Introduction
I was wondering what people here have thought about primitivism (using less technology) and anarchism (there being less to no "government")
I was thinking about these topics when thinking about the political ideology of the USA for the Memorial day holiday weekend
As a teenager, the experience of "American freedom" was enjoyable, so I considered the idea of "anarchism" or taking "liberty" to its full logical extent to be possibly desirable
I think for me the idea of the old American less inhabited frontier seemed attractive, of someone having a plot of land and being self-sufficient ("individualist anarchism")
This kind of vision would only work somewhat with less technology (leaning in a "primitivism" direction), for if you need to make use of more developed machines, you become dependent on a complex network of people producing the machines
Anarcho-Capitalism
Eventually I was confronted with perhaps some of the naive views of "anarchism": for example, if there is no law against it, could someone just attack you and take all your things?
However, it was suggested in response, that if someone is "free" to do this, someone is also "free" to respond with self-defense; at this point, mere "anarchy" seems to transform into more of the vision of "anarcho-capitalism", or something like government entities existing without you having to have one central government
Because, in such a scenario, you would also be "free" to team up with friends to form something of a police force, of rules (laws) you agree to commonly, and of other such functions that we have centralized governments perform for us today
So, even if it is technically "anarchy", or there is no one single government, still it seems "naive anarchy" resolves to something of a "decentralized 'State'" existing - it's just not one entity, but it may be a collection of entities that we might group together and view as a "State" in one area
I guess a question is about if this is viable or desirable today ("anarcho-capitalism")
Such "anarcho-capitalists" (ancaps) I've seen frequently suggest that this would do away with taxes, which are involuntary costs paid to a government; however, while you might be "free" from paying for a police force to exist, in practice you'd probably want police protection, and hence would pay a fee that is like a "tax" that is somewhat involuntarily imposed upon you by the state of nature of needing police help
Objection Example: What About the Children?
Certainly if you consider a lot of objections against "anarchy", one for example might come up that children might lack protections that exist under a government
I concede that this could be an issue, but on the other hand it seems like even with a big State we end up with legalized abortion and plenty of abuse happening (whether by organized elites, or a common person) - so I'm not sure more abuses of children would or wouldn't exist (and I would enjoy hearing people's thoughts)
Technological Dictatorship
But I guess my question is about if we ought to move our government in the USA more towards smaller government (minarchy) or no government (anarchy), or about what goals exist for the development of our country going forward
Are we instead moving towards bigger government and more dependence on technology ("technological dictatorship") and is this process somewhat inevitable?
Big corporations buy up smaller companies and grow even larger; States acquire new territories (like Trump eyeing up Greenland and Canada) to become larger; we keep building up a bigger global technological "machine", now powered by many datacenters to run AI programs
So is resistance to this movement towards "One Technological World Government" just a temporary measure before inevitable "End Times" that will come, and to what extent is it desirable to form smaller operations (small companies which are subject to going out of business towards larger corporations, or smaller governments or entities which are subject to warfare by larger States, or primitive lifestyles which are subject to being forcibly disrupted by technological developments?)
Conclusion
In our current political situation, a lot of us have "tribally" rallied around MAGA with Trump as the leader (not everyone on ConPro, lol), as we face many who don't share our values teaming up to bring us towards some other "vision" of what society should be; but I guess I was wondering what people think the ideal vision is to work towards in the face of the threat of "technological dictatorship" and if something of "anarchist primitivism" in contrast is desirable or an extreme to avoid, with a "lower tech small government" kind of situation being advocated for, or even something else entirely
I was wondering what people here have thought about primitivism (using less technology) and anarchism (there being less to no "government")
I was thinking about these topics when thinking about the political ideology of the USA for the Memorial day holiday weekend
As a teenager, the experience of "American freedom" was enjoyable, so I considered the idea of "anarchism" or taking "liberty" to its full logical extent to be possibly desirable
I think for me the idea of the old American less inhabited frontier seemed attractive, of someone having a plot of land and being self-sufficient ("individualist anarchism")
This kind of vision would only work somewhat with less technology (leaning in a "primitivism" direction), for if you need to make use of more developed machines, you become dependent on a complex network of people producing the machines
Anarcho-Capitalism
Eventually I was confronted with perhaps some of the naive views of "anarchism": for example, if there is no law against it, could someone just attack you and take all your things?
However, it was suggested in response, that if someone is "free" to do this, someone is also "free" to respond with self-defense; at this point, mere "anarchy" seems to transform into more of the vision of "anarcho-capitalism", or something like government entities existing without you having to have one central government
Because, in such a scenario, you would also be "free" to team up with friends to form something of a police force, of rules (laws) you agree to commonly, and of other such functions that we have centralized governments perform for us today
So, even if it is technically "anarchy", or there is no one single government, still it seems "naive anarchy" resolves to something of a "decentralized 'State'" existing - it's just not one entity, but it may be a collection of entities that we might group together and view as a "State" in one area
I guess a question is about if this is viable or desirable today ("anarcho-capitalism")
Such "anarcho-capitalists" (ancaps) I've seen frequently suggest that this would do away with taxes, which are involuntary costs paid to a government; however, while you might be "free" from paying for a police force to exist, in practice you'd probably want police protection, and hence would pay a fee that is like a "tax" that is somewhat involuntarily imposed upon you by the state of nature of needing police help
Objection Example: What About the Children?
