Adam Kokesh on the JRE
  • No, he's not a douche deluxe, you just have a certain position that opposes him, so you dehumanize him to make yourself and your position feel stronger.
    Love is what occurs when the universe recognizes itself for what it is.
    owlsa support waned RIP orgone
  • I agree with a lot of Kokesh's ideas, but not most of them. I think the main idea I'm trying to express is frustration with hypocrisy among many libertarians. The most tragic part is the 'I got mine, fuck everyone else' mentality. Especially the people who have benefitted through aid, subsidies, etc.

    It's the 'get your government hands off my medicare' sign.

    It's the person who goes through college receiving PEL Grants, maybe even food stamps at times, and then works as a libertarian to dismantle public services for people like themselves. (I know a person like this)
  • No, he's not a douche deluxe, you just have a certain position that opposes him, so you dehumanize him to make yourself and your position feel stronger.



    He is a Douche Deluxe, in my opinion, I should have said. It can't be scientifically proven... Maybe it can, after the singularity.

    Yes it makes me feel really strong!
  • I've had many conversations with one of my friends, and what we essentially agreed upon is if government didn't have the element of institutional corruption and war (same thing I guess) involved in it, I would be all for it.

    I've sort of become tired of all of these pro-anti government arguments because I've gone through them so many times. There are only people doing things.

    Now that example you just gave, is pretty fucked up, and I can agree with that.

    The only thing I can't stand is the dismissal of ideas, which is why I got in a bit of a tizzy, but you're certainly right that you should live up to the values you keep.
    Love is what occurs when the universe recognizes itself for what it is.
    owlsa support waned RIP orgone
  • I think if you charted it all out, most everyone on here agrees on more than we don't.

    I'm just so fed up with this war all the time society that I can't support people that use military service as a supposed benefit to their campaign, either for or against war.

    Just be a human against war.
  • Don't say that to the man who killed someone and has it haunt him for the rest of his life. That is a person who has been victimized by society, persuaded or coerced (in the case of vietnam vets) to do something anti-human. He, above everyone else, has a right to attempt to stop anyone else from suffering through the existential pain that has been put upon him.

    We all just want the violence and death to stop, yes.
    Love is what occurs when the universe recognizes itself for what it is.
    owlsa support waned RIP orgone
  • I think if you charted it all out, most everyone on here agrees on more than we don't.

    I'm just so fed up with this war all the time society that I can't support people that use military service as a supposed benefit to their campaign, either for or against war.

    Just be a human against war.



    I agree with what you're saying in some respects. America is full of people who tend to rip on things of which they are benefitting.

    For example, I was driving around Wisconsin a few weeks ago (for work, not fun) and there were tons of signs up around corn fields and dairy pastures that supported "Scott Walker" and his limited government message. Now, that's all good and fine....but corn farmers ripping on a large gov't? Seriously?

    So, I sort of see what you're saying with Kokesh. Then again, I don't think an 18 year old kid who joins the army to only later come to the realization that they system is out of whack is really a hypocrit.
  • @lucemportabo nail on the head with your last comment.

    People change and it requires certain experiences to bring about that change. Adam's experience in the military played a big part in the views/opinions he is trying to spread, so of course he has to talk about it...and I'm glad he did. I always want to know how or why someone formed the beliefs they currently hold today. It tells us more about their intentions and the transformation they have gone through as an individual.

    So like @doctor_bob said, why don't we discuss the merits of his arguments? While Adam's story tells us about who he is, they shouldn't make a difference when determining the validity of his ideas.
  • ALL INFORMATION IS USED TO MANIPULATE PUBLIC OPINION,



    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

    I intuit that this may be a part of the information that led you to that opinion.
  • There havent been any real examples of anarchy working with large populations, dont mistake the understanding of what is wrong with this system as a claim of a perfect system to replace it, I think its just people being willing to face the challenge of not expecting someone else to take care of everything and what true responsibility is

    The current system is proven to fuck up the human machine, whether you are in power or a victim of those who are

    But its funny that my man Rogan is still happilly burning through dead dinosaur juice enjoying the sound and feeling of his car while at the same time approaching the age when medical care will become increasingly more necessary, and is almost completely dependent on that same dinosaur juice.....rogan made it clear - he is here to entertain and talk about whats on his mind, he is not a philosopher, but he is the man!!! (not THE man....)
  • Its highly unlikely that any history of anarchy working with large populations would exist. There's too many filters.
  • Anarchy is delusional. If you have one criminal the system is fucked.
  • dhizzo said:

    Anarchy is delusional. If you have one criminal the system is fucked.



    that sounds like the current system

    but i dont think anarchy is a system, its the lack of a system, its human beings working together, or not, the current system gives you no option for the 'or not'
  • I see a lot of claims about anarchy being this and that, without any clear definition or the slightest bit of evidence that the critics have much understanding into the subject.
    "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I will meet you there." Rumi
  • Criminals are produced by the system they operate within.

