Sometimes I wonder if “force” is the underlying motive behind everything?
I know we preach the NAP and that “voluntary association” between people who trade goods and services is the key to humanities success.
But then i wonder what keeps everyone honest in that system?
And it’s not just the capitalist system or the free market system. Every system, even those that lack structure; like cavemen who kill and loot. Is the use (or the threat) of force a fundamental part of life and the universe?
I really don’t have an answer or a theory or even an idea in either direction. I’m just thinking out-loud and expanding on tiny ideas. Maybe i’ll expand more on this later.
I didn’t think that Rudolf Rocker quote would take off like that.
I probably should have added the cavaet that I’m not an anarcho-syndicalist and not the biggest fan of unions. But the quote itself was pretty good and I thought captured the essence of anarchism which is that when people are left to their own devices, as a whole, they will always produce for themselves and for society at their maximum ability*.
*Sort of. Some might be lazy, others might focus on inefficient subjects or methods, but that’s expected because we are all human, after all. No one and no system is perfect.
Saying that X couldn’t exist without government is a statement which legitimizes government as an entity which can bring to fruition things that others can not achieve.
You’re laying upon government the title of a necessary being, for government is now necessary for X to exist.
If you’re a libertarian or an anarchist, you never want to do this, not only because it’s not true, but because you undermine the very philosophy which you claim to support; one that finds government to be an unnecessary and burdensome evil.
So making the claim that ‘corporations’ could not exist without government simply because government currently oversees the formation and legalities of ‘corporations’ is no different than saying ‘roads’ could not exist without government because government currently oversees the formation and legalities of roads.
A road a tangible thing. I can make one in my backyard if I want to. A corporation is a legal construction that exists on a piece of paper. I cannot make one in my backyard. What is so hard to grasp about this?
As an anarchist, I reject all forms of external authority, including courts, churches, or whatever institutions you would suggest make laws and create corporations in a stateless society.
Governments obviously “bring to fruition things that others can not achieve”, and stating the obvious doesn’t legitimize government. You can’t have state terrorism, corporatism, politicians, corruption, taxes, eminent domain, and many other awful forms and byproducts of authoritarianism without government or the state. That doesn’t mean we need any of those things, and that doesn’t mean we need to keep the government around to ensure those things continue to exist.
I don’t know why I’m about to waste my time with this but it’s Friday and, well, tumblr.
A road is tangible, yes, but it’s only a road because people agree that it’s a road. In reality, it’s the idea of the road which is important.
A corporation doesn’t exist just on paper, it exists in practice. The paper just explains what the practice is. Just like your rights don’t exist only on the Bill of Rights, a piece of paper, they exist in practice. The Bill of Rights, a a piece of paper, just reiterates what they are.
the piece of paper is pointless other than the fact that it is evidence that an agreement was made. You can make it digital, you can video tape the agreement, you can invent a time machine and reference that specific point in time when the agreement was made by traveling back in time to revisit yourself, or anyone else, making that agreement. You can be a god with omnipresent and omniscient abilities and you will just have the knowledge of that agreement being made. Whatever it is.
What’s important here is that a corporation or agreement to incorporate is a set of rules agreed upon by all parties which govern the relationship between those parties during whatever activities described within that agreement from the point that the agreement is made until it expires or is dissolved (through whatever means it is dissolved by, where the agreement can also govern those measures as well).
The agreement doesn’t have to be a physical thing to exist. Numbers aren’t a physical thing. Words aren’t a physical thing. They exist. Sorry, not my rules, you lose, they win. End of story.
I don’t give a shit what terrible definition of “anarchy’ you ascribe to, and if you’d be so kind, stop calling yourself an anarchist (especially one that believes in free markets) until you learn what anarchism is and what the free market is.
You don’t have to believe in external authority. But being an anarchist doesn’t mean you can reject the authority of binding agreements between willing parties. That’s not “up to you”. This is not a subjective inference, this is a logic based, objective reality. If two people agree to set a group of rules to authorize their conduct, then that’s their prerogative. You, I and no one outside of that agreement has any say in the matter.
This is a simple yet fundamental pillar in the philosophy of anarchism.
This is why anarchists believe that you can agree to buy drugs from another party and a 3rd, uninvolved party has no right to dismantle that agreement.
Your last paragraph is pointless.
Please don’t get my hopes up, Harry.
Let’s turn Detroit into an American Hong Kong
I’m in. Where do we sign up?
I don’t trust anyone that knows exactly what’s going on in Washington D.C. and still isn’t an anarchist.
This post is nonfactual and very dangerous.
Well, no. The reason why some people are willing to use any means necessary to fight back, is to save the earth. The earth is what’s at stake. Civilization will very likely make the planet uninhabitable on it’s way down. We desperately need to act.
Is it now? Just look at all the governments through out history. They all eventually crumble. Every single one of them.
To save the Earth? Hilarious.
If we nuked ourselves off the face of this planet, the Earth would be damaged, but over time, it will heal and correct itself and move on. We will be gone, the Earth will be here. The amount of damage we’d have to inflict onto the Earth to destroy it is nearly impossible because humanity wouldn’t be able to survive the process for long enough to see it through.
We do need to act, but not violently. That’s relying on the same force that government uses to bring about our preferences. How is that justifiable? It’s not.
Put down the violence and pick up the knowledge. That’s our only hope.
To the people who want to actively destroy government, I ask “Why turn to violence? Don’t even bother.” In the long run, every single government will inevitably destroy itself.
Explain the appeal of anarchism without using the letter ‘e’.
“Individual autonomy is paramount to social stability and human dignity. Anarchism supports this goal, that’s had through a combination of voluntary association and working-class solidarity against all forms of involuntary subordination.”
What do I win?
“to be had”