The Political Thread

[Hawkmumbler]

Ever seen a functioning alternative?

No but have you ever drank baileys from a shoe?

[The Legendary Shark]

Ever seen a functioning alternative?

No. I have never seen a moonbase, either, but that does not mean such a thing is impossible.

My core argument is not about how things could be organised but how they are currently organised. It is my position that the current structure is inefficient, undemocratic and harmful. Your counter-argument seems to be that my position is wrong simply because I do not put forward an alternative.

[Modern Panther]

As someone once said "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others".

I don't expect you to put forward an alternative, Sharky. My big concern is that no-one has ever, in the complete history of mankind, ever come up with a functioning alternative.  We've experimented and ended up with catastrophic failures. 

I'm happy to consider an alternative and agree entirely that the current system is in need of severe improvement. 

[Professor Bear]

I've been a UK citizen all my life, but I'd quite like to try democracy one day to see if it would work here.

[The Legendary Shark]

There have been functioning alternatives such as The Paris Commune of 1871, the Syndicalist Unions of Europe and North and South America from about the 1890s onward, the beginnings of the 1917 Russian Revolution and, perhaps most successfully, the Spanish Revolution of 1936.

Granted, none of these lasted very long - crushed by statists of one stripe or another - but they suggest that anarchist or agorist societies are perfectly functional in every way. The "catastrophic failures" always occur due to elitist statists sending in the troops and/or waging economic warfare on the anarchists.

The best example of anarchism in action in the modern world I can think of is this very thing I'm using right now - the internet. No government forces me to use it or forces me not to (though they do try to control it). I can go to any message board I like and say whatever I like; if I act against the local rules of those message boards in any way I can be booted off by local moderators. No police, no fines, no courts*. I can buy stuff from countless online stores, each of which has its own rules of conduct and dispute resolution processes. I frequent those message boards and stores which I believe treat me fairly and avoid those which do not. There is no "virtual government" because it is not needed. Yes, the internet is not the real world, merely an interface, but from it, and from the above real-world examples, lessons and ideas for moving towards a better society for all can be studied, adapted and implemented. There are as many solutions as there are people willing to invent them, not just one solution to be imposed in some overnight revolution.

The only revolution worth anything is a revolution of the mind - to begin considering the idea that individual freedoms and responsibilities are more beneficial to society than privileges and obligations enforced upon everyone under threat of violence by a small ruling class.

Only a revolution of the mind can lead to an evolution of society. Carrying on the way we are is leading to stagnation at best and de-evolution at worst.

*Of course, sometimes real-world police do, and indeed should, get involved where actual loss, harm or damage is caused - but when one considers the trillions of interactions occurring across the internet every day, these involvements (just like in real-life) are proportionally very rare indeed.

[JayzusB.Christ]

Ever seen a functioning alternative?

No but have you ever drank baileys from a shoe?

...says the man who mocked me for making a Boosh reference in 2016.

I like Noel, though; I heard an interview with him recently and he seems a really nice chap.

[Modern Panther]

The internet isn't an anarchy, it's just not regulated.  It's infrastructure is owned and controlled by powerful individuals, they just aren't elected and they don't answer to you. 

[Hawkmumbler]

Ever seen a functioning alternative?

No but have you ever drank baileys from a shoe?

...says the man who mocked me for making a Boosh reference in 2016.

I like Noel, though; I heard an interview with him recently and he seems a really nice chap.

Well I bet he told you to stay away from the occult. Very bad for the indigestion apparently.

[JayzusB.Christ]

A lot of people call me occult, for some reason.

[James Dilworth]

A lot of people call me occult, for some reason.

[The Legendary Shark]

The internet isn't an anarchy, it's just not regulated.  It's infrastructure is owned and controlled by powerful individuals, they just aren't elected and they don't answer to you. 

Lack of centrally imposed regulation (government) is anarchy. Individual websites regulate themselves locally, which is anarchy. The infrastructure is a mixture of private and publicly owned assets, from servers to ISPs to 'phone lines to individual computers. I was, however, referring to content and interaction rather than infrastructure - sorry for not making that clear.

[TordelBack]

Nope, you've lost me.  I don't see how content (ie. Activity) on the internet is any different to activity (i.e. Content) in the 'real world'.  Both environments are regulated and partly privately and 'publicly' owned, both environments host a mix of commercial and non-commercial activity within the restrictions of regulation and ownership.

