It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Government Is A Monopoly

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 05:31 PM

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

Rothbard, Mises, Hoppe, etc..

Did you know Rousseau was entirely against representative government?

The social contract theory that the statists love to shout from the roof tops was originally philosophized to entail sovereign individuals acting in micro-republics whereby the people organized an ran government themselves.

The General Will applies only to very small republics, republics that are so small that the sovereign people themselves ran the general government and made the rules. Rousseau was entirely against the artificial man created by representative government.

"The size of nations and to a large extent the states, these are the principle cause of human misfortunes."

"Nearly all small states, republics and monarchies alike flourish by reason of being small."


Now if government operated as such, I really wouldn't have a problem with it because I COULD MOVE to somewhere that wasn't run by a group of sadist control freaks.

He's talking about cities of people less than a few thousand, where everyone would enact direct government without representation.

At the time of his writing, there were no cities that even had a population of more than 50,000.

When these guys wrote of a social contract, they were expressly talking along the lines of direct sovereign individuals coming to agreement with each other about the rules of social conduct in their society.

NOT some elected fascist turd making decisions supposedly on their behalf and robbing them of their money.

I'm sure who ever taught the philosophy classes you took left that little part out.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Of course I know what Rousseau thought of social contract theory, it's pretty cut and dry what he thought should happen, however if you note I do not quote Rousseau very often, instead one must go back about a hundred more years to see the fathers of the idea, particularly Hobbes' argument for authoritarian monarchy and Locke's liberal response to that in the 17th Century.

Secondly you are utterly and completely wrong about the size of cities in the 18th Century. London was massive at that time, within a generation of Rousseau's death it would reach a million people. London hasn't had a population of 50,000 since the 16th Century at the absolute latest. That's just my city.

Remember also that Rousseau was, like any other philosopher, a product of his time, and the Early Modern when he lived had seen the rise of the nation, and national state, as opposed to the more local governance systems that existed in the Middle Ages. It could be then said that instead of being visionary, Rousseau was a conservative. It must also be noted that all three of the mentioned philosophers lived before the Industrial Revolution, which changed absolutely everything about the concept of a city.

I do agree with you entirely that in an ideal world you be able to move to a nation that was run by like-minded people. That would be brilliant, for everyone. Sadly with the realities of the world today, especially within the United States where you live, such is very difficult and probably impossible.

What it seems you want is something of a hybrid between the Middle Ages city-state and the American frontier town. Something that I have to point out about this though is the extreme violence that existed in both of those periods. If you were able to build a city-state as you wish to, life could easily return to being nasty, brutish and short. This is contrary to my ideal of the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

So I do ask another question of you if I may, which is more important, maximum freedom or maximum happiness?

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 05:44 PM

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy

So I do ask another question of you if I may, which is more important, maximum freedom or maximum happiness?

That's pretty subjective. Some dogs are happy to sit in the house and be pet all day. Others struggle to run loose into the world. They can both be happy but only one can be free.

I'd gladly toil 20 hour a day digging rows with my hands until my fingers bled or sustain a winter off of grubs and chipmunks if only to die 20 years earlier than I would in this 'society' if it meant I didnt have to toil one minute for anyone other than myself. Anywhere in the world you try to pull this off you're going to be breaking numerous "laws" "regulations" and "social contracts."

Share-cropping sucks any way you slice it.

The dog who runs off isnt affecting the life of the lap dog in any way. So what's the problem with letting him run off?

The nation would absolutely collapse without my share-cropping. At least that's what all the guns pointed to my head are making me believe. I must be pretty damn important to have armed government officials ready to take me out at a moments notice for not handing over the masters bushel.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Well why not just go do it, put your money where your mouth is and go be happy living as our caveman ancestors did millions of years ago. Obviously you have nothing but contempt for the current state of society, and saying it would be illegal to go live in the woods is simply a cop-out that allows you to enjoy the benefits of modern life and keep complaining to an audience on the internet.

