Anarchism: Is it the Best Route for the US?

Foreword:

Anarchy has no singular and definite meaning, rather, it is an evolving form of political rationale. For the purposes of this thread, please cite a somewhat rather narrow path of anarchism if you choose to reply. Thank you in advance.

-----------------

To start things off, I'll present some statistics. At the time of writing, the US has approximately:

• - $17,581,492,795 in national debt
• - 77.07% with a Public Debt to GDP ratio
• - 99.66% External Debt to GDP ratio

What does this mean? We owe a lot of people tons of money, to say the least. Our GDP, or Gross Domestic Product (which is closely tied to standard of living), is almost completely nonexistent to anyone outside of the United States due to the amount of sheer debt we have amassed.


[tl;dr warning]
Now, think back to when you loaned a friend of yours a sum of money and then wasn't able to pay you back. He was your friend and you valued your friendship so you blew off the money that was due and said, "Don't worry about it."
This said friend deemed it was an acceptable behavior to borrow money and not repay you and therefore proceeded to do so again, and again.
After a while, your friend needs to pay up. So, the friendship is off and he has to compensate your losses in some way. If he doesn't have fiat or valuables, what then?

Metaphorically speaking, this friend is the United States and you are China.
[/tl;dr warning]


The US can borrow money as long as it China wants to provide it, but as soon as they say, "Hey, it's time to pay up," the entity of the US, and its government, is to be held responsible for reparations to China in the amount of trillions of dollars. If this isn't possible, other than fiat, the US has nothing of value other than natural resources because most of our manufactured goods come directly from China.

-----------------
Main Topic:

My proposal: Withdraw the peoples' consent to be governed by the federal government as the constitution deems is required to do so and give it to state governments.

The result: 50 states would become their own entities that govern and regulate themselves until that system is deemed flawed. Once that happens, the rebuilding process would take place that would seem similar to the writing of the Constitution.

Why this matters: China and the rest of the world's governments can't hold debts accountable to individual people or states in the excessive amounts that it does with the US government. This would technically be loop-holing the debts that are being held against the US while achieving a more liberal society. While this makes us more prone to be invaded, the United Nations will likely still exist and assist the people residing in North America. But, all-in-all, would the world be better off experiencing World War III (It's inevitable, just admit it) by at least 2020, or decades later when warfare and its methods/tools advance tremendously? On the thought of being invaded today: A strategy board game I own that represents this possibility.

-----------------
Conclusion:

We all have a bit of Anarchism in us. Whether it's through the use of cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin - An Experiment in Anarchism), a resent towards our current state of politics, (Stats on Congress' Approval Rating), or you just plain don't like rules/authority (Driving Citation Statistics as of 2013). The idea behind not giving into an entity that has a status of 'senator' or 'governor' sounds rather ideal, does it not?

 

I agree, I don't care to be ruled by anyone and I believe society can exist without a governing entity.

Society should be based on voluntary interaction and not the whims of rulers.

edit: I've literally heard every argument that is coming in this thread muh roads, muh schools, muh welfare, muh courts, etc. Free people can build roads, free people can create schools and standards, free people can be charitable, free people can seek resolution from DRO's, etc.

Any outcome of the state (be it positive or negative) is outweighed by the fact that is relies on theft and coercion to stay afloat. The ends =/= justify the means.

 

Human nature dictates that if an individual can produce a standard of living and another can benefit from this production without putting forth effort to produce that standard for his self, then the latter will most likely take advantage of the opportunity because it presents itself.

So, you're absolutely right - theft and coercion exist because humans intelligence does. On a simpler level, squirrels steal acorns from one another because it's easier than foraging for them, themselves. To believe everyone doesn't steal because a small sample of people does not is a fallacy (Go look at the Report a Scammer forum for proof).

That begs the question of, if the ends are unknown, does that discourage means from being gathered?
With the ideology to leave the world a better place than we found it/for our children (not to appeal to emotional reasoning, here), should we continue to live under the conditions that we are now, or begin to recognize that action needs happen for change to take place.

