"If you don't like it, leave"

Observe my response to Kranes56.

 

It isn't intended to give the argument merit, just to point out the reality of the situation. You can try to change the reality, but if you fail, you're really just left with 2 options: 1. Stay and deal with it until its change 2.Leave

As an anarchist I would suggest Somalia as their form of government more closely resemble your ideals.

No one said you had to change your thinking, just that it wasn't getting traction, therefore you would need to "deal with it" until such time as the political paradigm changes to your liking or leave.

Because currently that's the rule of law, and like it or not, you have to follow it. If you'd like to fight to change it be my guest, but in the meantime between the time that you start fighting for a cause and the time you succeed you have no choice but to follow it lest you face the natural repercussions of your actions. Of course, if the process takes to long, or you find it too detestable to stay, you are always free to leave.

When people say this to you, they aren't giving you a directive to leave, they are merely pointing out the reality of the situation. You're free to stay, it's just an option.

 

I could see you talking to slaves back in the 1800s like "THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT IS LAW, WAIT FOR IT TO CHANGE OR YOU CAN LEAVE". Epic fail buddy. Going to have to do better than that "Somalia" argument. I hear that all the time. Consider that fact that Somalia is in a state of civil war, so actually, the country has about 4 governments. Doesn't sound like anarchy to me, but that's assuming you know anything about Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard, Von Mises, etc. which you obviously don't. You should read more.

 

This would be a good point, except for the fact that they WERE NOT FREE TO LEAVE as you are. Try again.

I didn't say Somalia was ruled SOLELY by anarchy, I merely said that your anarchic viewpoint MORE CLOSELY RESEMBLES Somalia's, which is true. A state of civil war with 4 competing governments much more closely resembles anarchy than the U.S. If you truly are an anarchist you should dig this.

As far as reading is concerned, I would suggest you take your own advice and read the posts you reply to more thoroughly.

 

A statist with Stockholm Syndrome suffering from chronic cognitive dissonance trying to tell an anarchist what anarchy is. "Free to leave", to where? Another section of invisible lines set up by gangs of thugs with a monopoly on force and a special piece of cloth for recognition? Let me tell you, the reason why I'm an anarchist is because I am anti-war, if your definition of anarchy is millions of people slaughtering each other for control, then you're actually thinking of government.

“Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.

In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.”

― Robert Higgs

 

If you posed this response to North Koreans they WOULD leave. They try to all the time and get killed for it. They don't even have the option to.

 

Guess you don't understand simple logic.

Try reading the OP again, but slowly this time.

- - - Updated - - -

Brilliance. This OP is so complete, there really are no right answers to it, other than total agreement.

This brought joy to me.

 

You're just pointing out that anarchy, by nature, doesn't have a hierarchy. If pure anarchy were even possible (which it isn't) you would just have lots of individuals behaving in their own best interest w/o any leaders to direct them. Atrocities would run rampant, but on an individual level.

Naturally human beings, just like any sentient being, tend to band together to accomplish tasks (whether bad or good, and even these words are arbitrary), once they band together you demonize them. When centralized power is disbanded (as in any revolution) there is an immediate fight for power to make up for the vacuum ALWAYS. Anarchists are doomed to lose this battle because the minute they band together they are no longer anarchists, and the few that don't band together are destroyed by those that do. So yes, anarchists are incapable of committing large scale atrocities due to their inherent nature. They are also incapable of stopping said atrocities done by others for this same reason.

Wolf packs have alpha males, flocks of birds are following the bird in front of them, etc., etc. This is necessity as groups need leaders to function, and those that refuse to group are killed.

You point out that since I am not an anarchist that I shouldn't be telling you what anarchy is, but I say I can because once anyone truly understands anarchy they realize its pitfalls and exclude themselves. Only a person who claims themselves an anarchist is necessarily unaware of its true meaning, or suicidal.

 

There are always dissenting opinions when people think for themselves, you should try it sometime.

 

Freedom isn't an absolute, nor is the definition the same for everyone. You are using your definition of freedom to make your argument and that's why you are so confused

The left says they want to support minorities, but support doesn't mean giving the minorities power over everyone. Support means helping them as much as the majority want to. There are tonnes of things wrong with mob rule (umm..urgh..democracy) so if you have any better, more practical ideas about how to govern I'd love to hear them.

 

Yes - as would have done the workers in C19 Manchester. Early capitalism is vicious everywhere, and it only seems to get better as it brainwashes the mugs!

