Government: An Unnecessary Evil

Anarcho-communism says natural resources cannot become anyone’s “private property” because in order to claim a chunk of land, that land must be stolen from others. For example, suppose I come across some land, cut down some trees, and build a house. Communism says that neither the land my house sits on, nor the trees I cut, nor the home I built can be considered my private property because I have stolen the plot of land and trees from the community; therefore I have no right to my labor.

According to anarcho-capitalism the land and natural resources can become my property through “homesteading”. So if I come across land, cut some trees and build a house, I have mixed my labor with the land. Therefore the house, the trees I cut, and (somehow) all the trees/grass/dirt occupying the land that I mix my labor with becomes my private property to either trade, sell, or deny to others.

The problem I have with anarcho-capitalism is the fact that all currently owned land is indeed stolen and protected by government force, so nobody rightfully deserves what they currently have. This means we would need to abolish all current land ownership. However, once we begin seeking our own land, there is no way to set real parameters of how far my “private property” extends. Some have suggested a fence around the parameter is enough, while others say I can only own as far as my labor extends.

However, if I find a forest and plan to cut down all the trees for my log company, then how much of the forest can I deny to others so that they do not cut down “my” trees? Usually the answer (for almost everything in anarcho-capitalism) is a private insurance company who seems to act exactly like a government.

So I propose what I believe to be a new idea. Since it’s true that without the threat of force, land and natural resources cannot possibly become private property, it is also true that the moment government is abolished, it is up to every person to decide what is rightfully theirs, as there will be no system to govern property lines.

Murray Rothbard has proposed a system where man owns parcels of land by mixing his labor with it, and it’s expected that the rest of society will respect whatever a man claims. This may be possible to achieve in a small community, but when violent gangs band together to claim large parcels of land as their private property- that satisfies the very definition of government.

I believe Rothbard is correct about mixing our labor with natural resources, but I propose to take this a bit farther.

If a man owns whatever he labors for, then it would be his own responsibility to mix his labor with as much of the earth as possible. If you cut a tree, you are now the rightful owner of that tree. You may use it to:

• provide a home or other goods for himself

• trade for another commodity

• build valuable goods to sell or deny to others

If you build a house, you are the rightful owner of that house and the land which lays the foundation of your home. You may build a shack or occupy your time building a 10 acre mansion, but only your labor is your rightful possession. If you dig into the ground to make a garden, the ground which your labor has touched (so long as your labor remains) is your property. If you desire privacy, you are free to install a fence around the parameter of land you deem appropriate for your comfort (I believe most people will respect reasonable boundaries).

So if I come along to pick an apple from a tree 10 feet in front of your house, you cannot rightfully say “He stole an apple from my tree”. However, your mouth has the capability of saying such things, and if you selfishly wish to keep the entire tree for yourself, your body is certainly capable of trying- so you are free to do so.

Therefore, you can kill me for touching the tree and hope nobody retaliates on my behalf. You can also fight me and hope I don’t return. The moment you see me coming, you can quickly pick all the apples before I have a chance. Or, you could ask me to find another tree, and to respectfully allow you to enjoy the fruits of this tree. I’m sure there are other ways, but the point is, violence is not necessary, nor is it likely to happen among a majority of reasonable people.

On a much larger scale, if I find a forest and would like to cut trees for my log company, this will create a system where I must cut as many trees as possible before another log company mixes their labor with the forest. So two trees next to each other would be fair game to anyone. Of course, since all of nature (including hemp) belongs to everyone and nobody may claim an entire coal mine, we should expect the market for natural commodities to be too cheap for thousands of corporations to bother extracting mass quantities from the earth.

We must not confound government with society. Government is an unnecessary evil.

That's a formula for disaster and, if ever implemented, would soon devolve into a government, via a dictatorship or monarchy. Land ownership is vital to an advanced society, so your society would one day implement (again) a system of ownership that would be very similar to today's system.

The reality is that there is nothing at all special about the earth or natural resources. They can all be owned and that ownership can be passed on as the citizens of the governments allow.

Private ownership IS the enlightened choice.

HowardBThiname said:

That's a formula for disaster and, if ever implemented, would soon devolve into a government, via a dictatorship or monarchy. Land ownership is vital to an advanced society, so your society would one day implement (again) a system of ownership that would be very similar to today's system.

The reality is that there is nothing at all special about the earth or natural resources. They can all be owned and that ownership can be passed on as the citizens of the governments allow.

Private ownership IS the enlightened choice.

Click to expand...

I’m not advocating the abolishment of private property, only what sort of private property a person can claim. The earth and it’s resources are not only special, they are essential to our survival.

What sort of “disaster” do you think this system, as implemented, would cause? I agree that several government-like systems will appear, but surely they will be small and local. Most importantly, they wouldn’t have a centralized government dictating how they may run their community, so it will be like a free-market of governments.

Would you agree that all current private land ownership was, at some time, stolen from another?

