• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

I am an atheist anarchist

Axioma

Eccentric, Culture Ulterior (Absconded)
Aug 10, 2008
1,272
171
39
✟24,776.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Well, the definition of anarchy I've heard that sounds appealing, if not very easy to achieve, is that it is simply the elimination of hierarchy. You can have everything you want, socially, so long as it doesn't include one human being better than any other human.

Personally, I can't see how we'd ever reach that without some major heavy duty technological revolutions, like say handheld infinite energy generators and perfected nanotechnology constructors.
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
58
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟126,756.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Well, its funny. I find when I present constructs that demonstrate why God exists, they are disregarded in exchange for hard evidence. When I provide hard evidence of some kind of intelligence, it is disregarded as being attributable to chance, then people disbelieve in God due to a lack of evidence. Couldn't I believe my computer and internet connection is a result of chance and thusly disbelieve in Dell and AT&T?

Not really, since we have knowledge of how computers are assembled and how internet connections function, so evidence that Dell and AT&T exist aren't at all like arguments for the existence of God. We can go to the Dell assembly lines and see computers put together, or see AT&T install Internet communication lines, for instance.

If you could produce evidence of an assembly line where angels had constructed stars and then shipped them into the universe to move them into place, then you would be presenting a similar argument. So far, supernatural powers of creation are not explained at all -- other than "Goddidit".


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

Vigilante

Cherry 7-Up is still the best
Oct 19, 2006
469
29
In limbo
✟23,372.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Well, the definition of anarchy I've heard that sounds appealing, if not very easy to achieve, is that it is simply the elimination of hierarchy.

Wouldn't you prefer, ceteris paribus, to have those most skilled at anticipating consumer demands, and allocating capital accordingly, in possession of the most capital? Seems to me that would promote a greater standard of living.

With the territorial, monopolizing violence that the State is predicated on excluded as it is in anarchy, this would be much like Eudaimonist's Robonsonian "anarcho"-capitalism (others might just call it "libertarianism without hypocrisy" or "voluntaryism").
 
Upvote 0

RichardT

Contributor
Sep 17, 2005
6,642
195
35
Toronto Ontario
✟30,599.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
Single
These artificial systems of organizing humans are based on myths, fairy tales (narratives) and outright falsehoods. I find zero truth value in anything political and anything religious. I tend to know what I want and I tend to know how to get it without anyone telling me explicitly how, or forcing me on a particular path.

The idea that we can make a psychic connection with a supernatural being by partaking in rituals and absorbing mind numbing dogma is insanity personified. Likewise, the idea that we must obey documents called "social contracts" and attempt to live our lives in accordance with principles of 'fairness' and 'justice' by forking over huge sums of money & resources to men we often never met a day in our life, is also insane. The heroes of society are moneyed, perverted, backstabbing vultures in suits with flag pins, selling us the path to some Platonic form of justice/fairness/security, and men wearing robes, walking around babbling to themselves about some vague, shriveled concept called 'god.' When will the madness end?
This sums up what I believe as well. I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one around here who seems to think this. I'm an atheist agorist "anarcho-capitalist"(put in brackets because it's the truest form of anarchy) voluntarism. I've read Rothbard, Konkin, Mises, Molyneux, and others.

Some e-books that are really worth reading:

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto
What Has Government Done to Our Money?
The New Libertarian Manifesto

etc...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mystman

Atheist with a Reason
Jun 24, 2005
4,245
295
✟29,786.00
Faith
Atheist
This sums up what I believe as well. I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one around here who seems to think this. I'm an atheist agorist "anarcho-capitalist"(put in brackets because it's the truest form of anarchy) voluntarism. I've read Rothbard, Konkin, Mises, Molyneux, and others.

Wait. Didn't you use to be a geocentrist young earth creationist?

Could you tell what caused this pretty big shift in life-view? (I think it's relevant to the thread, and I'm honestly interested :)).

(If I'm confusing you with someone else: my apologies -_-)
 
Upvote 0
T

Tenka

Guest
Upvote 0

RichardT

Contributor
Sep 17, 2005
6,642
195
35
Toronto Ontario
✟30,599.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

Mystman

Atheist with a Reason
Jun 24, 2005
4,245
295
✟29,786.00
Faith
Atheist

That's a good post. :)

Did your current anarchist views come as a (in)direct result of your deconversion? Or was anarchism something that you already investigated before your deconversion?

