Is Anarchy the Answer? With Davi Barker

Hey Guys,

Anarchy in the ATS! This week for Don't Tread on Media we interviewed Davi Barker, editor of dailyanarchist.com and one of the most politically informed and intelligent individuals I've ever had the chance to speak with. Since most conspiracies are rooted in the concept of those in power withholding or manipulating information being consumed by those without power, Anarchy (especially as Davi defines it at the beginning of our interview) offers a fresh perspective on the concept of the conspiracy. Our talk really opened my mind and gave me a much clearer image of what Anarchists truly stand for--peace over chaos (as much as the Joker's "agent of chaos" would like to claim Anarchy as a philosophy he doesn't quite make the cut) and true equality for all members of society. In that sense you could say that we at ATS are all "information Anarchists," digging through the quagmire of misinformation to level the playing field and help wake the world up to what's really going on.

I doubt that conspiracies would completely disappear in the absence of government, but it's an interesting thought experiment to imagine what they would look like and who would be attempting to manipulate the facts. What do you guys think?

By TV,

Josh LeCash

FULL TRANSCRIPT!!!



How would you explain Anarchy in layman's terms ?

For starters it’s the idea that there are not different moral categories for different people, and so if it’s immoral for a civilian to steal from someone, then it is immoral for a state agent to steal from someone. If it’s immoral for a civilian to kill someone, then it is immoral for a state agent to kill someone. On top of that, it is the idea that violence is not an appropriate tool to solve non-violent problems.

So is there a specific event that lead you to become an anarchist or was it just a process?

I would say it was definitely a process. I mean there’s a sense in which I always was. At least as far back as I can remember. Like I remember when I was a teenager I came across, um, someone had an anarchy patch, I don’t know if you’ve ever seen those, they’re like black and they have like a red ‘A’ on them, and I was like what does ‘A’ stand for? And they said anarchy and I said, “What does anarchy mean?” and they said, “It means no government.” and that immediately resonated with me and I went out and bought one of the patches. That upset a lot of people around me, including parents and teachers, and so I was sort of bullied into not subscribing into that idea and so I gave it up for a long time and then in 2004 I discovered Ron Paul and started sort of analyzing and studying Libertarianism and then when Ron Paul ran for president in 2008, I was sort of part of that movement and so I really lost faith in the Democratic process through that because that was literally the most I could’ve contributed. I saw this like huge Democratic, sort of Grassroots uprising of people saying “hey we want this candidate” and he was cheated out of the primary through some pretty nefarious means and so It reasoned to me that when a person says “ if you don’t like the system elect a candidate that you do like” that that is impossible. That the system is sort of systemically broken. So I am not interested in the system anymore. The system I see it as very against me. There was no mechanism for keeping government small, is the problem. Like, uh, the constitution was an attempt. See at the time people thought democracy was anarchy, like that was one of the primary criticism from Europe. Without this sort of centralized authority of the king it would be chaos. I’m sure you've heard this expression that, to uh, primitive people any advanced technology looks like magic, right? And so I like to say, to any primitive people any advanced sort of social structure looks like anarchy. It’s not that there would not be you know forces in society that prevented criminal behavior. Its that the system we have now is failing at that, and a newer technology is possible.

Yeah, uhm, It seems to me like a lot of new technology that’s available now is kinda defeating the purpose of government. Government seems to be more obsolete by the day. You know, you don’t need health inspectors going into restaurants giving a grading system of A or B or C or D or F because we have Yelp now. It’s way more, uh, advanced and reliable than anything the government can offer.

The idea is that order emerges from chaos. That there’s this sort of spontaneous self organizing sort of eco system that comes out of freedom , uh, that is difficult to predict and the fact that it’s difficult to predict makes a lot of people think that it wont happen. So, for example if you have told somebody in the 1800’s “you know we abolish slavery within a generation or two we’ll have these giant machines that are operated by one person and they’ll will drive over the fields and pick cotton ten times faster than any human being ever could”, they would think that you were crazy that that kind of technology couldn’t be predicted but that technology was prevented from being innovated because the demand was squashed by the existence of slavery. Right, the fact that a plantation owner could have slaves, do the labor for cheap meant that the demand and the market for the advances in technology didn’t exist. Right, uhm, so there’s an order which from the need for something to happen and I think that one of the reasons we see the technology take up these needs is because government is failing at it. So, The government is failing at the monetary supply, and so bitcoin emerges. and so these are responses to demand and so those demands don’t go away when the government goes away. Like there will still be people trying to solve these problems they’ll just have a different kind of limitation if they can’t force these people to fund them.

