Already Anarchy

[demigod]

Are we not already living in an anarchy? One might heartily disagree, "No! There are states, police,
money, and greed! Aren't those things absent in an anarchy?" But ponder for a moment *why* those
things would be absent: either people would choose not to bring them about, or something would
prevent them from being brought about.

The first of these possibilities is plainly absurd: the tyrants of the world won't stop being
tyrants just because they've been thrown from power. Perhaps the overwhelming good of the society
would cause them to see the error of their ways and join us? I highly doubt it; the number of ways
the powers-that-be could have achieved this is innumerable, and to say that they just didn't realize
them would be the pinnacle of naivety.

As to the latter possibility, would such a force necessarily be against the idea of anarchy? I
think so - a state is a state, even if it bows to the "Will of the People". As to the suggestion
that people simply won't listen to the dictators, I must ask why it would be different. I don't
think that an anarchist society would decrease the susceptibility of the general populace to the
mass hypnosis performed by the Barack Obamas of the world.

That leaves us with a third option, the option that the people seeking to control the populace will
succeed, but not entirely. Noticeably, many will be resistant to the Siren's song; many will see
through the deception. And then what would you have? A government controlling the minds of most
people, while the rest are free.

Is this not what we already have? "No no no!" say thee, "The government coerces and harms and
bullies us if we speak out! They come to our homes and knock down our doors if we do not pay their
obscene tolls, they force us to sell our souls for so very little!" Yes, they do these things, I do
not deny it. But I also do not deny that if one runs through thorns they will be cut - speaking on
street corners to convert the masses is not a necessity of freedom, the government does not have
the ability to force someone to pay their taxes, and nor do they have the capability to make one
work in terrible conditions.

"They don't have the ability? They clearly have the ability: look at all the people who have been
sent to prison, look at all the billions spent on law enforcement!" To this, I ask of all the innocent
prisoners, all the incompetent cops, all the escaped hooligans. No, the prisons and police are not
enforcing the laws as they, and even opponents of the police, claim: they're arbitrarily detaining
and prosecuting those that are opposed to them. And this is the crux of my argument: Governments are
inherently ineffective; they do not have the ability to enforce their laws.

This has a great impact on the question of whether or not we are currently living in an anarchy - if
states are effective, then we really are in a totalitarian world; on the other hand, if they're not,
then that simply makes them liars. It makes them successful, powerful, cruel liars; but liars
nonetheless. And what are they lying about? They are lying about their own power, about their
ability to "stop crime".

What I'm saying is this: don't poke the fucking bear. Do what you want, go laugh and love and steal
and live. Just don't poke the fucking bear: it's not that smart, and if you don't try to antagonise
it, if you stay away from it's mouth and do your own thing, it won't attack you. I'm not saying to
bow down and be a good citizen, by all means, revolt. Revolt in every action you take, revolt in
your very means of existence. Break the laws, have fun, love freely, fuck money. Just don't poke the
bear.

[Marja]

The state is murder. A system, however unresponsive, that merely suppresses murder, is not state, and one, however responsive to the will of the people, that actively suppresses voluntary association is a state.

And when the bear has destroyed and is destroying your friends' lives - when it is turning towards you - what good is it to "not poke the bear?"

[Zazaban]

I couldn't read through all the weird spacing.

[demigod]

I've never said the state *wasn't* murder. That's not really my point. And perhaps my definition of freedom is slightly broader than yours, but the systematic suppression of murder would be quite like a state. Granted, it would be a very limited one, but that's rather more than what I'd like.

Secondly, I don't really think that the states have the power to suppress voluntary association, at least not well. I don't disagree that they'd like to suppress it, but "law enforcement" just isn't that effective. As much as the state wants to be able to run every aspect of your life, it can't. On some level, there has to be consent. This doesn't mean that people want to be oppressed, no, I'm quite sure they'd rather be free. It's just that the state is quite good at telling people they provide freedom, and that you can't break the rules; and believing this lie is a form of consent. Not conscious consent, not consent freely given, but it is consent. By overlooking the lies of the state, which are really quite obvious; by overlooking the ability of the individual to do what they want despite the best attempts of the state, a person subjects themselves to the power of the state. This might sound like a defense of the lies, but it's not, quite the opposite: I'm urging you to disbelieve them. That people have the ability to run their own lives implies that they *are* running their own lives, if only to delegate that power to someone else. I'm not saying the state isn't evil, I'm just saying that you can choose not to accept their lies. They aren't omnipotent.