And a bit of a side-question:
You list a number of libertarian/anarchist writers; have you also read similar sized works that advocated other political systems, or that presented well-thought out critiques of libertarianism/anarchism?
 
Upvote 0

Vigilante

Cherry 7-Up is still the best
Oct 19, 2006
469
29
In limbo
✟23,372.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
I am a level 15 atheist wielding the mundane broadsword Skepticus, I have journeyed far east on my quest to avoid god and battled foes such as the banana.

I've yet to defeat a banana in battle. They're just too strong...


ignorance-poster.jpg
 
Upvote 0

RichardT

Contributor
Sep 17, 2005
6,642
195
35
Toronto Ontario
✟30,599.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
Single
That's a good post. :)

Did your current anarchist views come as a (in)direct result of your deconversion? Or was anarchism something that you already investigated before your deconversion?

As a Christian fundamentalist I always thought that the only political option that I had was conservatism. Once I've let go of Creationism, and finally Christianity, I thought I would explore alternatives. My anarchist views are an indirect result of my deconversion.

You list a number of libertarian/anarchist writers; have you also read similar sized works that advocated other political systems, or that presented well-thought out critiques of libertarianism/anarchism?
Yes. I've read A Non-Libertarian FAQ and honestly didn't find the arguments convincing. I could go over all of his criticisms and disagree with most of what he has to say within reason.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html

And I've also read the many rebuttals to Huben.

http://www.impel.com/liblib/NNLFAQ.html
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/response_to_huben.html

I've read the anarchist FAQ's (they are anarcho-syndicalists) critique of "anarcho-capitalism".

http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/1931/secFcon.html

Didn't find it very convincing and went on to read the response to it

http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/rg-anarcho-cap.html

If you have any questions or specific objections to what I believe, please feel free to reply and ask me anything.

I don't believe that when a worker agrees to a wage from an "employer" that that is abusive in anyway. The worker can always choose to work for anyone else and that is the beauty of competition in the free market.
 
Upvote 0
N

Nathan45

Guest
Here's the problem i see with anarchism:

If there are no laws, then there are no laws against creating laws, nor are there laws against enforcing the arbitrary laws you created. If people are free to do whatever they want, then they're also free to oppress others.

You could say, "They're free to do anything except oppress others", except who would enforce that, other than an "oppressive" government?

If you get rid of the government or severely restrict it's power, what you end up with is a power vacuum which is always filled; In the game of life, 5 people are stronger than one person. Furthermore, 25 people are stronger than 5. People who organize in larger groups, can successfully oppress people who are not a member of the group.

The government is basically the strongest group of thugs in the country, but If you arn't ruled by the government, who is going to protect you from local thugs? that's the problem of the power, you're always going to have someone in power, simply because people who group together are stronger than ones who go alone, especially when there are no laws. So that's what i mean when i say, anarchy is a power vacuum, if there was no government, criminal organizations would take over the country very quickly and no matter how much you dislike uncle Sam you'd rather have him running things than them.

So, I prefer democratic government to anarchy. The stated goal of the government is to safeguard liberty and democracy and provide for the general welfare of it's citizens. The government is only allowed to do certain things, or other parts of the government will keep it in check. In comparison, the local anarchistic thugs, are accountable to no one.
 
Upvote 0
N

Nathan45

Guest
I also think that pure capitalism ultimately leads to oligarchy. I am not opposed to a free market but i think that the market needs to be tempered by government regulation, an active public sector and a highly progressive tax structure.

Simply put, in a capitalist system, money is power. "Power" is at it's base level, simply the ability to make other people do what you want. Money fulfills this very well. High concentrations of money will lead to high concentrations of power, which can be used to buy the government and are a threat to liberty and democracy. In addition, it's a lot easier to make money if you already have a ton of it. If i had 10 million dollars, i could put it in some banks, and do absolutely nothing for the rest of my life except live off interest. So i reject this idea that people who are wealthy are the best producers and deserve it... a lot of people are rich because they inherited it and then stayed rich because they invested it.

So that's why i support a progessive tax structure..... in the 50s under eisenhower, if you made more than 400k a year, the government took 91% of the excess... right now the top bracket tax rate is undere 40%... i think we need to add a new top bracket at about 2 million + annual income and put it at about 80%... so the government would take 80% of all income over 2 million. ( really, if you're making 2 million a year you're doing it because you're manipulating money not because you're actually worth that much. ). I also think there needs to be a pretty steep inheritance tax which should go into effect at about 10 million ... obviously don't take all of it but what is with these republicans and their talk about no "Death tax". Really, if your parents leave you 100 million bucks did you earn that money? No? then why can't the government tax it?

