The Anarchy/Voluntarist Thread

[Green Arrow]

I don't know about the rest of you anarchos and voluntarists, but I get tired of gubmint lovers starting threads about our beliefs and pretending they care about anything other than their own beliefs on the matter. So, this thread is a discussion about our views on our terms, and they can just deal.

If you were put in charge of your ideal anarcho/voluntarist community, how would you structure it?

[GrassrootsConservative]

If you were put in charge of your ideal anarcho/voluntarist community, how would you structure it?

Quite the oxymoron you have there. Anarchy is a lack of government.

Structure = Control = Lack of freedoms for the great majority.

The best government is one that governs the least. I say fuck structure. Let people do what they please.

[Codename Section]

Quite the oxymoron you have there. Anarchy is a lack of government.

Structure = Control = Lack of freedoms for the great majority.

The best government is one that governs the least. I say fuck structure. Let people do what they please.

Well a voluntarist believes in governance, not government. You can get together and agree to do things. Anarchism is not "chaos". It is the rule of Nature's law instead of man's law.



I would do as I do now which is become an active member of cooperatives, and organize barter trade. I would try to achieve a high level of self-sufficiency and then work those ares that require cooperation.

[kilgram]

Quite the oxymoron you have there. Anarchy is a lack of government.

Structure = Control = Lack of freedoms for the great majority.

The best government is one that governs the least. I say fuck structure. Let people do what they please.
Well, as anarchist I believe in self-government. And it means some structure, some system.

In anarchism there are many ways of organization, and obviously always people organize themselves in a way or other. For example my ideal organization would be collective property and self-managing in form of assemblies and federations.

[Green Arrow]

Quite the oxymoron you have there. Anarchy is a lack of government.

Not true. Anarchy is the lack of a state. Government is two or morepeople getting together to make decisions. Once you give those two or more people a monopoly on force and defined borders, they become a state and you lose your anarchy.

[midcan5]

The anarchist and voluntarism pledge preamble and constitution


I pledge well I sorta pledge that society be free of all infringements on whatever I don't like now or in the future but also if I change my mind I may need to alter my pledge say for instance if my house burns down cause of unsafe appliances or some other thing like the firemen never came or a forest fire was left to burn and it burned down my house and since I dont like structure or rules I want a job where I can come and go as I please and if sick and unable to diagnosis or repair myself I still want doctors but if they are free like me I may die but then thats ok too for who wants doctors that have to abide my rules and procedures and use tested medicine for we AVs can test our own remedies and also I want a car and roads that have no regulation or structure for that would conflict with my belief that we are free and oh yea maybe a doctor will be a volunteer and like me free of government imposed rules regulations safety procedures I mean didnt we once long ago just do whatever we wanted like hunt animals and pick fruit from trees and who needs inspections of this stuff for that would be in opposition to our pledges and rules and regulation and other stuff I still havent thought of also I am so free I dont use any punctuation cause that would mean that I listened to some authority which I of course dont but then these words came to me from authorities but note I am free to use them as I want or not use them just like this pledge preamble and constitution could change without notice or even without being rewritten for it too represents structure and order and form and stuff and thus contradicts our whole beliefs system which isnt really a system........

[Green Arrow]

The anarchist and voluntarism pledge preamble and constitution


I pledge well I sorta pledge that society be free of all infringements on whatever I don't like now or in the future but also if I change my mind I may need to alter my pledge say for instance if my house burns down cause of unsafe appliances or some other thing like the firemen never came or a forest fire was left to burn and it burned down my house and since I dont like structure or rules I want a job where I can come and go as I please and if sick and unable to diagnosis or repair myself I still want doctors but if they are free like me I may die but then thats ok too for who wants doctors that have to abide my rules and procedures and use tested medicine for we AVs can test our own remedies and also I want a car and roads that have no regulation or structure for that would conflict with my belief that we are free and oh yea maybe a doctor will be a volunteer and like me free of government imposed rules regulations safety procedures I mean didnt we once long ago just do whatever we wanted like hunt animals and pick fruit from trees and who needs inspections of this stuff for that would be in opposition to our pledges and rules and regulation and other stuff I still havent thought of also I am so free I dont use any punctuation cause that would mean that I listened to some authority which I of course dont but then these words came to me from authorities but note I am free to use them as I want or not use them just like this pledge preamble and constitution could change without notice or even without being rewritten for it too represents structure and order and form and stuff and thus contradicts our whole beliefs system which isnt really a system........

Do you have anything to add to the topic? If you're just here to troll, then leave.

[Chris]

The last discussion actually, despite some distractions, went well.

There was the clarification that anarchy is not chaos but governance without government. This governance is, I think, 90% there already in the form of existing social institutions, traditions, organizations, associations, etc--this notion of existing social order in the community, I was reading last night, is very much communitarian. Thus all anarchy does is remove government, the use of force, and replaces it with voluntary agreements.

One major challenge that always arises in discussing anarchy, is, yes, liberty is great, but what about security? And the answer to that is communities forming their own security, their own militias if you will. These communities would then form associations for mutual defense against any rogue community. --Last night CNN has a program on about bankrupt cities, focusing on Stockton, CA. And this is exactly what the people did, started getting neighbors together to form watchdog and security groups, and these groups formed associations with other neighborhoods across the city. I've reported on private security filling the gap in Detroit.

The other major challenge is whether or not its human nature to lust for power and no matter where you start with a new social order, some would accrue power and corrupt the system. To though the whole idea of anarchy is to redistribute power (instead of wealth) among all to combat this selfish tendency.



If you were put in charge of your ideal anarcho/voluntarist community, how would you structure it?

But no one would be in charge. The community would have to get together and decide.

[jillian]

The last discussion actually, despite some distractions, went well

distractions like people thinking your idea of what the world should be is silly?

you have an absolute right to believe what you want.

and people have the right to say they think your ideas are silly.

this is the main problem, which has been proven insurmountable throughout history.


whether or not its human nature to lust for power and no matter where you start with a new social order, some would accrue power and corrupt the system. To though the whole idea of anarchy is to redistribute power (instead of wealth) among all to combat this selfish tendency.

there is also the concept of divesting everyone else of what they are ok with for your own selfish purposes.

[Chris]

Do you have anything to add to the topic? If you're just here to troll, then leave.

By his post he's trying, like many, to mock what he doesn't understand. He seems to confuse anarchy with two things. One, with freedom as a teenager might see it, an escape from responsibility, when what's necessary for anarchy to succeed is the opposite, an embrace of responsibility, if nothing else the notion that in order to be free to do what you want you need to respect other's freedom and you must do no harm. He also seems to confuse anarchy with government. This is absurd but it is common. So if you don't understand something, what exactly are you mocking?

[Mr Happy]

Do you have anything to add to the topic? If you're just here to troll, then leave.

He makes some perfectly valid points.

[Mr Happy]

By his post he's trying, like many, to mock what he doesn't understand. He seems to confuse anarchy with two things. One, with freedom as a teenager might see it, an escape from responsibility, when what's necessary for anarchy to succeed is the opposite, an embrace of responsibility, if nothing else the notion that in order to be free to do what you want you need to respect other's freedom and you must do no harm. He also seems to confuse anarchy with government. This is absurd but it is common. So if you don't understand something, what exactly are you mocking?

The first part - isn't that how most people see it?

[jillian]

Do you have anything to add to the topic? If you're just here to troll, then leave.

he did add to the topic. he gave his opinion.

midcan is far from a troll as is humanly possible.

and pointing out the myriad flaws in the childish idea that society will be peachy keen if run the way you want it to be… isn't trolling.

or does one have to high five you to not be trolling?

[Chris]

distractions like people thinking your idea of what the world should be is silly?

you have an absolute right to believe what you want.

and people have the right to say they think your ideas are silly.

this is the main problem, which has been proven insurmountable throughout history.



there is also the concept of divesting everyone else of what they are ok with for your own selfish purposes.


No, I would put it this way, the distractors are those who think it silly without knowing what anarchy is, or are unable to articulate constructive criticism, so merely, superficially, call it silly.




this is the main problem, which has been proven insurmountable throughout history.

What does "this" refer to? You have articulated nothing it can refer to.




there is also the concept of divesting everyone else of what they are ok with for your own selfish purposes.

From the previous discussion, and from what's been posted in this thread so far, you know your concern is unwarranted, that there is no desire to deprive you what you value, that under a system of anarchy you would be perfectly free to form an association of like-minded people.


It would really help, jillian, if you could articulate some specific concerns rather than make up easily knocked down straw men.

[Green Arrow]

distractions like people thinking your idea of what the world should be is silly?

you have an absolute right to believe what you want.

and people have the right to say they think your ideas are silly.

this is the main problem, which has been proven insurmountable throughout history.



there is also the concept of divesting everyone else of what they are ok with for your own selfish purposes.

Do you have anything substantive to contribute?

[Chris]

He makes some perfectly valid points.



And those valid points are what?

[Chris]

The first part - isn't that how most people see it?



The first part? Be specific.

[Green Arrow]

he did add to the topic. he gave his opinion.

midcan is far from a troll as is humanly possible.

and pointing out the myriad flaws in the childish idea that society will be peachy keen if run the way you want it to be… isn't trolling.

or does one have to high five you to not be trolling?

To point out myriad flaws, one has to address those flaws with an argument. Inventing flaws in a mocking manner is not a constructive argument.

[Mr Happy]

And those valid points are what?

See my subsequent post...

[Green Arrow]

He makes some perfectly valid points.

No, he doesn't. He's mocking beliefs he doesn't understand.

[Mr Happy]

The first part? Be specific.

I think the vast majority of people, when they think of anarchy see this : By his post he's trying, like many, to mock what he doesn't understand. He seems to confuse anarchy with two things. One, with freedom as a teenager might see it, an escape from responsibility,


Am pretty sure this is what the Sex Pistols were talking about when they cut Anarchy in teh Uk

[Chris]

he did add to the topic. he gave his opinion.

midcan is far from a troll as is humanly possible.

and pointing out the myriad flaws in the childish idea that society will be peachy keen if run the way you want it to be… isn't trolling.

or does one have to high five you to not be trolling?



Could you be specific on what exactly are the myriad flaws, what exactly is childish about anarchy?



that society will be peachy keen if run the way you want it to be…

That is not the idea of anarchy. It is in fact the idea of statism.

[Mister D]

He makes some perfectly valid points.

No, he doesn't. Once again, we caricature a perspective and talk about the caricature. What's the point?

[Mr Happy]

No, he doesn't. He's mocking beliefs he doesn't understand.

What some thing is to most people is not what it is to others.
Communism to most of us was a totalitarian regime instigated and supported by Stalin and Mao.
What Engels and Marx wanted was a way for society to work together so that there were no poor and no uber rich.

Go ask 100 people their definition of Communism. Give them the choice of the above two examples. which one do you think will win out,,,

[Chris]

I think the vast majority of people, when they think of anarchy see this : By his post he's trying, like many, to mock what he doesn't understand. He seems to confuse anarchy with two things. One, with freedom as a teenager might see it, an escape from responsibility,


Am pretty sure this is what the Sex Pistols were talking about when they cut Anarchy in teh Uk



You mean his lack of understanding what anarchy is, lack of knowledge of the history of the idea?


Sex Pistols sang about chaos, not anarchy as a social order.

[Chris]

No, he doesn't. Once again, we caricature a perspective and talk about the caricature. What's the point?



For some, it's all they're capable of. Mocking what they do not know only makes a mockery of themselves.

Have to admit though it's a pretty effective way of stopping discussion. This thread's already off track.

[Mr Happy]

You mean his lack of understanding what anarchy is, lack of knowledge of the history of the idea?


Sex Pistols sang about chaos, not anarchy as a social order.

Well the song was called Anarchy in the Uk.
That aside, you do see why the idea(l) of anarchy is a hard sell to a lot of people, right?

[Chris]

What some thing is to most people is not what it is to others.
Communism to most of us was a totalitarian regime instigated and supported by Stalin and Mao.
What Engels and Marx wanted was a way for society to work together so that there were no poor and no uber rich.

Go ask 100 people their definition of Communism. Give them the choice of the above two examples. which one do you think will win out,,,



OK, think I understand what you're getting at. But those misunderstandings, misrepresentations have no place in a discussion of what anarchy actually is. A better approach would be to set that aside and ask questions and offer challenges. When Green first came here and talked about socialism, he seemed a reasonable person, so instead of attacking socialism in its statist form, as I'd conceived it, I asked him to give me his version, what did he mean. Same with kilgram, guerrilla. All three seek a voluntary, non-statist form of socialism. Had I wallowed in the cacophony of my own cognitive dissonance, I wouldn't have learned anything.

[jillian]

OK, think I understand what you're getting at. But those misunderstandings, misrepresentations have no place in a discussion of what anarchy actually is. A better approach would be to set that aside and ask questions and offer challenges. When Green first came here and talked about socialism, he seemed a reasonable person, so instead of attacking socialism in its statist form, as I'd conceived it, I asked him to give me his version, what did he mean. Same with kilgram, guerrilla. All three seek a voluntary, non-statist form of socialism. Had I wallowed in the cacophony of my own cognitive dissonance, I wouldn't have learned anything.

disagremeent is neither misrepresentation nor misunderstanding. it is, ultimately, nothing more than disagreement. i believe you will find that quite frequently to your ideas… which is the right of the people hearing them… same as you disagree with others.

[Codename Section]

Well the song was called Anarchy in the Uk.
That aside, you do see why the idea(l) of anarchy is a hard sell to a lot of people, right?

But it is not. It is to YOU because you're older. When you have 70% of the United States Marine Corps who used to be rabid Republicans suddenly become Ron Paul reading voluntarists things have changed. When you have college students who used to be solidly Democrat suddenly surge to libertarians things have changed.

I think personally its having computers in your front pockets and purses and the ability to network and live outside the regular system. Bitcoin wouldn't have been possible in the 90's. People are so used to these technologies that they are just naturally migrating.

Polls in the US about millenials is that we're mostly libertarian. That never happened before.

[Chris]

disagremeent is neither misrepresentation nor misunderstanding. it is, ultimately, nothing more than disagreement. i believe you will find that quite frequently to your ideas… which is the right of the people hearing them… same as you disagree with others.

But so far there has been no disagreement. To simply say something is silly or childish is not to disagree. You need to be able to articulate your disagreement.

In the other thread there were a couple disagreements well articulated enough to lead to discussion and counter arguments. I listed those in my opening post in this thread.

So if you have some disagreement, by all means, please, articulate it.

[Codename Section]

OK, think I understand what you're getting at. But those misunderstandings, misrepresentations have no place in a discussion of what anarchy actually is. A better approach would be to set that aside and ask questions and offer challenges. When Green first came here and talked about socialism, he seemed a reasonable person, so instead of attacking socialism in its statist form, as I'd conceived it, I asked him to give me his version, what did he mean. Same with kilgram, guerrilla. All three seek a voluntary, non-statist form of socialism. Had I wallowed in the cacophony of my own cognitive dissonance, I wouldn't have learned anything.

Yep. I just kinda give up these days. I realize that people don't really want to talk to me. They want to lecture me. I've learned a lot from kilgram--not just spanish. I've learned a lot from Guerilla and Ethereal. Amazon Tania and Nic34, too. They are willing to talk to me and with me.

