I don't know how much protecting police actually do. Sure, the general illusion that most of us share is that police enforce a general order, and prevent and act as agents in the punishment of crime.
I agree that in _our_current_society_, police are pretty bad. On the other hand, I think that all societies need some ability to protect themselves and punish criminals (or rather, people who harm others through coercion) - it need not take the form of police, necessarily. Arming the citizenry or hiring professional security guards could easily cover for it. Rather, I was using it as part of the argument that a large army isn't needed to protect ourselves because the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of us are never threatened by a foreign power, while criminals _are_ a problem.
-in our society, it is not a crime to have immense unused property while others have not even enough property to erect shelter from the cold. However, it is a crime for the poor to unite against the property owning elites and claim greater distribution of wealth. thanks to cops, that order is enforced.
I'm afraid I have to disagree here. 'claim greater distribution of wealth' is usually a euphemism for 'shoot other people and take their stuff'. It doesn't matter who you're shooting - either the act is inherently bad or you can't blame the cops because they happen to shoot a different group than the one you like. Personally, I fall in the first camp - any act of violence that is not retaliatory is unethical.
If an individual can get a lot of property while another fails, the second individual _does_not_ have the right to steal from the first. Besides, without the Fed Gov stealing money in the first place, most people's material standard of living would increase. Hell, if you're a fellow Canuck, we'd have twice the income we actually do if we weren't paying it to the government.
Beyond that, I genuinely don't think that taking from others is the answer to any problem of poverty. 'Those who seek to equalise only ever level' in the words of Edmund Burke. If the homeless aren't being adequately supported and it bothers you (as it does many people), I don't think the answer is to beat up other people (even when those other people are called 'capitalists') but rather to solve the problem _on_ a local level. Go out and organise the homeless into a (relatively) self-sufficient collective, or incorporate them into your own. My problem with classical anarchism has always been the 'we need to shoot the rich' school of thought, not the 'organise the poor and oppressed into collectives or organisations to improve their quality of life through mutual sharing'.
f the people of Northern Ontario say, don't want clear cutting in their bio-region, why should they have to lobby their provincial government in Toronto? State/Province level is better than federal, but I'm talking about even greater decentralization when I get all lofty and idealistic.
Well, that's my 'right to secession' there. If you don't like what your government is doing, we ought to have the right to go out and form a new one that governs _our_ land and does what we want.
The State would never let anyone secede on them. That idea would be way to dangerous if it got our, and the elites that run the State would lose all their power. Forget about what it says in the damn constitution, or any other law for that matter. Even if you have the inalienable legal right to secede, the State will violate that law and probably kill or jail you.
I agree, it's called the American Civil War (which was really about states' rights, not slavery). Nonetheless, I'd like it to be the case.
You and I may not agree, in fact, I'm pretty sure that we don't, since you strike me as a classical anarchist while I'm an anarcho-capitalist/libertarian. Nonetheless, I'd ideally like a world where all the people who want to organise into collectives, unions, whatever, can go out and do so, while those of us who want unrestricted capitalist trade with one another can do so - and neither one of us, nor the state, intereferes with the other. Capitalism does _not_ by its nature need to crush opposition to its point of view - that's government and the state. Freedom only demands that we do something when we are attacked, such as by communist or classical anarchists. Otherwise, there is no good reason for it to bother anyone who doesn't want to trade. Classical and Capitalist anarchists _can_ live together in peace.
"We who have passed through their hands feel suffocated when we think of that legion, which is stripped bare of human ideals" -Alexander Solzhenitsyn
[ Parent ]