So i think two things: 1) People who work hard in private industry should be able to get ahead and live very comfortably... however at some point ( say, when they're earning over 2 million a year ) we need to start taxing the hell out of them because once you have too much money you can basically just bribe your way to even more money/more power.

I strongly agree that private corporations operating for profit, are more efficient than the government at many things. However there are a quite a few things that the private markets simply won't do or can't do as well as the government:

1) Education. I think it is fundamental that everyone be properly educated. I don't see how we can have a democracy if the citizens, who have to vote, are uneducated. Therefore I think that everyone is entitled to some basic level of education.

2) Police/Fire/Health. I can't imagine how a for-profit fire department would work. Would they not put out the fire if you didn't pay? i mean, really: If they don't put out fires, the fires are just going to spread to other buildings. So you either have A) much worse fires or B) Freeloader problem. Generally speaking, what is their business model? i can't think of any possible business model that would work for firefighters, except on contract from the government. I also think that the government should provide free some basic level of health care... i'm not talking about full health care like expensive treatments, just really basic stuff like vaccinations or emergency services. If everyone is not vaccinated, diseases spread easier. there's a certain critical mass level among the population, where if enough % of the people are vaccinated, the disease can't spread. But if enough people arn't vaccinated, then the disease can spread easier. So i think that vaccinations are something the government should mandate. I also think that emergency services should be provided by the government because i think that when someone is in a medical emergency they should not have to worry about getting ripped off by their medical provider... i think that cost should be the last thing on their mind. I also dislike insurance companies to solve these kinds of problem, because they charge you lots of money and then once a problem hits they point to some fine print in a contract and say "we don't cover this", and they make money by denying you claims.

3) Military for obvious reasons. The military obviously should not be a private enterprise it should be accountable to the democratic government. I also think that the military industrial complex, IE the people who build bombs, tanks and military weapons, ought to be federalized for a couple of reasons:
a) I don't think it's a good idea to have someone's livelyhood depend on whether the country goes to war or not. As it currently stands, whenever the country goes to war some military industrial companies get some fat contracts and when we don't go to war and buy their guns they lose a lot of money. So i think it should be federalized so that these people have stable income and also have no interest in lobbying the government into starting some war giving them some contract.
b) I don't see the advantage of being a private enterprise on this since they only have one customer, the government, which isn't rational like a normal customer. I dont' see how competition is really helpful in this case. It seems to me that contracts go to the people who have the most connections and government agents are inherently corruptible. So, basically you have a competition to see who can best bribe the government. Also, if the government doens't buy your stuff, who will? it seems like you just wasted your time if you don't get that contract from uncle sam. This just seems like the wrong industry for the free market to work in, I think the military industrial complex should just work on salary for the government and they should be run by generals, and not work as separate private companies on contract.

4) Scientific research and space exploration.
I don't think there's a lot of incentive for private companies to do scientific research due to the freeloader effect... whoever discovers something, helps everyone, not just themselves. so might as well wait for someone else to discover it and you'd be in just as good a position to make a killing off of it as them. We do have a patenting system however i think our patent system is broken as people patent anything and everything and it just causes a bunch of lawsuits and hinders innovation cause youv'e got to make sure someone else didn't "think" of that obvious thing before you did. although i'm getting off topic.

I also think the government should do scientific research because new discoveries and technologies have a tendency to overhaul existing organizational structures which private companies do not want... Let's take a hypothetical example:

A private health care company that treats cancer patients and gives help for cancer... They may know a lot about the subject, but they have no incentive to actually cure cancer. that would be like killing the goose that lays the golden egg for them. If someone made a simple 5$ pill that would cure cancer, it would completely shut them out of business. They'd be bankrupt. Private companies reallly have reverse incentive towards scientific research, because in some cases, research can completely destroy their business models.

I also think that the government should do space travel/exploration because i think that's something we ought to be doing as a civilization and it's too risky for private companies at least until someone gets a foothold. I think that in some point in the future we ought to have space colonies everywhere, but i don't see how this can ever really be profitable because the point of a space colony is to live somewhere else and what could you possibly ship back to earth that would be worth the money? I guess in some limited cases it could be worth it like maybe asteroid mining could be made to be profitable in the future but i don't see private companies leading the charge on space exploration.

