That’s the amazing part about it. This is one of the most Democratic districts in the country, probably, with Chapel Hill, UNC-Chapel Hill, Carrboro (“The People’s Republic of Carrboro”), and Durham, some of the most liberal bastions you’ll find. And Lawson is 8 points behind a 20-year incumbent!!!

How does he do it? He’s like Ron Paul, but articulate. He states his positions and the reasons why he supports them very succinctly. He gives great speeches and has won a lot of Democratic converts.

If he doesn’t get it tonight, he’ll get it in two years.

Sorry to read that, as it was a lively exchange. Albeit, one that’s been played out between statist and anarchist ad infinitum. But still good to see in fresh print.

Brooks, I have to say that Frank summed up the anarchist position admirably. And you played the role of statist to perfection. Neither one of you missed a point.

I appreciate that you recognize the violence of the statist system, Brooks. That’s more honest than most statists. It is also courageous of you to confront anarchists. Most statists just put us on “ignore.” I for one always appreciate the challenge.

World wars can only be created by states. That’s a lot of violence. I wonder if modern “progress,” such as you have outlined it, is worth world wars, especially to the individuals who die in them. I wonder if those individuals would rather have lived what you contend would be a more primitive lifestyle (no proof of that of course, see Bastiat as Frank mentioned) than be killed by the State in world wars (or Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Serbia, Panama, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Vietnam, Korea, etc., etc., etc.).

Funny, but we agree in the end, I think. Owing to humans’ violent natures, there will always be the same amount of violence in the world. The equation must balance.

In statism (a condition of maximum centralized control), the most powerful states warp the map so that the most overt violence (i.e. war) occurs furthest, maintaining the warfare state by subtly enslaving the home population. Let’s call the amount of violence in this system “X.”

In anarchy (a condition of reduction of control to the most local level), with no states, the total amount of violence in the world remains the same — “X”. However, there is no mechanism for concentration of violence on the scale of statism. There is no slave population at home to bilk to fund the war enterprise. Each individual is still just as violent as before, but he finds himself confronted at every turn by a similarly violent individual. This force keeps everyone mostly in check. There will be flare-ups of violence (shootouts, ambushes, frauds, etc.) but though thousands may be guaranteed to die, the chances of millions dying in a large war are nil.

Each individual responsible for self-defense, or contracting for self-defense. A system of trust based on understanding the killer nature inherent in each of us. This is morality. This is a foundation.

Brooks, the system you are at peace with is paid for with the blood of millions in distant lands and the slavery of millions at home. It may be convenient and conducive to long and physically healthy lives (debatable, and only for the slave nations), but it is built on quicksand of lies and will continue to consume all but the ruling class for whose benefit the State is perpetuated.

“Your little black-and-white anarchist wonderland might work in a Heinlein novel, but not in the real world.”

Look, I’m not being contrarian for the sake of contrarianism. I’ve been around the block, thought this shit over for a while, posted elsewhere about it. I’m not posting to convince people that anarchism will work. I’m posting to demonstrate how it is the only alternative to the current completely immoral, fucked-up slave system in place, and how every individual who cooperates with it is complicit in his/her own slavery.

Anyone who argues the validity of Statism, to whatever degree — minarchism all the way to totalitarianism — is making a distinction without a difference that leads to the same exact end, total subjugation of the individual, total lack of freedom. Anarchism is the only alternative.

That it would never work, allegedly but realistically probable, demonstrates core characteristics of human behavior that cannot be reconciled with freedom, trust and peace. If it is true that anarchism cannot work in human society, it means that humans are immoral killers.

I firmly believe this to be true. Every bit of evidence points to this conclusion. Morality is not just “the thin veneer of civilization” and it doesn’t just come after food. Morality is the lie we tell ourselves to forget about our horrid innate nature. All of “morality” is the suppression of natural human behavior of survival at all costs, environmental control above all else. It is imposed from above. It is the State the supresses human nature by defending a monopoly of ultimate exercise OF human nature.

If every human were honest and confronted his/her killer nature, and every human recognized this in every other human individual, then anarchy could work.

This will be my last reply, since I think we are the only ones reading this thread any more. I suppose it’s a matter of perspective. I think it’s quite possible to live your life surrounded by folk who don’t see a problem with a monopoly agency of force taking an arbitrary amount of your labor value from you. If you avoid pissing off the state, keep your head down, and pretend the Leviathan doesn’t exist, you can be fruitful and happy. Odds are they won’t shoot your dog for no reason, and hopefully their fiscal policies will not have devalued the common currency to the point of worthlessness (and even then you can make investments to protect yourself from complete harm). That being said, the ability to get by does not negate the essense of what government is, nor does it make participating in the process ok, just because we aren’t yet at the point where we are voting people into camps.

And no snark intended, but it’s bizarre that you would see me as the pessimist here.

I don’t think you are a mindless drone, just shamefully pessimistic when it comes to believing that people can live together without a centralized monopoly of force dictating how 40+% of their resources should be reallocated against their will.

