Is this correct?

Is this correct?

No bad governments are not effective enough to inflict evils. It is very good governments that have the ability to inflict the most evil and good

(((yes goyim, the government's only responsibility is to protect my right to own ten factories without ever stepping foot in them, now go back to your 12 hour shift, remember there are millions willing to kill to have your job)))

>government gave workers better working conditions
>it wasn't just increased productivity
Next you'll tell me no one starved before capitalism

Bad governments are only mankind's favorites that went rogue. Either power is evil or mankind is evil anyway

Right-libertarians are sort of right, but they are missing the whole point.

Yes, states are the most dangerous things in the world. But that's precisely why it's so important that WE control them, not corporations.

Right-libertarians have a noble end-goal, but they will never get there, because they always insist on first removing the pieces of the puzzle that make life bearable for the powerless. They will never actually get rid of the pieces of the puzzle that reward the powerful.

So right-libertarians will remove the welfare state, but they won't (and can't) challenge the alliance between big business and the state.

They think this is just a game of ideology. It isn't. It's a game of violence. Powerful people LIKE being powerful. They don't give a shit about your pure ideology. You need to kill them.

Quads confirm.

> that's precisely why it's so important that WE control them, not corporations.

...and how ya gonna do that?

He's right.

But it doesn't mean that government's are inherently bad.

It just means you have to make sure you have a good 1.

>...and how ya gonna do that?

By subjugating the government to the will of an enlightened monarch who has been trained from birth to be a proper and wise ruler, who will use his power to ensure justice, freedom, and prosperity for his people.

Something as powerful as the state will always be tempting to the people who want to control others. A good government will always turn into an evil one.
Sounds good until he dies and his replacement is a major fuckup. Besides, no one knows what's good for everyone, not even people with a good intent.

> But that's precisely why it's so important that WE control them, not corporations.


Sure but the modern regulatory state is a vital element of corporate control of government.

>Something as powerful as the state will always be tempting to the people who want to control others. A good government will always turn into an evil one.

There is no way to NOT have a state, however.

Anywhere you have a large number of people in one area, a government WILL form.

"Governments" don't exist, there are people who do things and there are people who watch them be done, but no-one was ever killed by an ideas (a "government")

That is not true. People are perfectly capable of self-organizing; exclusive administrative jobs and coordinators is not the same as a coercive government.

Take Johannesburg for instance, the government is so corrupt and useless in the area people turn to other means. Poorer people in the slums hire cheap local security to track down and deal with criminals, while wealthier apartment owners in the city hire professional security to make sure the gangs don't fuck with the landlords' property or tenants. In the old west people hired a sheriff to take care of trouble and deal with any people fucking shit up; a single democratically elected man was capable of keeping the peace in a dangerous time and place without the help of a professional police force or higher government.

And the private militia states with a competitive market for violence are a vital element of 3rd world shitholes with warlords and gangs.

>its totally possible to have a place with no government
>gives example of dysfunctional hellhole

It's in South Africa, do you really expect it to be great? There's an endless number of things that makes it fucked up, lack of government isn't one. It's not perfect but it's certainly better than the alternative.

No, I'm pretty sure lack of a functional government is one of the things that makes it shit.

...

You see, because humans are such complicated animals, the study of government is necessarily empirical rather than scientific.

If you can show me an example of an industrialized state functioning under polycentric law and achieving first world living standards, I would gladly hear more of your argument.

>lack of government isn't one. It's not perfect but it's certainly better than the alternative.
>it would be even shittier if there was a functional gubmint
>what ancaps akshully beleib

>People are perfectly capable of self-organizing

Yes, and when this happens it tends to eventually form a government once the group gets large enough.

This is why Marx said you would have to have post-scarcity if you wanted statelessness.

Ancaps believe everything will work out in a stateless society when there's material scarcity.

Communists believe everything will work out in a stateless society only when there's enough shit for everyone so people don't have to fight over scarce commodities.

