What Is Your Problem With Anarchy?

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.

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

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

"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

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...

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.

I watched a programe on the tv lastnight about health and welfare in america...why are you so naive about how it works..

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..

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.

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

The strong manipulating goverment with what ide call legal bribes

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..

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.