1
   

What Is Your Problem With Anarchy?

 
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 04:54 am
@nicodemus,
Im arguing from a communist perspective not from a diehard red in the bed position. Helping farmers survive is a socialist ideology ,it would not happen in an anarchy..your poor ,your not self supporting, youve had it..
Icon
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 08:08 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
Im arguing from a communist perspective not from a diehard red in the bed position. Helping farmers survive is a socialist ideology ,it would not happen in an anarchy..your poor ,your not self supporting, youve had it..

Actually, people will need food and so farmers who knew how to grow it would be a very popular commodity. I am sure that farmers, in anarchy, would find plenty of support. Many people would want to learn the trade while others would be looking for a meal.

TANSTAAFL my good friends. You have to work for what you get. There is no other way.
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 11:44 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
I am both an anarchist and communist. I don't understand how anyone cannot see how one can only succeed with the other. The mediation between the two is democracy. At some moments the community is more important, and at others the individual. Which is to be favored at the moment is up to the people. At some point humans must be forced to be rational and decide what is best at moments in time.
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 04:31 am
@Icon,
Icon wrote:
Actually, people will need food and so farmers who knew how to grow it would be a very popular commodity. I am sure that farmers, in anarchy, would find plenty of support. Many people would want to learn the trade while others would be looking for a meal.

TANSTAAFL my good friends. You have to work for what you get. There is no other way.
Not if your ever so high acheivers get there food from abroad..Its a rat eat rat world and those who dont survive this year will be dead next year.
0 Replies
 
nicodemus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 09:49 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
"I am sure that farmers, in anarchy, would find plenty of support. Many people would want to learn the trade while others would be looking for a meal. "

if i wasn't so deeply saddened by this perception, that would be funny. So lets cut to the chase.

Even in todays subsidy based economy (more on that later), farmers are losing money
Producing corn isnt like other industries. In the united states alone, we produce enough of it that we can feed the same food to our feedlot animals as we feed our children. Meaning, its been overproduced to the point where our entire food system is based off of corn, look up any food in your pantry, odds are, part of is corn. Also, the only people who really can meet this demand for the cheap product are the ones who've been doing it their whole lives. You cant just pick up a manual and expect to feed yourself. Currently, in the midwest, farmers sell their corn at a loss for one reason, there is a subsidy that makes sure they recieve floor price. Hence they can produce enough to feed the world. Tell me, in an anarchistic society, how are you going to convince producers of the commodity the world currently runs on to sell it at a loss? You can neither regulate nor stimulate production, meaning chaos in the diet of approximately 1-2 billion people. And even the "weakest, most struggling" farmers are more industrious than the greater population of the world combined. they just happen to be in a job that has recieved the short end of the stick since the domestication of wheat
nicodemus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 09:51 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
And even brazil couldnt come up with a big enough surplus to satiate our needs if we chose to buy abroad. As far as agriculture is involved, anarchy would sink and already decrepid ship
Icon
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 06:17 pm
@nicodemus,
Yes... Anarchy would be tough at first. No one has disputed that fact. Things would need time to balance out.

What cracks me up about your observations is that they are all based off of the current system. I understand if you need a point of reference to come to conclusions but there is no base of knowledge for this type of system.

Perhaps if you were able to see past what you know to the realm of possibility, this wouldn't be such a frightening idea to you.

You cannot base something which you have never experienced off of something that you currently know. That is like telling me that you know what it is like to be shot in the chest because you have a cut on your finger once.

If it seems that I am attacking you more than your ideas then I would reply that you have done the same to me but that is not what I am doing. I am directly questioning your ability to logic beyond what you currently know. This topic requires a form of imagination.
0 Replies
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 06:52 pm
@nicodemus,
nicodemus wrote:
2- i grew up on a farm, one of the few family farms left in existance, my father was statistically one of the hardest working, productive people in the world and he barely had enough money to keep the farm in repair, never mind hire security forces, even the huge operations that could afford it, they would be like Mexico/US border gaurds as far as efficiency


I suppose that, without crack government security, your father would have experienced a rash of corn thefts?

I grew up on a small farm and worked for a couple years at a grain elevator in my small town. I can vouch that these small farmers are very hard-working people in general, but productivity is the issue due to an obsolete business model.