I know when someone has listened to me and disagrees because their arguments don't misrepresent my views but counter my views. Thanks nic34 , btw. That's very cool of you, bro. You make me smarter.

[Green Arrow]

Mr Happy, jillian, fine. Put your money where your mouths are. You claim to be interested in discussion. Let's prove it. I will, by myself, debate both of you on the subject of anarchy/voluntarism. We can have Codename Section or oceanloverOH moderate it.

What say you?

[jillian]

But so far there has been no disagreement. To simply say something is silly or childish is not to disagree. You need to be able to articulate your disagreement.

In the other thread there were a couple disagreements well articulated enough to lead to discussion and counter arguments. I listed those in my opening post in this thread.

So if you have some disagreement, by all means, please, articulate it.

actually it does. and i told you why i thought it was silly. i did not simply say "that's silly" and stop.

i've pointed out numerous times over the past few days what about it i think is silly.

you can accept that or not. or you can go reference my point about it being counter to human nature which, you, yourself, acknowledge.

or go on to it being foolish in cities.

or to the fact that what you want would be destructive to others.

or you can ignore all of that and say i haven't given reasons.

[jillian]

@Mr Happy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=720), @jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719), fine. Put your money where your mouths are. You claim to be interested in discussion. Let's prove it. I will, by myself, debate both of you on the subject of anarchy/voluntarism. We can have @Codename Section (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=866) or @oceanloverOH (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=494) moderate it.

What say you?

i'll worry about who i post to and when.

thanks.

[Codename Section]

The anarchist and voluntarism pledge preamble and constitution


I pledge well I sorta pledge that society be free of all infringements on whatever I don't like now or in the future but also if I change my mind I may need to alter my pledge say for instance if my house burns down cause of unsafe appliances or some other thing like the firemen never came or a forest fire was left to burn and it burned down my house and since I dont like structure or rules I want a job where I can come and go as I please and if sick and unable to diagnosis or repair myself I still want doctors but if they are free like me I may die but then thats ok too for who wants doctors that have to abide my rules and procedures and use tested medicine for we AVs can test our own remedies and also I want a car and roads that have no regulation or structure for that would conflict with my belief that we are free and oh yea maybe a doctor will be a volunteer and like me free of government imposed rules regulations safety procedures I mean didnt we once long ago just do whatever we wanted like hunt animals and pick fruit from trees and who needs inspections of this stuff for that would be in opposition to our pledges and rules and regulation and other stuff I still havent thought of also I am so free I dont use any punctuation cause that would mean that I listened to some authority which I of course dont but then these words came to me from authorities but note I am free to use them as I want or not use them just like this pledge preamble and constitution could change without notice or even without being rewritten for it too represents structure and order and form and stuff and thus contradicts our whole beliefs system which isnt really a system........


LOL midcan5


in other words you have no contribution to the topic and you're just mad because younger people gave up on the Democratic movement and you don't seem as hip anymore.

Just get over yourself and realize you're just the Republicans with a better marketing team.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ykeBF2hBqgM/Ub7BOSU8cgI/AAAAAAAAGGU/wBE9l4ffi8o/s1600/BO-hypocrite.jpg

[Chris]

actually it does. and i told you why i thought it was silly. i did not simply say "that's silly" and stop.

i've pointed out numerous times over the past few days what about it i think is silly.

you can accept that or not. or you can go reference my point about it being counter to human nature which, you, yourself, acknowledge.

or go on to it being foolish in cities.

or to the fact that what you want would be destructive to others.

or you can ignore all of that and say i haven't given reasons.



That's true, you offered a statist straw man the exact opposite of anarchy as your reason. It's been shot down. That's exactly what i said of midcan's post, he propped up straw men and knocked them down. Same as you.

[Mr Happy]

But it is not. It is to YOU because you're older. When you have 70% of the United States Marine Corps who used to be rabid Republicans suddenly become Ron Paul reading voluntarists things have changed. When you have college students who used to be solidly Democrat suddenly surge to libertarians things have changed.

I think personally its having computers in your front pockets and purses and the ability to network and live outside the regular system. Bitcoin wouldn't have been possible in the 90's. People are so used to these technologies that they are just naturally migrating.

Polls in the US about millenials is that we're mostly libertarian. That never happened before.

I have said, and will always say, that the main problem with the US is that its political system sux. I think the constitution is a grand idea, but I believe the reason there are so many disenfranchised people is the US is that you have lack of choice. You have repubs and dems. NZ is a country of 4 million and yet we have eight- that's right EIGHT - different political parties in our country. http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/mpp/parties/ Maybe that is why we are more happy. Almost everybody and their ideas are represented...not lobby groups...

[Chris]

I have said, and will always say, that the main problem with the US is that its political system sux. I think the constitution is a grand idea, but I believe the reason there are so many disenfranchised people is the US is that you have lack of choice. You have repubs and dems. NZ is a country of 4 million and yet we have eight- that's right EIGHT - different political parties in our country. http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/mpp/parties/ Maybe that is why we are more happy. Almost everybody and their ideas are represented...not lobby groups...

And there we go right off topic again. I think you missed code's point by a mile.

[kilgram]

By his post he's trying, like many, to mock what he doesn't understand. He seems to confuse anarchy with two things. One, with freedom as a teenager might see it, an escape from responsibility, when what's necessary for anarchy to succeed is the opposite, an embrace of responsibility, if nothing else the notion that in order to be free to do what you want you need to respect other's freedom and you must do no harm. He also seems to confuse anarchy with government. This is absurd but it is common. So if you don't understand something, what exactly are you mocking?
Exactly. Anarchism, as it is the system that grants greates freedom to people comes with the necessity of the highest degree of necessity of responsibility and also information.

For a comfortable life without worries the best system is the dictatorship. You receive everything without having to decide anything else by yourself. Others decide for you.

When you have greater freedom and more control of yourself, more responsibility is necessary. So, in any anarchist system people should be responsible and also well informed, it is educated.

[Codename Section]

I have said, and will always say, that the main problem with the US is that its political system sux. I think the constitution is a grand idea, but I believe the reason there are so many disenfranchised people is the US is that you have lack of choice. You have repubs and dems. NZ is a country of 4 million and yet we have eight- that's right EIGHT - different political parties in our country. http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/mpp/parties/ Maybe that is why we are more happy. Almost everybody and their ideas are represented...not lobby groups...

I would love to live in a small country like yours. I just think that we're too big to work it out. Protecting the minority opinion means also protecting the minority way of life. I don't think states who don't want to live like Illinois or New York should have to. New York and Illinois use their population power to force it.

Like I personally would and could deal with single payer healthcare IF we cut the military budget to pay for it, but I don't like how Democrats act with their one supermajority where they force stuff through regardless of who wants it.

This shows an abuse of power that will happen in large empires like ours.

I'd rather have no government than our government.

[kilgram]

actually it does. and i told you why i thought it was silly. i did not simply say "that's silly" and stop.

i've pointed out numerous times over the past few days what about it i think is silly.

you can accept that or not. or you can go reference my point about it being counter to human nature which, you, yourself, acknowledge.

or go on to it being foolish in cities.

or to the fact that what you want would be destructive to others.

or you can ignore all of that and say i haven't given reasons.
And can you give a reason why the statist option is less silly than the anarchist? It is not silly to be under someone else, just because this person has more power, but not intelligence or ability to do the same things.

How many times have you met a boss that is terrible in his area?

[kilgram]

I have said, and will always say, that the main problem with the US is that its political system sux. I think the constitution is a grand idea, but I believe the reason there are so many disenfranchised people is the US is that you have lack of choice. You have repubs and dems. NZ is a country of 4 million and yet we have eight- that's right EIGHT - different political parties in our country. http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/mpp/parties/ Maybe that is why we are more happy. Almost everybody and their ideas are represented...not lobby groups...
I am Spanish, and also we have many different political parties, and even after that I am Anarchist. And?

Maybe the problem is that your system is closer to Anarchism. You have much more influence in the government.

By the way, how do you believe people would be organized?

[jillian]

And can you give a reason why the statist option is less silly than the anarchist? It is not silly to be under someone else, just because this person has more power, but not intelligence or ability to do the same things.

How many times have you met a boss that is terrible in his area?

let's start with the fact that i find the label "statist" to be patronizing and hyperbolic.

bosses? become one yourself if you don't like the one you have. or find a different one.

i have no complaints about my life. so i'm not sure why i shouldn't know that having roads, schools, insured banks, infrastructure, etc… is a good thing and that putting those things into corporatist hands (since that's what we're really talking about… ) wouldn't benefit anyone who doesn't live in some rural area with virtually no population.

[Mainecoons]

disagremeent is neither misrepresentation nor misunderstanding. it is, ultimately, nothing more than disagreement. i believe you will find that quite frequently to your ideas… which is the right of the people hearing them… same as you disagree with others.

Your disagreement is often invented as you read things into posts that aren't there, rarely fleshed out or supported by facts from credible sources. Your main form of disagreement seems to be ad hom followed by manifestations of your personal confusion of your opinion with fact, and liberally laced with imaginary battles with your strawmen.

:grin:

[Mr Happy]

I am Spanish, and also we have many different political parties, and even after that I am Anarchist. And?

Maybe the problem is that your system is closer to Anarchism. You have much more influence in the government.

By the way, how do you believe people would be organized?

Oh god, Spain is in a shit load of trouble....won't even go into Catalonia wanting to bug out on its own.

Naw, we are not even close to anarchy. What we do have though is accountability. Our govt is so accountable these days, that they shit sunshine even when it's raining. And we can tell if the rainbow is bona fide or an illusion. If it's an illusion they are toast. And they know it. They cower before the people...

[kilgram]

Chris Alyosha Green Arrow

I want to revive some questions that I did to the individualist anarchists in other forums, but with you answering, with some of you we already discussed it.

How do you expect to organize yourselves? It is? When you have to decide something that affects to the others, for example constructing a road, how are you going to take this decission?

I remember briefly some of the answers given. One was that it would be a contract, an individual decission. But many times that is not possible when it affects many people, how they would take the decission?

[kilgram]

Oh god, Spain is in a shit load of trouble....won't even go into Catalonia wanting to bug out on its own.
I live in Catalonia ;)


Naw, we are not even close to anarchy. What we do have though is accountability. Our govt is so accountable these days, that they shit sunshine even when it's raining. And we can tell if the rainbow is bona fide or an illusion. If it's an illusion they are toast. And they know it. They cower before the people...
Well, you have control on them. What do you think is anarchism? Anarchism in some way could be said as the extreme democracy. The maximum of democracy is anarchism. When you've abolished any authoritarian form. When people decide by themselves from equal to equal. When every one can participate in the decissions that affect them, directly, in this case the state or the state system is abolished. But you continue having organization, self-managing.

[Mr Happy]

Your disagreement is often invented as you read things into posts that aren't there, rarely fleshed out or supported by facts from credible sources. Your main form of disagreement seems to be ad hom followed by manifestations of your personal confusion of your opinion with fact, and liberally laced with imaginary battles with your strawmen.

:grin:

You know, all I see in your posts is criticism. All you seem to offer up are critiques and diatribes of other's posts with no insight. You rarely address the topic and only poke your head above the parapet to ramble on about a poster. Take the above. Has absolutely nothing to do with the OP. Why you aren't consistently banned from threads amazes me. You are very rarely on topic...

[Chris]

let's start with the fact that i find the label "statist" to be patronizing and hyperbolic.

bosses? become one yourself if you don't like the one you have. or find a different one.

i have no complaints about my life. so i'm not sure why i shouldn't know that having roads, schools, insured banks, infrastructure, etc… is a good thing and that putting those things into corporatist hands (since that's what we're really talking about… ) wouldn't benefit anyone who doesn't live in some rural area with virtually no population.


let's start with the fact that i find the label "statist" to be patronizing and hyperbolic.

An attempt to divert discussion into emotions.


i have no complaints about my life. so i'm not sure why i shouldn't know that having roads, schools, insured banks, infrastructure, etc…

All that would exist under anarchism.


putting those things into corporatist hands (since that's what we're really talking about… ) wouldn't benefit anyone who doesn't live in some rural area with virtually no population.

Indeed, that is the problem with statism. Corporatism is the collusion of government and business that corrupts everything with cronyism. It ensures a constant gutting of the poor and middle classes to enrich the rich and empower the powerful.

Thank you for pointing out a primary reason for advocating the opposite of statism, anarchy.

[Mr Happy]

An attempt to divert discussion into emotions.

All that would exist under anarchism.

Indeed, that is the problem with statism. Corporatism is the collusion of government and business that corrupts everything with cronyism. It ensures a constant gutting of the poor and middle classes to enrich the rich and empower the powerful.

Thank you for pointing out a primary reason for advocating the opposite of statism, anarchy.

Oh come now Chris. She is on the money. Calling people statists on this board is absolutely patronising....

I kinda agree with your last to a degree. But blaming statism (ie govt) is a cop out. You know big business runs govt in the US...we all do...

[junie]

The anarchist and voluntarism pledge preamble and constitution


I pledge well I sorta pledge that society be free of all infringements on whatever I don't like now or in the future but also if I change my mind I may need to alter my pledge say for instance if my house burns down cause of unsafe appliances or some other thing like the firemen never came or a forest fire was left to burn and it burned down my house and since I dont like structure or rules I want a job where I can come and go as I please and if sick and unable to diagnosis or repair myself I still want doctors but if they are free like me I may die but then thats ok too for who wants doctors that have to abide my rules and procedures and use tested medicine for we AVs can test our own remedies and also I want a car and roads that have no regulation or structure for that would conflict with my belief that we are free and oh yea maybe a doctor will be a volunteer and like me free of government imposed rules regulations safety procedures I mean didnt we once long ago just do whatever we wanted like hunt animals and pick fruit from trees and who needs inspections of this stuff for that would be in opposition to our pledges and rules and regulation and other stuff I still havent thought of also I am so free I dont use any punctuation cause that would mean that I listened to some authority which I of course dont but then these words came to me from authorities but note I am free to use them as I want or not use them just like this pledge preamble and constitution could change without notice or even without being rewritten for it too represents structure and order and form and stuff and thus contradicts our whole beliefs system which isnt really a system........



lol i would buy an island and gaze at my navel all day long!

http://www.privateislandsonline.com/

[Chris]

Chris Alyosha Green Arrow

I want to revive some questions that I did to the individualist anarchists in other forums, but with you answering, with some of you we already discussed it.

How do you expect to organize yourselves? It is? When you have to decide something that affects to the others, for example constructing a road, how are you going to take this decission?

I remember briefly some of the answers given. One was that it would be a contract, an individual decission. But many times that is not possible when it affects many people, how they would take the decission?


I'll repeat an example I often use. It's a good contrast between the way anarchy works and the way statism works.

The earliest levee system in the US were constructed by the rich to protect their investments in property and capital. Everyone along the river benefited, but everyone contributed through the purchase of products and services as a result of those investments and the prosperity it brought to the community. Of course, any person is free to not purchase those products and services or to move elsewhere. That's anarchy. It operates by economic means. It is entirely voluntary.

This is statism. It operates by political means. It is forced. Over time the rich realized that they could use politics to fund the levees, iow, tax the people to pay for the levee. Everyone in the vicinity of the levee benefits but the rich don't pay taxes as they just raise prices on the products and services consumers value, such that the people pay twice. And the people no longer have the freedom not to pay, even if they move away from the river, the federal government taxes everyone, whether they benefit or not.

