# Anarchy or Totalitarianism



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

If you had to choose one or the other, which would it be?


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

Totalitarianism for sure. 
Then you only have to fear the government. In anarchy you have to fear everyone. 

Anyone pretending that man would not be raping, robbing and murdering en masse under anarchy will be among the first to be raped, robbed, murdered. 

Totalitarianism has to be somewhat tolerable in order to prevent, you know, uprising of anarchy...


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

I would go for anarchy. But the idea that the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice is the only thing restraining Chatsworth from committing rape, robbery, and murder does give me pause.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Living out in what was the wild west anarchy at least gives freedom.

Totalitarianism, what a wreak.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

When Catalonia was under the control of Anarchists and Anarcho-syndicalists in the 1930's, crime figures plummeted, and violent crime became almost non-existent. Rape virtually disappeared.
Anarchy doesn't mean no government, or chaos, it means no centrally imposed government. Each community forms its own consentual governing body, of which every member is a part. Essentially everybody becomes the government, rather than there being no government.
So, anarchy every time.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
I would prefer anarchy, because I'm pretty sure I would be the source of final authority, in my little sphere of influence. However, Totalitarianism would be OK, if I got to be the Boss! :devil:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Otherwise reasonable people have been trading Liberty for security for as long as the word has been written.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

WA said:


> Living out in what was the wild west anarchy at least gives freedom.


The Wild West was a relative crime-free paradise compared to 21st century America.



> in five of the major cattle towns (Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell) for the years from 1870 to 1885, only 45 homicides were reported-an average of 1.5 per cattle-trading season.') In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, "nobody was killed in 1869 or 1870. In fact, nobody was killed until the advent of officers of the law, employed to prevent killings." Only two towns, Ellsworth in 1873 and Dodge City in 1876, ever had five killings in any one year.


The thing about anarchy is that it already exists, and it can never cease to exist. It's mechanisms arise from the inherent nature of human society. These economic realities can't be eradicated. Even in prison, where statism is at an all-time maximum, the economic lives of prisoners and their relationships with guards are still inherently anarchic.

No form of control-freak, statist violence (which all involuntary states are, by definition) can possibly improve the efficiency, productivity or wealth-creation of an economy. This fact frustrates statists to no end, who generally respond by stamping their feet like spoiled children, but it's as much a part of the nature of things as the laws of thermodynamics.


----------



## flatline (Dec 22, 2008)

This seems to be a fairly pointless debate, as everyone has their own definition or internal interpretation of both Anarchy and Totalitarianism.

Taken at it's base definition, 'true' anarchy is one of the following:


"No rulership or enforced authority."
"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."
"A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."
"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."
"Act[ing] without waiting for instructions or official permission... The root of anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself: everything else follows from this."
The problem is that real anarchy can't really survive very long. It is a lot like Marxist Communism - which works, in _theory_, but only if your population acts strictly in the best interests of society at large. You can't dream to be something other than what society requires of you. Ambition will quickly knock the system off-balance, as people at both ends of the bell-curve try to either take more power or become the 'free-riders'. When you give according to your Ability and take according to your Need, there is no mention of Wants - which every member here admiring their collections of G&Gs and EGs and JLs certainly has.

In a state of total anarchy, there is no concept of "ownership" of anything - property, land, etc. Who are you going to complain to if your neighbor's house is on your land, or if someone steals your cows? Everyone is free to do whatever they want! So your neighbor can build a house wherever he wants, and you can tear it down, or kill him, or what-have-you. Actions are only limited by your internal ethos. Inevitably, some type of authority or governing body will be established (what Chouan describes is no longer anarchy). Again, it might work when modeled on paper, but put it into the real world and see what happens.


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

flatline said:


> The problem is that real anarchy can't really survive very long.


But that is why I voted for anarchy. It is not a permanent situation. If you look at historical periods of anarchy, they are precursors for the establishment of some form of government. What I find shocking is that no one has listed historical examples of totalitarian states. Of course it would skew the results of the poll, as the two most glaring examples are Nazi Germany and the USSR.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

flatline said:


> This seems to be a fairly pointless debate,
> 
> The problem is that real anarchy can't really survive very long.


