On Anarchists
I recently admitted to discovering I was an anarchist, after worrying constantly that I’d lose all my readers because of it. Maybe I have. But read on to learn about my foray into the world of anarchism, however badly it started, and ended happily.
After admitting to myself that I held similar ideals as anarchists was myself an anarchist who chooses to work within the system, but hopes for small communities that are self governed, I decided to poke my head into some anarchist forums and meet some others like me.
The experience was both greatly disappointing as well as having a happy ending. The first forum I joined, turned out to be an “ancap” forum, basically anarchists who still want capitalism but no government to regulate said capitalism, which seems like a horrible idea to me. The second forum I joined was more general anarchist, and I politely introduced myself and began to share my thoughts.
I was shocked at the hostility, intolerance and plain stupidity spewing from the lips of several anarchists. The ideals are intelligent enough: mutual cooperation, true democracy, freedom, tolerance equality, all that jazz. But a great deal of the anarchists on the board seemed to only want to spew childish hatred towards a number of groups: liberals, conservatives, government, cops, BDSM practitioners for some odd reason, anyone who voted, and I didn’t bother reading past that. There was one thread where several anarchists proclaimed that BDSM was evil and could not be allowed in an anarchist society, which was idiotic–it was completely opposite of the goal of anarchism, which is freedom of personal choice. Obviously these people didn’t truly believe in the ideals they preached.
These same people insulted me and called me a murderer and a rapist for wanting to vote. Wait, what? I agree that the government is a violent and exploitative system, but it can also be helpful and it’s what we’ve got right now, and my reasoning is I may as well use it, because voting doesn’t hurt but it may help. And for some reason this made me a murderer, rapist, statist, “bringer of death and chaos”, someone who “aim[s] to be the new dominator”, racist (since apparently voting means I hate all non-Americans), and probably more. I was appalled. I simply wanted to vote to have my voice heard, and because I personally would prefer one candidate over another, even if little would change, but at least that change would be for the better.
I was called on to provide facts to back up my opinion that I wanted to vote, while my accuser simply threw insults at me and the government and relied on no facts themselves. Those of us who were intelligent and simply wanted to debate and discuss our ideas peacefully were fair game to be “pissed on” as one of our usual attackers put it.
I was just about to give up and keep my ideas to myself, when I found a delightful blog who’s viewpoints mostly mirrored my own (and was at least respectful and discussed things rather than screaming “Murderer!” to anyone they disagreed with). I made a few comments, and soon enough a fellow anarchist had emailed me, and we began to talk.
Several emails later, we knew quite a bit about each other and they pointed out a commune they were working on with others, an anarchist community to be founded on mutual cooperation, personal freedom, and self governing. I checked it out, and found my happy ending.
The anarchist crowd may be full of a disturbing amount of angry people who just want to smash things and hate, hate, hate anyone they disagree with, but there are those of us out there who really want to work hard towards a better future. Some of us are willing to work with the state, some of us aren’t–some of us want a communistic type of community, some want primitivism, some want capitalism…but at least we’re (mostly) respectful of eachother and willing to actually be constructive and work for it.
The community is pure gold. I just love the people who are forming it–all of them are civil and intelligent people willing to work hard physical and mental labor, willing to risk a lot, willing to take in the homeless and those running from hate groups like the KKK, willing to create a beautiful place where personal choice is respected and the freedoms we Americans think we have are truly honored. Maybe it will work, maybe it won’t. We may not be able to make it work, I’ll be realistic about it. But I’ve found others who are tolerant and respectful.
