There are two basic types of government with modern thinking, Left wing and Right wing.
It could be said that national socialists are extreme right wing, that is what Wikipedia will tell you, and extreme communism is left wing.
Left wing governments remove the private rights of the people for the benefit of the state; they want big government more rules, more control, less rights, less freedom. That sounds like communism.
Extreme right wing governments, “national socialists” remove the private rights of the people for the benefit of the state; they want big government more rules, more control, less rights less freedom. “Papers please” Wait that doesn’t sound like right wing, it sounds the same as communism!
It doesn't matter whether they are national socialists or communist, they are both left wing, both the same, simular to our governments of today.
What i have described is at the other end of the spectrum, a true right wing government. There is a lot of fake news and a propaganda war against anarchy and the belief in a right wing solution; they have deliberately associated the right with National Socialism – Nazis.
One day I hope someone can give me a good argument for anarchy that doesn't lead directly to government.
Yeah the political horse shoe theory just a different way of saying "different wings same dam turkey"
The redistributing of land is difficult.
1:The land currently held as private by individuals represents the the fruits of their labour and redistribution would be theft.
2: Given that the land I own is the product of my labour any attempt to redistributed it would require threat or coercion which would be an effort to exercise authority over me that would leave me financially worse off. So we can see that any government that attempted this could not legitimately claim anarchism and that first act would dissolve any honesty and integrity.
3:Pretending that we lived in a world where land ownership had not existed and we could divide it in a fair manner.
Clearly we can't divide up the country into lots and randomly assign lots to individuals because not all land is equal so the alternative becomes I guess is establishing a standardised lot sizing and providing everyone with a vote weight on every lots use.
The number of issues with such a strategy are immense but the biggest is are these two 1. The shear volume and responsibility of voting on such a massive scale is overly cumbersome on the individual and so incredibly inefficient as to be a negligent waste of the resource. 2.It does not fundamentally change the status quo the vote of the majority over powers the minority anarchy by any other name is democracy.
The closest we could come to anarchy would be the Flux party. Any other method would require coercion or force which would represent power through violence as per the debates question.
All land in common law countries is owned by the crown. There is no no true ownership through alodium title. And i didn't say your land should be re-distributed, what i'm saying is that you should have the right to hold title to your land and not have to pay fealty to the crown ie "TAX" This is something @wwf is currently trying to achieve. If you do not wish to own land, then the income from renting that land "TAX" should be re-distributed to the people. i don't think you understand what anarchy is and the purpose of a right wing government is to decrease in size until it is no longer required. @wwf lives a true anarchistic life, there is no force, show of power or violence. Anarchy needs no political party or government or religion. We believe in peace, love and harmony. :)
They would then be required to redistribute the wealth equally among the shareholders, which in my mind would be the land and the resources of the country in which you live.
Private property and equality of land ownership appear to be in direct conflict.
@wwf by living of grid has an amazing privilege to be able to free himself from much of the usual issues faced by many however if tomorrow the whole of Canada was to demand anarchistic equitable distribution of the land could Canada's land mass provide them all with same privilege he has?
If not then then life wwf has is immediately brought into conflict with with a fair and equitable redistribution with out even adding the fact that all land is not equal.
I think the left/right wing argument has, over time, shifted from a libertarian to a socialist/fascist/communist paradigm. By keeping people focused on the left/right argument, the don't notice the shift from freedom to slavery. This shift has taken place over decades, perhaps even centuries. So I don't think one can make an argument like that without taking this covert shift into consideration as well. The left and right is VERY different than they were 100 years ago.
i totally agree that there has been a shift from freedom to slavery over the centuries, they play a long game and with the creation of the person in the c'est que vie act in 1666, shows that we see little or no change in our short lifetimes. History is often re-written to support their long term goal. With regards left/right politics. i believe this is just smoke and mirrors to give the illusion of control to the masses. Like voting for a new shepherd but the farmer is still leading them to slaughter.
There are two basic types of government with modern thinking, Left wing and Right wing.
It could be said that national socialists are extreme right wing, that is what Wikipedia will tell you, and extreme communism is left wing.
Left wing governments remove the private rights of the people for the benefit of the state; they want big government more rules, more control, less rights, less freedom. That sounds like communism.
Extreme right wing governments, “national socialists” remove the private rights of the people for the benefit of the state; they want big government more rules, more control, less rights less freedom. “Papers please” Wait that doesn’t sound like right wing, it sounds the same as communism!
It doesn't matter whether they are national socialists or communist, they are both left wing, both the same, simular to our governments of today.
What i have described is at the other end of the spectrum, a true right wing government. There is a lot of fake news and a propaganda war against anarchy and the belief in a right wing solution; they have deliberately associated the right with National Socialism – Nazis.
One day I hope someone can give me a good argument for anarchy that doesn't lead directly to government.
Yeah the political horse shoe theory just a different way of saying "different wings same dam turkey"
The redistributing of land is difficult.
1:The land currently held as private by individuals represents the the fruits of their labour and redistribution would be theft.
2: Given that the land I own is the product of my labour any attempt to redistributed it would require threat or coercion which would be an effort to exercise authority over me that would leave me financially worse off. So we can see that any government that attempted this could not legitimately claim anarchism and that first act would dissolve any honesty and integrity.
3:Pretending that we lived in a world where land ownership had not existed and we could divide it in a fair manner.
Clearly we can't divide up the country into lots and randomly assign lots to individuals because not all land is equal so the alternative becomes I guess is establishing a standardised lot sizing and providing everyone with a vote weight on every lots use.
The number of issues with such a strategy are immense but the biggest is are these two 1. The shear volume and responsibility of voting on such a massive scale is overly cumbersome on the individual and so incredibly inefficient as to be a negligent waste of the resource. 2.It does not fundamentally change the status quo the vote of the majority over powers the minority anarchy by any other name is democracy.
The closest we could come to anarchy would be the Flux party. Any other method would require coercion or force which would represent power through violence as per the debates question.
All land in common law countries is owned by the crown. There is no no true ownership through alodium title. And i didn't say your land should be re-distributed, what i'm saying is that you should have the right to hold title to your land and not have to pay fealty to the crown ie "TAX" This is something @wwf is currently trying to achieve. If you do not wish to own land, then the income from renting that land "TAX" should be re-distributed to the people. i don't think you understand what anarchy is and the purpose of a right wing government is to decrease in size until it is no longer required. @wwf lives a true anarchistic life, there is no force, show of power or violence. Anarchy needs no political party or government or religion. We believe in peace, love and harmony. :)
Private property and equality of land ownership appear to be in direct conflict.
@wwf by living of grid has an amazing privilege to be able to free himself from much of the usual issues faced by many however if tomorrow the whole of Canada was to demand anarchistic equitable distribution of the land could Canada's land mass provide them all with same privilege he has?
If not then then life wwf has is immediately brought into conflict with with a fair and equitable redistribution with out even adding the fact that all land is not equal.
I think the left/right wing argument has, over time, shifted from a libertarian to a socialist/fascist/communist paradigm. By keeping people focused on the left/right argument, the don't notice the shift from freedom to slavery. This shift has taken place over decades, perhaps even centuries. So I don't think one can make an argument like that without taking this covert shift into consideration as well. The left and right is VERY different than they were 100 years ago.
i totally agree that there has been a shift from freedom to slavery over the centuries, they play a long game and with the creation of the person in the c'est que vie act in 1666, shows that we see little or no change in our short lifetimes. History is often re-written to support their long term goal. With regards left/right politics. i believe this is just smoke and mirrors to give the illusion of control to the masses. Like voting for a new shepherd but the farmer is still leading them to slaughter.