    How can you say what kind of criminals would be produced in an anarchist society, and then how they would be dealt with?



    why would you need to?

    deal with problems as they arise the best you can - all agreeing on one way to resolve all issues forever seems to be a lot like government...and doesnt work well

  • image
    "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I will meet you there." Rumi
  • What if a group of 12 well armed men start stealing your women and raping them.

    Deal with it? That group turns into 120,000 men. Deal with it?

    How do you deal when you have no system in place for communication, or defense, or decision making?

  • @dhizzo Who told you, or where did you read, that anarchists call for "no system in place for communication, or defense, or decision making"? There are different strands of anarchism and different people will come at it from different angles - but I've been studying and discussing this subject for a decent amount of time and I've never came across anything remotely close to the assumptions embedded in your questions.
    Post edited by jimmybob at 2012-07-16 13:25:05
    "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I will meet you there." Rumi
  • Standard definition. Wiki

    Anarchy (from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία, anarchia, from ἀν an, "not" +‎ ἀρχός arkhos, "ruler", meaning "absence of a leader", "without rulers"), has more than one definition. In the United States, the term "anarchy" typically is used to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority.[1][2] When used in this sense, anarchy may[3] or may not[4] be intended to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society. However, this usage is not the traditional sense of the word.
    Outside of the US, and by most individuals that self-identify as anarchists, it implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level although there are a few successful historical examples,[5] that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society.[6]
    Post edited by dhizzo at 2012-07-16 13:28:31
  • @dhizzo No offense intended, but you may want to read up on the subject before engaging. Will be enlightening for you regardless if you agree or disagree, and it will be less of an energy sink for others in the discussion.

    This conversation reminds me of trying to talk with someone about pot or psychedelics who got their information on drugs from DARE.
    "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I will meet you there." Rumi
  • @dhizzo Did you go copy that definition after you first posted "Standard Definition"? Because even that very cursory and generic passage you posted is out of line with your initial questions/criticisms.
    "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I will meet you there." Rumi
  • jimmybob said:

    @dhizzo Did you go copy that definition after you first posted "Standard Definition"? Because even that very cursory and generic passage you posted is out of line with your initial questions/criticisms.



    @jimmybob yup, edited.

    Anarchy leaves no way to deal with reoccurring simple problems, like pollution. You can't make a law, correct? You can't make people obey that law under anarchism? So how does one deal with pollution, ask nicely?

  • Oh, so you're basing your ideas on a complex system involving many different forms on a standard definition from wiki. Suddenly things make a lot more sense



    @LucemPortabo If you would, please give the basic tenant of all anarchism?
  • We exist in a state of anarchy. Do you really think it's the people called government who are preventing mass chaos and fraud? Order and peace come about despite government not because of it.
    Post edited by Jared at 2012-07-16 13:47:40
    I blow my load over the status quo.
  • @dhizzo No; your questions don't compute. You're projecting false understanding into the subject and then constructing your criticism around it. For starters, I recommend reading the Anarchist FAQ by Bryan Caplan who is an anarchist, and economist at GMU. This FAQ doesn't represent every angle of anarchism, and some anarchists would take issue with it, but I think it's a very accessible primer. It's only a starter, and won't answer deep, complex questions - but you gotta start somewhere and this is a great jumping off point.

    http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm
    "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I will meet you there." Rumi
  • Jared said:

    We exist in a state of anarchy. Do you really think it's the people called government who are preventing mass chaos and fraud? Order and peace come about despite government not because of it.



    +1
  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.
    bootoo82 said:

    There havent been any real examples of anarchy working with large populations



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War

    Holy Jesus do you knuckleheads even attempt to use search engines before you start slapping your foreheads on the keyboard. Even the supporters of anarchism in this thread need to dust off their Chomsky books it seems. Anyone who even uses the word "anarchy" in a political conversation about anarchism may as well be talking about "Christianism" at a Bible reading.

