Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline

Would luv some feedback from folks on this.

Libertarianism seems like an ideal system--in a perfect world. However, given that most people--I would argue at least a majority--out there are not, nor are they anything close, the "great unwashed" need rules & regulations to keep them, the idiots, in check.

From what I understand, this system says people should be able to self-govern. Period. End of Story. Well, again, in a perfect world.


Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: I would love

magilum wrote:
I would love there to be improvement in society. I just think revolutions and theoretical social models would require a fundamental change in the way every person thinks and behaves.

A change, yes. But not a fundamental one.

I don't know how anarchy is meant to work, which is why I'm asking what I think are the obvious questions.

I don't know how government is meant to work, which led me to ask the questions that led me to the conclusion of anarchism.

I don't want a society where only the "prime movers" survive, and the infirm are left to waste away while soliciting "voluntary good will" from the more fortunate.

Me neither. But those "prime movers", or more generally the rich and powerful class, is a product of the state. Power and money have always gone hand in hand, with money buying power and power buying money. The state, the original elitist social organization, is the root cause of all other elitism in social organization. The state, bought and paid for by the richest of the rich, is the cause of almost all the inequality we have today. Some inequality is normal, just out of some people being better or faster workers, but the distinct classes we have today is not. The class of purpetually involuntarily unemployed is not.

The current corporate climate doesn't inspire me to hand more control over to private interests. That may not be the explicit goal here, but neither was it in the forming of this republic.

I don't trust corporatism or corporations either, and privatization is almost always a banner waved when giving a government-owned monopoly on say, garbage collection, to the friend of a politician to have the whole monopoly. The corporate sector is a part of the statist sector waving the banner of "the free market" and "private property" when it is neither. I don't want the government to "hand more control over" to anything. I want it to either take it's hands off this moment, or I want it stolen from the government (if you could call it theft, the government doesn't own one piece of legitimate property anyways) and given back to the rest of society.

There is no republic. There is no country. There is no legitimate Constitution. The whole state system is lies backed by guns backed by lies. If challenged according to universal legal principles it could be easily shown that there is no such litigant as the United States, nor the united States, nor any of the 50 States, nor the counties within, nor the cities within those, nor any other government. "This republic" was never formed. "This republic" exists just like god exists; it is a lie. The "Constitution" is true just like the Bible is true; it is an arbitrarily chosen work of (legal) fiction by people who had no right or power to do what they claimed to be doing.

The Monty Python sketch... is about skipping over details.
I wasn't trying to go into detail, I was trying to lay out the principles that would guide it. If you want the details you can figure them out yourself based on what I've told you. It's not my job to do all your thinking for you.