It is easy to sympathize for struggling farmers, but at what point does it become unethical to force the other members of society to give the farmer the ability to keep a job that he is not able to perform well enough?

I would love to become a professional musician and play my guitar all day, but the overwhelming likelihood is that no one will pay to hear me play. I wouldn't pay to hear me play. What special status does a farmer have that he is allowed to maintain the profession of his choosing at taxpayer expense that I do not have?

Quote:
4- government subsidies are half the reason the us was ever able to sustain growth, and today, our railroad and agricultural systems would have died out in the 70s were it not for government subsidies


Evidence?
0 Replies
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 07:03 pm
@nicodemus,
nicodemus wrote:
"I am sure that farmers, in anarchy, would find plenty of support. Many people would want to learn the trade while others would be looking for a meal. "

if i wasn't so deeply saddened by this perception, that would be funny. So lets cut to the chase.

Even in todays subsidy based economy (more on that later), farmers are losing money
Producing corn isnt like other industries. In the united states alone, we produce enough of it that we can feed the same food to our feedlot animals as we feed our children. Meaning, its been overproduced to the point where our entire food system is based off of corn, look up any food in your pantry, odds are, part of is corn. Also, the only people who really can meet this demand for the cheap product are the ones who've been doing it their whole lives. You cant just pick up a manual and expect to feed yourself. Currently, in the midwest, farmers sell their corn at a loss for one reason, there is a subsidy that makes sure they recieve floor price. Hence they can produce enough to feed the world. Tell me, in an anarchistic society, how are you going to convince producers of the commodity the world currently runs on to sell it at a loss? You can neither regulate nor stimulate production, meaning chaos in the diet of approximately 1-2 billion people. And even the "weakest, most struggling" farmers are more industrious than the greater population of the world combined. they just happen to be in a job that has recieved the short end of the stick since the domestication of wheat


In your opinion, do large scale farming operations require subsidies?

In your opinion, would people take on the role of subsidizer if the government stopped. In very simple words, would people pay more for food or starve?

If we assume the basic truth of the idea that, in general, market clearing price is a representation of the perceived satisfaction of the consumer, basically one makes money to the degree that one satisfies another's wants, what causes the disequilibrium that leads farmers to receive less for their labors than they deserve? If equilibrium does exist and farmers are generally receiving back that which they provide to society in general, what ethical reasons could you have for penalizing the rest of society for these deficiencies?
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 07:58 pm
@nicodemus,
nicodemus;43412 wrote:
Even in todays subsidy based economy (more on that later), farmers are losing money


Yes. So you then want to use more of my tax dollars to prop up a business that can't compete? This is the same philosophical argument now for bailing out detroit. The bailout of the banks and of wall street probably at least made some economic sense, but, yet again, the clear thing taking place was the average American's tax dollars being used to prop up a failing industry. Bad business is bad business, and capitalism is supposed to reward the good and punish the bad.

Arguing that we need government in order to provide corporate welfare for certain industries is not going to get you far in this debate. Certainly there are many government programs that are more important, perhaps vital for our society to function. We can do away with the welfare state without issue. If it is possible for this "anarchistic society" to exist, it seems that the first step towards that would have to be moving away from our love of the welfare state and embracing a government that is more libertarian. The current mentality when government doesn't work is just to give more power and money to government. Like your ag. subsidies, we use money to prop up a failing enterprise that is much of the bloated federal government we now enjoy...
nicodemus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 09:20 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
it goes against everything i believe in, but yes, in the case of agriculture one must make an exception for the singular reason that the only people willing to do it are the ones already doing it. give anyone a 1000 acre tract of land, how many of them are going to be willing, much less able, to use that land to produce the food 300 million people need. The ones who are in that process are always labeled as rich people who cant compete, and that last part is true, because farming is the industry of losing money while providing the one thing everybody needs. So you feel free to destroy the farming subsidies, but dont be surprised if you start paying the lion's share of your money on food, something much of america has clearly forgotten
xris
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 10:47 am
@Pangloss,
Pangloss wrote:
Yes. So you then want to use more of my tax dollars to prop up a business that can't compete? This is the same philosophical argument now for bailing out detroit. The bailout of the banks and of wall street probably at least made some economic sense, but, yet again, the clear thing taking place was the average American's tax dollars being used to prop up a failing industry. Bad business is bad business, and capitalism is supposed to reward the good and punish the bad.