1) Why stop now?? 

2) I believe that the natural state of mankind is to live in tyranny.

Liberty is fleeting.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

For the purposes of this debate, I would say anarchy would be no official government. While totalitarianism would be a central government that controls everything, I imagine something close to the book _The Giver_.


----------



## flatline (Dec 22, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 2) I believe that the natural state of mankind is to live in tyranny.


Again, depends on your definition of "tyranny". Look at all the animals that live in "tyranny" - lions, wolves (all dogs really), gorillas, etc. They are actually happier when they know their place in the group, even if that is the bottom of the totem pole (dogs can become very agitated if there is no established pack leader, which is a problem many owners unwittingly encourage). Sure, the alpha wolf is challenged now and again, but it is for the betterment of the pack that the strongest lead.

If a human culture/civilization is to thrive, it needs some form of cohesive government. This is one of those things that most people know, but if you're the one to say it you look like an elitist ass (or worse) - it used to be understood that a (good) leader/body of leaders should be smarter than those being led (see: Solomon).

Example - unless you are something of an economist, I don't see how you can truly understand what is going on when trillions of dollars are on the line (then again, maybe the economists are just winging it too). Instead of electing someone we are confident will be smart enough to vote in our best interests, we are now dictating policy by installing puppets. As a result, our elected bodies aren't necessarily smarter or better-informed than the average public - they're there because they share our values, get big donations, and generally say the things that 51% of their districts like to hear.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Practically speaking, anarchy and totalitarianism are meaningless words. A few years ago I asked Phinn how a family of anarchists decide where to go out for dinner, and he wasn't able to give a coherent answer. Something like, "the strongest member of the family forces his choice on everyone", or words to that effect.

As for the prior claim that governments are necessary for human culture to survive, I'd say that's true, but only because some people are evil, aggressive, judgmental and greedy. Over the years I've had what I believe were authentic glimpses of heaven, and it's very much like life on Earth, except inhabitants are spiritual (and VERY powerful) beings instead of material beings, and no government is necessary because no evil exists there. Everyone is trusting, and trustworthy.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Indeed.

Heaven has very effective means of keeping out the riff-raff!!


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Practically speaking, anarchy and totalitarianism are meaningless words. A few years ago I asked Phinn how a family of anarchists decide where to go out for dinner, and he wasn't able to give a coherent answer. Something like, "the strongest member of the family forces his choice on everyone", or words to that effect.


I would love it if you would pull that quote of mine. Because it's the exact opposite of what I believe -- that in matters of preference, all ethical behavior is voluntary. Were I to answer your question today, I would say that the use of force to tell others where to go for dinner is monstrous.

I am starting to suspect that you have some kind of brain glitch that reverses everything your perceived ideological opponents say.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I would love it if you would pull that quote of mine. Because it's the exact opposite of what I believe -- that in matters of preference, all ethical behavior is voluntary. Were I to answer your question today, I would say that the use of force to tell others where to go for dinner is monstrous.
> 
> I am starting to suspect that you have some kind of brain glitch that reverses everything your perceived ideological opponents say.


Phinn, I searched and the archives don't appear to go back that far. If you or someone else can find it, I don't believe I misstated your response. It might be monstrous to tell others where to go for dinner, but I suspect that's how things worked in your family as well as mine when we were kids. For practical purposes anarchy isn't a serious concept.


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

Anarchy. Both concepts are deplorable. But in anarchy, I can at least take responsibility to defend myself and make my life what I can make it. In totalitarianism, you aren't free to do ANYTHING. The government wants your will? It can take it. Does it want your family? It'll take it. Your money? Your possessions? Your happiness? Your effort? Your very LIFE? It'll take it all, without a second thought.

