Genetically Modified Salmon for Americans

[Tigron-X]

I'm not going to go into a whole big discussion here, but IMO, without a government harmful products would be in the market before any independent organisation ever got around to testing it, and even if it did test there, they have no power to stop organizations from putting it on the market.

Well, even now it would be foolish to assume that products on the market are totally safe. Just look at the nutrition field for great examples. The question is: Would anarchy produce a safer market in comparison to the current market?

You say no because you assume government provides safety. But, try to imagine yourself in an anarchical environment. How would you manage your risk? Wouldn't you look for products that have already been tested? I'm sure you would.

So, wouldn't companies recognize that a tested product sells better than an untested product?

In an anarchical society, there are no government grants or subsidies or bail outs to hedge risk. A company has to be far more diligent in its practice in order to ensure customer loyalty.

IMO, you are currently at a higher risk because of the following:

(!) there exists a certain false sense of security, so one takes on more risk -- under anarchism you become a more cautious consumer because you're aware of the risks;
(2) you have one entity calling the shots as to whether or not a product is safe, thus corruption is easier because all the eggs are in one basket -- with anarchism you'll you have entities that certify products competing against each other;
(3) this same singular entity also, at times, prevents synergy from occurring by banning the practices of foreign organizations -- the medical field is full of great examples.

When it comes to anarchism, the hardest fence to jump over is the notion that government provides security.

The problem is that today is today, we let ourselves become entrapped in the current system and there is almost no way out besides pure revolution. But that would once again require people to be able to fend for themselves which probably wouldn't happen in todays world of entitlements.

Not to mention most jobs would cease to be important, as would much of the economy. It would just go back to simpler times. I prefer giving powers back to local governments to govern small sections of people over having a large government in control of everything as it is now in the US or the EU because a large government can't help but make large over encompassing laws that not every culture within the government can agree with. It's like trying to make a law that Texas and California agree with, we are different people. I prefer that over anarchy though.

But, aren't you tired of revolution? I mean, especially being from Texas myself, I know revolution was, in essence, romanticised in school -- from founding fathers to the Alamo. Dying for freedom, dying for country, dying for ones belief, dying and becoming a legend... it's very enticing. But, who wants to become a martyr?

Minarchism -- which is what you support -- is what all revolutionists have desired in the past. And, what happens years after the blood fest? Government begins a new and as times keeps on ticking, ticking (into the future!) it expands and expands, hence: REVOL[VE]-ution

It's cyclical. Why not stop the cycle of blood shed instead and become an anarchist?

[Ara]

I can't understand how you would think that a system of anarcho capitalism would produce more safety and less blood shed. Or what kind of anarchy are you talking about?

Tigron do you think that people who are free'd of police's monopoly on violence wouldn't try to take it to themselves? I know that idealist anarcho capitalists believe that people would only join or create networks and consume or produce only products and services that they needed or wanted to. This in my opinion would be an utopia, because different kinds of needs can be created by means of violence, threat, distrust, monopolies, alliances, braking contracts, cartels, corruption and so on when there is no real answerability. For example how could an elderly person afford costly medicines if he/she can't work for the money and doesn't have any children? Who would fight for a teenager's working rights? Sure some people could create a network to support the elderly person's medicine costs, but what about all the other elderly people that live outside of the network's reach or interest? How would any network fight for the rights of a teenage worker when there's only few tools to combat large organizations/corporations, most of which require thousands or hundreds of thousands of consumers to start voting on their wallets? Would all this be done to help teenagers, when it's only a short passing phase in once's life? Of course we come to morals and ethics here, it's something you can't avoid. Could a network of people uphold any kind of ethics with out forcing or atleast demanding the same kind of ethics from other networks or organizations that it is related to? I'm only asking questions, though I have my scepticism.

Minarchism is pretty new to me, reading about it for the first time, seems like only a newer wording for an older idea, the idea of a night watchman state is quite old. Does Minarchism have something to add to it?

Heh, I am actually enjoying reading once again about these different views on government on wikipedia, it's so handy to browse them and compare. One problem with wikipedia is that there's a lot of sources but little information on their credibility or motives, you just have to dig and dig. If you'd actually study political science in a university you would save a lot of time by letting your programme do the filtering of sources in the beginning of your studies. I've studied political science a bit, trying to continue that to bachelor's and these questions have always interested me, I'm not saying I'd have any grounds to speak as an authority, I don't, I'm just asking questions as I want to learn more. I'm sure there are people here who have studied political science and have a great knowledge in these most basic questions. I'm quite interested in direct democracy, we'll see how that idea continues developing.