    For any of you whose usual research habits extend beyond the definition of a concept in the first dictionary you google, there's a PORTAL on wikipedia for crying out loud.

    Three cheers for people prepared to debate the topic based on the information they've gleaned going to GOVERNMENT ACCREDITED schools... they certainly have an imperative to teach with full passion why they shouldn't exist.
    Post edited by orgone at 2012-07-16 14:03:10
    image
  • There was no history of a car ever existing before it was invented and began rumbling down roads everywhere...



    Yes that's right. That statement is correct.
  • Caplan's FAQ opener is worth reading:

    "Anarchism is defined by The American Heritage College Dictionary as "The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished." Anarchism is a negative; it holds that one thing, namely government, is bad and should be abolished. Aside from this defining tenet, it would be difficult to list any belief that all anarchists hold. Just as atheists might support or oppose any viewpoint consistent with the non-existence of God, anarchists might and indeed do hold the entire range of viewpoints consistent with the non-existence of the state.

    As might be expected, different groups of anarchists are constantly trying to define anarchists with different views out of existence, just as many Christians say that their sect is the only "true" Christianity and many socialists say that their socialism is the only "true" socialism."
    Post edited by jimmybob at 2012-07-16 13:56:27
    "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I will meet you there." Rumi
  • .
    Post edited by jimmybob at 2012-07-16 13:56:12
    "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I will meet you there." Rumi
  • Homage to Catalonia had a powerful message.
  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.
    But @jimmybob, if the anarchists cure our maladies, what malady do you suppose they replace it with? :D
    image
  • I fail to see how having no governing body would work. But you're right, I don't know much about anarchism, I'll read up. thanks for the link @jimmybob
  • orgone said:

    But @jimmybob, if the anarchists cure our maladies, what malady do you suppose they replace it with? :D



    Haha, good question. Likely another malady. I don't have any answers, just a lot of questions. I'd say I have anarchist tendencies of the libertarian bent, but I'm generally a skeptic of pre-designed solutions. But if we're going to discuss it I'd at least like to see people dealing with the actual arguments as opposed to just hurling nonsense bombs!
    Post edited by jimmybob at 2012-07-16 14:03:13
    "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I will meet you there." Rumi
  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.
    jimmybob said:

    orgone said:

    But @jimmybob, if the anarchists cure our maladies, what malady do you suppose they replace it with? :D



    Haha, good question. Likely another malady. I don't have any answers, just a lot of questions. I'd say I have anarchist tendencies of the libertarian bent, but I'm generally a skeptic of pre-designed solutions. But if we're going to discuss it I'd at least like to see people dealing with the actual arguments as opposed to just hurling nonsense bombs!


    I joke, its an old atheist joke, "Once the doctor cures you, it's not his job to give you a new disease."

    Anarchism is political atheism, I'm operating on the so-far-always-safe assumption that whatever theory or political philosophy you are pushing is contingently true but universally false and it's just a matter of working out the why and the how. People will always believe in stupid political organization schemes just like they'll always come up with new religious beliefs and practices.

    The work isn't meant to be finished, we're just here to keep enough dynamism in the system so that it doesn't get overly rigid and crack under its own weight. The social forces themselves seem to ebb and flow, there have been high water marks of liberty all around the world and all throughout history, you just won't be told about them at educational institutions begging for state money every year.

    But who knows maybe they'll create The Republic and finish the Temple of Solomon and we will have perpetual order and peace until ..... I dunno we all blow loads on each other or something, who knows what their goals are.

    image
  • Tell me, why must I mean violence?



    In lawlessness what other response would the people have?
  • @orgone Bwahahahaha! Indeed. Well said.

    I'm very much a Hayekian when it comes to social order - meaning I don't think it is possible for us predict or work out in advance the specifics of any complex system. I think the best we can hope for is to lay out some simple ground rules in a way that what results from the messy spontaneous ordering of human interaction is the least bad of all possible outcomes. We don't know what would evolve in a stateless society - we have some isolated threads and examples we can use to give our conjecture at least some empirical support, but in the end we just have to let the chips fall where they may.
    Post edited by jimmybob at 2012-07-16 14:23:54
    "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I will meet you there." Rumi
  • Lot of good conservation here about the merits of anarchy.

    I don't know much about anarchy, just the basics. If the government was removed completely and all of America was ready to not reintroduce a new form of government, I'm guessing a lot of the same institutions/power structures would be re-built anyway, just in a non-government sort of way. These institutions would still exploit people, disenfranchise people, and create individuals that feel they have no incentive to be cooperative or responsible.

