Anarchy
0
I actually support anarchy, but like many people say "sometimes we can't have what we want" and we end up just destroying ourselves if we aren't already doing that. We need laws and government, but that's not to say I like them. People need freedom, so long as they use their freedom wisely.
0
I don't actually see any question here so I'll assume you are asking if we support the idea of Anarchy or support any section of the philosophy.
I'm a Libertarian, more specifically, I'm what is known as a Minarchist. So I'm technically a cousin to the Anarchist movement. The difference is, Anarchist tend to advocate no government (or at least no centralized government). While I advocate the minimal amount of government (courts, cops, military and prisons). People like me see Government in all it's forms as a way for one section of the population to force it's will on others and restrict their choice. This is true in a police state, socialism, communism, theocracy, democracy,etc. As much as I see the horrors of Government abuse of it's power (such as the illegal actions of the police and National Guard during the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh) I know that it is a necessary evil. Without any form of government there would be a large break down in infrastructure, businesses and welfare of the population as there is no set laws to guide society.
So I really only support a limited form of anarchy as I see centralized government as a necessity but, a necessity that we should keep to a minimum to prevent it from getting out of control like the problem some countries are currently facing.
A question I would like you to answer (you can just pm me if you want). What kind of Anarchist are you personally? Such as Anarcho-Capitalist, Anarcho-Syndicate, Anarcho-communist,etc
I'm a Libertarian, more specifically, I'm what is known as a Minarchist. So I'm technically a cousin to the Anarchist movement. The difference is, Anarchist tend to advocate no government (or at least no centralized government). While I advocate the minimal amount of government (courts, cops, military and prisons). People like me see Government in all it's forms as a way for one section of the population to force it's will on others and restrict their choice. This is true in a police state, socialism, communism, theocracy, democracy,etc. As much as I see the horrors of Government abuse of it's power (such as the illegal actions of the police and National Guard during the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh) I know that it is a necessary evil. Without any form of government there would be a large break down in infrastructure, businesses and welfare of the population as there is no set laws to guide society.
So I really only support a limited form of anarchy as I see centralized government as a necessity but, a necessity that we should keep to a minimum to prevent it from getting out of control like the problem some countries are currently facing.
A question I would like you to answer (you can just pm me if you want). What kind of Anarchist are you personally? Such as Anarcho-Capitalist, Anarcho-Syndicate, Anarcho-communist,etc
0
mibuchiha
Fakku Elder
I'm with FPoD. A libertarian. As for the rest of my opinion, he said it with crystal clarity already.
0
Kind of Important
A ray of Tsunlight.
Forgive me if I'm reading this incorrectly. From what I read, it seems that you wish for the minimum amount of gov't regulation needed to make your own life safe and relatively comfortable. As in, cops, prisons, etc. I see no point in that. Honestly, aside from policies here and again that we disagree with, what's wrong with the current government? (I'll ignore lobbyists, as that is my major beef with the system)Sure, some may agree that there is too much government intervention on some things. But most of it honestly is in place for a good reason. There are numerous systems there to help keep people just that much safer, and have better ease of living. (e.g. USDA)
I'm not criticizing, it's just that I have a buddy who is basically along the same lines, and I can't understand why. (He might be a total anarchist, can't recall)
I'm not criticizing, it's just that I have a buddy who is basically along the same lines, and I can't understand why. (He might be a total anarchist, can't recall)
0
Kind of Important wrote...