As for using the products of that government…well you aren’t born with the political structure you want, you are born with the political structure you have. Given that, here’s a simple scenario for you – one day the slaveowner provides ice cream to the slaves on his plantation. The ice cream was purchased by the slaveowner, who had the money to afford it thanks to the slaves working in his plantation, giving him bountiful cotton harvests which he sold in the market.
Questions:
1. Was providing the slaves with ice cream an act of violence?
2. Would it be wrong for the slaves to eat the ice cream?
3. Does the scenario change if the slaveowner lets the slaves vote on what flavor of ice cream he should buy for them?

P.S. For concrete-bound mindless drones, please don’t mistake the example above as trying to equate actual slavery that existed in the US and the current US government. It’s just an example, meant to illuminate some of the complex issues at play when you have a monopoly agency of force taking away, and providing, certain goods/services.

Can’t help but notice, however, that you’re still using the internet, a product of violence perpetrated on millions.

I, as a mindless drone, am fine with that. You?

Apology accepted.

I apologize for not having laid out full plans for the decentralized organization of millions of individuals in the comment section here. I understand your worry – if the government didn’t deliver mail, who would, right? Well, not to get all deconstructionist on you, but I think it may be feasible that those who want something can pool their resources and rely on certain arcane ideas like labor specialization, to obtain what they want without needing to steal from others (sorry, voting for those who will steal from others). Yes, that may mean you don’t get to have other people’s resources appropriated to develop internet 3.0, or maybe you will have to rely on private safety boards (think Consumers Reports for medicine), instead of approval from enlightened and benevolent bureaucrats, before putting pills in your mouth…but as we grow up living among other people most of us realize we only have justified control over ourselves and the things we rightfully own.

Riiiigghhht, ’cause if we disagree, I must have been brainwashed. I see you as the slave… as oppressive as you seem to find the System, you seem here like an eager enough participant.

The FDA is a flawed organization – but how many more would die without some system of testing? (Elemental mercury was a popular ‘treatment’ of the past, for instance.)

Still no positive argument, though nice “might have” there. How would all this come about without the collective will? Again – lots of hand-waving, but not much of an argument. Jacques Derrida would be proud!

It’s unfortunate, sad, and likely a consequence of our modern educational system, that you think technological advances can only occur when a gun is pointed at someone’s head.

But let’s assume you are right, and that computers and networks would not exist without government (war) research (which, by the way, has nothing to do with the voting booth) – it is also true that if the government today rounded up the best and brightest and put them into education camps, forcing them to study and research medicine, we would see quicker advancement in that field. Do you believe the good chance of you living longer justifies slavery?

Besides, as Bastiat showed, there is the seen and the unseen – the inefficient and forced reallocation of resources that led to ARPANET in the 1960s might have led to other things whose progress has been retarded because it doesn’t fit into the government’s plan. An example can be made with the FDA – every time they “save lives” by making sure drugs are safe, they kill people by not letting them have access to life-saving medication in time, and they raise the cost to develop and distribute, making everyone worse off.

But hey, at least you can check your stocks online….

Your little black-and-white anarchist wonderland might work in a Heinlein novel, but not in the real world. In our world, like it or not, small groups breed small minds. Neither do they bring us the internet, or college educations, or quantum physics, or most any other conveniences that have contributed to allow you the leisure time to produce the fantastical little philosophy you’ve got going. The vast majority of us actually like running water, and near-instantaneous communication, and antibiotics – things that simply would not be if it wasn’t for the “violence” of the voting booth. Violence is a part of life; but in the gilded society you have imagined, it will be even less ‘subtle’ than what we live with today (think Gombe, Tanzania after all the researchers have gone home).

If you want to go back to the sod hut and take up flint-knapping, I’m sure many here wouldn’t be terribly wounded to see you go. But with the fantasy world you’re pushing, that’s the life you’re aiming for, at least once the petroleum runs out and the surface coal disappears.

I’m all for broader, more localized power structures as our federal government becomes top-heavy; but like it or not, it is living amongst those we disagree with that civilizes us.

And as for the rating up/down: I myself rate up what makes sense to me, and rate down what doesn’t. You’ve offered little on just how your non-violent Utopia would work once the Evil Representative Government has been abolished. Once you start making rational points about practical goals, I think you’ll see those little thumbs start reaching for the sky.

Anyone who disagrees would be free to live in peace.”

It’s that second part I’m not getting. How exactly is that ensured? If the group agree on the specific subject of limiting my rights, then my recourse is what exactly? Is it based entirely on goodwill or some kind of check and balance?

Group size would be limited to the number of people who voluntarily agree on a specific subject.

Anyone who disagrees would be free to live in peace.

This will foster small groups of free, peaceful individuals who act without force.

It is important to understand that freedom and peace are digital concepts, i.e. it is either 0 or 1, on or off. One is either free and peaceful or one is a slave and violent. There are no gradations.

One’s premise determines one’s worldview. If one views voting as a legitimate use of force, then one is a proponent of violence. It is that simple. Everything flows from that — EVERYTHING. Out-of-control SWAT teams, forced redistribution of wealth, invasions of privacy, unreasonable laws, the corruption of power, etc., etc., etc. — every single complaint posted on this blog stems from violence which begins at the root level, that it is legitimate to empower the State to force one’s fellow human to bend to one’s will.

It is impossible to reduce violence by being violent. This is axiomatic. The problem is never the solution.

When voting for the House, party affiliation matters a lot more than a particular Rep’s favorite policies.