    My point is, we would have the same exact problems we have today, regardless of what system we put in place. This is because we still have people that are thinking in terms of me vs. you, us vs. them. When the majority of us start thinking about what is good for everyone before we think about what is good for ourselves, that is when any system we put in place could actually "work".
  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.

    This is because we still have people that are thinking in terms of me vs. you, us vs. them. When the majority of us start thinking about what is good for everyone before we think about what is good for ourselves, that is when any system we put in place could actually "work".



    This is the point you focus your attention on if this is the precondition to solving the problem, not where you throw your hands up and turn tail. I agree, it starts with people.
    image
  • I'd like to add...

    I think what Adam is doing is really important. He is talking about what is possible in our society if we cooperate and be responsible. A lot of people don't even know that a society without government is possible or they only think about our society today and conclude that it could never happen.

    So yea, anyone that is opening peoples minds to what is possible is doing something important. I think when enough of us realize how much better things could be, we will start creating a better society that could actually consider anarchy as a possible reality.
  • orgone said:

    This is the point you focus your attention on if this is the precondition to solving the problem, not where you throw your hands up and turn tail. I agree, it starts with people.



    word
  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.

    I'd like to add...

    I think what Adam is doing is really important. He is talking about what is possible in our society if we cooperate and be responsible. A lot of people don't even know that a society without government is possible or they only think about our society today and conclude that it could never happen.

    So yea, anyone that is opening peoples minds to what is possible is doing something important. I think when enough of us realize how much better things could be, we will start creating a better society that could actually consider anarchy as a possible reality.



    May I do my small part in this direction by very politely and kindly reminding you (and everyone else making my stomach cringe in this thread) that the name of the philosophy we are discussing is called anarchISM. Like conservatism, fascism, liberalism, socialism, et al.
    Post edited by orgone at 2012-07-16 14:40:31
    image
  • I think the most compelling description of an anarcho-syndicalist state was something Chomsky mentioned in one of his books (I'm reaching from distant memory here). Co-operatives of workers and residents, who share in the fruit of their labour, and share the accountability of their decisions in an open and democratic platform. Ideally, all of the structures that you operate in are open and democratic, as flat as possible, and prone to iteration and revision of their procedures and rules in response to changing situations and the needs of the community. All authority/privilege has to continually prove its legitimacy (i.e how it serves the community). The incentives are all geared towards co-operation, sustainability and mutual development. It sounded good, but of course human nature can turn it all upside down very swiftly.

    Anyway, it's not like we could develop into an anarchist state overnight, it would have to be won piece by piece by demonstrating the system's stability and better quality of life in small groups of voluntary collectivists. The more power institutions you switch over to the open, accountable, democratic system, the more you can devolve from the pyramid structure to the flat structure. If that is actually feasible, or desirable. My brain is too tired to think.
    "Ultimately, nothing in this life is “commonplace,” nothing is “in between.” The threads that join your every act, your every thought, are infinite. All paths of mastery eventually merge." - George Leonard
  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.
    AStrikes said:

    I think the most compelling description of an anarcho-syndicalist state was something Chomsky mentioned in one of his books (I'm reaching from distant memory here). Co-operatives of workers and residents, who share in the fruit of their labour, and share the accountability of their decisions in an open and democratic platform. Ideally, all of the structures that you operate in are open and democratic, as flat as possible, and prone to iteration and revision of their procedures and rules in response to changing situations and the needs of the community. All authority/privilege has to continually prove its legitimacy (i.e how it serves the community). The incentives are all geared towards co-operation, sustainability and mutual development. It sounded good, but of course human nature can turn it all upside down very swiftly.



    Isn't it amazing that "human nature" seems to always reflect the incentive (reward/punishment) systems it's subject to?

    In our case this means two things: (A) our system is an exact and perfect reflection of our innate nature as beings or (B) our selves are being warped on the anvil of the ideology of those in power. If you structure a system of incentives that reward competitive behavior, can you guess what kind of behavior human beings will manifest?

    These "human nature" based arguments are always interesting because if the arguer actually had an insight on true human nature he would be a world famous and well regarded thinker whose paradigm we would likely all be living in and whose thoughts would be on the front of our minds when we started talking politics (Case A). I have never heard of this person or their line of research or published articles. My suspicion is because he doesn't exist and people always try to use Natural Law arguments to avoid thinking or challenging the assumptions their political analysis is based on.

