Really interesting episode. I feel like this no government movement doesn't exist (or is very small) here in Australia, so very interesting to hear more about it.
Not sure I personally believe that this could ever happen or work, but I did enjoy hearing about it.
Greg, I really appreciated your interview style on this one. You really pushed him for better answers. I think he thinks he has all the answers, but you were able to scratch a little deeper.
Thanks for a great ep!
My problems with this episode:
- Kokesh dogmatically characterizes all of our problems in terms of a centralized power (government); I believe less government is better but am not sure it can be entirely abolished.
- Kokesh assumes that 99% of the violence in the world is caused by government; my own experiences would lead me to believe that he is exaggerating; am I missing something?; was his exaggeration produced for some kind of effect that I missed?
- Kokesh ignores Greg's questions (see approx minute 30 of the interview) and tries to turn the tables on Greg by claiming Greg is appealing to logical fallacies; Kokesh never names these logical fallacies directly; Put another way, Kokesh seems more focused on a semantic battle rather than attending to practical concerns.
- Near the end of the interview Kokesh tries to make it seem as if he and Greg agree when they clearly do not; If Kokesh would answer Greg's questions directly this would seem more honest; I felt annoyed by Kokesh's tactics; In this regard, he was not as honest with himself as he professes to be.
I used to call myself a Libertarian, but I feel this philosophy characterizes my view of the world incorrectly. I think my views are much more in line with John McMurtry.
I would prefer to have more power over my family's food supply and health. In this way, I would seek near complete independence. In any case, I seem to be more in the camp of Greg for this show.
The problem of government is corruption. The problem of business is corruption. Which of these will stop it if we ask them? Corruption has systemically risen to the well-earned title of military-industrial-security state-mainstream media complex. If all these are made up of people, and if the only person each of us has any real power to change is ourself, then the only practical solution is that we each find what would make us, as ourselves, corrupt, and eliminate that possibility. If I do it, it may affect just myself, but it may also influence one or three others, with no sure things in that way. Should I instead go for the corruption if it seems my reach is too short? Having my way pushed on you isn't how it can work. You will have to do what you will. The Tibetans and the Hopi call it, "right action with no attachment to the results." The only way I see for this system to be eliminated is non-systematically. You each must decide for yourselves.
Completely agree with what's said here, and Greg's position. Problem is not one of government, but corruption. And eliminating Government won't eliminate the latter necessarily. It'll turn it into a wild west. To date, the most convincing plan I have heard of yet, is Robert David Steele's Open Source System vision, where transparency and open-source institutions are standard operational procedure. Or also the idea that you lower taxes so that the State is unable to finance a War, unless the people decide to raise the tax to do so. There are so many thing that are feasible with a mode of governane that is made for us, and in return, for us to contribute to the whole. And I believe it's just a matter of when it will happen.
For more info, definitely listen to Greg's Interview with Robert on THC.
I am happy to hear Greg exploring the Anarchy topic! He occasionally references Anarcho-Capitalists with a touch of skepticism, so it's cool he gave the platform to Kokesh to plead the case. I was also glad Kokesh clarified the meaning of a voluntary society. Greg has been under the impression that voluntary refers to volunteering or charitable giving, which he also assumes most people would not do absent some mandate. Kokesh seems like a solid dude and I really applaud his candor regarding his Military service. He's been a fixture in the post Ron Paul Rev. Ancap community, and I believe is well studied on topics related to personal freedom and economics. That being said, he would not be my first choice as a spokesman for the philosophy. I would love to hear Greg engage with Libertarian/Ancap personas like Stephan Kinsella, Stefan Molyneux, and Larkin Rose. Throw a stone at Mises.org or LewRockwell.com and you'll find an author, philosopher, or economist who likely inspired Kokesh. For more left leaning Anarchists Greg might jive with Kevin Carson, John Vibes, or Derrick Broze.