Which one is more retarded?

>If you can show me an example of an industrialized state functioning under polycentric law and achieving first world living standards, I would gladly hear more of your argument.
Well, there's not many because governments usually don't like being deposed, but Anarchist Catalonia had a pretty decent run for a while.
>Gangs are horrible, robbing from people and beating them up
>Governments are a lot better though because they manage to make things stabler because they keep all other gangs out
>Government:
>1: The body with the power to make and/or enforce laws to control a country, land area, people or organization.
>3: A group of people who hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory.
Organization isn't government because government is based upon force and coercion.

Oh yeah the passing of labor laws just coincided exactly with increases in productivity that made it possible for the boss to be a little more humane to his workers while still stealing almost all of the wealth they made.

>there's not many because governments usually don't like being deposed

I don't know if you know this, but that's the way all governments are formed.

It's a zero sum gain.

Republicanism, monarchy, and even communism have managed to extend their sway over entire countries.

So far, the anarchists have managed to be middling factions in various civil wars before being utterly destroyed because their system can't meet the inherent burdens on information and resources posed by a war.

>Governments are a lot better though because they manage to make things stabler because they keep all other gangs out
Yes, actually that is better than
>Gangs are horrible, robbing from people and beating them up

Also learn how to use a fucking dictionary. When they list multiple definitions it doesn't mean it must meet the criteria listed in 1 and 3, but excluding 2, 4 and 5. Guess what happens when self-organized people use force.

>their system can't meet the inherent burdens on information and resources posed by a war.
It has nothing to do with that. No matter how good your system is it can't conjure resources and weapons out of thin air.
Okay let me rephrase it:
>Man, I know the Bloods beat you up and steal your shit, but at least they keep the other gangs in line
>Also learn how to use a fucking dictionary. When they list multiple definitions it doesn't mean it must meet the criteria listed in 1 and 3, but excluding 2, 4 and 5.
The other definitions were either superfluous or irrelevant to the conversation.
>Guess what happens when self-organized people use force.
They either become a gang or if they gain supremacy they become a government. My point was just self-organizing does not constitute government because government relies on force.

>My point was just self-organizing does not constitute government because government relies on force.
And the user you replied to said
>Yes, and when this happens it tends to eventually form a government once the group gets large enough.
So apparently you're retarded.

>Man, I know the Bloods beat you up and steal your shit, but at least they keep the other gangs in line
This is better than gang warfare and having multiple gangs trying to extort protection money from you.

>My point was just self-organizing does not constitute government because government relies on force.

How do you prevent a government without using force to stop a government from forming.

That's the real question.

Well, I can't help but notice that the Red Army and the Black Army were factions in the same civil war, and the Red Army comprehensively thrashed both the monarchist and anarchist factions.

Right now, I can point to examples of totalitarian socialist societies, theocracies, absolute monarchies, republics, and social democracies that have managed to maintain a state.

If it's one of those last two, they even have countries worth living in.

If a group of people operating under a given ideology are incapable of maintaining control over a state, it's entirely possible that the ideology is the cause, especially if other untested ideologies have succeeded in similar circumstances.

STEPS ON HOW 2 MAEK GOOD GOVERNMENT
1. MAKE IT SO ONE MOTHERFUCKER CAN'T THROW SO MUCH MONEY AT A POLITICIAN THAT EVERYONE ELSE IS IRRELEVANT
2. REMOVE THE SHITTY FPTP VOTING SYSTEM AND REPLACE IT WITH SOMETHING THAT ISN'T "WELL I DON'T LIKE EITHER CANDIDATE SO I'LL VOTE FOR THE ONE I DISLIKE THE LEAST"
3. EDUCATE YOUR POPULACE SO THEY'RE NOT ALL DUMBSHITS
THERE U HAVE A GREAT GOVERNMENT :)