    Post edited by orgone at 2012-07-16 14:56:23
    image
  • Good point, sloppy thinking on my part. I meant to add a caveat about the potential unpredictability of human behaviour, and the need to have an adaptable system robust enough to deal with these challenges.
    "Ultimately, nothing in this life is “commonplace,” nothing is “in between.” The threads that join your every act, your every thought, are infinite. All paths of mastery eventually merge." - George Leonard
  • @letgoandflow Your points are valid concerns. It's kind of long but here's a go at a response from the FAQ posted earlier. Not so much a rebuttal, but a decent overview of the criticisms and their responses.

    -------------------------

    The most common criticism, shared by the entire range of critics, is basically that anarchism would swiftly degenerate into a chaotic Hobbesian war of all-against-all. Thus the communist Friedrich Engels wonders "[H]ow these people propose to run a factory, operate a railway or steer a ship without having in the last resort one deciding will, without single management, they of course do not tell us." He continues: "The authority of the majority over the minority also ceases. Every individual and every community is autonomous; but as to how society, even of only two people, is possible unless each gives up some of his autonomy, Bakunin again maintains silence." And similarly, the classical liberal Ludwig von Mises states that "An anarchistic society would be exposed to the mercy of every individual. Society cannot exist if the majority is not ready to hinder, by the application or threat of violent action, minorities from destroying the social order. This power is vested in the state or government."

    Or to consider a perhaps less ideological writer, Thomas Hobbes implicitly criticizes anarchist theory when he explains that "Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man." Hobbes goes on to add that "It may peradventure be thought, there was never such a time, nor condition of warre as this; and I believe it was never generally so, over all the world: but there are many places, where they live so now. For the savage people in many places of America, except the government of small Families, the concord whereof dependeth on naturall lust, have no government at all; and live at this day in that brutish manner, as I said before." Since it is in the interest of the strong to take what they want from the weak, the absence of government lead inexorably to widespread violence and the prevention or destruction of civilization itself.

    Anarchists of all varieties would reject this argument; sometimes claiming that the critic misunderstands their position, other times that the critic's assumptions are too pessimistic. Kropotkin, for example, would seriously dispute the claim that war is the natural state of ungoverned human beings; like many other species of animals, cooperation is more common, natural, and likely. Left- anarchists generally would normally object that these criticisms rest upon contingent cultural assumptions arising from a competitive scarcity economy. Replace these institutions with humane and egalitarian ones; then poverty, the cause of crime and aggression, would greatly decrease. Finally, many left- anarchists envisage cooperatives and communes adopting and enforcing rules of appropriate conduct for those who wish to join.

    The anarcho-capitalist would likely protest that the critic misunderstands his view: he does believe that police and laws are necessary and desirable, and merely holds that they could be supplied by the free market rather than government. More fundamentally, he doubts the game- theoretic underpinnings of Hobbes' argument, for it ignores the likelihood that aggressive individuals or firms will provoke retaliation. Just as territorial animals fight when defending their territory, but yield when confronted on the territory of another animal, rational self-interested individuals and firms would usually find aggression a dangerous and unprofitable practice. In terms of game theory, the anarcho-capitalist thinks that Hobbes' situation is a Hawk-Dove game rather than a Prisoners' Dilemma. (In the Prisoners' Dilemma, war/non-cooperation would be a strictly dominant strategy; in a Hawk-Dove game there is normally a mixed-strategy equilibrium in which cooperation/peace is the norm but a small percentage of players continue to play war/non-cooperation.) Self- interested police firms would gladly make long-term arbitration contracts with each other to avoid mutually destructive bloodshed.
    "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I will meet you there." Rumi
  • dhizzo said:

    What if a group of 12 well armed men start stealing your women and raping them.

    Deal with it? That group turns into 120,000 men. Deal with it?

    How do you deal when you have no system in place for communication, or defense, or decision making?



    interesting question - what if a group of 'too many for you to personal stop' people start doing 'things you dont want them to do' - if you cant stop it, you dont stop it, you suffer - thats life!

    i dont think the answer is to hand over power to other people to take care of it for you, and hope they dont use that power in any wrong way
  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.
    I think we would need to know what you mean by "tribalism" and what precisely your concerns are. There are a lot of lines of thinking. Grouping anarchists is the practice of cat herding.
    Post edited by orgone at 2012-07-16 15:35:46
    image

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!