And when I say perfect, I really mean perfect. Vegetarianism is encouraged, but we will hunt our meat if we want it (which I think is fair compared to raising animals). Monogamous and polygamous relationships and people will be honored just as much as traditional ones, and regardless of gender. There’s a few D&D nerds, which absolutely psyched Will and I. There’s already 26 acres and it’s in the heart of a growing KKK territory, and we’re just about agreed on making ourselves known as a safe place for blacks to flee to if they need to (if we do decide to create a defensible community). We’re going as eco-friendly as possible. We’re trying to be independent and grow our own food. We’re all going to kick in and help–some of us can sew and teach others, some of us can build and teach others, some of us can organize, some can fish, some can create items to sell, some can grow food and teach others…
Say what you will about my anarchist ideals (as I’m guessing few of my readers have seen anything but the ranting and small minded sort of anarchist, and will simply leave my blog, which I’ve accepted as a risk for speaking my mind). I’m fine if you don’t agree with them, and I personally want to continue to be active in politics and continue to vote. I want to protest, I want to attend town hall meetings and see if they’ll let me in during state ones. I’m going to be more open about my beliefs, even if being an anarchist is considered a shameful and disgusting thing in this country. I’ll defend them and, if they are wrong, concede. But I’m happy because I’ve found others who just want to do something constructive and not control others, I’m happy because Will has been so accepting and even agreed with my being an anarchist, and I’m happy because admitting it to myself and believing in it has given me a sense of personal power and conviction that I have never had in my life.
You might lose some readers, but gain others. I was worried about how I would be judged when I became atheist, but I am atheist nonetheless. It wasn’t really so much a choice, as it was logic leading me to an inevitable conclusion. The same is with anarchism. I’m not sure what I am now actually, but leaning heavily towards social democracy, or social libertarianism (which some people call a form of anarchism). I am very anti-capitalist, so we either need to heavily regulate it or get rid of it. I may very well turn out to be an anarchist myself, of the social libertarian flavor (a la Noam Chomsky) – not to be confused with the anarcho-capitalist libertarians – I do not agree with unlimited capitalism at all. But I am definitely not hateful towards people who disagree – just like my atheism, it is my logic, not hatred, that leads me to my conclusions.
I totally agree that we need to vote in our current system. The only way to change things in a democracy, which is what we have, is to vote (and protest, etc). All these non-voting people are doing is making sure their point of view doesn’t count. Of course, our government is corrupt, and the media influences the many sheep we have in this country. That’s why people who actually pay attention to the issues really need to vote, to make sure we don’t end up with McCraphead as our next pres, for my personal example. And to try to stop greedy people from taking away our rights.
That’s kind of scary that the commune is in KKK territory, since that obviously means a lot intolerant, angry, idiotic, morons around, and I’m sure they wouldn’t be very happy with a community that openly protect the people they try to oppress. But of course I agree with the ideal of wanting to protect people against the KKK.
I’m happy for you and Will and I think that it is cool that you speak your mind and stay true to yourself. I do agree with you and love reading your blog. Good luck!
Thanks Joe. ;)
Yes, it appears I have lost almost all of my readers. Wondering if there’s a point in writing just for one person :P
Now that you have embraced anarchy, you will not be able to vote Democratic anymore since they are mutually exclusive. if you need a full explanation, this is a good one: Human Nature, Anarchy, and Capitalism – http://www.friesian.com/fallen.htm
I’m sorry Linda but who are you to tell me who I can and cannot vote for? I agree with anarchist ideals but as I’ve been getting a lot of heat from other anarchists for, yet still believe, I have a right to vote and a right to have a say in my government, whether I like the government or not.
I noticed you didn’t say Republican. Smooth, aren’t you?
How did you find your community? I’m interested in the option of joining one myself.
I posted a comment on Anarchy.net, and a fellow commenter emailed me, and we began talking. :) I had been searching for a while on Intentional Communities (should just be intentionalcommunities.org or .com) but with no luck. And when I gave up looking, one came right to me! :)
Where do you live? The members have been talking about other apparently well respected and successful communes. There’s not many but they are out there.
I’m not telling you what to do, I’m telling you what would be inconsistent philosophically. You can shit in a bowl and eat it for breakfast if you want to, obviously. The Libertarian Party would be more closely aligned than would be the Republican Party. Smooth. Yeah.
