Beckytheblondie wrote:But, anarchojesse, (and, yes, I am very familiar with your argument) aren't people stupid?
Any pessimistic assessment of humanity must equally apply to people under the State as well. So I suppose the person who should be asking whether or not people are stupid are the same people who advocate putting stupid people into positions of extreme power. If people
are stupid, why on earth would you give them access to an institution that is routinely engaged in violence and plunder? Wouldn't this only exacerbate what problems we already have?
Aren't shepherds necessary?
"Shepherd" betrays a certain sheep-like mentality on YOUR part. That said, you're again having falling back on the problem of how these shepherds are any better than the sheep.
Is government INHERENTLY elitist? Or can leadership occur without despotism/greed?
Yes, government is
inherently elitist. It presumes that a special group of people once placed into a special position of power will at once be enabled to do things ordinary individuals could not. This is, by definition no less, an
elitist mentality. Frederic Bastiat put it the most succinctly:
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"
Now, asking if "leadership" can occur without despotism and greed means we need to actually evaluate "leadership", and see if there are any conclusive merits to the concept behind it. By the seat of my pants and without any context added on to fine tune, I would say that leadership (at least, unquestioned and arbitrary leadership) is not an intrinsically good thing, and can often (and I've seen little evidence to the contrary) create incentives for people to abuse their positions of authority.
It is in my strongest of opinions that that the purpose of a government isn't to tell its citizens that they are too weak to organize themselves, but rather to act as a centralized agency of change and collective voice.
And yet here you are telling me that people could never organize without some master lording over them. Moreover, the inherent problems with centralized agencies (change is totally irrelevant here) and collectivization is that it assumes the legitimacy of these institutions and ideas without explaining why this is more efficient or even desirable.
Real change will never occur in an anarchy. Your ideals are wonderful, but, alas, far from realistic.
Yet putting stupid people into extreme positions of authority and power without any real oversight is a realistic and desirable scenario, right? You talk of change and how such a thing is impossible in anarchy, but you completely remove "change" from the standard you hold the State too-- but of course, why wouldn't you? The only change that comes from the State is a changing of slave masters and a changing of the artillery we use to bomb the f*ck out of a constantly changing "enemy".
thegreekdog wrote:I can get on board with that. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I benefit from the government currently, so maybe I'll have to decline to participate in anarchy.
What services do you take, if you're not minding my asking? There is no reason to believe that particular institutions that provide services that the government monopolizes could not possibly arise in a free society.
you're full of crap...