AnonymousWho said:

I’m not advocating the abolishment of private property, only what sort of private property a person can claim. The earth and it’s resources are not only special, they are essential to our survival.

What sort of “disaster” do you think this system, as implemented, would cause? I agree that several government-like systems will appear, but surely they will be small and local. Most importantly, they wouldn’t have a centralized government dictating how they may run their community, so it will be like a free-market of governments.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Earth and its resources are essential to our survival, but that means nothing when it comes to ownership rights.

The disaster would come, as you say, in the "small and local" systems that would appear. Without a large centralized government to offer and protect ownership rights, it would be a case of "to the victor go the spoils." We've evolved past that way of thinking.

Would you agree that all current private land ownership was, at some time, stolen from another?

Click to expand...

Not at all. Land changes hands and ownership based on the rules of the time. Simply occupying a parcel of land does not convey ownership. Until just a few hundred years ago, land ownership often was taken by force, which is what your idea would devolve into once again. Invading armies laid claim to conquered lands. Not stolen. Conquered, which gave them the right to the land.

Land theft is only possible outside a regulated system of ownership. Today, if you're a landowner, no one can take your property without due cause, either when you sell it, or you miss a payment to the bank and it gets repossessed, or the local government enacts eminent domain, which forces you to sell. But, no one can come along and just "steal" your land if you have jumped through the appropriate hoops to obtain it.

So, in your scenario, warring over land begins again, as it has in the past, but it would one day evolve into a land ownership scenario such as we have today.

Land is a special natural resource, but it can be owned by private parties -- and, of course, it is. Any other scenario, such as "land rent" or your similar scenario, is simply not feasible and would through society back into the dark ages of having to personally defend your property. Why go backwards?

AnonymousWho said:

We must not confound government with society. Government is an unnecessary evil.

Click to expand...

This takes us back to primitive living standards. Education, electricity, road systems even a standard monetary system would all disappear under this kind of regime.

Your wrong about anarcho-capitalism means no government. That is the nonsense view only of those who oppose anarchism . Anarchist ideals can be achieved by riding ourselves of a centralised system of governance rather than ridding oursleves of government altogether which is anarchy rather than anarchism.

HowardBThiname said:

Yes, the Earth and its resources are essential to our survival, but that means nothing when it comes to ownership rights.

The disaster would come, as you say, in the "small and local" systems that would appear. Without a large centralized government to offer and protect ownership rights, it would be a case of "to the victor go the spoils." We've evolved past that way of thinking.

Click to expand...

I agree that we have “evolved past that way of thinking” and that’s exactly my point. When Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense, he understood government to be a “necessary evil”. Government is the failure of society to live peacefully and enjoy their liberty. Thomas Jefferson believed laws should be re-evaluated every generation to rid ourselves of laws that mankind has progressed pass.

Not at all. Land changes hands and ownership based on the rules of the time. Simply occupying a parcel of land does not convey ownership. Until just a few hundred years ago, land ownership often was taken by force, which is what your idea would devolve into once again. Invading armies laid claim to conquered lands. Not stolen. Conquered, which gave them the right to the land.

Click to expand...

I don’t understand how “forcibly conquering” is not theft- thus giving the conqueror a “right” to whatever the victim previously and freely enjoyed. If I conquer my neighbors home and take their car, have someone sign a worthless piece of paper, and then sell the car to you, do you consider that a legitimate means of acquiring property?

Land theft is only possible outside a regulated system of ownership. Today, if you're a landowner, no one can take your property without due cause, either when you sell it, or you miss a payment to the bank and it gets repossessed, or the local government enacts eminent domain, which forces you to sell. But, no one can come along and just "steal" your land if you have jumped through the appropriate hoops to obtain it.

Click to expand...

How is eminent domain not theft?

If I break into your home and steal a Rolex your grandfather have to you, but leave whatever amount of money I feel is appropriate, would you consider that theft?

Or suppose I come to your house, hand you some money, and tell you to get lost. But you refuse, so I show up with handcuffs ready to lock you in a cage, and you resist. So I come back again with guns and friends with guns to force you into compliance. Would you consider that theft?

So, in your scenario, warring over land begins again, as it has in the past, but it would one day evolve into a land ownership scenario such as we have today.

Land is a special natural resource, but it can be owned by private parties -- and, of course, it is. Any other scenario, such as "land rent" or your similar scenario, is simply not feasible and would through society back into the dark ages of having to personally defend your property. Why go backwards?

Click to expand...

I don’t believe the doomsday scenario you portray is likely to happen- especially among a majority of civilized people. I can say the same about government. Most of our founders had strong intentions of limiting government, but like all governments, it has evolved into a monster that grows like cancer everyday- slowly devouring our liberty until we end up in exactly what you fear an anarchic society will bring.

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”- Lysander Spooner

soylentgreen said:

This takes us back to primitive living standards. Education, electricity, road systems even a standard monetary system would all disappear under this kind of regime.