I actually don’t think there is anything inconsistent in an anarchist voting. It sounds kind of like an oxymoron, but it isn’t. It is fully possible and logically consistent to hold anarchist ideals, but recognize that we live in a democracy and participate in the system that we have, because like it or not, anarchists are still subject to our system of government. One who does not speak his/her voice within the system that controls him/her, is a slave. Being a slave is the opposite of what an anarchist wants. Nobody wants to be a slave.
I am voting for Obama, not because I think he’s the best person in all of America for the job, but he’s the best shot at keeping McBushAgain out of office. I hold my ideals at the same time as accepting reality. I act to try to change reality to align with my ideals. Obama does not represent my ideals, but he is closer than McCain. Blue’s logic is sound.
Joe, you are right. Linda, if someone is a communist does that mean they cannot participate in the current form of government and economic system? No, it means they’re going to hate it while they do.
thanks Joe. ;)
Joe (comment #2) already said pretty much everything that came to mind as I read your post…but the word “ditto” will never escape my lips.
Be who you are, live as you wish, and write what you want to…you may wind up with fewer readers, but they’ll be ones better suited to you. [insert aphorism about wheat and chaff here] YMMV, but that’s been my experience as an outspoken liberal/atheist/etc. blogger.
BTW, I love that “Zombie Jesus” cartoon in your photos at Atheist Nexus…where did it come from?
Not sure. I think lolgod.blogger.com, probably. :)
Thanks…I’ll have to look around over there. (I checked out LOL Theist, but the closest I found was this one.
I wasn’t talking about voting and I never said you shouldn’t vote. I was referring to the philosophical underpinnings of the party platforms! At this point, I’m not even sure you guys know that each party has a platform, so here’s a definition:
A party platform, also known as a manifesto, is a list of the principles which a political party supports in order to appeal to the general public for the purpose of having said party’s candidates voted into office. This often takes the form of a list of support for, or opposition to, controversial topics. Individual topics are often called planks of the platform.
The platforms themselves can be found here:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php
If you guys all want to advocate positions here and then go take actions that are contradictory to those ideas, you can. But I don’t see the point.
As a voter, I’d prefer my vote to actually make a difference. If I vote non-republican or non-democratic, its basically not going to be counted, because of the way our government is.
So, it basically leaves me a choice…Democrat or Republican? The Democratic party’s platform is closer to what changes I want, and though exactly what I want isn’t going to happen I may as well vote for a side which will bring about better changes instead of worse ones, like the Republicans.
Redistribution of wealth is the core principle of the Democratic Party (i.e. “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” –Karl Marx).
“When government is entrusted with the “redistribution” of wealth, no one should be surprised that the wealth straightaway is used to buy votes, to reward interest groups, to bribe constituencies, and to pay off friends — not to mention to honor “public servants” with the style of life of which they think they are worthy.
Some people accept this corruption because they are deceived by the moralistic rhetoric that accompanies it (that the “self-interest” of the rich is replaced by the “public spirit” of the politicians); but it is more likely that the rhetoric is waved through more because people are satisfied with their share of the loot.” –Prof. Kelley Ross
And the Republican party would rather that money be used to fight gay marriage, wage wars, torture humans, and profit off of oil companies. I chose the lesser evil.
(Oh, and have Viagra be paid for by insurance companies instead of birth control…no thanks!)
Historical review of U.S. Presidents taking us to war:
WWI (1917; 116,708 KIA) – Woodrow Wilson (D)
WWII (1941; 408,306 KIA) – Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
Korean War (1950; 54,246 KIA) – Harry S. Truman (D)
Vietnam War (1965; 58,159 KIA) – Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
Unlike birth control, Viagra treats a medical condition.
Republicans want MUCH less of your money for taxes than the Democrats. How that tax money is actually used is voted on by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
And the fact remains that the Democratic Party is 180 degrees opposite of what anarchy stands for.
Right, and that just changes the fact that it was Bush that lied us into this war, and McCain who is eager to stay in it? How exactly does that work?
If we’re going to have government, I would prefer higher taxes to be honest. Universal healthcare, better education, those kinds of things cost money in the corporate society we live in today. I’d rather pay those taxes under a Democrat’s rules than not pay them and watch as more children and more poor people go without healthcare. Not to mention those WITH healthcare, who either have to deal with their healthcare “providers” not paying for their expenses and trying to weasel out of it or letting them die (thanks, capitalism). I’d much rather all children have far better public education instead of only children in rich families getting good education.
Again, it’s a case of lesser evil, and while Republicans and Democrats are both anti-anarchist, liberal ideals are closer to what I want. I don’t want my tax money being spend for some church to fight against gay marriage. I don’t want my tax money to be wasted on the war. And I’d rather pay taxes for good things than a few taxes for bad things. Get my point?
As to Viagra and birth control: Where’d you hear that from, Bill O’Reilly? That’s rich. Birth control may not be a “medical condition” (since when was getting pregnant without wanting to considered not medical?), but it applies to all people, men and women, and gives them a choice. Viagra just allows mostly old men to get erections. Plain and simple. It may be a medical condition but I seriously doubt a poor old guy not getting to screw some young chick is really as bad as a young person not being able to afford birth control and having to have kids.
And no, sorry, the Democratic party isn’t opposite of anarchism–authoritarianism is the opposite of anarchism. And you can thank Bush and his lousy administration for bringing that to our country.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm
If Bush lied, then every major world leader lied, and all the Democrats as well. Investigations here and abroad found nothing other than bad intelligence all over the world. However, the people of Halabja (1988) were killed with chemicals by Saddam…and satellite photos show convoys going into Syria just before we invaded.
But I’d love to hear how much you like having a lot of your money taken from you…if and when you get a job and/or have your own business. Meanwhile, as I am self-employed, I must end this and take care of business.
I don’t live having my money taken from me, but again I’d rather it go to some things than others. Republicans prefer to give tax cuts to the rich, while Democrats prefer giving tax cuts to lower class, so would I really be doing so badly?
It’s funny that you mention Saddam using chemicals to kill people. Ironic, isn’t it, that Bush’s daddy gave him the chemicals to kill Kurds.
I do not think anarchy is a sustainable form of government.. or.. non-government. I believe in an anarchy, some like-minded people in or around the community will form into gangs and people will shy away from standing up to them. Eventually a gang will become the government.. and it wont be a democracy.
I agree Alz. Like every idealogy, anarchism has it’s problems. Consider this: under a “purely” and stereotypical anarchist society, one person would be able to enslave another in various ways and it would not be against the law, because there is no law, and there would be no one to enforce it. So obviously this stereotypical example of an anarchist society is not really anarchist at all.
However, consider this. IMO a true anarchist society can only come about through careful planning, intentional communities, agreed on values to uphold (within those communities), and agreements on how to uphold those values.
For example, instead of laws, the anarchist commune I’ll be joining will be simply agreeing on several values, like freedom. Without laws, there is more personal freedom and room for situations, but if someone blatantly strikes at that value (by enslaving someone, for example), the rest of the group will take action.
I think in an anarchist society, people would be less likely to just stand back and watch as their rights are torn away. Here in America it is very easy to do so because we are distanced from events, distanced from decision making, and we have police officers to do our job for us. Instead of solving our own problems (like during a neighborhood dispute) we turn to the police. In an anarchist society we would rely on eachother far more and have to learn to solve our own problems.
I don’t think anarchism means /exactly/ no government, it’s a misleading definition. Most anarchists, including myself, believe in small groups where everyone has a say in decisions about the community (like what to produce together, what to build, etc). This isn’t government so much as people choosing to work together.
