NationStates Jolt Archive

If you had to choose where to live.

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Fascism. Anarchism would never work, and plus I prefer a strong central government.

Hard to say, really.
Depends upon the government. Is it a "munificent dictatorship",
or is it Nazi Germany?
It's a good thing to have society in some instances, i.e. group protection, etc. But that can also lead to group corruption.
A strong central government can also be a BAD thing (again, Nazi Germany).

Anarchism, too, having its bonuses, that being "The Strong Survive",
"Survival of the Fittest", "Evolution in its truest sense of the word",
a la nature.
But there's no guarantee of survival.

Personally, I lean towards anarchism.

Anarchism, too, having its bonuses, that being "The Strong Survive",
"Survival of the Fittest", "Evolution in its truest sense of the word",
a la nature.
But there's no guarantee of survival.

Actually, most forms of anarchism of based on mutual aid and coöperation, though some retain markets.

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Hard to say, really.
Depends upon the government. Is it a "munificent dictatorship",
or is it Nazi Germany?
It's a good thing to have society in some instances, i.e. group protection, etc. But that can also lead to group corruption.
A strong central government can also be a BAD thing (again, Nazi Germany).

Anarchism, too, having its bonuses, that being "The Strong Survive",
"Survival of the Fittest", "Evolution in its truest sense of the word",
a la nature.
But there's no guarantee of survival.

Personally, I lean towards anarchism.
Munificent? What does that mean?

Government and society are opposites.

"The govt strong enough to give you what you want is strong enough to take it away".

Anarchism has nothing to do with "survival of the fittest". That motto applies far better to states.

What about Nationalism?

Anarchism, too, having its bonuses, that being "The Strong Survive",
"Survival of the Fittest", "Evolution in its truest sense of the word",
a la nature.
But there's no guarantee of survival.

Actually, most forms of anarchism of based on mutual aid and coöperation, though some retain markets.

Markets are based on mutual aid and cooperation. But I don't think we want to start antagonising each other on this thread. :D

Fascism. I am strongly opposed to Anarchy and like CE I get a kick out of a strong central government :)

Fascism. Anarchism would never work, and plus I prefer a strong central government.
Did fasicism work? I think I'd last longer with no govt than in Nazi Germany or even fascist Italy or Spain.

Did fasicism work? I think I'd last longer with no govt than in Nazi Germany or even fascist Italy or Spain.

Well, we've never had anarchism have we.

What about Nationalism?

There is no 'neither' option. Create your own topic if you want to debate that.

Did fasicism work? I think I'd last longer with no govt than in Nazi Germany or even fascist Italy or Spain.

Well, we've never had anarchism have we.

Yes we have. But it is covered in practically every other thread on Anarchism.

What about Nationalism?

Nationalism is not a method of social organization. It has nothing at all to do with what Letila is asking.

Yes we have. But it is covered in practically every other thread on Anarchism.

Could you just quickly fill me in as to where?

I think you've got to have a bit of both. The Human Race started off as anarchic, the 'every man for himself' attitude, then the early man found they could be more personally successful if they stuck with others - even if it meant taking orders you didn't like. Slowly we developed into absolute monarchies, then slowly we have drifted back towards anarchism (with a few abberations eg Nazi Germany).

Anarchists have better civil rights (in a way), but Fascists have the best uniforms. Its so hard to choose.

Markets are based on mutual aid and cooperation. But I don't think we want to start antagonising each other on this thread.

I was under the impression that they are pretty competitive. In my view, without hierarchy and thus the opportunity to get rich off of others' labor, markets are pointless. It would make more sense to share resources as that would raise living conditions.

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Markets are based on mutual aid and cooperation. But I don't think we want to start antagonising each other on this thread.

I was under the impression that they are pretty competitive. In my view, without hierarchy and thus the opportunity to get rich off of others' labor, markets are pointless. It would make more sense to share resources as that would raise living conditions.

A Market system is based on the idea of cooperation for mutual benifit. The fact that one party might benifit more than another is just a motivating side effect. Commerce is not possible unless both parties are convinced that they have something to gain by making a transaction, thus, mutual gain.

