Some of the current topics, and responses on this blog have put me in a reflective, if not judgmental mood. There’s a common thread that loops it’s way here and it awakens a part of me that I’ve had a difficult time putting my finger on. I think I’ve finally labeled it, but only through reading some of your responses. Responses that were similar to my own opinion.
I’ve pretty much always identified myself with conventional political ideology. I’ve voted at every election, am a little conservative on some issues, centrist on most and liberal on many. Its worked for me, and made me feel like I was part of the American team. I’ve believed in state run capitalism forever because its worked for me. I’m given the opportunity to make all the money I can, then I’m taxed and offered government services in return, no problem. State run capitalism has worked well for hundreds of years. I don’t want to give up on it just because of our current economic situation, wouldn’t if I could, and I doubt whether many of you would either.
The common thread I read running through here is a dissatisfaction with the way things have been being run by the government, from the federal level all the way down the chain to the city. The catchy thing is that some of the comments I read here are purely Anarchist in nature.
Not so long ago Anarchism seemed like a not so good thing to me, my mind told me it was as unAmerican as borscht. It was a black and white deal. You were either 100% for a state controlled society, or you were 100% against it. McCarthyism aimed in another direction.
But then I started thinking in a different direction. The Hippie movement of the 60’s was a heavenly period of Anarchism for millions of us. There are numerous modern Anarchist groups, groups that have been active for years. The feminist’s, the anti-nuclear groups, and the environmental groups, which splintered off into oodles of small special interest environmental rescue groups, all of which are anti-government regulation/Anarchistic in nature.
With this realization I started thinking about some of the things our government does that tend to rub me the wrong way. They have the right to tax almost everything, so my smoking friends have to pay 5 bucks for a pack of cigarettes. They’re prone to special interest lobbies, so I can’t buy my prescriptions from Canadian pharmacies. People with cancer can’t use medical marijuana to combat the nausea caused by chemo-therapy because of the same pharmaceutical lobby.
You know what I’m talking about with just those few examples. I’m sure you could add 100 of your own pet peeves.
This whole thing is about the Anarchist’s among us, and how much of an Anarchist each of us has become. Some of you might deny leaning toward Anarchy in any way, but tell me, wouldn’t it be nice to go to the grocery and not be charged sales tax on your food? How many of you operate in a true free market economy where you trade work for work, or pay employees under the table to avoid taxes? The government will be coming looking for you if they find out you’re doing that you old Anarchist you.
Popularity: 8%
Related posts:
Gato got runned over by Marcus many moons ago. Be ye daft, 2486? 
Let's have a new poll, alright, Joe?
Loading ...
{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }
To quote a famous punk rocker, “I’m all for anarchy, but who would clean the sewers?”
People forget that having the benefits of government brings with it a sacrifice. I’m not a red-blooded individual, but we inherently give up certain liberties for the perks that government brings. We put our trash out on the corner in the evening, and in the morning, it’s gone. Our government builds interstates to make the formerly months-long trek to another state a matter of hours. Our government helps to keep farmers in business by controlling market prices.
Anarchy, on its surface, seems great. I’d love the freedom to do with my life and property whatever I wish. But I’d also really miss my sewage system and daily mail delivery. So, I strike a deal with my government – take a few of my liberties to make my life easier and more enjoyable, and I’ll pay you my taxes. Sure, most of my tax money is wasted, but in the end, it’s just money, right? It’s just money. I don’t know why so many people would fight and die for money. Seems like a silly thing to become so righteous about.
Jeremy, seems to me that you forgot about privately owned septic service companies, garbage services and UPS / FedEx. County folk deal with their own sewage systems and garbage service as it is. You chose bad examples.
Government paying farmers not to produce is a problem.
I’m with you on interstate highways – the only valid point of your entire comment.
The only valid point of my entire comment? Marcus, just because you disagree doesn’t make it invalid.
Imagine, then, if we in Idaho Falls, a pretty densely-populated chunk of land, all decided to have septic tanks. Have you ever seen the amount of land necessary for a septic tank? And the vehicle needed for septic tank service? Where would you suppose we dig our septic tanks? Given septic tanks’ propensity to overflow, what do you think we should do about the public health hazard of all that raw sewage flowing in the streets? And do you really think it would be in peoples’ best interest to privatize sewage systems in the form of individual septic tanks for each home? Or perhaps we should form community septic tanks where one neighborhood would share a number of networked tanks, and they would all share the costs. The, to avoid the overflowing problem, we could network the tanks together into a drainage system, and all neighborhoods could get together and share the costs of building and maintaining those drainage systems. But there would need to be a group that would oversee the project and make sure everyone paid their fair share and ensure that the drainage system worked properly. We could call this whole thing a SEWER SYSTEM.
