For the board Anarchist , how would you see anarchy working?

[donttread]

Both versus our current mess of a system but also Limited Constitutional government.

[Chris]

That should be plural as there are many anarchists here, each with different ideas.

The question is too general, but I'll throw in this, from something I was reading over the holiday: Anarchy would work better by reputation, not regulation. It was Stossel, Reputation Protects Better Than Regulation (http://capitalismmagazine.com/2014/12/reputation-protects-better-regulation/). His example is working Lyft, a taxi service that has no company, just smartphone apps where you log in with location and say you can give a lift, and those seeking rides, log in and ask. When ride is over, you each report on the reputation of the other. The reporting results in a reputation rating you see before you accept a rider/driver.

As to second part of question, there'd be no Constitution and no government as in state. That doesn't mean chaos, it means government by what I would call natural law, the existing social structure, institutions including religion and free market, norms, mores, etc. Impossible, you say, would never happen, you say? Baloney. Most of man's existence has been stateless and still is: The state mismanages only a portion of society. Globally, there is no state governing existing nations--no, the UN doesn't govern. Within states, well, I'm reading about Zomia, and there are regions like this everywhere.

Ah, but anarchy wouldn't solve all problems, you say! No, it wouldn't, there's no claim it would be idealistically, absolutely, perfectly utopian. Just better than "our current mess of a system."

[Howey]

Anarchists???

Come out, come out wherever you are!

[Peter1469]

I am not an Anarchist, but I think their ideas only work on a small scale with like minded members of their group.

[Captain Obvious]

Anarchists???

Come out, come out wherever you are!

Some folks here self identified as anarchists but I think that was just the trendy thing at the time.

[PolWatch]

I'm too old to be an anarchist...takes too much energy!

[donttread]

That should be plural as there are many anarchists here, each with different ideas.

The question is too general, but I'll throw in this, from something I was reading over the holiday: Anarchy would work better by reputation, not regulation. It was Stossel, Reputation Protects Better Than Regulation (http://capitalismmagazine.com/2014/12/reputation-protects-better-regulation/). His example is working Lyft, a taxi service that has no company, just smartphone apps where you log in with location and say you can give a lift, and those seeking rides, log in and ask. When ride is over, you each report on the reputation of the other. The reporting results in a reputation rating you see before you accept a rider/driver.

As to second part of question, there'd be no Constitution and no government as in state. That doesn't mean chaos, it means government by what I would call natural law, the existing social structure, institutions including religion and free market, norms, mores, etc. Impossible, you say, would never happen, you say? Baloney. Most of man's existence has been stateless and still is: The state mismanages only a portion of society. Globally, there is no state governing existing nations--no, the UN doesn't govern. Within states, well, I'm reading about Zomia, and there are regions like this everywhere.

Ah, but anarchy wouldn't solve all problems, you say! No, it wouldn't, there's no claim it would be idealistically, absolutely, perfectly utopian. Just better than "our current mess of a system."

How would it be better than a Constitutionally limited government?

[Peter1469]

How would it be better than a Constitutionally limited government?

On a small scale with like-minded people it would be perfect. On a large scale, such as the US with different people the Constitutionally limited government is better.

[ace's n 8's]

Both versus our current mess of a system but also Limited Constitutional government.Go ask the folks of Yemen how well it's working.

[Mister D]

I am not an Anarchist, but I think their ideas only work on a small scale with like minded members of their group.

I think that's true of almost everything at this point.

[Chris]

Go ask the folks of Yemen how well it's working.

Not the sort of anarchy he's asking about. As I said earlier, look up Zomia.

As for anarchy in Yemen, it's of this sort: Shifting balances of power in Yemen’s crisis (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/09/26/shifting-balances-of-power-in-yemens-crisis/):


The best way to conceptualize Yemeni politics is through the concept of anarchy. By this, I do not mean disorder and chaos – although the visual imagery it evokes is not entirely unwarranted – but rather the specific meaning of the term in international relations scholarship: The absence of a sovereign capable of enforcing rules of engagement. Under anarchy, multiple sovereigns inhabit the same political space, and there are no assurances that agreements will be kept because there is no higher authority to enforce compliance. As such, all actors must be alert to the possibility for other actors to behave aggressively or to renege on agreements, which makes alliances between them unstable in the long run. It is this concept of anarchy that most distinguishes international relations from domestic politics, and it is by transcending anarchy that the centralized, hierarchical political systems present in functioning states are founded.

[Peter1469]

I think that's true of almost everything at this point.

The global nation state system would disagree. Despite its poor performance lately.

[Mister D]

The global nation state system would disagree. Despite its poor performance lately.

That system is in tatters. The nation state is obsolete. It had its day.

[Peter1469]

That system is in tatters. The nation state is obsolete. It had its day.

I wouldn't say that the nation state system is in tatters. The economic system is. But if that fails it does not mean that the nation state system will fail too.

[Mister D]

I wouldn't say that the nation state system is in tatters. The economic system is. But if that fails it does not mean that the nation state system will fail too.

The nation state as it exists today is too small to effect solutions and protect its citizens from the forces of globalization. On the other hand, it's too large to adequately handle local or regional affairs. It had its day.

[Peter1469]

The nation state as it exists today is too small to effect solutions and protect its citizens from the forces of globalization. On the other hand, it's too large to adequately handle local or regional affairs. It had its day.

I agree about those problems. I don't think they have reached a terminal level. If I am wrong, we will find out pretty soon. :smiley:

[Mister D]

I agree about those problems. I don't think they have reached a terminal level. If I am wrong, we will find out pretty soon. :smiley:

It will be a slow decline but we it already. Commonwealth, imperium or bust!

[Guerilla]

I am not an Anarchist, but I think their ideas only work on a small scale with like minded members of their group.

To look at it as a small scale or big scale is based on your perception. For instance, some see America as one large united landmass of people but it is nothing like that. It is small groups of people who are like minded enough to choose to associate with each other (i.e. families, communities, churches, ect). So we already live in the reality that you say anarchy can work in. And these groups all belong to varying cultures, some homegrown, some from other parts of the world, but all differing. The problem is when we try to legislate for this many people who will inevitably be of differing cultures, someone doesn't get what they want, and either they stand by what they believe in, or they assimilate. What this has led to in the US is high tensions, as well as an increasingly commercialized, materialistic culture, since this appears to be the lowest common denominator for us to assimilate to.

As a solution, all I really ask for, as an anarcho-syndicalist, is for these small groups of like minded people to localize and become significantly more economically independent, thus freeing themselves of far reaching influences, both political and economic. If we do this, then different people will not have to compromise their beliefs to get along (which inevitably leads to materialism and commercialism as the lowest common denominator). If we add the syndicalism, then we will not have to worry about the problem of megacorps taking all the power in the absence of the state.

Everything seems to work better when you scale things down. And this does not require the dismantling of urban areas, or high density populations, only the scaling down of the social groups (i.e let already existing small like-minded groups associate independent of the state).

Any questions?

[Guerilla]

Some folks here self identified as anarchists but I think that was just the trendy thing at the time.

I'm pretty sure there are still at least several anarchists here. Maybe they aren't in the thread because it gets tiring explaining this shit. We have a couple really good threads somewhere on the forum that are long and detailed on some of the different anarchists ideas of how to setup. But good luck finding them.

[Chris]

To look at it as a small scale or big scale is based on your perception. For instance, some see America as one large united landmass of people but it is nothing like that. It is small groups of people who are like minded enough to choose to associate with each other (i.e. families, communities, churches, ect). So we already live in the reality that you say anarchy can work in. And these groups all belong to varying cultures, some homegrown, some from other parts of the world, but all differing. The problem is when we try to legislate for this many people who will inevitably be of differing cultures, someone doesn't get what they want, and either they stand by what they believe in, or they assimilate. What this has led to in the US is high tensions, as well as an increasingly commercialized, materialistic culture, since this appears to be the lowest common denominator for us to assimilate to.

As a solution, all I really ask for, as an anarcho-syndicalist, is for these small groups of like minded people to localize and become significantly more economically independent, thus freeing themselves of far reaching influences, both political and economic. If we do this, then different people will not have to compromise their beliefs to get along (which inevitably leads to materialism and commercialism as the lowest common denominator). If we add the syndicalism, then we will not have to worry about the problem of megacorps taking all the power in the absence of the state.

Everything seems to work better when you scale things down. And this does not require the dismantling of urban areas, or high density populations, only the scaling down of the social groups (i.e let already existing small like-minded groups associate independent of the state).

Any questions?



Agree until syndicalism. Should these small groups of like-minded people not be free to choose their political system and economic associations? Why not let each experiment and see what works better? For, imo, the only way to impose any system is through a state.

[Common Sense]

Seems anarchists have avoided this thread...that's weird.

[Chris]

Seems anarchists have avoided this thread...that's weird.

Guerilla is an anarcho-syndicalist--miss that? I'm an anarcho-capitalist. Not sure where the rest are.

[Common Sense]

Guerilla is an anarcho-syndicalist--miss that? I'm an anarcho-capitalist. Not sure where the rest are.

Sorry, I should have said "some anarchists" have avoided it.

[Chris]

Sorry, I should have said "some anarchists" have avoided it.

Yea, some have. Perhaps they're bored as opposed to board anarchists. :-S

[Codename Section]

Some folks here self identified as anarchists but I think that was just the trendy thing at the time.

No, it's something that puts you on a government watch list so a lot of people are "in the closet" about it. When people think "anarchy" they assume "chaos" so I just say I'm a voluntarist now which is a better description.

I am not anti-government I am anti-state. Government is just people getting together and organically coming to a decision appropriate to the problem without codifying a one size fits all "law". Laws don't take into consideration location, circumstance, and individuals. So what we're talking about is the adjudication of disputes.

In tribal systems if say someone was murdered, the alleged perpetrator was brought before the "tribe" and the wisest person was chosen to adjudicate. If he made a decision the tribe didn't agree with, it went back to the tribe, but mostly out of respect the decisions remained. This worked for people for thousands of years (still does in parts of the world) without set laws.

No system will remove crime or brutality. For all our laws and enforcement agents, we still have crime and with government we also have large scale violence.

All I'm offering is something that will reduce the capacity for genocide and a prison complex.

[PolWatch]

maybe they are all at a meeting to organize chaos?

[Codename Section]

Seems anarchists have avoided this thread...that's weird.

I also think to a degree there are just some conversations that people avoid because it's prone to trolling, even if people don't realize they're trolling. These types of discussions work best in a voice-to-voice back and forth, not a debate. When someone asks you how you would do x or y before you can even explain it someone jumps in with a retort just to have something negative to say so you lost the motivation to describe it to people who don't really care anyway.

I know, for example, if you try to explain government without a state you will be told that anarchy=chaos with a dictionary definition, so some of it is us learning how to explain voluntarism without using anarchy when talking to "outsiders".

[Codename Section]

maybe they are all at a meeting to organize chaos?

LOL as I was typing it someone said it. ^

[Common Sense]

Man has always organized...it's what we do. Some don't like the current state of organization. That's fine.

But as far as anarchy goes...I'd rather live in an organized society than in anarchy. I don't think it would be as pleasant as some think.

[Codename Section]

This is anarchism

http://www.ilhawaii.net/~stony/datadown/art/stortell.gif

http://best155.tripod.com/native_village.jpg

http://www.enkicharity.com/s/upload/images/2014/12/7cf607a8cf7cc084f20b2a8557786009.jpg

https://placesjournal.org/assets/legacy/media/images/Herscher-2-Mower_525.jpg

[Codename Section]

Man has always organized...it's what we do. Some don't like the current state of organization. That's fine.

But as far as anarchy goes...I'd rather live in an organized society than in anarchy. I don't think it would be as pleasant as some think.

This is sort of my point as to why I don't feel like talking about it with you. In spite of me saying there is organization you and others revert to the "there is no organization".

So if no one is willing to listen or ask questions about the details why should I bother?

[PolWatch]

Maybe its a generational misunderstanding. My generation understood anarchy as chaos...wild eyed revolutionaries running around destroying everything with no plan for re-organization.

[Chris]

Man has always organized...it's what we do. Some don't like the current state of organization. That's fine.

But as far as anarchy goes...I'd rather live in an organized society than in anarchy. I don't think it would be as pleasant as some think.


Then you misunderstand anarchy. It's not chaos. It's governance without government, or government without state. It's rules without rulers.

Regarding organization, it is organic without being organized. The distinction I draw is between the organic, the natural, undesigned, emergent social order found in social institutions, traditions, norms, mores, etc--and the organized, the artificial, design, centrally planned, posited order. Examples of organic social orders are religion, market, community, family. Organized orders, like states, firms, organizations, are possible but only on a small scale, anything larger, greater approaches the absolute, totalitarian state.

Mind you, this is my view even of anarchocapitalism. Guerilla would syndicate away the market. Kilgram would communist away religion and family and more. I would merely do away with the state and leave society to work out the rest.

[Chris]

This is sort of my point as to why I don't feel like talking about it with you. In spite of me saying there is organization you and others revert to the "there is no organization".

So if no one is willing to listen or ask questions about the details why should I bother?



Why? In order to educate. Beats violent revolution.

[Chris]

Maybe its a generational misunderstanding. My generation understood anarchy as chaos...wild eyed revolutionaries running around destroying everything with no plan for re-organization.

Nah, people have always taken advantage of the ambiguity in the word in these discussions.

Anarchy does have two meanings. Social order, and chaos. Good example of the latter is Yeats' "Second Coming":

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity....


But when we talk of anarchy as a system, we imply some sort of social order sans the state, for some, sans more, for some. Codename listed examples of social orders sans the state.

[Codename Section]

Why? In order to educate. Beats violent revolution.

Because I cannot compete on this forum with television, commercials, etc. especially not with trolling and people who post just to talk shit. It's not a "forum" for that.

I got introduced to the subject in the Marine Corps and it was one on one conversation and then a copy of Ron Paul's revolution which I swear must have made it all around the Marine Corps because I don't know a Marine who is not a libertarian or anarchist. I also have family who are Native Americans and spending time on the res with the stories already had this foundation in my brain.

[Codename Section]

Maybe its a generational misunderstanding. My generation understood anarchy as chaos...wild eyed revolutionaries running around destroying everything with no plan for re-organization.

It probably is or not. I don't know. I don't usually say I'm an anarchist because I'm a tribalist, which is a subset of anarchism. I'm also a voluntarist and a geolibertarian.

Anarchist isn't a term which works for me all the time.

[Chris]

Because I cannot compete on this forum with television, commercials, etc. especially not with trolling and people who post just to talk shit. It's not a "forum" for that.