[Vatican Assassin]

in a state of complete anarchy, any coporation could do anything it wants to the world, fish, river, whatever, and all we could do is blow it all up

lets do it

[Jerome Scuggs]

in a state of complete anarchy, any coporation could do anything it wants to the world, fish, river, whatever, and all we could do is blow it all up

lets do it

well besides the fact that corporations don't exist outside of government law, the same logic could be applied to say that any country in the world can do whatever it wants to the world. actually, even moreso because corporations do not have the legal monopoly on violence and murder, and countries do.

now why don't they just go around doing whatever they want? and there's your answer

edit: also your view assumes that rivers, fish etc would still be public property or "commons"

[Material Girl]

I had a tour of a salmon farm one time and the salmon circle around huge tanks like sharks. That's all they do is circle around.

[Tigron-X]

I can't understand how you would think that a system of anarcho capitalism would produce more safety and less blood shed. Or what kind of anarchy are you talking about?

Yeah, I subscribe to anarcho capitalism. The bloodshed I was referring to was from wars. I don't think murder will ever be completely absolved from society. But, without states, there are no wars. Massive war campaigns cannot be funded without some sort of taxable body politic to squeeze resources from, this includes human resources.

Furthermore, think about what there is to invade. There are no countries. There is no central power to take over. There is no body politic to seize.

The current arms trade thrives on countries battling other nations. I'm not saying there won't be people who buy weapons. I'm talking about financing and developing an army. Just the sheer amount of resources it takes to feed, arm, train, and maintain a standing army is enormous.

More so, who are you going to recruit? With the current economical paradigm the following notion is quite difficult to imagine. It takes a deep understanding of fiat currency to see how the current status quo prevents wealth generation/ accumulation. Further factoring in all the licensing and corrupt regulatory institutions, and taxation imposed by such institutions, and you'll begin to see the box (or rat race) we currently are forced to live in due to statism. In an anarchical setting, an entrepreneurial mindset thrives. Creativity is rewarded, not capped by borders, laws, licenses, and taxation. So, there would be a lot less desperate people, let alone desperate enough to put themselves in the line of fire just to get food, shelter, water, and health care.

I'm not saying people selling away their lives can't happen. I'm saying that in the absence of state propaganda and state produced economical turmoil, people will have more opportunity to conduct trade. Anarchism promotes self resilience. And putting your life on the line is rather counter productive.

Tigron do you think that people who are free'd of police's monopoly on violence wouldn't try to take it to themselves? I know that idealist anarcho capitalists believe that people would only join or create networks and consume or produce only products and services that they needed or wanted to. This in my opinion would be an utopia, because different kinds of needs can be created by means of violence, threat, distrust, monopolies, alliances, braking contracts, cartels, corruption and so on when there is no real answerability. For example how could an elderly person afford costly medicines if he/she can't work for the money and doesn't have any children? Who would fight for a teenager's working rights? Sure some people could create a network to support the elderly person's medicine costs, but what about all the other elderly people that live outside of the network's reach or interest? How would any network fight for the rights of a teenage worker when there's only few tools to combat large organizations/corporations, most of which require thousands or hundreds of thousands of consumers to start voting on their wallets? Would all this be done to help teenagers, when it's only a short passing phase in once's life? Of course we come to morals and ethics here, it's something you can't avoid. Could a network of people uphold any kind of ethics with out forcing or atleast demanding the same kind of ethics from other networks or organizations that it is related to? I'm only asking questions, though I have my scepticism.

All good and valid questions. What you have here though is something I quite often see in mental projections of a stateless society -- people remove the government, but forget that all the corporations are attched to the state. So, when you remove the state, you actually remove the corporations as well. It all converts to "buyer beware."

Think about all the wealth all the elderly have actually accumulated in their life time, but never actually saw because of taxation. Social Security in the United States for example.

Think of a child growing up in a society where there is no hierarchy. You think he/she is going to put up with abuse? You think he/she (the teenager) is going to just automatically trust someone or listen to someone because they're an adult? I'm not saying fraud won't occur. But, when one is dealing with a "buyer beware" caveat, one is more likely to find some sort of assurance to leverage risk or hedge risk. Be it insurance. Be it collateral. Again, the creative mind is rewarded.

The way of life completely changes under anarchism. Education is different. Parent/ Child relationships are different. Thought process of teenagers and adults are different.

All relationships change. You are only responsible to those who you agree to be responsible to. And, there will always be profit and loss for various reasons, but never because someone else is dictating to you what you can and cannot do.

You make the choices, and you suffer the consequences of those choices -- be they good or bad. Those who are empiricists will do very well. Those who believe in superstitions will faulter.

It's not a utopia, but it is better than what we have now.

