism and pragamatism, the "anarcho-capitalists"(sic) are much worse for in their fanatic support of capitalism, they consider the nation state being abolished and replaced by coporate states like in the Mechwarrior universe is a form of anarchism. Going from a nation state and advocating a corporate state instead is a mockery of the intellectual and historical traditions of anarchism, which is why "anarcho-capitalism" is a gross oxymoron.

Edited February 27, 2004 by Nikephoros_Phokas

[shiner]

It's also the result of "everybody can do whatever they want" taken to an extreme.

[ED]

what is anarchy?

 

HAITI

[Anonymouse]

"Anarcho-capitalism"(sic) is not anarchism. It is just an intellectual circle jerk movement at its finest. All they want to do is have capitalism usurp the role of the state, have corporations take over the roles of police, army, establishing law, etc. Such a form of capitalism is nothing other than a state but with another name.

 

Personally, I find it hard to respect alot of anarchists, their analyses of world events take too much of an economic and ideological character. Most anarchists would anaylse the Israel-Palestinian conflict by concluding that both states are just as bad because they are states, and as anarchists are against all states, would say the solution lies in finding the real enemy of the Israelis and Palestinians is the same; their own governments and their own capitalists, but that is quite a shallow anaylsis. Much as I cannot respect anarchists for their tendency to put ideology above realism and pragamatism, the "anarcho-capitalists"(sic) are much worse for in their fanatic support of capitalism, they consider the nation state being abolished and replaced by coporate states like in the Mechwarrior universe is a form of anarchism. Going from a nation state and advocating a corporate state instead is a mockery of the intellectual and historical traditions of anarchism, which is why "anarcho-capitalism" is a gross oxymoron.

You apparently haven't read up anything on anarchism both from the right or from the left, to even know where they stand on the nation-state. What is the nation-state but one big corporate entity? Your assertion that "anarcho capitalism" is tantamount to a "corporate state" shows that you have no working knowledge of what it is, nor have you read the works of Murray N. Rothbard, or Ludwig von Mises, Proudhon, or Bakunin, or Chomsky, much less on the framers of the Constitution.

 

As far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is concerned, it is precisely the result of Statism, of establishing the Israeli Nation-State on a nationalist dogma called Zionism. If you have no working knowledge of the world nor the theory you are pretending to criticize, nor a certain geopolitical situation, you might as well save your attempted criticism.

[Boghos]

Interesting discussion. What is not clear, among other things, is whether Hayek´s concept of human nature in the broadest sense leads necessarily to the conclusion that anarco-capitalism would be a better functionning system everyhwhere .

 

I am familiar with Rothbard´s writings and quite sympathetic to many of his views but I have to agree with Axel that the "State against the individual" stand is often simplistic and taken to extremes. Rothbard wrote that to defend his viewpoint he would ally himself with whomever he saw fit and sound more extremist than he really was just because the "other side" was too strong not to be attacked that vehemently.

 

Even Austrian economists accept that certain goods had to be provided by the state up to the point where there was enough capital in the hands of the private sector in order to replace it. It then it starts to becomes clear that the issue of whether anarco-capitalism is a better system is not unrelated to where societies are in the process of capital accumulation and/or capital markets development.

 

Doesn´t it sound paradoxical that within the more succesful period of growth in the history of mankind that was brought about by Capitalism, the State also took on powers of a dimension far larger than ever before ? And where it went to extremes societies basicaly failed, disintegrated or were severely impoverished such as in the USSR ? For the USSR was never a socialist country given that this is a theoretical and pratical impossibility over any decent period of time.

 

Running out of time. Sorry for just jolting without much elaboration.

[Anonymouse]

Interesting discussion. What is not clear, among other things, is whether Hayek´s concept of human nature in the broadest sense leads necessarily to the conclusion that anarco-capitalism would be a better functionning system everyhwhere .

 

I am familiar with Rothbard´s writings and quite sympathetic to many of his views but I have to agree with Axel that the "State against the individual" stand is often simplistic and taken to extremes. Rothbard wrote that to defend his viewpoint he would ally himself with whomever he saw fit and sound more extremist than he really was just because the "other side" was too strong not to be attacked that vehemently.

 

Even Austrian economists accept that certain goods had to be provided by the state up to the point where there was enough capital in the hands of the private sector in order to replace it. It then it starts to becomes clear that the issue of whether anarco-capitalism is a better system is not unrelated to where societies are in the process of capital accumulation and/or capital markets development.

 

Doesn´t it sound paradoxical that within the more succesful period of growth in the history of mankind that was brought about by Capitalism, the State also took on powers of a dimension far larger than ever before ? And where it went to extremes societies basicaly failed, disintegrated or were severely impoverished such as in the USSR ? For the USSR was never a socialist country given that this is a theoretical and pratical impossibility over any decent period of time.

 

Running out of time. Sorry for just jolting without much elaboration.

Interesting inputs. It should be noted that "anarcho capitalism" begs the question, for capitalism itself is anarchic. In fact our every day actions are anarchic, thus I am left wondering.

 

In any event, the State has historically come about to "serve the people", yet somewhere along the road, the role changes, and the people begin to serve the State.