Hope that clears thing up a bit. :)
Though, thank you for being respectful even though you disagree. I can certainly see why people don’t think it will work and I really don’t blame you. But that you were respectful and polite, unlike many people, really is refreshing. So thank you!
Both parties play the game of channeling taxpayer dollars into the special interests that support them. Saying that republicans want less of your money is deceptive. So is saying that democrats want to redistribute wealth. Sorry kids, they BOTH want your tax dollars to go to their special interests. Personally, I’d rather those dollars go to healthcare and infrastructure (like roads) than war profiteers and religious fundies (since those are really my only two choices).
That list of “presidents who led us into war” is totally misleading. The US has been continuously using its military since the end of WW2. Find a president since WW2 that HASN’T sent the military into combat operations! (Hint: you won’t find one). Cherry picking the facts to suit your needs doesn’t make a solid argument – although it will fool some people.
Yes, McCain said this just the other day – practically word for word. Congrats Linda, you’ve regurgitated a republican talking point. How does it feel to be a ventriloquist’s dummy?
It’s a totally laughable point anyway. For one, hormonal birth control treats many medical conditions. My daughter has been using it since she was 14 for one of those reasons – not because of some “lifestyle choice” – so I find your ignorance offensive. Do some homework, Linda.
And to redirect to the original post…
Honestly Yvette, this whole anarchy thing … it’s just another example of in-group/out-group thinking. There’s something about human nature that makes us clump into groups, give ourselves labels, and then prop ourselves up by decrying the horribleness of the “out-group.” People make themselves feel better by hating other people. It creates racial tension, extreme nationalism, religious hatred, and so much more, all the way down to hating people who like a different sports team, or different music.
People need to be members of groups. We need support structures, so we conform to the parameters of the group. The groups mold out beliefs. And ultimately we declare that out group is better than all the others.
You can start research on this phenomena here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgroup_(sociology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_identity_theory
In-group/out-group phenomena describes the hatred and hostility you encountered on the various forums. The in-group has it’s rules and practices. Anything outside of those rules is subject to contempt, hatred, and violence. Allowing these foreign ideas into the group contaminates their purity! Specifically, it makes the boundary between US and THEM fuzzy.
Of course your pleasant outcome is just you finding your own in-group. You’ve discovered a community support structure that makes you feel welcome. You feel like you belong. That you have value.
Just be very cautious. Your in-group will define it’s own out-group. It’s easy to slip into spewing dogmatic hatred of the out-group. You’re already talking about a “defensible community” – so you’re literally separating yourselves from the rest of the world already. Are you planning on stashing weapons? Oh yes, to hunt for food. But in a “defensible community” you might be expected to use those weapons when the OUTSIDERS come for you right?
You’re free to make your own decisions and lead your own life, but there are some red flags that are cause for concern.
Sniff around and see if this group has a “leader”. If said leader has multiple “wives”, start running and don’t look back!
Lol Paul. Great comment :P
And no, no leaders. We’ve been all voting on things and there’s a lot of different sorts of people, from D&D nerds to gays to peacelovers to hunters. We actually are planning on becoming a sanctuary for those running from the KKK, for example, since Iowa has a rising amount of KKK members. We’re not really decided on the matter, yet, as most of us want to defend them but don’t want guns.
Also: I’m not really liked by anyone in the “in group” of anarchists. I don’t agree with most of them, and I can’t really go without applying a label to my ideals, so I apply all of the ones that apply. Anarchism just happens to be one of them now.
Ack…another thing! *facepalms*
Actually, that cult thing Paul that you’re thinking we might be, we really aren’t. There’s no religious association, and we aren’t “us vs them” or defending against “outsiders”. We’re actually planning on becoming actively engaged with the community around us, inviting them in as well as going out, from letting people come in and decorate (via graffiti!) to living there temporarily, providing food and shelter to the homeless, selling food and crafts at flea markets and fairs, and even just going out if we feel like it. No restrictions on who you want to sleep with, talk to, be friends with, etc. Kind of the nice thing about being a mostly anarchist group. :)
Lol Paul. Great comment :P
Thanks. I try to be useful.