Your wrong about anarcho-capitalism means no government. That is the nonsense view only of those who oppose anarchism . Anarchist ideals can be achieved by riding ourselves of a centralised system of governance rather than ridding oursleves of government altogether which is anarchy rather than anarchism.

Click to expand...

I don’t believe this would take us back to primitive living. The anarchy that Marx proposed probably would, but I don’t see why we would go “backwards”. Society has already progressed. Consider slavery. It didn’t end because a piece of paper said so- especially since that paper allowed provisions to obtain slaves as a punishment for crimes. For the former slaves who weren’t among the millions that starved to death, they broke Jim Crow laws and went right back into slavery. All that really happened was the government gained a lot of power and bragging rights towards something they made worse. It’s the same scenario with the Civil Rights Act and the Controlled Substance Act- both based off of Wickard v. Filburn.

Something I don’t like about anarcho-capitalism is the privatization of roads. There are plenty of roads already here, and the government neither paid for them nor built them. They simply dictated when and where they should go, using stolen money to pay contractors. Therefore, after the government is gone, nobody can transfer the property rights to anyone else, so the roads that are here belong to everyone. They wouldn’t simply “disappear”.

I would prefer my children be exposed to an “education” rather than government sanctioned propaganda.

Our monetary system, if we continue to allow the current Republicans and Democrats to control it, will eventually collapse anyways. That’s what happens when we elect fast-talking liars to handle our money instead of accountants.

AnonymousWho said:

I don’t believe this would take us back to primitive living. The anarchy that Marx proposed probably would, but I don’t see why we would go “backwards”. Society has already progressed. Consider slavery. It didn’t end because a piece of paper said so- especially since that paper allowed provisions to obtain slaves as a punishment for crimes. For the former slaves who weren’t among the millions that starved to death, they broke Jim Crow laws and went right back into slavery. All that really happened was the government gained a lot of power and bragging rights towards something they made worse. It’s the same scenario with the Civil Rights Act and the Controlled Substance Act- both based off of Wickard v. Filburn.

Something I don’t like about anarcho-capitalism is the privatization of roads. There are plenty of roads already here, and the government neither paid for them nor built them. They simply dictated when and where they should go, using stolen money to pay contractors. Therefore, after the government is gone, nobody can transfer the property rights to anyone else, so the roads that are here belong to everyone. They wouldn’t simply “disappear”.

I would prefer my children be exposed to an “education” rather than government sanctioned propaganda.

Our monetary system, if we continue to allow the current Republicans and Democrats to control it, will eventually collapse anyways. That’s what happens when we elect fast-talking liars to handle our money instead of accountants.

Click to expand...

Without government, if someone really wanted to enslave their neighbors, and they had sufficient firepower to do so, there wouldn't be anything anyone could do about it, so no, the argument that we wouldn't sink back into the bad old ways fails to hold water, especially when you consider examples of cases where the government basically disintegrated and had no power, like Somalia.

Actually, while Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, they were not a reimposition of slavery. Arguing that just because you hate the government is flatly incorrect. And no, Jim Crow was not worse than slavery.

With nobody maintaining the roads(and no, taxes are not "theft") then yes, they would eventually disappear.

Oh, you mean you'd rather be able to indoctrinate your kids rather than have them go to schools where the whole story actually has to be taught. Noted.

AnonymousWho said:

I don’t understand how “forcibly conquering” is not theft- thus giving the conqueror a “right” to whatever the victim previously and freely enjoyed. If I conquer my neighbors home and take their car, have someone sign a worthless piece of paper, and then sell the car to you, do you consider that a legitimate means of acquiring property?

Click to expand...

Theft is a social construct that carries different connotations. If a society validates the acquisition of land by conquer, than the victor is not a thief. In your analogy of your neighbor, taking those items is considered theft under the law, so you would be a thief. The difference lies in what your society deems acceptable -- or not.

How is eminent domain not theft?

Click to expand...

Because, while you have "rights" to your property, you do not have "exhaustive" rights, which means you must still comply with the law as society has determined it. If society (meaning local government) decides your land must be acquired in order to build a huge interstate, that supercedes your landowner rights, and you will forfeit the land for "fair value" not for what "whatever amount of money they feel is appropriate." Your examples are lacking.

Or suppose I come to your house, hand you some money, and tell you to get lost. But you refuse, so I show up with handcuffs ready to lock you in a cage, and you resist. So I come back again with guns and friends with guns to force you into compliance. Would you consider that theft?

Click to expand...

Yes, but again, that's based on our laws. Eminent domain is allowable. Thugs forcing someone out of their house, is not.

I don’t believe the doomsday scenario you portray is likely to happen- especially among a majority of civilized people. I can say the same about government. Most of our founders had strong intentions of limiting government, but like all governments, it has evolved into a monster that grows like cancer everyday- slowly devouring our liberty until we end up in exactly what you fear an anarchic society will bring.

Click to expand...