 

---It is not an argument but a declaration of a determination. The opponent that says "like it or leave it" is drawing a line in the sand. They have graduated from contemplation of an ideal, which can involve vigorous argumentation, to accepting an ideal. There efforts are now escalating to champion and materialize the idea that they have determined is ideologically sound and objectively viable. Note that it doesn't require that the idea be logical or sensible whatsoever.

---This is crucial. Humans are driven by the same instincts as other animals. The difference is that human intelligence and self-awareness allow for more sophisticated and complex expressions and resolutions. The election of an alpha wolf is primitive in that the biggest, strongest male able to physically dominate his competitors will lead the pack. We can still see this in humans with our impressions of people and things that are large and imposing. However, our intellect has greatly deepened and expanded the arena of leadership.

---The concept of strength has become more sophisticated than simple brawn. This allows for more elaborate deceptions of strength than we see in, for example, a puffer fish dramatically increasing his size in order to deter predators. A misguided, ignorant and reasonably contented population does not have the requisite knowledge to see through the ruse nor the will to desire to. We won't see better leadership until their is a populace from which it may be taken.

---We need an evolution of thought, not a revolution. A revolution does exactly what it indicates: it revolves. It returns to the point where it began. From the Boston Tea Party and "no taxation without representation" we have come full circle. There was no representative of the taxpayer on the board of the big banks that were bailed out. The power has once again been funneled up to the pinnacle, albeit there is no thrown our crown there anymore.

 

I'm not saying capitalism doesn't have its own pitfalls, as does any form of govt./or lack thereof, rather I'm just pointing out poor examples contesting the "lf you don't like it, leave" mentality.

Generally people who are given this line are people who act is if they are being overtly oppressed by our status quo. They use examples like slavery, or unchecked capitalism as analogy as to what they are going through, when this obviously isn't the truth, because if it was they WOULD leave.

When people are being oppressed that is exactly what they would choose to do if they could. Sure slaves couldn't leave, and neither can severely underpaid workers who couldn't afford the boat ticket out, but NO ONE on this political forum is in that boat.

Slaves during the revolutionary war tried to attach themselves to the outside of outgoing British warships facing almost certain death because they TRULY were oppressed. Cubans pack up their families on inner-tubes to sail here. Mexicans run through the desert to get here.

When people in America act like capitalism has treated them so badly they liken it to slavery, people call BS on them by using the line "If you don't like it, leave". Because they ARE full of it. If they were truly so oppressed, and can easily leave, then why don't they? Every analogy given to the contrary involves classes of people who all WOULD leave.

If a slave from the 18th century told his master he was being oppressed, and his master had the gall to say "Well, if you don't like it, you can leave", the slave would do it in a heartbeat with a smile on his face. The fact that those who act oppressed today aren't leaving even though they can is proof of their exaggeration.

 

I'm sure it may be used in this sense sometimes, but I think it is used more-so in the sense of "I think you are exaggerating your claims and call BS on you" than anything else if that makes sense.

I am all for trying to make our system work better for everyone. I do think our thinking needs to evolve, but a self-professed anarchist isn't bringing anything to the table. When one is talking about creating a more efficient, compassionate, transparent government, and the other is acting as if the system is so bad they may as well be a slave with the best course of action being abolishing govt.s, what is there left to do but call a spade a spade?

 

Well, when the republicans used to say that, it actually meant..."If you don't like what we want America to be, get out."

 

---Anarchy could very well work in a world filled to overflowing with infinite resources. In a world with limited resources and bellies that need to be filled when they're hungry, not so much. I think you did a good job exposing anarchy.

---A problem that we have with our current system is that the two prevailing parties represent ideological extremes. Extreme conditions are not meant to be tenable and the effort to render them so is exorbitant and short lived. None are talking about operating between the poles, but planting a flag on them.

 

It would be more accurate to say "If you don't like the way things ARE in America, get out." Hence the definition of conservatism. Its also usually used to call people's bluffs when they act as though their life circumstances are totally unacceptable, but compared to what?

 

WTF???

Four competing governments resembles anarchy in your view? How does that work? The more governments there are the more anarchy (aka the absence of government) there is? In your world does a person having a lot of money make him poor? The more money, the poorer he is? Do you get thirstier and thirstier the more water you drink?

 

Do you think 1 government w/o any competition is weaker than 1 government competing with 3 others? Please think...

 

I think ill go into greater detail here, because I think you've posted a "gut reaction" without thinking so badly that you'll be unable to stick with your line of reasoning.

1st I did not say Somalia resembles anarchy. I said this form of government MORE CLOSELY RESEMBLES anarchy than the current US government. I even capitalized these crucial words in my original post you quoted. Read ... Digest.