The state tries very hard to pretend this isn't the case, to pretend that they can control everything you do, but they can't. That is not to say that it isn't dangerous, but it seems to me that the ones it's dangerous to are the ones who have made themselves the most vulnerable to it: by standing up and saying that the state is monstrous is to become visible to the state. Not to say that I advocate staying silent, or accepting lies; I don't. Nor am I advocating violent resistance, protest, or acquiescense. No, what I'm saying is that the current methods of fighting the state, and to some extent even the idea of fighting the state, is misguided. The fact is, the state doesn't really give a shit how many people hate them, they're going to keep doing what they're doing anyway. If you don't like the NSA wiretapping your phone, as I know I don't, then the solution is not to scream at them, they'll never listen, nor even to blow up a building, they don't really give a shit. No, the solution is to stop them from wiretapping you. They'll still want to, they'll still try to, but if they can't it doesn't really matter. [1] Perhaps I was misunderstood when I said not to "poke the bear"; what I mean is not that attacking the state is useless, or that it won't hurt you if you don't hurt it. What I meant was that going against the state in a direct way isn't effective, that it's like poking a bear: it won't hurt the state and it'll get you noticed by it. In keeping with the analogy, you can't beat the bear in a fist fight, but lighting a fire in its den can be pretty effective. I think both protest and violence are rather like poking the bear: in the case of violence, the state doesn't really give a shit if its drones and hives get blown up, there are plenty more drones and it can just make a new hive; in the case of protest, the state doesn't really care if you don't like it, so telling them this, and even getting the populace on your side, is a rather meaningless gesture as long as they go back to work when it's over; the same with strikes, while they may serve to better working conditions, in the end you are still working your ass off for someone you hate, and they're still making shitloads of money. When I said to not poke the bear, I may have misspoke; what I meant was not to fight the illusory battles the state sets up to trap you; instead, just drop out. Sure, the state tries to stop you, it tells you you can't just drop out, but in reality, you can. You can live off things nicked from stores, in [formerly] vacant houses, through stolen goods. The lie is that you have to fight the state before you can, that you must make war on the state before you make love. This is futile, you can not destroy something while helping to sustain it. The most harmful thing to the state is not to lead a protest or to blow something up, it's to be a parasite on the state. While the state is here, one can't live off the land and have plenty for all, but one can live off the excesses of the state without putting anything back in, and if enough people take this up, the state will eventually be sucked dry of its blood, the great parasite parasited.

[1] See link for a commercial product. If you don't like corporate sleezeballs, you can make your own, though I don't know of a guide anywhere.

The state is murder. A system, however unresponsive, that merely suppresses murder, is not state, and one, however responsive to the will of the people, that actively suppresses voluntary association is a state.

And when the bear has destroyed and is destroying your friends' lives - when it is turning towards you - what good is it to "not poke the bear?"

[|Y|]

Yes, the ecosystem is anarchistic. We are merely experencing a devolved aspect of our evolution, we'll eventually get to that ideal that is anarchy, again. Only with all the intelligence and technology and resource management that we currently experience.

Just so happens that those things tend to be quite useful for power concentration, but it can only last so long before equllibrium is met.

If nothing is done now then in 100-200 years.

If something is done now, tomorrow.

[AndyMalroes]

so what your trying to tell us is that we should be anarchists under state control. Why not fucking poke the proverbial bear. Then we can live in real anarchy without the slim chance of being busted by this ineffectual pile of pork products. POKE THE BEAR MA'FUKKA!!!

[secretsdntmakefrends]

but if we do break laws, and have fun and stuff, isnt that kind of poking the bear anyway?

What I'm saying is this: don't poke the fucking bear. Do what you want, go laugh and love and steal
and live. Just don't poke the fucking bear: it's not that smart, and if you don't try to antagonise
it, if you stay away from it's mouth and do your own thing, it won't attack you. I'm not saying to
bow down and be a good citizen, by all means, revolt. Revolt in every action you take, revolt in
your very means of existence. Break the laws, have fun, love freely, fuck money. Just don't poke the
bear.

[Thunk]

Are we not already living in an anarchy? One might heartily disagree, "No! There are states, police,
money, and greed! Aren't those things absent in an anarchy?" But ponder for a moment *why* those
things would be absent: either people would choose not to bring them about, or something would
prevent them from being brought about.

An anarchy is defined as a society without hierarchical systems. There is a difference between saying anarchy cannot be achieved and saying we already live in one.

The first of these possibilities is plainly absurd: the tyrants of the world won't stop being
tyrants just because they've been thrown from power. Perhaps the overwhelming good of the society
would cause them to see the error of their ways and join us? I highly doubt it; the number of ways
the powers-that-be could have achieved this is innumerable, and to say that they just didn't realize
them would be the pinnacle of naivety.