(reference movies like "Brazil", "1984", etc)


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Note to my American friensds: Unless you've actually lived in a "Big Government" country like Sweden or the Soviet Union, you can't possibly know how much real freedom there is in not having to worry about your job everyday or your house or your children's schooling or the free medical care or the reliable public transport or the low level of crime or protection from disasters etc. 

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" (as sung by many different singers)

The kind of freedom you have in the USA to me seems like a permanent struggle to be honest. With the state and federal governments taking repsonsibility for very little it seems with regards to real everyday issues. Please tell me if I've got that wrong.

More examples, I love the fact that my house has maintenance free district heating that the municipality is responsible for. All I do is pay the (since I had it installed a year ago) much, much cheaper bills.

I love the fact that my civil service job gives me a seven weeks paid holiday per year at 80% of my daily wage. 

I love the fact that Sweden has the best legislated parental leave system in the world at 80% of my daily wage. Basically I can take a day off with my kids whenever I want and my employer has no power to prevent me.

I love the fact that my kids are being schooled in the academically (acknowledged) best schooling system in the world.
I love the fact that it doesn't cost me a penny.

I love the fact that all this doesn't cost me more than 25% tax per month. Why? Because I'm house owner!!! House owners get a huge personal tax relief in Sweden.

I love the fact that housing in Sweden is viewed as a necessity not a commodity as it is in the UK and the US.

I love the fact that my house in the UK would cost ten times what I paid for it.

So I love the fact that my monthly mortgage is only about £280, which is less than half the rent I was paying for a flat 10 years ago!

I love the fact that local, regional and state government take responsiblity for everything and legislate for everything.

I would hate to live in a country*** where I had to find so much money for healthcare and schooling and food. And I would hate to have to struggle to find work everyday and worry about my family and my house and general safety everyday.

I wonder where the real freedom and the real piece of mind is? 

I know lots of Russians and Ukrainians in my home town, many of them at my job and EVERY one of them says that the USSR was better i.e. the totalitarian communist state! Why? Well read what I've written about above, that's why. They had safety, security, jobs, food, houses, free schooling etc.

Totalitarianism any day of the week!

***Edit: insert: "with an anarchist system"


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I would hate to live in a country where I had to find so much money for healthcare and schooling and food. And I would hate to have to struggle to find work everyday and worry about my family and my house and general safety everyday.


If you think that summerizes life in the US for most Americans, you are mistaken.

Like I said, and you have reiterated, people have traded Liberty for Freedom for a long time.

Some more succesfully than others.

I'm interested to see how Iceland and Greece turn out in the long run.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> If you think that summerizes life in the US for most Americans, you are mistaken.
> 
> Like I said, and you have reiterated, people have traded Liberty for Freedom for a long time.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I see now I was mixing my reference points in my post there. The part you quoted was meant as a reference to anarchy (as the opposite of Swedish/Soviet big govenrment) not to the US. :icon_smile:


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> More examples, I love the fact that my house has maintenance free district heating that the municipality is responsible for. All I do is pay the (since I had it installed a year ago) much, much cheaper bills.
> 
> I love the fact that my civil service job gives me a seven weeks paid holiday per year at 80% of my daily wage.
> 
> ...


hmm that doesn't sound too bad...how hard is it to learn Swedish? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Laxplayer said:


> hmm that doesn't sound too bad...how hard is it to learn Swedish? :icon_smile_wink:


He went through that whole list without once mentioning the BABES!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Laxplayer said:


> hmm that doesn't sound too bad...how hard is it to learn Swedish? :icon_smile_wink:


Why do you think I moved here from London in 96? 
Affordable house prices
A blonde Swedish babe :icon_smile_wink: (there, mentioned! :icon_smile_big
Beautiful countryside
Clean air
Low crime rates
Real summers and real winters
And talk about Leibensraum....there are only about 8.5 million people in a country nearly twice the size of Britain. That's plenty of room to swing a T-rex! :icon_smile_wink:

Being fluent in Swedish as I am and working with languages as a profession I know that many experts have said that Swedish is the easiest language for an English speaker to learn, due to the very similar grammar, which means a lack of the awkward grammar that exists in French, Spanish, Russian etc.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Note to my American friensds: Unless you've actually lived in a "Big Government" country like Sweden or the Soviet Union, you can't possibly know how much real freedom there is in not having to worry about your job everyday or your house or your children's schooling or the free medical care or the reliable public transport or the low level of crime or protection from disasters etc.
> 
> "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" (as sung by many different singers)
> 
> ...


