I used to think like this, but then I finished high school.

Seriously, anarchy is a lovely ideal. Everyone lives in peace and harmony and no-one is tramping anyone elses rights. When a job needs doing, we find someone willing to do it and compensate them (preferably with a barter system or something).

One minor problem though..

IT

DOESN'T

FUCKING

WORK.

We don't live in some kind of post-scarcity utopia. I wish we did, but that is simply not the reality of human society or history. Anarchists and libertarians seem to think that anyone who disagrees with them loves government and simply can't wait to pour their hard earned money in a military industrial complex.

I don't know anyone like that. I don't like my government, and I sure as hell don't like yours. I don't mind paying for hospitals and roads and welfare (and yeah, I don't even really give a fuck about "welfare queens" or "dole bludgers" or other mythical right wing beasties), but I fucking hate the idea that my money goes to fund the pointless "war on drugs" or on mass surveillance.

But I recognise that for all its ills, the system (for the most part) works. People today have a higher standard of living, live longer, and have more rights than at any other time in history. Some of that is down to science; some of it is because of private innovation and some of it is simply that we have changed the way our societies run through elections, etc.

What I do know is that when government becomes beholden to private interests (lobbyists in the USA) shit goes bad. But the solution to that is not to allow powerful people even more leeway to fuck over the weak.

"anarchy simply means =without rulers,it does NOT mean no rules."

I keep hearing Anarchists railing against this. More frequently these days the same claims are being made by Libertarians.

I'm afraid I can't find the intellectual honesty in such claims though. The base argument is that there be no rulers, and also there for no men using force to ensure rules are followed.

If there is to be no system of enforcement for 'rules' then how is that any different than simply having no rules? Without any measure or means of enforcement of rules, for all intents and purposes there are no rules. If there is any enforcement of rules, then there is at some level a ruler and enforcers.

If you want your arguments taken seriously you need to first start by taking our own position seriously as well and at least making it logical consistent. To start from the contradiction of rules without rulers is empty.

yeah,my anarchy video wont get many votes.
i dont expect it to.
most of the dissenters,dissidents and agitators have left the sift.
so the normals will watch it and two things will happen.
1.it will make them angry,but they wont comment because that would be,you know,risking a confrontation or *gasp* conflict.
2.they will take it personally and still not comment for the very same reasons as above.

dont want to be viewed as a 'non-conformist" or be seen as "different".
dont make waves.
sit down.
shut up.
behave.

which is exactly the mentality the dude in my video is railing against.
probably why i found it so entertaining.
i do admire that mans passion.

"Not only does the action of Governments not deter men from crimes; on the contrary, it increases crime by always disturbing and lowering the moral standard of society." Leo Tolstoy

Has a underlying "taxes are theft" theme hidden inside. It also totally sidesteps a lot of important steps needed when large number of people live inside finite space, infrastructure, order, sustenance. It all needs to be managed, otherwise we are back to tribes instead of nations. We are free but responsible, if nothing else than to our fellow humanbeings. Being totally free also means freedom to kill, maim, destroy. And we are all a bit evil, selfish, enough so that taxes are not voluntary.. It is so easy to say that taxes enslave us when you don't give out any alternatives that would work.. Anarchy does not work, it's the power of the strongest, anarcho-capitalism is a horrible idea. It is about as equally terrifying as Ayn Rands ideas.

It's a good segment. Socialists (many videosifters included, such as @ChaosEngine & @enoch) seem to be convinced that either they themselves know all the facts (i.e., narcissism?) or that the "rulers" know all the facts, or that the "majority of the people" know all the facts.

While it may be true that the masses, as a collective of course, are even more intelligent than any individual on his or her own, it is true only when individuals among the masses are acting and thinking independently of one another (i.e., pursuing their own interests as best that they themselves know how to do) and not when they are under the sway of one form of demagoguery or central planning or another.

Political democracy shows the masses in all their foolishness, while market democracy (i.e., anarchy) shows them in all their wisdom. I think it is this distinction that illuminates the discrepancy between the theory of democracy and the practice of democracy.