[Chris]

You know, all I see in your posts is criticism. All you seem to offer up are critiques and diatribes of other's posts with no insight. You rarely address the topic and only poke your head above the parapet to ramble on about a poster. Take the above. Has absolutely nothing to do with the OP. Why you aren't consistently banned from threads amazes me. You are very rarely on topic...

And you are? You just did what you criticize maine for.

History: At one time we divided the forum up into politics, lighter side and serious side. The serious side discussions required each post to contribute to discussion. We should go back to that.

[Chris]

Oh come now Chris. She is on the money. Calling people statists on this board is absolutely patronising....

I kinda agree with your last to a degree. But blaming statism (ie govt) is a cop out. You know big business runs govt in the US...we all do...


You will note that we are calling systems or theories of government statist or examples of statism. Why do you incessantly try to turn criticism of ideas and opinions into personal attacks?


Big business ran government until the 16th amendment after which government had no need to seek funding from business but had direct access and control of the wealth of the people and we saw the growth of big government and big business turn to rent seeking political favors.

[Codename Section]

let's start with the fact that i find the label "statist" to be patronizing and hyperbolic.

Why? That's your issue because the term is neutral. You believe in the state, ie "statist".

Hyperbole has nothing to do with it. You're pro-state, ie "statist". You just choose to be offended. You call people extremists and nutters, isn't it their choice to be offended, too? :D



bosses? become one yourself if you don't like the one you have. or find a different one.


Been there, done that, got the tshirt.



i have no complaints about my life. so i'm not sure why i shouldn't know that having roads, schools, insured banks, infrastructure, etc… is a good thing and that putting those things into corporatist hands (since that's what we're really talking about… ) wouldn't benefit anyone who doesn't live in some rural area with virtually no population.


You have no complaints because you like the status quo. I see where we are headed and I don't like it at all. I don't like that Edward Snowden is accused of being a traitor but Obama is allowed to violate the Constitution that both claim to defend and its gets no outrage.

We're just different. You like what you like and I hope you keep it. Just do me the same courtesy.

[Ethereal]

Oh come now Chris. She is on the money. Calling people statists on this board is absolutely patronising....

I kinda agree with your last to a degree. But blaming statism (ie govt) is a cop out. You know big business runs govt in the US...we all do...

Why would they want to run the government anyway? What's the benefit to them?

[Chris]

Why? That's your issue because the term is neutral. You believe in the state, ie "statist".

Hyperbole has nothing to do with it. You're pro-state, ie "statist". You just choose to be offended. You call people extremists and nutters, isn't it their choice to be offended, too? :D



Been there, done that, got the tshirt.




You have no complaints because you like the status quo. I see where we are headed and I don't like it at all. I don't like that Edward Snowden is accused of being a traitor but Obama is allowed to violate the Constitution that both claim to defend and its gets no outrage.

We're just different. You like what you like and I hope you keep it. Just do me the same courtesy.




We're just different. You like what you like and I hope you keep it. Just do me the same courtesy.

Anarchy would be a social order in which you each pursued happiness as you like respecting responsibly each other's natural right to do so.

[kilgram]

I'll repeat an example I often use. It's a good contrast between the way anarchy works and the way statism works.

The earliest levee system in the US were constructed by the rich to protect their investments in property and capital. Everyone along the river benefited, but everyone contributed through the purchase of products and services as a result of those investments and the prosperity it brought to the community. Of course, any person is free to not purchase those products and services or to move elsewhere. That's anarchy. It operates by economic means. It is entirely voluntary.

This is statism. It operates by political means. It is forced. Over time the rich realized that they could use politics to fund the levees, iow, tax the people to pay for the levee. Everyone in the vicinity of the levee benefits but the rich don't pay taxes as they just raise prices on the products and services consumers value, such that the people pay twice. And the people no longer have the freedom not to pay, even if they move away from the river, the federal government taxes everyone, whether they benefit or not.
Ah, I remember a thing. The justice. How would work the justice in your system? How would be the judges.

[Ethereal]

Those defending the status quo of statism say to people, your duty is to obey the "law", and if a law be unjust, you must suffer it until your masters deign to change it. Under their system of government, there is little recourse to justice. That is why there are so many people rotting away in prisons in places like Chicago and Washington DC. It wasn't free markets who put them there; in fact, the only reason many of them are there is because they were trying to engage in voluntary forms of market exchange that the state arbitrarily deemed unacceptable. Everywhere socioeconomic decentralization is tried - from the early US to the present-day BRICHK-bloc - it succeeds in lifting the masses out of subsistence modes of living and propelling them into modernity. Not only that, it gives them more latitude in their personal life to travel, express, and associate with others without fear of arbitrary political reprisal. Anarchy is simply an attempt to reverse this disturbing trend of statism and centralization of power with politicians, judges, and their agents and to return power to the people where it rightly belongs.

[Ravi]

I don't know about the rest of you anarchos and voluntarists, but I get tired of gubmint lovers starting threads about our beliefs and pretending they care about anything other than their own beliefs on the matter. So, this thread is a discussion about our views on our terms, and they can just deal.

If you were put in charge of your ideal anarcho/voluntarist community, how would you structure it?
If you are looking for an echo chamber I believe a group can be started with limited membership.

[Ethereal]

Ah, I remember a thing. The justice. How would work the justice in your system? How would be the judges.

There is no pre-formatted version of how each particular aspect of an anarchic society should look. The only thing that is universal is their reliance on consent and non-aggression. How they would enforce this basic moral code can vary infinitely. It could range from a very populist mode of justice where large jury pools are convened to mete out justice or it could be a justice system based upon unitary arbitration by an elected judge. There is no one right answer in an anarchic community, which is actually one of the strengths of anarchy as a mode of government. It allows for flexibility and diversity in implementation while retaining a core set of beliefs that allow for some basic level of standardization and objectivity (predictability).

[kilgram]

If you are looking for an echo chamber I believe a group can be started with limited membership.
I assure you that he would not have an echo chamber, even if only the anarchists would discuss.

For example, we, Green Arrow and me are the closest ideologically, however we have many different visions of the same ideology, Socialism and Anarchism. For example I am more revolutionary, more classic in my ideas.

And with the individualists, we are how the water and the ice.

[kilgram]

There is no formatted version of how each particular aspect of an anarchic society should look. The only thing that is universal is their reliance on consent and non-aggression. How they would enforce this basic moral code can vary infinitely. It could range from a very populist mode of justice where large jury pools are convened to mete out justice or it could be a justice system based upon unitary arbitration by an elected judge. There is no one right answer in an anarchic community, which is actually one of the strengths of anarchy as a mode of government. It allows for flexibility and diversity but retains a core set of beliefs that allow for some basic level of standardization.
Yes. But what would be your idea, how would it be organized?

For example, I would abolish prisons.

[Ethereal]

Yes. But what would be your idea, how would it be organized?

For example, I would abolish prisons.

I can't say because I would want to tailor the system to the locale and the demographics. Without knowing about the location and composition of the society, I cannot fashion a justice system for them.

[Chris]

If you are looking for an echo chamber I believe a group can be started with limited membership.



Actually rational challenges to anarchy would be appreciated. Do you have any?

[Codename Section]

If you are looking for an echo chamber I believe a group can be started with limited membership.

If you're looking for a place to abuse Green Arrow there's the Hole. This thread is about what "we" would do and how "we" would accomplish x,y, z as voluntarists. It's a specific thread and people are trying to change the subject matter.

If you don't like that subject or it doesn't apply to you go to a different thread and talk about whatever it is you want to talk about, which is other posters most likely.

[Chris]

Ah, I remember a thing. The justice. How would work the justice in your system? How would be the judges.

In general, the same as I suggested in my first post in this thread for security. The members of each community would voluntarily form associations and create their own justice system just as they would their own security. Communities would form associations at higher levels for mutual security and justice. I could explain this in terms of anarchocapitalism, since this has been worked out in great detail, but for the purposes of common ground among anarchists would say that these associations would be contract based.


Note that in saying common ground among anarchists I recognize differences of opinion amongst us. I am giving my own views on this and would expect disagreement among anarchists.

[Chris]

Those defending the status quo of statism say to people, your duty is to obey the "law", and if a law be unjust, you must suffer it until your masters deign to change it. Under their system of government, there is little recourse to justice. That is why there are so many people rotting away in prisons in places like Chicago and Washington DC. It wasn't free markets who put them there; in fact, the only reason many of them are there is because they were trying to engage in voluntary forms of market exchange that the state arbitrarily deemed unacceptable. Everywhere socioeconomic decentralization is tried - from the early US to the present-day BRICHK-bloc - it succeeds in lifting the masses out of subsistence modes of living and propelling them into modernity. Not only that, it gives them more latitude in their personal life to travel, express, and associate with others without fear of arbitrary political reprisal. Anarchy is simply an attempt to reverse this disturbing trend of statism and centralization of power with politicians, judges, and their agents and to return power to the people where it rightly belongs.



My impression is under statism justice is peripheral if it is a concern at all. Under anarchy it is the central concern.

As I said in previous discussion on anarchy, the goal is not utopian, is not to find perfect justice, but to find a system that is more just than other theories of government.

[Codename Section]

I think how justice would be administered would be dependent upon the size of the community. If you live in a larger community you could try a jury pool and judge pool approach. If you live in an Amish sized community its fitting to do the community vote. They self-handle and it works for them.


My community would have a gladiatorial arena and tigers. Lots of tigers.

[Ravi]

If you're looking for a place to abuse Green Arrow there's the Hole. This thread is about what "we" would do and how "we" would accomplish x,y, z as voluntarists. It's a specific thread and people are trying to change the subject matter.

If you don't like that subject or it doesn't apply to you go to a different thread and talk about whatever it is you want to talk about, which is other posters most likely.
What is up with the insult? I was commenting on the post in the op.

[jillian]

If you're looking for a place to abuse Green Arrow there's the Hole. This thread is about what "we" would do and how "we" would accomplish x,y, z as voluntarists. It's a specific thread and people are trying to change the subject matter.

If you don't like that subject or it doesn't apply to you go to a different thread and talk about whatever it is you want to talk about, which is other posters most likely.

how is it abusing GA to point out that if he only wants to be high fived and agreed with he's in the wrong place.

maybe you should defend things and people that should be defended.

[Codename Section]

how is it abusing GA to point out that if he only wants to be high fived and agreed with he's in the wrong place.

maybe you should defend things and people that should be defended.

I don't think telling him that he wants an echo chamber improves the discussion in this thread. You manage to discuss things, jillian, so you know it's not that hard to do. You pick a line and then either ask a question or make a statement.

Other people can do that just like you can. There are things I would like to discuss. Berwick and others are negotiating with Chile and Ecuador right now. If that works out I'm moving so these things are legitimate topics of conversation for us. This is how people do come up with ideas and solutions for problems. If you don't pose the question or try to answer it then you get nowhere.

I don't mind critique, either. If someone asks me a specific question about something and I don't have an answer right now that's great. It will make me think. Having to hear "that's utopian" is meaningless. Its the equivalent of saying, you can't go to the moon!

[kilgram]

In general, the same as I suggested in my first post in this thread for security. The members of each community would voluntarily form associations and create their own justice system just as they would their own security. Communities would form associations at higher levels for mutual security and justice. I could explain this in terms of anarchocapitalism, since this has been worked out in great detail, but for the purposes of common ground among anarchists would say that these associations would be contract based.


Note that in saying common ground among anarchists I recognize differences of opinion amongst us. I am giving my own views on this and would expect disagreement among anarchists.
It is interesting, because I was looking for the flaws of the anarchocapitalism that in other forums I raised with similar questions, but now you prevent it relatively well. Well, you are going to a form closer of how is organized the anarchocommunism and any other social anarchism.

[Chris]

I think how justice would be administered would be dependent upon the size of the community. If you live in a larger community you could try a jury pool and judge pool approach. If you live in an Amish sized community its fitting to do the community vote. They self-handle and it works for them.


My community would have a gladiatorial arena and tigers. Lots of tigers.



Lots of tigers, I laughed. But your point is good, like Ethereal said earlier, the specifics would depend on the community, its locale and demographics and other factors.

The good thing about it would be different communities could try different ways. Those who didn't like the way of a community could move to another community that better suited them. Over time, communities would flourish or fail depending on their choices, and to survive would have to adopt approaches that worked.

In a way, anarchy is federalism taken one step further.




Those who didn't like the way of a community could move to another community that better suited them.

Perhaps it would be better to say those who didn't like the ways of the community they're in would be free to ask to join another community but that community would also be free to reject such requests. But those who found no community to suit them would be free to start their own.

[Chris]

It is interesting, because I was looking for the flaws of the anarchocapitalism that in other forums I raised with similar questions, but now you prevent it relatively well. Well, you are going to a form closer of how is organized the anarchocommunism and any other social anarchism.



Well I begin to question whether under anarchy the difference between say capitalism and socialism matter since while each community might differ in that respect the division of labor and trade among them would of necessity be free market based.

I even said earlier in response to jillian's fear of losing the statist system she loves, I don't see why some communities under a system of anarchy couldn't be statist. time would tell which would work better and which worse.

[Codename Section]

Well I begin to question whether under anarchy the difference between say capitalism and socialism matter since while each community might differ in that respect the division of labor and trade among them would of necessity be free market based.

I even said earlier in response to jillian's fear of losing the statist system she loves, I don't see why some communities under a system of anarchy couldn't be statist. time would tell which would work better and which worse.

I think that they could and I'd want them to have what they as a community wants. If it's statism, cool. I don't want that, but if they do why would I remove their choice?

[Chris]

I think that they could and I'd want them to have what they as a community wants. If it's statism, cool. I don't want that, but if they do why would I remove their choice?

Exactly.

And how could anyone call such a messy system utopian?

[GrassrootsConservative]

Not true. Anarchy is the lack of a state. Government is two or morepeople getting together to make decisions. Once you give those two or more people a monopoly on force and defined borders, they become a state and you lose your anarchy.
Well a voluntarist believes in governance, not government. You can get together and agree to do things. Anarchism is not "chaos". It is the rule of Nature's law instead of man's law.I would do as I do now which is become an active member of cooperatives, and organize barter trade. I would try to achieve a high level of self-sufficiency and then work those ares that require cooperation.
Well, as anarchist I believe in self-government. And it means some structure, some system.In anarchism there are many ways of organization, and obviously always people organize themselves in a way or other. For example my ideal organization would be collective property and self-managing in form of assemblies and federations.I simply cannot believe that I, a self-identified Conservative, am into a greater lack of government than some of the self-identified libertarians, voluntarists and "Anarchists." Are you guys serious?

[Green Arrow]

i'll worry about who i post to and when.

thanks.

Not sure how you construed that to be anything but offering you the choice, jillian.

Seriously though, two on one. You two buddies against little old me. If what I believe is so silly and ridiculous, and what you believe so intelligent and just right, then this should be as easy as taking candy from a baby for you guys.

[Green Arrow]

I simply cannot believe that I, a self-identified Conservative, am into a greater lack of government than some of the self-identified libertarians, voluntarists and "Anarchists." Are you guys serious?

Yes, we are. We're not going to redefine our terms for your benefit. The terms exist and have existed for hundreds of years.

I highly, HIGHLY doubt that you are for less government than we are. Your government will still have a monopoly on force. Ours will not.

