Uhhh, ACers have limited contact with the real world. They rarely leave their parents basements. When they do, most have learned from bitter experience, that they're considered freaks enough as it is, and it's better to keep their cult-like love of the magical invisible hand of the 'free market' under their fedora. LTers have an ideological disagreement with what they call 'collectivism'. What you're suggesting is 'collectivism' to them, and they'll reject that out of hand. Besides, that's work, and ACers are universally lazy, and don't care about ACism. ACers really only got one viable venue for their 'activism', using that term very loosely. And that's what they do... spam the interwebs as lone wolves.

I think people vastly underestimate the deep hate many have for the government.

I think anarchy as an idea can quickly go viral thanks to the Web.

I think there are a lot of misconceptions about what it takes to become an anarchist. Many of us do in fact interact with the real world. We have girlfriends, wives, families. Look at something like Porcfest. People getting out together and interacting on an organized basis.

I started an ancap meetup page here in my city and despite not really touting it to anyone, I got triple the number of members that the regular Libertarian Party meetup has. Despite being only active for maybe 6 weeks compared to their 5+ years or so of operation.

Anarchists are out there. And not only in mom's basement. Some (many? Most?) are actual quite successful. We aren't sitting here bitching about government while collecting food stamps and borrowing mom's car for the night. (Those would be the ancoms)

I'm interested to hear why people prefer a government over anarchy. Try not to fall back on the familiar "things will be worse without government" logic and give me solid reasons to support the state that aren't "it prevents abuse" or whatever. Because we all know there are countless examples where the government also CAUSES abuse or leads directly to it on a daily basis. (example being the war on drugs)

What does it actually provide? A safety net? Great, but poverty is getting worse and the divide between the rich and poor is growing. I'm just lost on the actual upside of having a state. All I keep hearing is "Yeah, it's bad, but the alternative would be even worse" which is a pretty weak ass endorsement and reeks of propaganda. Like Yeah, I'll cut 2 of your fingers off, but without me, someone else would inevitably cut 3 or more fingers off, so that's why you need me. Gimme a break. Come at me with actual reasons the state benefits people. I'm curious.

We've tried government for centuries and it's failed over and over and over. I think people are just so conditioned to failure as the norm. Take roads as an example. The roads where I live suck. They're full of potholes and the government is always working on some huge construction make work project that doesn't really make anything better. The traffic is horrendous. People waste hours every day trying to get into the city. And they never point the finger at the road owner/operator. It's unbelievable that people just accept it. A private company would NEVER get away with that level of piss poor customer service. Same with the post office. The TSA. the DMV. You name it. People are so used to the utter failure that they gave up even trying to improve their experience.

You think people will look to anarchy as a solution after they realize that only good will is going to prevent unsafe food and drugs from being sold? That discriminating against people in currently protected groups would be allowed? That people would have to choose between quitting their job and being harassed by their boss? That all of the social advances we've made in society will no longer be guaranteed? You are so blinded by your hate of the government that you are blind to the good that has accomplished.

Nope, sure hasn't

Im sure it will be better once we exacerbate freerider/tragedy of the commons issues though. That makes tons of logical sense.

People will still care about the same things. We don't oppose the bad stuff because we have a government and we don't support the good stuff because we have a government.

Or do we?

Holocaust not a failure?

Human slavery codified into government law not a failure?

Hmm. I guess.

Every major war in the last however many years has been waged by.... Government!

Every hyperinflation has been caused by government.

War on drugs: not a failure?

Flint water crisis: government success or.... Failure?

Um, yeah.

How do people get a "free" ride when there is no government there to provide it? What happens when everything is privately owned and there is no commons?

Uh oh, time for you to move the goal posts from "but but but tragedy of the commons" to "but but but if people can exclude others, (thus solving the" tragedy" you're so concerned about) what about THE POORZ?"

Lol, I get along with my boss only because of GOVERNMENT. Bwahahahahah

Just more doomsday propaganda with no basis in anything close to reality.

Please tell me how selling tainted food is a viable business plan. Do they plan on selling everyone a lifetime supply of poisoned chicken, then never getting a repeat customer? Hahahahahahahahahahhaha oh man my sides, my sides. A+

Oh, and the government's war on drugs totally rids the world of "unsafe" drugs... Lollllololol

You realize the entire reason for unsafe drugs on the streets is that gov makes it illegal to sell safer drugs in stores, right?

L

O

L

Uuuuuuuuuu!!!

(PS: gay people will be allowed to marry in acland. And they would have always had that right if we didn't have a government making it illegal. Again, lulzzzzzz at you and your propaganda. Get wrecked kid)

No profit in selling untainted foodz, everyone's solid.

c-c-c-c-combobreaker

Well, you're making two mistakes here. First, and most LOLtastically, you're trying to compare 'statistim' in RealityLand -vs- ACism in ACland. That's a category error. It's akin to saying "I'd be interested to hear why people prefer RealityLand -vs- StarTrekLand".

