I would like to know more about anarchy and volunaryism and how it would work in a modern society. As a person who has never voted I am tired of seeing the corrupt farce that is democracy and how people (in Australia) are forced to vote.
If what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, that anarchy and volunaryism could only be implemented through opting-out of the democracy game with great numbers then people need to be educated on how these two ideals would work. How society would function. How roads will be built, how prisons would be maintained etc
I love Ron Paul and relate to a lot of what he says and do subscribe to the idea of less government than more.
Give Rothbard's For a New Liberty a read.
Cheers, I'll check it out.
If you're open to that, you might also enjoy checking out Freedom by Adam Kokesh and The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose. Also watch the Philosophy of Liberty video. Those (among much other study) were the most helpful for me in realizing the myth of authority.
Thanks for letting me share my views with you. I hope they are useful.
I think you're in the right place. I'm sure there are TONS of people on steemit that will gladly introduce you to voluntaryism. If not, I'll do it. But to be honest, there's already a lot of replies that probably give you a lot of the basics. But a lot can be answered with the free market. Check out Austrian Economics. Mises.org is a great source and many books there are free in pdf format.
It sounds like you are making a decision to support one political philosophy versus another by weighing the outcome according to what you like. I know that people do that, but Larken is saying that the government itself is illegitimate. In the strictest sense, he is saying that regardless of whether the government steals things on your behalf that your like or steals things that you don't like, either way the government is illegitimate and should be rejected regardless of the outcome.
Above he says "Pressing buttons in booths doesn’t give anyone any special power or authority." Politicians think they are on a higher moral plane than you and feel justified in taking your money, but there is no objective basis to conclude that any one person is on a higher or lower moral plane in such a way... democracy is built on an imaginary distinction based on the magic power of pressing a button in a voting booth that entitles one person to steal from and micro-manage another.
Of course that's what people do when presented with new information/ideas, to suggest any less is not rational. Whether the government is illegitimate or not is by all means a matter of opinion. There a literally hundreds of millions of people who disagree with that statement. In fact I would say an overwhelming high percentage would say that we need some form of government. There are hundreds of millions of oppressed people who would die to have a democracy that we have.
That's all fine and dandy but to be honest most people are awake to the corrupt and thieving nature of government but to move people from their cushy sofa's the alternative and and more importantly the transition to the alternative needs to be clearly laid out. The government is not going to hand over power without a fight. So how will that fight look like? Protesting? Shit you can't even get people protesting for serious moral violations at the moment.
Sorry for the late response. I'm new to Steemit and did not see your reply.
You originally said people would want to know the outcome of a society that undergoes some type of anarchy. People would want to know:
Realistically, yes, most people would want to know that. Some people are less concerned with the quality of roads than with abiding by certain moral principles, like not initiating aggression against them by taking their money in terms of a tax. Larken might not care if some roads fell into disrepair or if some poor people go no welfare check because he is more concerned with underlying principles.
As for how such a change might happen, I do not follow Larken's suggestion of all out war. I suspect people who hear a message of anarchy or voluntaryism would first cut out social welfare and regulations. Where it all ends, I have no idea.
And while I feel I'm an anarchist (more like an agorist), that is MY biggest issue... how to support people who can't work, or can't work full time (like me).
Not that the gov't actually GIVES money to people in need because their formula for giving money to people is IDIOTIC, what they give to people is so little that there's NO WAY to live off of just over $1,100/month. You'd have to make money some other way to even pay the bills, let along have ANY kind of life that is normal.
There are MANY homeless people who can't even qualify for money because one person in the family makes a measly $16-18/hr. which is NOT enough to pay for 2 adults & a baby, PLUS pay child or spousal support.
I found out the fucking gov't looks at his GROSS income, NOT his NET.
Like I said, they are either stupid, or they do this on purpose so they don't have to pay out. I believe it's the latter.
Myself I have health issues & can't work full time because I don't have enough energy. Whenever I try to work 40 hours, I'm either making too little or I burn myself out.
Many seniors can't work because they are ill.
While I'm ALL for freedom, these to me are the BIGGEST issues & SHOULD be discussed, but every time I bring it up to anarchists they JUST ignore me like little children.
And I don't give a SHIT about the roads LOL who cares about fucking roads. How we can support ourselves is WAY more important than roads.
As it is, in the US most of the roads are in a total state of disrepair & there IS a gov't right now.
I really don't believe that anarchists are serious about freedom.
I've reached out to a few over the last 3 years & not one of them has ever written me back or wanted to have a SERIOUS discussion about this.
ALL talk & no action.
Hey you! 🙌😎 trying to find Amanda on here too!
Amanda's username is @dragonanarchist