Noam Chomsky – "On Anarchism" [video]

I don't think they understand that without individual freedoms reigning supreme, we'll have monopolies, lack of innovation, taxes, etc. Oh, and don't forget tracking/passport/entry visas because of taxes. Oh and don't forget mandatory "collective" (but NOT state) schooling.

Taxes = Theft, Government = the Monopoly on Violence, and Capitalism (which is separate from the free market) = Wage Slavery and too much power. Your thoughts?

> What about the kids whose parents won't ever take them to one of these spaces/libraries?

What about them? There are plenty of children growing up today that either don't go to school, get expelled, or refuse to learn anything. I don't see the difference. The percentage of children of going to these places? What about the last 5000 years of human progress? Surely they progressed without mandatory/forced state education. Would you agree with yourself if we were all in North Korea knowing what we know? That's the problem with hypotheticals, you can expound ad infinitum.

> The problem is that for a percentage of children (varies by country, but quite high in the third world), handing the responsibility of their education to their parents is even shittier.

Which doesn't matter. The question isn't what's more economically efficient or favourable to higher literacy rates. It's a matter of morality. If the state requires me to let them raise my children, and threatens me with force if I do not, then in your opinion, who's in the wrong?

Now of course, things need to be in context. But you can't simply make an assertion that the state will always be better of a parent to a child than even a poor or illiterate or even neglectful parent. The problem with the ability to exert pressure on persons to send their children to public schooling is that it violates a natural and historical bond, and replaces it with "the monopoly on violence" in the name of justice. Always in the name of justice.

Ask yourself this, if you're worried about children becoming illiterate, then surely you're worried about children joining armies to fight economic wars, children being locked in prison for nonviolent crimes, and children being used to scapegoat authoritarian measures right? What about the children -is not a defense between the DPRK threatening to take my child because I won't permit them to indoctrinate her.

> And if some children don't want to get any education, and their parents are ok with it, or just too poor to care or deem it important?

I suppose YOU know what's better for them right? The argument is founded on the morals that people should be given freedom, along with the benefits and responsibilities that entails.

Most of our 5,000+ years of known history had no public schooling and constant albeit slow progress. If you're trying to say you're morally obligated the threaten to take my children away from me because I/them decide their education is acceptable, even if YOU view it as none, then ask yourself if this exact same discussion would still be defended by yourself if we were living in the DPRK under harsh and oppressive control by our government.

Thats the main difference really between individualists and collectivists thought. You think we're stupid, and we think you're evil. The government of the US or Canada ISN'T the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but to me, it could be. All we need are less individual rights, and more dependence on a nanny state that thinks it knows what's best for me. You may choose safety, but I'd rather choose Liberty. My option permits yours. Does your mine?

Your previous point:

> If your definition of morality is "a system for decreeing who should die" rather than "a system for ensuring everyone lives", you are the problem.

Isn't correct. No individualist chooses anything for anyone else less it be voluntary and without force/coercion.

> Justify your religious faith using objective data and control groups, or go back to church, please.

Resorting to name calling isn't going to win you any awards. I'm an atheist and I just simple believe freedom comes at a cost of having to have individual responsibility in terms of sustaining your welfare and direction. I come from a multi-generational welfare home. The state pacified my family, it didn't help them. I broke the cycle through individual merit and determination. This would still allow you to do as you wish, so long as others volunteer for your collective, and you don't infringe on an individuals rights.

My system permits yours to exist. Does yours permit mine to exist? That's the real moral crossroads we sit at. Also:

> Justify your religious faith using objective data and control groups

You know Philosophy isn't science right? The fact you ask for it screams you're a utopian statist who simply wants to be god. What is your alternative to individual freedom? A complex set of fluidly changing social rules that bind/limit us all that go beyond violence? Jail or Injure a Man/Woman because they disagree to cooperate with your rules? Just don't harm or tell me what to do and we'll be friends. Sounds like that's not reciprocal with you, and that I'd be required to follow other rules, lest I be jailed/killed/banished/boycotted.

Also, it seems like any anarchist society not predicated on either individualist or consensus based policy is prone to majority rule. What do you do with opposition? Punish them? Even if they're non violent. This all screams government, which ruins the anarchy...

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6920011 for some clarification. In case it helps, consider the following two ways of thinking about land as property.

1) Any land covered by something valuable that you "produced" yourself is your property. A house, a corn field, a copper mine, etc. But land in a state of nature is not. For example, 10 acres of forest in a state of nature would not be your property, because you haven't "mixed your labour" with it.

2) Even that 10 acres of forest can be your property, and you get to control (access to) it, because you need to know that you will get to benefit from any value you produce with that forest, even if it takes some time to get started, let alone "materialize" that value. Maybe you're planning to build an amusement park, but need to figure stuff out first, and make sure you'll have everything you need before starting the project. Maybe that will turn sour, and then you'll switch to some other goal with the forest. But if you don't have the right to control (access to) the forest before you do something with it, then you just won't do anything with it because you have no guarantee of getting to benefit from the value you produce. The latter case would be a loss to other people too, because something they'd benefit from (even if in exchange for a fee) would not come to be.

I think both 1 and 2 make sense.