5) Environmental protection. This goes without saying, private companies need regulation on this... if it saves them money to dump chemicals into a river or chemicals or massive ammounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, where we all have to drink it and breathe it and weather it due to climate change, or to dump toxic crap in a landfill which seeps into the ground water, there needs to be someone there to tell them HELL NO. Really this isn't much different than law enforcement. It's illegal for me to crap on the sidewalk for obvious reasons, i'd get arrested, so why should it be legal for private corporations to dump toxic crap into rivers or landfills without proper disposal or start unloading carbon dioxide into the atmosphere without taking any back out? Really, people, clean up your own mess, the government needs to regulate private industry in a way that keeps them from turning the country into an overheated toxic dump, this isn't any different from law enforcement.

... ok that was a long rant.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mystman
Upvote 0
N

Nathan45

Guest
Have you actually read any anarcho-capitalist literature (if so, what was the title of the book(s) or essay(s)?)?

Or are you just critiquing hearsay?

Criticizing hearsay pretty much. does "anarchy" not mean what i think it means?

edit: anyways the original poster did not identify as anarcho-capitalist, just strait anarchist.
 
Upvote 0

Vigilante

Cherry 7-Up is still the best
Oct 19, 2006
469
29
In limbo
✟23,372.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Criticizing hearsay pretty much. does "anarchy" not mean what i think it means?

edit: anyways the original poster did not identify as anarcho-capitalist, just strait anarchist.

The definition of "anarchism" depends on who you ask. Most collectivist anarchists (anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-communists, et al) and the mutualist brand of individualist anarchists will tell you "real anarchism" is the absence of hierarchy or archons (the latter of which are presupposed by hierarchies). Hence anarchy. Due to some quibbles in the field of economics with the anarcho-capitalists, just who qualifies as an "archon" and who doesn't isn't pinned down (both will tell you that it really is pinned down and the other side is clearly wrong).

Anarcho-capitalists, probably the most prevalent of the individualist anarchists, will tell you "real anarchism" is the application of the non-aggression principle (NAP), which states (roughly) that no individual or group of individuals has the right to initiate force or the threat thereof against any other individual or group of individuals. With no one violating this right, the State, the premiere institution that feeds on initiatory violence and the threats thereof, simply disappears. Thus, anarchism.

For what it's worth, I started in the Republican Party, moved to the Libertarian Party, moved to anarcho-capitalism, and now I'm just "Other." I've found problems with almost everything with a label. Regarding the aforementioned economic "quibble," I agree with the an-caps that the labor theory of value held by many collectivists is a wash, and that the subjectivist-marginalist revolution of the mid-19th century has yet to be substantively improved on (to the best of my knowledge).

On the other hand, I think the an-cap's NAP--and the principle of self-ownership from which it derives--is, as an allegedly comprehensive ethic, an exercise in vulgarity and nearsightedness.

To wit, I've looked under a lot of political mattresses and come to the conclusion that Jesus had it right the first time and nobody has since made any substantial improvements.

Love, forgiveness, nonviolence and respect ftw.
 
Upvote 0
N

Nathan45

Guest
Anarcho-capitalists, probably the most prevalent of the individualist anarchists, will tell you "real anarchism" is the application of the non-aggression principle (NAP), which states (roughly) that no individual or group of individuals has the right to initiate force or the threat thereof against any other individual or group of individuals. With no one violating this right, the State, the premiere institution that feeds on initiatory violence and the threats thereof, simply disappears. Thus, anarchism.

I think that all of my original criticisms of anarchy still stand if this is your definition of anarcho-capitalism. Simply, who enforces the NAP? It seems to be completely unenforcable. There will always be thugs, there will always be bullies in life. Making a principle stating "nobody should be aggressive towards anyone else"... that's not going to work, bullies and thugs don't give a damned about your principles. The only way to get rid of a thug is to find a bigger thug, I.E. the government.
 
Upvote 0

RichardT

Contributor
Sep 17, 2005
6,642
195
35
Toronto Ontario
✟30,599.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
Single
If there are no laws

There is one law in Anarchy, and that is that no person or group of persons may initiate the use of force against another individual or group of individuals. As soon as a person or group of persons has been allowed to do this, we no longer have anarchy but government.

then there are no laws against creating laws, nor are there laws against enforcing the arbitrary laws you created.