I've said as much to many people with your ideology before, there are plenty of places in the world that you would not be found, so you would not have to suffer consequences, as I said anyways that idea is a dodge to the question. So put up or shut up on it.

Just go, be free, if you so hate your fellow man's system, leave it.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 06:08 PM

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Communists incessantly whine about private corporations monopolizing markets, so I have to scratch my head when they demand that the State be given an ultimate monopoly on force and violence.

This is where you keep making your mistake.

I also consider myself an Anarchist like you, anti-state, anti-government.

I am also a socialist, I believe in the workers ownership of the means of production.

You seem to equate capitalism with freedom, and socialism/communism with totalitarian systems. This is simply a product of your capitalist conditioning.

Why "Socialism"?
Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.

And no mnemeth1 that us not 'state propaganda', it was written by folks like you and me.

Also of interest from that site...

Anarchists fight nationalism by rejecting it and exposing it's racism, sexism, homophobia, antisemitism and xenophobia.

Recently, a right-wing fascist movement known as the 3rd Positionists has used the strategy of using left-wing symbols and images while pushing a right-wing social agenda. Just as Adolf Hitler used the name "National Socialist" for his political party and Spanish fascists used the term "National Syndicalist", 3rd Positionists use the labels "National Bolshevik", "National Libertarian", and "National Anarchist" to try to trick radicals into supporting their racist, antisemitic, and homophobic ideals. Common is embracement of the theories of Otto Strasser or the Strasser brothers and the idea of a "true socialist" National Socialism that is supposed to be different from Hitler's National Socialism... but of course if they really believed in socialism they would not be racist/nationalist.

So mnemeth1 be real careful what you believe...

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 06:12 PM
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

It's not a cop-out. It's the truth. As it is I cannot cease to pay the bushel or I'll run afoul of the law. I can't fell a few trees for shelter or I run afoul of the law. I can't kill for food or I run afoul of the law.

If I wished to live as a criminal always running and hiding it's certainly doable. I don't want to spend my life running and hiding. It's the same as paying the masters bushel but with flesh rather than labor.

Trading one cost for another. Still not my own. We've been through this before I believe. You posed the possibility of some magic islands that do not exist. Not without military dispute anyway. Still there are guns to my head.

The only way I could possibly make it work is if I had massive funds to begin with.

I can't just walk off into the Yukon and live like Jeremiah Johnson. Several groups would be ginning for me ready to take whatever I had accomplished from me and toss me in prison.

Look at that guy off 'hunting Bin Laden' in the middle of nowhere. Arrested and kicked out but not charged with any crimes.

It can't be done. Somebody somewhere is hellbent on taking you out. You might last 10, 20 or 30 years before they find you or decide to make you a target. But after 30 years can you leave prison in your 50's or 60's and start over from scratch? You'd be a geriatric ward of the state.

I dont want to be a criminal and I dont want to be a vagrant.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 06:30 PM
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

I'm sorry I got my facts confused, no city population above 50,000 in America is what I should have said.

You ask what is more important, maximum freedom or maximum happiness as if these two are incompatible.

As government has grown the economics of the nation have deteriorated. This should be plainly evident to you. In the 1950s it was entirely possible for an average man's salary to own a home, raise a family, and pay for the kids education, and retire. Today it takes multiple incomes to accomplish these base standards of living at the average american wage.

The standard of living itself has improved due to technological advancement, but the means necessary to maintain that standard has grown exponentially. There will be a general reduction in the standard of living going forward thanks to the economic implosion brought on by our government.

As government has grown, wealth stratification has exponentially increased. The top 10% of earners have retained exclusively all the economic growth of the last 10 years. With the richest 1% retaining the bulk of that. This, despite the massive expansion of social welfare programs and entitlement spending.

The government managed healthcare system is completely insolvent. The government managed retirement system is completely insolvent. Both would be totally solvent had the government not spent the surplus as they promised they wouldn't when they set the systems up.

