I Am An Anarchist
It seems that people fundamentally misunderstand the nature of public institutions. Human nature carries over into power structures just the same. It's not as if people become caricatures of virtue when they enter public institutions. To make an argument for governments on the basis of our frailty is inherently self-defeating; it calls into question the free-running actions of the legislature. This is an interesting case of cognitive dissonance in our modern society. I think that everyone is an intuitive anarchist, but people have just been influenced by propaganda to believe against it.
It shouldn't be a question of nature versus nurture; conditions can only be efficacious within the confines of people's intrinsic properties. I don't see how people could ever be influenced by anything if the mind is a blank slate. I think the tempting response here is to say that the early writings of the mind provides the building blocks for these effects, but then that push the question further: those initial influences seem like they should have no power whatsoever if tabula rasa is true. It's like expecting that all software drivers can interface with all hardware because of their sum total structure. Just like information can only be relevant insofar as the properties of the machine that is being fed it can be compatible or responsive to it, I think that social information is only workabe within the confines of our nature.
We can see the heinous effects of governments all throughout history and in everyday life. The 20th century alone should be all the evidence that one needs to start thinking within some anarchist paradigm. It wasn't free people in the state of nature who facilitated nuclear weapons research programs and forever rigged the international game to the end of mutual self-destruction. We can't blame the state of nature for the murders of hundreds of millions by dictatorial regimes, supported for the short-term interests of supposedly liberty-oriented governments, and bullied by the collective of states to an end where they oppressed their people even more. It wasn't people in the state of nature that envisioned an imaginary enemy and wiped out 6 million of that respective demographic. You can't pin the subsidizing and maintaining of the oil industry on free people; the regulatory action that stops already existing new fuels from gaining a grip on the marketplace. And you can't falsify the state of nature by looking at the actions of the U.S. government and the FED; to see how when the FED ***** with interest rates, they give investors false information and lead to miscalculation, malinvestment. Or that when the political climate once dictated that everyone should own a home, our governments incentivized banks to lend out loans they otherwise wouldn't — which in conjunction with fallacious monetary policy caused the housing bubble that burst, sending our economy spiraling down into what is now a depression.
There is a current swirling through contemporary thought, where if government currently provides X then X would not exist without governments. This is so unimaginative, so fallacious that I can't believe people actually make arguments in this form. They don't always realize it mind you, but that is the overarching implication contained within their pretentious words. Industries always move forward and there is always an interest in meeting some existing demand — for any service. This brings me to the concert that people have with private security. They say, "If you have no government and security firms are enforcing laws, then you can imagine a scenario where person A protected by X security firm steals some property of person B from Y security firm. It's a dead-end game because there will be no resolving their disputes that isn't prone to partiality or simply violence. You can imagine a scenario where security firm X threatens to send over men with guns to forcefully take the property back from person B, but then security from Y just lets X know that they will have more guys with guns waiting. So such a society would be in a perpetual state of violence and chaos." No; this is not the likely way they resolve such disputes. After all, violence is costly — it destroys property, requires clean-up, potential and existing customers are lost ,and so is part of your employment force. What is most likely to happen is that they will agree to have a reputable private judiciary oversee their case and agree to abide to the decision made. What gives some assurance that they will persist through such a contract is through the fact that violating your terms now ensures that later down the road you are likely to do the same; so ends a potentially profitable relationship. Being told that you have to abide to a contract by some overarching monolith is only going to incentivize you to follow through it with insofar as you believe you can get away with it. The inherent incentive to abide to economic contractual agreements is the only reliable one.
I can't believe that governments are apologized for so endlessly. There is not one sound theoretical basis that can at least hint at the plausibility of governments, and the empirical evidence against their existence is just overwhelming. And still even the empirical cases of the apparent horrors of 'anarchy' are just the chaotic results of failed states — which interestingly enough is just more evidence against propping them up. What more do people need in order to see that they are living under the shadow of tyrants that exploit their resources to gain wealth and further the extent of their power? This is not order, this is not security; this is just a schematic form of chaos.
It shouldn't be a question of nature versus nurture; conditions can only be efficacious within the confines of people's intrinsic properties. I don't see how people could ever be influenced by anything if the mind is a blank slate. I think the tempting response here is to say that the early writings of the mind provides the building blocks for these effects, but then that push the question further: those initial influences seem like they should have no power whatsoever if tabula rasa is true. It's like expecting that all software drivers can interface with all hardware because of their sum total structure. Just like information can only be relevant insofar as the properties of the machine that is being fed it can be compatible or responsive to it, I think that social information is only workabe within the confines of our nature.
We can see the heinous effects of governments all throughout history and in everyday life. The 20th century alone should be all the evidence that one needs to start thinking within some anarchist paradigm. It wasn't free people in the state of nature who facilitated nuclear weapons research programs and forever rigged the international game to the end of mutual self-destruction. We can't blame the state of nature for the murders of hundreds of millions by dictatorial regimes, supported for the short-term interests of supposedly liberty-oriented governments, and bullied by the collective of states to an end where they oppressed their people even more. It wasn't people in the state of nature that envisioned an imaginary enemy and wiped out 6 million of that respective demographic. You can't pin the subsidizing and maintaining of the oil industry on free people; the regulatory action that stops already existing new fuels from gaining a grip on the marketplace. And you can't falsify the state of nature by looking at the actions of the U.S. government and the FED; to see how when the FED ***** with interest rates, they give investors false information and lead to miscalculation, malinvestment. Or that when the political climate once dictated that everyone should own a home, our governments incentivized banks to lend out loans they otherwise wouldn't — which in conjunction with fallacious monetary policy caused the housing bubble that burst, sending our economy spiraling down into what is now a depression.
There is a current swirling through contemporary thought, where if government currently provides X then X would not exist without governments. This is so unimaginative, so fallacious that I can't believe people actually make arguments in this form. They don't always realize it mind you, but that is the overarching implication contained within their pretentious words. Industries always move forward and there is always an interest in meeting some existing demand — for any service. This brings me to the concert that people have with private security. They say, "If you have no government and security firms are enforcing laws, then you can imagine a scenario where person A protected by X security firm steals some property of person B from Y security firm. It's a dead-end game because there will be no resolving their disputes that isn't prone to partiality or simply violence. You can imagine a scenario where security firm X threatens to send over men with guns to forcefully take the property back from person B, but then security from Y just lets X know that they will have more guys with guns waiting. So such a society would be in a perpetual state of violence and chaos." No; this is not the likely way they resolve such disputes. After all, violence is costly — it destroys property, requires clean-up, potential and existing customers are lost ,and so is part of your employment force. What is most likely to happen is that they will agree to have a reputable private judiciary oversee their case and agree to abide to the decision made. What gives some assurance that they will persist through such a contract is through the fact that violating your terms now ensures that later down the road you are likely to do the same; so ends a potentially profitable relationship. Being told that you have to abide to a contract by some overarching monolith is only going to incentivize you to follow through it with insofar as you believe you can get away with it. The inherent incentive to abide to economic contractual agreements is the only reliable one.
I can't believe that governments are apologized for so endlessly. There is not one sound theoretical basis that can at least hint at the plausibility of governments, and the empirical evidence against their existence is just overwhelming. And still even the empirical cases of the apparent horrors of 'anarchy' are just the chaotic results of failed states — which interestingly enough is just more evidence against propping them up. What more do people need in order to see that they are living under the shadow of tyrants that exploit their resources to gain wealth and further the extent of their power? This is not order, this is not security; this is just a schematic form of chaos.
By:
Madej
Age:
22-25
,
Female