[Guerilla]

@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868)

I want to revive some questions that I did to the individualist anarchists in other forums, but with you answering, with some of you we already discussed it.

How do you expect to organize yourselves? It is? When you have to decide something that affects to the others, for example constructing a road, how are you going to take this decission?

I remember briefly some of the answers given. One was that it would be a contract, an individual decission. But many times that is not possible when it affects many people, how they would take the decission?

So I think there should be like a city hall, where the people could go, on an agreed day maybe once a month, or maybe it could be open all the time. The people that would go would have ideas for the community that they would want to see done, like maybe a road, and any citizen can go sit in on the ideas and project discussion. Those people would meet with other people who showed up there, and try to get them to help with their particular project(road), and things would be decided like where to put the road, how to get the funds or materials, and then go to the local construction crew. I think this would work best for a socialist community.

The city hall would be like a place for people in the community to get projects started by voicing a need, and finding a solution, and then carry it out with those amongst the community interested. All the discussion and ideas for the community would be planned and voiced at the city hall, where all citizens can participate.

How does that sound guys? Just tossin it out there.

[The Xl]

@Mr Happy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=720), @jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719), fine. Put your money where your mouths are. You claim to be interested in discussion. Let's prove it. I will, by myself, debate both of you on the subject of anarchy/voluntarism. We can have @Codename Section (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=866) or @oceanloverOH (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=494) moderate it.

What say you?

Jillian refused my challenge to a debate last month. It won't happen, she doesn't have enough faith in her views or her ability to argue them.

[Green Arrow]

kilgram -

Sorry it's taken me awhile to get to this. I'm visiting both my wife and my family for the holidays, so I've been busy :tongue:


How do you expect to organize yourselves?

How do you mean?


It is? When you have to decide something that affects to the others, for example constructing a road, how are you going to take this decission?

Get everybody in the community together. Allow one person from each side of the debate to act as a spokesperson of sorts and defend their position. Once they've all stated their case, they will debate each other. After the debate, take a vote. Continue this process until consensus is reached.

[Green Arrow]

So I think there should be like a city hall, where the people could go, on an agreed day maybe once a month, or maybe it could be open all the time. The people that would go would have ideas for the community that they would want to see done, like maybe a road, and any citizen can go sit in on the ideas and project discussion. Those people would meet with other people who showed up there, and try to get them to help with their particular project(road), and things would be decided like where to put the road, how to get the funds or materials, and then go to the local construction crew. I think this would work best for a socialist community.

The city hall would be like a place for people in the community to get projects started by voicing a need, and finding a solution, and then carry it out with those amongst the community interested. All the discussion and ideas for the community would be planned and voiced at the city hall, where all citizens can participate.

How does that sound guys? Just tossin it out there.

I would support this, too. In fact, this would be a great solution to my own proposition, if consensus isn't ever reached with my proposal. We could then default to yours, and allow (for example) the road supporters to get together and pitch in to build their road.

[Chris]

I simply cannot believe that I, a self-identified Conservative, am into a greater lack of government than some of the self-identified libertarians, voluntarists and "Anarchists." Are you guys serious?

I think we're talking natural social order and order arrived at voluntarily, as opposed to artificial orders arrived at by force.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Yes, we are. We're not going to redefine our terms for your benefit. The terms exist and have existed for hundreds of years.

I highly, HIGHLY doubt that you are for less government than we are. Your government will still have a monopoly on force. Ours will not.

I don't want ANY government. Unfortunately, for the majority of people, such a lack of control wouldn't work. Some people need to be controlled because they can't think for themselves, and I get that.

But, no, ideally I am for having no government whatsoever, but since that's really extreme I go with Conservatism instead.

If I could have it my way the only "system" in place would be that anyone who tries to put another person down in a way that violates their natural rights would drop dead on the spot.

Now go ahead and call me extremist and all that other stuff. (It's probably true.)

Even the prosperous system our forefathers had in place would be tons more government than in my idea of a utopia.

[Green Arrow]

If you are looking for an echo chamber I believe a group can be started with limited membership.

What makes you think I want an echo chamber, Ravi? The only reason I'm on this forum is precisely because I DON'T want an echo chamber.

[Chris]

So I think there should be like a city hall, where the people could go, on an agreed day maybe once a month, or maybe it could be open all the time. The people that would go would have ideas for the community that they would want to see done, like maybe a road, and any citizen can go sit in on the ideas and project discussion. Those people would meet with other people who showed up there, and try to get them to help with their particular project(road), and things would be decided like where to put the road, how to get the funds or materials, and then go to the local construction crew. I think this would work best for a socialist community.

The city hall would be like a place for people in the community to get projects started by voicing a need, and finding a solution, and then carry it out with those amongst the community interested. All the discussion and ideas for the community would be planned and voiced at the city hall, where all citizens can participate.

How does that sound guys? Just tossin it out there.

Fine with me long as it involves voluntarily only "those amongst the community interested".

[GrassrootsConservative]

I think we're talking natural social order and order arrived at voluntarily, as opposed to artificial orders arrived at by force.

Then you're not talking about any kind of "Anarchy" I've ever heard of:


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

Full Definition of ANARCHY1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/utopian[1]) society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order


b : absence of order : disorder (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disorder) <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

Another good word to be discussed here would be "Nihilism," if any of you are aware of what that is. :grin:

[Green Arrow]

I don't want ANY government. Unfortunately, for the majority of people, such a lack of control wouldn't work. Some people need to be controlled because they can't think for themselves, and I get that.

But, no, ideally I am for having no government whatsoever, but since that's really extreme I go with Conservatism instead.

If I could have it my way the only "system" in place would be that anyone who tries to put another person down in a way that violates their natural rights would drop dead on the spot.

Now go ahead and call me extremist and all that other stuff. (It's probably true.)

Even the prosperous system our forefathers had in place would be tons more government than in my idea of a utopia.

If I ever call you an extremist, it'll be a compliment. I'm not like some people on this site, for whom "radical" and "extremist" are dirty words. Some of the greatest minds in human history were radicals and extremists.

That said, before we can get anywhere we have to agree on what we define as "government." Government, to me, is completely unavoidable, unless everybody lives as hermits and recluses all by themselves without other people. The human race would die out, because there would be no new births. Merriam-Webster seems to agree with my definition.

[Green Arrow]

Then you're not talking about any kind of "Anarchy" I've ever heard of

Anarchy is a philosophy, and as such, cannot be defined in a dictionary.


Another good word to be discussed here would be "Nihilism," if any of you are aware of what that is. :grin:

I know what it is, and that's not relevant. Nobody here is a nihilist. You're starting to sound like jillian and friends.

[GrassrootsConservative]

If I ever call you an extremist, it'll be a compliment. I'm not like some people on this site, for whom "radical" and "extremist" are dirty words. Some of the greatest minds in human history were radicals and extremists.

That said, before we can get anywhere we have to agree on what we define as "government." Government, to me, is completely unavoidable, unless everybody lives as hermits and recluses all by themselves without other people. The human race would die out, because there would be no new births. Merriam-Webster seems to agree with my definition.

Why is government completely unavoidable? We'd become nomads and farmers and hunter gatherers like the super old times when everyone lived peacefully and there were no wars or spying by the NSA or terrorism or big Obama police state. I'm sick of this idea that we somehow need a system of government.

Other people might, but you should know better.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Anarchy is a philosophy, and as such, cannot be defined in a dictionary.



I know what it is, and that's not relevant. Nobody here is a nihilist. You're starting to sound like jillian and friends.

I am a Nihilist, religiously, politically, and mentally. The current systems are so corrupt and since there's never been a good, peaceful system way back to the days when there were no systems (Even the first few "societies" we're aware of having existed had conflicts.) so what do you think the answer is to cleanse that corruption and conflict?

/Edit: And whatever happened to "Miriam Webster seems to agree with my definition"?

Not such a good dictionary when it proves you wrong, or something?

[kilgram]

Then you're not talking about any kind of "Anarchy" I've ever heard of:



Another good word to be discussed here would be "Nihilism," if any of you are aware of what that is. :grin:
Yes I am aware :)

Nihilism was prominent for example in the Russian Anarchists and not Anarchists, but quite revolutionaries of the XIX century. I think that Nihilism has been abandoned, yet.

[Guerilla]

I would support this, too. In fact, this would be a great solution to my own proposition, if consensus isn't ever reached with my proposal. We could then default to yours, and allow (for example) the road supporters to get together and pitch in to build their road.

I like yours too, except I would actually implement your proposition after mine, to solve a problem if some citizens wouldn't stand for a certain project, or aspect of a project, to be implemented in their community. I see your way as more structured, and would want to make it secondary.

I'd imagine my city hall to have multiple podiums with people speaking about their ideas and maybe a large powerpoint behind each of them. One podium may be about the road, at another the sewage system, another, a project to put solar panels on everyones roofs. Each of these speakers would attract different citizens interested in different issues. If a citizen knows nothing about the sewage system, maybe they'd be better at the road discussion.

[kilgram]

Why is government completely unavoidable? We'd become nomads and farmers and hunter gatherers like the super old times when everyone lived peacefully and there were no wars or spying by the NSA or terrorism or big Obama police state. I'm sick of this idea that we somehow need a system of government.

Other people might, but you should know better.
Well, government as we understand it today is avoidable. But, people when comes to contact with others, need to organize themselves in some way or other. One way is taking the easiest way, the authoritarian, that leads to the statism. It means taking a leader. Other way, the more complicated, because it implies more responsibility, more participation, is taking a model of self governance, it is anarchism. But if you are not alone you must take decissions with others, and this necessity leads to some kind of organization.

[kilgram]

I like yours too, except I would actually implement your proposition after mine, to solve a problem if some citizens wouldn't stand for a certain project, or aspect of a project, to be implemented in their community. I see your way as more structured, and would want to make it secondary.

I'd imagine my city hall to have multiple podiums with people speaking about their ideas and maybe a large powerpoint behind each of them. One podium may be about the road, at another the sewage system, another, a project to put solar panels on everyones roofs. Each of these speakers would attract different citizens interested in different issues. If a citizen knows nothing about the sewage system, maybe they'd be better at the road discussion.
Your system can be simplified in a word: Assembly.

By the way, your assemblies how would work? By majority or by absolute agreement?

In this point, I have doubts about what system is the best, because both has its problems. Obviously I am for assemblies.

[Guerilla]

Fine with me long as it involves voluntarily only "those amongst the community interested".

Indeed and they are free to join or leave the project as they please.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Well, government as we understand it today is avoidable. But, people when comes to contact with others, need to organize themselves in some way or other. One way is taking the easiest way, the authoritarian, that leads to the statism. It means taking a leader. Other way, the more complicated, because it implies more responsibility, more participation, is taking a model of self governance, it is anarchism. But if you are not alone you must take decissions with others, and this necessity leads to some kind of organization.

Why do people need to govern? Why not let the sustaining forces of life and human needs govern?

Let's say I'm a farmer and you're a carpenter, I'm having a child and need an expansion on my house for an extra room and nursery. Why does government need to regulate that? Can't you and I come to an agreement on our own a trade of a portion of my crops for your wood, tools and labor?

That's what people do when there is no government. We've seen it a thousand times before, like when the first American settlers came here from Europe and didn't have a system of government here in America, they traded with the natives for what they wanted and everyone got along fine. (At least for awhile, lol)

Why does government need to come along and fuck that shit up?

[Chris]

Well, government as we understand it today is avoidable. But, people when comes to contact with others, need to organize themselves in some way or other. One way is taking the easiest way, the authoritarian, that leads to the statism. It means taking a leader. Other way, the more complicated, because it implies more responsibility, more participation, is taking a model of self governance, it is anarchism. But if you are not alone you must take decissions with others, and this necessity leads to some kind of organization.



In the parecon, Valve, people just do what they're interested in, gather in teams by interest, and take the resources they need. There is no official organization. Things are dynamic, fluid.

I still have trouble seeing how it works regarding resources. Resources are not unlimited. One team taking the resources they need might deprive other teams.

[Green Arrow]

Why is government completely unavoidable? We'd become nomads and farmers and hunter gatherers like the super old times when everyone lived peacefully and there were no wars or spying by the NSA or terrorism or big Obama police state. I'm sick of this idea that we somehow need a system of government.

Other people might, but you should know better.

You're defining government wrong. Government is two or more people getting together to make decisions without a monopoly on force. That is unavoidable unless everybody becomes hermits and recluses.


I am a Nihilist, religiously, politically, and mentally. The current systems are so corrupt and since there's never been a good, peaceful system way back to the days when there were no systems (Even the first few "societies" we're aware of having existed had conflicts.) so what do you think the answer is to cleanse that corruption and conflict?

There have been good, peaceful systems, but they don't make the history books because they don't fit the narratives of those who write those history books. What you speak of is a corruption of the nature of man caused by Man's Law. Returning to the principles of Nature's Law would solve the issue, at least to the best of our ability.



/Edit: And whatever happened to "Miriam Webster seems to agree with my definition"?


Not such a good dictionary when it proves you wrong, or something?

I was very clear on my point. "Government" is a concrete concept, "anarchy" is a philosophical concept. Concrete concepts can be clearly defined via dictionary. Philosophical concepts cannot.

Tread lightly. You're moving into dangerous territory with me. I am not a cherry-picker. I won't stand by a dictionary definition when it agrees with me, and then decry it when it does not. If I don't stand by a definition, there's a good, logical reason for doing so. Save the mockery for someone else. It's not welcome here.

[Green Arrow]

I like yours too, except I would actually implement your proposition after mine, to solve a problem if some citizens wouldn't stand for a certain project, or aspect of a project, to be implemented in their community. I see your way as more structured, and would want to make it secondary.

I'd imagine my city hall to have multiple podiums with people speaking about their ideas and maybe a large powerpoint behind each of them. One podium may be about the road, at another the sewage system, another, a project to put solar panels on everyones roofs. Each of these speakers would attract different citizens interested in different issues. If a citizen knows nothing about the sewage system, maybe they'd be better at the road discussion.

I think it could go either way, honestly.

[Chris]

Indeed and they are free to join or leave the project as they please.

Leaves the community with a free rider problem.

[Guerilla]

Your system can be simplified in a word: Assembly.

By the way, your assemblies how would work? By majority or by absolute agreement?

In this point, I have doubts about what system is the best, because both has its problems. Obviously I am for assemblies.

Absolute agreement. I don't think it's as hard to achieve as some may think. For instance, if you have a bunch of people who chose to participate in the road discussion, they'd likely know a bit about the subject. Then when ideas are proposed, if they are good, then people will find the obvious benefit and they agree to have it because it benefits them and the community most. If another informed individual has a better plan then it's likely the rest of the informed individuals will see that there are more benefits so they will pick it system.

Let's say there are 2 really good options and they can't agree on which. Then they may decide to implement both plans and see whose works better. Or in extreme cases they can revert to Green Arrows plan where the two sides debate furiously.

Though I think absolute agreement will be possible, and made more possible by the fact that these communities and groups will likely be small and like-minded.

[GrassrootsConservative]

You're defining government wrong. Government is two or more people getting together to make decisions without a monopoly on force. That is unavoidable unless everybody becomes hermits and recluses.



There have been good, peaceful systems, but they don't make the history books because they don't fit the narratives of those who write those history books. What you speak of is a corruption of the nature of man caused by Man's Law. Returning to the principles of Nature's Law would solve the issue, at least to the best of our ability.