And without the farm subsidies program, farmers would not make enough from their crops to make a living, and would go out of business. Subsidies are designed to control market prices.
Remember – no farmers, no farms. No Farms, no food.
When I think of Anarchy, all I can think of is “I hope I have the biggest gun”, because that is what everything would come down to.
I’m not for government interaction in all aspects of my life, but I am glad that there are menial things I don’t have to deal with, such as garbage, that someone gets paid to do.
I guess as long as we have the ability to think and debate, there will always be disagreements as to how much government is too much.
You don’t need to live in the city, duh. Seriously though, I’ve got nothing against city/county/state government. You presented the sewage system, mail and waste disposal systems to be available only from government…which isn’t correct. From the angle that you were hitting, the interstate highway system was the only valid point. Sorry if you don’t see it that way.
And if more farmers will give up on farming and go do something worthwhile (see: not mooching off of the government just so they can keep farming, or not farming, for no reason), those remaining will bring in more than enough to get by, and we’d be wasting a whole hell of a lot less food.
Paying farmers not to farm is just like paying tile layers not to lay tile.
I’ve never understood the concept of paying someone not to do something. Can someone explain to me why they do that? What does it accomplish, and do they do it so that the farmers and the land will be available at t later date instead of them just quitting altogether?
I agree that it makes more sense to train them to do something else.
Marcus, I don’t really know what to make of your criticism at this point – you’re saying that yes, government-run sewage systems and garbage pickups are necessary within cities, but not everyone needs to live in cities. I agree! But lots of people live in cities, including myself. Not everyone can feasibly live in the country, either. In fact, people who do live in the country generally use septic systems cleaned by professional, private-sector companies like you mentioned. Let’s agree on that.
But your argument doesn’t seem to hold up when it comes to the understanding that cities exist. Let’s talk about reality here – cities exist. Okay? In a perfect world, perhaps we could all live out in the country and we’d be great little Jeffersonian agrarian Americans and we wouldn’t need the government to supply basic needs like running water and sewage. But we don’t live in a Jeffersonian world, we live in the real world. I don’t quite know how to debate you on this, since you’re really just kind of talking about a fantasy life and not talking about the real world. We both agree that septic system cleaners exist, and so what? Doesn’t negate my point at all.
But wait, then you say you don’t have anything against governments. WHY are you arguing with me then? If you basically agree with me, WHY ARE YOU ARGUING. You know very well that I didn’t say that government is the only possible source for maintaining a sewage system, and at this point it seems like you’re just arguing with me for the sake of arguing. It’s annoying.
Anyway, let’s move on before steam starts billowing from my ears. Farm subsidies.
Marcus, you say that it’s comparable to paying tile layers to not lay tile, which isn’t correct. Tile laying is a service, not a commodity. Subsidies exist to protect the price of food commodities like grain, wheat, potatoes, barley, rice, etc. Here’s the theory – the world needs farmers, and in order for farmers to exist, they need to receive income from their investment (their crops). The nature of agricultural yields is that they are dynamic – one season, the corn yield may be short, and the price of corn will increase dramatically (we saw this just last year, and its effects were felt all over the world, particularly in 3rd world countries) and effectively killed the corn-ethanol movement in much of the US. Okay, so we understand that crop yield directly affects the availability of a product on the commodity market. On the other hand, a surplus availability of a product, let’s use wheat, diminishes the market value of the product. So, in a season where the yield for wheat is great, you’re going to see the price of flour drop, which in turn makes the value of bread lessen, etc. This effects bakers, cereal companies, flour producers, farm workers, and farm owners, beneficially or negatively. For the baker, this is great, because it means they can continue producing bread for a lower cost and getting a higher markup on their product. For farmers, this means the value of their crop lessens, so much so that it has put some major farms out of business (we see this around Idaho all the time – if you want, we can have a discussion about the decline of agriculture in Idaho, but that’s another topic for another day.)
Okay, so the free market system fluctuates, we all get that. I think I’ve established that this fluctuation negatively impacts (more often than not) farmers. Hence, most developed countries with domestic agriculture have developed the process of subsidizing farmers, which is the practice of transferring tax moneys to farmers in exchange for the farmers agreeing to normalize the output of their commodity. The benefits are many:
1) Protects market prices and stabilizes the commodities market and its dependent markets
2) Keeps farmers in business
3) Protects against the process of over-farming, which can drain the nutrients from the soil and cause what’s called salinization of farm soils, which renders them barren.