Generations pass but human nature does not change. And, your scenario has nothing in common with the Founders, many of whom promoted the idea of land ownership to such an extent that they only wanted land owners to have the right to vote.

Look to Chicago or Detroit to see what happens in this day and age in turf wars. That's what would happen in your scenario.

AnonymousWho said:

I don’t believe this would take us back to primitive living. The anarchy that Marx proposed probably would, but I don’t see why we would go “backwards”. Society has already progressed. Consider slavery. It didn’t end because a piece of paper said so- especially since that paper allowed provisions to obtain slaves as a punishment for crimes. For the former slaves who weren’t among the millions that starved to death, they broke Jim Crow laws and went right back into slavery. All that really happened was the government gained a lot of power and bragging rights towards something they made worse. It’s the same scenario with the Civil Rights Act and the Controlled Substance Act- both based off of Wickard v. Filburn.

Something I don’t like about anarcho-capitalism is the privatization of roads. There are plenty of roads already here, and the government neither paid for them nor built them. They simply dictated when and where they should go, using stolen money to pay contractors. Therefore, after the government is gone, nobody can transfer the property rights to anyone else, so the roads that are here belong to everyone. They wouldn’t simply “disappear”.

I would prefer my children be exposed to an “education” rather than government sanctioned propaganda.

Our monetary system, if we continue to allow the current Republicans and Democrats to control it, will eventually collapse anyways. That’s what happens when we elect fast-talking liars to handle our money instead of accountants.

Click to expand...

Such dreaming.

For slavery you use the word dishonestly now. Pretending that a person who works for a wage for another is merely a slave. It is a discredit to the harm and suffering real slaves under went. Slavery never went away and still exists illegally to this very day. However the reason it became an illegal practice has nothing to do with government, it was more because of technology. Far easier to use a tractor to plow a field and do the work of a hundred slaves than to have a hundred slaves that must be forced to plow the field.

Marx never proposed anarchism they simply had similar goals. He certainly never proposed anarchy. Again you fail to even understand the basic difference between using the word anarchism and anarchy. The two do not mean the same thing.

You most certainly do propose a return to primitive lifestyle. You think there are plenty of road!! But they do not last forever and must be maintained. Your Necromonger style philosophy of you can only keep it if you can stop others from taking it . Each person acts as an individual but roads require group effort. And yes governments do pay for the building and maintenance of roads. Nor is tax stolen money that is such a childish and selfish view of taxation. And yes they would simply disappear as that is what happens if they are not maintained.

Then there is your claim that you would prefer my children be exposed to an “education”. I have no idea what that would even mean. Some kind of let them learn whatever you can teach them. So higher education simply disappears as well in your brave new world. Or can they simply just expose themselves to higher maths or physics or science?

But the most amusing concept you bring up is that your own government will bring about the collapse of the one thing they need to keep their power base. A monetary system.

I do not believe you have any real understanding of anarchism at all. If you had i would expect at least some comments on the works of Stirner, Proudhon or Bakunin. Or at least some quote from Turgenev's novel.

Yet what i am getting is would seem to be someone whose research on the subject of anarchism comes from the less than a minute it took to google up dictionary.com and look up the word anarchy.

Someone/entity to enforce law and order is a needed evil. Human kind is not capable of working on the honor system yet.

Like two fleas arguing who owns the dog...

Such dreaming.

For slavery you use the word dishonestly now. Pretending that a person who works for a wage for another is merely a slave. It is a discredit to the harm and suffering real slaves under went. Slavery never went away and still exists illegally to this very day.

Click to expand...

I think you’re misunderstanding what I mean by “slavery”. I didn’t say that “a person working for a wage” is slavery. I mean literal slavery, because the Thirteenth Amendment says:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

The amendment says that slavery and involuntary servitude shall exist as a punishment for crime. I was mistaken when I said Jim Crow laws brought blacks back into slavery. It was actually the Black Codes- petty crimes used to arrest blacks and enslaved them again. This is exactly what we have with the Controlled Substance Act. I live in Kentucky, and we recently had a police chief fired because he sent out memos saying any officer who sees a black kid smoking pot should shoot him.

Marx never proposed anarchism they simply had similar goals. He certainly never proposed anarchy. Again you fail to even understand the basic difference between using the word anarchism and anarchy. The two do not mean the same thing.

You most certainly do propose a return to primitive lifestyle. You think there are plenty of road!! But they do not last forever and must be maintained. Nor is tax stolen money that is such a childish and selfish view of taxation. And yes they would simply disappear as that is what happens if they are not maintained.

Click to expand...

Of course the roads must be maintained. We can do that with a community effort, and we can handle it a lot cheaper than government. I’m not calling for the abolishment of community or society- just the abolishment of government acting as the middle-man between our transactions and actions.

You seem to believe that men will be building houses on top of one another just to be assholes, but why would someone waste their time with such nonsense? They would have the entire chunk of mass formerly known as the United States. We are considerably enlightened people compared to Somalia- which would do just fine if governments would leave them alone and Europe would stop dumping their toxic waste in their waters.

