You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Answering some questions about Anarchy (Please let me know what you would say differently)

in #anarchy • 7 years ago

Wow, am I the only actual commenter? Good lord.

I do have questions, actually. Why would the government let these people do what they want? If they invaded and conquered, they could force the people to obey their laws, or else face the consequences. What would stop them from just coming in and saying, "all this land that you've been living on is now government property and as such you have to do X."?

I'm thinking of recent bullying activites by the US government - the Dakota Pipeline incident in particular. They wanted a certain resource - the land - and they took it despite the laws of the society that owned it.

Why wouldn't they do the same for an anarchist community? Then they would control the land and the people living on it.

7 years ago in #anarchy by
$0.00
    1 vote
    Reply 3
    Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     7 years ago 

    Wow, am I the only actual commenter? Good lord.

    I do seem to have caught a large number of bots with this one, I wonder if it was the tags I used, or what. Either way, at least their comments make it appear as though my post has quite a bit of activity, haha.

    Why would the government let these people do what they want?

    What government? In an anarchic society, there would be no government to "let" humans anything

    If they invaded and conquered, they could force the people to obey their laws, or else face the consequences. What would stop them from just coming in and saying, "all this land that you've been living on is now government property and as such you have to do X."?

    I discussed this a bit in my answer to #1. Assuming there is a government elsewhere that is interested in expanding its power, it would always target other governments and their subjects before attempting to conquer any free peoples. Also, as I again addressed in my answer to #1, the only way to actually defeat a decentralized, guerilla army is through total destruction of the people and the resources, which is neither profitable, efficient, or even necessarily possible.

    I'm thinking of recent bullying activites by the US government - the Dakota Pipeline incident in particular. They wanted a certain resource - the land - and they took it despite the laws of the society that owned it.

    There are quite a few flaws in this train of thought.

    1. The incident wasn't involving the US government so much as it was a private corporation, and its private security.
    2. The owners of the land, and the government of the tribe in question, all signed contracts with that corporation. They were not the ones fighting against what was happening, outsiders (or tribe members with no say in the decision) were.
    3. There was no anarchic, non-governmental, or decentralized interest on the other side of that conflict. The protesters were mostly people who pay taxes, believe in authority, and simply disagreed with what they understood to be happening (while still giving that corporation and its confederates TONS of their money & energy, effectively defeating their own purpose).

    Then they would control the land and the people living on it.

    You can never control free humans, they could only eliminate them, or be in a perpetual state of conflict with them.

    $0.12
    • Past Payouts $0.12, 0.00 TRX
    • - Author $0.12, 0.00 TRX
    • - Curators $0.00, 0.00 TRX
    1 vote
    Reply
    [-]
     7 years ago 

    This is one reason why people should never allow themselves to be disarmed. I would rather die than be ruled. We are all individual kings and queens. Actual rulers are always tyrants.

    [-]
     7 years ago 

    re-read. Perhaps you are commenting where others haven't because you have misunderstood...

    $0.00
      Reply