9/30/14
As stated elsewhere:

"I am not an anarchist and I firmly believe most self-professed anarchists are FOS
‪#‎FullOfShit

They wouldn't survive the 1st week, 15 minutes of true "anarchy".
You see, nature abhors a vacuum. Subtract organized crime (gubmints) and all that's left is decentralized organized crime.

The cartels and Triads and child sex traffickers play for keepsies

Haven't met an anarchist yet that has an answer for those "contingencies"...

 

 

Sadly, the only thing that might be correct is statement of "I firmly believe most self-professed anarchists are FOS."

 

Although that might not be true either.

 

"They wouldn't survive the 1st week, 15 minutes of true "anarchy"! 

 

Interestingly enough this statement is likely due in large part to intellectual negligence.  This is about not knowing exactly what people will do.  There is a difference between people who are fairly educated and have critical thinking skills and a difference between people who are not.  If the United States were to collapse the result is not guaranteed to be the same as if a nation such as Somalia were to collapse.

 

There is a distinct difference between the mindset of the overall U.S. population than there is in other societies.  While there are similarities in the mindsets of the U.S. population and other Western cultures, each regardless of similarities will undoubtedly act different enough as collectives to be noticeable. 

 

So to suggest, let alone state, that people will not survive because there will be totally blatant disregard for human life if government were to disappear overnight is ridiculous.  The mindsets of individuals will not change completely.  People will continue to think and act as close to what makes them comfortable as possible and will fight to varying degrees to retain some semblances of that comfort.

 

How they will fight is yet to be determined.  Some will undoubtedly turn to taking from others.  Others will simply create what they need.  Many will find ways of trading; but most will partake in some combination of the two later ideas.  Those who resort to taking from others without regard for consent will probably be those who do not respect the idea of consent today.

 

But truth be told…we don't really know what will happen.  We can speculate but to speculate with absolute confidence that one thing will happen over another is more than just tomfoolery.  It's blatant ignorance.

 

And this ignorance shows in the next idea portrayed in the initial statement.

 

"You see, nature abhors a vacuum. Subtract organized crime (gubmints) and all that's left is decentralized organized crime."

 

Nature doesn't abhor anything.  Nature is not subjected to morality because morality is a human concept, a sentient concept.  Morality is about the preservation and promotion of sentient life.  And as far as we know humanity is the only sentient life that we know of.

 

So if we subtract government from the current situation what's left is not a power vacuum but a decentralization of consolidated and legalized uses of unwarranted acts of aggression.  In other words people will now no longer be legally prohibited or legally intimidated from protecting themselves and coerced into depending on legal agents granted the right to use aggression inside or outside of the realm of self defense.

 

Yes, organizations and entities will exist that are founded on subjugating the liberties of others without just cause but they exist today.  Many that do exist today exist as a result of the perpetuation of government and its legalities that frown upon or restrict voluntary interactions.  Legislation today creates what we know as black markets.

 

People engage in these markets because they have what people want.  People also engage in these markets to acquire things that are legal for no other reason than because they don't want to be subjected to the extortion practices of government, of taxation.  Many people also engage these black markets to avoid government at all.  People will buy things such as firearms because they don't trust government for a great many reasons.

 

The truth is that people don't like to be controlled.  They want freedom from unwarranted acts of aggression so they can survive.  This is what everyone wants without question; to survive.

 

How people will do this is determined on how well they are at critical thinking.  People may seem mindless and lazy today but they are only a product of their current surroundings which are enabled by the government; which in turn is enabled by their indoctrination of respecting authority for no other reason than because the authority states that it is the authority.

 

If that authority is removed will another replace it?  Maybe.  Maybe not!  We don't know.  Again, speculating what will or will not happen with absolutes that disregard the fact that people are fickle and often choose things on a whim only serves to add fuel to the same fire of propaganda that is currently maintained by government today.