2nd Since no country has a complete absence of government (the nomadic tribes were killed off centuries ago, and even they had some rudimentary hierarchy), I was forced to choose a country embroiled in civil war, because the lack of a government in a country creates a vacuum in power which will immediately result in war as anarchy cannot sustain itself. Someone will always want to fill this power and they will convince others to help them. 4 different styles of government are competing in a civil war to decide which 1 government wins and thus has power. So yes, 4 governments more closely resemble anarchy than 3 or 2 or 1. As this war rages and said governments move closer and closer to having just 1, would it be logical to think they would be moving closer to anarchy or further away?


Ill edit in a 3rd point. Before our civil war there was only 1 government. When the confederate states tried to secede from the union, there were 2, both even with their own currencies. Would you say that the US was more anarchic before and after the civil war when there was 1 government, or during the civil war when there was 2?

 

Got it, thank you.

 

You're basically just defining anarchy as "an effed up situation." The effed up situation in Somalia is caused BY GOVERNMENT so to try to compare it in any way to anarchy in the political sense is delusional.

Anarchy means an absence of government not an embroiled situation caused by competing governments.

Your American Civil War scenario doesn't even make sense. There was no anarchy involved. It was two governments waging war against each other. The war as it was couldn't have existed in a state of anarchy. It would be like asking who is more womanly, your father or his brother.

 

Because it's hypocritical - people openly hating their country are free to do that, but they should practice what they preach and move to another country, instead of talking about how 'evil/bad/etc' their country is while reaping the rewards of living in this country (ex. such as talking about how "bad" any form of taxation is, while reaping the rewards of military protection - not to mention that the founders were never against taxation, just excessive taxation, but that's another story).

It's like Michael Moore talking about how 'evil' or 'selfish' wealth is, while he lives in a mansion (or like Rev Ted Haggart talking about how homosexuality is a sin, but doing drugs with gay hookers)- it's hypocrisy

It's the only realistic argument that can be used with an anarchist

That's your problem - the state's not entitled to 'make reparations from you' - take personal responsiblity

We're freer under democratuc govt than we'd ever be in an anarchist dystopia - ask a Somalian just how great the "freedom" to die from local warlords, famine, and genocide is. Anarchists make the founders look like Stalin in comparison, when it comes to their fundamentalist interpretation of "freedom"

You can opt out by leaving anytime, so start packing why don't you?

Then get a job as a stripper where you get paid in cash, or find an offshore bank account and stash your money there - it's not our job to baby you and do everything for you - use some of that personal responsiblity

Then work to change the law - many of us don't like it, but sitting and whining about it isn't going to change anything.

We're a Democratic republic, not a democracy

Well, then if you don't like it, leave it - go find a deserted island and live there like Robinson Crusoe - it's not our fault if "you're too lazy or incapable" of finding a way to do that yourself, and weren't not obligated to pander to your self-entitlement.

Find a more realistic ideology than anarchism and you're problem's solved

 

Yeah. Come check out the hundreds of threads I've started.

Then get back to me on that, rookie.

 

Lets put it this way. We have roughly 300 million people in America. Each person is their own government by default. We have 300 million governments running around competing for themselves. This would be extreme anarchy as each person ruled over himself and made his own decisions. Any step to reduce this amount of governments by like minded individuals banding together to increase their power would lead closer to government and further away from anarchy.

As far as you criticizing me for just giving any effed up scenario the anarchy moniker, YES THAT IS THE NATURE OF ANARCHY. When people stop banding together and establishing rule of law and order it will ALWAYS lead to effed up scenarios that people want to avoid. Hence people band together to overcome the uncertainty of anarchy and establish rules and laws.

By your definition of anarchy being an all or none scenario you just relegated it the theoretical realm because it would not be possible. People (and animals) will ALWAYS band together in some fashion, and those that don't will be killed by them. So yes according to your narrow view of anarchy, which is not possible, I could never possibly give a legitimate option for what country an anarchist could go to feel more at home because THEY HAVE NEVER AND WILL NEVER EXIST. How could you even establish a country w/o a government? Maybe I should have just suggested that the anarchist go to "never-never pretend land" country because their ideals put them into 1 of 2 camps: 1. Dead 2. Liars

You blame government for Somalias situation, but who creates government? Individuals! By nature! Always! Why? Because you can accomplish much much more with other people than you can ever hope to attain by yourself. Everyone realizes this, even the anarchist, hence they don't leave and start the country of "themselves".