Arguing that we need government in order to provide corporate welfare for certain industries is not going to get you far in this debate. Certainly there are many government programs that are more important, perhaps vital for our society to function. We can do away with the welfare state without issue. If it is possible for this "anarchistic society" to exist, it seems that the first step towards that would have to be moving away from our love of the welfare state and embracing a government that is more libertarian. The current mentality when government doesn't work is just to give more power and money to government. Like your ag. subsidies, we use money to prop up a failing enterprise that is much of the bloated federal government we now enjoy...
I watched a programe on the tv lastnight about health and welfare in america..This is corporate america at its worst..The strong manipulating goverment with what ide call legal bribes ,and who suffers..guess who ? the poor the weak the vulnerable. YOu dont know what welfare means come to the uk and be envious .Im proud to be british when i see our system compared to yours , live in america ide be a revolutionist in six months .Dollouts for the rich they get them all the time why are you so naive about how it works..
Icon
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 11:57 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
I watched a programe on the tv lastnight about health and welfare in america..This is corporate america at its worst..The strong manipulating goverment with what ide call legal bribes ,and who suffers..guess who ? the poor the weak the vulnerable. YOu dont know what welfare means come to the uk and be envious .Im proud to be british when i see our system compared to yours , live in america ide be a revolutionist in six months .Dollouts for the rich they get them all the time why are you so naive about how it works..

Unfortunately, it is not as simple as all that. The current patch-work democracy that we Americans hold in such high regard is nothing more than a tangle knot. Because of the way that the knot bends and tangles, giving to the truly poor would do nothing but suppliment their poverty.

Do not get me wrong, giving to the rich is not helping either. The problem is that we are giving to the people and not to the necessities.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 12:43 pm
@Icon,
Icon wrote:
Unfortunately, it is not as simple as all that. The current patch-work democracy that we Americans hold in such high regard is nothing more than a tangle knot. Because of the way that the knot bends and tangles, giving to the truly poor would do nothing but suppliment their poverty.

Do not get me wrong, giving to the rich is not helping either. The problem is that we are giving to the people and not to the necessities.
80,000 lobbyist in washington with corporate bribes, making medicine the dearest in the world, seven times more expensive than europe..More billionaires, more poor than the rest of the world..the gap between the rich and poor widening more and more each year. Free medical aid is not a luxury for the poor its a necessity..Not every one is sponge on society many are veterans, many redundant because of bankers greed . OOHH im so angry with certain attitudes..give me my bow of burning fire..
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 03:30 pm
@xris,
xris;43768 wrote:
I watched a programe on the tv lastnight about health and welfare in america...why are you so naive about how it works..


Who here is being naive? I'm the one who lives in America, you got your info from a TV program. :bigsmile:

xris;43783 wrote:
80,000 lobbyist in washington with corporate bribes, making medicine the dearest in the world, seven times more expensive than europe..More billionaires, more poor than the rest of the world..the gap between the rich and poor widening more and more each year. Free medical aid is not a luxury for the poor its a necessity..Not every one is sponge on society many are veterans, many redundant because of bankers greed . OOHH im so angry with certain attitudes..give me my bow of burning fire..


We do have more billionaires according to our population (and in total) than any other country, but more poor people? No way. The average American is wealthy by global standards. Nobody here said that "everyone is a sponge on society". One reason I support less government power (and thus less funding), is because I think it will reduce corporate political influence. You aren't naive enough to believe that welfare programs really help the lower class, are you? I'd rather we just cut them a check for the dollar amount of services all of our programs are supposed to provide, than fund more wasteful, corrupt programs that really only help politicians and bureaucrats.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 04:39 am
@Pangloss,
Pangloss wrote:
Who here is being naive? I'm the one who lives in America, you got your info from a TV program. :bigsmile:



We do have more billionaires according to our population (and in total) than any other country, but more poor people? No way. The average American is wealthy by global standards. Nobody here said that "everyone is a sponge on society". One reason I support less government power (and thus less funding), is because I think it will reduce corporate political influence. You aren't naive enough to believe that welfare programs really help the lower class, are you? I'd rather we just cut them a check for the dollar amount of services all of our programs are supposed to provide, than fund more wasteful, corrupt programs that really only help politicians and bureaucrats.
Where do you get your facts from then ? the BBC is a respected broadcaster .If a charity has to be set up to deal with the thousands of americans who cant afford basic medical assistance then your system of no welfare for the poor stinks.Blacks who have been through centuries of ignorant classification by whites and are among those that are expected to attain the same ability in such a short while. Sorry your anarchy is the same cold attitude i see displayed in your views.Not giving reasonable welfare and free health system for all through taxation is fundamentally wrong.
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 06:13 am
@nicodemus,
nicodemus wrote:
it goes against everything i believe in, but yes, in the case of agriculture one must make an exception for the singular reason that the only people willing to do it are the ones already doing it. give anyone a 1000 acre tract of land, how many of them are going to be willing, much less able, to use that land to produce the food 300 million people need. The ones who are in that process are always labeled as rich people who cant compete, and that last part is true, because farming is the industry of losing money while providing the one thing everybody needs. So you feel free to destroy the farming subsidies, but dont be surprised if you start paying the lion's share of your money on food, something much of america has clearly forgotten


So you are saying that the most basic economic laws do not apply to the agriculture industry? Maybe with some evidence I will accept that, but I think for now I will accept what fundamental reason leads me to believe about economics and human behavior.

I am also interested in finding out who you think pays for farming subsidies. Hint: Don't say government, trace it back another step.
0 Replies
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 06:14 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
The strong manipulating goverment with what ide call legal bribes


Of course the obvious method to fix this is more government power, correct?

Quote:
80,000 lobbyist in washington with corporate bribes, making medicine the dearest in the world, seven times more expensive than europe..More billionaires, more poor than the rest of the world..the gap between the rich and poor widening more and more each year. Free medical aid is not a luxury for the poor its a necessity..Not every one is sponge on society many are veterans, many redundant because of bankers greed . OOHH im so angry with certain attitudes..give me my bow of burning fire..


You get angry with certain attitudes, and I get angry with the way certain attitudes cause people to come up with the most idiotic of plans.

You rail against bureaucracy and lobbyists and government corruption at the same time are a proponent of a state that has total control of all distribution of wealth.

I have no problem with communism, some of my favorite political thinkers (Max Stirner, Mikhail Bakunin) were communists. But if you must condemn the state to such a degree, why can you not condemn it to death? Why would you reward such malevolence with omnipotence?
0 Replies
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 06:43 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
Where do you get your facts from then ? the BBC is a respected broadcaster .If a charity has to be set up to deal with the thousands of americans who cant afford basic medical assistance then your system of no welfare for the poor stinks.Blacks who have been through centuries of ignorant classification by whites and are among those that are expected to attain the same ability in such a short while. Sorry your anarchy is the same cold attitude i see displayed in your views.Not giving reasonable welfare and free health system for all through taxation is fundamentally wrong.


Shall we break this down into a moral argument?

Before we do, let me ask you three questions:

1. Do you consider logical consistency to be a fundamental element of true belief? Is it possible to to hold two true but contradictory beliefs?

2. Can you be sure of the truth of your moral beliefs without being able to provide another person justification?

3. Do you believe that I am a rational person, capable of understanding moral arguments and forming coherent opinions?
Joe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 06:52 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
When it comes to the farming industry, we're loosing or i guess moving on from the countless small farmers who once were the backbone of our nation. Today the crop management is slowly slipping through their fingers. It is wrong I think. What should the government do? Nothing. Actually If the government hadn't controlled and bullied the public for land along with BIG business, then farmers would still be controlling the soil. Thats what makes or breaks large empires, their ability to feed their people.

Anyway heres something thats beyond government. This is ultimate control over people:

The EPA is proposing a tax on Livestock in the name of the Clean Air Act. Dairies and Feedlots would be considered major sources of methane if they emit more then 100 tons of greenhouse gases per year. Currently if the greenhouse gas emissions were to be regulated under the Clean Air Act, farms that dont require getting permits would have to. Livestock operations could be taxed $175 a cow. That means a 200 cow dairy farm would have to add 30,000 to their yearly cost. Thats a hit right there.

"With unemployment on the rise, the national debt growing and Americans struggling through current economic conditions, the last thing our federal government needs to address is gas produced by farm
animals,"
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)




0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2022 at 02:39:00