I was very clear on my point. "Government" is a concrete concept, "anarchy" is a philosophical concept. Concrete concepts can be clearly defined via dictionary. Philosophical concepts cannot.

Tread lightly. You're moving into dangerous territory with me. I am not a cherry-picker. I won't stand by a dictionary definition when it agrees with me, and then decry it when it does not. If I don't stand by a definition, there's a good, logical reason for doing so. Save the mockery for someone else. It's not welcome here.

But you've got it wrong. "Government" is clearly the word here that isn't concrete, and "Anarchy" is concrete. Here's the "Miriam Webster" definition of government:


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/government
Full Definition of GOVERNMENT1
: the act or process of governing (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/governing); specifically : authoritative direction or control

2
obsolete : moral conduct or behavior : discretion (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discretion)

3
a : the office, authority, or function of governing
b obsolete : the term during which a governing official holds office

4
: the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit : rule (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rule)

5
a : the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it
b : the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out

6
: the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization: as
a : the officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency
b capitalized : the executive branch of the United States federal government
c capitalized : a small group of persons holding simultaneously the principal political executive offices of a nation or other political unit and being responsible for the direction and supervision of public affairs: (1) : such a group in a parliamentary system constituted by the cabinet or by the ministry (2) : administration (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/administration) 4b






And the term "Anarchy," as defined earlier is still a little grey, but the consistent part is that all terms of Anarchy agree that whatever "Government" is, "Anarchy" is a lack of that.

[Guerilla]

Leaves the community with a free rider problem.

How do they have a free ride? They get the benefit of the project either way because it's for the community.

[Guerilla]

Leaves the community with a free rider problem.

I don't really know how you can use things in the community, without actually being apart of it.

you mean like other people using the communities road when they aren't apart of it? What's wrong with that?

I'm confused

[kilgram]

Why do people need to govern? Why not let the sustaining forces of life and human needs govern?

Let's say I'm a farmer and you're a carpenter, I'm having a child and need an expansion on my house for an extra room and nursery. Why does government need to regulate that? Can't you and I come to an agreement on our own a trade of a portion of my crops for your wood, tools and labor?

That's what people do when there is no government. We've seen it a thousand times before, like when the first American settlers came here from Europe and didn't have a system of government here in America, they traded with the natives for what they wanted and everyone got along fine. (At least for awhile, lol)

Why does government need to come along and fuck that shit up?
Obviously, what you are talking about is anarchism. But let's say, the town needs to improve their communications. How do you arrange this? It affects to everybody? Then here you have the self-governance. People in an assembly would decide what they need to do or what they want. There is no one governing on them. I see that you have a problem with authoritarism, with superiors, like me.

[Green Arrow]

But you've got it wrong. "Government" is clearly the word here that isn't concrete, and "Anarchy" is concrete. Here's the "Miriam Webster" definition of government:

And the term "Anarchy," as defined earlier is still a little grey, but the consistent part is that all terms of Anarchy agree that whatever "Government" is, "Anarchy" is a lack of that.

I'll repeat myself once and that will be that. Anarchy is a philosophical concept. Government is not. Government: two or more people coming together to make decisions. Fairly simple summary of all the definitions of government. Anarchy is a very widely varied philosophical concept. There are many different types of anarchy, and trying to make it as simple and concrete as Merriam-Webster does robs the concept of its deeper meaning.

[kilgram]

In the parecon, Valve, people just do what they're interested in, gather in teams by interest, and take the resources they need. There is no official organization. Things are dynamic, fluid.

I still have trouble seeing how it works regarding resources. Resources are not unlimited. One team taking the resources they need might deprive other teams.
Every team needs to know how many resources they need, and if that resources can be got in a reliable time. And by the way, to linking to my usual language, these teams would be the federations. So, each federation would discuss with the others if it is necessary to allocate that resources in the best way.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Obviously, what you are talking about is anarchism. But let's say, the town needs to improve their communications. How do you arrange this? It affects to everybody? Then here you have the self-governance. People in an assembly would decide what they need to do or what they want. There is no one governing on them. I see that you have a problem with authoritarism, with superiors, like me.

Yes, exactly, if they need their communications improved bad enough, eventually someone will do something about it. Nobody needs to dictate a communications upgrade, unless they have a need to spy.

[Codename Section]

Obviously, what you are talking about is anarchism. But let's say, the town needs to improve their communications. How do you arrange this? It affects to everybody? Then here you have the self-governance. People in an assembly would decide what they need to do or what they want. There is no one governing on them. I see that you have a problem with authoritarism, with superiors, like me.

We sort of do this now by assigning value/credits (thanks Mr. Freeze) to what we do. Some people have more money, others have food items, other provide services but we understand what others value so that if we want something we can submit a combination of labor, items, and "coin".

Obviously a stateless society is messier in some ways but once something is settled and concluded everyone's happy.

[Codename Section]

I'm going to see if I can get Freeze on.

[GrassrootsConservative]

I'll repeat myself once and that will be that. Anarchy is a philosophical concept. Government is not. Government: two or more people coming together to make decisions. Fairly simple summary of all the definitions of government. Anarchy is a very widely varied philosophical concept. There are many different types of anarchy, and trying to make it as simple and concrete as Merriam-Webster does robs the concept of its deeper meaning.

I don't get your definition of government from any of their definitions of government.

You say:
Government: two or more people coming together to make decisions

The definitions given were:
1
: the act or process of governing (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/governing); specifically : authoritative direction or control

2
obsolete : moral conduct or behavior : discretion (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discretion)

3
a : the office, authority, or function of governing
b obsolete : the term during which a governing official holds office

4
: the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit :rule (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rule)

5
a : the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it
b : the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out

6
: the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization: as
a : the officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency
b capitalized : the executive branch of the United States federal government
c capitalized : a small group of persons holding simultaneously the principal political executive offices of a nation or other political unit and being responsible for the direction and supervision of public affairs: (1) : such a group in a parliamentary system constituted by the cabinet or by the ministry (2) : administration (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/administration) 4b



The word it looks to me like you are trying to define is "compromise."

/Edit: And it's interesting that all their definitions are clear about "authority" (bold added) yet you make not a solitary mention of it.

[kilgram]

I'll repeat myself once and that will be that. Anarchy is a philosophical concept. Government is not. Government: two or more people coming together to make decisions. Fairly simple summary of all the definitions of government. Anarchy is a very widely varied philosophical concept. There are many different types of anarchy, and trying to make it as simple and concrete as Merriam-Webster does robs the concept of its deeper meaning.
Well, I have to say that in Spanish we almost never use the term "government" in Anarchist concepts. We talk about "auto-gestión", literally translated to English "self-managing". In my mind, I have to agree with Grassroots that government leads to an idea of authoritarism.

Sometimes I use this word for an economy of language, and to make me to understand.

However, I have to say that sometimes I've seen "autogobierno" or "auto-gobierno", self-governing. But, as I stated the most common is talking about "autogestión", self-managing.

[Guerilla]

Yes, exactly, if they need their communications improved bad enough, eventually someone will do something about it. Nobody needs to dictate a communications upgrade, unless they have a need to spy.

And the ones who realize their needs to be an upgrade can go to the city hall to discuss it with other interested people. They figure out how to solve everything at the city hall where citizens can join or listen to the plans get discussed. no secrets. no bullshit.

Anarchy

[kilgram]

We sort of do this now by assigning value/credits (thanks @Mr. Freeze (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=892)) to what we do. Some people have more money, others have food items, other provide services but we understand what others value so that if we want something we can submit a combination of labor, items, and "coin".

Obviously a stateless society is messier in some ways but once something is settled and concluded everyone's happy.
Yes, but how do you discuss it?

Let's say, we are living in an anarchocapitalist world. In consequence everyone owns land. Then we need to construct a road to connect with the neighbour village, and this road has to trespass ten Premises of different owners. How do you get to an agreement with them? Are you going to discuss with each and offer to each individually something? Or are you going to make an assembly to discuss the pros and counters and decide between all you how is the best way to do that, and what will be the exchange?

Well, if you decided for the last option, it is a form of self-governance or self-managing.

[GrassrootsConservative]

And the ones who realize their needs to be an upgrade can go to the city hall to discuss it with other interested people. They figure out how to solve everything at the city hall where citizens can join or listen to the plans get discussed. no secrets. no bullshit.

Why is there a specific need for the third party of city hall?

I don't know about you, but my local city hall has at least a 30 minute wait before you even get into the section where you decide where to go to get the help you need.

It's a whole clusterfuck of bureaucratic bullshit. And you're in California, so unless you're in some shithole like Modesto you should know this already. Going through government to get something done will always be 100 times slower and less efficient than doing it yourself.

[Chris]

How do they have a free ride? They get the benefit of the project either way because it's for the community.

Because they a free do do nothing to contribute.

Say 90% of the group are interesting in building a road and 10% not. So the 90% build a road that 100% enjoy the benefits of. Over time you run the risk of more and more realizing they can get something for nothing.

[Chris]

Every team needs to know how many resources they need, and if that resources can be got in a reliable time. And by the way, to linking to my usual language, these teams would be the federations. So, each federation would discuss with the others if it is necessary to allocate that resources in the best way.

But limited resources introduced conflict. How resolve?

[GrassrootsConservative]

AFK a bit. It's 4:20.

[kilgram]

But limited resources introduced conflict. How resolve?
Don't know.

[Chris]

We sort of do this now by assigning value/credits (thanks Mr. Freeze) to what we do. Some people have more money, others have food items, other provide services but we understand what others value so that if we want something we can submit a combination of labor, items, and "coin".

Obviously a stateless society is messier in some ways but once something is settled and concluded everyone's happy.


This approach works for me. It allows each individual to make choices based on what they value. The outcome of these choices, and exchanges, is the social order.

Some of you are putting the cart of social order before the horse of liberty.

[Chris]

Well, I have to say that in Spanish we almost never use the term "government" in Anarchist concepts. We talk about "auto-gestión", literally translated to English "self-managing". In my mind, I have to agree with Grassroots that government leads to an idea of authoritarism.

Sometimes I use this word for an economy of language, and to make me to understand.

However, I have to say that sometimes I've seen "autogobierno" or "auto-gobierno", self-governing. But, as I stated the most common is talking about "autogestión", self-managing.



I think though that what you propose would be closer to social-governing than to self-governing.

[Green Arrow]

Well, I have to say that in Spanish we almost never use the term "government" in Anarchist concepts. We talk about "auto-gestión", literally translated to English "self-managing". In my mind, I have to agree with Grassroots that government leads to an idea of authoritarism.

Sometimes I use this word for an economy of language, and to make me to understand.

However, I have to say that sometimes I've seen "autogobierno" or "auto-gobierno", self-governing. But, as I stated the most common is talking about "autogestión", self-managing.

Well, I tire of arguing semantics. We get nowhere and just go around in meaningless circles. Whatever you want to call it, none of us anarchists and voluntarists support "more government" than GRC.

[kilgram]

Because they a free do do nothing to contribute.

Say 90% of the group are interesting in building a road and 10% not. So the 90% build a road that 100% enjoy the benefits of. Over time you run the risk of more and more realizing they can get something for nothing.
Well, it is a problem than in every system exist.

[kilgram]

Well, I tire of arguing semantics. We get nowhere and just go around in meaningless circles. Whatever you want to call it, none of us anarchists and voluntarists support "more government" than GRC.
Yeah, it is annoying many times. But the problem is the source of disagreement are that fucking semantics. For this reason, many times in my threads I make clear what I mean with each word, to prevent misunderstandings. However sometimes it creates the opposite effect.

[Chris]

Well, it is a problem than in every system exist.

Not really. Go back an find my example of early levee systems.

[Chris]

Yeah, it is annoying many times. But the problem is the source of disagreement are that fucking semantics. For this reason, many times in my threads I make clear what I mean with each word, to prevent misunderstandings. However sometimes it creates the opposite effect.



Agree, at least when challenged, people should define their terms. You're pretty good at that. I try and I'm always willing if asked.

[Codename Section]

This approach works for me. It allows each individual to make choices based on what they value. The outcome of these choices, and exchanges, is the social order.

Some of you are putting the cart of social order before the horse of liberty.

I don't see how if we're hypothesizing right now. I'm trying to figure out how it will look like based on what we do now.

[Guerilla]

Why is there a specific need for the third party of city hall?

I don't know about you, but my local city hall has at least a 30 minute wait before you even get into the section where you decide where to go to get the help you need.

It's a whole clusterfuck of bureaucratic bullshit. And you're in California, so unless you're in some shithole like Modesto you should know this already. Going through government to get something done will always be 100 times slower and less efficient than doing it yourself.

Actually I am from the shitholes surrounding Modesto. Like Stockton and other little shits. So maybe I am missing something.

But their wouldn't be anyone in charge of the building to make you wait. And it's your job to solve the problem and find people to help. I envision a giant room, with no sections, so unless it's all full, you should be able to go to your group.


And you don't have to go to city hall it's more like a catalyst for cooperation and discussion. You don't have to go, but if you want to speak to the general populace about how to solve something or implement something, you go there. Or if you want to see what your community is doing.

[Chris]

I don't see how if we're hypothesizing right now. I'm trying to figure out how it will look like based on what we do now.

I think some want to impose order rather than allowing it to emerge. I'm leary of assemblies or majorities. Let individuals specialize and then trade products, services or coin as you suggested.

[Chris]

I don't see how if we're hypothesizing right now. I'm trying to figure out how it will look like based on what we do now.



At least we're talking about what anarchy might work. We're not getting any challenges from statists.

[Guerilla]

Because they a free do do nothing to contribute.

Say 90% of the group are interesting in building a road and 10% not. So the 90% build a road that 100% enjoy the benefits of. Over time you run the risk of more and more realizing they can get something for nothing.

It's likely the people will say or do something. That's up to each community to decide how they deal with their bums.

But what services exactly are they using? It's not like your housing and giving them food while they sit there. I don't know who would allow people like that to stay. Other than that I don't know what people can take adv of. They can use roads and sewage systems and stuff like that without permission. But I don't see why we would need to stop people from using those. I can't really think of any other services people can just mooch off of like that without the community needing to give it to them.

And like I said, what community is going to give to bums? Not one i'll be apart of.

[Green Arrow]

Actually I am from the shitholes surrounding Modesto. Like Stockton and other little shits. So maybe I am missing something.

But their wouldn't be anyone in charge of the building to make you wait. And it's your job to solve the problem and find people to help. I envision a giant room, with no sections, so unless it's all full, you should be able to go to your group.


And you don't have to go to city hall it's more like a catalyst for cooperation and discussion. You don't have to go, but if you want to speak to the general populace about how to solve something or implement something, you go there. Or if you want to see what your community is doing.

I was born in Anaheim and raised in Bakersfield. Pity me :(

[Chris]

It's likely the people will say or do something. That's up to each community to decide how they deal with their bums.

But what services exactly are they using? It's not like your housing and giving them food while they sit there. I don't know who would allow people like that to stay. Other than that I don't know what people can take adv of. They can use roads and sewage systems and stuff like that without permission. But I don't see why we would need to stop people from using those. I can't really think of any other services people can just mooch off of like that without the community needing to give it to them.

And like I said, what community is going to give to bums? Not one i'll be apart of.