We, as humans, are all mortal. In the theoretical case of invasion from foreign superpowers as I presented in the original post, would you rather die knowing that you were free of rule from a government entity in the attempt to revolutionize the states, or collapse under stress from a 9-5 job that the average American has.

 

What you might not understand is that the US nation 'debt' is what we owe to the federal reserve... essentially, it is the amount we owe in money that we printed. What happens is that when congress passes a spending bill, the federal reserve buys treasury bills and prints the money for it. The government then 'owes' the federal reserve that amount.

 

got my own religion believe bits and pieces of everything

 

So what you are saying is that we will have a set of the "new" founding fathers and have an annual purge. Things will boom!

Right now, the US is owned by China. :/

 

It sounds like you've been brainwashed by the work of Hollywood: The Purge.

 

Both owned, and OWNED. As in nerd terms, "owned". Really, the US is falling after dealings with Russia, and supposedly "cut terms".

 

No we are not. The majority of our debt is held by those within the US. A lot of it is held by the government itself. China only owns a small amount of our debt.

 

The only option left to reform the government is to take it back. That being the ideal situation, media has taken the minds of the majority and disciplined it to not think of these routes. For years, subconscious tuning has taken place in America. Down with communism, down with fascism, be a patriot, the war on drugs, the war on crime, no middle class (the rich don't want change, the poor have no means).

As far as an implosion of The Land Of The Free goes, the Brave have been expelled in large numbers, and those remaining are frowned upon.

Then again, I may just be a pessimist.

 

Anarchy won't solve anything. It will just make us weaker as a whole. Now if we can get a group of people to perform strategic acts against the government to reform it that would work better but total anarchy wouldn't do anything but bring a civil war/ martial law.

 

There is a difference between anarchy and Anarchism. Anarchy is general chaos for one reason or another. The latter is a political view that has an anti-government view.

Take for instance, an ant colony. [General Colony Description - Don't Assume this is true for all colonies]

Every member of the colony is essential to its survival. The queen is needed to lay eggs for the males to impregnate which provides the colony with the next generation(s) and means to survive. Worker ants (which are all female and smallest of the castes) care for eggs and find food to carry back to the colony. Soldier ants protect the colony from invaders and threats and tend to be larger than most of the other ants, except the queen.

Now think, when you look at an anthill, what do you see? Insects scattering about or a mound of dirt?

Ants have no ruler. No government. No laws or mandates. Nothing that tells them what to do other than instinct.

Yet, they all work together and in perfect harmony. Now of course we'll probably never see humans live in this sort of environment, but, the point I'm trying to make is that nature shows us peace is most definitely possible even when there is no governing entity.

 

Although in theory this seems plausible, a few things come up:
1. You've just cheated your friend out of his money, you don't think he's going to get mad, not to mention how big china is population wise.
2. Breaking down to the states would rip apart the constitution... Yeah that won't go down well, except maybe the southern states who are still hung up on states rights.

OT: this is coming from an 18 year old Australian that has fair knowledge of US history so my view might be skewed through our teachings.

 

OP the suggestion you are making has already been attempted, it was called the Article of Confederation and if you read your history it was a failed experiment in governing. Giving states all powers and turning them into separate governing entities leads into various issues that make our way of life difficult to maintain. By trying to 'loop-hole' foreign debt you will essentially destabilize the entire world economy and most likely crash it completely, having consequences wider than anything you could imagine.

Taxes, as DD will disagree with whole-heartedly, are a necessary evil of society. In an idealistic world we would be in a post-scarcity economy and have everything we needed and therefore no need for greater governing beyond conflict resolution, but we aren't there. Modified capitalism has been active as government for well over a thousand years now in one form or another and has really stood the rigors of society and individuals. While I don't agree with all aspects of the system and I agree that aspects are completely broken, it is a working system.

Also cryptocurrencies are more commodity than currency, but that is another topic.

 

If anarchy occurs, it will create far MORE problems than we could imagine. Just too dangerous as none would have morals.

 

No one has morals, therefore we shall give some individuals a monopoly on the initiation of force. Okay.