Actually, that cult thing Paul that you’re thinking we might be, we really aren’t. There’s no religious association
Cults don’t need religion, but they often become them. All a cult needs is a charismatic leader, and a bunch of followers.
Humans display a lot of herd/pack tendencies. When they clump into groups it’s only a matter of time before an alpha dog appears and the others start following.
The problem with anarchy is that it doesn’t scale up. The more people you add to the dynamic, the more complicated the situation becomes. Sooner or later one has to introduce rules to avoid conflict – even if it’s just traffic laws.
That’s true Paul. One person suggested becoming a religion instead of having rules, but it got shot down REALLY quickly.
We plan to only stay around 20 people or so. No more than we can sustain, and and once we get settled, we aren’t going to go actively recruiting…if someone comes in and wants to join, and we’re convinced they aren’t a psycho, they’ll be able to join and leave when they want.
Hi Yvette,
I was lurking on one of the forums you mentioned, the one with the disturbing anti-BDSM thread. (And wrote a response on my blog, if you’re at all interested…subversivesub.wordpress.com.)
I just wanted to say that most anarchist communities on the internet should really be taken with a grain of salt, IMO. Many of them — like the forum I just referenced — are filled with trolls and a lot of people who have no idea what they’re talking about. Don’t get too discouraged, and I’d suggest looking around a lot more (including reading some anarchist history and theory, as well as finding some local anarchist groups to talk to, if there are any) before diving into anything or forming your perceptions of what the larger anarchist scene is like in the US. It’s pretty varied, and the “in-groups” you may have encountered online are probably significantly different from anarchist circles off-line.
…you’ll probably still find a lot of people who disagree with you, of course, but it’s less likely that they’ll be total jerks to you about it. :)
After some thought, I think my idea of anarchism may have been off. With my beliefs the way that they are, I may actually be one at heart.
Wow, why the change? :P
I’m liberal so I tend to flip-flop on my decisions :P
It’s better to be able to change your mind when presented with a good argument or evidence than to refuse to ever change your mind :P
Lolwut?
When did the US Democrat party become Communist? Can you be any more intellectually dishonest?
Just to respond to one Yvettes earlier comments. The reason we have gaps in Health Care is because of TOO MUCH Government involvement. Not because there isn’t enough involvement. In like 1970 or 1971 Congress passed and Richard Nixon (A REPUBLICAN LINDA!) signed the HMO Act which basically abolished real competition in Health Care, made private practice for all intensive purposes ILLEGAL, and resulted in Government created cartels known as HMOs. Sound familar?
The answer to the shortage of Health Care is for the Government to get out of it and everything else for that matter.
As this wise young man said in this video I recently emailed to several friends:
“When the Free Market is allowed to create a solution, as it mostly is for Computers, The Internet, and Food, it responds with an abundance of products, in a number of differentiating ways, with lots of choices and additional services.”
“When the Government handles food, you get bread lines, and of course, men with guns.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yxjNAt_Jdk
If we simply use this as an REAL LIFE example (not theory) is it really unreasonable to conclude that absent a State monopoly in these services we would have an abundance of options for Defense, Law, and Police as well?
So the real question which all Anarchists ask those who do not agree with them is as follows:
Would society be better off without a State?
Clearly we are better off when they mostly don’t interfere with the provision of Computers, The Internet, and food.
Is it really a stretch to think that we’d be better off if we had an abundance of options for Defense, Law, and Police?
I really don’t think so.
I seriously doubt the healthcare industries would work in the interests of their consumers. If we’re going to have government, then it should at least help it’s people out.