But none of that is free. Someone has to pay for it. As you admit home owners get a huge tax break, so those that can't afford a home really bear a lot of the burden.

Also, it wasn't too long ago that Sweden was much more capitalistic, the wealth on which the socialist system is now based.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> But none of that is free. Someone has to pay for it. As you admit home owners get a huge tax break, so those that can't afford a home really bear a lot of the burden.


Wrong! Taxes on wages and business taxes pay for it. And high wages isn't equivalent to home ownerhsip in Sweden in the way that it is in the UK.
This is because the tax system in Sweden is very different to that of the UK. Whereas there are only 3 or 4 tax brackets in the UK, in Sweden the
more you earn the more you pay and I don't mean in pure monetary terms I mean in tax percentage terms. Also there is local tax and state tax, and when you earn over a certain amount you have to pay state tax as well To give you an example, a married couple in a house, eanring a combined total of lets say £60,000 a year will pay around 25% tax each on their monthly wages with tax rleief on the house. The same couple in the same house with the same tax relief but now earning a combined total of £90,000 a year will pay 33% tax on their monthly wages, because they've gone over the limit and into the state tax bracket. And so on. Which is why the wealthiest sportsmen and women,especially the tennis players left the country back in the 80s and 90s because some of them were paying 80% tax. Mats Willander for example.



brokencycle said:


> Also, it wasn't too long ago that Sweden was much more capitalistic, the wealth on which the socialist system is now based.


Also wrong. Apart from the last 3 years of the conservative-liberal alliance govt that we now have and a 4 year period in the late 80s Sweden had had a social democratic workers party government for most of the 20th century. The current system is not based on old capitalist money at all, where did you get that crazy idea from?
As I said before, the system is funded by higher taxes for those that have the most money and on businesses.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> ....there are only about 8.5 million people in a country nearly twice the size of Britain. That's plenty of room to swing a T-rex! :icon_smile_wink:


Sometimes a lack of diversity and large numbers can work to one's favor!!

Are there any famous race baiters or poverty pimps there??


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

The real ethical question is this: How could Sweden, which obviously has access to a magical wealth-generation-from-thin-air machine, be so profoundly callous and irretrievably stingy that it has not voted itself double, triple, or even 100 times the wealth it already has?

I mean, if merely passing legislation decreeing that things like medical care shall be "free" or "not cost a cent," then how on earth could the cold-hearted bastards who are running the Magical Wealth-Generator fail to turn that thing on full-blast and not simply enact legislation making _everything_ free? Why not snap their fingers and do what they did to spontaneously create all this "free" stuff, and synthesize more than just the salary for the Earl of Ormonde's low-productivity civil service job, and POOF!!, make _*every*_ Swede as rich as Mats Willander? Huh?

Then, they could just tax everyone like they tax Mats Willander, and use that money to make the whole _*world*_ [email protected]! The world awaits your answer, you hoarders!!!

The fact they haven't done this already is proof positive of their utter moral bankruptcy.

Surely, the Swedish government's policies have cost no one anything, and this miracle of wealth-generation can be easily and rapidly expanded to include all the people of the earth, with no economic consequences other than eternal and universal happiness. Why, the whole world could be as content and self-satisfied as the Earl of Ormonde on one of his subsidized vacation days!


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

I've often said that what characterizes American life is unlimited opportunity - in both directions; in America, there is no limit to how high you can rise, but also no limit to how far you can fall.

It's not the best place for "average", but for the aggressive "Type A" who values financial success over quality of life, it's the place to be. It's this natural accommodation to elites that make America THE place for power and innovation in business, technology, science, medicine and even culture (can anyone deny that global culture is most heavily influenced by the USA?)