I spent quite a bit of time trying to explain basically that and a bunch of other ideas viz. Anarchy and Capitalism in the region "Anarchy", but was met with some rather harsh resistance without much thought on the part of the "true" Anarchists. Funny, I always thought, since they were basically using the same tactics as statists have used throughout history to defame dissidents and free thinkers. I hardly hesitate to say that the majority of this site's "Anarchist" population has not truly adopted the ideals of Anarchy and many of them do not even understand what those ideals are.

A Market system is based on the idea of cooperation for mutual benifit. The fact that one party might benifit more than another is just a motivating side effect. Commerce is not possible unless both parties are convinced that they have something to gain by making a transaction, thus, mutual gain.

The other side accepts the lower gain because they can't afford not to. Capitalism gives the business owner more power than the worker.

I spent quite a bit of time trying to explain basically that and a bunch of other ideas viz. Anarchy and Capitalism in the region "Anarchy", but was met with some rather harsh resistance without much thought on the part of the "true" Anarchists. Funny, I always thought, since they were basically using the same tactics as statists have used throughout history to defame dissidents and free thinkers. I hardly hesitate to say that the majority of this site's "Anarchist" population has not truly adopted the ideals of Anarchy and many of them do not even understand what those ideals are.

Capitalism is a form of hierarchy no less than government. That's why it is not allowed by anarchism.

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

...

Yes we have. But it is covered in practically every other thread on Anarchism.

Could you just quickly fill me in as to where?
Approximations to anarchism (with privately produced law): pre Normal England, medieval Ireland, medieval Iceland, the free cities of medieval Europe, 19th century England, the not-actually-wild west, modern Somalia (it's not doing well but it's better than when there *was* a state), various African tribes.

Centralised states came out of the need for military defence which is why they were weakest at the fringes of civilisation where defence was less important.

why did any one even vote for anarchism. but the question would be the same to me as, "would you rather die by drowning, or burning alive?" :roll:

A Market system is based on the idea of cooperation for mutual benifit. The fact that one party might benifit more than another is just a motivating side effect. Commerce is not possible unless both parties are convinced that they have something to gain by making a transaction, thus, mutual gain.

The other side accepts the lower gain because they can't afford not to. Capitalism gives the business owner more power than the worker.

Does the worker who can now feed his family gain less or more than the factory owner who can afford a fancy painted egg? A lesser gain is still a gain.

Capitalism is a form of hierarchy no less than government. That's why it is not allowed by anarchism.

If you are free to leave the hierarchy and chose to enter it voluntarily what is the problem? Or are voluntary hierarchys to be forbidden? (by whom?) Nobody forces you to do anything on the market.

Markets are based on mutual aid and cooperation. But I don't think we want to start antagonising each other on this thread.

I was under the impression that they are pretty competitive. In my view, without hierarchy and thus the opportunity to get rich off of others' labor, markets are pointless. It would make more sense to share resources as that would raise living conditions.

A Market system is based on the idea of cooperation for mutual benifit. The fact that one party might benifit more than another is just a motivating side effect. Commerce is not possible unless both parties are convinced that they have something to gain by making a transaction, thus, mutual gain.

I spent quite a bit of time trying to explain basically that and a bunch of other ideas viz. Anarchy and Capitalism in the region "Anarchy", but was met with some rather harsh resistance without much thought on the part of the "true" Anarchists. Funny, I always thought, since they were basically using the same tactics as statists have used throughout history to defame dissidents and free thinkers. I hardly hesitate to say that the majority of this site's "Anarchist" population has not truly adopted the ideals of Anarchy and many of them do not even understand what those ideals are.
I like the cut of your jib, sir.

y did any one even vote for anarchism. but the question would be the same to me as, "would you rather die by drowning, or burning alive?" :roll:
Would you rather allow your neighbours to vote on it...... :roll:

If you are free to leave the hierarchy and chose to enter it voluntarily what is the problem? Or are voluntary hierarchys to be forbidden? (by whom?) Nobody forces you to do anything on the market.

But capitalism isn't voluntary. The worker works to avoid the risk of starvation and poverty. They accept a job they may not like to survive.

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

If you are free to leave the hierarchy and chose to enter it voluntarily what is the problem? Or are voluntary hierarchys to be forbidden? (by whom?) Nobody forces you to do anything on the market.