Not saying the problem is intractable but you need a means of either not letting free riders in or removing them.

[Mr Happy]

And you are? You just did what you criticize maine for.

History: At one time we divided the forum up into politics, lighter side and serious side. The serious side discussions required each post to contribute to discussion. We should go back to that.

I was saying that is all he did though. At least the majority of my posts are on topic and talking about the OP, not others like the majority of his are...

[Mr Happy]

I live in Catalonia ;)


Well, you have control on them. What do you think is anarchism? Anarchism in some way could be said as the extreme democracy. The maximum of democracy is anarchism. When you've abolished any authoritarian form. When people decide by themselves from equal to equal. When every one can participate in the decissions that affect them, directly, in this case the state or the state system is abolished. But you continue having organization, self-managing.

And do you want to leave Spain? If so, what sort of Govt would you form?

[Mr Happy]

@Mr Happy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=720), @jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719), fine. Put your money where your mouths are. You claim to be interested in discussion. Let's prove it. I will, by myself, debate both of you on the subject of anarchy/voluntarism. We can have @Codename Section (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=866) or @oceanloverOH (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=494) moderate it.

What say you?

Sure. Only on the condition that you open a thread that allows criticism of how certain people moderate the board. You up for it? What say you?

[Guerilla]

Not saying the problem is intractable but you need a means of either not letting free riders in or removing them.

Right. Well this goes back to my old idea, that no one does nothing. People have passions, people have things they work on. It's about finding what the persons interest is, and to have them work with that. If they like construction, hand them to the construction crew to teach. If they are interested in whatever, help them follow it, and they will probably do it. It's about making an investment in an individual, and getting them to succeed, and find something that they will not mind doing in the community indefinitely (of course they can switch at some point) and getting them on the path to doing it, like teaching the skills.

So basically, you mentor them. I think this will work for a majority of the younger people. If their are some old farts stuck in their ways then you have to cut them off from community aid (except roads and all that obviously.) They will have to wander around as homeless people.

[Green Arrow]

Sure. Only on the condition that you open a thread that allows criticism of how certain people moderate the board. You up for it? What say you?

I would be perfectly fine with that, actually, though you'll have to get permission from the other mods.

[midcan5]

By his post he's trying, like many, to mock what he doesn't understand. He seems to confuse anarchy with two things. One, with freedom as a teenager might see it, an escape from responsibility, when what's necessary for anarchy to succeed is the opposite, an embrace of responsibility, if nothing else the notion that in order to be free to do what you want you need to respect other's freedom and you must do no harm. He also seems to confuse anarchy with government. This is absurd but it is common. So if you don't understand something, what exactly are you mocking?

Given that no one else understands, given the replies, would that be a bad thing? But you missed the key piece of the pledge of allegiance to vague sophomoric fantasies of utopia. Here let me repeat it for you, 'but note I am free to use them as I want or not use them just like this pledge preamble and constitution could change without notice or even without being rewritten for it too represents structure and order and form and stuff and thus contradicts our whole belief system which isnt really a system....' You see even when you pretend anarchy and voluntarism are somehow different, you'd still need a start, a finish, a context, the void is a nice internet place but reality requires reality. When someone shows me a place where anarchy works, or volunteerism does the needful, then we can discuss specifics and not speculative baloney.

"It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth - this indifference to how things really are - that I regard as of the essence of bullshit." Harry Frankfurt http://www.newrepublic.com/article/whatever#

"One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted. Most people are rather confident of their ability to recognize bullshit and to avoid being taken in by it. So the phenomenon has not aroused much deliberate concern, nor attracted much sustained inquiry. In consequence, we have no clear understanding of what bullshit is, why there is so much of it, or what functions it serves. And we lack a conscientiously developed appreciation of what it means to us. In other words, we have no theory."

[Heyduke]

in my opinion, anarchy or freedom or liberty are not merely the absence of something.

An anarchic community cannot be socially engineered.

Only when a community is imbued with some sort of spirit, to be trite, or basically if the community has some sort of pre-existing bond of common purpose, can a community survive successfully without some imposition of governance. And that common purpose cannot merely be an absence of tyranny. It must embody some positive virtue

[Guerilla]

I was born in Anaheim and raised in Bakersfield. Pity me :(

We can sit in our shitholes and pity each other. :cry:

WHY US!!

[Chris]

Given that no one else understands, given the replies, would that be a bad thing? But you missed the key piece of the pledge of allegiance to vague sophomoric fantasies of utopia. Here let me repeat it for you, 'but note I am free to use them as I want or not use them just like this pledge preamble and constitution could change without notice or even without being rewritten for it too represents structure and order and form and stuff and thus contradicts our whole beliefs system which isnt really a system.... You see even when you pretend anarchy and voluntarism are somehow different, you'd still need a start, a finish, a context, the void is a nice internet place but reality requires reality. When someone shows me a place where anarchy works, or volunteerism does the needful, then we can discuss specifics and not speculative baloney.

"It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth - this indifference to how things really are - that I regard as of the essence of bullshit." Harry Frankfurt http://www.newrepublic.com/article/whatever#


Given that no one else understands...

We're defining it.


When someone shows me a place where anarchy works....

It's all around you.

[Chris]

in my opinion, anarchy or freedom or liberty are not merely the absence of something.

An anarchic community cannot be socially engineered.

Only when a community is imbued with some sort of spirit, to be trite, or basically if the community has some sort of pre-existing bond of common purpose, can a community survive successfully without some imposition of governance. And that common purpose cannot merely be an absence of tyranny. It must embody some positive virtue



That's what I was trying to get at with my comments about letting the social order emerge rather than trying to design it.

[Green Arrow]

We can sit in our shitholes and pity each other. :cry:

WHY US!!

Oh, I don't live there anymore. I fled the entire state back in 2010 in favor of Virginia and Tennessee :tongue:

[Chris]

Right. Well this goes back to my old idea, that no one does nothing. People have passions, people have things they work on. It's about finding what the persons interest is, and to have them work with that. If they like construction, hand them to the construction crew to teach. If they are interested in whatever, help them follow it, and they will probably do it. It's about making an investment in an individual, and getting them to succeed, and find something that they will not mind doing in the community indefinitely (of course they can switch at some point) and getting them on the path to doing it, like teaching the skills.

So basically, you mentor them. I think this will work for a majority of the younger people. If their are some old farts stuck in their ways then you have to cut them off from community aid (except roads and all that obviously.) They will have to wander around as homeless people.



Send them to jillian's statist community, lol.

I think if you expect people to contribute, mentor them to the value if it, rather than incentivize them not to, they will. Those who can't can be helped, no problem, those that won't can't be helped.

[Guerilla]

Oh, I don't live there anymore. I fled the entire state back in 2010 in favor of Virginia and Tennessee :tongue:

Smart man. My escape will be Washington or Oregon.

.....soon.....very soon.....

[Green Arrow]

Smart man. My escape will be Washington or Oregon.

.....soon.....very soon.....

I would have fled to Washington or Oregon, but I had contacts in Virginia that could actually provide me employment. It ended up going to shit as soon as I got there, but being homeless and living on the streets of Richmond was a hell of a lot better than living in California. Then my family fled California for Tennessee and I moved in with them. Now I just sort of bounce back and forth between Tennessee and Virginia.

[Codename Section]

Given that no one else understands, given the replies, would that be a bad thing? But you missed the key piece of the pledge of allegiance to vague sophomoric fantasies of utopia. Here let me repeat it for you, 'but note I am free to use them as I want or not use them just like this pledge preamble and constitution could change without notice or even without being rewritten for it too represents structure and order and form and stuff and thus contradicts our whole belief system which isnt really a system....' You see even when you pretend anarchy and voluntarism are somehow different, you'd still need a start, a finish, a context, the void is a nice internet place but reality requires reality. When someone shows me a place where anarchy works, or volunteerism does the needful, then we can discuss specifics and not speculative baloney.


We've provided examples of voluntarism working. Every commune in America and the world is voluntarism. Tribal peoples are voluntarists.

Show me a government that's "working" as well. Show me one that doesn't brutalize the weak. Show me one that doesn't use its monopoly on force against its people.

Until then, I don't think you get to talk about what's sophomoric.

[Codename Section]

Sure. Only on the condition that you open a thread that allows criticism of how certain people moderate the board. You up for it? What say you?

Wait a second Mr Happy are you saying I'm not perfect?

DAMMIT!

[Chris]

Man's imperfection is reason enough for anarchy.

[Mr Happy]

We've provided examples of voluntarism working. Every commune in America and the world is voluntarism. Tribal peoples are voluntarists.

Show me a government that's "working" as well. Show me one that doesn't brutalize the weak. Show me one that doesn't use its monopoly on force against its people.

Until then, I don't think you get to talk about what's sophomoric.

I'm pretty happy with the NZ govt.

[Codename Section]

I'm pretty happy with the NZ govt.

Right its a pretty small country and easier to get consensus. We're huge and diverse. We're empire building. Totally different. Stay in the Shire, Happy. It's pretty there.

[Guerilla]

I would have fled to Washington or Oregon, but I had contacts in Virginia that could actually provide me employment. It ended up going to shit as soon as I got there, but being homeless and living on the streets of Richmond was a hell of a lot better than living in California. Then my family fled California for Tennessee and I moved in with them. Now I just sort of bounce back and forth between Tennessee and Virginia.


It ended up going to shit as soon as I got there We even have the same luck!

I was wondering why you would go way out there. I have a slight paranoia about working for someone else for the exact reason you just mentioned. I don't want my fate to be in their hands. So I'm going to try to be as self-made and independent as possible, I know it'll take a while though. I'm finishing high school this year.

I have some ideas relating to plants and herbs. Not just weed, I've been teaching myself about Ayaverdic medicine, Chinese herbalism, I'm learning how to grow all the different stuff. I'm thinking of ways to make a business with it so I can be independant

[Green Arrow]

We even have the same luck!

I was wondering why you would go way out there. I have a slight paranoia about working for someone else for the exact reason you just mentioned. I don't want my fate to be in their hands. So I'm going to try to be as self-made and independent as possible, I know it'll take a while though. I'm finishing high school this year.

I have some ideas relating to plants and herbs. Not just weed, I've been teaching myself about Ayaverdic medicine, Chinese herbalism, I'm learning how to grow all the different stuff. I'm thinking of ways to make a business with it so I can be independant

Dude, that would be the best. I've been working on trying to set up a business of my own, but I think I'm in the wrong field, lol. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of (legal) demand for freelance writers. So I've considered going to a trade school to be a blacksmith.

If you get that herbalist business set up, you should do online orders too. I'd be happy to buy from you :tongue:

[Heyduke]

Humboldt County, in Northern California, was a long-time armed anti-Fed surrection, and an example of a self-supporting community, local culture, and volunteerism. Now that weed has dropped to $2,000 a pound for the kindest of indoor dank-bud, I think those days may be over.

[kilgram]

And do you want to leave Spain? If so, what sort of Govt would you form?
I love Finland :) Cold and dark country. And with cold but interesting people. The biggest barrier to go there is the language. Finnish is a hard language.

Well, I am Socialist. I have two lines. A conservative one and a progressive. The conservative is statist and the progressive is anarchist. I obviously prefer the progressive, the Anarchism. If I go through this way, I would try to create the steps to achieve this goal, firstly creating a revolutionary period creating propaganda about the system, creating collectives, collectivizing places of work, creating cooperatives, showing that there are other ways. Leading to the revolution and abolishing the whole being substituted by the previous.

In the conservative way, I would go to something like Finland, but more advanced in the Socialism, for example with a healthcare like the Spanish, and giving more importance to cooperatives.

[midcan5]

We're defining it.

It's all around you.

You're defining what's all around us, you do realize that confirms my original satiric post?

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/20704-The-Anarchy-Voluntarist-Thread?p=473485&viewfull=1#post473485

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/20704-The-Anarchy-Voluntarist-Thread?p=472612&viewfull=1#post472612

[Codename Section]

You're defining what's all around us, you do realize that confirms my original satiric post?

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/20704-The-Anarchy-Voluntarist-Thread?p=473485&viewfull=1#post473485

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/20704-The-Anarchy-Voluntarist-Thread?p=472612&viewfull=1#post472612


You are looking a lump of clay and saying it's a lump and then snarking people who say it can be made into a bowl. You say, "no one's ever taken clay and turned it into a bowl--how juvenile!" And then usually walk away feeling proud of yourself.

If something isn't the design of the Democratic ticket or conventional left, to you its automatically right wing, bad, etc.

At least that's how you post, so I can't infer anything else from it.

We're seeing the technology and ability to communicate and move that has never existed in history and saying, "what's the next step?" We're no different than John Lennon asking questions in Imagine and he's heralded and we're made fun of.

I'm tired of government violence because I experienced being the one that does it. I want a peaceful life for myself and whatever future generation of people exists. The only 100% true thing you can say is that governments will commit violence in large scale. Efficient violence. They have become predictable with only that.

[Chris]

You're defining what's all around us, you do realize that confirms my original satiric post?

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/20704-The-Anarchy-Voluntarist-Thread?p=473485&viewfull=1#post473485

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/20704-The-Anarchy-Voluntarist-Thread?p=472612&viewfull=1#post472612



Your posts are wholly unrelated to the topic, midcan. You're just another creator of easy to knock down straw men. Why don't you set them up and let me mock them down.

And I see no evidence you know what satire is.

[Mr. Freeze]

Yes, but how do you discuss it?

Let's say, we are living in an anarchocapitalist world. In consequence everyone owns land. Then we need to construct a road to connect with the neighbour village, and this road has to trespass ten Premises of different owners. How do you get to an agreement with them? Are you going to discuss with each and offer to each individually something? Or are you going to make an assembly to discuss the pros and counters and decide between all you how is the best way to do that, and what will be the exchange?

Well, if you decided for the last option, it is a form of self-governance or self-managing.

Why would you get to construct the road on their land? If they were smart they would see the opportunity and build a road and have you pay a toll.

I would do that.

[midcan5]

You are looking a lump of clay and saying it's a lump and then snarking people who say it can be made into a bowl. You say, "no one's ever taken clay and turned it into a bowl--how juvenile!" And then usually walk away feeling proud of yourself....

Clay is now policies that hurt people, I've seen clay masons, I've never seen anarchy do any good, nor have I seen voluntarism solve the hard problems. Been there done all the above, but I do realize each child creates an imaginary world and pretends it is real, sometimes the child matures sometimes not. Life is not simply internet wishful thinking, requires work. Wishful thinking often stands in the way of doing the right thing. Consider the fools in congress who believe free market capitalism will lead to nirvana. Ain't gonna happen no matter how often it is imagined.

[Codename Section]

Clay is now policies that hurt people, I've seen clay masons, I've never seen anarchy do any good, nor have I seen voluntarism solve the hard problems. Been there done all the above, but I do realize each child creates an imaginary world and pretends it is real, sometimes the child matures sometimes not. Life is not simply internet wishful thinking, requires work. Wishful thinking often stands in the way of doing the right thing. Consider the fools in congress who believe free market capitalism will lead to nirvana. Ain't gonna happen no matter how often it is imagined.

You've seen government policies hurt people, Midcan5. You complain 24-7 about George Bush and Republicans. Do you think they are anarchists?

Hitler?
Stalin?
Ho Chi Minh?
Pol Pot?