I’m of the opinion that freedom and life are rights, not privileges, and regardless of money, they should never be denied to anyone unless they have taken the rights of life or freedom from another, and even then its debatable whether to take life or freedom. But anyways…
Why do healthcare companies, why do the rich have any right to decide who lives and dies? Why is someone who is poor any less deserving of the best healthcare than someone who is rich?
Businesses never run themselves with the interests of the consumer in mind. You use the internet as an example of free market, but at best it is an example of a semi-regulated resource whose access is given only to those who pay, or can get to a library. It’s more like water: a resources which should be free, but you only “get” to choose between not using it, using it and paying for it, and buying it in bottles for a different price. That’s not freedom, and the companies that regulate that resource we all have a right to are not going to work in your best interests. If left unregulated, and allowed to compete freely, they would likely add certain drugs to their water to make you want theirs, or like some companies have done, add salt to their water to make you more thirsty. But when they do this, there is no one to tell them they can’t, and you have no other options because most likely either every other company is doing it, has been bought out, or is too expensive.
Capitalism is no different than government, the only difference is corporations are the kind of State that you get NO say in, while governments, you get SOME say in.
Yvette, You’ve got it backwards. Are you FORCED to do business with a Corporation? No. Are you forced to do business with Government? YES! If you can walk away when a Corporation doesn’t respect you as a consumer but CANNOT reject Government when it does you wrong is this REALLY a voice?? Much of the problems you speak of is exactly BECAUSE the State offers political cover for Corporations that simply wouldn’t be there in a truly Free Market. The Government DOESNT help the people out. Need I remind you of what happened with the Natural disaster of Hurricane Katrina? Yeah, that natural disaster in which the Government did EVERYTHING it could to make things WORSE? It mismanaged the levees, it used it’s guns on private initiatives to provide assistance, and generally made a mess of things.
“Mother Nature can be cruel, but even at her worst, she is no match for government. It was the glorified public sector, the one we are always told is protecting us, that is responsible for this. And though our public servants and a sycophantic media will do their darn best to present this calamity as an act of nature, it was not and is not. Katrina came and went with far less damage than anyone expected. It was the failure of the public infrastructure and the response to it that brought down civilization.”
“Only the public sector can preside over a situation this precarious and display utter and complete inertia. What do these people have to lose? They are not real owners. There are no profits or losses at stake. They do not have to answer to risk-obsessed insurance companies who insist on premiums matching even the most remote contingencies. So long as it seems to work, they are glad to go about their business in the soporific style famous to all public sectors everywhere.”–”The State and the Flood” by Lew Rockwell
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/flood.html
These people were already living in substandard conditions in spite of the HUGE budgets these people (bureaucrats) are given to take care of these people.
The answer to improving their lives is NOT to give them handouts as this will NEVER make them self sufficient which IS BTW the greatest gift you can give to someone who is poor. Incentivise them to stand on their own two feet. This is NOT what Government programs do.
“If you want freedom for you, but not for others, you’re a hypocrite. If your idea of liberty is when the free government handouts go the people you think deserve them, you’re still supporting naked theft. If you’re concerned that [place racial designation here] people just can’t make it without help, your concern is duly noted, but your condescension is insulting. (If you want to support worthy causes or needy people, I commend you. Feel free to use your money, not someone else’s.) I’ll take my chances either way.”–Having an Agenda: the Black Libertarian’s Biggest Fear? by Wilton D. Alston
http://www.lewrockwell.com/alston/alston47.html
Wilton is a Black Anarchist BTW. ;-)
Here is his archive:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/alston/alston-arch.html
Enjoy!
Eh, calm down.
I disagree with your first assertion in your post. In order to get resources which you need to survive, you have to get it from a business (or work for a business to have the money to buy it for yourself…if you’re REALLY lucky). Let’s say you need water. Well, the corporations, unchecked by government or by the people, own all of the water. You are FORCED to do business. Whereas with governments, at the /very/ least you can move to a country where the water is free.