Then there is your claim that you would prefer my children be exposed to an “education”. I have no idea what that would even mean. Some kind of let them learn whatever you can teach them. So higher education simply disappears as well in your brave new world. Or can they simply just expose themselves to higher maths or physics or science?

Click to expand...

No, I mean a person may build a school anywhere they wish and charge whatever they want for children to attend- and there will be no sort of government to dictate what must be taught. Private schools, even when they have to compete with “free” public schools, are still cheaper to maintain per student. And for the very few who cannot afford an education, charities can fill in the gap.

As opposed to now, where we give the government our money and they spend it on a bunch of stupid stuff, and now they can’t even afford to pay for the teacher’s retirement.

Taxation is theft if my money is taken by force to pay for things I don’t want. However, if I pay taxes to fund a narcotics division at my local police station and the DEA- to provide them with weapons in the event that I should like to grow a cannabis plant in my backyard- that’s treason.

But the most amusing concept you bring up is that your own government will bring about the collapse of the one thing they need to keep their power base. A monetary system.

Click to expand...

We’re $21 trillion dollars in debt and Trump just signed a massive 1.3 trillion dollar bill.

I do not believe you have any real understanding of anarchism at all. If you had i would expect at least some comments on the works of Stirner, Proudhon or Bakunin. Or at least some quote from Turgenev's novel.

Click to expand...

No, I don’t know a whole lot about the history of anarchism or anarchy or what the difference is. All I know is government sucks, so I thought I would come here and debate whether they suck as much as I think they do.

Tigerace117 said:

Without government, if someone really wanted to enslave their neighbors, and they had sufficient firepower to do so, there wouldn't be anything anyone could do about it, so no, the argument that we wouldn't sink back into the bad old ways fails to hold water, especially when you consider examples of cases where the government basically disintegrated and had no power, like Somalia.

Actually, while Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, they were not a reimposition of slavery. Arguing that just because you hate the government is flatly incorrect. And no, Jim Crow was not worse than slavery.

With nobody maintaining the roads(and no, taxes are not "theft") then yes, they would eventually disappear.

Oh, you mean you'd rather be able to indoctrinate your kids rather than have them go to schools where the whole story actually has to be taught. Noted.

Click to expand...

Please see my reply to soylentgreen. I think I covered everything you mentioned in my latest comment. Thanks.

Tigerace117 said:

Without government, if someone really wanted to enslave their neighbors, and they had sufficient firepower to do so, there wouldn't be anything anyone could do about it, so no, the argument that we wouldn't sink back into the bad old ways fails to hold water, especially when you consider examples of cases where the government basically disintegrated and had no power, like Somalia.

Actually, while Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, they were not a reimposition of slavery. Arguing that just because you hate the government is flatly incorrect. And no, Jim Crow was not worse than slavery.

With nobody maintaining the roads(and no, taxes are not "theft") then yes, they would eventually disappear.

Oh, you mean you'd rather be able to indoctrinate your kids rather than have them go to schools where the whole story actually has to be taught. Noted.

Click to expand...

This is not an education thread, but this statement is not necessarily true. The government is famous of not telling everything.

American said:

This is not an education thread, but this statement is not necessarily true. The government is famous of not telling everything.

Click to expand...

The truth always comes out in the end, and the idea that the government could cover things up when they couldn't even cover up a burglary is rather amusing.

AnonymousWho said:

Please see my reply to soylentgreen. I think I covered everything you mentioned in my latest comment. Thanks.

Click to expand...

No, the Controlled Substance Act is neither a Jim Crow law nor a Black Code, and no, going to jail is not "slavery".

Lol "a community effort". "Community efforts" are notorious for being inefficient, caught up in petty squabbling, and ultimately ineffective even when they do get off the ground--- which, unlike government programs, is no guarantee that they will ever actually be implemented in the first place.

Because there are one hell of a lot of people in the United States, people are inherently aggressive, and history shows that without government being able to crack down on the nasty elements in society, they run rampant.

You must be joking. Somalia had government leave them alone for decades. All they got out of it was famine, rampaging gangs, disease, and terrorism. But hey, on the plus side, they have a thriving privacy industry.

Lol I hate to break it to you but you can't pick and choose what taxes go for. They are for the greater good of society, not your own petty concerns.

So in other words you don't really know anything about the subject, you are just upset that the government doesn't do what you want.

AnonymousWho said:

I think you’re misunderstanding what I mean by “slavery”. I didn’t say that “a person working for a wage” is slavery. I mean literal slavery, because the Thirteenth Amendment says:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

The amendment says that slavery and involuntary servitude shall exist as a punishment for crime. I was mistaken when I said Jim Crow laws brought blacks back into slavery. It was actually the Black Codes- petty crimes used to arrest blacks and enslaved them again. This is exactly what we have with the Controlled Substance Act. I live in Kentucky, and we recently had a police chief fired because he sent out memos saying any officer who sees a black kid smoking pot should shoot him.

