Listen to “Under the Gun” with Guest, Joe Jarvis (Me)

We criticize the government. We call out the conservatives. We debunk the liberals. We talk real freedom, true liberty, and why we can be organized as humanity without using force to do it.

We discuss how a liberal tried to use The Hunger Games as an example of where no government would lead… to an oppressive government?

We talk about how government takes our money and gives it to corporations, yet statist’s solution is for the government to regulate the corporation! (Versus eliminating the entity which robs you at the request of the corporation, and uses your own money to do it!)

4 thoughts on “Listen to “Under the Gun” with Guest, Joe Jarvis (Me)

  1. Joe, The problem I have with any of the anarchist forms is that anarchy is usually only a transitory phase. As soon as there is a power vacuum, there is someone wanting power that is willing to use force to get it. It is not the people practicing peaceful anarchy that are the problem, but rather always those people that will desire empire.

    • I see what you are saying, with the power vacuum. However, what will someone do to get power when there is no central machinery already in place to take over? I talk about this in a post called a Free People Cannot be Conquered.

      Essentially two things should be taken into account, in the absence of government:

      1) At the first signs of threat, some people would pay for security (or trade for it) so there would not be one entity able to take control. People would go to different companies and groups for security, or form their own group, but since the demand is for peace (defense not offense), these organizations would have an incentive to not engage in mini wars (they want to turn a profit, deliver a product, and stay alive). I discuss this more at length in other articles talking about how security would likely be structured when the market is free enough to do the structuring. Essentially armed conflict is prohibitively costly when you do not derive your budget through extorting many people (taxes).

      2) What power is there to take? Right now, a relatively small group of people can control the rest of us, but only because we accept their control as legitimate and comply. But without government, what central piece of machinery could be used? If a group came into a town and said, we are in charge, it would not even take a majority of people to be like, “Umm, no”, to defeat the would be conquerers.

      If they do it by force, they will soon be Lords over an empty land strewn with dead bodies, (mostly their own) because people would move away (wouldn’t even have to be too far), fight, or I suppose accept that group as their leaders, and serve as guinea pigs to see how good or bad the new government is. But even that most likely wouldn’t happen, because the first few people they tried to rob (or tax) would probably get shot, creating a disincentive for other “tax collectors” to make the same mistake. Now this is different if there is already, for instance, a local police department to take over, and use the resources of the people to oppress those same people. But without the central machinery already in place by government, there is nothing to take over, save going door to door, which does not work out well when people are armed.

      Essentially cartels or mafia style systems would be the worst case scenario. But look at how they maintain control right now: they buy off the police, and the government in order to get away with extortion. And as I have already discussed, people already have an indoctrinated acceptance for the government (plus the mafia or cartel gets to use our resources confiscated by the government against us, versus having to do all the extorting themselves, which would give them a smaller amount of money to work with, and more trouble in collecting).

      So the reason I am so confident in a system without government is that the incentives would lie in resisting control. Because it wouldn’t just be individuals who want to be left alone, that local business doesn’t want to pay protection money either. And if a bigger “business” tries to force him to, there will always be someone who is willing to protect them, for a price. In that sense the best businesses, the ones who protect the community, would receive more business. The market would decide, meaning we would decide, how best to place our resources.

      And some places would be better than others, but that is entirely up to the people in the areas. And THAT is really the kicker. We would have small competing communities. Just like competition in business leads to better products and services, so would competition in mini-societies lead to the best ones being adopted. We do not have that opportunity now, because essentially 320 million people are dictated to by a centralized government, who already have an empire (the worst case scenario if there was a power vacuum).

      • Let me start by saying this: You are the only anarchist that I discourse with, because frankly all the others I have tried with were, frankly, idiots. You at least have logical and well thought out ideas.Although I may be in disagreement at times, I do enjoy your thought experiment in this non- Govt. society. That being said, one of the problems I see is that most people are willing to sacrifice freedom for security. Most people are not like myself or ,probably, youself . I used to live on a private dirt road and the people at the end started dealing crack. The cops wouldn’t stop it or any of the other neighbors because they were too afraid to get involved. I finally set up a vid camera on a tripod and stopped every single car that came onto my portion of the road to ask them their business. A little dangerous? Maybe, but I was the only willing to take the risk. I could be wrong, but I think that you may under estimate the average persons appetite for true freedom. I believe that in the end, the “Common” people would be looking for strong people to hide behind and protect them.

      • Thank you Jay, I always enjoy a discussion with anyone who actually is after truth, like yourself. But I must say that in your example, it seems the best solution fell outside of government, and in some ways the government hindered your ability to deal with the problem in your neighborhood. I agree that most people at the moment probably don’t really want to be free, however in such a society as ours, it is easy to underestimate the vast negative effects the government has had, even on individual’s mindset. Most people have been tricked by fear to want to hide behind someone more powerful. Even still, if these more powerful people had to compete, it seems the best would attract the most followers. Perhaps a bit dangerous to compare this to feudalism, but the individualism of the west was in part born out of kings who had to please their lords, and lords who had to please their knights, and peasants. Currently it seems the “king” no longer derives his power from his followers, but rather attracts followers by dishing out power (stolen of course, from individuals).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s