I got introduced to the subject in the Marine Corps and it was one on one conversation and then a copy of Ron Paul's revolution which I swear must have made it all around the Marine Corps because I don't know a Marine who is not a libertarian or anarchist. I also have family who are Native Americans and spending time on the res with the stories already had this foundation in my brain.


Yet you do fine discussing it. Don't be disheartened by trolling!

[Peter1469]

Anarchy as I understands it requires everyone to participate in "governance." Most Americans have demonstrated that they have no interest in that. We have a large number of people who would love it, but the vast majority would be left on their own. And they would likely create another large powerful centrally run government so they can go back to not paying attention.



To look at it as a small scale or big scale is based on your perception. For instance, some see America as one large united landmass of people but it is nothing like that. It is small groups of people who are like minded enough to choose to associate with each other (i.e. families, communities, churches, ect). So we already live in the reality that you say anarchy can work in. And these groups all belong to varying cultures, some homegrown, some from other parts of the world, but all differing. The problem is when we try to legislate for this many people who will inevitably be of differing cultures, someone doesn't get what they want, and either they stand by what they believe in, or they assimilate. What this has led to in the US is high tensions, as well as an increasingly commercialized, materialistic culture, since this appears to be the lowest common denominator for us to assimilate to.

As a solution, all I really ask for, as an anarcho-syndicalist, is for these small groups of like minded people to localize and become significantly more economically independent, thus freeing themselves of far reaching influences, both political and economic. If we do this, then different people will not have to compromise their beliefs to get along (which inevitably leads to materialism and commercialism as the lowest common denominator). If we add the syndicalism, then we will not have to worry about the problem of megacorps taking all the power in the absence of the state.

Everything seems to work better when you scale things down. And this does not require the dismantling of urban areas, or high density populations, only the scaling down of the social groups (i.e let already existing small like-minded groups associate independent of the state).

Any questions?

[Codename Section]

Yet you do fine discussing it. Don't be disheartened by trolling!

There's a saying in the south, "so and so is preaching to the choir" or "so and so is preaching to the converted"... we end up talking to each other on forums, no one listens to us.

There are certain subjects that require a human element to talk about: religion, someone's kids, and anarchism.

[Chris]

There's a saying in the south, "so and so is preaching to the choir" or "so and so is preaching to the converted"... we end up talking to each other on forums, no one listens to us.

There are certain subjects that require a human element to talk about: religion, someone's kids, and anarchism.


Right, but we each have different ideas about anarchy that can be discussed--which, in a way, is the essence of anarchism, for to impose one's views would not be anarchism. It's only statist who don't listen, who troll with anarchy is chaos or criticize anarchy for the evils of the state.

[Codename Section]

Here I will let this explain my position Common Sense Chloe may like this too

http://earthfreedom.net/faq


Summary Geolibertarianism (sometimes called green libertarianism or ecolibertarianism) is the combination of geoism and libertarianism.
Geoism is the belief that


All persons have an equal right of access to the natural commons of the Earth, which is air, water, land, minerals, wildlife, spectrum —̶ everything that is not created by persons.
When you deplete, pollute, congest, or monopolize the natural commons, you must compensate those persons whose access to it you have impaired.

Libertarianism is the belief that



You fully own yourself — your body in space and your labor through time.
You fully own the material property you create or acquire from the unowned natural commons by combining it with your labor or body.
You have the right and responsibility to control your own body, actions, property, and use of the commons, but you may use neither fraud nor initiated force to interfere with the same rights of others.

Geolibertarians agree with libertarians about self-ownership, private material property, and the principle of non-aggression. Geolibertarians agree with socialists that there is a natural commons to which all persons have an equal right. Geolibertarians agree with greens that the natural commons of the Earth must be protected.

[Chris]

Anarchy as I understands it requires everyone to participate in "governance." Most Americans have demonstrated that they have no interest in that. We have a large number of people who would love it, but the vast majority would be left on their own. And they would likely create another large powerful centrally run government so they can go back to not paying attention.


We also know that Americans like the idea of government, just not the reality of it. Why? Because people romanticize some for of the state as providing solution to all their problems when all it ever does it provide problems it tries to fix with more problems.

[Cthulhu]

I wouldn't say that the nation state system is in tatters. The economic system is. But if that fails it does not mean that the nation state system will fail too.
Is not one tied to the other?


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[nic34]

Here I will let this explain my position @Common Sense (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1085) @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) may like this too

http://earthfreedom.net/faq

Sounds good to me.

Adding the human element always fucks it up somehow.

[Peter1469]

There's a saying in the south, "so and so is preaching to the choir" or "so and so is preaching to the converted"... we end up talking to each other on forums, no one listens to us.

There are certain subjects that require a human element to talk about: religion, someone's kids, and anarchism.

That is why it is often best to state your position, defend it a couple of times and then start a new thread.

On the topics that interest me, I rarely see more than 3 or 4 relevant quality responses. If that.

[Chris]

Is not one tied to the other?

The state is definitely tied to the economy, but not vice versa. People trade and exchange, not nations.

[Peter1469]

Is not one tied to the other?

Not completely. Martial law comes to mind.

[Cthulhu]

There's a saying in the south, "so and so is preaching to the choir" or "so and so is preaching to the converted"... we end up talking to each other on forums, no one listens to us.

There are certain subjects that require a human element to talk about: religion, someone's kids, and anarchism.
I disagree. It just takes much more effort on both sides.

However those are discussions best had in a one on one setting.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Cthulhu]

Not completely. Martial law comes to mind.
While true, martial law is rarely sustainable because of economic strain.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Codename Section]

The state is definitely tied to the economy, but not vice versa. People trade and exchange, not nations.

It wasn't Lockheed Martin giving Egypt and Israel planes and guided missile destroyers.

[Peter1469]

While true, martial law is rarely sustainable because of economic strain.
Agreed.

[Chris]

It wasn't Lockheed Martin giving Egypt and Israel planes and guided missile destroyers.

Was the US who arranged for the exchange purchased with out money between LM and those states for the jet fighters. The US doesn't produce them, all it can do is redistribute.

[Common Sense]

Then you misunderstand anarchy. It's not chaos. It's governance without government, or government without state. It's rules without rulers.

Regarding organization, it is organic without being organized. The distinction I draw is between the organic, the natural, undesigned, emergent social order found in social institutions, traditions, norms, mores, etc--and the organized, the artificial, design, centrally planned, posited order. Examples of organic social orders are religion, market, community, family. Organized orders, like states, firms, organizations, are possible but only on a small scale, anything larger, greater approaches the absolute, totalitarian state.

Mind you, this is my view even of anarchocapitalism. Guerilla would syndicate away the market. Kilgram would communist away religion and family and more. I would merely do away with the state and leave society to work out the rest.

I see that as a precursor to actual govt. Governance without government? The act of governing is government.

I think anarchism would evolve back into government. Like I said, we have always organized.

I'm sorry that people think I'm mocking this. I guess in a way I am. I just see the concept as being idealistic. I don't think it could work in practice.

I'm not trying to insult those who espouse those beliefs, btw...

[PolWatch]

I see that as a precursor to actual govt. Governance without government? The act of governing is government.

I think anarchism would evolve back into government. Like I said, we have always organized.

I'm sorry that people think I'm mocking this. I guess in a way I am. I just see the concept as being idealistic. I don't think it could work in practice.

I'm not trying to insult those who espouse those beliefs, btw...

I think I'll just stick to things I understand rather than be offensive by asking.....

[Chris]

I see that as a precursor to actual govt. Governance without government? The act of governing is government.

I think anarchism would evolve back into government. Like I said, we have always organized.

I'm sorry that people think I'm mocking this. I guess in a way I am. I just see the concept as being idealistic. I don't think it could work in practice.

I'm not trying to insult those who espouse those beliefs, btw...


You're still playing with ambiguities rather than trying to distinguish what's meant. Government doesn't imply government. Take the family, the parents govern, yet they are not government. Think of it in terms of rules without rulers.


I think anarchism would evolve back into government.

Why?




I just see the concept as being idealistic. I don't think it could work in practice.

Why?




Man up until the very most recent times has existed without government. Anthropological evidence from study of primitive tribes reveals not a lack of state but resistance to it. Many parts of the world still exist on the fringe if not outside the state. Much of southeast Asia, for instance, is stateless--look up Zomia. Some would extend the image below as far west as Afghanistan:

http://i.snag.gy/7VDk2.jpg



I'm not insulted.

[Common Sense]

You're still playing with ambiguities rather than trying to distinguish what's meant. Government doesn't imply government. Take the family, the parents govern, yet they are not government. Think of it in terms of rules without rulers.

The parents are rulers. There will always be leaders...they will be the rulers. In true anarchy the strong and clever would be the rulers. just as it's been for well, since ever.


Why?

Because it's always been that way. Organization, organic or not, evolves into more organization. A rule for this and a rule for that...next thing you know you have committees, laws, enforcement etc...






Why?




Man up until the very most recent times has existed without government. Anthropological evidence from study of primitive tribes reveals not a lack of state but resistance to it. Many parts of the world still exist on the fringe if not outside the state. Much of southeast Asia, for instance, is stateless--look up Zomia. Some would extend the image below as far west as Afghanistan:

http://i.snag.gy/7VDk2.jpg



I'm not insulted.

Man has existed with a variety of forms of government. But make no mistake, it was government. Kings, tribal leaders, warlords, chiefs, representative democracies...there has always been an element of organization and leaders. It's even evident in other primates and mammals.

[Codename Section]

The world already exists in anarchy to some extent, if you don't call the police they don't know a law is broken. You could settle it yourself. You could engage in commerce without the government knowing and people do to the tune of 3 trillion a year.

In some communities there would be strong leaders and a more statist solution and others would be less organic. People would go where they are happiest without people forcing them to stay or rejecting them due to arbitrary rules.

The native tribes all had different forms of government and we know they existed for thousands of years in different forms. What they didn't have outside the Aztecs (and even that's questionable) is a state.

[Chris]

The parents are rulers. There will always be leaders...they will be the rulers. In true anarchy the strong and clever would be the rulers. just as it's been for well, since ever.



Because it's always been that way. Organization, organic or not, evolves into more organization. A rule for this and a rule for that...next thing you know you have committees, laws, enforcement etc...







Man has existed with a variety of forms of government. But make no mistake, it was government. Kings, tribal leaders, warlords, chiefs, representative democracies...there has always been an element of organization and leaders. It's even evident in other primates and mammals.



You're conflating having rules with having rulers, governance as a social order with government as the state. Society has rules that no state enforces. Etiquette, for example. Sometimes society's rules, moral justification of self-defense, condemnation of murder--natural law, is reflected in the posited law of the state. Sometimes not, we live in states, the US and CA, that do not dictate what God you worship if any even though religion as a social institution does. Try as it might the state simply cannot effectively manage the economy, and usually manages to mismanage it, as we see in the Great Depression and the more recent Great Recession.

Primates and mammals don't have states, monkeys don't have departments of defense and education.

Consider sports, baseball. The game is played through cooperation on rules. Some are enforced by umpires, but many are enforced by the players as just plain good sportmanship. Umpires are the state, rulers, government; the players are society, rules, governance.




Because it's always been that way.

Naturalistic fallacy. Besides, again, the state has existed only in the most recent times.


Organization, organic or not, evolves into more organization.

The natural tendency for things is entropy. How long has the longest state lasted, some hundreds of years? How long will the US or CA last?


A rule for this and a rule for that...next thing you know you have committees, laws, enforcement etc...

Again, a recent phenomena. It doesn't seem to me to be working very well.



Where's the global state? There is none. You have sovereign states existing in an anarchistic system.

[Peter1469]

I have said it before. The current nation state system will collapse and we will have this anarchism. Over time another system of government will replace it. Maybe nations, maybe kingdoms, many a global totalitarian super state.

[Guerilla]

Anarchy as I understands it requires everyone to participate in "governance." Most Americans have demonstrated that they have no interest in that.

In anarchy, each individual is a sovereign interacting with each other the same way states are sovereigns interacting with each other. Each state isn't required to participate in global "governance", but most do, because it is beneficial and natural too. Same for individuals. They will stay in their like minded groups and continue to interact, and so anarchy will continue. I don't think everyone's participation is required for anarchy, at least not conscious participation, but simply for them to keep doing what they are doing, without the state.


We have a large number of people who would love it, but the vast majority would be left on their own. And they would likely create another large powerful centrally run government so they can go back to not paying attention

Right, so how would we stop force and coercion from being added to the methods of governance, consequentially creating a state over time? The only way is for the communities to develop a culture of anarchy. To develop a common mindset of independence, voluntarism, knowledge of the dangers of the state, and other common anarchist themes to create a common mindset, a culture, of anarchy. Make the anarchist philosophy apart of the community the same way tradition is apart of the amish communities, or Buddhism(Hinduism?) is apart of the monks. Make it a fundamental part, and this will assure long lasting adherence of the community to the anarchist principles.

[Guerilla]

I see that as a precursor to actual govt. Governance without government? The act of governing is government.

I think anarchism would evolve back into government. Like I said, we have always organized.

I'm sorry that people think I'm mocking this. I guess in a way I am. I just see the concept as being idealistic. I don't think it could work in practice.

I'm not trying to insult those who espouse those beliefs, btw...

If the anarchist communities have a strong anarchist culture and have pride in that culture, then it will not devolve back into a state.

[Guerilla]

The parents are rulers. There will always be leaders...they will be the rulers. In true anarchy the strong and clever would be the rulers. just as it's been for well, since ever.



A ruler and a leader are not the same. Leaders carry with them the respect and admiration of those they lead, so the followers follow voluntarily, no coercion.

However, a king is a ruler, you have to listen to him or else.. But he can also be a leader because you can admire and respect and want to follow him. Get rid of the rulers, leave the leaders. Do not force people to submit to authority, convince them to follow your authority by being awesome, that's how leadership is done in anarchy.


Because it's always been that way. Organization, organic or not, evolves into more organization. A rule for this and a rule for that...next thing you know you have committees, laws, enforcement etc...

Man has existed with a variety of forms of government. But make no mistake, it was government. Kings, tribal leaders, warlords, chiefs, representative democracies...there has always been an element of organization and leaders. It's even evident in other primates and mammals

Actually, it stops being organic organization once the coercion is introduced. The question is, how do you stop the organizational method of coercion, from arising in a government. When you have answered that, you have answered the question of how to keep anarchy going. I think the answer is culture.

[Mister D]

In anarchy, each individual is a sovereign interacting with each other the same way states are sovereigns interacting with each other. Each state isn't required to participate in global "governance", but most do, because it is beneficial and natural too. Same for individuals. They will stay in their like minded groups and continue to interact, and so anarchy will continue. I don't think everyone's participation is required for anarchy, at least not conscious participation, but simply for them to keep doing what they are doing, without the state.



Right, so how would we stop force and coercion from being added to the methods of governance, consequentially creating a state over time? The only way is for the communities to develop a culture of anarchy. To develop a common mindset of independence, voluntarism, knowledge of the dangers of the state, and other common anarchist themes to create a common mindset, a culture, of anarchy. Make the anarchist philosophy apart of the community the same way tradition is apart of the amish communities, or Buddhism(Hinduism?) is apart of the monks. Make it a fundamental part, and this will assure long lasting adherence of the community to the anarchist principles.

Communities and culture are social endeavors by definition. I think there is some tension here between a philosophy predicated on individual autonomy and the formation of a community. A community always limits individual autonomy while placing the accent on autonomy seems to work against the realization of community. We can say it's "voluntary" but in reality it's not. It's not even that we all by our nature seek community but that we're all born into them, live our lives in them, and die in them. IOW, it's simply how human life is lived.

[Common Sense]

Just some questions on the practicality of an anarchistic system in our modern world...

Who would take care of things like food safety, building codes, air traffic control, highways, regulate banking, protect consumers etc...?

[Mister D]

A ruler and a leader are not the same. Leaders carry with them the respect and admiration of those they lead, so the followers follow voluntarily, no coercion.

However, a king is a ruler, you have to listen to him or else.. But he can also be a leader because you can admire and respect and want to follow him. Get rid of the rulers, leave the leaders. Do not force people to submit to authority, convince them to follow your authority by being awesome, that's how leadership is done in anarchy.



Actually, it stops being organic organization once the coercion is introduced. The question is, how do you stop the organizational method of coercion, from arising in a government. When you have answered that, you have answered the question of how to keep anarchy going. I think the answer is culture.

On the contrary, rule, at least in the west, quite often often carried with it certain obligations that, if not met theoretically allowed the ruled to rebel.

[Alyosha]

In anarchy, each individual is a sovereign interacting with each other the same way states are sovereigns interacting with each other. Each state isn't required to participate in global "governance", but most do, because it is beneficial and natural too. Same for individuals. They will stay in their like minded groups and continue to interact, and so anarchy will continue. I don't think everyone's participation is required for anarchy, at least not conscious participation, but simply for them to keep doing what they are doing, without the state.



Right, so how would we stop force and coercion from being added to the methods of governance, consequentially creating a state over time? The only way is for the communities to develop a culture of anarchy. To develop a common mindset of independence, voluntarism, knowledge of the dangers of the state, and other common anarchist themes to create a common mindset, a culture, of anarchy. Make the anarchist philosophy apart of the community the same way tradition is apart of the amish communities, or Buddhism(Hinduism?) is apart of the monks. Make it a fundamental part, and this will assure long lasting adherence of the community to the anarchist principles.


Son, you make Mama bear proud. I hope you stay this way

[Common Sense]

What stops coercion from individuals or groups who want to take what you have? Does might become right?

[Chris]

A ruler and a leader are not the same. Leaders carry with them the respect and admiration of those they lead, so the followers follow voluntarily, no coercion.


Anthropologist Clastres, Society Against the State, gives 100s of examples of that exact typical primitive tribal system throughout South America. The tribal chief has two duties to his people, one, he, because of superior verbal skills, arbitrates and decides disputes, and two, he provides for their needs in food, clothing and shelter, usually just as small gifts, but in time of hardship, completely. For this the chief gets many wives. But if he fails in his duties to the people, they toss him out and select another.

North American tribes were similar. Clastres gives as example Geronimo. A time arose where the Apache decided to avenge whie man's atrocities and they elected Geronimo, for his warrior prowess, to lead them into battle. After revenge had been done, Geronimo wanted to retain his power, but the Apache abandoned him, only some young warriors sticking with him his remaining years.

Clastres' message: Primitive tribes don't lack the state, they resist it.

[Peter1469]

If the anarchist communities have a strong anarchist culture and have pride in that culture, then it will not devolve back into a state.

Are we talking about pockets of people? Or all 7 billion people on earth?

[GrassrootsConservative]

We have seen Anarchy working more than any other form of government. Government mucks up the works now because we are so used to it being here. But before government there was anarchy and nothing has been so successful as things were with it. The left says the world is dying but it wasn't before there was government. The right says we have too much taxes but we didn't before government. What an inane thread. What we should be discussing is these idiots that have created government and put us in the situation we are today. You think the dinosaurs had to deal with Gorebal Warming or any of the other crap government has created? Get your heads out of your asses. Anarchy is the solution.

[Cthulhu]

What stops coercion from individuals or groups who want to take what you have? Does might become right?
Neighborhood watches form when people get sick of being robbed/assaulted.

Larger confederations are possible to combat larger threats.

Thirteen colonies did it a while ago. Granted, they were states. But I bet there are historical examples of tribes doing the same thing.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Chris]

Neighborhood watches form when people get sick of being robbed/assaulted.

Larger confederations are possible to combat larger threats.

Thirteen colonies did it a while ago. Granted, they were states. But I bet there are historical examples of tribes doing the same thing.



American Indians.


We've seen reported here how in places like Detroit MI, Stockton CA, and other places, where the cities are so low on funds they can maintain a full police force and services deteriorate, the people themselves form neighborhood watches to police their own streets, and form alliances with other watches across a city, and work with private security agencies to assist each other. Last I've read is these cities now have programs to promote this very thing.

[Cthulhu]

American Indians.


We've seen reported here how in places like Detroit MI, Stockton CA, and other places, where the cities are so low on funds they can maintain a full police force and services deteriorate, the people themselves form neighborhood watches to police their own streets, and form alliances with other watches across a city, and work with private security agencies to assist each other. Last I've read is these cities now have programs to promote this very thing.
Seems like they should quit paying taxes to the local government for breach of contract.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Common Sense]

American Indians.


We've seen reported here how in places like Detroit MI, Stockton CA, and other places, where the cities are so low on funds they can maintain a full police force and services deteriorate, the people themselves form neighborhood watches to police their own streets, and form alliances with other watches across a city, and work with private security agencies to assist each other. Last I've read is these cities now have programs to promote this very thing.

American Indians experienced horrific warfare establishing their tribes and protecting their lands etc... How would modern anarchism be any different?

[Chris]

American Indians experienced horrific warfare establishing their tribes and protecting their lands etc... How would modern anarchism be any different?

Horrific warfare? You mean against the European and US nations? Let's not project the horrors of the state onto anarchy!

[Chris]

Seems like they should quit paying taxes to the local government for breach of contract.

Hah! But the cities probably maintain just enough police force to handle the Thoreau types who refuse to pay taxes.

[Common Sense]

Horrific warfare? You mean against the European and US nations? Let's not project the horrors of the state onto anarchy!

Amongst themselves. Inter tribal warfare was common.

[Ransom]

Amongst themselves. Inter tribal warfare was common.

As was slavery, the taking of women and children. Wholesale slaughter not uncommon at all.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Amongst themselves. Inter tribal warfare was common.

So one government vs other governments.

What does this have to do with Anarchy again?

[Common Sense]

So one government vs other governments.

What does this have to do with Anarchy again?

I didn't bring them up. They were sited as an example.

[Cthulhu]

Hah! But the cities probably maintain just enough police force to handle the Thoreau types who refuse to pay taxes.
Thus proving it always was, and will be, about collecting money.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Chris]

Amongst themselves. Inter tribal warfare was common.

Was it? Give us some examples of the slaughter, the genocide, the mass murders of the state. Are we talking American Revolution scale? Civil War scale? WWI? WWII?

[Alyosha]

American Indians experienced horrific warfare establishing their tribes and protecting their lands etc... How would modern anarchism be any different?Not nearly as horrific as World War I. How do states prevent wars on that type of scale?

[Alyosha]

Just some questions on the practicality of an anarchistic system in our modern world...

Who would take care of things like food safety, building codes, air traffic control, highways, regulate banking, protect consumers etc...?

For you, your state government since you're less likely to want to live the type of life that requires active participation in day to day dealings with others.

The answer to all of the above is "those what require it". Airlines who kill passengers have no clients. I got food poisoning by eating at an FDA regulated establishment. Had I talked to the farmer at the market and asked questions I'd be less likely to have that happen to me, but...

let me ask you this? You keeps you from eating meat you left too long in your refrigerator? Who keeps you from drinking spoiled milk? What government agency controls that? How about who tells you to change your oil or take a bath?

When people have an incentive to be cautious, they are.

[Mister D]

Not nearly as horrific as World War I. How do states prevent wars on that type of scale?

They managed to do so for nearly a century (1815 to 1914) while war on that scale was simply impossible for American Indians. That said, I do agree that a set of certain cultural, ideological and social ideas were also missing from pre-Columbian America so it's not simply a matter of organization and technology. These ideas are associated with "more advanced" peoples.

[Alyosha]

They managed to do so for nearly a century (1815 to 1914) while war on that scale was simply impossible for American Indians. That said, I do agree that a set of certain cultural, ideological and social ideas were also missing from pre-Columbian America so it's not simply a matter of organization and technology. These ideas are associated with "more advanced" peoples.

Natives had raids, there is absolutely no archaeological evidence for major battles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1800%E2%80%9399

I don't know where you get your data but the US Civil War happened during that period with mass casualties. We also went to war over Texas in that period, and then there is were the Napoleanic wars...ummmm?

[Alyosha]

Many things we loathe happened under the state that we like to pretend never happened like wars, slavery, genocide, etc. and we still cling to that because who would build the roads, amirite?

Except that the first roads weren't built by the state, but whatever.

I'll also point out that we're not living in the past. The technology of today allows of the type of coordination that we used to rely on governments for and why they formed in the first place. If you can plan a flash mob in minutes, you can plan a rally to a house on fire or a burglary.

Uber, Bitcoin, 3-D printers and the printing of guns, Dark Wallet, the Detroit Mowing Brigade--all of those were done outside of government.

[Mister D]

Natives had raids, there is absolutely no archaeological evidence for major battles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1800–99

I don't know where you get your data but the US Civil War happened during that period with mass casualties. We also went to war over Texas in that period, and then there is were the Napoleanic wars...ummmm?

Of course not. The set piece, decisive battle is a western (arguably Eurasian but this doesn't matter for our purposes) custom unknown to the Americas (including among the Aztec, Inca, and Maya), Africa, and other parts of the world all of which had "states".

The US Civil War was...well a civil war and the Napoleonic Wars ended in 1815. That was the last major war for 100 years. It was the longest period of relative peace Europe has ever known.

[Mister D]

Many things we loathe happened under the state that we like to pretend never happened like wars, slavery, genocide, etc. and we still cling to that because who would build the roads, amirite?

Except that the first roads weren't built by the state, but whatever.

I'll also point out that we're not living in the past. The technology of today allows of the type of coordination that we used to rely on governments for and why they formed in the first place. If you can plan a flash mob in minutes, you can plan a rally to a house on fire or a burglary.

Uber, Bitcoin, 3-D printers and the printing of guns, Dark Wallet, the Detroit Mowing Brigade--all of those were done outside of government.

Wars, slavery, and genocide predate the state, no?

[Alyosha]

Of course not. The set piece, decisive battle is a western (arguably Eurasian but this doesn't matter for our purposes) custom unknown to the Americas (including among the Aztec, Inca, and Maya), Africa, and other parts of the world all of which had "states".

They had governments but really only the Aztec came close to having a state.




The US Civil War was...well a civil war and the Napoleonic Wars ended in 1815. That was the last major war for 100 years. It was the longest period of relative peace Europe has ever known.

But the Civil War cost hundreds of thousands of lives, so I don't think we can poopoo that off. :)

There were also the Indian wars, there were wars in Asia, I'm looking at that list and while there was no World War I there were a hella lot of wars. The people who lost family would consider those wars.

Anyway...my point remains and this is semantics. States do not prevent wars and have actually more incentive for wars .

[Alyosha]

Wars, slavery, and genocide predate the state, no?

Can you name one? Wars, not battles, only exist when a tax can be collected to fund weapons, arms, etc. That came with the creation of kingdoms.

Surely you played Civilization as a kid. It took money for the ancients to make swords, ya know.

Anyway, I'll be back I have to post in another thread. ((hugs))

[Mister D]

They had governments but really only the Aztec came close to having a state.




But the Civil War cost hundreds of thousands of lives, so I don't think we can poopoo that off. :)

There were also the Indian wars, there were wars in Asia, I'm looking at that list and while there was no World War I there were a hella lot of wars. The people who lost family would consider those wars.

Anyway...my point remains and this is semantics. States do not prevent wars and have actually more incentive for wars .

The Inca Empire, for example, was not a state?

Who poopooed the Civil War? It was tragic. That said, it was an intrastate conflict.

Yes, small, relatively petty conflicts not approaching the conditions or level of WW1 in any respect. Wasn't that your question?

Yet states do prevent wars and have every interest in doing so depending on the circumstances. There is no reason to believe "tribes" would be any different.

[Mister D]

Can you name one? Wars, not battles, only exist when a tax can be collected to fund weapons, arms, etc. That came with the creation of kingdoms.

Surely you played Civilization as a kid. It took money for the ancients to make swords, ya know.

Anyway, I'll be back I have to post in another thread. ((hugs))

Surely you don't mean to suggest that organized violence (i.e. war) was a creation of the state, do you?

TTYL :kiss:

[Chris]

Incas were a state, a stateful island in a sea of 100s of small stateless societies that, yes, warred with each other, but almost as if it were sport.

Earlier it was suggested that anarchy existed in pockets. In fact, it was the state that existed in pockets, surrounded by the stateless. Generally the earliest states occupied the flat lands where grain could by grown. On the outskirts of that, when you reached the foothills, the swamplands, etc, where it was too costly for the state to rule, you found anarchy.

For reference, see James C. Scott's The Art of Not Being Governed, mainly about that area in Asia called Zomia.

[Mister D]

Incas were a state, a stateful island in a sea of 100s of small stateless societies that, yes, warred with each other, but almost as if it were sport.


I think this points to the unpleasant reality of war generally. Sociologists of the progressive era maintained that war was somehow learned or imposed when it's far more likely that the motivation for war has always been at least partly irrational. That is, war is not simply the result of "competition for resources" but has been engaged in for a variety of reasons including ritualistic ones as well as sheer pleasure.

[Chris]

I think this points to the unpleasant reality of war generally. Sociologists of the progressive era maintained that war was somehow learned or imposed when it's far more likely that the motivation for war has always been at least partly irrational. That is, war is not simply the result of "competition for resources" but has been engaged in for a variety of reasons including ritualistic ones as well as sheer pleasure.


No, man is man, both peaceful and cooperative, and violent and aggressive. Hobbes was wrong that we're pure evil, Rousseau we're pure good, Locke got it right, we're both. and, as a people, need the liberty to choose. Both Hobbes, on the conservative side, and Rousseau, on the liberal, envisioned a powerful peaceful state, but it's not in our nature, so what you get is organized violence.

[Mister D]

No, man is man, both peaceful and cooperative, and violent and aggressive. Hobbes was wrong that we're pure evil, Rousseau we're pure good, Locke got it right, we're both. and, as a people, need the liberty to choose. Both Hobbes, on the conservative side, and Rousseau, on the liberal, envisioned a powerful peaceful state, but it's not in our nature, so what you get is organized violence.

What's interesting about Hobbes and Rousseau is that they begin with the same conception of man. That is, they posit man as individual. Yes, they come to quite different conclusions but the only reason they are forced to explain society at all is because of the premise they share. Once you conceive of human beings as free, unattached individuals you have explain why that is not the reality we experience. Why does man enter society? Why does he form states? Those questions would never occur to a conservative. This is a distinctly liberal premise so I hesitate to characterize Hobbes as a conservative on those grounds.

[Chris]

What's interesting about Hobbes and Rousseau is that they begin with the same conception of man. That is, they posit man as individual. Yes, they come to quite different conclusions but the only reason they are forced to explain society at all is because of the premise they share. Once you conceive of human beings as free, unattached individuals you have explain why that is not the reality we experience. Why does man enter society? Why does he form states? Those questions would never occur to a conservative. This is a distinctly liberal premise so I hesitate to characterize Hobbes as a conservative on those grounds.

Interesting point. Locke too begins with an individualistic premise.

[Mister D]

Interesting point. Locke too begins with an individualistic premise.

Granted, "conservative" has to some extent taken on a different meaning at least in the Anglophone world.

[Guerilla]

Communities and culture are social endeavors by definition. I think there is some tension here between a philosophy predicated on individual autonomy and the formation of a community. A community always limits individual autonomy while placing the accent on autonomy seems to work against the realization of community. We can say it's "voluntary" but in reality it's not. It's not even that we all by our nature seek community but that we're all born into them, live our lives in them, and die in them. IOW, it's simply how human life is lived.

I agree, initially there seems to be some tension between the two, but with humans being as incredibly malleable as they are, I think a community of belief in individual autonomy can work just fine, as long as they are like-minded. If they are not like-minded then of course it would seem that individual autonomy would be harmful for a community. However, if the community is like minded enough to choose to cooperate with each other, then I think there will be enough homogeneity that they will not begin to atomize.

As you say, community isn't so much voluntary as much as it is something in our lives that simply happens as we go. So it is assumed that the community will only homogenize further as they interact with each other and have kids grow up in the community.


A community always limits individual autonomy while placing the accent on autonomy seems to work against the realization of community But if the accent on autonomy is what the community is based on, then it would seem impossible for it to erode the community. This belief in anarchy, even a particular kind of anarchy, would have been enough for the community to be founded on, so it must be a strong basis. If the community is formed on the basis of anarchy, and that's what brings them together, then maybe, just maybe you are right, it would not be enough to hold them together continuously. But it would only be natural for more community/cultural norms and such to develop after the founding, and then these other things would then help to keep them together. I suppose the community would have to be deeply flawed and unable to form in the first place, otherwise, the simple fact that it could establish itself shows that it can exist at all, and therefore continue because further homogenization is inevitable. Then, with strong adherence to anarchist principles, we can assure that even with homogenization within the community and new norms, no ones right to self-determination will ever be threatened.

[Guerilla]

On the contrary, rule, at least in the west, quite often often carried with it certain obligations that, if not met theoretically allowed the ruled to rebel.

Well, they were trusted with those obligations usually because of some skill that makes them able to perform the job better than others. No one wants an incompetent leader/ruler.

Theoretically the people rebel against incompetent rulers. But with a leader, there is no one to rebel against. It is understood that you follow them out of respect and choice. So if you don't want their leadership you stop listening to them. But with states, and rulers, and artificial positions of authority, you set up a system that must be toppled, rebelled against, in order to stop following(since they have a monopoly on force).

So basically, leaders and rulers are both trusted with certain obligations to uphold. It's just that in a state, you have rulers that need to be rebelled against to take them out of that position of authority.

You can see it in the US. You can say you elect your rulers, but they are still rulers because you have to do what they legislate once they are there. You can try to justify it by saying you can impeach them, but then there is a process, and some people don't want to because then Biden sucks, blah blah, ect ect, and you end up stuck under a ruler. With an anarchist leadership, you can simply stop following them the next day. Voluntary association with leaders. Rebellion with rulers. Both are expected to uphold obligations.

[Peter1469]

So is this going to work globally, or will nations allow some anarchist communities to exist wherever?

[Guerilla]

Just some questions on the practicality of an anarchistic system in our modern world...

Who would take care of things like food safety, building codes, air traffic control, highways, regulate banking, protect consumers etc...?

People would, same as now. There are so many ways to organize, it just seems ridiculous when people ask how we would do things without a cumbersome inefficient state to do it for us. Roads lol


What stops coercion from individuals or groups who want to take what you have? Does might become right?

Defending yourself, same as now. And yes, when people choose to be coercive(a statist trait), might does make right. The US seems to be right all the time, around the world, because they have the might to.

[Guerilla]

So is this going to work globally, or will nations allow some anarchist communities to exist wherever?

Well we could have pananarchism, but I don't think it would happen all at the same time without a global catastrophy. So it will probably start as pockets of anarchy. I don't see why states wouldn't allow it, they allow other sovereigns to exist. They only keep anarchy away in as much as they can spread their propaganda and marginalize it.

[donttread]

Under total anarchy whom enforces the laws? Are there any laws? If someone robs me do I simply hunt them down and kill them? If so does their family do the same to me? What of my elderly neighbor with no real ability to defend himself? What's to stop me from claiming some guy I don't like and killing him?

[Alyosha]

I agree, initially there seems to be some tension between the two, but with humans being as incredibly malleable as they are, I think a community of belief in individual autonomy can work just fine, as long as they are like-minded. If they are not like-minded then of course it would seem that individual autonomy would be harmful for a community. However, if the community is like minded enough to choose to cooperate with each other, then I think there will be enough homogeneity that they will not begin to atomize.

As you say, community isn't so much voluntary as much as it is something in our lives that simply happens as we go. So it is assumed that the community will only homogenize further as they interact with each other and have kids grow up in the community.

But if the accent on autonomy is what the community is based on, then it would seem impossible for it to erode the community. This belief in anarchy, even a particular kind of anarchy, would have been enough for the community to be founded on, so it must be a strong basis. If the community is formed on the basis of anarchy, and that's what brings them together, then maybe, just maybe you are right, it would not be enough to hold them together continuously. But it would only be natural for more community/cultural norms and such to develop after the founding, and then these other things would then help to keep them together. I suppose the community would have to be deeply flawed and unable to form in the first place, otherwise, the simple fact that it could establish itself shows that it can exist at all, and therefore continue because further homogenization is inevitable. Then, with strong adherence to anarchist principles, we can assure that even with homogenization within the community and new norms, no ones right to self-determination will ever be threatened.


^^He takes after his father. Mum is still proud, however. :grin:

[Alyosha]

Well we could have pananarchism, but I don't think it would happen all at the same time without a global catastrophy. So it will probably start as pockets of anarchy. I don't see why states wouldn't allow it, they allow other sovereigns to exist. They only keep anarchy away in as much as they can spread their propaganda and marginalize it.

I had an idea of getting groups of us together and applying for right to buy land and establish a nation in Russia. The country is under-populated and there are vast tracts of usable land, plus it would piss of the US so they might be amenable to a micronation within their realms.

[Chris]

Under total anarchy whom enforces the laws? Are there any laws? If someone robs me do I simply hunt them down and kill them? If so does their family do the same to me? What of my elderly neighbor with no real ability to defend himself? What's to stop me from claiming some guy I don't like and killing him?

Protection begins with self-defense. From there is extends to neighborhood, community, outward in various alliances. It would include agreements for arbitration. Under anarchocapitalism, there would also be private security and private defense and private arbitration. In general reputation would replace regulation. It's an elaborate topic, it's been discussed before.

[Chris]

What's interesting about Hobbes and Rousseau is that they begin with the same conception of man. That is, they posit man as individual. Yes, they come to quite different conclusions but the only reason they are forced to explain society at all is because of the premise they share. Once you conceive of human beings as free, unattached individuals you have explain why that is not the reality we experience. Why does man enter society? Why does he form states? Those questions would never occur to a conservative. This is a distinctly liberal premise so I hesitate to characterize Hobbes as a conservative on those grounds.


Interesting point. Locke too begins with an individualistic premise.


Today I think not. I mean, I think of Hobbes and Rousseau as collectivists, and Locke as the individualist, in this sense: They weren't trying to explain society--they all assumed man in society--but to explain how the state arose through social contracts: Hobbes to overcome man's evil nature, Rousseau to perfect man's good nature in the collective will, and Locke to protect natural rights to choose good or evil.

[PolWatch]

Protection begins with self-defense. From there is extends to neighborhood, community, outward in various alliances. It would include agreements for arbitration. Under anarchocapitalism, there would also be private security and private defense and private arbitration. In general reputation would replace regulation. It's an elaborate topic, it's been discussed before.

Its possible that I am missing something or just don't understand, but....what is described sounds like a fairy tale. It might have worked 100 years ago, but I don't see it being successful today. The ability to pay for private protection would mean we would have overlords for poor communities and those citizens would be serfs. Back to the Medieval times? Not really a lot different from today....those with the most $$$ make the rules.

[Codename Section]

Its possible that I am missing something or just don't understand, but....what is described sounds like a fairy tale. It might have worked 100 years ago, but I don't see it being successful today. The ability to pay for private protection would mean we would have overlords for poor communities and those citizens would be serfs. Back to the Medieval times? Not really a lot different from today....those with the most $$$ make the rules.

No because you'd also be your own protection and your neighbors and your friends, etc. I won't be paying private security. I'll be my own. I'd be yours too for some shrimp gumbo.

That's how anarchism works.

What is currency? I like food more than I like money. That's the currency you'd pay me with. I guarantee I'm better than any cop you'd find and I'm not the only "me".

[Codename Section]

Its possible that I am missing something or just don't understand, but....what is described sounds like a fairy tale. It might have worked 100 years ago, but I don't see it being successful today. The ability to pay for private protection would mean we would have overlords for poor communities and those citizens would be serfs. Back to the Medieval times? Not really a lot different from today....those with the most $$$ make the rules.

Right now many of us have a semi-anarcho thing working. I will exchange my services or pork products and land. Others exchange their services for pork, honey, etc. Some exchange their pork, beef, honey, chickens, or vegetables for goods and services.

We do this outside the system. It was spontaneous and organic. People don't need to be told to be social or to care about others.

[Mister D]

Today I think not. I mean, I think of Hobbes and Rousseau as collectivists, and Locke as the individualist, in this sense: They weren't trying to explain society--they all assumed man in society--but to explain how the state arose through social contracts: Hobbes to overcome man's evil nature, Rousseau to perfect man's good nature in the collective will, and Locke to protect natural rights to choose good or evil.

They were collectivists. No doubt about that, IMO, although I've seen it argued that Rousseau is a little more complicated than that. My point was that, to the man of tradition (i.e. to the conservative), society doesn't need to be explained any more than the state. All three were individualists in the sense that they all have an individualist anthropology. The individual provides the beginning point for their analyses which creates two problems. First of all, the question of why man enters society needs to be answered. Then, the question of why man willingly subjects himself to political authority must be answered. There is a reason neither social contract theory or political contract theory appear until the Age of Enlightenment. The reason for that is that their ancestors, by and large, simply did not think of themselves that way. Mind you, that doesn't for a moment mean that Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke have the same ideas. Far from it. What I mean is that they all begin the discussion from a modern POV.

[Codename Section]

They were collectivists. No doubt about that, IMO, although I've seen it argued that Rousseau is a little more complicated than that. My point was that, to the man of tradition (i.e. to the conservative), society doesn't need to be explained any more than the state. All three were individualists in the sense that they all have an individualist anthropology. The individual provides the beginning point for their analyses which creates two problems. First of all, the question of why man enters society needs to be answered. Then, the question of why man willingly subjects himself to political authority must be answered. There is a reason neither social contract theory or political contract theory appear until the Age of Enlightenment. The reason for that is that their ancestors, by and large, simply did not think of themselves that way. Mind you, that doesn't for a moment mean that Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke have the same ideas. Far from it. What I mean is that they all begin the discussion from a modern POV.


See I just don't think that reading the writings of a bunch of gilded liberals of any age does me absolutely any good. It's easy to wax politics or economics from your countryside home or political think tank.

I'm the last person to care what Uncle Murray thinks about something or to quite Lew Rockwell. All those guys were able to talk their talk from the perch of being raised without poverty. Their ideas are no more tested than Keynes.

They make more sense from an anthropological POV, but at the same time I don't put credence to philosophers from another age or even 30 years ago. I am more an organic, chaotic, practical tribalist. I'll use what works and not worry about ideology so much. It's a guideline but not any kind of dogma.

[Cigar]

One persons Anarchist is another Persons Protester ... :rollseyes: just a different shade

[Mister D]

See I just don't think that reading the writings of a bunch of gilded liberals of any age does me absolutely any good. It's easy to wax politics or economics from your countryside home or political think tank.

I'm the last person to care what Uncle Murray thinks about something or to quite Lew Rockwell. All those guys were able to talk their talk from the perch of being raised without poverty. Their ideas are no more tested than Keynes.

They make more sense from an anthropological POV, but at the same time I don't put credence to philosophers from another age or even 30 years ago. I am more an organic, chaotic, practical tribalist. I'll use what works and not worry about ideology so much. It's a guideline but not any kind of dogma.

It's certainly made an impression considering you share the anthropological assumption in question. Now you can say it's obvious but then it wasn't obvious to the rest of humanity prior to circa 1700 or to most of the rest of the world today.