I'm no freer to act without state-sanctioned consequence 'here' than I am 'there', it just happens that the things I do 'here' are of less importance and have less impact, so no-one really cares. If I chose to do something illegal online that had the same impact as something I could do in the real world, I would expect a visit from officers of the state. The internet is regulated, it's regulated by the laws of the states in which its users and owners reside. When I can use the interent to remotely send my drone to Calais for some cheap plonk, you can be damned sure I'll still need a licence, tax and insurance. Driving around Liberty City in GTA, not so much- but only because there are few real-world consequences.

[The Legendary Shark]

That's my point. There is no difference between content/activity online and in the real world. The difference is in regulation. If I wanted to set up a shop or library in the real world, I'd need to buy a property and get permissions and licenses from, and pay taxes to, the ruling class do so. If I want to set up a website (the online equivalent of a shop or library) then I still might have to pay for hosting (unless I have my own dedicated server) but I don't need to apply for permission or licenses to the King of the Internet. I can trade with other web users in bitcoin, barter or even give content away for free with no Virtual Monarch extracting taxes from my interactions. If my online activities cause actual loss, harm or damage then real world law can be brought to bear through real world courts. Real world courts do not require government backing (except in police states), only the faith of the communities they serve.

I disagree with the idea that online content/activity has little importance in the real world. There are many instances of real world injustices being brought to light over the internet. The Arab Spring comes to mind. It is also a great tool for exposing lies and propaganda. For example,during a speech given on the floor of the U.S. Senate last February, GOP Senator Jim Inhofe presented a series of photos which he claimed showed Russian troops advancing in the Ukraine. Inhofe used the photos as justification for his senate bill, which would authorize the U.S. to provide "lethal military aid" to the Ukraine. The photos Inhofe used, however, were not what he claimed. Two were taken in 2008, during Russia's war with Georgia and the other, which was taken in October, shows Russian-backed separatists in the Luhansk town of Krasniy Luch. Without independent internet researchers uncovering this fact, Inhofe might well have got away with it, especially given the bias of the MSM.

Knowledge, they say, is power - and the internet (beneath the piles of Facebookery nonsense) is a wealth of knowledge allowing countless opportunities for innovation, education, cooperation and accountability. It is, in my opinion, one of the greatest social assets in human history. Because of this, it is dangerous to the ruling class - who like nothing better than framing arguments themselves and keeping certain knowledge under wraps. The internet is important and many people do care. You are freer to post your opinions and knowledge on the internet than you are in the real world. If you stand with a sandwich board protesting something and handing out leaflets outside a government building, a police station or a factory, chances are you'll only reach a few people and probably find yourself moved on or even imprisoned. If you take the "official" route and write to your MP, chances are you'll be ignored or fobbed off. No, the internet is of great importance.

When you can use the internet to send your drone to Calais for cheap plonk by remote control, it would make sense for you to have an adequate level of training first (otherwise you might crash your drone, losing it and your plonk, and maybe even causing loss, harm or damage to others)- but this training does not have to be government sanctioned. You could just as easily enroll in a private training course run by experienced drone operators. Given the access to information the internet provides, the best courses will attract the most students and the worst will either fail or improve. Government is not needed to license them - especially given how licenses can be purchased through lobbying and corruption of those in charge of licensing. Organisation does not require government but government requires organisation. Insurance, likewise, does not need state sanction to be prudent. Tax is simply theft, the ruling class demanding a cut of your income under threat of violence.

Your GTA observation is a good one. The vast majority understand the difference between a game and its arena and the wider world. Few people think they can bring GTA rules to everyday motoring on real roads and those who do generally end up smeared all over trees, or their victims do. Similarly, I've never played GTA but I assume that if one plays that game adhering to real world traffic regulations, one wouldn't be very good at it. Footballers do not make a habit of running full pelt down busy streets, slide-tackling pensioners and elbowing people out of the way. People understand that what's acceptable in the game arena is not necessarily acceptable in wider society. That's down to personal responsibility and nothing to do with government control or regulation.

[Dandontdare]

There have been functioning alternatives ... perhaps most successfully, the Spanish Revolution of 1936.

That would be the one that led to four decades of fascist rule then? You have an odd definition of successful.

[The Legendary Shark]

So it would appear, when taken out of context like that. I believe my next paragraph touches on your observation.