“Anarchy only works for a short time in a small community.”

The following conversation took place at my Discord server.
https://discord.gg/3rhghRX

The forward ( > ) symbol indicates “responded to”.
Example: Freddy > Jason (Freddy responded to Jason)

SAM101907
Anarchists seem to think that the government should give them everything they want, so how am I suppose to believe that everyone suddenly becomes so selfless in the voluntaryist society.

So somehow this voluntary society will suddenly make everyone help each other out? You think government is baring people from doing this? And how so? It seems you want to avoid the fact that under government, we’ve made more technological advancements and pulled more people out of poverty then any other system in history. It’s foolish to think that government is baring anyone from anything, when it has actually given people more opportunities to explore the field of your choice. Somehow this is a bad thing?

Taxation is immoral because it is immoral, or because you say it is? There are plenty of people who understand the reasoning behind it and are willing to give their money to help their society. Not everyone likes taxes, probably no one intact, but they are necessary to run a modern community. All the services you use don’t pay for themselves, what exactly are anarchists plan for this? Who is going to fill the role of government services?

I should rephrase and say anarchy only works for a short time in a small community. I say it does not work, because we do not see these anarchists utopias out there flourishing with all their voluntary inhabitants. We see examples like Slab City, or Poole’s land, or “Anarchopolco”, which sorry to say, are all shit holes, one having an absurdly high murder rate. These are not the communities most people want. If you want to prove it can work, why aren’t people getting together to try and start one? Why do anarchists only talk about their society but never actually try to start it?

bbblackwell > SAM101907
“Anarchists seem to think that the government should give them everything they want, so how am I suppose to believe that everyone suddenly becomes so selfless in the voluntaryist society.”

Anarchy is an apophatic position – this aspect of our worldview is about what we don’t want, not what we do want. What we don’t want is a ruling class invalidly claiming authority over us or anyone else.

Who here said that everyone becomes selfless in a voluntarist society? Defense is still relevant and possible. The difference is that the defenders don’t claim rights above and beyond those of anyone else. You want to stop someone from getting robbed, go right ahead; but serving in this capacity does not also include having the right to rob drivers via fines for not having “official permission” to drive, a right that no one else has.

Two things to consider: First, if your argument for government is that people are not “selfless” (implying that their greed and immorality makes them unfit to be free), then how much more insane is it to create a seat of immense power and to choose some from amongst that unscrupulous throng to sit upon it? We’ve seen time and time again how power corrupts or draws the corrupt into its fold. These people would cause far less damage without that perceived authority. Let’s see the Stalins of the world kill millions without usurping that seat. Them and their like would be little more than a band of impotent radicals, largely ignored – or easily neutralized – since their maniacal views are held by few, and willingly executed by fewer still.

Second, to say something only “works” in a small community, but not a large one, is to misunderstand the nature of principles. The principles of addition, for instance, apply across the board, no matter how complex the equation. Methodologies devised haphazardly with no firm foundation may have limitations, but those which express valid principles do not. That which applies to 2 people, applies equally to 2 billion. This is why it’s so important to begin our investigation on that seed causal level. Something you’ve failed to do concerning morality (the natural cause-and-effect processes that guide the outcomes of human interaction). And so you say:

“Taxation is immoral because it is immoral, or because you say it is?”

This question would be easily answered if you took the time to thoroughly investigate the nature (or even the definition) of morality. I have explained how subjective morality is literally impossible. I have also explained the most rational foundation for objective morality, and demonstrated its existence. You have offered no response to the particulars of these arguments, yet continue to assert the subjective definition. By this standard of critical examination, one may claim anything whatever, persisting despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. To ignore a rational objection is to be willfully ignor-ant; a quality which does not best represent one such as yourself, who is willing to patiently engage in conversations like these. Let’s leave that to the half-painted hot dog gluttons screaming at football games. For those who seek greater truths, it behooves us to remain steadfast and earnest in our seeking.

*The above comments are not intended to imply that painting half your body and boisterously supporting sports teams necessarily implies ignorance. It was merely a generalized, hyperbolic rendering of the “ignorant masses” who prioritize inane pursuits above those more befitting an intelligent species.

SAM101907 > bbblackwell
I understand that one does not want to give others the right to rule over them, that isn’t the government I want either. Our democratic republic is nothing but ejecting administrators to run the services of the community. A politician can’t come you your door and force you from your property without reason. They only have the authority given to them by the people. Again, I don’t a government of tyrants, but one where I can choose people whom I deem fit, as well as freedom of the press to expose them for any ill doing.

The difficulty is how does an anarchist society defend itself? An anarchist army? That sounds completely disorganized and impossible.