Click to expand...

It really is kind of laughable that you would use the usa as a representative of what freedom should be. Your own example of a police chief demonstrates that america is really the last place one would go for examples of such things. Slavery still exists no one doubts that. America has its fair share of that problem still.
It is unfortunate that your belief is based on the idea of the noble savage. Yet there is nothing noble about slavery.

Of course the roads must be maintained. We can do that with a community effort, and we can handle it a lot cheaper than government. I’m not calling for the abolishment of community or society- just the abolishment of government acting as the middle-man between our transactions and actions.

Click to expand...

The individual will be far to busy raising food and necessary articles to be building roads as well.

You seem to believe that men will be building houses on top of one another just to be assholes, but why would someone waste their time with such nonsense? They would have the entire chunk of mass formerly known as the United States. We are considerably enlightened people compared to Somalia- which would do just fine if governments would leave them alone and Europe would stop dumping their toxic waste in their waters.

Your link is an amusing dialogue of someones personal and sometimes uneducated opinion, nothing more. That i disagree with then means we already have the very conflict you think only governments produce.

No, I mean a person may build a school anywhere they wish and charge whatever they want for children to attend- and there will be no sort of government to dictate what must be taught. Private schools, even when they have to compete with “free” public schools, are still cheaper to maintain per student. And for the very few who cannot afford an education, charities can fill in the gap


As opposed to now, where we give the government our money and they spend it on a bunch of stupid stuff, and now they can’t even afford to pay for the teacher’s retirement.

Click to expand...

What i find most amusing about your beliefs is that not that long ago in another thread i brought up the idea of marxist primitive communism which in reality is nothing more than a discussion of economics. I was met with the opposition remark of it being based on the principle of the noble savage. Wrong, because primitive communism does not talk about how we deal with others but on how the wealth of a community must be distributed.

However here in this thread you are pushing the most right wing libertarian belief of laser faire capitalism and by your on statements for it to succeed you need the idea of the noble savage to work. Your arguments are based on the idea that we will all sit around the campfire holding hands and singing songs.
I am not sure if i should just be amused by your naivity or insulted that you think i would be naive enough to believe this crap.

Taxation is theft if my money is taken by force to pay for things I don’t want. However, if I pay taxes to fund a narcotics division at my local police station and the DEA- to provide them with weapons in the event that I should like to grow a cannabis plant in my backyard- that’s treason.
We’re $21 trillion dollars in debt and Trump just signed a massive 1.3 trillion dollar bill.

Click to expand...

You live in a society. Tell me are you still a virgin? Have you never been in a relationship with another, male or female? Because if you had you ould not be making such a silly statement about tax because you would understand that any relationship whether with one or a million ill involve compromise.

No, I don’t know a whole lot about the history of anarchism or anarchy or what the difference is. All I know is government sucks, so I thought I would come here and debate whether they suck as much as I think they do.

Click to expand...

Then learn from history that is that it is there for.
If you ant a real example of ahttps://libcom.org/history/articles/anarchism-in-spainnarchism the take a look at spain.

Finally and above all, the CNT was able to come up with an adapted and affective tactic thanks to its Catalan organisational set-up (remembering that the CNT was a confederation of autonomous sections). The congress of Sans registered 70,000 members for Catalonia. There it was decided to set up a single union (Sindicato unico) i.e. to embrace everybody’s interests along the lines, somewhat, of ‘all for one, and one for all!’ Indeed, instead of unionising and organising along trade lines - as the UGT did - struggles were waged by galvanising also the seemingly uninvolved trades who would wade in out of solidarity.

Click to expand...

Your right wing laser faire capitalism of the individual will never work. Anarchism requires solidarity.

HowardBThiname said:

Theft is a social construct that carries different connotations. If a society validates the acquisition of land by conquer, than the victor is not a thief. In your analogy of your neighbor, taking those items is considered theft under the law, so you would be a thief. The difference lies in what your society deems acceptable -- or not.



Because, while you have "rights" to your property, you do not have "exhaustive" rights, which means you must still comply with the law as society has determined it. If society (meaning local government) decides your land must be acquired in order to build a huge interstate, that supercedes your landowner rights, and you will forfeit the land for "fair value" not for what "whatever amount of money they feel is appropriate." Your examples are lacking.



Yes, but again, that's based on our laws. Eminent domain is allowable. Thugs forcing someone out of their house, is not.



Generations pass but human nature does not change. And, your scenario has nothing in common with the Founders, many of whom promoted the idea of land ownership to such an extent that they only wanted land owners to have the right to vote.

Look to Chicago or Detroit to see what happens in this day and age in turf wars. That's what would happen in your scenario.

Click to expand...