I think the Ancap case is best presented from two separate angles. There is the moral argument embodied in the details of self ownership and the non-aggression principal(NAP). And there is the practical argument, which deals with the economics of personal freedom and the practical application of the NAP in society. Kokesh makes an effort at conveying the details surrounding self ownership and the NAP, but I'm not convinced Greg understands the extrapolation of those core concepts. Part of that may be due to the disjointed and indirect way Kokesh presents the case. Understandable considering the scope of the topic. The NAP and self ownership are the foundation of the entire philosophy. The what ifs, which Greg and Adam spend a lot of the time on are more thought experiments that have little bearing on the truth or legitimacy claims of the core principals.
Greg is hip to the notion that Government can be viewed simply as a tool to wield for good or ill. What he misses and Kokesh fails to express is that a right that a person does not possess can not be delegated to another. I believe it was Gordon who I heard refer to the State as a fulfillment mechanism for the rich. Such a great way to put it! It seems Government is there for each of us to use to our own advantage or to the advantage of our preferred group. Money and network strength largely dictate to what extent government can be captured for ones advantage. The Ancap crowd simply would like to see the power of that tool altered or diminished by establishing a privatized foundation or base to society. All goods and services, including those which the State purports to supply would instead flow from private individuals, corporations, and collectives, with whom association with would be entirely voluntary unless otherwise clearly contractually established.
Many proponents of Ancap view a property based, market economy, with businesses managed through traditional corporate hierarchies as the best system by which to organize society. However, the charm of the Ancap philosophy is that it leaves room for an individual or group to direct their property or capital to build any social structure they desire within the framework of the NAP. Is an Ancap Communist a oxymoron? Ancap philosophy certainly allows for an individual or group to reorganize their holdings or property into a Communist community. Hell, likely a whole bunch of folks would throw their energy into building a militant, quasi-republic, complete with a central bank, surveillance State, with ambitions of global hegemony.
The options for social structures are vast and the theory is that a voluntary society creates conditions in which wealth and creativity can flourish. How would this or that function without government? Your average Ancap proponent may have a bunk answer but it doesn't mean some crafty specialist isn't out there who has a good answer. For example, I might suggest some details on how a town could implement police/property protection services without government or taxation. But I'm a house painter by trade. Ask someone who runs a security firm or who specializes in crime prevention strategies and surely more intelligent and workable ideas will arise. That being said, it can be a thought provoking exercise to run through suggestions on how various services can be delivered without government regardless of ones specialty. At the very least you learn a little more about what you and those around you truly value in this life.
Greg's questions were eloquent, polite, and discerning.
For my two cents, many native american tribes used to govern themselves acting only on unanimity. This sounds incredible to us in 2017 on the interwebs, yet this has been possible for large numbers of humans at one point.
On the other hand, these people were not trading deeds to land, nor did they have a legacy of nuclear weapons to deal with, or massive wealth inequality, or any number of other modern ills we face on a finite planet.
I like his approach of trying to agree to do away with certain forms and layers of state violence and then see what happens. There he's on to something.
May he perfect his will without lust of result. Indeed, may we all.
“The experience of Hutterite communities indicates that below 150 people, the distribution system can be managed by shame; above that approximate number, shame loses its effectiveness.” -Garrett Hardin, Tragedy of the Commons (Thanks @shamangineer )
Adam K’s solution?
A technological rating system, like Über, but for people not cabs.
Some kind of Freedom, eh?
Like it or not,
the Technological System
is taking us for a ride.
This tyrannical rating system already exists for the use of a few,
So perhaps, it makes sense to give this power to everyone,
horrible as that idea is.
Thus the TS grinds
and eats a little more
human dignity.
Umm, num-num.
But in the end
there is no privacy.
Only one mind,
which must love
horror.
Better get good.
Better practice death.
Live life alive.
But remember,
like Satya says,
there's no place to go,
and nothing to do.
Anybody here ever read "Daemon, and its sequel "Freedom (TM)" by Daniel Suarez ? They are both fun and action movie like,sci-fi reading, and the story posits an interesting idea of creating a new "global technological community", using tech that is probably only a few years away. Video games (RPG's, anyway) play a major part. I found it fun and thought provoking, and explored building a society without centralized government from scratch, using modern tech, with many of the moral and ethical growing pains included.
I voted for Trump. I'm now off the Trump train and on the Fuck Trump train.
Now about these anarcho-libertarian ideas...
Groups of people are dangerous. It doesn't matter whether you call the group a corporation or a state (or a tribe or a HOA or a book club or a church). All groups of people are dangerous - especially if organized hierarchically.
Unfortunately the only defense against groups of people is... a group of people. So hierarchies are like organisms in a survival of the fittest food chain which - as time goes on and technology increases - results in a super-predator that can consume the world.
Hierarchies are dangerous because they filter sociopaths to the top. People who are controlling and lack empathy step on whoever they have to step on to get to the top.
Hierarchies might start out with noble purposes and pure intentions and good moral leadership. But the trend OVER TIME is towards corruption. This is the natural order of things. All things must die.
There are two elements of the solution to the super-predator result of the hiearchy food chain: networking and death.
Hierarchy is the masculine form of structure. Networking (crowd-sourcing) is the feminine form. When the two forms are balanced (which requires benevolence on the part of the masculine form and assertiveness and connectedness and freedom of speech on the part of the feminine form) there is an explosion of creativity and bliss.
Those who want to do away with the state are like a young beautiful woman in barbarous times deciding she doesn't need a man and will go live on her own... yeah good luck with that. She will get abused without a man and society for protection.
So we need hierarchy for protection from hierarchy, but death must be programmed into all hierarchies or else they will grow oppressive and corrupt.
How can this death be programmed in? That is a problem that needs crowd sourcing. Perhaps a time limit on all laws. Perhaps sizes of governments and corporations should have an absolute size and time limit. Anything to keep the "life" cycle of corporations (groups of people) refreshed and renewed.
Then there's the old bumper sticker question, "What if they gave a war and nobody came?"
Organized resistance, if not crushed at the outset, and lasts long enough to prevail, will be already dawning on its own hierarchic corruption. A movement toward a spiritual realization will happen only as it springs from individuals' recognition of true self, and will need no such organization, as such a movement will be more organic in nature, erupting, as it were, spontaneously. Neither the entrenched hierarchy, nor the movement itself, will see it coming in overt terms. Realized or awakened beings don't come out of any systematized mechanisms. They find a being that is beyond gender, age, politics, or astrological sign. They will know each other in a way that will be under any radar. They won't be waiting for help or reinforcements. We will be it, beyond outside controls. Ready yourselves. Enjoy. Fuck chronic fear.
Namasté
This is a very honest and thoughtful statement @hurmanetar . The ancient Hebrew system of Jubilee is an excellent example of similar policies functioning fairly well. Seems like we are due for a periodic cleaning of the slate. Let's hope it doesn't have to happen through disaster and reaction.
The process of discovery of true-self mentioned by @satyagraha is having a real surge in our civilization right now. Entheogenes used with sacred care are a extremely helpful catalyst for this. Some of the most effective are highly illegal. We definitely need to keep bringing these barriers down. This isn't some stupid stoner joke, truly there is a higher side.
hatzman, post: 7831, memberA: 5203 wrote: Really interesting episode. I feel like this no government movement doesn't exist (or is very small) here in Australia, so very interesting to hear more about it.
Not sure I personally believe that this could ever happen or work, but I did enjoy hearing about it.
Greg, I really appreciated your interview style on this one. You really pushed him for better answers. I think he thinks he has all the answers, but you were able to scratch a little deeper.
Thanks for a great ep!
Hey Hatzman!
Fellow Aussie here, and very much a part of the "no-government" ancap/voluntaryist set here. If you happen to be from Sydney there is actually a big conference coming up at the very end of April, would be great to meet a fellow THC'er in person at such a great event. Message me if you wanna know about it 🙂
As for the show, I loved it. I like Kokesh, but he is not the best voice out there regarding this stuff. For my money a Tom Woods, or a Lew Rockwell are fantastic. Where Kokesh trips ad stumbles these two are solid as a rock. But also happy to admit when there is something they just simply do not know.
We got a little bit of a shout out on a recent episode!