Government has pushed interest rates down to zero percent for damn near a decade and has completely fueled a massive inflationary credit expansion which is now tumbling down around us. This massive inflationary expansion of credit drove the massive trade deficits and pushed our manufacturing jobs overseas.

To sit there and tell me I should be happier now because we have so much more glorious government makes me LOL my pants off.

Thanks, but I think I'd be much happier if I was much freer.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 07:10 PM
reply to post by mnemeth1

The neo-right...

A worrying trend in recent years has been the use of the word (in Britain and the USA) to describe elements on the far Right supposedly opposed to the State. Thus a recent article in 'The Washington Post' on the opponents of "big government" in the Republican party was entitled 'Beware the lure of the libertarians' and referred to "libertarian Republicans"!

Of course these "libertarians" are against the State only in so far as it sometimes gets in the way of their being able to exploit the poor more thoroughly. They want to roll back the Welfare State, but their opposition to the State doesn't extend to dismantling the Army, Police, or to challenging the concept of government itself.

These people would more correctly be called free-marketeers and laissez-faire capitalists. Thatcher and Reagan resurrected this old tradition and now the world's full of their offspring, from Yeltsin and Berlusconi to the "Labour" and "socialist" parties who follow the same agenda these days to varying degrees.

A recent article in 'The Guardian' on the growing far Right militia movement in the US ('Adolf's US army') used the term "libertarianism" to describe the groundswell against big government shown in the Republican landslide in recent mid-term elections. Middle America has apparently had enough of high taxes, attempts at gun control etc., and at one extreme militias are being established in the backwoods to train for the coming show-down with Federal government. (What can you say, the Waco spirit obviously lives on unfortunately).

Nothing but the petty-bourgeois doing what the petty-bourgeois do, support the capitalist class. Blame everything on government while supporting the very thing that gave us our government. All they want to do is get rid of the sections of government that support the working class. More power for the capitalists, less control for the workers.

Anarcho-Capitalism is just the extreme of this.


Despite the critics clamoring for "maximum efficiency" rather than revolutionary methods, anarchist collectives often produced more than before the collectivization. In Aragon, for instance, the productivity increased by 20%.[8] The newly liberated zones worked on entirely libertarian principles; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy (it should be noted that the CNT-FAI leadership was at this time not nearly as radical as the rank and file members responsible for these sweeping changes). 8.^ G. Helsey, Anarcosindicalismo y estado en el País Valenciano, 1930-1938, Madrid (1994)

Also comrade note the balded section, no state system, a real libertarian system.

[edit on 7/27/2010 by ANOK]

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 07:23 PM
reply to post by ANOK

Last time I checked, Ron Paul was one of the few people who wants to end the war and drastically cut military spending and interventionism.

Of course, the democrats could do that any time they wished, but they don't.

War is the health of the State.

If you were to actually bother looking at any published anarcho-capitalist economist's web site, they almost all have a link to

several articles by tom woods on the warfare state

dozens upon dozens of antiwar articles by lew rockwell

In fact I don't think I've ever seen an anarcho-capitalist website that didn't have antiwar links or articles on it (including my own).

[edit on 27-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 09:25 PM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Wow that is an incredibly paranoid state of mind mate! I also think it's a bit egotistical of you to assume that you'd be so important.

There is a lot of land out there, tons of it, and the islands I mentioned in our previous discussion do in fact exist, they are simply very remote. Marie Byrd Land is simply just unclaimed, currently the only occupants are a summer station operated by Russia, but Russia makes no claim to any sovereignty over the area.

Also as I have stated previously for this, I fully support the creation of an anarcho-libertarian state somewhere in the world, I want to see that happen. I would not live there but I want to know what would happen. This is one of the best potential political experiments ever conducted.

As for the idea of you becoming a fugitive, well damn, do you want a pat on the head from Uncle Sam for your efforts? You're talking about leaving the entire system of civilization for your own personal hatred of being told what to do. That takes a lot of ego, to assume that you're right and almost everyone else, ever, has been wrong. There is a lot of land out there, and if you don't broadcast your intentions to absolutely everyone, it's very doable. If you feel too afraid to try such in the United States, well people have done such in Siberia for ages, the same with the Amazon.