Second, you aren't specifying which flavor of 'statistism' you wanna compare. I'm sure there are plenty of 'statists' who would prefer a world organized like modern western 'statistism' -vs- a world where it's 'legal' to starve children to death (like ACland). But, OTOH, they might prefer starving children to death -vs- ancient style absolute chattel slavery.

It's not just pure logic. There is substantial empirical evidence that statist organization decrease violence compared to non-state or decreased state organization. This is true even when you consider all the wars, and goes back into the fossil record.

And your pure logic (not backed up) that the state increases violence and should be therefore dismantled is not compelling. It's kind of like saying people who work out are more likely to do a lot of damage in a fight so therefore everyone should aim to be feeble- as if there were no concomitant benefits of being physically fit, only the risk of increased violence. The state apparatus is capable of facilitating efficient killing because it is capable of efficiency in general. You want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, even though that bathwater is far cleaner than what you are selling.

Eventually you might understand that a lot of your political philosophy is based on an entirely fallacious misapplication of Darwin's theory of evolution referred to as social Darwinism. In brief, Darwin said that organisms who better adapt to their environment will survive and reproduce and higher rates. Some sociopath ******* imposed onto this construct the idea that competition is the mode by which this adaptation occurs in a social context. That just isn't accurate, despite its ubiquitous acceptance.

Cooperation is the mode of adaptation that marks the advancement of human beings, their edge in manipulation of the environment. The main benefit of states is their facilitating cooperation while obviating the destructive aspects of the competitive mode of adaptation. I will leave that as an assertion for now but I am willing to discuss that through any example you choose.

You should be more clear in how you define failure. We've got rising life expediencies, extremely useful technologies, and we just arrested an outbreak of a deadly virulent disease spanning several countries. It's not easy, and there are some undesirable features associated with states. But you have to consider that on the grand timeline states are in their infancy.

You suggest you want some fresh perspectives and then you say "Take roads for example"? LOL

In Chicago a mayor can expect to be not re-elected if he doesn't get the snow of the roads in a manner that allows people to get to work. That level of accountability isn't always so apparent but it is at least there in theory. If a company in AC land was producing toxic waste to which people were exposed how would that accountability play out? if at all? I suppose you could try to expel the concept of accountability from the collective mind to address that issue but that would be awfully hard with a state.

True. See Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution.

Nine peeps is pretty good. No sarcasm at all. Some groups I'm deeply invested with struggle to do that. Organizing is hard work, meetups included. Remember, ACism is just LTism. LTism is mainstream US Politics, just like the donkey and the elephant. BTW: LTism's team letter is "L" (for losers), their team color is purple, and their mascot is a dude dressed up as the Statue of Liberty.

Anyways, some LTers are IRL activists. The ones who are able to keep their cult-like love of the magical secret hand of the 'free market' under their fedora, and can swallow their pride and be a 'collectivist', can be excellent allies. A lot of them are wicked good IT Techs. Even some of the delusional fringe of LTism, like the Birchers, and the ACers, are IRL activists. Which reminds me of a coupla funny stories.



At N30 (The 1999 WTO Protests) the SPD had given fair notice, that if you were caught carrying around furniture at the protests, they were going to charge you with a felony. At the height of the protest, in the middle of like 100k people, with clouds of tear gas wafting over from the front, a block up wind or so...

About a half dozen Birchers set up soapboxes (which count as furniture), started preaching the good news about getting the US out of UN, attempted to sell their propaganda, and giving out for free ice cold bottled water. Ice cold bottle water... hmmm... that was the best bottle of water I've ever had.

With or without government we would still cooperate and it will be about exactly the same things.

Government is a mechanism for cooperation and quite possibly the best one but as this is the only interesting question about AC lets not assume it is the best too easily.

What is going to prevent a Hitler in ACland? What is going to prevent people from discriminating against Jews in ACland? Please explain what the differences are between statism and ACland that would allow the Holocaust in one but not the other.

Slavery is illegal in the US but not in ACland

How many poors are going to die in ACland?

And when it happens in ACland who will you blame?

How much of the war on drugs resulted from a popular uproar about crime?

How would the Flint water crisis been different if it had been in ACland? There will still be people responsible for the water supply who can make bad choices and try to cover them up.

You mock questions you can't answer. What about the poorz in ACland? What happens when someone has no family and is unable to work? Oh, he's a clown and all the charities in town hate clowns and won't help them unless they give clowning.

Uhh, might want to check the 13th A, and get back to us on that, 'statist'. LOL@ 'statists' !!!1!

