February 24, 2010

Anarchy is Bullshit

Anarchy and Anarchism are utter bullshit. Everybody has a different definition for what Anarchy actually is, and most 'anarchists' use it to describe things that the word doesn't even mean. It's a meaningless term and arguments about anarchist political theory are fucking pointless.


  1. I still like to think anarchy works just fine. Even though Rainbow Gatherings are short term examples, it still shows that people can form functioning, non-environmentally destructive societies without hierarchical structure. If(when?) this whole mess we're living in right now collapses, those who have been a part of Rainbow seem to be much more prepared to survive.

    Anarchy isn't bullshit. Government is bullshit. You can't prescribe a single method for handling every situation because there are always different variables. When you try to control things on a large scale, they only get more out of control.

    Laissez-fair capitalism is DEFINITELY bullshit, because not regulating the market can only lead to one entity eventually emerging with control over all of it, and you end up with corporatism like we have right now... so anarcho-capitalists, to me, are the equivalent of Jewish Nazis.

    I'm not really sure where to start, but I think the biggest thing that ought to happen is an outright refusal to accept US dollars anymore. Yeah, bartering has its shortcomings, but they're nothing compared to what a ubiquitous fiat currency does to devalue the products and labor of everyone operating under it. Competing currencies could be an option, but definitely not the only answer.

    On the subject of certain people being assholes, well... In the absence of state, it's up to chance whether or not a corresponding "good guy" will step up... but I do think that if the strain of class and wealth were removed, the assholes would be far outnumbered by good people ready to defend what seems right. A state shouldn't have to punish people. There really aren't many situations within small communities that require anything more than an impartial mediator to show each side where they could coexist. We don't need jails for anything. If certain people can't get along in a community, that group can choose to exile them. If they're dangerous, they could kill them. Harsh, but it works. The thing about some people inevitably being assholes is that it's worse to try stopping it then it is to let the situation, consequences and repercussions unfold as they will. You put a murderer in jail for the rest of their life and all you get is a financial burden on tax payers and a miserable broken soul waiting to die in a cage. Let that same murderer get killed for revenge and it's done. They took no prisoners in Seven Samurai :P

    I don't know. I feel like I'm all over the place, but I think my point comes back to something you said in this video. Anarchy IS the natural state of things. It's always going to exist because it's the way things are made... So what could possibly more rational(AND sustainable) then nourishing, rather than fighting anarchy?

  2. Bastion, you talk about government being bullshit, and yet, you favor regulating the market (As much as I like Ayn Rand, I agree with your view that laissez-faire capitalism is bullshit). So who regulates the market in the absence of government?

    As for small communities without jails, your choices for dealing with people who misbehave are exile and death. Those are both pretty extreme. And who decides which consequence for what offense? What if the "group" just decides they don't like someone? Maybe he likes to drive his car without a muffler by everyone's house in the middle of the night, just to be an asshole. Or maybe his muffler fell off on his way home one night and he can't afford to get it fixed.

    Or maybe he prays to a different God from everyone else, or he prays to the same God, but gives him a different name, or he simply doesn't believe in any God.

    The point is, you still need to treat everyone fairly, and to do that, there have to be a consistent set of rules (we call them laws). Government isn't there to take away freedom, it's there to ensure that everyone has a chance at freedom. Otherwise, the asshole with the biggest gun wins.

  3. Actually, the Jewish-Nazi compairison makes less sense for anarchocapitalists than it does for anarcho-socialists, which in my mind is a direct contradiction of terms.

    In Socialism, a governing body provides consumer protection, regulation, protection of individual rights, and collective ownership of public property.

    Under true Anarchy the idea of ownership is meaningless. Without government to enforce laws in regards to ownership, be that ownership either individual or collective, we're in the same spot as lions and hyenas fighting over animal carcasses.

  4. Bastion, the true nature of government is an insurance policy that society takes out against anarchy.

    The universe is chaotic. Government, when it works, seeks to make existence more tempered. It cannot prevent all bad things, but it can help prevent the worst possible outcomes.

    For example, in Haiti, there is no government regulation in regards to building.

    In Chile, there is.

    Millions died in Haiti when their buildings collapsed in an area prone to earthquakes.

    In Chile, government regulation mandates certain standards for earthquake resistance. Even though the earthquake that hit Chile was stronger, only a few hundred people died.

    In neither instance could government prevent an earthquake. That is not the function of government.

    When government does not work, that is entropy-- Anarchy creeping in as the structures of Government fall apart and cease to function properly.

    That is what we see in Haiti, and Somalia, for that matter.

    In the USA, when politicians use fraudulence and force to maintain power, that is anathema to the ideals our government was founded on, and is not a function of government, but a perversion of it. That is Anarchy creeping in.

    Government is laws. When those in power cease to enforce those laws, that government ceases to exist.

    I have two other videos on the subject you may want to watch:

    You Can't Point to Government:

    Religion Is Unreasonable:

  5. Not a terrible idea for a website. It beats anarchy.

  6. Most daily interactions are anarchistic in nature (no government intervention)

    Your conflation of anarchy and chaos is erroneous - as anarchism is NOT lawlessness in that laws and order may still exist. In that case anarchism mandates that "career politicians" who may or may not legitimately have gained their position can no longer mandate for someone else, what should be agreed upon as a group.

    "Large societies" are overrated.