You are defeatist in this, do some research, where there is a will there is a way. Take some bloody initiative, or let it go. Until you do, yes I still will call you a hypocrite.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 09:51 PM
You argue that the state is based on violence. The perceived threat of violence is there, yes, but answer this: in a stateless, anarchist world, how would private property rights be defended?

You would either A) defend it yourself, or B) hire a third party to protect it, no? The very same threat of violence... yet in this situation, the violence will be more likely to occur because of the lack of a proper regulatory system monitoring the implementing of these rights.

The arguments you present are just as utopian, pie-in-the-sky dreams as those of communists. Occam's Razor teaches us that the simplest solution is more often than not the correct one, and I believe this applies here. The far and wide majority accept the social contract that is the state and realize that it simply makes sense. Humanity has always developed itself into hierarchies as a means to protect itself, and it will continue to do so, so-called moral high-grounds be damned. Morality is what we make of it.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 10:16 PM
reply to post by Someone336

well, i linked a video in the OP that explains one possible way a stateless society could enforce property rights.

therefore, it is not pie in the sky nonsense

however a society choses to organize itself is a function of markets and property rights in a system of voluntary transactions with no violent coercion.

we can see by the 20th century that the world would still have at least 100 million more people alive today if there were no States.

a state of anarchy is superior to a state of perpetual war

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 10:38 PM

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If you were to actually bother looking at any published anarcho-capitalist economist's web site, they almost all have a link to

Look it's fine to say 'we're anti-war' but capitalism itself creates wars.

I don't care what your link says. There is no morality in capitalism, adding Anarchism to it doesn't help.

Do you have any sense of history? Why would capitalists suddenly become moral if we got rid of government? Why would capitalists give up their state and their control of the people? Can you explain without a video or a link?

Most of your money is not taken in taxes to government, it's taken in profit to the private owner, who earns their living by exploiting people to work at their 'factories'.

BTW I could also just claim your links are just right wing propaganda, and not even bother with a reason why I think it's wrong, huh mnemeth?

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 11:07 PM

Originally posted by Someone336
The arguments you present are just as utopian, pie-in-the-sky dreams as those of communists.

I would say more so and not because I'm biased.

There will never be a true communist system where everything is free and community shared.

You're right there is no way to protect capitalist interests without the state, it's why we have a state system now. And it IS violent, go ask all those people at the sharp end of the capitalists military complex when they invade their country to control resources in order to maintain a profitable market for the capitalists.

If people would understand what was going on in the world before WWII, from the peoples prospective, they could easily see how it all comes together and how conditioning has twisted history and reality.

Capitalism is not the best economic system to have if you want a stateless society. That's not what Rothbard meant by 'anarcho-capitalism', he wanted free-markets but with a state police system, he used Anarchism to allow him free-markets, and capitalism to allow him to have a state system. It was a way for him to be contradictory he came up with while talking to socialist students.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 12:49 AM
reply to post by ANOK

The State doesn't protect anything but itself.

It does that very well.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 01:24 AM
reply to post by mnemeth1

We still have two years to go before the next presidential election and the RP folks on this site are already out there working on the vote. I am a fan of RP but he is not going to be our next pres.

The initial post on this thread, a little too angry and whiny. America is a country of 300+ million people who have different opinions on how this country should be governed. Bottom line is majority rules and it doesn't seem to matter what the minority thinks. Greed and corruption go hand in hand when it comes to the way the system is now and they (NWO) will not let anyone spoil their fun.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 01:32 AM

Originally posted by jitombe
reply to post by mnemeth1

America is a country of 300+ million people who have different opinions on how this country should be governed.

Which is why democracy is tyranny.

299,999,999 others have no right to run my life and I have no right to run their's.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 02:20 AM
In this proposed stateless area we now call USA, who will guarantee your human rights? How do you prevent the most violent people to take control of your community? Who will protect you against other, less pacifist, communities? How are you even able to travel safely?