The effects of not protecting farm land has been felt all over the world, including the United States. Sweden has been investing billions into desalinizing farm land due to the process of over-farming.
And so, this is why farm subsidies are important – it is a tax burden (slightly) on the average American, but provides the country with an invaluable resource – workable farm land and people to work that land. Lest we forget the disastrous effects of the dust-bowl era …
Alice – to address your point of “training them to do something else”. Let’s say there is an overabundance of potatoes (let’s imagine a Northwest wind current brings some miracle nutrient to the soil and BOOM, there’s this massive availability of potatoes), and the market value of potatoes diminishes by 3/4. You’re going to have people buying lots of potatoes,but against the wet-dreams of free market conservatives, this is never on-par with the increased demand for potatoes, so the farmer is left with a surplus of his yield and isn’t paid a livable amount for what he was able to sell.
So, this farmer (and likely the thousands like him) panics and decides he cannot support his farm anymore. He sells it to a developer, who builds a wal-mart on the land. Yay for capitalism! New jobs! Tax revenue! Cheap t-shirts! Six months later, the farmer who used to work the land is stocking Transformers in the toy dept.
Ten years later, there are only a handful of potato farmers left in Idaho, and the value of potatoes skyrockets. Now, nobody can afford potatoes, and Wal-Mart switches providers to an Irish potato distributor, who can sell potatoes at a reasonable price. Now, all the rest of the potato farmers in America are out of a job and can be seen greeting customers at the entrance of Wal-Mart. Soon enough, because of the whims of Mother Nature, there are no more American farms and we’re importing all of our food (at lower quality and absurd import costs) and building Tire Factories over our farm land.
Now, you may not care about that, and you may not think that supporting farmers in America is important, but I do, and so do many other Americans. The scenario I just described is but one preventable exaggerated scenario that subsidies prevents (yes, I exaggerated to illustrate a benefit). Farms are important. Farmers are as American as, well, Wal-Mart. I hate to think of how this country would fare if we turn our back on our agrarian roots.
An America without farms … well, that’s just un-American.
Yes, I do care about our farms, and that’s why I was curious about this practice.
Thanks for the explanation, and sadly, it really doesn’t sound that exaggerated.
I argued the points because you did present them as government only options. Simple as that.
I still disagree on subsidies. Farmers can adapt, or farmers can go out of business. If it was a more lucrative field (see: risk), there would be more competition and it would be better for all the farmers that do have the ability and desire to diversify their crop and plant on a hunch.
Whether the business produces a good or offers a service, paying an individual / business not to work / produce doesn’t do anything good for the economy.
If the government was really worried about food supply and American agriculture, we wouldn’t be burning a good chunk of what we produce.
Hmmm. I assume by “burn” you’re referring to corn, but ethanol production makes up only about 18% ish of corn usage. The rest is either exported or used for consumption (about half), which is used mainly for starch (ever eaten polenta? It’s awesome.), sweetener (Corn syrup is used in sodas, chocolate, candy, etc.) and feed for chickens (ever eaten chicken? Then corn affects you.)
What I’m saying, Marcus, is that the production of food affects you, directly. This notion may not agree with your dogmatized free-market ethics, but the success of farmers directly affects your life. Free market people seem to think that failures in business only affect the people who work for that business and have this sense of cosmic justice surrounding that process – “if they aren’t good at what they do, their business will fail, and that’s the way it should be.” Unfortunately, the real world doesn’t work that way. In the real world, no man is an island, we’re all archipelagos at best. Farmers’ failures are your failures, Marcus, and if you don’t like that, then I don’t know what to tell you. I’ve given you a plethora of evidence against this staunch free market value system you’ve built up, and now I can’t help but think that you don’t care about reason. The free market is your religion, isn’t it? That’s sad.
Jeremy, you’re assuming what my position is again. You’ve given me fact (in most cases), packaged what we’ve done for a handful of years, and preached it as absolute truth — that there is no other way. There is never only one way to do something, and that’s what I’m going for in these discussions. Whether it’s realistic, tested, or completely loony…if I think it up, I’m going to state it. I’m using this as an outlet to think and throw out my thoughts, not to debate.
However it may seem, I’m not disregarding your ideas and knowledge, and I’m not just being contrary.
Ok, as far as the original posting.