This always interest me and I’m kinda baffled by it, but why do you think socialism, which is basically communism, is so popular with young adults in the United States?

Because they were educated in a socialist system. uhm, they are sort of raised to believe that things can be centrally organized knowledge comes from above, that obedience is a virtue, that memorization and regurgitation of information is how you learn and uhm as a result they come out of school feeling entitled to something because they have not paid for anything they have received so far.

But do you think that Anarchistic views are starting to resonate with younger people now ?

Yeah absolutely. I think the internet is a sort of uh, is beta testing anarchy. I mean if the internet is sort of the quintessential free market of ideas the anarchist ideas win.

Do you think religion plays a big role in accepting statism? Because when you believe in a higher power, essentially the government is also a higher power and it seems to me that a lot of people look at the government in an almost god like kind of way. Or look at the president in almost a god like way, or a politician.
I think it can be, I think it can go either way. I do in my heart of hearts view statsism as a kind of theology. Uh, I do believe that even though people don't identify it as a religion in most peoples minds who are, uhm, firm believers in the government for them it is an omniscient, omni-benevolent, all good, all knowing. You know, it is a deity, and in that sense they believe it capable of miracles which is why they don’t have a problem with it going into debt. But for religious people there has always been two sort of tracks within religion. There are those who say god is a higher power god puts government’s on earth there for obeying government is obeying god. And you will always find a politician eager to push that interpretation. And you will also find religious people who say “I have a higher code of conduct, I have a higher moral code then the government, and if the government is willing to violate my higher moral code well then I am going to side with my religion and I am not going to side with my government” I think that religions are recovering from intense statism because in this sort of pre-modern world government’s were religions, right, so.

It is pretty complicated, it’s uh, there’s a lot to it.
So my last question would be, uhm, what is a good example of anarchy working in an effective way in the world?

Uh, This conversation.

Hahahahaha

So, right here right now. when we uhm, neither one of us has the ability to assert force over one another neither one of us has, you know, we are here voluntarily and yet somehow we are not talking over each other. We have a sort of custom of letting the other person speak and responding to what the other person says there is an order to the conversation even though there are no statues and government’s regulating what we are allowed to say right, so . There is anarchy everywhere in every ones life. The moments you gave up uh arranged marriages there was anarchy in marriages and you know that has produced a lot of loving couples and children raised by loving couples. So ,uhm, its really the majority of instances where anarchy prevails.

Interesting. Yeah that is actually an optimistic way to look at it for sure. Just to look at it in this conversation that’s, I like that, ha. I think it’s a good way to end this conversation.

Okay.

reply to post by Notheycant


I stopped reading in the first answer. He is describing Egalitarianism not Anarchy. By definition Anarchy is the absence or rules, raw/exacerbated Individualism.

I don't see Anarchy as viable with todays demographic pressures and lack of resources, it is in part and in its basic form a devolution to our primitive social structures, it will not even cover tribal rules. It would be a free for all and damn the consequences. Laws require structure and enforcement. In its basic form it is not a stable social structure, it doesn't scale at all because of the refusal to establish rules and will tend to fragment into other systems in the long run.

Any other type of anarchic organization ceases to be anarchy. For example Anarcho-Communism provides for more complex and stable structures to emerge, becoming scalable in a decentralized way.

I can think of a number of positives to doing without government:

* It would reduce the scale of warfare

* It would eradicate a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape

* Justice would be swift - and be seen to prevail

* Governments seem to think one rule/law fits all situations, when it doesn't

* There would be a Human Being to appeal to for redress of any given situation; not a blank wall of indifference

* People could follow their conscience, not legalities or senseless orders

* People could become individuals again

* Lawyers would go broke, instead of becoming rich through protracted legal pursuits

* It would reduce the power of lobby groups, power brokers and those with vested interests

* There wouldn't be anyone collecting taxes and devising of new ways to get hands on our money

* It would take decisions made for all, out of the hands of the few

* There is simply too much going on in a country for any figure head to be able to get a decent enough overview to be able to govern well, given the extra controls over a person's life that governments tend to take on.