Minarchism is pretty new to me, reading about it for the first time, seems like only a newer wording for an older idea, the idea of a night watchman state is quite old. Does Minarchism have something to add to it?

To put it shortly. Minarchism is just a fancy word for small government.

"An-" meaning no, like in anarchism. "Min-" meaning small.

So, it always starts out, hypothetically speaking, 1 or 2 watchmen. But, who watches the watchmen? So, as time goes on more and more watchmen are introduced. Statists like to call this "checks and balances." Eventually it grows so big that it overwhelms the populace. In my opinion, mostly because it doesn't produce anything and eventually becomes a drain on the economy.

Heh, I am actually enjoying reading once again about these different views on government on wikipedia, it's so handy to browse them and compare. One problem with wikipedia is that there's a lot of sources but little information on their credibility or motives, you just have to dig and dig. If you'd actually study political science in a university you would save a lot of time by letting your programme do the filtering of sources in the beginning of your studies. I've studied political science a bit, trying to continue that to bachelor's and these questions have always interested me, I'm not saying I'd have any grounds to speak as an authority, I don't, I'm just asking questions as I want to learn more. I'm sure there are people here who have studied political science and have a great knowledge in these most basic questions. I'm quite interested in direct democracy, we'll see how that idea continues developing.

It took a long time for me to accept that I was an anarchist. I was misinformed and always thought anarchism was lawlessness, or chaos, when it's actually statelessness.

Anyhow, if you want some really good, thought provoking reading, check out the free books:

Practical Anarchy;
Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics; and,
On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion

at

http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx

[Jason]

too long;didn't read

i'm sorry i'm so inebriated

but damn

this is

absolutely

positively

most definitely

without a doubt

not the fucking place for such a debate

when the hell will you get that through your thick ass skull

goddamn

[kthx]

its poliitical tone jason. just ignore him

[Tigron-X]

too long;didn't read

i'm sorry i'm so inebriated

but damn

this is

absolutely

positively

most definitely

without a doubt

not the fucking place for such a debate

when the hell will you get that through your thick ass skull

goddamn

When are you going to get it through your thick ass skull that telling me what to do will never work?

[Jason]

gonna skull fuck your thick ass skull with my thick ass cock

in a thicket

[Jerome Scuggs]

When are you going to get it through your thick ass skull that telling me what to do will never work?

see, as an anarchist you promote individuals coming together and organizing and exchanging, but you don't set a very good example by being standoffish and acting like that. i mean, i could believe that the sky was green, but if you come at me all "you fucking retard, don't be so ignorant, the sky is blue it's so obvious", well the dick in me is gonna believe twice as hard that the sky is green... just out of spite.

this is definitely me trying not to hate but to offer some advice, because i was that raging anarchist posting walls of text a year or two ago, it really doesn't get you anywhere.

[Vatican Assassin]

bout to do some political freestyle on government here it goes

best way to live was in wild west, thats anarcho capitalism is it not? you go out there, want to build a house? do it. someone wants your house and they got a gun and you don't? too bad, idiot. maybe people get tired of that happening, and they pool resources and elect a sheriff to try to curtail immoral behavior. and that's your government cuz you need a force to keep idiot rapists in line. and you don't really want to be haggling prices with a fireman while your house is burning down, cuz it might set the whole town ablaze, so you got to pool resources for a fire brigade too. but wait, then you got roving bandits attacking the town, so you build a wall and hire some soldiers to patrol it, cuz now you got 10,000 population. ut oh government creepin up on yas. but if we could keep government to protecting us and stopping fires only, but wait, what if we attack bandits while they asleep in pre-emptive strike. oh shit son, there goes liberty, need your sons for the effort.

whatever you call them road builders, fire stoppers, rapist hunters, and eventually brigand defenders are the 4 duties i would want my township to pool resources and pay taxes to have someone do these things. limited government. if you want to pay for a doctor, go ahead, but forcing people to do it is not really the best thing for a government to be doing. in fact its insanity.

[Tigron-X]

see, as an anarchist you promote individuals coming together and organizing and exchanging, but you don't set a very good example by being standoffish and acting like that. i mean, i could believe that the sky was green, but if you come at me all "you fucking retard, don't be so ignorant, the sky is blue it's so obvious", well the dick in me is gonna believe twice as hard that the sky is green... just out of spite.

this is definitely me trying not to hate but to offer some advice, because i was that raging anarchist posting walls of text a year or two ago, it really doesn't get you anywhere.

Yeah, you're right. I could've handled that better.

[Mossad]

sick

Your computer looks older then you.

[Mossad]

no clue who's thread i replied too.

sorry. i was replying to this link
http://forums.trenchwars.org/showthr...l=1#post772148