But capitalism isn't voluntary. The worker works to avoid the risk of starvation and poverty. They accept a job they may not like to survive.

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

this is freaking insane, and the reason why i vote republican. also, you dont live on your own do you?

A Market system is based on the idea of cooperation for mutual benifit. The fact that one party might benifit more than another is just a motivating side effect. Commerce is not possible unless both parties are convinced that they have something to gain by making a transaction, thus, mutual gain.

The other side accepts the lower gain because they can't afford not to. Capitalism gives the business owner more power than the worker.

"The other side" is a meaningless concept in Capitalism. Both sides are equal in a given transaction. You're focusing on the supply side of the equation, but in the long run every person is dependent on the worker for their survival. You're right, businesses tend to have the upper hand in dealings with workers by virtue of the fact that businesses can more easily manipulate their policies than can workers. Simple logistics prevents workers from being as effecient, but other than that business owners have no significant advantage in negotiations with labor.


I spent quite a bit of time trying to explain basically that and a bunch of other ideas viz. Anarchy and Capitalism in the region "Anarchy", but was met with some rather harsh resistance without much thought on the part of the "true" Anarchists. Funny, I always thought, since they were basically using the same tactics as statists have used throughout history to defame dissidents and free thinkers. I hardly hesitate to say that the majority of this site's "Anarchist" population has not truly adopted the ideals of Anarchy and many of them do not even understand what those ideals are.

Capitalism is a form of hierarchy no less than government. That's why it is not allowed by anarchism.[/quote]

You have said that exact thing many times, and I have explained to you why it is a meaningless statement each time. Will you ever learn?

There are two parts to this argument, the first is that Capitalism is not a form of heirarchy, and the second is that heirarchy is inevitable and cannot be meaningfully opposed.

Within Capitalism all people are equal in their ability to make economic decisions and profit from those decisions. By virtue of circumstance some people are born with greater privilege than others. This is the unfortunate side effect of the fact that parents want the best for their children. Ideally, Capitalism allows for the equal distribution of wealth among all people. There are impediments to the diffusion of wealth however. The primary impediment is unecessary government influence. Governments can play a powerful positive role in the workings of Capitalism, but historically they have only taken that positive role when it was absolutely necessary and have protected the interests of the ultra-wealthy the rest of the time. A properly managed (it can be self-managed if a collectivist system can be arranged) Capitalist system would be almost identical to traditional Communism, both in its distribution of wealth and its functioning. Capitalism is not a heirarchy and does not create heirarchy, although it, like all things, allows for the formation of individual heirarachies and, by putting emphasis on profit and wealth, gives people a general base for a common heirarchy. As you will hopefully see later, however, heirarchy, at least on a limitted scale is unavoidable, and maybe even desirable.

Heirarchies are the result of value judgments. When a person takes two items and rates them based on criteria of their own creation they create a heirarchy, with the item with the greater score on top and the other on the bottom. Without prejudicial judgments and the formation of heirarchies human beings simply could not exist. It is meaningless to say that anarchists oppose all heirarchy, because they are themselves propogating heirarchies in their everyday lives and in their advocacy of Anarchy. If we take all possible systems of social organization and rate them based on whatever values with find most important, and we decide that Anarchy best fits our ideals then we have created a heirarchy with Anarchy at the top and other organizational systems below it. So you see, I hope, that the idea that we could remove heirarchy from life entirely is absurd and should be forgotten to allow other, better, actually possible and meaningful ideas to move in.

Along with being inevitable, heirarchies can be benificial to everyone. An ideal collectivist society still has to make decisions about what to produce and how to distribute its resources for greatest efficiency. For instance, a heirarchy based on strength would allow the most capable workers to take jobs that required strength while another based on level of medical education could be used to select doctors. By manipulating heirarchies resources can be distributed ideally allowing greatest effeciency and greatest communal benifit.

I like the cut of your jib, sir.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean...

Ok, I found something on it.

The cut of one's jib, one's outward appearance. [Colloq.] --Sir W. Scott.

Colloquialisms are hard sometimes.

If you are free to leave the hierarchy and chose to enter it voluntarily what is the problem? Or are voluntary hierarchys to be forbidden? (by whom?) Nobody forces you to do anything on the market.