Obviously people can self-organize into a government, what I'm saying is just self-organizing and coordinating people around is not innately government.
Using force in self-defense is not the same as using it to control people and make them do what you want.
>Well, I can't help but notice that the Red Army and the Black Army were factions in the same civil war, and the Red Army comprehensively thrashed both the monarchist and anarchist factions.
The Black Army was exceedingly small and even then performed much better than could be expected. The civil war was mostly just between the White Army and the Red, the Black was not a major player.
>Right now, I can point to examples of ...
Those systems are either much older than or much more popular than anarchism. Neither the age or the popularity of something is proof of its validity.
>If a group of people operating under a given ideology are incapable of maintaining control over a state...
No matter how great the ideology is, unless enough people support it and win wars for it, it cannot come into existence. If there were constant anarchist revolutions and they all failed then maybe you'd have a point, but as it is there have been very few and in circumstances where its hard to see anyone else winning in their place.

>what I'm saying is just self-organizing and coordinating people around is not innately government.

Once you have enough people doing it, it does.

Can you put out a time when a large group of people were in the same place at the same time and there was no sort of governing body?

The only example I can come up with is Woodstock, and even then you had the Air Force helping out with helicopters (more or less because there was a base nearby and they had nothing better to do at the time).

...

>he Black Army was exceedingly small

Why?

Governments aren't something that naturally comes out of the earth's crust like continents.

Because it was hard for them to grow when they were fighting a war against two much larger armies and one when of the armies is constantly betraying you.

Government appear because certain men want power over others. Governments keep existing because people are deluded into believing that they deserve to be ruled.

Lel just cut down the size and scope of government and the problem is solved

So what you're telling me is that for whatever reason, the Black Army couldn't go from being an underground unit to governing the country, but the Red Army could.

I wonder why that could be.

Could it be superior organization and resources?

>Lel just cut down the size and scope of government
>just
You are under the illusion that you can choose such a thing without violence.

Wealthy people want laws in their favour. Politicians want money.

They are powerful. You aren't. You will have ZERO influence on this process without violence. There will be a lot of pretty words, a lot of misdirection techniques. The end result will be zero.

I doubt either of us has extensive knowledge of the Russian Revolution or how exactly the Bolsheviks rose to power, so anything we'd say about it would just be conjecture.

>he thinks electoral politics isn't an exercise in potential violence, the way that boulders on the edge of a cliff have potential energy

All governments are simply a means to coordinate social information.

If you create something like a pressure group or a party, and actually have voters listen to you, you can exert political power.

Think NRA, AARP, Tea Party, and so on.

If you can actually get voters to consistently vote on one side of an issue, you'll get shit done.

>If you can actually get voters to consistently vote on one side of an issue, you'll get shit done.
They have nothing to fear from you. They'll gladly dismantle the welfare state, though. That's in their interest, they can't believe their luck that half of your pure ideology happens to be something they wanted all along!

But when it comes to the corporate nanny state? It just keeps growing. Never slowed down. Never will, until [COLLAPSE].

>All governments are simply a means to coordinate social information.

But that's wrong. What you just described is Facebook.

Okay.

How about the Spanish Civil War?

Why is it that fascist, communist, and theocratic factions are capable of capitalizing on political instability to extend their influence, but anarchist factions can't?

Facebook can't issue arrest warrants though.

Think about it, when a judge decides to have somebody arrested, what they're doing is writing on a little piece of paper, and then a different cog of the machine, the violent part, goes and arrests somebody.

A government is there to coordinate the violence.

If Mark Zuckerberg had enough control of information that people would kill on his behalf, and he could have laws obeyed, he'd be a king, not a CEO.

The Anarchists were only a part of the Spanish Civil war, their success was dependent on the success of the rest of the Republicans which were made up of many factions, some Communist, some socialist, some social democratic. If your theory was true then the Republicans should've won because the Communists won in the Russian Civil War; or because the Monarchists won in the Spanish Civil War that means the White Army should've won also.