I don’t want Stalins or hitlers government. It’s not like we don’t try to learn from history and see mistakes made by governments and correct them. I would also argue a potential band of radicals can grow. Communism is still growing today even against the wishes of western governments. Same as Anarchists or flat earthers. It can be hard to stop fringe movements when you are in an anarchist society where everyone just minds their own business. Who would go after these radicals? Who would prevent them from growing in numbers and becoming a threat?

I say anarchy only works in small groups from what history tells us. We haven’t seen it firm large countries or communities, or be able to withstand existing with other governments around.

I don’t see how morality, which is a construct of the human mind, can be anything but subjective. We have different groups around the world with various moral standards and beliefs. Sure there are some similarities, but also significant differences. It’s to complex of a subject to lay down a law for what morality is.

bbblackwell > SAM101907
Yeah, and no one saw a person fly through the air until they found a way to do it. So saying something’s never been done is not sufficient to conclude it can’t be done. To figure out whether it can be done and how to do it, you’ve got to discern and leverage principles, which is exactly how we got aircraft off the ground.

Also, it doesn’t matter how an anarchist society will deal with anything. That’s a separate conversation. If you understand morality – which you continue to avoid – then you would know that it’s literally impossible for government to handle our problems satisfactorily because it is wholly comprised of the precise ingredient from which all such problems arise – immorality/misalignment with Truth.

I’m sorry, but to say that western governments don’t want communism, or that they can’t come to your door and force you from your property without reason, etc. is simply naive. It demonstrates a lack of research into the relvant areas of study. It would seem that you think all is as it appears – that people elect well-meaning officials who are there to protect and benefit us, and that the media pounds the pavement seeking the truth and presenting it to the public. This is a child’s fantasy. It’s the lullaby that’s been sung to us since birth, an entertainment product meant to appease.

What you fail to realize is that people do not have the power to grant authority over anything but what they personally have authority over, i.e. their own property. Furthermore, in so doing, they relinquish that ownership. If I have the exlusive right to decide what’s done with my car, but I then grant that authority to you, that’s called “transfer of ownership”. So even if you had a right to do the things that government does (which you don’t), you’d be giving it away the moment you elected them, because once they’re elected you have no more control. They don’t have to check back with you to do anything, so they are not being delegated power over the property as your agent, they are becoming the sole owner of it – and that property is YOU and everything within the confines of your nation’s territorial area . In addition to all this, you don’t even have consensus, only majority rule, in support of this system.

So don’t say you don’t want tyranny – that’s precisely what you want – you just want it lending its immoral power to a majority of which you are a part. That’s precisely what you seek when you vote. You’re saying, “Go out there and exert power over others to effect the changes I personally want to see.” It would be worthy of more respect if you at least had the courage to do it yourself. Go to your neighbor’s house and say, “I want my kid to go to school, but I don’t want to pay for it, so give me $45 or I’ll throw you in a cage”. You may adjust this for whatever your particular desired ends may be.

SAM101907 > bbblackwell
Engineering is much easier then manipulating social groups. You can at least predict what materials will do, people are unpredictable.

You are under the impression that everyone else will have the same moral standards as you. One anarchist society’s moral standards and beliefs may directly conflict with yours. What happens then?

Why would private corporations, the ones who lobby governments, want communism? That is a threat to their wealth. You also don’t seem to understand that our government needs a lawful reason to enter your home and demand any property. You are applying a less then one percent scenario to the entire group.

There can’t be any property rights unless there is someone or some entity able to recognize them and enforce them. There would be nothing stopping me, aside from you, from me stealing your property. Your moral values will not stop a thief. You also need to understand that the community is merely electing administrators to run the services they want. They aren’t overlords with unlimited power, that isn’t a view grounded in reality.

What kind of tyrannical government is giving people the option of living there and paying taxes, as well as the provide you with numerous services for your benefit. Your argument that it is an immoral system, is that you are required to pay to participate. Which is silly. These things don’t pay for themselves; if someone is living in your home, not paying any rent, and using your utilities, you would say that is immoral. But somehow if you do that to a country, it’s now acceptable? Why should anarchists get these services for free?

bbblackwell > SAM101907
People are not as unpredictable as you think. We have a common fundamental psychology. The investigations and dicoveries in this area are the subject of the occult sciences, which have been employed and passed down over millennia. Surely you’re aware of how advertisers leverage aspects of psychology to manipulate the masses with great efficacy – do you think those with far greater ambitions do not?

We are largely living in a world of their design. Their clandestine societies operate like corporations; they are essentially entities onto themselves, heirarchical and compartmentalized in nature, and capable of retaining knowledge and executing long-term strategies over generations, independent of their particular constituency.