It seems to me this proposed system exists all over the world already, where the government has no or little control. What all these places have in common is that violence reigns.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:32 AM

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ANOK

The State doesn't protect anything but itself.

It does that very well.

What are you talking about?

The state is a system that allows one class of people to control another, in this case the capitalist, or ruling class, controlling the working and middle classes. The state is not an entity unto itself it is a concept made up by numerous agencies and groups including government, police, military, schools etc. It protects the interests of those in control, the ruling elite, the capitalists, and the system that allows them to have economic control over the population, private ownership of the means of production.

And again you fail to answer, or understand, how you are going to protect capitalist interests without a state system? History shows the workers have not been happy with capitalism, it is tolerated because most people are not aware of an alternative anymore. When they were aware of the alternative prior to WWII, they took over the means of production against the onslaught of the fascists. It took a world war for the ruling elites to stop it. So again if the working class becomes aware that they can have a better system than capitalism, then what is going to stop them this time if you have no state system?

If you can explain it to where it makes sense I'll listen.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:49 AM

Originally posted by -PLB-
It seems to me this proposed system exists all over the world already, where the government has no or little control. What all these places have in common is that violence reigns.

Thing is it's not a lack of a state system in those countries that made them violent, it's because they have been turned into political hell holes because someone somewhere benefited from that happening politically or economically.

People are not inherently violent, in fact science knows we are altruistic and cooperative by nature...

We are conditioned as a society to be over competitive, as that is the nature of capitalism where we are all forced to compete with each other for resources, and employment, when we would rather cooperate and help each other. This is a perversion of our nature.

I am as anti-state as our opposition here but for obliviously different reasons.

It's like what Bakunin said, the father of Anarchism (anti-state, anti-government)... 'Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice... Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality'. Bakunin the original Anarchist, how can you argue with him? If Socialism meant a state system he wouldn't have said that obviously.
Or was he confused lol?

In other words workers owning their own workplaces with no state or government interference. How can anyone argue that that is bad system?

[edit on 7/28/2010 by ANOK]

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 04:04 AM

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Which is why democracy is tyranny.

299,999,999 others have no right to run my life and I have no right to run their's.

Without democracy you have no voice.

Your system would be totalitarian, not Anarchist at all. Just silly really.

Real Anarchism is highly democratic.

ANARCHISM is about individual freedom. But it is also about building a society that has a fair system of wealth distribution. For this reason, anarchists consider themselves to be democrats. As anarchists we don't believe that other people can bring about the changes that we need - we believe that we must do it for ourselves. This means putting in place a type of decision making system in which all people can participate in - this is the best way to ensure equality...
...Take one example - work. Under anarchism, the workplace would be democratic. Unlike now, workers would decide on the main matters in their own workplace: What type of work should be done? Where and how? Under what type of working conditions? Where should the profits from work go?

In today's world, it is done the opposite way. Most decisions about any place of work are taken by the management. These management's, in turn, are usually appointed by shareholders - people who do not work. This situation would not be tolerated in an anarchist society. Matters concerned with the workplace are for the workers alone to decide on. Under anarchism it will the workers' assembly and not the (elected) manager who will be the supreme authority in any workplace. This will be one of the major contrasts between today's world and a future anarchist society.

What would stop the guy with the biggest capitalist 'factory' from setting up a state system to protect his investments, if the workers have no voice?

Maybe you think they should be allowed to set up a state system because no one should be able to say they can't? I think that is your dilemma. You want complete freedom but you have nothing in place to protect peoples freedom from the very capitalists you support, who's interest will not be YOUR freedom but THEIR profit, thus you're back to square one.

If everyone was a capitalist, which I think is the claim, then it's not really capitalism anymore, it's socialism. Workers owning the means of production is socialism. learn not to fear the word lol, you can shake off those years of conditioning...

Are you learning anything mnemeth, or is this all just 'left-wing' propaganda lol?

[edit on 7/28/2010 by ANOK]

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in