But capitalism isn't voluntary. The worker works to avoid the risk of starvation and poverty. They accept a job they may not like to survive.

Boo fu****g hoo. Food, cloaths and medicine require work to produce. It's a fact of life. Either you make them yourself or make someone an offer in return for them - the free market solution - or somebody else has to make them for you - the socialist parasite "solution".

If Robinson Crusoe has to climb the tree to get his coconuts he isn't being exploited or coerced and he's not being forced to do anything. If he waits for Friday to collect the coconuts and then eats them himself he is exploiting and coercing Friday. If he makes Friday a hat in return for coconuts Friday is not coercing or exploiting him nor he Friday.

I like the cut of your jib, sir.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean...

Ok, I found something on it.

The cut of one's jib, one's outward appearance. [Colloq.] --Sir W. Scott.

Colloquialisms are hard sometimes.
I meant I agree with you, not that I fancy you. I guess I didn't understand the phrase either.

Boo fu****g hoo. Food, cloaths and medicine require work to produce. It's a fact of life. Either you make them yourself or make someone an offer in return for them - the free market solution - or somebody else has to make them for you - the socialist parasite "solution".

But the business owner gets more money from the deal because the worker must take a job to survive and has nothing to sell but his labor. The business owner is much wealthier and can afford to not hire the worker. The worker accepts a less desirable deal to survive and the business owner gets more money.

Within Capitalism all people are equal in their ability to make economic decisions and profit from those decisions. By virtue of circumstance some people are born with greater privilege than others. This is the unfortunate side effect of the fact that parents want the best for their children. Ideally, Capitalism allows for the equal distribution of wealth among all people. There are impediments to the diffusion of wealth however. The primary impediment is unecessary government influence. Governments can play a powerful positive role in the workings of Capitalism, but historically they have only taken that positive role when it was absolutely necessary and have protected the interests of the ultra-wealthy the rest of the time. A properly managed (it can be self-managed if a collectivist system can be arranged) Capitalist system would be almost identical to traditional Communism, both in its distribution of wealth and its functioning. Capitalism is not a heirarchy and does not create heirarchy, although it, like all things, allows for the formation of individual heirarachies and, by putting emphasis on profit and wealth, gives people a general base for a common heirarchy. As you will hopefully see later, however, heirarchy, at least on a limitted scale is unavoidable, and maybe even desirable.

If bosses aren't hierarchy, then what is?

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I like the cut of your jib, sir.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean...

Ok, I found something on it.

The cut of one's jib, one's outward appearance. [Colloq.] --Sir W. Scott.

Colloquialisms are hard sometimes.
I meant I agree with you, not that I fancy you. I guess I didn't understand the phrase either.

Everyone has their own ideas of what things mean. That's just the definition I found on one site, if I looked more I could probably find a hundred different ones. But anyway, it's always nice to hear when people agree with me. :D

I think I'd rather live in anarchy rather than a facist state. At least with anarchy your civil rights are (potentially) limitless

There is a temptation in the evaluation of any ideology to choose an extereme as a comparisson, and so to allow what is unacceptable in a normal light to appear reasonable.
Facism is fundamentally wrong, it needs to be stopped. It is founded upon the interests of individuals in much the same way that the current capitalist system is, but does not even pretend to safeguard its weaker dependants, and exists as a mass form of victimisation. To those who say they prefer strong central governments, I would say that they have never truly experienced it, nor grasped the concepts involved in living in an orwellian style police state. This ignorance is excusable, but I would ask anyone on the verge of saying facism is a good thing to think carefully about what this actually entails, where it would stop, and how it would realistically affect them before swearing allegience to the next mussolini, whether le pen or the BNP.
That however, does not mean I am an anarchist, in fact my experience of anarchists has been limited to them being the idiots who kick off at the end of any reasonable demonstration.
Neither of these ideologies are morally sound, and neither take into account the position of the individual. I would always lean to the left in any argument, but I would warn people that if you wish to fight facism or the capitalist system, while the temptation is to become an anarchist at the extreme and head for the door with your spray can, consider the alternatives, and consider what you want in positives, not just what the negative points of other systems.
Sorry to be all serious, I just really hate to see anyone seriously considering facism to be an acceptable ideology...