(Moreover, it seems that, when listening to Hayek -- or Milton Friedman or Rory Sutherland -- one gets the impression that one is listening to a highly intelligent individual. This is quite different from listening to someone like, say, Paul Krugman and other so-called "economists," who are in truth would-be pundits and polemicists and not at all cognizant of the underlying postulates that support their arguments.)

@ChaosEngine

I will venture that "socialization" of the means of production can remain separate from their "nationalization," and also their only possible compliance with non-aggression while contributing to free-market prosperity, comes -- if by "means of production" we mean, not the built factories, railroads, whatever, but the allowance of such building. That is, if we socialize "intellectual property."

As such, patents plain and simple legally restrict "the means of production" to those who own them. Socialism, when it comes to IP, does make sense. It makes no sense, however, when it comes to scarce goods.

In this regard, Wilhelm Reich's "Mass Psychology of Fascism" (PDF) is a good book to read on this subject as it goes a long way towards explaining the mass appeal of the state. He may focus too much on irrational drives, and remains stuck in untenable syndicalist ideas, but here we must distinguish thymological irrationality from praxeological "irrationality." Praxeologically, humans are always rational, never irrational.

For this, I think it'd be interesting to put Reich's theory next to "public choice" theory for a more complete picture, but then, we'd need to have an intelligent discourse rather than the name-calling and epithets I've come to expect.

While this may all seem rather academic, this discourse has many practical uses, like understanding the chances of reversing social trends towards statism, etc. since it seems to me that a Manichean system, with a mix of chaos and order dominating, and periodic tilts towards one end (chaos, nazism, communism) or the other (order, rationalism, anarchy), can serve social orders like a yin-yang with neither pole ever dominating totally or for long.

Anyone in favor of the state is in favor of this because the state has and always will serve those with the money. And politicians will always look out for their best interests and those of their cronies.

All government "intervention" that you so strongly support means intervention on behalf of politicians and their cronies. It would not get done otherwise.

But again, good luck with all that. Your arguing with me about it hasn't and won't change anything an iota.

And, for your information/education: These: "And no, that doesn't require overthrowing the government and going to an all berries diet. Nor me writing a book about my efforts." are ALL straw man "arguments." I didn't say anything about overthrowing the government (which is not equated with anarchy). I didn't tell you to go on a berries diet to help the environment. Nor did I say that you needed to write a book in order to save the planet or whatever.

Again and again, your repeated statements reflect only your assumptions of my motivations based on the written words. If you'd like to know who and what I am you have but to inquire. I'll let you in on a little secret if you'd like a clue:

These are the absolute best of times to be alive in on planet now. If you want my opinion of the manner in which you and others of similar ilk conduct themselves on this site and others concerning a dissenting opinion or alternatives to run-of-the-mill editorials concerning world affairs anchored in parroting party-line opinions, you may crawl up my ass to find the answers for yourself.

As for anarchy well, you may look to geopolitics as reflected in the current paradigm, and perhaps you'll see that us common-folk haven't really got a clue of the debauch enjoyed by those involved in that sort of inhumanity.

By assuming we are "close minded conspiracy theorists" simply off the basis of having a different conclusion than you, you're simply avoiding the discussion, and you still fail to make any legitimate arguments; you merely repeat the "tired and naive" talking point of how "it's not the best, but it's the best we have" to defend an unjust system.

When has that attitude ever done us good? We have such amazing technology and understanding of the universe because of the way we as a whole ultimately reject that argument and instead say "some of this works quite well, but we need a lot of work in other areas."

Personally, I'm a fan of the free market concept. I think a fair amount of those who you are so eager to write off as fools also do. The problem comes down to what our concepts of justice are. We speak fondly of "equality of opportunity," but anyone can see we have no such thing. Only when everyone has equal opportunity to pursue learning in the fields of their choice without having to give up on adding to our collective culture/knowledge because of the economic pressure of survival can we truly say people are free. So long as anyone is taking a job they hate just to scrape by at the bottom of the chain, and we exercise violence against each other to try and force our ways onto others on a massive scale, we are, in my opinion, a profoundly unjust society.