Forgive me if I'm reading this incorrectly. From what I read, it seems that you wish for the minimum amount of gov't regulation needed to make your own life safe and relatively comfortable. As in, cops, prisons, etc. I see no point in that. Honestly, aside from policies here and again that we disagree with, what's wrong with the current government? (I'll ignore lobbyists, as that is my major beef with the system)Sure, some may agree that there is too much government intervention on some things. But most of it honestly is in place for a good reason. There are numerous systems there to help keep people just that much safer, and have better ease of living. (e.g. USDA) I'm not criticizing, it's just that I have a buddy who is basically along the same lines, and I can't understand why. (He might be a total anarchist, can't recall)
From a point of view such as mine. We see the Constitution prohibiting the existence of such bodies. Due to the wording in Article 1 section 8 and article 4 section 3 and the tenth amendment. Basically, in a nutshell the Federal Government only has the powers that are stated in the constitution and all other powers are granted to the states. So from our point of view it's the states responsibility for FDA, D.O.T. etc not the Federal Government. Logic is, if a state adopts an unpopular law or stance then the citizens of that state (including the companies) can "vote with their feet" and we can move out which would force politicians to be fair and honest when it came to policy making. If your state is corrupt, then you move out and let it fall in on itself or watch them scramble to fix the problem. The problem with the current "big" Federal government is that if they adopt and unpopular law (lets say an insanely high income tax on your specific bracket) then you can only avoid it by renouncing your citizenship.
The benefit of this system is that it maximizes liberty and choice. The downside is the "cross state" problems such as lets say California legalized and regulated Marijuana but, Nevada or other surrounding states have not. Then citizens of those other states would travel across the state line to buy their weed. Which could be remedied by making it a Federal offense (or at least illegal at state level) to sell products to someone who does not belong to the state in which the products are sold.
0
Anarchy as such - the absence of rule - is an illusion. The human being as a social animal ("ζῷον πολιτικόν") cannot exist in groups without forming hierarchies; these hierarchies in turn bring about rule of one over the other.
Worse yet, anarchy put in practice as absence of government enables mob rule, and mob rule is the greatest evil of all. Enter gibbous the Aristotelian.
Worse yet, anarchy put in practice as absence of government enables mob rule, and mob rule is the greatest evil of all. Enter gibbous the Aristotelian.
Spoiler:
0
Good to know that Gibbous and I agree on the social aspects and we only disagree on the economics which laissez faire isn't exactly by favorite idea but, I dislike the idea of politicians using their power to alter the economy for their proponents. The only idea I dislike even more is direct government intervention. I see corruption at all levels of office and I can't bring myself to trust the government. Any issue involving the government, I see a tightly clasped kris hidden behind a cloak. They extend one hand while waiting to plunge the blade into your backside.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
I dislike the idea of politicians using their power to alter the economy for their proponents.[...]
I see corruption at all levels of office and I can't bring myself to trust the government.
I completely agree with what you say there; we simply have arrived at different conclusions as to the necessary consequences. Polemically put, I regard the economy with equal distrust as the government, and thus am most content when neither really has the upper hand.
0
Kind of Important
A ray of Tsunlight.
I can agree with parts of that. Really there is far too much corruption (read, backstabbing for personal gain) running around in the government. Especially those prick lobbyists, legalized bribing is all.
Really my thoughts aren't quite as widespread as you two. While I see there are problems with the government, I just think not having a strong centralized one wouldn't work too well. I'd consider one central government to be superior to many state governments. I can see where you're coming from though.
As a kicker, technically, I'm not allowed to talk about such things with people who advocate them. I'm in the Navy, and thus basically work for the government. But whatever, I love learning new stuff, and views of others. If I understand why other people think about certain things, I can understand better, and thus make myself a more 'balanced' individual.
Really my thoughts aren't quite as widespread as you two. While I see there are problems with the government, I just think not having a strong centralized one wouldn't work too well. I'd consider one central government to be superior to many state governments. I can see where you're coming from though.
As a kicker, technically, I'm not allowed to talk about such things with people who advocate them. I'm in the Navy, and thus basically work for the government. But whatever, I love learning new stuff, and views of others. If I understand why other people think about certain things, I can understand better, and thus make myself a more 'balanced' individual.
0
Kind of Important wrote...
Really my thoughts aren't quite as widespread as you two. While I see there are problems with the government, I just think not having a strong centralized one wouldn't work too well. I'd consider one central government to be superior to many state governments. I can see where you're coming from though.I personally am a strong advocate of federalism, but this is not based (solely) on my distrust for governing bodies (or humans in general, who are prone to abuse of power). My view on federalism being a dire necessity is grounded in a Kantian, or perhaps generally Enlightened understanding of both freedom and constitutional law (or rather, state law); this Enlightened understanding implying that the freedom and civic influence of a given individual increase as the size of a given commune decreases.