[Redrose]

Its possible that I am missing something or just don't understand, but....what is described sounds like a fairy tale. It might have worked 100 years ago, but I don't see it being successful today. The ability to pay for private protection would mean we would have overlords for poor communities and those citizens would be serfs. Back to the Medieval times? Not really a lot different from today....those with the most $$$ make the rules.


We'd go back to the old neighborhoods with the Mafia "protecting" people for a fee. This anarchist crap is so juvinile. It's the "fashionable" thing to be in some age groups. They don't want to be associated with the politics of their parents. It's stupid and foolish, junior high nonsense.

[Chris]

They were collectivists. No doubt about that, IMO, although I've seen it argued that Rousseau is a little more complicated than that. My point was that, to the man of tradition (i.e. to the conservative), society doesn't need to be explained any more than the state. All three were individualists in the sense that they all have an individualist anthropology. The individual provides the beginning point for their analyses which creates two problems. First of all, the question of why man enters society needs to be answered. Then, the question of why man willingly subjects himself to political authority must be answered. There is a reason neither social contract theory or political contract theory appear until the Age of Enlightenment. The reason for that is that their ancestors, by and large, simply did not think of themselves that way. Mind you, that doesn't for a moment mean that Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke have the same ideas. Far from it. What I mean is that they all begin the discussion from a modern POV.


I agree, society needn't be explain, it exists or emerges naturally, just as family, religion, economy and other natural social institutions. But the state is an artificial institution created by man/society, posited in law.

Yes, they're all the beginnings of modern liberalism in it's many forms.

[Codename Section]

One persons Anarchist is another Persons Protester ... :rollseyes: just a different shade

Sure.

[Codename Section]

We'd go back to the old neighborhoods with the Mafia "protecting" people for a fee. This anarchist crap is so juvinile. It's the "fashionable" thing to be in some age groups. They don't want to be associated with the politics of their parents. It's stupid and foolish, junior high nonsense.
@Redrose (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1123)

I'm a combat vet with multiple deployments. I own my own business. I was able to pay for my mother's surgery out of pocket. Saying it's junior high nonsense or dismissing what I have to say as if I have no experience in this is dismissive and immature.

Thanks for the thread contribution.

[PolWatch]

I just thought we were poor and swapping stuff and now I find we are really organic, chaotic, practical tribalists. My husband does blacksmith/welding work for a neighbor who paints his boat. I sew for someone who weeds my garden. I learn something new all the time!

[Codename Section]

I just thought we were poor and swapping stuff and now I find we are really organic, chaotic, practical tribalists. My husband does blacksmith/welding work for a neighbor who paints his boat. I sew for someone who weeds my garden. I learn something new all the time!

That's it right there, pol. You are like me. You just don't have a name for it. We all practice some form of anarchy every day when we do things outside the government.

That's how it starts.

Right now in VA to counteract the dipshits in Fairfax who outlawed neighbors giving each other food (that's the "blue" county) various counties are rewriting laws so that neighbors won't go to jail for letting each other eat food or share it. That's anarchism because it is community oriented, even if it's government.

It's small groups of people working outside the larger system.

[Redrose]

@Redrose (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1123)

I'm a combat vet with multiple deployments. I own my own business. I was able to pay for my mother's surgery out of pocket. Saying it's junior high nonsense or dismissing what I have to say as if I have no experience in this is dismissive and immature.

Thanks for the thread contribution.


Thank you for your service. I am happy to know you are successful and are taking care of your mom. That is commendable. I was not singling any one person out. I am critical of all this anarchist bullshit in general.

To me an anarchist wants to overthrow our government, a radical. Meanwhile, as you just stated, you and other successful career people, lawyers, CPA's and other business people, have made a nice living in this country with the existing government. Our capitalistic sysyem has made many of us comfortable.

So I say to all those anarcists that want to "change" everything, watch all your security and good lifestyles evaporate right before your eyes.

[Chris]

Its possible that I am missing something or just don't understand, but....what is described sounds like a fairy tale. It might have worked 100 years ago, but I don't see it being successful today. The ability to pay for private protection would mean we would have overlords for poor communities and those citizens would be serfs. Back to the Medieval times? Not really a lot different from today....those with the most $$$ make the rules.

First, as codename explains, it is happening now. And I would venture to say it happens in more places around the world than not. Avoid thinking in absolutes. Inasmuch as society fends for itself, that is anarchy (not chaos)--all the while the state tried to control it.

Second, it would require a good long discussion to explain how it would work practically in an anarchocapitalist setting. Let me see if I can simplify: Say codename has a private security/defense agency, and say I have another. In a free market system, he and I would compete for your business, and that would drive down the price we could charge. Keep in mind there would be 1000s and 1000s of such agencies competing. That's intuitive, I think, what unintuitive is in order to profit while offering competitive prices, it would benefit both code and myself were we to cooperate with each other, maybe he' busy with one issue and I'm free to take another of his, or vice versa, or we might join forces where needed. Cooperation would lead to reduced costs. Furthermore, in order to deal with conflicts between us developing out of conflicts between clients, say you and Mister D, why codename and I would agree to settle any disputes through a private trusted arbitrator, and our contract with you and D would include a clause agreeing to submit to arbitration. So code and I wouldn't even be in conflict, we would neither shoot each other nor sue each other, we'd simply hand it over to arbitration.

The anarchocapitalist solution is worked out in much greater detail by any number of thinkers, from Robert P. Murphy, the first thesis I read on it many years ago, to Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who thesis on it I read just a month or so ago. I'm not sure any other anarchist group has worked it out in such detail.

[Mister D]

If anarchism is nothing more than, for example, someone using his truck to take some bulk trash out of my garage in exchange for a case of beer I guess I'm an anarchist.

[Chris]

I just thought we were poor and swapping stuff and now I find we are really organic, chaotic, practical tribalists. My husband does blacksmith/welding work for a neighbor who paints his boat. I sew for someone who weeds my garden. I learn something new all the time!

You anarchist, you!

[Mister D]

First, as codename explains, it is happening now. And I would venture to say it happens in more places around the world than not. Avoid thinking in absolutes. Inasmuch as society fends for itself, that is anarchy (not chaos)--all the while the state tried to control it.

Second, it would require a good long discussion to explain how it would work practically in an anarchocapitalist setting. Let me see if I can simplify: Say codename has a private security/defense agency, and say I have another. In a free market system, he and I would compete for your business, and that would drive down the price we could charge. Keep in mind there would be 1000s and 1000s of such agencies competing. That's intuitive, I think, what unintuitive is in order to profit while offering competitive prices, it would benefit both code and myself were we to cooperate with each other, maybe he' busy with one issue and I'm free to take another of his, or vice versa, or we might join forces where needed. Cooperation would lead to reduced costs. Furthermore, in order to deal with conflicts between us developing out of conflicts between clients, say you and Mister D, why codename and I would agree to settle any disputes through a private trusted arbitrator, and our contract with you and D would include a clause agreeing to submit to arbitration. So code and I wouldn't even be in conflict, we would neither shoot each other nor sue each other, we'd simply hand it over to arbitration.

The anarchocapitalist solution is worked out in much greater detail by any number of thinkers, from Robert P. Murphy, the first thesis I read on it many years ago, to Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who thesis on it I read just a month or so ago. I'm not sure any other anarchist group has worked it out in such detail.

Code, those "gilded liberals" will be of some use to you. Trust me.

[PolWatch]

I'm learning...(I hope)

[Codename Section]

Thank you for your service. I am happy to know you are successful and are taking care of your mom. That is commendable. I was not singling any one person out. I am critical of all this anarchist bullshit in general.

I'm critical of a lot of things you believe but I don't call you a naive cop apologist like some do. I've been trying hard to be respectful.

Unlike you, I've been outside the United States in countries where the central government has zero control over the countryside and saw people just picking up and doing. They take care of each other and get by.

I've seen anarchism in action. I've also been the fist of the United States and seen how we treat people we don't like. I think being on the government's bad side is far worse than being without government.




To me an anarchist wants to overthrow our government, a radical.

I won't need to overthrow it. It will collapse because that's what happens when you divide a country in two and then pit the sides against each other. I'm just practicising what I think I'll do when it all falls apart.




Meanwhile, as you just stated, you and other successful career people, lawyers, CPA's and other business people, have made a nice living in this country with the existing government. Our capitalistic sysyem has made many of us comfortable.

So I say to all those anarcists that want to "change" everything, watch all your security and good lifestyles evaporate right before your eyes.

I'd say we made that living in spite of the government, but you can choose to view it however you like.

[kilgram]

Maybe its a generational misunderstanding. My generation understood anarchy as chaos...wild eyed revolutionaries running around destroying everything with no plan for re-organization.

That is the great lie propagated by the state and the capital.

Anarchism is a very organized system without authority and horizontally. It is a definition that the wrongly self called anarchists will deny.

But anarchism is a very complex system that cannot be explained in a few posts in a forum and divided in two great schools with subschools

Social anarchism, the most practical

Individualist anarchism, more theoric.

Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2

[Mister D]

That is the great lie propagated by the state and the capital.

Anarchism is a very organized system without authority and horizontally. It is a definition that the wrongly self called anarchists will deny.

But anarchism is a very complex system that cannot be explained in a few posts in a forum and divided in two great schools with subschools

Social anarchism, the most practical

Individualist anarchism, more theoric.

Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2

That's why those gilded liberals will be of some use to you Code: Take 2

[Mister D]

I do think it's wrong and unfair to associate anarchism with the teenage brats running around at world trade summits with their cool ninja masks.

[Codename Section]

I do think it's wrong and unfair to associate anarchism with the teenage brats running around at world trade summits with their cool ninja masks.

Its why I usually avoid these threads or call myself an anarchist. I will say "voluntarist" because that's what I am.

[PolWatch]

I do think it's wrong and unfair to associate anarchism with the teenage brats running around at world trade summits with their cool ninja masks.

does this mean I should forget the Teenage ninja turtles as anarchists? :rollseyes:

[Chris]

If anarchism is nothing more than, for example, someone using his truck to take some bulk trash out of my garage in exchange for a case of beer I guess I'm an anarchist.

To me anarchy, pure anarchy, sans capitalism, socialism, communism, syndicalism, just anarchy, is about freeing society from the state so that we can solve our own problems in our own way.*

And it's not anarchism vs statism, but a continuum of degrees with anarchism at one end and statism at the other. What you are depends only on which way you're facing and heading.

I'm sure there will be disagreement with that.


*Returning to Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke. While the other two are statists, Locke, as an individualist, was all about freeing the individual from the state so he is free to choose between good and evil. An anarcho-organicist could simply replace the individuals with societies.

[Mister D]

To me anarchy, pure anarchy, sans capitalism, socialism, communism, syndicalism, just anarchy, is about freeing society from the state so that we can solve our own problems in our own way.*

And it's not anarchism vs statism, but a continuum of degrees with anarchism at one end and statism at the other. What you are depends only on which way you're facing and heading.

I'm sure there will be disagreement with that.


*Returning to Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke. While the other two are statists, Locke, as an individualist, was all about freeing the individual from the state so he is free to choose between good and evil. An anarcho-organicist could simply replace the individuals with societies.

There do seem to be substantial variations on the theme with you and kilgram being the most obvious.

[Mister D]

does this mean I should forget the Teenage ninja turtles as anarchists? :rollseyes:

Definitely. Did I ever wear black?

[PolWatch]

Definitely. Did I ever wear black?

sure...look at your avatar! :rollseyes:

[Mister D]

Its why I usually avoid these threads or call myself an anarchist. I will say "voluntarist" because that's what I am.

That's very politic. It's kind of like someone who believes in national socialism calling themselves a national socialist. The term just presses too many buttons. Similarly, anarchism carries with it too many negative connotations.

[Redrose]

I just thought we were poor and swapping stuff and now I find we are really organic, chaotic, practical tribalists. My husband does blacksmith/welding work for a neighbor who paints his boat. I sew for someone who weeds my garden. I learn something new all the time!

PolWatch

What you are describing is bartering. I think it's great, but Uncle Sam wants his piece of it. A Pediatrician may deliver a baby for an auto mechanic for free, then the mechanic will fix the doctor's car in return. Nothing wrong with that. But the big government wants to tax the value of those services. That is why we have Bartering 1099's.

I don't want anarchy, I do want smaller government, less government oversight, less government control in our lives. This current administration has expanded government control in our lives to dangerous levels. The most dangerous instrument of this control is the ACA. The legal language in that law allows big government to basically take over our lives. It lays the legal groundwork for them to build on to keep us under the heavy hand of big government. The used the issue of health insurance as a smokescreen to sell it. They had to claim they didn't read it, rather than admit it was full of oppressive rules and mandates.

We need to roll back this massive government monster and give more power back at the state level. This next 2016 election will determine what we become as a nation.

[Mister D]

sure...look at your avatar! :rollseyes:

Typo. I meant they. :grin:

[kilgram]

There do seem to be substantial variations on the theme with you and kilgram being the most obvious.

And impossible to get any agreement.

For example I would be able to get to many agreements with Alyosha, the Xl and others however they are pretty opposite to me... or not.

The biggest difference of the two main schools is private property or its total abolition.

Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2

[Chris]

There do seem to be substantial variations on the theme with you and kilgram being the most obvious.

Anarchocapitalists, even the individualists, start with society, are simply antistate. Anarchocommunists are anti everything, state and society. Many anarchists are antistate and anticapitalaim, but that tends to be capitalism as the collusion of rich and powerful, and not free-market capitalism.

[Chris]

And impossible to get any agreement.

For example I would be able to get to many agreements with Alyosha, the Xl and others however they are pretty opposite to me... or not.

The biggest difference of the two main schools is private property or its total abolition.

Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2



Why does there have to be agreement? Let people choose the sort of community they want to belong to. Insisting on everyone agreeing is authoritarian, the very thing you say you're against.

[Redrose]

I'm critical of a lot of things you believe but I don't call you a naive cop apologist like some do. I've been trying hard to be respectful.

Unlike you, I've been outside the United States in countries where the central government has zero control over the countryside and saw people just picking up and doing. They take care of each other and get by.

I've seen anarchism in action. I've also been the fist of the United States and seen how we treat people we don't like. I think being on the government's bad side is far worse than being without government.



I won't need to overthrow it. It will collapse because that's what happens when you divide a country in two and then pit the sides against each other. I'm just practicising what I think I'll do when it all falls apart.



I'd say we made that living in spite of the government, but you can choose to view it however you like.


