dyslexia and anarchism

Anonymouse wrote:

All governments are a monopoly of force to the degree that they tax and confiscate the property of their citizens. The citizens in themselves cannot object because of the threat of force. Anything that must exist because of violence and force, such as the State, is unethical.

On the other hand, there will be violent people out there under any political system, and many of them will use violence to their benefit, just as government does. Given that, what would you rather have: a competitive, thriving violence industry, or a system where big-scale violence is monopolized by a "sedentary bandit" (Mancur Olson)? Incidentally, the "sedentary bandid" argument is the major argument why I'm a small-government libertarian, not an anarchist.

Montana wrote:

Just found this and haven't read through, but it sounds good to me, Dys :-)

I rest my case.

But that is not anarchy, is it?

As to your conjecture that technology will, inevitably, expand, this is almost a given, but it is entirely unreasonable to expect the world's population to shrink.

Is anarchy, then, a movement to reduce, by whatever means, the earth's human population?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Montana wrote:

Just found this and haven't read through, but it sounds good to me, Dys :-)

I rest my case.

Do you get off picking on me?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

But that is not anarchy, is it?

As discussed only the potential for less government, I never claimed it was anarchy, just a move arguably more in that direction.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

As to your conjecture that technology will, inevitably, expand, this is almost a given, but it is entirely unreasonable to expect the world's population to shrink.

In that I would not be so sure, just as in the same fashion I would certainly not limit the scope of future events to this one planet. Don't count your future chickens before they hatch - or don't hatch (gawd don'cha just love them mixed metaphors). For example if/when we have extended life spans in the thousand year plus range, we could indeed see a sea change (alliteration oh boy) in our perspectives on suitable population numbers, let alone the off-earth colony's population considerations.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Is anarchy, then, a movement to reduce, by whatever means, the earth's human population?

Under the idealized circumstances (as already touched on a bit) and depending on one's definition of anarchy, I would (again) suggest that a "sizable reduction in overall government could be achieved without it being a net negative".

Finn d'Abuzz, I do not know where you inferred the notion that your phrase "by whatever means" has congruency as per my posts, but you are welcome to expound on any beliefs you may hold in this regard.

I am going to get a snack, wanna a beverage?

Well yes, of course big L liberal, no contesting that and quite likely small l libertarian. As to "oversimplifing", it's a broad audience one attempts to reach. the "dreamer" bit seems to me reaching for sarcasim from the cellar with a short stick. I'd prefer idealist which I find more accurate as a direction I try to follow rather than a destination I intend to reach.