Why do you think there will be turf wars? Someone could literally sell heroin with a Starbucks coffee- though I wouldn’t expect such a business to stay open for long since there will be much cheaper and less harmful opiates available. Unfortunately, in our present system, a few select pharmaceutical companies have been given a monopoly over opiates, amphetamines, etc. so that only they can become billionaires by selling their drugs. Then our legislators decided to put harsher restrictions on the pills, which has caused the heroin epidemic. On top of that, states with legalized cannabis have seen a 25% reduction in opiate overdose deaths, but our government won’t even allow our veterans to use medicinal cannabis- choosing instead to load them up with benzodiazepines and opiates which is causing 22 veterans to commit suicide everyday.

But the police will keep perpetuating their lies about cannabis because it’s vital for their civil assert forfeiture- another form of theft.

Tigerace117 said:

No, the Controlled Substance Act is neither a Jim Crow law nor a Black Code, and no, going to jail is not "slavery".

Click to expand...

From Scientific American:

Nixon aid John Ehrlichman told journalist Dan Baum in 1994, according to an article published in Harper’s Magazine in 2016. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

Lol "a community effort". "Community efforts" are notorious for being inefficient, caught up in petty squabbling, and ultimately ineffective even when they do get off the ground--- which, unlike government programs, is no guarantee that they will ever actually be implemented in the first place.

Click to expand...

We could say the exact same thing about a plethora of government programs, except they force us to provide for their wastefulness.

Because there are one hell of a lot of people in the United States, people are inherently aggressive, and history shows that without government being able to crack down on the nasty elements in society, they run rampant.

Click to expand...

Except government isn’t able to crack down on much because they waste too much money, time, and resources on the failed war against drugs/Americans.

You must be joking. Somalia had government leave them alone for decades. All they got out of it was famine, rampaging gangs, disease, and terrorism. But hey, on the plus side, they have a thriving privacy industry.

Click to expand...

I guess you didn’t read the links I provided. Somalia is bad, but so is Iran, North Korea, and Detroit. Regardless, it makes no sense to compare Somalia with the United States.

Lol I hate to break it to you but you can't pick and choose what taxes go for. They are for the greater good of society, not your own petty concerns.

Click to expand...

I don’t think giving the government money to spray Vietnam veterans with chemicals, to perform experiments on soldiers and American citizens, to spy on us, or to send us off to war to protect their assets are petty concerns.

So in other words you don't really know anything about the subject, you are just upset that the government doesn't do what you want.

Click to expand...

AnonymousWho said:

From Scientific American:

Nixon aid John Ehrlichman told journalist Dan Baum in 1994, according to an article published in Harper’s Magazine in 2016. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”



We could say the exact same thing about a plethora of government programs, except they force us to provide for their wastefulness.



Except government isn’t able to crack down on much because they waste too much money, time, and resources on the failed war against drugs/Americans.



I guess you didn’t read the links I provided. Somalia is bad, but so is Iran, North Korea, and Detroit. Regardless, it makes no sense to compare Somalia with the United States.



I don’t think giving the government money to spray Vietnam veterans with chemicals, to perform experiments on soldiers and American citizens, to spy on us, or to send us off to war to protect their assets are petty concerns.

Click to expand...

Hmmm.....a guy who absolutely tried to isolate Nixon from all other advisors, played a huge role in Watergate, and was denied a pardon from Nixon later on.....have you ever heard of the term "bias"? The guy has every motive to invent a fantasy about "black people" being the enemy. What exactly was the "lie" about drugs, in you fantasy world? The Sinaloa Cartel would love to know.

So in other words instead of wasting money via government projects you want people to be forced to waste money on "community" projects. What a huge difference....not:roll:

Except yes, the government can and absolutely does crack down on the many vile groups that exist in this country. A multitude of said groups are involved in the drug trade--- the same people you think are "unfairly smeared"

Lol one of those three things is not like the others. Detroit doesn't not just not have anywhere even remotely near the level of oppression in either Iran or North Korea, you trying to compare the three absolutely destroys your argument.

Gee bud, the biggest modern example of what happens when your philosophy is implemented in the real world "isn't relevant"? Wrong again.

So yes, a mixture of conspiracy theories about "assets", complaining about something the American people wanted, and programs from decades ago(MKULTRA? Really bud? That's the best you got?) is pretty much the definition of "petty concerns".

Tigerace117 said:

Hmmm.....a guy who absolutely tried to isolate Nixon from all other advisors, played a huge role in Watergate, and was denied a pardon from Nixon later on.....have you ever heard of the term "bias"? The guy has every motive to invent a fantasy about "black people" being the enemy. What exactly was the "lie" about drugs, in you fantasy world? The Sinaloa Cartel would love to know.

Click to expand...

Why would the Sinaloa Cartel want to know the government has been lying about drugs? So these criminals can finally legitimize their business and open up a mom and pop fentanyl store? The reason drugs are big business for cartels is because the industry is extremely risky and in high demand. The American Mafia used to commit petty robberies and extortion until the opportunity arose to own the market of a very powerful drug- alcohol. This made them very rich, so that even after alcohol prohibition ended, they still had the funds to expand their power. Then they got into the heroin trade in the 1970’s because of the Controlled Substance Act. What’s the difference between El Chapo and Al Capone?