First off, you are making this a battle between me and you. That was never my intention. I'm sick of all this anarchist talk in general, just like people are disgusted with the GOP, I don't take that personally. Dragging in the police issue is way off base. Naive I am not. I know there are bad cops just as there are bad soldiers. I have traveled to over 15 countries and have family living in several countries worldwide and two nieces living in Africa as missionaries. I know what's out there. So if you want to compare visas, I'm game.

Our government is far from perfect, but anarchy is not the answer. Smaller government is the answer, and when people keep electing Democrats, the poster child for big government, we will continue to have these issues.

[Chris]

Its why I usually avoid these threads or call myself an anarchist. I will say "voluntarist" because that's what I am.

You see the same BS with noninterventionism. Is there another term for that? Oh, yeah, isolationist! :loco:

[kilgram]

Anarchocapitalists, even the individualists, start with society, are simply antistate. Anarchocommunists are anti everything, state and society. Many anarchists are antistate and anticapitalaim, but that tends to be capitalism as the collusion of rich and powerful, and not free-market capitalism.

Only anti authority. Not everything.

Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2

[kilgram]

Why does there have to be agreement? Let people choose the sort of community they want to belong to. Insisting on everyone agreeing is authoritarian, the very thing you say you're against.

Because we live in society and for society to work is necessary some kind of agreement among the individuals. Free and voluntary contract that you repeat forever.

Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2

[Chris]

Only anti authority. Not everything.

Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2

You're anti-religion, anti-family, anti free market, what's left?

[Chris]

Because we live in society and for society to work is necessary some kind of agreement among the individuals. Free and voluntary contract that you repeat forever.

Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2


That's why there are wars. You insist everyone conforms to your self-anointed vision. It's a fatal conceit because not everyone wants what you want, not everyone envisions the world your way.

[Chris]

First off, you are making this a battle between me and you. That was never my intention. I'm sick of all this anarchist talk in general, just like people are disgusted with the GOP, I don't take that personally. Dragging in the police issue is way off base. Naive I am not. I know there are bad cops just as there are bad soldiers. I have traveled to over 15 countries and have family living in several countries worldwide and two nieces living in Africa as missionaries. I know what's out there. So if you want to compare visas, I'm game.

Our government is far from perfect, but anarchy is not the answer. Smaller government is the answer, and when people keep electing Democrats, the poster child for big government, we will continue to have these issues.



How small?

The world seems to be trending away from big national governments and towards smaller entities.

[kilgram]

That's why there are wars. You insist everyone conforms to your self-anointed vision. It's a fatal conceit because not everyone wants what you want, not everyone envisions the world your way.

Without agreement there is war. In your system you would have constant wars.

Workers vs land owners and employers, corporations vs corporations...

And for example taking your example of the security firms of you and codename, to work what you described you should have to get an agreement. Simple. And the same with other companies implicit or explicit.

Societies work under agreement and without agreement nothing works.

Neither everyone envisions your system.

When I am asked about my system I say how it would work once achieved.
Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2

[Chris]

Without agreement there is war. In your system you would have constant wars.

Workers vs land owners and employers, corporations vs corporations...

And for example taking your example of the security firms of you and codename, to work what you described you should have to get an agreement. Simple. And the same with other companies implicit or explicit.

Societies work under agreement and without agreement nothing works.

Neither everyone envisions your system.

When I am asked about my system I say how it would work once achieved.
Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2


If there must be agreement with the absolutes of your vision, where is freedom? Agreement by definition is voluntary.

You sound like Hobbes with with everyone at war with each other.

[Redrose]

How small?

The world seems to be trending away from big national governments and towards smaller entities.


That is a good point. Not small, but scaled back, considerably. We need government at the federal level, but we need to give more power back at the state level. Our government has gorged itself to proportions that are dangerous. Big governmenrt requires big revenue and that comes out of our pockets. Instead of stressing self reliance and personable responsibility, as a few on here have advocated, this currenr admin. has done everything in it's power to entrap people onto the government dole. If we were allowed to work and keep most of our eranings, instead of giving a huge hunk to Uncle Sam, we would be a much happier society. The only reason we are taxed so high is to fund big governments "generosity". I don't want to work to support anyone else but my own family. Get off your duff and work.

Those that are truly disabled or between a rock and a hard spot will always be cared for, but not the millions that are cooling their heels on welfare on our dime just because they can. That is wrong and needs to stop.

We need a strong military, well funded. We need a well funded space program, so we are not dependant on Russia. We need to keep government out of our bedrooms, our kitchens, our schools and our churches. And the term "political correctness" needs to be eliminated from our vernacular.

These pockets of people bartering services is wonderful, but you can't run a society of our magnitiude on bartering. The world has evoled to massive proportions far beyond "groups of self-sufficiency".
The IRS didn't tax bartering prior to the late eighties.

I agree with a lot of what people are advocating on this forum, but I am perplexed why some of them still support the Dems and Obama. It's contradictory.

[kilgram]

If there must be agreement with the absolutes of your vision, where is freedom? Agreement by definition is voluntary.

You sound like Hobbes with with everyone at war with each other.

I am talking of a fact of reality. How many times in your life you must negotiate something? Almost every day. You need to make agreements with other people constantly.

For example, where eat if you want to eat with your friends...

Who talked of the absolutes? One thing is discuss what I would like and other the reality.

Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2

[Chris]

I am talking of a fact of reality. How many times in your life you must negotiate something? Almost every day. You need to make agreements with other people constantly.

For example, where eat if you want to eat with your friends...

Who talked of the absolutes? One thing is discuss what I would like and other the reality.

Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2



I'm weary of people merely claiming reality for their visions.

The issue is not with what you call agreements, what I'd call cooperation. People do that all the time, cooperate in actions, exchanges, trades, promises, so on so forth--most of the time unconscious they are even cooperating because that's just the way society works--the society you want to trash and replace with your vision.

The issue is with absolutes. You insist everyone must absolutely agree with your system of democratic communism. Granted, you refuse to acknowledge your insistence, because you think it will just happen if everyone were just reasonable. But that ain't going to happen: Society doesn't work that way, society doesn't operate on reason but something more akin to passions, society doesn't function at the individual conscious level.

[Chris]

That is a good point. Not small, but scaled back, considerably. We need government at the federal level, but we need to give more power back at the state level. Our government has gorged itself to proportions that are dangerous. Big governmenrt requires big revenue and that comes out of our pockets. Instead of stressing self reliance and personable responsibility, as a few on here have advocated, this currenr admin. has done everything in it's power to entrap people onto the government dole. If we were allowed to work and keep most of our eranings, instead of giving a huge hunk to Uncle Sam, we would be a much happier society. The only reason we are taxed so high is to fund big governments "generosity". I don't want to work to support anyone else but my own family. Get off your duff and work.

Those that are truly disabled or between a rock and a hard spot will always be cared for, but not the millions that are cooling their heels on welfare on our dime just because they can. That is wrong and needs to stop.

We need a strong military, well funded. We need a well funded space program, so we are not dependant on Russia. We need to keep government out of our bedrooms, our kitchens, our schools and our churches. And the term "political correctness" needs to be eliminated from our vernacular.

These pockets of people bartering services is wonderful, but you can't run a society of our magnitiude on bartering. The world has evoled to massive proportions far beyond "groups of self-sufficiency".
The IRS didn't tax bartering prior to the late eighties.

I agree with a lot of what people are advocating on this forum, but I am perplexed why some of them still support the Dems and Obama. It's contradictory.


If smaller is better, then even smaller might be even better.

If you could manage to scale back the size and reach of federal government to the way you prefer, to give power back to the states, and perhaps the states back to the counties, etc, back to society, the people, then you would hear much from us anarchists as there'd be for most of us little to be anti- about because you're looking in and wanting to move in the same direction.

I'm sorry but I don't see much if any hope in the Republicans either.

[donttread]

That is the great lie propagated by the state and the capital.

Anarchism is a very organized system without authority and horizontally. It is a definition that the wrongly self called anarchists will deny.

But anarchism is a very complex system that cannot be explained in a few posts in a forum and divided in two great schools with subschools

Social anarchism, the most practical

Individualist anarchism, more theoric.

Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2

The "anarchy " I'm reading about on this post sounds a whole lot like little local governments.

[Redrose]

If smaller is better, then even smaller might be even better.

If you could manage to scale back the size and reach of federal government to the way you prefer, to give power back to the states, and perhaps the states back to the counties, etc, back to society, the people, then you would hear much from us anarchists as there'd be for most of us little to be anti- about because you're looking in and wanting to move in the same direction.

I'm sorry but I don't see much if any hope in the Republicans either.


I agree with you. The "style" of politician we have now is "six of one, half dozen of the other". An old saying, but it still holds true. They are all cut from the same cloth. Even 3rd party candidates will fall under the same web of corruption. Unfortunately, campaigning has become the toy of the filthy rich. It's obscene how much money is spent on campaigns, especially when people are going to bed hungry in this land. We need to change campaign laws to roll back spending not increase it. If we limited campaign spending, a whole new field of candidates would arise. Who knows we may get a good one out of them.

[Bo-4]

John Stossel -- REALLY? I'm rooting for Dr D to box his ears again. :cool:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrX9Ca7LSyQ

[Chris]

I agree with you. The "style" of politician we have now is "six of one, half dozen of the other". An old saying, but it still holds true. They are all cut from the same cloth. Even 3rd party candidates will fall under the same web of corruption. Unfortunately, campaigning has become the toy of the filthy rich. It's obscene how much money is spent on campaigns, especially when people are going to bed hungry in this land. We need to change campaign laws to roll back spending not increase it. If we limited campaign spending, a whole new field of candidates would arise. Who knows we may get a good one out of them.

If we limited the size and scope of government there'd remain little for the rich to purchase.

NOTA might help.

Agree on 3rd party candidates as well. Used to belong to the Libertarian Party, back a ways when they operated at the state level, but when they went national something made me question why a libertarian would want to get elected, to get elected you have to sell your soul.

[Peter1469]

How many of those do you think get filed with the IRS? :smiley:


@PolWatch (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1099)

What you are describing is bartering. I think it's great, but Uncle Sam wants his piece of it. A Pediatrician may deliver a baby for an auto mechanic for free, then the mechanic will fix the doctor's car in return. Nothing wrong with that. But the big government wants to tax the value of those services. That is why we have Bartering 1099's.

I don't want anarchy, I do want smaller government, less government oversight, less government control in our lives. This current administration has expanded government control in our lives to dangerous levels. The most dangerous instrument of this control is the ACA. The legal language in that law allows big government to basically take over our lives. It lays the legal groundwork for them to build on to keep us under the heavy hand of big government. The used the issue of health insurance as a smokescreen to sell it. They had to claim they didn't read it, rather than admit it was full of oppressive rules and mandates.

We need to roll back this massive government monster and give more power back at the state level. This next 2016 election will determine what we become as a nation.

[Redrose]

How many of those do you think get filed with the IRS? :smiley:

If people were smart, none of them would be filed. But as an auditor I did see a lot of them. One person would send in a 1099 for a service (as a deduction) and not tell the corresponding party. That sucks. So now of course the other party is notified of the unreported service (which is considered income)

I think we should be allowed to barter among ourselves and keep the IRS out of it.

But again I must refer to the ACA. That bad law has exposed us, as a society, to unmeasureable control by the Federal government.

[Peter1469]

OK, I see that.

That would be a bad anarchist. :smiley:


If people were smart, none of them would be filed. But as an auditor I did see a lot of them. One person would send in a 1099 for a service (as a deduction) and not tell the corresponding party. That sucks. So now of course the other party is notified of the unreported service (which is considered income)

I think we should be allowed to barter among ourselves and keep the IRS out of it.

But again I must refer to the ACA. That bad law has exposed us, as a society, to unmeasureable control by the Federal government.

[Redrose]

OK, I see that.

That would be a bad anarchist. :smiley:


In my experience it was bad business, poor friendship. Like PolWatch told. She sews for someone who does gardening work for her. That is wonderful, practical. The IRS needs to stay out.

In the cases I was aware of, the accountant convinced the taxpayer to issues a 1099 to reduce the tax liability, which was a breach of the verbal contract he had with the other party.

If we barter, we must be careful whom we barter with and trust they won't send a 1099 to the IRS for a tax offset.

I do not support anarchy, I do support smaller government less involved in our personal lives. There is a difference.

[PolWatch]

I'm mean....I'd cut their pants too short & hem one leg higher than the other! :wink:

[Redrose]

I'm mean....I'd cut their pants too short & hem one leg higher than the other! :wink:


Even better, sew their zipper closed with a triple zig zag stitch. (I did that once :evil: )

[Mac-7]

If we limited the size and scope of government there'd remain little for the rich to purchase.

.

That's the first rational thing I ever heard you say.

[Guerilla]

I had an idea of getting groups of us together and applying for right to buy land and establish a nation in Russia. The country is under-populated and there are vast tracts of usable land, plus it would piss of the US so they might be amenable to a micronation within their realms.

Micronation! I haven't heard that word in so long! Me and a couple friends used to discuss starting our own micronation all the time. We'd get really deep into it and discuss all the intricacies, but after high school I think they got kind of disillusioned with the idea, but they probably still agree philosophically. I'm still down though! You should go to Kamatchka(sp?) I hear it's awesome, and I don't think anyone lives there.. Or maybe they do... Just recruit them. :smiley:

[Guerilla]

Under total anarchy whom enforces the laws? Are there any laws? If someone robs me do I simply hunt them down and kill them? If so does their family do the same to me? What of my elderly neighbor with no real ability to defend himself? What's to stop me from claiming some guy I don't like and killing him?

Most everyone in the world agrees, anyone who steals, cheats, rapes, murders, lies, should be punished. People will surely enforce this, whatever method they so choose. Same as today, it would simply be a matter of the communities option on how to handle it, guided by community norms.


Its possible that I am missing something or just don't understand, but....what is described sounds like a fairy tale. It might have worked 100 years ago, but I don't see it being successful today. The ability to pay for private protection would mean we would have overlords for poor communities and those citizens would be serfs. Back to the Medieval times? Not really a lot different from today....those with the most $$$ make the rules.

So you will see chris explain for his method which is anarchocapitalist, which can work, but many of the anarchists are weary of corporate influence still, so we would rather come up with another form of defense. Militias, and confederacies.


It might have worked 100 years ago, but I don't see it being successful today.
That's the most exciting part, it seems that only in recent modern times has the possibility of anarchy been available. This is due to the advances in technology. First, we can provide for ourselves much better with the drastic increases in efficiency. Communications have improved so much that you can talk to someone on the other side of the world as if they were next to you. This means that militias, confederacies, and community policing will be significantly easier to coordinate. Not the case 100 years ago. Today we could build water towers that pull water out of the air. The individual can do things now, that would have taken much longer to setup and operate and maintain 100 years ago, so I'd say things are easier now.