Thus
As a kicker, technically, I'm not allowed to talk about such things with people who advocate them.
What? Nobody here's advocating a putsch, or worse, I think.
[size=10]
0
Kind of Important
A ray of Tsunlight.
Hum. But wouldn't federalism support it's own problems? Assuming each state, and the national government had the same amount of power, then how, as a nation would we be able to get things done? Would each state just pursue it's own agenda, without caring much about the whole? It seems to me that more times than not, we'd just bicker ineffectually, unable to get any decision done that might give unfavorable terms to one or more of the states.
I understand that what we have now is, by definition, a type of federation, however obviously the federal government holds the most say. And I still can't grasp why we would want to get rid of it. The above example of mine stands, we (I believe) need a strong head to get the rest of the smaller governments to act.
Even now, in Congress, each state naturally bargains for anything more advantageous to themselves, and the people in their state. If each and every state was interested in something only for themselves, and had no central government to force them to cooperate, then where would it get us?
Just humor me, I'm trying to understand here.
I understand that what we have now is, by definition, a type of federation, however obviously the federal government holds the most say. And I still can't grasp why we would want to get rid of it. The above example of mine stands, we (I believe) need a strong head to get the rest of the smaller governments to act.
Even now, in Congress, each state naturally bargains for anything more advantageous to themselves, and the people in their state. If each and every state was interested in something only for themselves, and had no central government to force them to cooperate, then where would it get us?
Just humor me, I'm trying to understand here.
0
Kind of Important wrote...
Hum. But wouldn't federalism support it's own problems? Assuming each state, and the national government had the same amount of power, then how, as a nation would we be able to get things done? Would each state just pursue it's own agenda, without caring much about the whole? It seems to me that more times than not, we'd just bicker ineffectually, unable to get any decision done that might give unfavorable terms to one or more of the states.The same way individual nations get things done. Whether federalism or centralism (it's not exactly a binary dichotomy) states (or provinces) surrender some of their liberties to the federation, like the citizen does to the state, in return for certain benefits. The balance of power between them, and how many liberties they surrender, is always, even in absolute despotism, subject to negotiation and re-negotiation, as both sides always joust for supremacy.
Of course each state would largely pursue it's own agenda; that is exactly the point. Besides fostering flexibility and competitiveness, that also enables the citizens of each state to shape (to some degree) policy according to their -often wildly different- demands.
The business of the federal government as I see it should be to ensure the upholding of the constitution, national defence and foreign diplomacy.
Kind of Important wrote...
I understand that what we have now is, by definition, a type of federation, however obviously the federal government holds the most say. And I still can't grasp why we would want to get rid of it.Not get rid of it. Limit it in competence.
Kind of Important wrote...
The above example of mine stands, we (I believe) need a strong head to get the rest of the smaller governments to act.Why? The federation even might as well disband and the individual states continue to exist as individual nations. The federation is no god-given union that must endure for eternity, it can be dissolved if it pleases the citizens. But, if the citizens decide that for the time being they want for the federation to endure, it should. And if it is to endure, then the balance of power between the federal administration and the states must and will be subject to continuous redefinition. And then it is a matter of negotiation how strong this "head" is to be.
Kind of Important wrote...
Even now, in Congress, each state naturally bargains for anything more advantageous to themselves, and the people in their state. If each and every state was interested in something only for themselves, and had no central government to force them to cooperate, then where would it get us?To fifty new independent nations populating the North American continent.
0
I support the idea that the masses should feel the necessity to rise up and overthrow a government if they are dissatisfied with how things operate. I love how that is technically a possibility in the United States, but that's such a sham. You'd be arrested, charged, even killed before you could manage to actually topple the government.
0
Kind of Important
A ray of Tsunlight.