The other funny story I was going to tell was: me & the Ronulan & the drunk at the bar @OSD, and the only time I've ever heard IRL "ACism". But then I remembered I've already told that one. Anyways, I've revisited my marks, and feel I graded the ACers a bit too hard...

ACism 101 Report Card	2016-2-5 (rev)
27AllIn	A-
Buccofan86, Proph	B+
(the field)	C
master3004	D
nostate	(incomplete)

I've seen this idea before but something about it has always seemed very fishy to me. Like, have you ever noticed that only relatively privileged white males seem to promulgate this "empirical evidence". I mean, I'm speaking anecdotally here so grain of salt for sure. In my case we're only talking like 4 or 5 irl incidences over the last 5 years or so of somebody pointing out how there is less violence today than in the distant past (I've seen this idea on 2+2 a handful of times too). Every single time, it's been an American white male. Like just once I'd like a black women from Detroit to explain this counter-intuitive wisdom to me, or some indigenous person from Peru or something. I live in a tourist destination (Vegas) and superficially interact with a fair amount of people per year so one can dream.

It's kinda the same thing with ACism/Libertarianism--virtually only relatively privileged white males find those ideas compelling. I've often said in the past, that I suspect that privileged white males--i.e. a people who have pretty much always had history and society on their side--are probably the most gullible demographic on the planet. So I guess it goes without saying that whenever I see an inherently controversial idea or set of beliefs that only the most gullible demographic on the planet believe, I think one should be extremely skeptical.

I also suspect that if one just read these 3 books...

...they (just like anyone in the third world) would find it impossible to take Pinker's view of history seriously.

I'd also like to point out that decreasing violence can be a misleading metric. There's little violence in a well run prison. Military bases in peace time have very low violence levels. I've heard modern asylums, with medical assistance, are extraordinary peaceful. Excluding disciplinary violence, US Slave plantations were... OK I'm just pulling that one out of ass. But I don't wanna live any of those places.

How about correlating violent urban unrest -vs- advancement of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Or ditto -vs- the labor movement in the late 1800s. Or violence in gay bars right around Stonewall. Again, IDK.,, but I'm thinking anywhere where fighting back is a viable option.

I do know that violence always goes way, way down after a good old genocide, like the effective depopulation of half a continent within a lifetime. Not enough people left alive to keep the averages up. Living in a healthy world, like getting rid of lead paint, and living in a more egalitarian society, etc, are big too.

I'd also, also, also like to point this isn't the "Yay 'statistism' !!!1!". thread. If you wanna chat about that shiz, start another thread. This is the ACism thread. Then we got that whole category error thingee. You know, that thing you 'statists' do, where you try to 'prove' RealityLand is better than ACland. Man, the ACers pwn you with that every time. And WTF are you thinking? It's hard enough as it is to keep the ACers on topic. Try to be part of the solution, and not part of the problem.

You 'statists'... I can't figure you out sometimes. Don't you want pwn the ACers?

Does the presence of the safety net make poverty worse and why is a safety net necessary? Do government contribute to our liberty by mitigating the inequality of wealth promoted by the very economics you advocate.

No you may get along with your boss just fine but even if you don't having a boss means getting along with one enough to be able to eat is a necessary condition of life without a safety net.

If the FTPers are going to point out horrible things in history as a reason for FTP land I don't think it is out of line asking them how those horrible things are going to be prevented in FTP land. The usually just fellate the Free Market but sometimes they say something even stupider like the glorious "fund education with lotteries" meme.

I think the idea is to point out that the ACist conception of property rights entails a state which makes ACers statists. If there's a binding articulation of property rights there is a need for a binding enforcement of those rights. This articulation would amount to a social contract which the ACer denies and require some kind of judicial and violent enforcement or a state which they also deny.

If this is not Shame Trolly's point then apologies but it seems somewhat limited for a statist to point out that the ACist is a statist. Like I think he's correct but it's kind of restrictive if the best a statist can do is point out the Acist is a statist too.

Good point. It's kinda a tradeoff I guess. When they spew off-topic, we get gems like the education lotto. When forced to spew on-topic, we get gems like roof roads. I guess I just have a bias for forcing them to spew on-topic... because of how shamefully dishonest and weaselly the ACers are about changing the subject.

In other news, TYVM@ ccotenj for this catch over in Alta Politards...

Why yes it does, yes it does indeed. Add Free Capitalism as a 'tendency' of LTism, LMFAO. They got a facebook too. Anyways, there's obviously gold in them there websites... just waiting to be mined.

Bingo, that's my point.

Well, that is the best that the 'statists' can do. Sorry about that 'statists'.

It's kinda a YMMV I guess. I find it more amusing to laugh & point at a fool who prates on about perpetual motion, as opposed to a fool who prates on about how it should be 'legal' to starve children to death.