Boo fu****g hoo. Food, cloaths and medicine require work to produce. It's a fact of life. Either you make them yourself or make someone an offer in return for them - the free market solution - or somebody else has to make them for you - the socialist parasite "solution".

But the business owner gets more money from the deal because the worker must take a job to survive and has nothing to sell but his labor. The business owner is much wealthier and can afford to not hire the worker. The worker accepts a less desirable deal to survive and the business owner gets more money.

There is competition for business owners as well. Businesses compete for workers as much as workers compete for jobs, you just can't see it because you're in the position of the worker not the business owner.

You're right that business owners tend to be wealthier people and that they can therefor hold out longer in negotiations than workers can, in fact that's an argument I made a number of times in "Anarchy" but the fact of the matter is that the business owner also has a lot more at stake in a given negotiation than any individual worker. The business owner must maintaing profitability of the business or suffer extreme losses, and is therefor pressured into accepting the demands of workers rather than attempting to out last them. Also, in a larger sense, business owners are directly dependent on workers for food and other immediate necessities and therefor cannot as a whole, manipulate workers and more than workers can manipulate them.

Within Capitalism all people are equal in their ability to make economic decisions and profit from those decisions. By virtue of circumstance some people are born with greater privilege than others. This is the unfortunate side effect of the fact that parents want the best for their children. Ideally, Capitalism allows for the equal distribution of wealth among all people. There are impediments to the diffusion of wealth however. The primary impediment is unecessary government influence. Governments can play a powerful positive role in the workings of Capitalism, but historically they have only taken that positive role when it was absolutely necessary and have protected the interests of the ultra-wealthy the rest of the time. A properly managed (it can be self-managed if a collectivist system can be arranged) Capitalist system would be almost identical to traditional Communism, both in its distribution of wealth and its functioning. Capitalism is not a heirarchy and does not create heirarchy, although it, like all things, allows for the formation of individual heirarachies and, by putting emphasis on profit and wealth, gives people a general base for a common heirarchy. As you will hopefully see later, however, heirarchy, at least on a limitted scale is unavoidable, and maybe even desirable.

I never noticed that bosses don't really give orders. They just pretend to fire you for not doing what you are told.

Indeed you're right, when a two people sign a contract in which one of them says they will work for the other, and do what the other says and in exchange that other will pay the first, then the "boss" gets to give orders or even fire the worker if that's in the contract. Even if a worker is considered to be non-contractual by law, they make a deal with their employer that they will do what the employer says in exchange for money. There's still nothing wrong going on here.

Indeed you're right, when a two people sign a contract in which one of them says they will work for the other, and do what the other says and in exchange that other will pay the first, then the "boss" gets to give orders or even fire the worker if that's in the contract. Even if a worker is considered to be non-contractual by law, they make a deal with their employer that they will do what the employer says in exchange for money. There's still nothing wrong going on here.

Yes, there is. He's not doing it voluntarily and is thus being denied freedom.

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Indeed you're right, when a two people sign a contract in which one of them says they will work for the other, and do what the other says and in exchange that other will pay the first, then the "boss" gets to give orders or even fire the worker if that's in the contract. Even if a worker is considered to be non-contractual by law, they make a deal with their employer that they will do what the employer says in exchange for money. There's still nothing wrong going on here.

Yes, there is. He's not doing it voluntarily and is thus being denied freedom.

Who is not doing what voluntarily?

Oh yeah, also which word sounds cooler? Anarchy seems to roll off my tounge more than facism :lol:

Oh yeah, also which word sounds cooler? Anarchy seems to roll off my tounge more than facism :lol:
not if you say,"facism, ZIEG HEIL!!!.... baby"

Also in Anarchy you get to plat April 29, 1992 by Sublime and sit in a lawn chair with a shotgun.

Oh yeah, also which word sounds cooler? Anarchy seems to roll off my tounge more than facism :lol:
not if you say,"facism, ZIEG HEIL!!!.... baby"

Sorry but saying that just doesn't sound as cool as 'an-ar-chy'

Who is not doing what voluntarily?

The worker, who has the "option" of starvation or selling his freedom.

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

ZIEG HEIL!!!!..... w00t!!!! :lol:

Who is not doing what voluntarily?