But when it comes to simple quality of life, certainly there are better choices.

DH


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Didn't Earl say that he found a loop hole? How more greedy American can one get? Find some way that somebody else pays the lions share of the tax. Earl didn't move to Sweden for socialism, but a free ride. True socialism has no loop holes, for everybody pays the same. 

Nice try Earl, but you proved that socialism isn't really working in Sweden when some make loop holes for themselves so that others pay more, and your choice to move there is to pay less while others pay a lions share, as you said.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Dhaller said:


> I've often said that what characterizes American life is unlimited opportunity - in both directions; in America, there is no limit to how high you can rise, but also no limit to how far you can fall.


And that's what would scare me. I know I'm not the ambitious type or the type that would fight to succeed and be rich. So I'd probably discover rock bottom in the US. Here in Sweden 90% make up the middle class paying average taxes and living in average to good houses and flats. About 3% make up the super rich who pay much greater "wealth tax" and then about 7% make up the underclass, not working class, but the truly disenfranchised: unemployed, no place of their own to live, poor education. The scary thing is that the underclass has been steadily growing over the last 3 years under the conservative-liberal government. Some of the unfair things this govt have imposed are that pensioners pay a higher percentage of tax than workers because this govt lowered workers taxes while pensioners taxes remained the same. Also they took away unemployment benefit for people that have been unemployed longer than a year! Even for htose unemployed due to illness. Outrageous!
We've got a general election soon, and there is expected to be, and I hope there will be, a landslide victory for the social democrats.

It's been nice paying lower taxes over the last 9 years of home ownership but I don't mind paying higer taxes if it means pensioners and the unemployed will get a better deal.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The scary thing is that the underclass has been steadily growing over the last 3 years..


That isn't scary, that's predictable!!

Their souls and votes have been bought by the collective and their numbers will continue to swell.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> And that's what would scare me. I know I'm not the ambitious type or the type that would fight to succeed and be rich. So I'd probably discover rock bottom in the US.


Don't sell yourself short.

Lacking any real ambition of my own, I have found that if one lives within their means, shows up to work every day, on time and sober, doesn't get married too many times or have more kids than one can afford, one can do quite well!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Don't sell yourself short.
> 
> Lacking any real ambition of my own, I have found that if one lives within their means, shows up to work every day, on time and sober, doesn't get married too many times or have more kids than one can afford, one can do quite well!!


:icon_smile:

Serious question: Are we then what is often called the silent majority? The law abiding, daily working, tax paying, family rearing, pint at the weekend, middle aged, middle of the road, middle class?

I don't know, as I've never really been able to put my finger on who or what this silent majority is.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That isn't scary, that's predictable!!
> 
> Their souls and votes have been bought by the collective and their numbers will continue to swell.


 I don't doubt it for a second.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> :icon_smile:
> 
> Serious question: Are we then what is often called the silent majority? The law abiding, daily working, tax paying, family rearing, pint at the weekend, middle aged, middle of the road, middle class?
> 
> I don't know, as I've never really been able to put my finger on who or what this silent majority is.


We are the boring, stable men made fun of on prime time TV!! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

Ummm... to expound some thoughts already hit on here:

You do realize that NOTHING is free, right? Monetarily, if you're not paying for something at one point, there's a good chance that you're paying for it through other fees somewhere else. Or if not monetarily, value is often extracted from people through compromises of liberty, or demands of effort, servitude, etc.