Ever heard of colonial empires?

You have no leg to stand on in what governments do, and as for anarchists they are making Detroit work without government help right now. They are living in communities all over the world, making it work through their labor and community spirit.

People will do things voluntarily when what they receive is greater than what they put in. That has already been shown through history and behavioral studies.

[Codename Section]

Voluntarism at work midcan5 since you've never seen it

http://www.npr.org/2013/07/30/206884472/detroit-neighborhoods-take-matters-into-their-own-hands

http://www.lakevillagehomestead.org/kzoogazette_51506.html

http://micommune.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/michigan-commune-directory/

I can continue

[Chris]

Clay is now policies that hurt people, I've seen clay masons, I've never seen anarchy do any good, nor have I seen voluntarism solve the hard problems. Been there done all the above, but I do realize each child creates an imaginary world and pretends it is real, sometimes the child matures sometimes not. Life is not simply internet wishful thinking, requires work. Wishful thinking often stands in the way of doing the right thing. Consider the fools in congress who believe free market capitalism will lead to nirvana. Ain't gonna happen no matter how often it is imagined.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScGPRsHSkaE

[nic34]

Voluntarism at work @midcan5 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=765) since you've never seen it

http://www.npr.org/2013/07/30/206884472/detroit-neighborhoods-take-matters-into-their-own-hands

http://www.lakevillagehomestead.org/kzoogazette_51506.html

http://micommune.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/michigan-commune-directory/

I can continue

I understand what you are advocating and would support you wholeheartedly if the world was not so big. Personal charity is admirable and should be encouraged, but it is also what we would want "governments and corporations" to do working on a larger scale ..... as partners alongside "people" instead of as adversaries.

One of the things we learned in earlier days... was that while we were happy in our little communities in the hills of California, we began to feel selfish and isolated and safe while others fought the war on the streets, bore the casualties of the draft, poverty, and racism. Our friends were dying in VN and on the streets.

In the end many became disillusioned, or maybe they were awakened. They became scientists, engineers, doctors, lawyers, tradesmen, politicians, entrepreneurs and even entertainers.... they just work within society now instead of without. The idea is sustainability and renewability on a larger scale.

The problem with the self-sufficient individual and the small community is that it is not sustainable. If everyone in the cities were to live off the land, resources would run out.... an ecological disaster far worse than what is happening now.

Those were the days tho...

Here's a book recommended by a friend:
http://www.petercoyote.com/sleeping.html

[Codename Section]

I understand what you are advocating and would support you wholeheartedly if the world was not so big. Personal charity is admirable and should be encouraged, but it is also what we would want "governments and corporations" to do working on a larger scale ..... as partners alongside "people" instead of as adversaries.

One of the things we learned in earlier days... was that while we were happy in our little communities in the hills of California, we began to feel selfish and isolated and safe while others fought the war on the streets, bore the casualties of the draft, poverty, and racism. Our friends were dying in VN and on the streets.

In the end many became disillusioned, or maybe they were awakened. They became scientists, engineers, doctors, lawyers, tradesmen, politicians, entrepreneurs and even entertainers.... they just work within society now instead of without. The idea is sustainability and renewability on a larger scale.

The problem with the self-sufficient individual and the small community is that it is not sustainable. If everyone in the cities were to live off the land, resources would run out.... an ecological disaster far worse than what is happening now.

Those were the days tho...

Here's a book recommended by a friend:
http://www.petercoyote.com/sleeping.html

nic34

glad to see you back. :)

In my college Biology class they said that dinosaurs grew to a size where they could not survive and that systems will grow and grow and then die when they are too big. Simplification is key. I think that technology has us to the point where we can be community oriented and then "speak" to each other when cooperation is needed. It's not like the past where it took days to send a messenger for help.

I'm all about communal, agrarian living. I joined up with a group of other people voluntarily because it makes sense. I look at a teetering dollar, a nation extended militarily all over, pissing off counter-insurgent groups, and what I choose to do makes sense.

Governments always start wars, they always become aggressive, and my experience didn't leave me a happy camper being the tool of that aggression.

AQ is going to hit in the US. That is their goal. When interrogated the implication is there that we will face what the Iraqis and Afghans faced overseas. Now, who will be more apt to defend themselves, the people who are responsible for policing their own community or those who place trust in a large force with monopoly power who shows up after the fact?

But anyway...glad to see you back. Someday you'll have to visit our "commune" or whatever you want to call it. The food is good, the people are musical and friendly, and well...bring some girls. We need more girls. :D

[Chris]

I understand what you are advocating and would support you wholeheartedly if the world was not so big. Personal charity is admirable and should be encouraged, but it is also what we would want "governments and corporations" to do working on a larger scale ..... as partners alongside "people" instead of as adversaries.

One of the things we learned in earlier days... was that while we were happy in our little communities in the hills of California, we began to feel selfish and isolated and safe while others fought the war on the streets, bore the casualties of the draft, poverty, and racism. Our friends were dying in VN and on the streets.

In the end many became disillusioned, or maybe they were awakened. They became scientists, engineers, doctors, lawyers, tradesmen, politicians, entrepreneurs and even entertainers.... they just work within society now instead of without. The idea is sustainability and renewability on a larger scale.

The problem with the self-sufficient individual and the small community is that it is not sustainable. If everyone in the cities were to live off the land, resources would run out.... an ecological disaster far worse than what is happening now.

Those were the days tho...

Here's a book recommended by a friend:
http://www.petercoyote.com/sleeping.html



That seems to do a decent job defining the problem but a poor job leaping to solution, namely, corporatism: "what we would want "governments and corporations" to do working on a larger scale". That's what we have now. It's the problem. You don't solve a problem by doubling down on the problem.

[nic34]

@nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=572)

glad to see you back. :)

In my college Biology class they said that dinosaurs grew to a size where they could not survive and that systems will grow and grow and then die when they are too big. Simplification is key. I think that technology has us to the point where we can be community oriented and then "speak" to each other when cooperation is needed. It's not like the past where it took days to send a messenger for help.

I'm all about communal, agrarian living. I joined up with a group of other people voluntarily because it makes sense. I look at a teetering dollar, a nation extended militarily all over, pissing off counter-insurgent groups, and what I choose to do makes sense.

Governments always start wars, they always become aggressive, and my experience didn't leave me a happy camper being the tool of that aggression.

AQ is going to hit in the US. That is their goal. When interrogated the implication is there that we will face what the Iraqis and Afghans faced overseas. Now, who will be more apt to defend themselves, the people who are responsible for policing their own community or those who place trust in a large force with monopoly power who shows up after the fact?

But anyway...glad to see you back. Someday you'll have to visit our "commune" or whatever you want to call it. The food is good, the people are musical and friendly, and well...bring some girls. We need more girls. :D

Vacation on the coast was great.


AQ is going to hit in the US. That is their goal. When interrogated the implication is there that we will face what the Iraqis and Afghans faced overseas. Now, who will be more apt to defend themselves, the people who are responsible for policing their own community or those who place trust in a large force with monopoly power who shows up after the fact?



If we are to face that, I want the full force of the US military. Them is us code, all of us...... I want the fire department, not the bucket brigade...:wink:

[Codename Section]

Vacation on the coast was great.

Good for you.




If we are to face that, I want the full force of the US military. Them is us code, all of us...... I want the fire department, not the bucket brigade...:wink:


Our military was getting the shit blown out of us until we turned to tactical teams and got the citizens policing their communities. That's my point. Standard warfare doesn't work. People protecting their homes does.

Do you know Iraqis were walking their streets holding AKs? It was kinda weird to see because we can't do that here, but there is it and it worked for years until they slacked off.

[Codename Section]

I'll relate what we used to do and I'm not particularly proud of it. Just like SWAT in the US if we got a tip we'd literally go kick the family's door in, rifles in their faces, kids screaming, women crying and scare the shit out of people just on tips alone.

Sometimes we'd break in during the night, and wait there for several days for AQ with them prisoners in their home.

Is that what anyone wants in the US?

Wouldn't you rather do what we did towards the end which is train people to self-police?

[Chris]

Vacation on the coast was great.



If we are to face that, I want the full force of the US military. Them is us code, all of us...... I want the fire department, not the bucket brigade...:wink:



Problem is them isn't us. That a progressive illusion.

[donttread]

I'm not an anarchist . I believe in federal government as a necessary evil to deal with other countries. I believe in a limited federal government with strong state governments and adherence to the Constitution and BOR's.
However, if I were part of the planning of how a state or community should function I would legalize all street drugs and most prescription drugs as well and limit government interference in people's lives. I would advocate for our "state" to refuse to abide by unconstitutional federal interferance . However, I also believe in human service programs , just not at the federal level. I would fund hand up programs and require something ( possibly workfare) from the recipiants




I don't know about the rest of you anarchos and voluntarists, but I get tired of gubmint lovers starting threads about our beliefs and pretending they care about anything other than their own beliefs on the matter. So, this thread is a discussion about our views on our terms, and they can just deal.

If you were put in charge of your ideal anarcho/voluntarist community, how would you structure it?

[Mr. Freeze]

I'm not an anarchist . I believe in federal government as a necessary evil to deal with other countries. I believe in a limited federal government with strong state governments and adherence to the Constitution and BOR's.
However, if I were part of the planning of how a state or community should function I would legalize all street drugs and most prescription drugs as well and limit government interference in people's lives. I would advocate for our "state" to refuse to abide by unconstitutional federal interferance . However, I also believe in human service programs , just not at the federal level. I would fund hand up programs and require something ( possibly workfare) from the recipiants

That sounds lovely but how long did that experiment last? Not 16 years. Adams compromised federalism and he was the second president of the US.

Its like parents leaving teenage kids home alone in a huge house with a bar while they travel out of town for the weekend. There will be a party. You can't give any group monopoly power and not expect it to go wild.

[donttread]

The point was never to end government corruption and greed. That's impossible. It was to limit the power in any one place and limit buyability etc. I think it mostly held up until 1913 when the two death warrants of the Republic ( the FED and the 16th Amendment) were signed




That sounds lovely but how long did that experiment last? Not 16 years. Adams compromised federalism and he was the second president of the US.

Its like parents leaving teenage kids home alone in a huge house with a bar while they travel out of town for the weekend. There will be a party. You can't give any group monopoly power and not expect it to go wild.

[Mr. Freeze]

The point was never to end government corruption and greed. That's impossible. It was to limit the power in any one place and limit buyability etc. I think it mostly held up until 1913 when the two death warrants of the Republic ( the FED and the 16th Amendment) were signed

Then you agree that it didn't last.

[nic34]

That seems to do a decent job defining the problem but a poor job leaping to solution, namely, corporatism: "what we would want "governments and corporations" to do working on a larger scale". That's what we have now. It's the problem. You don't solve a problem by doubling down on the problem.

The problem..... is what you do with a population of 7 billion?

No one here ever addresses that reality....

Everyone eventually gets corporatism and government... you can't help it...

[Green Arrow]

The problem..... is what you do with a population of 7 billion?

No one here ever addresses that reality....

Everyone eventually gets corporatism and government... you can't help it...

We don't address it because it's a red herring.

[Chris]

The problem..... is what you do with a population of 7 billion?

No one here ever addresses that reality....

Everyone eventually gets corporatism and government... you can't help it...

Corporatism requires government.

Specify what you mean by 7B people is a problem.

I say it's a problem less well handled by statism than anarchy. Statism taken to the next level would be one world government. How can one government ever hope to control the world. Mere anarchy of the chaos sort would result.

Anarchy, with local governance, each community specializing internally and externally trading, would only suffer problems associated with small cooperating groups. Out of trade would emerge a wider, broader social order just as the free market does now.

But I need to see you definition of the problem to address it.

[Mr. Freeze]

The problem..... is what you do with a population of 7 billion?

You don't do anything with them. Why would you? Everyone should be allowed to choose for themselves. Lichtenstein is a small, continual nation. No one has forced Lichtenstein into subservience.

There are micronations today that are left alone. Costa Rica has no army and no one has taken it over.

There is no need to decide for the world's population what it wants, pananarchism will be the future.




No one here ever addresses that reality....


Just did. :)



Everyone eventually gets corporatism and government... you can't help it...

Not true. Do you think the aboriginals in the Amazon even understands they live under a government? Government is an illusion until you make it a reality.

[Chris]

There's the old joke ask 3 economists a question and you get 5 different answers. Lol, anarchist are much worse.

And that's the beauty of it.

[Peter1469]

I'll relate what we used to do and I'm not particularly proud of it. Just like SWAT in the US if we got a tip we'd literally go kick the family's door in, rifles in their faces, kids screaming, women crying and scare the shit out of people just on tips alone.

Sometimes we'd break in during the night, and wait there for several days for AQ with them prisoners in their home.

Is that what anyone wants in the US?

Wouldn't you rather do what we did towards the end which is train people to self-police?

Sounds like a good way to get rid of that annoying neighbor! (sarcasm?)

[Codename Section]

Sounds like a good way to get rid of that annoying neighbor! (sarcasm?)

Dude, you know that's how we did it in the early stages to dig out AQ. Who wants that here? Shouldn't we start now preparing people for self-sufficiency?

This is a joke but exactly what it looked like

http://i.imgur.com/V0sJ3qx.jpg

[Peter1469]

I know- that is what was going on in Iraq when I was there.

[Mr. Freeze]

If that is what was going on there, if this is what police are doing here, and we all realize that this is inhumane (although legal) why not refuse?

The police of the Third Reich followed orders. The KGB was following orders. I thought the Nuremberg trials proved that's not good enough when all is said and done.

[midcan5]

Codename Section

I see that all the time, been there done that, while I hate to get into personal stuff, I have tutored and taught, still do, so you're talking to the wrong person. My aunt was a Sister Of Charity, worked in some of the worst areas and had real life experience, not cherry picked examples. Volunteerism is very American but it does not and cannot address the big issues and hard problems. Check almost any successful large scale endeavor and it is either government and/or corporations that fund and support it. Consider the importance of public schools in our history. Time didn't start yesterday, knowledge only knows so much.

Post 170 is just too simplistic and paranoid for my taste, make no sense in the world I inhabit.

Great book. "In 1929 Federal, state, and municipal governments accounted for about 8 percent of all economic activity in the United States. By the 1960s that figure was between 20 and 25 percent, far exceeding that in India, a socialist country. The National Science Foundation reckoned that federal funds were paying for 90 percent of research in aviation and space travel, 65 percent in electrical and electronic devices, 42 percent in Scientific Instruments, 31 percent in machinery, 28 percent in metal alloys, 24 percent in automobiles, and 20 percent in chemicals." William Manchester "The Glory and the Dream"

In the mid fifties, "generosity was voted the most conspicuous American characteristic, followed by friendliness, understanding, piety, love of freedom, and progressivism. The American faults listed were petty: shallowness, egotism, extravagance, preoccupation with money, and selfishness." William Manchester in "The Glory and the Dream" quoting George Gallup's Institute of public opinion.

[Chris]

Codename Section

I see that all the time, been there done that, while I hate to get into personal stuff, I have tutored and taught, still do, so you're talking to the wrong person. My aunt was a Sister Of Charity, worked in some of the worst areas and had real life experience, not cherry picked examples. Volunteerism is very American but it does not and cannot address the big issues and hard problems. Check almost any successful large scale endeavor and it is either government and/or corporations that fund and support it. Consider the importance of public schools in our history. Time didn't start yesterday, knowledge only knows so much.

