I wasn't calling the government to compete fair and square, although I do in other arenas of life demand a higher standard from it than what I typically see. I was speaking specifically to anarchists who fault the state on its use of force.
So why do we have to play fair but the government doesn't? Your whole position sounds like a massive double standard. The government can audit us, spy on us, inflate away our wealth, give trillions away to the wealthy and connected, but we gotta 'play by the rules'.If you were curious about my own position, here it is: I don't believe the type of behaviour you describe is acceptable from a government, though I would finesse those concepts rather a lot further. I do believe, however, that the most effective way to address any ineffective system is to build a better one. Building things is a lot harder than grumbling about them, in my experience.
Quote
That may be your desire, but if you act on it you do end up rather hypocritical--faulting the state on its use of force yet considering it fine to use force for your own agendas. It's kind of a "don't sink to their level" issue, dontcha think?
I do not support 'opposition groups' or any kind of action that flies under a political banner. Therefore, I don't support a collectively organized overthrow of the government, because the leader of that group would just form another government. This has happened in Egypt and other countries where an unpopular regime has fallen, only to be replaced by an 'opposition group' that gets its meat hooks into the country's resources in due time. That being said, I have no problem with the use of violence to defend one's property against the terrorcrats. Unfortunately, such action is not currently practical and is rather foolish due to the overwhelming force the state employs. That's why I agree with John T. Kennedy, who says that the revolution will occur when the cost of ruling people goes up too high for it to be worthwhile: http://anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=242. Bitcoin is an excellent means towards that state of affairs.
Quote
If anything, I would think a political process has more legitimacy behind it than an individual's desire does, though I personally think the way forward is to give people more freedom as to which jurisdiction they want to live under. Speaking of which--Somalia is pretty anarchist these days. Just saying. The option is there.
The political process is controlled by individuals with desires that are no more legitimate than anyone else's, but are actually less so, because as I stated before, the political process is an illegitimate means of acquiring resources. Take away all the the ceremonies, signatures and political cheerleaders and it is tantamount to saying "These guys over here want me to take and control your stuff, so I'm going to do it." Most people drive themselves crazy because they can't decide if the government is a legitimate entity providing services or just a type of 'mafia'. It really is just a 'mafia'.The unattributed comment that "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" still rings rather true at this point in history. I live in a city which has the world's longest continuously functioning Anarchist collective. If Anarchy really works, I expect that collective to grow to the level where it can simply elect into place someone who will dissolve the government. If it doesn't, one really has to wonder why. In the meantime, I tend to disregard any person who rants on about the state while still using roads, municipal water, emergency services, etc. I won't presume whether you are such a person or not, but if you have forgone the benefits of a modern state feel free to announce it proudly.
As for Somalia, I leave that to be debated elsewhere. I would like to point out that North Korea is the logical epitome of a government enthusiast's world view. However, the vast majority of statists living elsewhere wouldn't want to live there. They enjoy too many luxuries and comforts provided by hampered but still anarchic business activities of their home countries.
In real life opinions exist in more forms than just their most extreme. But I suspect that you knew that, and that this comment was made rather disingenuously. You do not help your case to generalise so. Surely you will have to convince some portion of the citizenry to join you if you hope to bring about a functioning anarchism?Anyways, if you're interested in discussing the issue of governments vs anarchy we ought to take it into "off-topic". This thread is for the advancement of the idea that bitcoin should be above political viewpoints; it would be truly ironic to debate them here.
Basically, I'm planting a flag here for non-anarchists to be part of bitcoin. The purpose of a flag is not what it signals to me, but what it signals to everyone else. I'm here whether the flag flies or not
. Thanks for your comments, everyone.