Except that in an anarchy individuals to act as free agents, more or less.
But state power, unlike in the market, is a zero-sum game. IF one group gains power another will lose it.
Within government they need to either be a part of a patronage system (as in China) allied to one of the warring internal factions that head up a powerful department (as in Russia) or committed to a political faction or ‘cause’ (as in most social democracies).
At the very top, public servants (ha!) and politicians have to be very, very careful as there is always another factions/clan waiting in the wings to pounce.
The youtube video is not very good. It is very layman and doesn’t explain ideas very well.
The DROs section was particularly narrow sighted… his vision of what DROs would look like should at least conform to historical and/or current implementations.
Except that in an anarchist society, there would be a greater freedom of association, even among criminals, and except in the most extreme cases they still have the option of not being criminals anymore.
Government is much more vertically oriented, much harder to get out of because of the $$$ and other perks. It ends up looking more like a system of warring tribes, fighting to entrench themselves at all levels of state power. IT cannot be said to resemble an anarchy in any way.
How does a person that coerces or a group of people that coerce simply leave? There are extant gangs now that don’t let their members leave. I don’t understand how you came to that conclusion. How do people that want to coerce power over another (or groups of them) suddenly find greater freedom only because the largest gang on the block, ie government isn’t around anymore?
I think I see what you mean now. I think I’m agreeing with you. Government being the biggest gang does mean that without one society is left with smaller ones.
I’m saying that I think the government is a rogue PDA and that the natural order is extant. It so happens to be that in the current nature of events a large sophisticated gang had emerged centuries ago and currently upon this landmass here one called the U.S. government is welding it’s coercive power currently. For instance, if I could muster together a well-armed PDA and refused to stop cooperating with the government on all fronts then I would be tapping into a market that is potential. It is like a potential good on the shelf during the holiday season or when Apple is coming out with a new IPod. The market is present for some people. It so happens that the U.S. government has a monopoly on the free market currently when it comes to PDA’s except to the point of individual self-defense but that is threatened everyday by the government. The market is here. It always takes individuals that have the skill and enterprise to develop anything in the market. Then there needs to be the demand. I know of many people that are demanding this aspect of the market. Many people want to freely buy into self-defense. The U.S. government can stick around. No need for I nor it to come into conflict. I would most definitely peacefully co-exist with the U.S. government. It is up to the government if it will either aggress against me or not cause I know I will not initiate the aggression. That’s what I’m basically talking about.
What I am saying recognizes that there is a government. It is coercive. I don’t deny that it exists. I find the government to be a sophisticated criminal gang. One that has been allowed to grow by the consent of many people for far too long. I see the government an expanison of any backalley thuddery gang that has been able to grow in power and coercion. There are many kinds of gangs and some may even be attempts to oppose the government and if they are just then I wouldn’t label them as a gang but in actually - liberty oriented people.
I am for peace and will never initiate aggression. That’s important to share. I don’t want what I wrote to be taken out of context by any government do-gooders.
I agree that there are some groups that initiate force against those who try and leave. But petty criminals, vandals, while collar, etc usually work in very loose knit groups or on their own. In government, the kingpin of the executive branch has (in theory if not practice) total control over the entire apparatus.
There would possibly still be smaller gangs in an anarchist society, but I would think that anarchy would reduce the incentive to gang in the first place. Gangs tend to form as a defense mechanism against the state, as a ‘protection racket’ for criminals. But that is by-the-by in the context of this discussion.
I agree pretty much with the rest of what you say, except to repeat I believe internally the government does not resemble an anarchy.
It is more like the disputed territories described in Nineteen Eighty-Four: constantly being conquered and reconquered by warring powers, passing back and forth between Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia.
A lot goes on in the government that the President doesn’t directly oversee. It’s too big of an operation. That’s why now there are czars, but traditionally cabinent members and different branches in the government. They each have their own agenda. The president along with others, for instance the military, hold more sway than others and may jump in and overturn certain decisions. I understand that. But so can the mightest criminal in the might makes right world of theirs. And the President of the U.S. isn’t the only decision maker. There are other countries and corporate cronies, etc… that are definitely involved in policy making.
I agree.
I guess if that’s the same as saying internally criminality isn’t liberty - then I definitely agree.