That raises a new concern then. Assuming this ever happened. (Which would be nigh impossible as Tsurayu pointed out) What would stop another nation from walking in and taking over the states (Now nations)? Each state would barely have the individual power to remain free if someone with enough military might came along. That's part of why this system works pretty well. Individually we'd fall, but united we have arguably more might than anyone. Which is the whole point really.
While each state here might get along fine and dandy, who's to say another nation will abide by the same rules?
While each state here might get along fine and dandy, who's to say another nation will abide by the same rules?
0
Kind of Important wrote...
That raises a new concern then. Assuming this ever happened. (Which would be nigh impossible as Tsurayu pointed out) What would stop another nation from walking in and taking over the states (Now nations)? Each state would barely have the individual power to remain free if someone with enough military might came along. That's part of why this system works pretty well. Individually we'd fall, but united we have arguably more might than anyone. Which is the whole point really.While each state here might get along fine and dandy, who's to say another nation will abide by the same rules?
Nobody is to say. But, western Europe hasn't seen a war in 64 years now, despite there being plenty of individual nations.
How so? Because they found out that trade, in their situation, is more gainful than war; because they had a common enemy; and last but not least because large parts of them were united in a military alliance (NATO/OTAN) despite the nations' unwavering sovereignty-until-recently.
I find it hard to believe that the fifty independent daughter states of a dissolution of the U.S. would not be able to form a like alliance.
Lastly, whilst I am no pacifist, I believe you slightly overestimate the importance of having an enormous military force.
0
Kind of Important
A ray of Tsunlight.
No, no. I think most people underestimate the usefulness of having a powerful military. But that's a discussion for a different time.
I see what you're getting at. But, while the states/nations could indeed form a similar alliance. We already have that. All 50 states together able to work for the same thing, but also able to focus on internal things, like commerce and whatnot. Perhaps its the central government that irks you the most? I know it's not perfect, but it's been working pretty well for awhile now.
I see what you're getting at. But, while the states/nations could indeed form a similar alliance. We already have that. All 50 states together able to work for the same thing, but also able to focus on internal things, like commerce and whatnot. Perhaps its the central government that irks you the most? I know it's not perfect, but it's been working pretty well for awhile now.
0
It has been broken for a while now. The United States are too large for one government to hold together. The framers realized this and designed the constitution to allow us two things.
-To preserve the independence of the states. At the time when the government was set up, the states thought of themselves as independent nations. For the longest time, they operated as competitors and rivals. This spirit is the core of American ideal.
-To change. They installed a method for the constitution itself to change, and intended for the small, flexible states to take the helm.
-To preserve the independence of the states. At the time when the government was set up, the states thought of themselves as independent nations. For the longest time, they operated as competitors and rivals. This spirit is the core of American ideal.
-To change. They installed a method for the constitution itself to change, and intended for the small, flexible states to take the helm.
0
gibbous wrote...
Polemicallygibbous wrote...
Kantiangibbous wrote...
behovesgibbous wrote...
putschgibbous wrote...
dichotomyGibs, If I already didn't already have dictionary.com on my bookmark toolbar for Mozilla. You'd be the reason I would have it now.
I just want to chip in two more cents as Gibs was able to explain federalism in such an eloquent manner.
When thinking about Government, think of it like the Military. Where would you rather receive your orders? From a guy at the pentagon (federal government) or the captain of your platoon (state)? Sure, a guy in some air conditioned office on the other side of the world might be an apt leader but, he's too far removed and has to manage the whole war (A.k.A. the country) and can't exactly spend time helping you specifically but, your captain (Governor) is right there beside you and is close enough to actually hear you.
0
Kind of Important
A ray of Tsunlight.
There's an example I can relate. Truthfully, I'd rather it be from the Pentagon than the way it is most of the time now. A whole hell of a lot of the time the general orders come from some asinine idea that some old guys in Congress came up with. Leave the military decisions to the military, but that's unrelated.
I can understand that. People who are nearer to you and your circumstances (The captain and platoon leader in the example) would naturally understand you and what you need better. And really that was a damn good example...
I can understand that. People who are nearer to you and your circumstances (The captain and platoon leader in the example) would naturally understand you and what you need better. And really that was a damn good example...