"STATISM" ( @tjkirk ) VS. ANARCHISM ( @adamkokesh )
A few years back, Adam Kokesh and I had an exchange of ideas on my old show, The Drunken Peasants. It was a really fun debate, and since he's such a big star here on Steemit these days, I figured his fans might enjoy it as well. I don't think the debate is likely to change minds on either side, but I think it's solid entertainment.
It's always nice to see these topics debated, since mainstream political discourse is very limiting. You don't see a lot of anarchy debates on the mainstream news.
I do admit that I probably interrupted Adam a bit too much, but I'm an asshole, so what do you expect?
Enjoy!
P.S. I will send half of the profits from this video to Adam, since he was kind enough to participate in this debate, and I don't want people thinking that rating this video positively is akin to taking my side.
I like hearing different points of views because i believe that there are good intentions behind most world views... But this here sounds like a proposal for regression into tribalism. While it might benefit a few people, i think its a naive and harmful idea for society as a whole. Of course i dont agree with a lot of what the government is doing, but i don't think the solution is 'no government'. There will always be a hierarchy structure in society. Once you have a group of people, access to resources and the need of allocate these resources, there will be conflicts - and to solve them you will need to make some form of government. Every organization is a small government.
The more entropy we have in society the more the need for order will give raise to some form of government. Its biology, physics and psychology - they all point to simple systems merging to create more complex systems... its just how entropy works - and it works on everything.
Its a broad and simplified answer to a complex topic, but i think that people who understand the principles of complexity, will see the obvious negatives of Kokesh's views.
ankapolo
"Every organization is a small government." Nope.
"..and to solve them you will need to make some form of government" Nope
you've been indoctrinated into a religious-cult. get well soon
Government is tribalism. I'm saying let's get away from tribalism.
thanks for weighing in @adamkosh, I thought the interview was definitely interesting... i agree that there is tribalism in government... but if people fall into smaller groups of governance wouldn't there be even more tribal behavior? Especially if cultural identity or like-mindedness plays a role in forming a smaller government?
Btw, i do understand the desire to be free and not be bound by laws we disagree with; perhaps it is one of the reasons why i got into sailing and plan to live on a boat - being free to move, independent and self sufficient... but it comes at a price of giving up on a lot of securities, comforts and certainties that are provided under a governed, land-locked society.
If you give up liberty for security, you deserve nether.
LOL, any security, comfort or certainty you believe the government is providing is only temporary. Just look at social security for an example, they keep raising the age to retire because they are running out of money.
yeah, i totally agree with that... the taxation system as it is now sucks! and the government too... (the gov, takes your taxes butr doesn't represent you). i'm not saying that i agree with the current system, what i'm saying is that doing away with it completely is not likely... and even if you did for a while, it would return eventually because of the nature of our behavior as a society.... but i'm down with idealistic idea... i see t he appeal.
Well, what is the right size for a big government that is centralized? If bigger is better? Why limit it to just a country like America? Why not go full on globalism then? The thing is, globalism is certainly not in everyone's best interest. We already see the problems in our own nations today. Not all people are the same and the more different smaller groups are forced together with a bigger pyramid at the top, the more heirarchy at the top the higher you get loses touch with the locals. But locals are more in touch with each other, are closer to each other, and have similar goals and wishes and empathize with each other more. Something to think about.
i think regardless of the system, big or small, we have to look at what human nature is really capable of in terms of self governance. Some ideas are great, but we may not be the right species for them. Some people are very opportunistic and some are very humanist and altruistic, some have a lot of resources and some don't. If we could all achieve a level of care for others while benefiting ourselves in all situations, then it wouldn't matter what government we have - big or small.... but as it stands today, most people need some form of governance because we are prone to conflict... which would be fine if we didn't live in the age of weapons of mass destruction and the ability to annihilate each other in a blink of an eye...
I'm not saying that the current government is good, far from it, in fact i'd be interested to have an experiment in our society to see if small remote communities can do a better job and get along.... But my understanding of how complexity works, especially if you also factor in technological advancement and uneven distribution of resources, simply doesn't logically allow to for anything other than a complex governing system... anything less, will be too chaotic for our well-being. But i will stand corrected if the opposite can be demonstrated.