Certainly if you consider a lot of objections against "anarchy", one for example might come up that children might lack protections that exist under a government
I concede that this could be an issue, but on the other hand it seems like even with a big State we end up with legalized abortion and plenty of abuse happening (whether by organized elites, or a common person) - so I'm not sure more abuses of children would or wouldn't exist (and I would enjoy hearing people's thoughts)
Technological Dictatorship
But I guess my question is about if we ought to move our government in the USA more towards smaller government (minarchy) or no government (anarchy), or about what goals exist for the development of our country going forward
Are we instead moving towards bigger government and more dependence on technology ("technological dictatorship") and is this process somewhat inevitable?
Big corporations buy up smaller companies and grow even larger; States acquire new territories (like Trump eyeing up Greenland and Canada) to become larger; we keep building up a bigger global technological "machine", now powered by many datacenters to run AI programs
So is resistance to this movement towards "One Technological World Government" just a temporary measure before inevitable "End Times" that will come, and to what extent is it desirable to form smaller operations (small companies which are subject to going out of business towards larger corporations, or smaller governments or entities which are subject to warfare by larger States, or primitive lifestyles which are subject to being forcibly disrupted by technological developments?)
Conclusion
In our current political situation, a lot of us have "tribally" rallied around MAGA with Trump as the leader (not everyone on ConPro, lol), as we face many who don't share our values teaming up to bring us towards some other "vision" of what society should be; but I guess I was wondering what people think the ideal vision is to work towards in the face of the threat of "technological dictatorship" and if something of "anarchist primitivism" in contrast is desirable or an extreme to avoid, with a "lower tech small government" kind of situation being advocated for, or even something else entirely
Isn't just less technology. It's the absence of it. It's a very idealistic philosophy but pretty much untenable without at least some belief in posadist apocalypticism. The closest thing to a genuinely primitivist society (not as in existing hunter gatherers or something, but as in a return to primitive life from urban life) was the khmer rouge. You might be looking for agrarianism or luddism though, which are different. I have mixed feelings about this. Technology has its downsides, but significantly scaling back technology rather than advancing it puts a revolutionary state at risk against countries that *do* advance their technology. I would also like to bring to light the example of the khmer Rouge (anti industrialists) vs the Vietnamese (who were building a fledgling industry) and how the Vietnamese crushed the khmer Rouge with barely a fight because of this.
>Anarcho-Capitalism
Is retarded. It might be the most idealist fantasy that has ever been crafted in people's minds. If Lolbertarianism is retarded, anarcho capitalism is absolutely brain dead. Anarchism and capitalism are two opposing ideologies. Capitalism is anti-anarchistic by nature (which is why anarchists tend to be leftists in general). Any anarcho-capitalist "state" would end up resembling a dictatorship because it would have to. In essence, it's self defeating, and as you already posited, corporations would end up serving the role of the government.
>Such "anarcho-capitalists" (ancaps) I've seen frequently suggest that this would do away with taxes, which are involuntary costs paid to a government
Everyone gets their panties in a twist about taxes, but the only problem with taxes in reality is how they are used. For infinite wars in the middle east and gazillions of dollars to pissrael. A good state uses taxes for infrastructure and welfare alongside military and foreign affairs. If something isn't subsidized by taxes, the money will have to be paid for it out of pocket anyways. It will hurt me less to pay a tax than it will to have to pay for that thing out of pocket if I need to do so. The most potent example of this in the US is college education, which is not subsidized and puts students in debt forever (nevermind the fact that college is generally pretty useless, but let's pretend we're in an ideal state, and college becomes very useful).
>with a big State we end up with legalized abortion and plenty of abuse happening
The problem: the state is bad and the culture is bad. The issue isn't the size of the state, and even if abortion were legalized (for whatever reason), if the culture weren't bad you wouldn't have these abortions anyways. You can't really blame the institution for it in and of itself. There are no forced abortions. However a good state would ensure the welfare of children and their safety better than an anarchist lack of state could.
>Are we instead moving towards bigger government and more dependence on technology ("technological dictatorship") and is this process somewhat inevitable?
The issue again isn't that the state is larger. It isn't. And actually, compared to the past, the government has taken a backseat on interference since Reagan. So it's actually smaller than it was before (as in during the childhood of the boomers). Liberty doesn't come from "the government stops doing stuff", it comes from what stuff the government does. The government more or less has the same powers that it has always had. But what are they doing with that power? It isn't our own welfare because the government is paid for by jewish/corporate/jewish corporate lobbying.
>So is resistance to this movement towards "One Technological World Government"
Personally I don't think that this will ever happen. There's too many different factors between each country at play. It would be impossible and unrealistic to have a one world government. Resistance to a direct one world government would be insurmountable as well. So what do I think will happen? Lobbies in every individual country. Although this too has a great chance of failing.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed