Welcome to the Community

Please choose one of the options below to log in and get stuck in!

Login with PPUK


  • You're insane. But nice wall-o-text though, I wish you well in your desire to learn kung fu and overthrown our overlords with your (unarmed?) revolution.
  • I never mentioned violence, certainly not smashing peoples windows in. Liberal Democracy is a con, a cover for money-power. It is leading to the most powerful Totalitarian system ever. I am not insane.The world is insane. How else can you describe a species hell bent on destroying its own habitat? If the PPUK Is to be just another fringe party it might as well pack up. There are loads of them. Besides, I'd have thought Piracy and Anarchism would have a lot in common.
  • There is a big difference between Piracy as known on the seas and in counterfeiting, and being a Pirate in the political sense.
  • Haven't read the whole post yet, but I intend to when I get 5, or maybe 20 minutes spare ;) Just wanted to put my two bits in here and start by pointing out that anarchism does not = violence and there are plenty of arguments to suggest that pacifism is more likely to fit. Anarchism shouldn't be a dirty word either and there's no need for it to create panic wherever it's mentioned. Nowt wrong with a bit of anarchism in my book. And certainly got time for some eco-anarchism.
  • There's a place for anarchy in the political system but you can't run a country on a system that doesn't scale.
  • @chesha I actually frequently use that video as a citation when explaining the Pirates myself. The operative word in my previous comment was 'known'. As in, what people think they know before they watch that video.
  • edited July 2015
    I'm listening to that excellent video; sorry, but your case isn't proven, Cris. America began as a pirate nation, but look at it now! They've gone from being all about the common good to this:

    As the leaders amassed wealth, they forgot where they came from and began the process of enclosure that has led to the global neoliberal regime we see today. America was never fully anarchist and, human nature being what it is, it soon lost the idealism for the common good and began the process of enclosure that continues to this day. The reservations and the Westward push was all about taking the land, putting fences around it and saying, "Git off mah lay-and!"

    As I said, it doesn't scale. Once you get past a certain number or size, the drive to create a centralised power structure takes over. The Articles of Confederation (1776) held the original 13 states together for a little while but were superseded by the Constitution, which created the Federal Government, in 1789.

    If you were to argue that under the Articles of Confederation, the US was an anarchist state, I'd be hard put to argue, but this is why it only lasted three years:

    * The Confederation Congress could make decisions, but lacked enforcement powers.
    * The Continental Congress could print money; but, by 1786, the currency was worthless.
    * Congress could borrow money, but couldn't pay it back.
    * They couldn't levy taxes — "limited government" was the watchword even back then
    * They could not organise or pay an effective army, mostly because they couldn't pay the soldiers
    * Under the Articles, states' rights made each state sovereign and they often vied with each other instead of being united

    Basically, it was totally impossible to govern the country under the terms of the Articles of Confederation because it lacked
    a) order
    b) centralised authority, and
    c) the ability to enforce it

    At the 1787 drafting of the Constitution, the delegates were generally convinced that an effective central government with a wide range of enforceable powers must replace the weaker Congress established by the Articles of Confederation.

    As I said, anarchy doesn't scale to the effective governance of a nation, though there is a place for it in the political process.
  • edited August 2015
    This is where the blockchain comes in to bring sense to decentralisation. See Bitnation. http://bitnation.co (as viewed positively by Rick Falkvinge)
  • Over-centralisation is stifling and tends to cause more problems than it solves by binding individuals and groups to legal and fiscal regimes that don't meet their needs. Any system that is too rigid to allow people room to manoeuvre in terms of meeting their own needs and those of their communities is a problem in and of itself.

    On the other hand, we need enough of it to get things done.

    I would argue that a flexible system that has enough central authority to get things done at a national level while allowing enough autonomy for decision-making at a local level is the one to aim for.

    Blockchain, Bitcoin, and the internet itself provide great examples of how decentralisation works to its best advantage. However, even they require some kind of order. This isn't really an argument against decentralisation per se, it's more of an argument in favour of order + enough flexibility to empower individuals and groups to make the choices that are right for them. I don't like either/or choices, they don't leave enough room for nuance.
  • People are still holding up BitCoin and the bloackchain as a good example of something in YooL 2015? Oh my. I never thought I would live to see the day when someone would talk about BitNation in a serious fashion.

    You should not take advice from Dick Falconwing.
Sign In or Register to comment.