@Lol'd at Nero Tuned out at "necessary evil" Theft is immoral regardless of the outcome.

 

A post scarcity world cannot exist. Even if technology advanances a great deal, our standard of living increases, and we can satisfy a multitude of our wants, time is still finite and thus even if we can satisfy our wants by a thousandth fold compared to now, they cannot be satisfied simultaneously, or infinitely, thus scarcity always exist. I can go on more if you'd like, but to raise a point, you say taxes are a necessary evil, and then go on about an idealistic world. Are you implying that taxes are only necessary because we don't exist in the ideal world?

Hmm. Capitalism can truly only exist in one form, because any form of government intervention will no longer makes it truly 'capitalist', or make the market truly free. You either have capitalism or you do not. When you say 'modified capitalism' its actually the same as saying 'non-capitalist'. Just ask yourself, is modified capitalism, capitalism. The answer is no, and thus modified capitalism is simply non-capitalism. Semantics I know, but in this field of economics I think it's of paramount importance, because you'll here the standard America = capitalist and America = fail therefore capitalist = bad. But in actual fact America is not truly capitalist, no country in the world as far as I know, as at now is truly capitalist. Most have features of capitalism no doubt, but to call them capitalist or a 'modified' version of capitalism is just incorrect, you may as well just say they are a modified version of communism.

As for the test of time argument, sure it's a working system, however we may define it etc. But I would simply say that the system could be improved, and so why don't you want to improve?

Personally, I am still undecided as to whether a minarchist society or an anarchist society would function best (although I'm well aware of the irrationality of being a minarchist and not an anarchist). Even ignoring the standard Taxation is theft, and theft is immoral argument though, Taxation hugely distorts the market as the allocation of production is not allocated towards the wants of the consumers, but the wants of the government (since it's government that's spending the money), and so unless the wants of the people are identical to the wants of the government, you are always going to get a less efficient allocation of production, as well as a less efficient satisfaction of wants, and thus a reduction in the potential standard of living. This is just a byproduct of the existence of taxation. Unless taxation can then make up for this deficiency, which I don't think it can, why then should I support it, morality aside (focusing more on the economics side of it)?

 

This is not true in the least. Capitalism is not a boolean logic variable, it is not either existing or non-existing. It is a loose definition for a market that meets a certain set of conditions and lassiez-faire is just a single specific definition for a market system. The broader definition is something like a social system of economics that base prices, production, and other factors mainly on private individuals.

Capitalism has been the rallying call and the trigger word for both extreme left and extreme right ideologies and has become so distorted and abused trying to mash it into a pigeon hole that it isn't even funny. I mean seriously the Capitalism Magazine isn't a discussion of individualist rights, but a magazine about Republicans and their political agenda - not even close to a lassiez-faire party.

 

Capitalism is a system in which trade is not controlled by the state. The second that the state steps in and starts throwing out taxes and regulations, it no longer becomes capitalism.

Those conditions being that the government isn’t involved...

A single example of a “market system” yes, but the only example of a truly capitalist system.

This is bullshit, you’re redefining a word to fit your argument.

This is why I hate statists (not you particularly), they will poison terms to be so far from their original meaning. Calling a country's system “capitalism” when its actually socialism. A candidate calling himself “Libertarian” when he’s actually a neo-conservative. Calling a police state a “free country,” etc.

Which is why its important to not misrepresent the word. I

Gross, I agree.

No disrespect to you Nero, I still believe that we do have the same end-goal even if coming from different perspectives.

Also lel

>mfw ancoms try to econ

 

I'm assuming that logic applies to socialistic/communistic economic systems as well? If so then what would you call our society? This situation can't be as black and white as you want it to be. Assuming we (you and I) don't live in a capitalistic society what would you call it? We wouldn't fit into the other categories (for obvious reasons) so one must derive that economic structure is a gradient and not, as a wise man once said, a Boolean variable.

If you meant to say we are not PURELY capitalistic then you would be correct but I hope we can both agree that a purely capitalistic society isn't the ideal.