In a "big government" state, trending towards totalitarianism, why work? Why bother? If everything is already handed to you on a silver platter, simply for existing, why go to the trouble of giving up your time and effort to produce anything? (especially if any compensation is just again taken back by the state)


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Wildblue said:


> Ummm... to expound some thoughts already hit on here:
> 
> You do realize that NOTHING is free, right? Monetarily, if you're not paying for something at one point, there's a good chance that you're paying for it through other fees somewhere else. Or if not monetarily, value is often extracted from people through compromises of liberty, or demands of effort, servitude, etc.
> 
> In a "big government" state, trending towards totalitarianism, why work? Why bother? If everything is already handed to you on a silver platter, simply for existing, why go to the trouble of giving up your time and effort to produce anything? (especially if any compensation is just again taken back by the state)


Yes, the work-tax-work-tax circle in Sweden does at times feel too tight.
Oh I understand well that we are paying in other ways, for example, through the various "point taxes" that we have in Sweden, a couple of which the EU has even said are illegal!!!

For example, one of our illegal "point taxes" is payable when you transfer profit from a profit-bearing account or shares, bonds etc. from one bank to another.
Another one is the "point tax" payable each time your money in an account,shares etc. makes a profit and you want to withdraw it. 
Plus VAT at 25% exists on everything nowadays, except on certain basic foodstuffs and on childrens clothes.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I don't know, as I've never really been able to put my finger on who or what this silent majority is.


The "silent majority" is the (usually imaginary) group of people that support whatever policy the politician using the phrase favors.

Politicians like both words. "Majority" because (in a democracy) that makes the speaker "right," and "silent" because then he/she doesn't have to have any proof that there even is such a majority. Evidence that his/her position is, in fact, not favored by the majority is just advanced as evidence of the "real" majority's _silence_!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

LOL, I have to laugh at this thread. We have an actual resident of Sweden saying that things there work fine. Not perfect, but fine. Then a bunch of people jump out and say, essentially, that that is impossible or only an illusion.

The truth is that there is a fairly wide range of ways in which a society can be structured and still have it fundamentally free and productive. Neither Sweden nor the US approaches _either_ totalitarianism or anarchy in any meaningful sense. There are benefits and drawbacks to either Sweeden's or the US's set-up, but they - and many points in between, and a few points further left and right of each - are perfectly workable. People need to stop being hysterical.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> LOL, I have to laugh at this thread. We have an actual resident of Sweden saying that things there work fine. Not perfect, but fine. Then a bunch of people jump out and say, essentially, that that is impossible or only an illusion.
> 
> The truth is that there is a fairly wide range of ways in which a society can be structured and still have it fundamentally free and productive. Neither Sweden nor the US approaches _either_ totalitarianism or anarchy in any meaningful sense. There are benefits and drawbacks to either Sweeden's or the US's set-up, but they - and many points in between, and a few points further left and right of each - are perfectly workable. People need to stop being hysterical.


Thanks CD I thought I was actually dreaming when I read some of the responses telling ME that my country doesn't work...you have to laugh don't you?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Cognitive dissonance is a b!tch, you know? Here in America, a substantial portion of the population has allowed its collective crank to be wound up so tight that the ability to compare the real world with their ideological theories and _adjust the latter_ has gone right out the window.

Late last year, I was treated to the spectacle of an American lawyer loudly and longly telling an elderly Candian couple how horrific _Canada's_ health care system is, how old people can't get treatment, how everyone in Canada has to cross the border for real treatment. Explanations about the excellent care that the couple had recieved, including various surgeries, were simply waved away. Also ignored were the statements that the couple's daughter was a doctor making quite a nice living, all without having any med school debt to pay off. Made me laugh, but also made me sad.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> A few years ago I asked Phinn how a family of anarchists decide where to go out for dinner, and he wasn't able to give a coherent answer. Something like, "the strongest member of the family forces his choice on everyone", or words to that effect.


I would imagine dining out is the number one problem for anarchists - especially those of them that are bon viveurs.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Chouan said:


> When Catalonia was under the control of Anarchists and Anarcho-syndicalists in the 1930's, crime figures plummeted, and violent crime became almost non-existent. Rape virtually disappeared.
> Anarchy doesn't mean no government, or chaos, it means no centrally imposed government. Each community forms its own consentual governing body, of which every member is a part. Essentially everybody becomes the government, rather than there being no government.
> So, anarchy every time.