* With a less economically-structured 9-5 lifestyle, people could develop their own natural interests, talents, and skills.

* Individuals would gain independence, and grow more self reliant, and be more responsible

* People overall would be happier and thus there'd be less anger, depression, etc. and then there would be less reasons for suicides

* Education would improve - it's failing badly at the moment under the current guidelines imposed on teachers

* Doctors could practise according to their own beliefs, and not those imposed on them - (Abortion laws comes to mind)

* Natural laws of supply and demand could come into play, without TPTB trying to tweak matters their way unnaturally

* The rich would devise new means of spending their money - which could lead to a new Renaissance age of sorts.

* Religious anarchy would be a good thing too - religious organisations should have to prove they are not merely puppet-masters running a show: as in the Bible where people could actually communicate with God (I know for a fact, you can!)


Just some ideas off the top of my head... and they all tend to overlap and link anyway. (And I'm now getting muddled - the breath of freedom is too heady!)

reply to post by Notheycant


Hey Josh just wanted to say of all your interviews I felt this one was organized, and sounded the best. Felt more professional. Good work guys.

Complete BS. Get your own terminology for whatever this ideology is.
How about Paulism?

reply to post by Notheycant

Josh, you're doing better.

I agree with you that Davi Barker is a pretty smart fellow, but I can also tell you he's quite deluded in his promotion of anarchy. Had you fully researched Barker and the subject, you could have torn him apart at the core of his 'belief.' You see, the moment anarchy goes into full swing, I am going to start shooting everyone opposed to my POV because they are a threat. No law : No punishment. I just have to watch out for the guy who's faster on the draw. Hopefully, I'll be behind the scope of my deer rifle by then. Oh ... forgot about the guy flying the drones ... oops.

Jamming in the full transcript

Please go after a conspiracy topic next time. Focus on scope and depth ... you don't have to worry about the details. Let us do that for you, and then get your guest to tell us what he thinks of what we think. That would be fun.

Snarl
reply to post by Notheycant

 

Josh, you're doing better.

I agree with you that Davi Barker is a pretty smart fellow, but I can also tell you he's quite deluded in his promotion of anarchy. Had you fully researched Barker and the subject, you could have torn him apart at the core of his 'belief.' You see, the moment anarchy goes into full swing, I am going to start shooting everyone opposed to my POV because they are a threat. No law : No punishment. I just have to watch out for the guy who's faster on the draw. Hopefully, I'll be behind the scope of my deer rifle by then. Oh ... forgot about the guy flying the drones ... oops.

Jamming in the full transcript

Please go after a conspiracy topic next time. Focus on scope and depth ... you don't have to worry about the details. Let us do that for you, and then get your guest to tell us what he thinks of what we think. That would be fun.

*sigh*

No you wouldn't that is Anarchy taken to an illogical conclusion,

And is often the "presented" view of anarchy which is false.


"society" would handle you the instant you started your quest to kill those around you, even in complete anarchy societal norms and contracts still apply.

As the society would police it self from extreme outlayers like yourself, probably by forming a group to defend based on mutual benefit.

Every "ideology" can be twisted to present it poorly, capitalism, socialism, communism, can all have extremes that are unwelcome.

Government seems to be more obsolete by the day. You know, you don’t need health inspectors going into restaurants giving a grading system of A or B or C or D or F because we have Yelp now. It’s way more, uh, advanced and reliable than anything the government can offer.

If you think that Yelp is going to circumvent the need for health inspectors, you don't know what health inspectors do, Josh.

Interesting topic, but it is patently obvious that, while we could do with less government, in any society above a tribal one, we need some sort of government.

Not hugely impressed with Barkers explanation of Anarchy nor did I feel he had any feasible suggestions on how to transplant effective anarchy systems into a global population of 7 billion.

The examples of 'marriage anarchy' and your 'interview anarchy' were uninspiring from Barker.