Well, here's some reading, if you haven't already:
An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West, by Terry L. Anderson and P. J. Hill
The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier by Terry L. Anderson and Peter J. Hill Reviewed by Edward Stringham
The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Although it is not with modern advancements.
thank you, i will give it a read. which do you recommend most?
An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West, by Terry L. Anderson and P. J. Hill
@ankapolo
It may be of benefit to clarify that voluntary organisations are by definition not a small government going by the Weberian political science definition of the state which is 'a monopoly on the initiation of force within a given geographic region' meaning that not every organisation is a small government, free market enterprises for example if non coercive aren't governments by definition.
'There will always be a hierarchy structure in society. '
As far as i am aware anarcho capitalism/voluntarism is not advocating for lack of hierarchy, simply hierarchies based on competence (the best in a field at the top of a company for example) and not domination or violence.
'Once you have a group of people, access to resources and the need of allocate these resources, there will be conflicts'
Why do resources need to be allocated?
The idea is that the free market is better able to meet everybody's needs through private property rights and voluntary contracts than forcible allocation. (Ludvig Von Mises is good for this)
'The more entropy we have in society the more the need for order will give raise to some form of government. Its biology, physics and psychology - they all point to simple systems merging to create more complex systems... its just how entropy works - and it works on everything.'
Some would argue that the state being a monopoly of force puts it in the category of chaos whereas anarcho capitalism would be voluntary or spontaneous self order/organisation.
Some would define the initiation of force as violence which is chaos, order could be defined as living in accordance with natural law, which would be voluntarism.
You could define the libertarian left's rejection of hierarchy to be chaos however.
have you ever not cared about how competent or successful someone was; you just hated their guts because you know they are a horrible human being? if the answer is yes, then you can see how merit based system will yield to social conflicts and how anarco-capitalism will eventually become regular runaway capitalism in the hands of popular and charismatic people as oppose to competent volunteers. Human emotion is far more powerful than any logical system - by pointing to our flawed human nature I can recognize why we do need a higher system of governance. We simply cant contain our righteousness and emotional urges... I'd like to think that everyone can offer something useful to the table and be compensated on the merit of their output alone, but even with STEEM, the game is social interaction and status more than content quality - how do you even measure the quality of content without being able to compare it with all the rest of the content? you are far more likely to upvote someone you care about and have some emotional connection with, than simply good content of a stranger. Am i wrong?
But even if I entertain the possibility of a society where quality of output is the only factor of human worth, then you are up to some crazy anxiety ridden society - trying to outperform each other in every aspect, it might seem voluntary - but its not, its just pressure from a different direction.
'Human emotion is far more powerful than any logical system - by pointing to our flawed human nature I can recognize why we do need a higher system of governance. '
Does it have to be a system based on coercive taxation? What if the same infrastructure and services could be provided by a voluntary fee? If people need these services wouldn't they pay for them?
As an aside what you wrote there i would argue is an argument against government, if we're crazy and anxiety ridden wouldn't a centralised coercive monopoly with the ability to kill at will be a dangerous attractant for the craziest and most sociopathic elements in society?
I generally think that taxation is a good thing if we can have a voice about where taxes go. I think my biggest objection to the current taxation system is that it is spent inefficiently, and has too many favorable loopholes for huge corporations (that don't hold the interest of the public as far as well-being goes). But over all, i think that if you have a government, that is functioning as democratically as possible, then it has to be funded by taxation - because ideally paying taxes should also give you a voice in the government. That in my view is the most balanced scenario.
Some points I'd like to adres.
This is not the case
Government is the only organization that is seen as having THE RIGHT TO RULE (by it's subjects), they dictate, you must obey. Other organizations don't have that element (of slavery). A boss can not lock you up for disobeying him or her. Firing that he/she can do and you can quit. But a boss or teacher is not seen as having the right to rule. (if he/she would do that he/she would be seen as a criminal.
Hierachy is a bit the same.
The government are rulers, but with a footbalteam or a supermarketstucture or a student and his teacher there is no ruler and slave. They voluntarily agree to some arrangement/contract, not under thread of or use of violence.