The sad part is, this isn't even the half of it, because the elitists who want to keep the status quo going, want to suppress technology. New technology means new industry and that means the elites will get put out of business. They are interested in money, not the people. This is why they employ business methods like artificial scarcity as well as planned obsolescence. This is why they suppressed Nikola Teslas (my avatar) technologies, which included incredibly efficient mechanical configurations, as well as cleaner forms of energy, and an engine that ran on friction caused by the water passing through it!!! Elites said, nope, too much competition. Keep the status quo.

So when people say we would be better off just correcting the "minor" government problems we have. That isn't even the half of it.

[Guerilla]

We'd go back to the old neighborhoods with the Mafia "protecting" people for a fee. This anarchist crap is so juvinile. It's the "fashionable" thing to be in some age groups. They don't want to be associated with the politics of their parents. It's stupid and foolish, junior high nonsense.

Spare me the bullshit.

[Guerilla]

That's very politic. It's kind of like someone who believes in national socialism calling themselves a national socialist. The term just presses too many buttons. Similarly, anarchism carries with it too many negative connotations.

Yup. I hate how they turned a political idea, that has books written on it, into a scary word with their propaganda. I could call myself a voluntarist, but I first identified as an anarchosyndicalist, so I feel weird changing it just because of everyone elses misconception. It would probably help though.

[Alyosha]

Guerilla

you are why I signed on. You make us so proud!

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1111675/thumbs/o-JON-SNOW-YGRITTE-facebook.jpg

What do you think of geolibertarians?


Who are the Geolibertarians? We Geolibertarians distinguish ourselves from right-wing, "royal" libertarians (http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html) by our profound respect for the principle that one has private property in the fruits of one's labor. This includes the fruits of mental labor and the results of reinvestment of legitimate private property (capital) in future production. We remain consistent in that respect by recognizing, as did the classic liberals, that land and raw natural resources are not the fruits of labor, but a common heritage to be accessed on terms that are equal under the law for everyone. The statist system of land tenure empowers non-producing landlords to extract the fruits of tenants' labor.

We also consider ourselves "green" in our respect for the earth as our common heritage. However, we clearly distinguish between land as common property and land as state property. Unlike left-wing or "watermelon" greens, we advocate governance of land in harmony with free market principles, and deny the right of statist bureaucracies to meddle in the affairs of individual land holders. We see ourselves as embracing the best attributes of the Green and Libertarian parties (http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/greenlibertarians.html).


Geolibertarians also believe in free trade, with no state support for monopoly privileges of any kind. We therefore oppose money monopolies, information monopolies, a host of lesser monopolies, and most of all, monopoly of the power to govern, as embodied by statist political systems. We are not nihilistic anarchists. We believe that monopoly privileges can be gently and methodically displaced without disrupting to society, even when statists resort to violence to prevent it.

[Guerilla]

@Guerilla (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=606)

you are why I signed on. You make us so proud!

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1111675/thumbs/o-JON-SNOW-YGRITTE-facebook.jpg

What do you think of geolibertarians?

I think I love it when I find a name for my ideas. :)


This includes the fruits of mental labor and the results of reinvestment of legitimate private property (capital) in future production. We remain consistent in that respect by recognizing, as did the classic liberals, that land and raw natural resources are not the fruits of labor, but a common heritage to be accessed on terms that are equal under the law for everyone. The statist system of land tenure empowers non-producing landlords to extract the fruits of tenants' labor.


Best part^

[Alyosha]

You see, Mamabear "knows". :)

[Peter1469]

You see, Mamabear "knows". :)

Just be careful with that spear.

[Alyosha]

Just be careful with that spear.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/3b/3b9632f69a1d9816e989a9dc45805dce2afa17bed88a70d5dc b980fba9c3e62d.jpg

[Peter1469]

Try is the operative word :smiley:

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/3b/3b9632f69a1d9816e989a9dc45805dce2afa17bed88a70d5dc b980fba9c3e62d.jpg

[Alyosha]

He is a fast runner and can dart back and forth.

[zelmo1234]

No, it's something that puts you on a government watch list so a lot of people are "in the closet" about it. When people think "anarchy" they assume "chaos" so I just say I'm a voluntarist now which is a better description.

I am not anti-government I am anti-state. Government is just people getting together and organically coming to a decision appropriate to the problem without codifying a one size fits all "law". Laws don't take into consideration location, circumstance, and individuals. So what we're talking about is the adjudication of disputes.

In tribal systems if say someone was murdered, the alleged perpetrator was brought before the "tribe" and the wisest person was chosen to adjudicate. If he made a decision the tribe didn't agree with, it went back to the tribe, but mostly out of respect the decisions remained. This worked for people for thousands of years (still does in parts of the world) without set laws.

No system will remove crime or brutality. For all our laws and enforcement agents, we still have crime and with government we also have large scale violence.

All I'm offering is something that will reduce the capacity for genocide and a prison complex.

Actually it would increase the chances of that. The native American tribes were often at war with each other, it was not peace and harmony.

Anarchy is survival of the fittest and is totally impossible will 330+ million people.

What is possible is federalism, which is what the founding fathers tried to set up. The tyrannical government that we now have is nothing like the government intended by the founding fathers.

The small ray of hope that we can have is, when the federal government becomes insolvent, the balance of power will shift back to the states

[Alyosha]

Actually it would increase the chances of that. The native American tribes were often at war with each other, it was not peace and harmony.

The evidence for always being at war with each other is based on the word of explorers for archaeological evidence is dubious. You have the French who said they were always at war and John Smith who painted them as innocents.




Anarchy is survival of the fittest and is totally impossible will 330+ million people.


No more than government politics and less destructive.

[kilgram]

The evidence for always being at war with each other is based on the word of explorers for archaeological evidence is dubious. You have the French who said they were always at war and John Smith who painted them as innocents.



No more than government politics and less destructive.
Not so absolute, depends of the government and the anarchy. For example I prefer a government rather the anarchy that defends Chris.

And I would prefer any anarchism of you or guerilla than government.

Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2

[kilgram]

I'm weary of people merely claiming reality for their visions.

The issue is not with what you call agreements, what I'd call cooperation. People do that all the time, cooperate in actions, exchanges, trades, promises, so on so forth--most of the time unconscious they are even cooperating because that's just the way society works--the society you want to trash and replace with your vision.

The issue is with absolutes. You insist everyone must absolutely agree with your system of democratic communism. Granted, you refuse to acknowledge your insistence, because you think it will just happen if everyone were just reasonable. But that ain't going to happen: Society doesn't work that way, society doesn't operate on reason but something more akin to passions, society doesn't function at the individual conscious level.

Yeah, but just socialise a bit and you'll see how egotist is the human. Obviously that generates problems. Everything for the sake or power.

I don't see the problem in insist in something. By the way when people starts to selfmanage they create systems like mine like Ucraine 1918, Spain 1936 or Greece 2014.

Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2

[Chris]

In my experience it was bad business, poor friendship. Like PolWatch told. She sews for someone who does gardening work for her. That is wonderful, practical. The IRS needs to stay out.

In the cases I was aware of, the accountant convinced the taxpayer to issues a 1099 to reduce the tax liability, which was a breach of the verbal contract he had with the other party.

If we barter, we must be careful whom we barter with and trust they won't send a 1099 to the IRS for a tax offset.

I do not support anarchy, I do support smaller government less involved in our personal lives. There is a difference.



What you're talking about here is how reputation can replace regulation. Do business with others and do them well they'll return to do more business, but screw them over they won't, or worse, seek revenge.

[Chris]

...So you will see chris explain for his method which is anarchocapitalist, which can work, but many of the anarchists are weary of corporate influence still, so we would rather come up with another form of defense. Militias, and confederacies....

There is nothing in anarchocapitalism that requires corporations. Like most I see them, or more generally, the rich, who can purchase favor from the state, as equal problem with the state, and must go with it. My only concern is you do not increase the power of the state to rid us of the rich as that would be immoral and only create a bigger problem. Without the state, the rich would have little power or influence, having no political means to obtain what they want they'd have to resort to economic means, that is, providing people what they value.

[Chris]

Yeah, but just socialise a bit and you'll see how egotist is the human. Obviously that generates problems. Everything for the sake or power.

I don't see the problem in insist in something. By the way when people starts to selfmanage they create systems like mine like Ucraine 1918, Spain 1936 or Greece 2014.

Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2


There are two means to obtain what you want, the political and the economic. With the state gone, there would be no political means. Leaving you with the economic, that is, providing other what they want in exchange for what you want.

Give Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies a read, he dispels the Platonic analogy that associated altruism with the collective and egoism with the individual. It's that analogy, passed on through, among others, Hegel and Marx, that you rely on. It's bunk.

I have no problem with people voluntarily, freely choosing your democratic communism. Why do you reject people voluntarily, freely choosing other systems for their community? Besides, in order to survive, no matter what these communities choose, they will have to internally and externally divide up labor, specialize and trade.

[donttread]

I agree with you. The "style" of politician we have now is "six of one, half dozen of the other". An old saying, but it still holds true. They are all cut from the same cloth. Even 3rd party candidates will fall under the same web of corruption. Unfortunately, campaigning has become the toy of the filthy rich. It's obscene how much money is spent on campaigns, especially when people are going to bed hungry in this land. We need to change campaign laws to roll back spending not increase it. If we limited campaign spending, a whole new field of candidates would arise. Who knows we may get a good one out of them.

So then it would follow that you are big fans of localized economies, as am I

[Chris]

So then it would follow that you are big fans of localized economies, as am I

Localized economies are isolated economies. The anthropological record shows that societies that become isolated from trade degenerate if not disappear. Sure, a locality should specialize, seek comparative advantage (Ricardo), from which to trade with others.

[kilgram]

There are two means to obtain what you want, the political and the economic. With the state gone, there would be no political means. Leaving you with the economic, that is, providing other what they want in exchange for what you want.

Give Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies a read, he dispels the Platonic analogy that associated altruism with the collective and egoism with the individual. It's that analogy, passed on through, among others, Hegel and Marx, that you rely on. It's bunk.

I have no problem with people voluntarily, freely choosing your democratic communism. Why do you reject people voluntarily, freely choosing other systems for their community? Besides, in order to survive, no matter what these communities choose, they will have to internally and externally divide up labor, specialize and trade.

Wrong,capitalist theory. That is not applied to postcapitalist system.

Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk

[Chris]

Wrong,capitalist theory. That is not applied to postcapitalist system.

Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk


Your theory of capitalism doesn't apply now either. So what.

[kilgram]

Your theory of capitalism doesn't apply now either. So what.

Really? Sure?

Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk

[kilgram]

There are two means to obtain what you want, the political and the economic. With the state gone, there would be no political means. Leaving you with the economic, that is, providing other what they want in exchange for what you want.

Give Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies a read, he dispels the Platonic analogy that associated altruism with the collective and egoism with the individual. It's that analogy, passed on through, among others, Hegel and Marx, that you rely on. It's bunk.

I have no problem with people voluntarily, freely choosing your democratic communism. Why do you reject people voluntarily, freely choosing other systems for their community? Besides, in order to survive, no matter what these communities choose, they will have to internally and externally divide up labor, specialize and trade.

Boring.

I don't reject people will want to freely become slaves again when they are free. I reject the idea that they would want to go to that situation. That is stupid.

I've explained you thousand of times that I don't refuse other systems.

Now, about that the individualism is a system that empowers egotism is a fact like the ideology of Stirner. A social anarchist system is based in a greater social conscience with basis and emphasis in mutual aid and solidarity.

By the way you should read Mutual aid of Kropotkin.

Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk

[Codename Section]

Not so absolute, depends of the government and the anarchy. For example I prefer a government rather the anarchy that defends Chris.

And I would prefer any anarchism of you or guerilla than government.

Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2


Why would you live in Chris' anarchist community and not your own? Why force government on people when you can just move to a different type of community?

[Codename Section]

There is nothing in anarchocapitalism that requires corporations. Like most I see them, or more generally, the rich, who can purchase favor from the state, as equal problem with the state, and must go with it. My only concern is you do not increase the power of the state to rid us of the rich as that would be immoral and only create a bigger problem. Without the state, the rich would have little power or influence, having no political means to obtain what they want they'd have to resort to economic means, that is, providing people what they value.

You could argue it is just as immoral to leave them knowing that they commit crimes against man and nature. Would you walk past someone raping a female?

Even if it is not you, you have the right to and duty to stop a crime from happening.

[Codename Section]

Micronation! I haven't heard that word in so long! Me and a couple friends used to discuss starting our own micronation all the time. We'd get really deep into it and discuss all the intricacies, but after high school I think they got kind of disillusioned with the idea, but they probably still agree philosophically. I'm still down though! You should go to Kamatchka(sp?) I hear it's awesome, and I don't think anyone lives there.. Or maybe they do... Just recruit them. :smiley:

They would probably allow a micronation, but not a microstate. Then again, maybe they would. We have pissed them off and they do need money.

[kilgram]

Why would you live in Chris' anarchist community and not your own? Why force government on people when you can just move to a different type of community?

Because it was an example.

Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk

[kilgram]

There is nothing in anarchocapitalism that requires corporations. Like most I see them, or more generally, the rich, who can purchase favor from the state, as equal problem with the state, and must go with it. My only concern is you do not increase the power of the state to rid us of the rich as that would be immoral and only create a bigger problem. Without the state, the rich would have little power or influence, having no political means to obtain what they want they'd have to resort to economic means, that is, providing people what they value.

From the moment you have private property you have corporations. From the moment that you can have hired workers and wage you have corporations and wage slavery.

Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk

[Chris]

From the moment you have private property you have corporations. From the moment that you can have hired workers and wage you have corporations and wage slavery.

Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk


I own private property, kilgram, land, house, truck, etc. I am not a corporation. Your premise is false.

I work for a company, the agreement between us is entirely voluntary. Your second premise is false.

Your premises are false because you choose to define free market capitalism as something it is not. You deliberately argue from an ambiguity between Smithian capitalism and Marxist capitalism. It's no different than the intellectual dishonesty exhibited when some define anarchy as chaos, or some conflate noninterventionism with isolationism.

I am against corporations generally and slavery specifically. Anyone arguing from a free market position is against those things. But you will predictably redefine the free market to suit your political propagandist prejudices and preferences.

[Chris]

You could argue it is just as immoral to leave them knowing that they commit crimes against man and nature. Would you walk past someone raping a female?

Even if it is not you, you have the right to and duty to stop a crime from happening.