So in other words instead of wasting money via government projects you want people to be forced to waste money on "community" projects. What a huge difference....not:roll:

Click to expand...

If by “force”, you mean the community is in dire need of something so the people provide funding for it- as opposed to threatening the community with cages and guns- then yes.

Except yes, the government can and absolutely does crack down on the many vile groups that exist in this country. A multitude of said groups are involved in the drug trade--- the same people you think are "unfairly smeared"

Click to expand...

Again, they crack down on the drug trade that they created. But they do more than that. Suppose I grow 20 acres of high-quality herb and sell it cheap because I didn’t have to risk crossing the border or squish it into moldy brick weed. That cuts into the cartels profits, but the cartel doesn’t even have to worry about me. Instead, there are police flying over everyone’s property begging for the opportunity to find my farm, destroy my product, sell my land and all my possessions, and throw me in a cage.

Lol one of those three things is not like the others. Detroit doesn't not just not have anywhere even remotely near the level of oppression in either Iran or North Korea, you trying to compare the three absolutely destroys your argument.

Click to expand...

I’m aware that Detroit is not like Iran or NK, but large parcels of Detroit are plagued with poverty and violence. These things happen regardless of whether government is very oppressive, a little oppressive, or there is no government at all.

Gee bud, the biggest modern example of what happens when your philosophy is implemented in the real world "isn't relevant"? Wrong again.

Click to expand...

No it’s not very relevant. Somalia had a government, and though they had a rough start after it’s collapse,, they’re better off without it. So if Somalia is relevant, then imagine what the U.S. could do without government.

So yes, a mixture of conspiracy theories about "assets", complaining about something the American people wanted, and programs from decades ago(MKULTRA? Really bud? That's the best you got?) is pretty much the definition of "petty concerns".

Click to expand...

What did the American people want? To be spied on by the NSA and the DEA? Yes, surely nothing like MLULTRA is going on now since bureaucrats are much more ethical. Plus, all those involved with MKULTRA were severely embarrassed, making the punishment too harsh for them to attempt anything like that again. Do you think all should all be forgiven and forgotten?

soylentgreen said:

It really is kind of laughable that you would use the usa as a representative of what freedom should be. Your own example of a police chief demonstrates that america is really the last place one would go for examples of such things. Slavery still exists no one doubts that. America has its fair share of that problem still.
It is unfortunate that your belief is based on the idea of the noble savage. Yet there is nothing noble about slavery.


The individual will be far to busy raising food and necessary articles to be building roads as well.

Your link is an amusing dialogue of someones personal and sometimes uneducated opinion, nothing more. That i disagree with then means we already have the very conflict you think only governments produce.


What i find most amusing about your beliefs is that not that long ago in another thread i brought up the idea of marxist primitive communism which in reality is nothing more than a discussion of economics. I was met with the opposition remark of it being based on the principle of the noble savage. Wrong, because primitive communism does not talk about how we deal with others but on how the wealth of a community must be distributed.

However here in this thread you are pushing the most right wing libertarian belief of laser faire capitalism and by your on statements for it to succeed you need the idea of the noble savage to work. Your arguments are based on the idea that we will all sit around the campfire holding hands and singing songs.
I am not sure if i should just be amused by your naivity or insulted that you think i would be naive enough to believe this crap.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the referral to the “noble savage”. I believe in all sorts of things that are unorthodox, and this noble savage thing seems to be something I’ve always believed- but I didn’t know it had a name. I stopped believing man is “inherently evil” a long time ago. That’s not to say mankind doesn’t commit evil acts or that all men have an equal amount of goodness to them, but I do believe that the goodness of mankind far outweighs our evil. Actually, my theological and philosophical views are very similar to what Joseph Priestley and Thomas Jefferson believed. I don’t know how you feel about the Scriptures, but I don’t believe in the so-called “fall of man“, “original sin”, or a “sin-nature”.

What do you believe is so wrong about the “noble savage” idea, so that just bringing up the term should destroy my entire argument?

AnonymousWho said:

Anarcho-communism says natural resources cannot become anyone’s “private property” because in order to claim a chunk of land, that land must be stolen from others. For example, suppose I come across some land, cut down some trees, and build a house. Communism says that neither the land my house sits on, nor the trees I cut, nor the home I built can be considered my private property because I have stolen the plot of land and trees from the community; therefore I have no right to my labor.

We must not confound government with society. Government is an unnecessary evil.

Click to expand...

Yet, China has entire Cities that are empty, and no Anarcho-Capital market seems to be "worth it", under any form of Capitalism.

Socialism includes government; and is a necessary evil for Persons who cannot obey Ten simple Commandments from a God.

Socialism proves its worth, every day.