The worker, who has the "option" of starvation or selling his freedom.

Well that doesn't answer the question, but whatever.

You're right, but that's true of everyone. Every must sacrifice to gain. I've said it before and I'll say it again, all creation (and do not miss my meaning, I do mean everything creative) comes from destruction. The "boss" has the option to buy labor or starve, just as the worker has the option to sell labor or starve. And the "boss" has the option to sell products or starve, just as the worker has the option to buy products or sell. Everyone is still in effectively the same situation.

the question would be the same to me as, "would you rather die by drowning, or burning alive?" :roll:

Not the question I'd have chosen-- I lean more towards "Would you rather be drowned for your money or your food?"-- but I quite agree with the sentiment. Capitalism is man oppressing man, and in socialism it's the other way around, after all. Humans as a species just aren't compassionate enough to sustain a decent society. Show me <i>one</i> country, fascist or anarchist, where every gets enough to eat. "The problem with capitalism is-- greed. THe problem with communism is-- greed."

the question would be the same to me as, "would you rather die by drowning, or burning alive?" :roll:

Not the question I'd have chosen-- I lean more towards "Would you rather be drowned for your money or your food?"-- but I quite agree with the sentiment. Capitalism is man oppressing man, and in socialism it's the other way around, after all. Humans as a species just aren't compassionate enough to sustain a decent society. Show me <i>one</i> country, fascist or anarchist, where every gets enough to eat. "The problem with capitalism is-- greed. THe problem with communism is-- greed."

This isn't really on topic, but...

This forum uses BBCode instead of HTML. You can get a little tutorial here (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/faq.php?mode=bbcode).

basically it's the same as HTML, but a little more limiting and it uses [] brackets instead of <> carats.

Who is not doing what voluntarily?

The worker, who has the "option" of starvation or selling his freedom.

Do you know what a "tar baby" is?

There is a temptation in the evaluation of any ideology to choose an extereme as a comparisson, and so to allow what is unacceptable in a normal light to appear reasonable.
Facism is fundamentally wrong, it needs to be stopped. It is founded upon the interests of individuals in much the same way that the current capitalist system is, but does not even pretend to safeguard its weaker dependants, and exists as a mass form of victimisation. To those who say they prefer strong central governments, I would say that they have never truly experienced it, nor grasped the concepts involved in living in an orwellian style police state. This ignorance is excusable, but I would ask anyone on the verge of saying facism is a good thing to think carefully about what this actually entails, where it would stop, and how it would realistically affect them before swearing allegience to the next mussolini, whether le pen or the BNP.
That however, does not mean I am an anarchist, in fact my experience of anarchists has been limited to them being the idiots who kick off at the end of any reasonable demonstration.
Neither of these ideologies are morally sound, and neither take into account the position of the individual. I would always lean to the left in any argument, but I would warn people that if you wish to fight facism or the capitalist system, while the temptation is to become an anarchist at the extreme and head for the door with your spray can, consider the alternatives, and consider what you want in positives, not just what the negative points of other systems.
Sorry to be all serious, I just really hate to see anyone seriously considering facism to be an acceptable ideology...
The modern welfare state was based on Bismark's where it was used as a tool to buy support by bribing people with their neighbour's money. (no change there then) Our economy is currently similar to the Nazi ideal.

I don't see either choice as a good one... :?

I don't see either choice as a good one...

How hard is it to choose between freedom and equality vs. oppression.

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I don't see either choice as a good one...

How hard is it to choose between freedom and equality vs. oppression.

That would be easy, but since that's not the topic up for discussion it hardly matters. And I'd also like to note that everyone being equally dead isn't really desirable.

If you had to choose where to live.

As long as it is proper Anarchism, and not your namby-pamby communist psuedo-anarchism in which "society" acts as a break on the individuals freedom of employment and economic activity, I will take proper anarchism.

I don't see either choice as a good one...

How hard is it to choose between freedom and equality vs. oppression.

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Ideally the anarchist system should be the best one. I'd still pick the Fascist one to cover my own ass. I can survive reasonably well through it.