No man is an island, we are all part of society, or societies, and so harming one harms all, so surely it is moral to defend those harmed.

The crime I speak of is the collusion of the rich, the bankers, the corporations, etc, and the powerful, the state. If you try to stop the "raper" its protector will interfere and squash you. That is what OWS found, it protested against Wall Street, and got tear gassed and clubbed and arrested.

[kilgram]

I own private property, kilgram, land, house, truck, etc. I am not a corporation. Your premise is false.

I work for a company, the agreement between us is entirely voluntary. Your second premise is false.

Your premises are false because you choose to define free market capitalism as something it is not. You deliberately argue from an ambiguity between Smithian capitalism and Marxist capitalism. It's no different than the intellectual dishonesty exhibited when some define anarchy as chaos, or some conflate noninterventionism with isolationism.

I am against corporations generally and slavery specifically. Anyone arguing from a free market position is against those things. But you will predictably redefine the free market to suit your political propagandist prejudices and preferences.

Are you against the wages?

Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk

[Chris]

Are you against the wages?

Отправлено с моего MT15i через Tapatalk


Your asking me such a question makes no sense. I just told you I work for a company, the agreement we have is voluntary.

[donttread]

@Guerilla (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=606)

you are why I signed on. You make us so proud!

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1111675/thumbs/o-JON-SNOW-YGRITTE-facebook.jpg

What do you think of geolibertarians?

I'd consider joining if you'd move to a warmer climate. It looks pretty harsh to be off grid in those pics

[Heyduke]

A good example of anarchy would be the Quakers- total anarcho-socialists. No rulers. No paid clergy. They really didn't even revere the Bible as an authority. To the Quakers ( the society of friends ) the ultimate authority was an individual's 'inner light'. For that reason, every man and woman's opinion was respected.

Examples of libertarian societies; The Iroquois League of Nations a the 9th Century Icelandic culture.

We can't go back to the past, but we can look to the past to understand our natural state of organization. It is libertarian, and centered upon personal individual freedom. We are not insects. We are men and women.

Remember, man is not yet man. Human evolution is an upward spiral. The next turn around, we might do a better job of living in freedom without trotting upon the toes of our neighbors. We might not need soda Nazis, Grubers, Big Sister Nannies and the Surveillance State to keep watch over us.

[Chris]

A good example of anarchy would be the Quakers- total anarcho-socialists. No rulers. No paid clergy. They really didn't even revere the Bible as an authority. To the Quakers ( the society of friends ) the ultimate authority was an individual's 'inner light'. For that reason, every man and woman's opinion was respected.

Examples of libertarian societies; The Iroquois League of Nations a the 9th Century Icelandic culture.

We can't go back to the past, but we can look to the past to understand our natural state of organization. It is libertarian, and centered upon personal individual freedom. We are not insects. We are men and women.

Remember, man is not yet man. Human evolution is an upward spiral. The next turn around, we might do a better job of living in freedom without trotting upon the toes of our neighbors. We might not need soda Nazis, Grubers, Big Sister Nannies and the Surveillance State to keep watch over us.


John Haidt, social psychologist, in The Righteous Mind, writes “We are selfish and we are groupish. We are 90 percent chimp and 10 percent bee."

[Mac-7]

Secular idealists cannot dream up any system that will work the way they want it to.

Because humans are sinners and sooner or later will corrupt any system made by man.

[Chris]

Secular idealists cannot dream up any system that will work the way they want it to.

Because humans are sinners and sooner or later will corrupt any system made by man.


Perfect example of that, the state.

[Mac-7]

Perfect example of that, the state.

And yet the secularists keep trying.

[Chris]

And yet the secularists keep trying.

You must be a secularist then because as an interventionist you advocate a big intrusive state.

[Mac-7]

You must be a secularist then because as an interventionist you advocate a big intrusive state.

Im not dreaming of a man-made nirvana of anarchism or whatever goofy idea you're into today.

[Chris]

Im not dreaming of a man-made nirvana of anarchism or whatever goofy idea you're into today.

Good, neither am I. Not even sure what nirvana is.

Now, was that idiotic response your dissembling from your statist political positions?

[Mac-7]

Good, neither am I. Not even sure what nirvana is.

Now, was that idiotic response your dissembling from your statist political positions?

I support an organized government instead of anarchy and random mayhem.

If that makes me a statist then so be it.

[Chris]

I support an organized government instead of anarchy and random mayhem.

If that makes me a statist then so be it.

Codename Section, you just got to love it, don't you? The dissembling statist argument that anarchy is chaos. :facepalm:

[Mac-7]

@Codename Section (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=866), you just got to love it, don't you? The dissembling statist argument that anarchy is chaos. :facepalm:

Thats what anarchy means.

[Chris]

Thats what anarchy means.

In logic, this is known as the fallacy of equivocation.

Annoy a liberal, use facts and logic. :D

[Heyduke]

Thats what anarchy means.

Then you deny that the Quakers were anarcho-socialist?

Anarchy means 'without rulers'. From what root of the word do you derive chaos?

This is what happens when you allow a statist to define anarchy or libertarianism. You invariably get something along the lines of chaos, selfish, spiteful, foolish, violent, etc..

[Heyduke]

John Haidt, social psychologist, in The Righteous Mind, writes “We are selfish and we are groupish. We are 90 percent chimp and 10 percent bee."

Well, I would respectfully disagree. I would say, ideally, we are 100% human, or will be someday.

[Chris]

Well, I would respectfully disagree. I would say, ideally, we are 100% human, or will be someday.

Is human selfish or groupish? Or, perhaps better terms, self-interested or collectivist?

[Guerilla]

A good example of anarchy would be the Quakers- total anarcho-socialists. No rulers. No paid clergy. They really didn't even revere the Bible as an authority. To the Quakers ( the society of friends ) the ultimate authority was an individual's 'inner light'. For that reason, every man and woman's opinion was respected.

Examples of libertarian societies; The Iroquois League of Nations a the 9th Century Icelandic culture.

We can't go back to the past, but we can look to the past to understand our natural state of organization. It is libertarian, and centered upon personal individual freedom. We are not insects. We are men and women.

Remember, man is not yet man. Human evolution is an upward spiral. The next turn around, we might do a better job of living in freedom without trotting upon the toes of our neighbors. We might not need soda Nazis, Grubers, Big Sister Nannies and the Surveillance State to keep watch over us.


There is a thread about the Iroquois being the first federalism, feel free to take a look- http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/35380-Native-Americans-Perfect-Government

I think the next turn around for humans is coming pretty quick. It seems an era maybe ending.

[Guerilla]

There is nothing in anarchocapitalism that requires corporations. Like most I see them, or more generally, the rich, who can purchase favor from the state, as equal problem with the state, and must go with it. My only concern is you do not increase the power of the state to rid us of the rich as that would be immoral and only create a bigger problem. Without the state, the rich would have little power or influence, having no political means to obtain what they want they'd have to resort to economic means, that is, providing people what they value.

The rich will always have much influence, because greed is strong in some people.

Personally, I also don't think it's healthy for people to be in those kinds of positions of CEOs and rulers. I think it's unnatural and gives many people a kind of complex that is dangerous for free society.

[Heyduke]

Is human selfish or groupish? Or, perhaps better terms, self-interested or collectivist?

Both. We live in ego, seeing ourselves as individuals. But we also are a social animal striving for good company.

And if you look at the evolutionary concept of group selection, you discover the case for altruism. Natural selection chooses individual winners, but also chooses winning groups. Take two bands of cavemen competing for resources. The band which includes sharing, self-sacrificing individuals will outcompete a group of self-absorbed individuals.

We were made for anarcho-socialism. Agriculture resulted in settlements, money, specialization, cops and government. That's a recent development.

[Chris]

Both. We live in ego, seeing ourselves as individuals. But we also are a social animal striving for good company.

And if you look at the evolutionary concept of group selection, you discover the case for altruism. Natural selection chooses individual winners, but also chooses winning groups. Take two bands of cavemen competing for resources. The band which includes sharing, self-sacrificing individuals will outcompete a group of self-absorbed individuals.

We were made for anarcho-socialism. Agriculture resulted in settlements, money, specialization, cops and government. That's a recent development.



Well, that's what Haidt is getting at, though we can disagree with his percentages.


Anthropologically, from the earliest man on we see division of labor, specialization and trade. That's anarcho-capitalism. The anthropological record also shows that groups that isolated from trade, lost specialization, degenerated, and many disappeared.

[Heyduke]

Well, that's what Haidt is getting at, though we can disagree with his percentages.


Anthropologically, from the earliest man on we see division of labor, specialization and trade. That's anarcho-capitalism. The anthropological record also shows that groups that isolated from trade, lost specialization, degenerated, and many disappeared.

China survived for centuries by isolating itself from trade. Now, they have a heavily export-dependent economy. You can imagine a scenario (global slowdown of consumption) where their modern model might become a weakness.

Russia is suffering from price deflation of their main export products. Their money lost value making imports prohibitively expensive. Add sanctions to the formula, and Putin is forced to work towards self-sufficiency. They're building their own cashless payment system and rejecting Visa/MasterCard. They're seeking to build their own electronics after having pissed of the Dutch and Germany. And because imports are expensive, domestic agriculture and other products are incentivized.

The US needs to close its trade deficit, and it is. That's going to happen. The world is entering a decoupling period. It's just part of an ontological cycle.

Keynes changed his mind about free trade, later in life. Here's his essay on National Self Sufficiency
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/keynes.htm

Rome world government... fall of Empire... Christendom... Dark Ages... Renaissance... Civil War throughout Europe... colonization...World Wars and decolonization... Globalism...

Fetus... Separation at birth... Bonding with mother... Terrible 2s... Worship of parents... Teenager... Marriage... Divorce... Remarriage... Death

Ontology

[Heyduke]

Well, that's what Haidt is getting at, though we can disagree with his percentages.


Anthropologically, from the earliest man on we see division of labor, specialization and trade. That's anarcho-capitalism. The anthropological record also shows that groups that isolated from trade, lost specialization, degenerated, and many disappeared.


You can imagine a scenario where hyper-specialization might become a weakness (both for groups and individuals). Russia is too dependent on oil and gas exports. China is too dependent on exports, and the US is too dependent on imports.

For the first time in history, most people live in large cities. Cities require specialists. The guy who programs the traffic lights might not now how to cook, or fix a leaky kitchen sink. If the city succumbs to disorder, his specialization could become a weakness.

We see all this mirrored in bacteria. Colonies of bacteria come together, specialize (some become waste disposers, food processors, warriors, and even skeletons of microscopic skyscrapers. The colony competes with other colonies, goes to war, wins the world war, outgrows it's resources, and then you get a massive die-off.

"The city of chaos is broken down: every house is shut up, that no man may come in."
- Isaiah 24

[Chris]

You can imagine a scenario where hyper-specialization might become a weakness (both for groups and individuals). Russia is too dependent on oil and gas exports. China is too dependent on exports, and the US is too dependent on imports.

For the first time in history, most people live in large cities. Cities require specialists. The guy who programs the traffic lights might not now how to cook, or fix a leaky kitchen sink. If the city succumbs to disorder, his specialization could become a weakness.

We see all this mirrored in bacteria. Colonies of bacteria come together, specialize (some become waste disposers, food processors, warriors, and even skeletons of microscopic skyscrapers. The colony competes with other colonies, goes to war, wins the world war, outgrows it's resources, and then you get a massive die-off.

"The city of chaos is broken down: every house is shut up, that no man may come in."
- Isaiah 24



Most definitely. You need to seek competitive advantages, promote innovation, allow creative destruction. The individual and organic need to be balanced.

[Heyduke]

Most definitely. You need to seek competitive advantages, promote innovation, allow creative destruction. The individual and organic need to be balanced.

Ultimately, the collectivist and the individualist anarchist arrive at the same destination. Anarcho-socialism requires cooperation.

For Stirner, the individualist anarchist, he is allowed to develop undisturbed by indoctrination and paternalistic social engineering. He isn't artificially specialized, but becomes what he was destined to become. And if you believe in the goodness of Man, and his drive to find meaning in a social network, you'll conclude that he will most likely become a generous and prosperous citizen.

[Chris]

Ultimately, the collectivist and the individualist anarchist arrive at the same destination. Anarcho-socialism requires cooperation.

For Stirner, the individualist anarchist, he is allowed to develop undisturbed by indoctrination and paternalistic social engineering. He isn't artificially specialized, but becomes what he was destined to become. And if you believe in the goodness of Man, and his drive to find meaning in a social network, you'll conclude that he will most likely become a generous and prosperous citizen.


Actually, no, collectivism leads to the state, as Plato, Hegel, Marx propound. I think Rousseau and his belief in the goodness of man would agree with them. Now that leads to the same end as Hobbes and his believe man's basic nature was evil. I prefer the Lockean view that man is neither, or has the potential for both, and must be free to morally choose between good and evil in his social actions and contracts, though as an anarchist I disagree that we need to have a state at all even to protect natural rights..

[Redrose]

So then it would follow that you are big fans of localized economies, as am I

I do believe more power should be at the state level.

[donttread]

My problem with the anarchy described here as I understand it is that it simply sounds like local/tribal governments. It really doesn't sound like no government at all.
The further problem is that if we look at our current system municipalities are often even more controlling and abuse more rights ( especially property rights) than even the feds do.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for strong local governments but they must answer to someone. I submit that as bad as our state government's are , they remain our best hope as does the Constitution.

[Chris]

My problem with the anarchy described here as I understand it is that it simply sounds like local/tribal governments. It really doesn't sound like no government at all.
The further problem is that if we look at our current system municipalities are often even more controlling and abuse more rights ( especially property rights) than even the feds do.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for strong local governments but they must answer to someone. I submit that as bad as our state government's are , they remain our best hope as does the Constitution.

Anarchy is government through society just not the state.

[donttread]

Anarchy is government through society just not the state.

Municiple governments cannot be trusted

[Chris]

Municiple governments cannot be trusted

Society. Government, like anarchy, is ambiguous. I prefer governance. But by government I meant governance by social norms, mores, transitions, institutions. Language is such an social institution. Sure, there may be instances where some try to control its grammar, spelling, etc, but really no one is in charge, we all are, and it works quite well.

Now if you want to talk general axioms of government, the state, then if by the axiom smaller, more local government is better, the argument behind federalism, then it follows that even smaller, more local is better. Were the locus of power to reside in small, local, municipal/county government, then people would likely be more involved, their votes and voices count more.

Perhaps it depends on whether you trust the people, society, to govern itself.