I think that SMALLER government would be great. Though I’m not for total anarchy I sure wish that once all of these government programs come into being that sometimes they would be allowed to go away again. It seems that all the government knows how to do is grow.
I really wish they would butt out of a lot of things like, oh say, funding teapot museums in New England. I am an anarchist in the fact that I think the federal government needs to Butt out of almost everything except defense. Leave the rest to the states and or the private sector. I think may would be surprised and how many people step up to the play to fill the needs that the federal government seans to think that nobody will fill.
One of the points to my thoughts here was that government is essential to our way of life, and that makes absolute Anarchy a theoretical impossibility.
The thing that is possible, as Marcus has pointed out, is a degree of Anarchy depending upon your particular circumstance. It’d seem to me that the larger cities or metro areas would need a massive amount of government assistance no matter how dedicated we became to the concept of limited anarchy, or the privatizing of what has always been considered government services.
But even at that, many large cities have no government trash pickup. They have laws that say you must have your trash picked up, but they don’t pick it up themselves. You have to contract your garbage service with a private contractor.
We already have privately operated utilities, security services, and prisons. Our armed services openly employees the aid of private security forces (mercenaries). So it’s not like the government is the originator of all the services they provide. If the government stepped out of the loop it’s feasible that many of the services they provide would be picked up by the private sector.
There are a number of things that could be changed to lessen the impact on our government, and lower our taxes, but we’d have to pick up the slack. In many cases we could probably get things done cheaper just because our pockets aren’t as deep, and suppliers know they can’t squeeze government money out of a citizens group.
So it’s all about degrees of change. I used the word Anarchy because when you focus on it in the right way you can see our system blending well with it. If you imagine City Hall being looted and the mayor being tarred and feathered for lying about missing the date for submitting his request for stimulus funding, then I’m not getting my message across. But I’ve grown used to not getting my message across on the web, it’s just not my medium. .
Can’t have half “a state of society without government or law” unfortunately.
Then it’s good we’re not restricted to living by dictionary definitions, isn’t it? If that’s all you’ve got you’re not using much in the way of abstract thought.
Just imagine something like Republic eggs and Anarchy cheese, mix em just right and add some heat and you end up with a workable society omelet. Then you pour salsa over the top of it to help the two ingredients blend into something that is reminiscent of each primary ingredient, but not overpowered by either of them.
I’d love to be more rational in my example, but I’m feeling pretty ridiculous tonight, and it is late.
So is the salsa socialism? And no omelet is good without a bit of milk, so let’s call that a benevolent dictatorship. Add some salt and pepper, which is populism, some mushrooms (graduated tax curve) and asparagus (nationalism) and serve the whole thing with a side of breakfast potatoes (constitutional republicanism).
Serve with strong coffee (participatory politics on a local level) and the morning news (the Bill of Rights) and enjoy. See, political divisions are silly! We’re all a bit socialist, we’re all a bit Republican, we’re all a bit Democrat, and we’re all anarchists at heart. No need to draw divisions.
Multiple Choice:
A. All men are equal.
B. All men are possessed of equal ability to succeed.
C. All men progress at an equal level.
D. None of the above.
E. General statements undermine the subjective nature of reality and ignore that “equal” is a value, which is a construct of reason. Therefor, all are true but all are false.
Someone much wiser than me once said that government should only do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. I’m guessing they were meaning the people individually.
In that case, the city should only do for us what we can’t do for ourselves. An example would be a sewer system.
The county should only do for us what they city can’t. Hmm? I can’t think of an example right now.
The state should only do for us what the county can’t. All the lovely, crumbling roads not owned by the Federal Government come to mind.
The Federal Government should only do for us what the states can’t. I don’t think teapot museums in New England count.
There is a glaring omission in this progressive system… World Government, but then who wants to talk world government in an anarchy topic?
Jeremy, your overpowering wit has done us in. Your superior application of education and common sense has shredded all arguments that dared step into the path of your great mind. (even though most of those postings weren’t logical arguments, they were merely discussions)
I’ll return and read your frequent gifts because I’ve become a dedicant to your intellectual prowess. I tremble before your keyboard, and shant give you further reason to unleash the spirit of destruction that any of my writings might accidentally incite within you.
I did, in fact, stay up the entire night. Now that’s what I call anarchy.
Untwisted – Not sure what I did to incure such sarcasm, but thanks for totally ending any chance for a real exchange of ideas. I guess you should thank me, though, for giving you another chance to feel like a victim. I hear it’s like a drug.
“E” was not an available choice. Please try again JP.