In a stateless society people will be able to decide to have voluntary contracts with any competing dispute resolution organization[DRO] who themselves have connections with private police forces rather than to be forced to pay and accept the authority of the ultimate monopoly of power. The better DROs are the ones that the people tend to like and will live due to the fact that people continue to support them financially.

If people are free to do whatever they want, then they're also free to oppress others.

No. If people are evil and wish to oppress others then the greatest solution that we have at our disposal is a competing set of powers through anarchy. The DROs that people have supported financially will not oppress their customers because they know that if they did that, their reputation would be ruined and their business would immediately be taken over by an honest DRO.

I'll get on with your other post. I will answer to the 5 objections that you have.
 
Upvote 0
N

Nathan45

Guest
There is one law in Anarchy, and that is that no person or group of persons may initiate the use of force against another individual or group of individuals. As soon as a person or group of persons has been allowed to do this, we no longer have anarchy but government.
allowed by who? that's my key problem. who enforces the NAP? If there is no government there is no one to enforce the non-agression principle.


In a stateless society people will be able to decide to have voluntary contracts with any competing dispute resolution organization[DRO] who themselves have connections with private police forces rather than to be forced to pay and accept the authority of the ultimate monopoly of power.

I don't like the idea of private police forces. The incentives are all wrong. How would you resolve disputes between private police forces? It seems that no matter how you do it, you'll either have a system where might makes right, or money makes right... would you still have a court system with judges and rules of evidence and jury trials? if so, who would pay for it? isn't paying a court a conflict of interest? Look, private arbitration works in some cases, specifically when both sides agree on the arbitrator. But when no side can come to an agreement on an arbitrator, who resolves the dispute?

The better DROs are the ones that the people tend to like and will live due to the fact that people continue to support them financially.
Or the ones who bully people into donations and work for bribes/kickbacks.

No. If people are evil and wish to oppress others then the greatest solution that we have at our disposal is a competing set of powers through anarchy.

Anarchy is not a competing set of powers, anarchy is mob rule, essentially. Checks and balances in government are competing sets of powers.

Here's the problem: You're thinking that because there are many diverse industries, the power concentrated in each industry can balance out the others. The problem is you're thinking economically and not territorially. What's really going to happen, is you're going to have local territorial thugs running the show, and everyone's going to have to show them respect or get beat up. The power isn't going to be divided among industries, it's going to be divided up territorially. Basically, the people with the most thugs per square mile will own that square mile and you better not [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] them off or they'll kill you. And any industries that want to work in that square mile better be giving them kickbacks.

My point is: If you don't have a government, criminal organizations are going to take over everything very quickly.
 
Upvote 0
N

Nathan45

Guest
The DROs that people have supported financially will not oppress their customers because they know that if they did that, their reputation would be ruined and their business would immediately be taken over by an honest DRO.

I disagree, i don't see what the advantage of honesty is in DRO. again, the system is, best case scenario, money makes right. (worst case scenario: Might makes right) The DRO's that make the most money are going to be the ones who rule in favor of the richest people, the people who give them more kickbacks. (Or possibly, even worse, the people who threaten to kill their families)

Furthermore, if the poor people can refuse to use the rich people's DRO's, who's to prevent the rich people from refusing to use any non-crooked DRO? and if no one can agree on a DRO who can resolve the dispute?
 
Upvote 0

Vigilante

Cherry 7-Up is still the best
Oct 19, 2006
469
29
In limbo
✟23,372.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
I think that all of my original criticisms of anarchy still stand if this is your definition of anarcho-capitalism. Simply, who enforces the NAP? It seems to be completely unenforcable. There will always be thugs, there will always be bullies in life. Making a principle stating "nobody should be aggressive towards anyone else"... that's not going to work, bullies and thugs don't give a damned about your principles. The only way to get rid of a thug is to find a bigger thug, I.E. the government.

I hope that you're not under the impression that I'm a proponent of an-cap. It has its merits, to be sure, but I have sharp differences with my old community.

An-caps would call the NAP, in a very broad sense, a principle of social organization. Within the community that's chosen to try to abide by this principle, private defense agencies (PDAs) make sure that "citizens" abide by their contracts. There are lots of little intricacies for how this could (or could not) work, and to be honest I haven't looked very far into any of it because I slipped into my pacifist skin before it became an issue for me. "Not my problem," as they say...

Regarding your concern about having "a lack of an enforcer" without a state, you may find this essay of interest (it's six pages, if memory serves):

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_3.pdf
 
Upvote 0