 

Without a government some people will take up arms and responsibility of their own self defense.  Some will hide behind others by contracts while some will do nothing at all and allow themselves to become victims or followers by design or ignorance.  Again, the truth is that we don't know for sure.

 

What we do know is that people don't loot and destroy grocery stores today because there is a lack of law enforcement.  People typically understand that doing so results in the business packing up and leaving; thus disabling the area residents' ability to provide for themselves a little bit.  Of course looting and vandalism does happen.

 

Recent case in point:  The Quick Trip convenience store in Missouri that was destroyed after police killed a young man.  That happened because a relative few allowed themselves to succumb to a collective mentality that cowardly attacked an innocent business instead of the entity that they were rebelling against.  Even if it wasn't done cowardly it was done ignorantly but to suggest that such actions will take place everywhere is faulty logic. 

 

Yet the faulty logic that deems such acts as the new status quo in absence of government rule further adds fuel to the emotional fire by playing on greater fears.

 

"The cartels and Triads and child sex traffickers play for keepsies

Haven't met an anarchist yet that has an answer for those "contingencies"...

 

Yes, it's true that bad people do bad things in this world.  The world is a shitty place because people choose to confiscate and consume instead of create and consume.  Or create and create and consume and trade.

 

The later is what morality is all about; about perpetuating the existence of Humanity and protecting human beings from unwarranted acts of aggression from other human beings.  By attacking someone to acquire sustenance without respecting the right to life of another to peacefully exist morality is being ignored.

 

Here people will say things that sound clever such as "morality is subjective."

 

Here I will say Bull Shit!  Morality is not as subjective as people want to believe it is.  Again, morality is about the preservation of human life and its freedom to do more than survive without human beings justifying acts of aggression against other human beings outside of the realm of self defense.

 

If there is an individual starving and will die in a matter of hours if not fed among a group of people who have plenty and will not starve what is the problem here?

 

Many will say that those who are fed should give to the starving.  It can be argued that giving to the starving will possible aid the future of those willing to give because it will offer a chance for one more mind to refine its time, intellect, and labor into other goods, services, and ideas that will help maintain and improve the quality of humanity in the long run.  It can also be argued that the opposite can be true.

 

No matter which outcome occurs, the fact remains that it is the choice of the individuals who are not starving and the choice of the individual who is starving to do what is morally correct.  What is morally correct-provided all goods and services that maintain life, are not taken without consent. 

 

If the starving individual seeks to steal then the victim can justly defend his property against the starving thief.  If the fed individual has stolen goods that make him fed then he is wrong.  But if all are justly acquired goods then there is no amount of justifiable aggression that can be used to coerce the not starving individual to feed the starving individual. 

 

It may seem to be a clash of morality that gives credibility to the idea of morality being subjective, but morality's only subjectivity is in whether or not to recognize it.  The failure of people to understand morality as a means to perpetuate humanity by not justifying acts of aggression outside of the realm of self defense against other human beings is why morality is so misunderstood.

 

And I believe that is a big part of the problem for the individual who comprised the initial statement that has been deconstructed here.  That individual wants absolute explanations for events that will inevitably occur with and without government intervention while ignoring the fact that the predicting of individuals' behaviors is not an exact science.  Behaviors can be manipulated through coercion-deception, threats of violence, and acts of violence- but remove these things and how people will react is not going to be known exactly, if at all.

 

The only thing that is FOS is the individual who claims to know what's better for others than others know for themselves.  Making accusations that others are intellectually incompetent because they can't predict the future in a way that is pleasing or satisfactory to the accuser doesn't make the accused ignorant.  What it shows is that the accusers is likely ignorant, or at least as ignorant as the accused.

 

At the end of the day the truth is that far too many people claim to have the solution 'if only others would listen to them' instead of actually acting out the example they want others to strive for.

 

Change yourself first and be willing to accept the fact that others will disagree with you; but even if they do you cannot be accused the hypocrisy of 'do as I say and not as I do!'

 

-JLD

~~~