Agree. That's why I keep telling people I'm an anarchist. Lets hear it for Kropotkin.
Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

CuffDaddy said:


> LOL, I have to laugh at this thread. We have an actual resident of Sweden saying that things there work fine. Not perfect, but fine. Then a bunch of people jump out and say, essentially, that that is impossible or only an illusion.


Laugh as much as you like, of course, but neither you nor our esteemed Earl have even purported to speak to anything other than personal, anecdotal experience. Which is worth precisely nothing compared to, say, reason, evidence, economics, or even moral principles.

I imagine that many of the pampered daughters of wealthy slave-owners in ante bellum American states would have found their lives to be pleasant, their economic conditions entirely satisfactory, and while things were not, as you say, perfect, they were mostly fine and agreeable. I am sure those people could point to a long list of their anecdotal experiences that underpinned their feelings that the economic system in which they lived was just fine the way it was.

I suppose that the people who are on the receiving end of the forcible diversion of economic benefits are entitled to their opinions about how great their situations are, but anyone who bothers to see the big picture will find such smug, self-satisfied protestations in favor of the status quo to be somewhere between silly and repugnant.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> The "silent majority" is the (usually imaginary) group of people that support whatever policy the politician using the phrase favors.
> 
> Politicians like both words. "Majority" because (in a democracy) that makes the speaker "right," and "silent" because then he/she doesn't have to have any proof that there even is such a majority. Evidence that his/her position is, in fact, not favored by the majority is just advanced as evidence of the "real" majority's _silence_!


Thanks, that's a very helpful explanation, because while one might be able to identify a "silent majority" oneself it will always be from one's own perspective and usually also with no proof to proves its existence. So it always baffles me when politicians, social observers and the like use the term without defining who the silent majority are from their perspective. Sometimes, of course with very unsubtle populist politicians, it's blatantly obvious who their silent majority are.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Phinn, set aside the hysterical rhetoric for a second.

If things are so awful in western europe and canada, why don't people vote to change them? They are democracies, after all. 

And if the terribly oppressed wealthy minority there feels so hard done by, why haven't they either left or just quit working? 

Your appeal to "evidence" is particularly ironic. You aren't advancing any evidence at all, just an ideologically-derived "economics" argument that what works in Sweden just can't work at all. Yet Sweden has worked just fine (a bit better than fine) for a long time under substantially the same rules?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> If things are so awful in western europe and canada, why don't people vote to change them? They are democracies, after all.
> 
> And if the terribly oppressed wealthy minority there feels so hard done by, why haven't they either left or just quit working?


See post #32


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

The underclass has been growing here, as well, hasn't it?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Especially since "The Great Society" yes!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I think it's fair to say from the daily evidence before us that in Sweden, the UK, and the US, the minorities at either end of the scale are growing in numbers as is the size of the gap between them. i.e. the percentage of the super wealthy continues to grow, as does,as I mentioned before, the underclass.

I think the old adage is particularly apt in 2010 "while the rich get richer the poor get poorer"

BUT like CD pointed out, and as I KNOW, the system in Sweden works fine for the 80 plus percent in the middle class with jobs with middle incomes etc.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Especially since "The Great Society" yes!!


Oh, yes, the American poor were so very few and so marvelously well off before government butted in.  Poverty is a reality. Government can neither solve it entirely (the mistake liberals make) nor be blamed for it entirely (the mistake conservatives make).


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I think the old adage is particularly apt in 2010 "while the rich get richer the poor get poorer"


Comparing the rural poor of 1930s America to our urban poor of today proves the adage false.

Today our poor have running water (indoor) cable TV, cell phones, and pets but far more likely not to have a father as head of household.

Most of the rural poor that remain today are hard-core left-behinds.



CuffDaddy said:


> Oh, yes, the American poor were so very few and so marvelously well off before government butted in.  Poverty is a reality. Government can neither solve it entirely (the mistake liberals make) nor be blamed for it entirely (the mistake conservatives make).


I don't blame Government for starting it, just perpetuating it!!


----------