 

Your comparison of the capitalist revolution and the success it brought to the West, as opposed to strict statism i.e. USSR shows what eventaully happens to vertically integrated systems, they collapse, since all systems move toward disorder and chaos, the more organized they are. This is why capitalism is a self adjusting system in that it is anarchic, no order.

[GuitARA]

Yes, very intellectual discussion.

 

I feel that in a advanced thinking society, anarchy would not only be accepted, but the norm.

 

As far as I'm concerned, gov't is like the bully in school who tells you that you need him to protect you from "the others who want to harm you"

 

... for a small fee, OF COURSE

 

*Edit - You made a very good point in your first post about words ...

The current form of communication (speech/words) is very primitive (for lack of a better word).

 

We must develop some kind of "language" where true intentions are expressed, instead intentions filtered through a vocabulary of words and phrases that can have more than one meaning.

Edited February 29, 2004 by GuitARA

[Boghos]

This week´s Economist has interesting articles about "home schooling". My major concern on this issue was whether social skills would be severely affected by the lack of a school environment. Apparently lack minded parents across the US have created support networks that make possible for labs, sports practice, school trips and the like.

[Anonymouse]

This week´s Economist has interesting articles about "home schooling". My major concern on this issue was whether social skills would be severely affected by the lack of a school environment. Apparently lack minded parents across the US have created support networks that make possible for labs, sports practice, school trips and the like.

You know, I've been following this lightly, but apparently parents who support homeschooling say that it beats government schools. I would not be surprised.

[gurgen]

Sure it does, everything you do at school you can do 3x faster at home, whereas at home you don't have to follow the tempo of the dumber masses in your classes.

Plus you can filter the useless stuff out of your program and focus on what really matters.

 

But I think you would be missing a big part of your social life if you wouldn't go to school. It's also important for a lot of jobs to learn to work in teams and groups and that's one of the positive sides of schools.

[Anonymouse]

Sure it does, everything you do at school you can do 3x faster at home, whereas at home you don't have to follow the tempo of the dumber masses in your classes.

Plus you can filter the useless stuff out of your program and focus on what really matters.

 

But I think you would be missing a big part of your social life if you wouldn't go to school. It's also important for a lot of jobs to learn to work in teams and groups and that's one of the positive sides of schools.

True, it is a give or take matter, but I don't think it's that big of a deal. You can still play in the play ground, make friends at the library or through these damn forums.

 

Or you can be like the fat kid and enjoy yourself.

Edited February 29, 2004 by Anonymouse

[GuitARA]

I may just be paranoid but, I think the entire 'school' system was created not so much as a learning institution, but as a conditioner for children to get used to the "system" i.e., work - home - weekend - work ...

 

Obviously, there are certain fundamental subjects that must be taught, but this "one size fits all" system doesn't work.

 

Where does the US rank (worldwide) in scholastic testing of the school kids ?

[Anonymouse]

I may just be paranoid but, I think the entire 'school' system was created not so much as a learning institution, but as a conditioner for children to get used to the "system" i.e., work - home - weekend - work ...

 

Obviously, there are certain fundamental subjects that must be taught, but this "one size fits all" system doesn't work.

 

Where does the US rank (worldwide) in scholastic testing of the school kids ?

There is nothing 'paranoid' about what you described.

 

People are conditioned. It is a system. Institutionalized thinking. It programs the masses for tomorrow, to be unthinking zombies, do some menial corporate job, ride the daily grind, and "vote" making yourself have the illusion that your voice "truly matters". Reality TV, and television itself does the rest, and trivial news such as 'Michael Jackson' or 'Kobe Bryant'.

 

When the media reports excessively on one trivial "news" item, something else is slipping by the masses who are unaware, such as the continued expansion of the debt money system that has the whole global economy interlocked.

[Boghos]

The "enlightenment" brought about by mass schooling of children is regarded as a modernizing institution by many so-called liberals. Weber, the "thinker" that among other things proposed the inherent falacy that economics should be under the influence of politics and "not the other way around" is a proponent of these semi-dictatorial models.

 

I have no doubt that schools in general train people rather than make them think, but I am not sure whether mass schooling is a necessary step in order to allow for home schooling. It might sound paradoxical but without some minimum standards even the Hayekian weakest may not fulfill their role adequately. It comes down to how much freedom is really desired, necessary and useful.

[Boghos]

Just another thing: it is certainly a plus as a student not having to swallow all the PC garbage and revisionist history thrown at you in most schools.

[Anonymouse]

Just another thing: it is certainly a plus as a student not having to swallow all the PC garbage and revisionist history thrown at you in most schools.

Well, don't forget, the "history' that is actually taught is considered the "real history", those that dare to expose the real history are labeled as "revisionists", so even "revisionism" is a victim of political correction.

 

Mass schooling, is indeed a product of the enlightement, both the nationalists and the marxists/socialists all relied on this, the so called "public school".

[Boghos]

True but revisionism is for me the re-reading of history that is done for PC reasons. Revisionism is a simple term and if people use it in the exact opposite sense, so be it.