Well you asked a fallacious question, and so I felt compelled to respond with a non-fallacious answer. You can’t make a general statement that “all men are created equal” no matter how much you worship the founders of this country. That statement is a fallacy and was included in the Declaration of Independence for rhetorical purposes, not as a matter of fact.
For instance:
1) Men are not created, and neither are women. We are born,
2) Are women not equal?
3) All men, including slaves and minorities? Then how do you explain the continuation of slavery in the New American state?
But I digress. That’s a historical argument, and I think you’re trying to debate me on values. Which is an unwinnable argument. “Equal” is a relative term which means something quite different to each person, so I will keep my answer as “E”.
I didn’t use “created” once in my multiple choice question. Try again.
Sorry, I was transposing my polisci classes. Okay, remove everything I said about creation, and then argue. Semantics aside, you have to agree with my basic premise – “equal” is a construct and is meaningless outside of how we choose to define it.
What does this have to do with the present conversation, anyway?
You still won’t choose the one that screams at you. I’m afraid I can’t answer your question until you choose the one that best fits your view of things.
Sigh. D.
I’d have to say B.
It doesn’t have much if anything to do with the present conversation. I had you pegged as A though, and wanted to see which one you would choose for yourself. It’s not surprising that you went with the “safe” answer of D or your own…disappointing though.
I say “B”… what do I win?
I picked “Return to Top of Page” and won a Dove dark chocolate candy with a message that read, ‘Share our similarities, celebrate our differences.’
So I guess my flavor is dark chocolate.
Humor – Every time you celebrate a difference, you screw up all opportunity to have equal opportunity.
Alice – you win another GIANT Nag Champa purchase in about a month
.
Sorry humor but I’ll have to confiscate that dark chocolate. I suggest you surrender it quietly to prevent any unnecessary conflict!
About the original post: Anarchy can work if it is done right. You don’t have to overthrow the government. You just need to make them see that they cannot have complete control over you. And many anarchies have taken place withought a single weapon.
Why we need anarchy: When you as a citizen cannot work, own property, take care of your health, teach your children, worship who or what you want, or even speak your mind, without the government stepping in and telling you how you should or should not do it, we need anarchy. The government needs to be told by the people who elect or appoint them, that they must step back and give the control back to the citizens.
Farmers and subsidies: Most farmers are capable of growing different crops. Most do more than one thing at a time. Most do not need to be trained in something different. The only ones that aren’t pulling their own weight are the ones that are part of corporations. Why are there subsidies? Just another aspect of the government trying to control the citizens. Let nature take it’s course, and let the farmers use their best judgement on what they should plant. Why is the government paying farmers and ranchers money to not use portions of their land, or to not grow or raise certain things. Because they want complete CONTROL!
Could we do without our government? No. There are many good things that our governement does for us. Useable roads and interstates, opportunities to improve ourselves, defending our nation… I’m running out of things that are good. Anyway, the government is there to protect us as a people from foreign entities, and it is there to insure that we prosper. But it is not there to hold our hands and tell us everthing that we should do. We have brains, and emotions. We need to start using them. We are not children that need to be guided. We all have our different viewpoints. Let us come together as citizens of this great nation and join in a real discussion as ADULTS, and as people who are truly interested in the future of this amazing place in which we live.
Just a thought. I am not saying that I agree entirely with this comment, but it does make me think about it. What caused the failure of the banking system? Was it because there was not enough Government interference or because there was too much government interference?
The failure was due to the fact that too may idiots in the mortgage industry handed out home loans to people that couldn’t afford a home in the first place. Those lame loans where then sold to Fanny & Freddie who than sold them to other banking institutions. As people began to default on their loans the market began to crumble and it was basically a huge domino effect.
But what if there had been more government interference? Would the result have been the same? Would it not have happened? Or would it have been worse?
It would not have happened. Deregulation was ultimately responsible for the banking problem. Deregulation also created the havoc on Wall St.
But deregulation didn’t have a whole lot to do with the three quarters of a billion dollars our government has spent on the Iraq war.
So even without the financial problems caused by deregulation, our main problem was the fact that too much government screwed us by cranking up the good old American war machine one more time.
Banks and irresponsible loan takers were responsible for the banking problem. Government deregulation may have enabled the banks to take excess risk, but ultimately it falls on the shoulders of the morons that granted / took these loans.
$750,000,000 seems like chump change when compared to what the government is spending now…though I’m fairly certain that you meant 3/4 of a trillion rather than 3/4 of a billion.