Or we could just kill them.

More importantly though, if the structures in place that allow for tyranny are dissolved, then it won't matter how much the tyrant screams and cries, he won't be coming back to power.

If there was no means of taxation or banks to create a military industrial complex, no police state to enforce global contracts allowing for exploitation, etc, these things simply could not be done. If anarchism was about just getting the 20-30 people who basically control the world it would be a lot simpler, but it is not about simply opposing one person or another, it is about opposing authoritarian systems that allow those people to obtain power.

As to the latter possibility, would such a force necessarily be against the idea of anarchy? I
think so - a state is a state, even if it bows to the "Will of the People". As to the suggestion
that people simply won't listen to the dictators, I must ask why it would be different. I don't
think that an anarchist society would decrease the susceptibility of the general populace to the
mass hypnosis performed by the Barack Obamas of the world.

Right, and there is nothing wrong with that. If people want to be cultists that is their right. But if there were no corporate media backed up by the state (or vice versa), it would be very difficult to do this. Furthermore within a free society of competing ideas it would be very difficult for this sort of thing to happen. On top of that, even if it did, it would require the systems I addressed earlier. If those simply weren't present then Barack Obama could not do his magic.

That leaves us with a third option, the option that the people seeking to control the populace will
succeed, but not entirely. Noticeably, many will be resistant to the Siren's song; many will see
through the deception. And then what would you have? A government controlling the minds of most
people, while the rest are free.

They won't be free if the remaining people seek to eliminate them...not sure what you're getting at.

Is this not what we already have? "No no no!" say thee, "The government coerces and harms and
bullies us if we speak out! They come to our homes and knock down our doors if we do not pay their
obscene tolls, they force us to sell our souls for so very little!" Yes, they do these things, I do
not deny it. But I also do not deny that if one runs through thorns they will be cut - speaking on
street corners to convert the masses is not a necessity of freedom,

The right to speak on street corners to convert the masses certainly IS a necessity of freedom. Freedom is a theoretical concept of having the ability to do something without having an arbitrary authority prevent you from doing so. So if the government assumes the right to prevent someone from speaking on the street corners, then they certainly are not free.

the government does not have
the ability to force someone to pay their taxes, and nor do they have the capability to make one
work in terrible conditions.

"They don't have the ability? They clearly have the ability: look at all the people who have been
sent to prison, look at all the billions spent on law enforcement!" To this, I ask of all the innocent
prisoners, all the incompetent cops, all the escaped hooligans. No, the prisons and police are not
enforcing the laws as they, and even opponents of the police, claim: they're arbitrarily detaining
and prosecuting those that are opposed to them. And this is the crux of my argument: Governments are
inherently ineffective; they do not have the ability to enforce their laws.

Reminds me of the part of the movie SAW where the Jigsaw killer says that he isn't a murderer, because after all he leaves people the option to escape from his machinations and in the event that they die it is because they failed to escape.

Saying the government isn't always effective is hardly an excuse for those instances in which it is. The mere fact that people are forced to live in fear, abandon society, and go towards desperate measures to avoid an even worse fate at the hands of the government testifies to the LACK of freedom people have under the state and the effect the state has on people even when its legislation isn't effective.

This has a great impact on the question of whether or not we are currently living in an anarchy - if
states are effective, then we really are in a totalitarian world; on the other hand, if they're not,
then that simply makes them liars.

Not really. You don't have to have absolute power in order to abuse your power. I shouldn't have to run away from home and live in the woods in order to avoid taxes. This is like saying if someone tries to punch he, he isn't guilty of assault because I should have learned how to duck. I shouldn't have to fucking duck. I mean, I will, but the mere fact that he tries to make me duck means he has assumed power over me.

It makes them successful, powerful, cruel liars; but liars
nonetheless. And what are they lying about? They are lying about their own power, about their
ability to "stop crime".

What I'm saying is this: don't poke the fucking bear. Do what you want, go laugh and love and steal
and live. Just don't poke the fucking bear: it's not that smart, and if you don't try to antagonise
it, if you stay away from it's mouth and do your own thing, it won't attack you. I'm not saying to
bow down and be a good citizen, by all means, revolt. Revolt in every action you take, revolt in
your very means of existence. Break the laws, have fun, love freely, fuck money. Just don't poke the
bear.

Contradictions galore. In other words, only break the rules when you won't get caught. No attention is paid to the mere fact that the rules exist in the first place. The "bear" you speak of is an organization of humans. Why avoid the bear when we'd be 10 times freer by getting rid of it?