Not all private corporations would want socialism. However, you are aware of collusion between government and industrial capitalists, and the people at the head of some of these immense businesses stand to gain even greater wealth and power by being part of the inner circle of centralized control. Haven’t you noticed the tip-toe progression toward greater and greater centralization – even during your own lifetime – regardless of which party is in power?

You say that “…our government needs a lawful reason to enter your home and demand any property”, suggesting that the people who write the legislation are bound by it. This is the same problem we have with subjective morality – the heirarchical and non-reciprocal nature of standards – which I presented in the morality article, but you have yet to address. If legislators create legislation, then they are the standard for legislation, not the other way around. Legislation cannot serve as a limiting standard for them in any absolute sense, since they have the power to alter it (not to mention the fact that they often weasel their way around it without even rewriting it).

Will Constitutions stop them? They never have, and they never will.

[ The 1936 Soviet Constitution, adopted on 5 December 1936 and also known as the Stalin Constitution, redesigned the government of the Soviet Union. It purported to be highly democratic, with multiple guarantees of rights and democratic procedures. Supporters around the world hailed it as the most democratic constitution imaginable. In practice, it solidified the total control of the Communist Party and its leader Joseph Stalin. ]

The bottom line is that rights don’t come from legislation – they are naturally extant in the way I have described. Our opinions, or lack of acknowledgment of them, do not alter this fact. When you say that in a free society there would be nothing stopping anyone from not acknowledging these rights, I’d ask you – what’s stopping them now? The answer is nothing besides the capacity to defend, and defense does not require extra rights “granted” by legislative process. The same people who defend now may do so in a free society, with the addition of many more once legislation limiting our ability to defend ourselves is removed.

SAM101907 > bbblackwell
Sure, we do have similarities with each other, but I wouldn’t go as far as to say we can predict behaviour. As far as I’m concerned, psychologists are having a difficult time with this. Sure there are people who try to take advantage of this, I think you over estimate their power.

Over generations? You need to think how long terms in government last. It would be impossible once their term is over or are voted out to keep a plan in motion. Corporations could lobby, but they’d have to deal with the exchange of power and hope they can still lobby new politicians. Saying it is a grand conspiracy of a secret society needs more evidence.

It’s true, there are corporations with political agendas that lobby for their parties or beliefs. This is an issue in our government right now, I believe we need to educate more people in this issue so they can vote more responsibly.

It is not as easy as writing some legislation and it becomes law, thus takes time, goes through review, gets debated and voted on. That’s why if you vote responsibly and have a free press to call out their bullshit, then you can have confidence that they would smash down any attempt by an individual to start making up laws that benefit only him. We can see this happening in the states right now with all the debates in Congress.

You are now comparing the Soviet dictatorship to our democratic republic, we don’t gave the centralized power they did. Sure it may happen sometime in the far future, but we are nowhere near this right now. The economic, social, cultural, and political landscape is not in the conditions for someone to suddenly prop up a dictatorship.

What stopping them? The repercussions of them commuting a crime. Why do you think crime rates are so high in countries with little to no police force? The unfortunate reality is that greed and survival do not take second place to morals. Rights are given to you by the state so that in the event someone steals your property, the state now has an obligation to investigate and find the culprit. The average person does not have the knowledge or training to do criminal investigations themselves.

bbblackwell > SAM101907
I’m sorry, but you have too many holes in your understanding for anything I say to be seen in its proper context. This is not an insult any more than telling a college student they do not have sufficient understanding to build an atom bomb. It’s simply a matter of prerequisite knowledge supporting the full understanding of derivative concepts. I’m certain you’ve had this experience with whatever your preferred areas of interest are; this stuff just happens to be where I’ve spent a lot of my time. Although the core premises of my statements are simple and accessible to all, unearthing and replacing the myriad deceptions which block their accurate perception requires a level of thorough effort that I cannot do on your behalf.

For now, I invite you to join us in the mutual uplift of this community. We are all on the same path of learning, growing, and sharing what we deem most valuable. AMP’s YouTube channel has much relevant and easily-accessible information. I hope you’ll share what you find exciting or useful in your hunt for greater knowledge.

Of late, I’ve been working through Thoreau’s Walden, the works of Eckhart Tolle and John Trudell, and the Mystery Babylon series by William Cooper (available on YouTube). If any of those pique your interest, I’d enjoy discussing them casually in book-club fashion. Today I listened to a reading posted by Beardo which briefly highlights some of the arguments for a free society, which I believe we must duly address (within ourselves if nowhere else) in order to assure lucid thought on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTvKl_27-_A

Join our Discord community!
https://discord.gg/3rhghRX
Let’s have a LIVE chat!

1st BITCHUTE: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3083/
2nd BITCHUTE:  https://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3783/
FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/ampthirtyeightythree

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s