Of course, violence will never end, scheming and exploitation and all our evils will continue to plague us. We can't make a utopia. What we can do, though, is decrease the potential for abuse in our current systems. I, and many others, think that separating the means of survival and self-actualization - the things required to develop, grow, and contribute to humanity at a high level (namely, food/water/shelter, basic healthcare, and free, equal access to education) - from the rest of the market is one way to make a huge impact on that potential for abuse. Think about it: how many times do we let corporations damage our environment and abuse us simply because speaking out means losing your means of survival?

I think the rest of the market is going to have to stay the market, nobody can really say how it's fair to divide up all our resources (though I hope for an increase in democracy going forwards for things related to our environment and health). Amusingly, though you rail against anarchy, the actual ideals of anarchy fall in line with the concept of a free market (anarchy is really all about freedom of association rather than coercive structures; not a lack of order).

Don't need to "Edumacate" myself thanks. As for arguing a point? Well, with certain closed minded conspiracy theorists it is pointless. Especially with someone who sees ALL the problems wrapped neatly up in a capitalist plot. Their answer? they have none other than "overthrow those in control." Well, you don't need to look far to see what anarchy brings. Or should I spell it out for you? It brings exactly that; Anarchy, in fighting, tribalism, persecution and pain. You stick to your childish revolutionary talk and I will, with all its flaws, stick to the best there is at the minute ie, capitalism and democracy (such as it is).

All I have are my experiences. Before I discovered the torturing effects of what is called "The Loop" (a period of time before and after being moved to court for arraignment and the period leading up to being housed in a jail cell) I perceived justice as possible. After I was wrongly put through this system, I have discovered that Justice is possible but not probable; or rather, your probably of justice increases with the amount of money you're willing to put into the justice system when it comes knocking.

I did not have money to put up, so I was put through a near 24 hours of waiting, moving from holding pin to holding pin to holding pin, with only concrete and the beleaguered advice of my new peer -- the criminal -- as my companion. Robbed of your sense of time and perception of beginning to end. When will it be over? How long have I been here? What is the purpose of these events? Am I guilty? Am I in jail? Who are these hardened criminals surrounding me? Am I a criminal now as well?

I was a boy with a bright future and I've struggled to reintegrate myself into society ever since. No one gets it. Depression and a sense of constant injustice are my companion. I wasn't an alcoholic before these events and I never did drugs, but afterwards I have struggled with alcoholism, depression, suicide attempts, all of my personal relationships failed until recently (and still it is a struggle to care about... anyone or anything), drug abuse, and I'm only barely past my yearly, near monthly visit to jail or the drunk tank.

Honestly, I know personal responsibility is important, but I was a fucking clueless child put into a den of thieves. I learned their ways and my nihilistic conclusions are the only bit of optimism that seem apparent in any system. Chaos; anarchy -- my only desires.

But this understanding of the the defects in any and all systems is what has given me an edge in my workplace where we invent new systems every day. That gives me hope, but it is a hope based on the purposeful destruction of systems. I'm good at it. And it protects the powers that employ me.

All forms of government and religion; rules and regulations; city planning and software design -- ALL of it easily manipulated and quick to topple -- like my innocence and sense of JUSTICE...

All the time that you've spent telling me to read the Wikipedia article and find the hidden relevance of anomie to Chomsky and the "real" definition of anarchy (that is not the absence of the state) you could have used to simply make your point (if you even had one at all). That, to me, is the definition of evasive.

You don't know what you're talking about, or else you wouldn't be so evasive -- and yet spend so much time writing nothing, name-calling, and trolling.

Six sentences and not one addressing my questions. Clearly 'wasting time' is not a real concern of yours.

Haha! So evasive! If you think I don't know the 'real' meaning of anarchism, or what it has to do with anomie and Chomsky, then asking me to read wikipedia does nothing to support your point (if, indeed, you had one, which it appears, you do not).

I don't think wikipedia will answer what you mean by "people like you" or what the difference between anomie and anarchy has to do with Chomsky.. But if you think it can, I'm all ears.

But you did stumble upon some truth: "it is useless to argue with you." You're right, and I don't know why you would even want to try.

Typical reply, evasion, non-answer.. You can't defend the indefensible. So I doubt I will ever get a coherent argument from your position.