Post 170 is just too simplistic and paranoid for my taste, make no sense in the world I inhabit.

Great book. "In 1929 Federal, state, and municipal governments accounted for about 8 percent of all economic activity in the United States. By the 1960s that figure was between 20 and 25 percent, far exceeding that in India, a socialist country. The National Science Foundation reckoned that federal funds were paying for 90 percent of research in aviation and space travel, 65 percent in electrical and electronic devices, 42 percent in Scientific Instruments, 31 percent in machinery, 28 percent in metal alloys, 24 percent in automobiles, and 20 percent in chemicals." William Manchester "The Glory and the Dream"

In the mid fifties, "generosity was voted the most conspicuous American characteristic, followed by friendliness, understanding, piety, love of freedom, and progressivism. The American faults listed were petty: shallowness, egotism, extravagance, preoccupation with money, and selfishness." William Manchester in "The Glory and the Dream" quoting George Gallup's Institute of public opinion.


Let's select out of your platitudes, something that looks like content:


Volunteerism is very American but it does not and cannot address the big issues and hard problems. Check almost any successful large scale endeavor and it is either government and/or corporations that fund and support it. Consider the importance of public schools in our history.

That's a strong claim, that volunteerism--actually, we're talking voluntaryism, there's a difference--cannot address big issues and hard problems. Can you expand on why not?

Just because government has and can do something is not reason to jump to the conclusion it should. Naturalistic fallacy there. Can you put something more rational behind your claim?

What is it we're supposed to consider about public education?


@ dictionary.com:

vol·un·teer·ism [vol-uhn-teer-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
voluntarism ( def 2 ) .
2.
the policy or practice of volunteering one's time or talents for charitable, educational, or other worthwhile activities, especially in one's community.
Origin:
1835–45; volunteer + -ism


@ http://voluntaryist.com/

"Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends."

[Codename Section]

@Codename Section (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=866)

I see that all the time, been there done that, while I hate to get into personal stuff, I have tutored and taught, still do, so you're talking to the wrong person. My aunt was a Sister Of Charity, worked in some of the worst areas and had real life experience, not cherry picked examples. Volunteerism is very American but it does not and cannot address the big issues and hard problems. Check almost any successful large scale endeavor and it is either government and/or corporations that fund and support it. Consider the importance of public schools in our history. Time didn't start yesterday, knowledge only knows so much.


Volunteerism is not volunteering in the charity sense.
midcan5 you're not required to post in any thread, so why post in one without understanding the terms?

[nic34]

You don't do anything with them. Why would you? Everyone should be allowed to choose for themselves. Lichtenstein is a small, continual nation. No one has forced Lichtenstein into subservience.

There are micronations today that are left alone. Costa Rica has no army and no one has taken it over.

There is no need to decide for the world's population what it wants, pananarchism will be the future.



Just did. :)



Not true. Do you think the aboriginals in the Amazon even understands they live under a government? Government is an illusion until you make it a reality.


You are still thinking on a small scale. All those are small communities. What do you tell folks in large cities? Get together and grow gardens? Government arises out of necessity, usually to care for a larger and developing population.

Until you deal with reality, all the best intentions don't feed the masses....

[nic34]

Volunteerism is not volunteering in the charity sense.
@midcan5 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=765) you're not required to post in any thread, so why post in one without understanding the terms?

I believe he is spot on....

[Codename Section]

You are still thinking on a small scale. All those are small communities. What do you tell folks in large cities? Get together and grow gardens? Government arises out of necessity, usually to care for a larger and developing population.

Until you deal with reality, all the best intentions don't feed the masses....

What do they do now? They order out. They still would as their own country. Do you think Saudi Arabia can grow 99% of the things it buys from elsewhere that their people eat? No.

I'm missing where you think the problem is. No state produces everything it uses.

[Chris]

You are still thinking on a small scale. All those are small communities. What do you tell folks in large cities? Get together and grow gardens? Government arises out of necessity, usually to care for a larger and developing population.

Until you deal with reality, all the best intentions don't feed the masses....



But that is exactly what we've been reporting is happening in cities that go bankrupt like Detroit or Stockton, CA, neighborhoods are forming small groups to garden, provide security, and start up all sorts of other entrepreneurial efforts.


Government arises out of necessity....

You make assumptions like midcan without justifying them. Necessity?

Necessity: The Argument of Tyrants (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/glenn-jacobs/necessity-the-argument-of-tyrants/)


Despite admitting that the National Security “vacuums up information about virtually every telephone call to, from, or within the United States,” William Pauley, a federal judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, decreed last week that the NSA’s dragnet approach is constitutional because, well, he believes that it is necessary.

As William Pitt the Younger observed, “necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

The world is an inherently dangerous place. The idea that the government can protect us is patently absurd. All the government can do is to destroy our liberties while promoting the illusion of safety.

President Dwight Eisenhower acknowledged this fact when he said that if you wanted real safety, go to prison. You get three meals and a bunk. Heck, you even get government health care. The only thing missing is freedom.

...

[Codename Section]

I believe he is spot on....

In what, exactly?

The native tribes of North and South America were not statists. How did their people eat when they're just so apathetic and self-centered and hate helping others and ....?

Could it be that they banded together and worked as a tribe?

[Chris]

I believe he is spot on....

In what way? By commenting on voluntarism when we're discussing voluntaryism? I posted the difference earlier.

[nic34]

Could it be that they banded together and worked as a tribe?

Now you got it... think bigger tribe...

[Codename Section]

Now you got it... think bigger tribe...

I do have it. That's what I propose. A "tribe" over a government with a single monopoly on force.

[Codename Section]

In the Cheyenne nation (I'll use this because that's what my great grandma was) any member of the tribe could have their vision acted on.

Can you nic34 sign up and speak in front of our Congress? What do you have to do to make that happen? Do you even know?

You are so far removed from the decision-making process that all you have is a vote that goes to another guy that votes for you or a vote that goes to another guy that allegedly may vote on your behalf.

And if you don't like how those votes turn out, if you don't like the laws they make you have to eat shit or go to jail when you violate it.

[nic34]

Not to belabor the point, what you are trying to do is compare small communities to large nations with large cities. Apples and oranges...

[Chris]

Not to belabor the point, what you are trying to do is compare small communities to large nations with large cities. Apples and oranges...

Please do belabor the point by at least elaborating on what you're talking about. We are not making the comparison, you are.

[Codename Section]

Not to belabor the point, what you are trying to do is compare small communities to large nations with large cities. Apples and oranges...

No, I'm saying that small communities, small areas can be run better, more efficiently. I'd like to see one person prove that large governments are efficient. 70% of the money stays in Washington. Tell me how efficient that is.

[Ethereal]

Not to belabor the point, what you are trying to do is compare small communities to large nations with large cities. Apples and oranges...

Since you're asserting that scale is an issue, feel free to explain why that is.

[Peter1469]

I believe he is spot on....

How when he is talking about apples instead of oranges? :wink:

[Mr. Freeze]

The smaller the population of a country, the more peaceful it is. Iceland has 320,000 citizens and is considered the most peaceful nation in the world with a high happiness index.

Why hasn't Iceland been invaded? How does it manage to exist without large urban centers like New York? Why does it only rely on community organized civil defense groups?

This is always the argument that small nations cannot exist. The next step after saying they can't trade for goods (like cold ass Iceland) is that they'll be invaded.

Won't these countries with no armed forces get invaded?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces

Costa Rica is pretty prime land. Shouldn't we take them over or something?

[nic34]

I must be missing something... explain again how you take the USA (300 mil population) and make it into a little Costa Rica or Liechtenstein or Iceland that works better?

Listening...

[Chris]

I must be missing something... explain again how you take the USA (300 mil population) and make it into a little Costa Rica or Liechtenstein or Iceland that works better?

Listening...



What's missing is justification for your assumption size matters. Half a dozen people have requested that. What about it, nic?

[Mr. Freeze]

I must be missing something... explain again how you take the USA (300 mil population) and make it into a little Costa Rica or Liechtenstein or Iceland that works better?

Listening...

You wouldn't. Large states are unsustainable. You see how well a large state is working out for us. The wealth is concentrated into the capital district, 70% of the tax dollars never leave the DC metro area, and we must nation build to keep our gravy train running. How is this successful?

The Soviet Union collapsed because it could not sustain a large, diverse population and large military. Rome collapsed because it could not sustain a large diverse population and large military. The same will happen to the US.

An honest, and free expression of politics would allow for the choice to reform or stay as a union. Those who reform into smaller groups, states, or free territories and would have mutual aid agreements most likely.

[Green Arrow]

I must be missing something... explain again how you take the USA (300 mil population) and make it into a little Costa Rica or Liechtenstein or Iceland that works better?

Listening...

Return to the Articles and divide the states into smaller population centers. NYC would split up into each individual burrough.

[nic34]

Thanks Mr. Freeze, and Green Arrow. You answered my question. Large populations don't work.

Now explain to chris....:grin:

On to the next question that Green just touched on... I'm with ya, but short an apocalyptic event, it ain't realistic...:wink:

[Mr. Freeze]

Thanks Mr. Freeze, and Green Arrow. You answered my question. Large populations don't work.

Now explain to chris....:grin:

On to the next question that Green just touched on... I'm with ya, but short an apocalyptic event, it ain't realistic...:wink:

It is more and more possible each day. Younger people have only grown up in a smart tech world. It is this exact technology that does make it possible.

There is 3 Trillion dollars unaccounted for by the IRS in the US attributed not to corporations, but average citizens working and selling under the table. That is anarchism and its growing.

[Chris]

Thanks Mr. Freeze, and Green Arrow. You answered my question. Large populations don't work.

Now explain to chris....:grin:

On to the next question that Green just touched on... I'm with ya, but short an apocalyptic event, it ain't realistic...:wink:



Those were counterarguments to your putting faith in large states.

[Green Arrow]

Thanks Mr. Freeze, and Green Arrow. You answered my question. Large populations don't work.

Now explain to chris....:grin:

On to the next question that Green just touched on... I'm with ya, but short an apocalyptic event, it ain't realistic...:wink:

Not really. It happens all the time in the rest of the world. In 2011, Iceland had a bloodless revolution. Threw out their entire government and started over, all peacefully. Scotland is preparing to take a referendum on whether or not they will continue as a client state of England or gain their independence. Norway holds referendums every year on membership to the EU.

[midcan5]

Food for thought.

http://paws.wcu.edu/dhale/documents/WolffInDefenseofAnarchism.pdf


"I share Marcuse's belief that the work of intellectuals on the left has some value, even though it is not, and cannot be, the engine for social change. When I had tea with Bertrand Russell in 1954, he said that if he had it to do over, he would have gone into physics rather than philosophy. I cannot honestly say that if I had it to do over, I would have become a union organizer rather than an academic. But I devoutly hope that someone out there is making that choice." Robert Paul Wolff




""I have learned that friendship is more important than ideology, and that comradeship, not a priori reasoning, is the foundation of moral choice." RPW


Blog is here with other relevant comments. http://robertpaulwolff.blogspot.com/2013/12/blog-post.html

[Chris]

Food for thought.

http://paws.wcu.edu/dhale/documents/WolffInDefenseofAnarchism.pdf


"I share Marcuse's belief that the work of intellectuals on the left has some value, even though it is not, and cannot be, the engine for social change. When I had tea with Bertrand Russell in 1954, he said that if he had it to do over, he would have gone into physics rather than philosophy. I cannot honestly say that if I had it to do over, I would have become a union organizer rather than an academic. But I devoutly hope that someone out there is making that choice." Robert Paul Wolff



""I have learned that friendship is more important than ideology, and that comradeship, not a priori reasoning, is the foundation of moral choice." RPW


Blog is here with other relevant comments. http://robertpaulwolff.blogspot.com/2013/12/blog-post.html




And once again, an off topic canned response. Do you even read the thread?

[Mr. Freeze]

And once again, an off topic canned response. Do you even read the thread?

It appears not. There are leftist anarchists and rightist anarchists by the terms used primarily by statists to describe alignments.

Unions were not in the beginning statist organizations but antistate, so I'm not sure his point in the least.

[Chris]

It appears not. There are leftist anarchists and rightist anarchists by the terms used primarily by statists to describe alignments.

Unions were not in the beginning statist organizations but antistate, so I'm not sure his point in the least.


That's true, but I'm not sure what quotes of RPW on tea with Bertrand Russell and friendship etc have to do with anything here.

[Mr. Freeze]

That's true, but I'm not sure what quotes of RPW on tea with Bertrand Russell and friendship etc have to do with anything here.

I cannot say. I've been perplexed by many comments but such is the Internet.

[Guerilla]

Thanks Mr. Freeze, and Green Arrow. You answered my question. Large populations don't work.

Now explain to chris....:grin:

On to the next question that Green just touched on... I'm with ya, but short an apocalyptic event, it ain't realistic...:wink:

Large populations don't work. We need an apocalypse for anarchy.

2 claims that haven't, and probably can't be backed up by nic34

You keep coming to conclusions, but when asked for reasoning, you just repeat your conclusion. Your practically a troll. Please nic...just please...try. Or stop.

[BB-35]

'Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses'-Dennis

[nic34]

Large populations don't work. We need an apocalypse for anarchy.

2 claims that haven't, and probably can't be backed up by @nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=572)

You keep coming to conclusions, but when asked for reasoning, you just repeat your conclusion. Your practically a troll. Please nic...just please...try. Or stop.

I make no conclusions... I'm looking for ideas, and so far I've seen none.

[Chris]

I make no conclusions... I'm looking for ideas, and so far I've seen none.

You made claims about size we're asking you to not so much back up as explain. If you can't, that's ok, just say so.

[Guerilla]

I make no conclusions... I'm looking for ideas, and so far I've seen none.

There were some good ideas being discussed earlier in the thread.

[kilgram]

Thanks Mr. Freeze, and Green Arrow. You answered my question. Large populations don't work.

Now explain to chris....:grin:

On to the next question that Green just touched on... I'm with ya, but short an apocalyptic event, it ain't realistic...:wink:
Large populous work.

Anarchism is a highly scalable system. It is like a grid. Joining many small groups, you can organize bigger groups. It means, using federations. With federations you can do the system as big as you want.

[Codename Section]

I don't understand what you're looking for nic34


1. Some may choose townships/cooperatives
2. Some may choose traditional statism
3. Some may choose communes

As long as it is voluntary.

If you want to know how a cooperative works I can tell you because that is what I did. Communes are pretty standard. How would they trade? Same as now, B2B. How would they communicate? Same as now. How would they seek aid if there was an attack? How do countries do it now? Appeal for help. In our situation: smartphone apps, phone calls, amber alert type technology.


Most of the world is run by private companies. Those companies aren't run by the government. They weren't started because of any government. Government's involvement is to tax them and tell them what they can't do and then they find lawyers who help them work through the loopholes to do it anyway.

I really don't see one thing government provides that we can't do by ourselves. Can you explain something unique that government magically does that no one else in the world can do?

[Green Arrow]

I make no conclusions... I'm looking for ideas, and so far I've seen none.

Well, you'll have to tell us what specific ideas you're looking for, then, because we've been giving ideas this whole thread.

[Chris]

Surely, nic, you're above playing us, aren't you? What problems, related to size, do you see for anarchist communties?