I never see compromisis in politics, the subject must obey the rulers, or they get punished or killed if they still do not obey. It's forcing an opinion on the other person/group through the barrel of a gun.
Hi, thanks for offering your view, but i think that you might be mistaken about "the right to rule".
Organizations don't have the right to enslave you because of labor laws created by the government to restrict the power a company might have over its laborers. If let alone, without oversight, an organization will behave in a similar manner as you described - it will enslave its subjects.
Also similar to a company, you can quit your government. You can leave to another country, or live in some wilderness or a community where everyone thinks alike - but then slowly but surely, if the community thrives, it will start forming a governing hierarchy - the more resources, the more people - the more complexity - the more need for laws, order and a system of control.
You last point is to me the most confusing, because you are describing a dictatorship, but i know you are referring to a democratic government. I see plenty of compromise in politics (i just wish it didnt favor corporations as much as it does). There is punishment and unfortunately executions but for actual crimes; not for holding ideas. And i think that certain crimes like the use of pot should be decriminalized (which seems to be the direction where we are headed), so there is plenty of compromise.
Organizations don't have the right to enslave you because slavery is bad. If the laws of government, would change allowing corporal punishment and putting you in a cage or whatever, would you say that they than have the right to enslave you? (you don't have rights btw you have privileges )
You can walk out any time out of a company, if the government has made laws, or not, does not matter you don't need permission.
You can not quit your government in the way you can quit your job.
It is a dictator ship better word master/slave “relationship”. Why would you need permission from people to smoke pot? You're boss in you own body. Not the government, not your neigbours, and not your neighbours that ask government, are boss.
If someone else can tell you what you can, and can not do with your body, your land, your house etc, and can punish you if you disobey then that would mean/means, that they own everything, and you own nothing, not even yourself, they are your master, you are their slave. That you can do some religious ritual and to pick a master that let's you smoke pot, or let's you keep more of what you worked for, or some other thing, doesn't change the fact that he/she is your master. (dictatorship, mob rule, democracy) all the same mechanism. If you move to another country you just move to another slave plantation.
A situation;
If your neighbour would run into your house and put you in a cage for smoking pot he would be seen as a madman and a criminal. Even if he and his friends agreed and where "the majority".
Somehow most people are so indoctrinated that they believe that if you do a lot of religious stuff and serious looking ceremonies. That that same situation becomes ok.
Thank you for the reply :)
edit There is a difference between a community making rules or having a leader that you follow voluntary or rulers and subjects
good post
.jpeg)
Film my favorite😍
Nice lil post here
Hey Tj I'm sure its a good video as always. Thanks for telling your subscribers about this Steemit/Dtube stuff. I would have never made content on YouTube but I'm going to give it a go (and probably fail) here. Stay edgy my fellow neckbeard.
Now I've followed you and will judge your every post. You are a member of asshole-empire, so I expect poorly made, but compelling content, as it thus far typical of the others who post in the tag.
Could you guys do this again? :)
nice imges
Always entertaining to listen to this kind of debate. Appreciate your passion the both of you. When you are this passionate about something you do make your mark.
On the the point made about constructing better systems rather than simply tearing down what we currently have, we have started a project here recently that aims to explore this very thing in a virtual fashion. This might interest you and @adamkokesh both.
It's called #nth-society and is an open source, forkable, "unmanaged" collaboration. We would love to have you and everyone else that might read this explore, critique or contribute ideas so as to in any sense participate in the experiment that we are trying to create together!
very interesting
Thanks!
Do check out the initial project post where we explain the fundamental concepts in detail if you like and you are very welcome to join the fun in our Slack server (current invite).
There or on the post you can also ask any questions you might have. =)
OMG, John Galt again
good one :)
capitalism always wins ... we can all agree on that
I consider myself a fairly liberal-minded person, but I could never fully embrace socialism or communism because I love making money (not only for myself, but for those around me) and I love business.
and the gov makes money through taxation, which is not an earned income ... I prefer to have a choice when paying for something, so that there's a transaction of values and not an act of theft masked under "it's for government administration purposes" ... then they just create more and more administration costs to excuse collecting even more money from us ... I like to know what I'm paying for ... thank you
It is very politics also good video love this
in hot and in top ... lucky guy :p