Shame, as I like the subject matter and have always held an interest in how some people purport that Anarchy works best for societies yet have never been able to provide a workable alternative in societal systems (IMO)

reply to post by Panic2k11

Any other type of anarchic organization ceases to be anarchy. For example Anarcho-Communism provides for more complex and stable structures to emerge, becoming scalable in a decentralized way.

You gotta to be kidding ?

This crap?

Anarchist communism[1] (also known as anarcho-communism, free communism, libertarian communism,[2][3][4][5] and communist anarchism[6][7]) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wages and private property (while retaining respect for personal property),[8] and in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[9][10] direct democracy, and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".[11][12]

en.wikipedia.org...


Direct mob rule is what that is without RESPECT to individual RIGHTS.

Capitalism love or hate it is why mankind is where he is today.

No other 'theories' have delivered.

Which is the biggest problems with 'theories'.

They don't work in the real world.

reply to post by neo96


I wish people understood that capitalism is not a social system but an economic precept, if applied to a social system it would be worst than anarchist mob rule any additions to the capitalistic economic system to induce consideration by social and ecological needs (at least not to kill everyone) will subvert the "free enterprise" concept of capitalism. The middle ground would be free markets or liberalism that at least works to preserve a capitalistic economy of sorts...

Yes I'm a proponent of Anarcho-Communism as the solution for all out problems (but not in the post you commented on). I guess you have read something I wrote before and are attempting to rehash it... I don't think that this is the place, start your own thread on the benefits of capitalism and substantiate your claims and I will participate.

reply to post by Panic2k11

I wish people understood that capitalism is not a social system

That is right It's not. It is beyond me why people can't make that distinction, and try to combine them in to one.

That is why Russian Communism Failed. They epic failure in the Eu, and the only reason China is as 'successful' as they are.

Is because they are using capitalist countries to prop themselves up.

Yes I'm a proponent of Anarcho-Communism as the solution for all out problems (but not in the post you commented on). I guess you have read something I wrote before and are attempting to rehash it... I don't think that this is the place, start your own thread on the benefits of capitalism and substantiate your claims and I will participate.

Actually no I haven't.

I am a proponent of capitalism, and a republic.

Anything else are pipe dreams.

Of course Anarchy IS THE answer. You have to tear down a house before you can rebuild it.

300 years ago our Forefathers did not envision a time when our government would be so corrupt as to manipulate the system of checks and balances they put in place to make them non effective.

This is Why Anarchy MUST Rule for a time until we can rebuild. It's a positive step in the right direction.

reply to post by Panic2k11


Anarchy is Not mob rule.

Democracy is mob rule. (the majority rules the minority)

Perhaps, this is how the framers took over and created the constitution, but it can also used to create communism like in the Soviet Union and Cuba.

This article is what made me reach out to Davi for an interview (he didn't write it but I wanted to interview the editor)

dailyanarchist.com...

very interesting stuff

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


It all depends on how you define mob, I use the general definition "a lawless, irrational, disorderly, or riotous crowd" (since there is no real established order under anarchism that would be the type of assembly you would get) now I get that you may be using it as "the common people; the masses; populace or multitude" but if you think that democracy today (or soon after it was elaborated in Greece) is a decision of the mases you are falling for the fallacy behind the process, as we already have several centuries of experience in attempts to implement the process you will certainly realize that the decisions do not come from the mases but from subgroups that fight for control of said mases or the running of democratic process itself.

So democracy is not the rule of the "the common people; the masses; populace or multitude" at all.

Do any of you fools even know the meaning of: Anarchy - "Lawnessnesssssssss? " (sarcasm) hey Panic, this is not a Democracy btw, it's a Constitutional Republic - Move to Russia with your ideals ...let me know in a few months how it works out for you! Much love

(Taken from a Reddit thread.)

The pop culture perception of anarchy is lawlessness and chaos. The actual political philosophy is community governance. "Anarchy" means "no rulers," not "no rules." The community governs itself, and the workers control society. Criminals would still be punished. There will still be the occasional sociopath or disturbed person. However, it will settle quite a few of them. Inject some security into people's lives you will find that their propensity towards crime as a survival mechanism pretty much evaporates.

A good website to check out if you are interested in the general philosophy is CrimethInc.

And to keep the thread moving along on a positive note, some humour related to the subject at hand never hurts