There hasn't been a single functioning example of anarchism that worked. I don't count Somalia and other failed states as success. In any case, if you all choose an anarchist system I want access to all the weapons...rule over you all through might. :twisted:

As long as it is proper Anarchism, and not your namby-pamby communist psuedo-anarchism in which "society" acts as a break on the individuals freedom of employment and economic activity, I will take proper anarchism.

The market limits individual rights and economic activity. The only "freedom" you are denied in anarchism is the "freedom" to use coersion.

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Fascism :wink:

As long as it is proper Anarchism, and not your namby-pamby communist psuedo-anarchism in which "society" acts as a break on the individuals freedom of employment and economic activity, I will take proper anarchism.

The market limits individual rights and economic activity. The only "freedom" you are denied in anarchism is the "freedom" to use coersion.

So you would accept my freedom to employee people at whatever wage the market will support? This seems to fly in the face of everything I understood you to post before....

So you would accept my freedom to employee people at whatever wage the market will support? This seems to fly in the face of everything I understood you to post before....

There is no market or in anarcho-communism. You'd have to compete with people giving away products and doing work they mostly enjoy.

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

You do realize that anarchy is an obscure idea.. It could/would never hold. As soon as a few people get together and decide on a set of rules in which to live by, say good-bye to anarchy.. When we are young we think such things, as we grow up, we realize it simply wouldn't work, unless you want to live in a land such a "Mad Max" did. I think I'll take my freedoms where I can get them and respect the rule of law.

Fascism in the pre-Axis Italian mode is definitely preferable to Anarchy. As a Jew, I actually admire some of the things Mussolini did for Italy before he betrayed his country to ally with racist-socialist Germany. Some quotes from Mussolini before he betrayed his principles:

"Anti-Semitism does not exist in Italy... The Italian Jews have always shown themselves good citizens, and they fought bravely in the war. They occupy leading positions in the universities, in the army, in the banks. Quite a few of them are generals."
- Benito Mussolini, 1932, to Emil Ludwig

"Race! It is a feeling, not a reality; ninety-five per cent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today. Amusingly enough, not one of those who have proclaimed the nobility of the Teutonic race was himself a Teuton... National pride has no need of the delirium of race."
- Benito Mussolini

And a more amusing (and really tragic) quote from his later days:

"Mussolini went so far as to believe that there existed 'heads' of international Jewry and instructed Sacerdoti to organize a meeting with them for the purpose of reaching an agreement between Hitler and the Jews; the unfortunate rabbi was forced to inform him that, in fact, there were no such heads, the Jews not being organized on an international level."
- From "Mussolini and the Jews," Meir Michaelis

Fascism was, at least originally, solely nationalist. Nazism is not nationalism; it's based on race. Fascism, while far inferior to Democracy as far as freedom and productivity go, is a preferable system to Communism and Anarchism. Nazism, on the other hand, is the lowest depth to which humanity has ever sank.

Fascism in the pre-Axis Italian mode is definitely preferable to Anarchy. As a Jew, I actually admire some of the things Mussolini did for Italy before he betrayed his country to ally with racist-socialist Germany. Some quotes from Mussolini before he betrayed his principles:

Why? Why isn't freedom important to you?

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Why? Why isn't freedom important to you?

Why? Why do you not understand that voluntary submission to authority is freedom?

'Voluntary submission to authority' is an oxymoron, my friend. If you had a choice it wouldn't be submission, more cooperation. Also that authority wouldn't be very authoritative if it had to rely on people wanting to take orders.

Fascism. Anarchism will lead to being invaded by an organized military, something that anarchs cannot stand against.

'Voluntary submission to authority' is an oxymoron, my friend. If you had a choice it wouldn't be submission, more cooperation. Also that authority wouldn't be very authoritative if it had to rely on people wanting to take orders.

Perhaps authority is the wrong word, but you cannot argue that I could not say "make the decision for me and I will follow your command." No, I think authority is a fine word. I can grant you the authority to direct my action if I wish, or you can put me in a position where my options are limitted to following your direction or suffers some worse fate due to your use fo force. Authority by force is bad, authority by submission is not.

Fascism. Anarchism would never work, and plus I prefer a strong central government.
Did fasicism work? I think I'd last longer with no govt than in Nazi Germany or even fascist Italy or Spain.

Fascism worked well enough for the Nazis to take over practically all of Europe.

Fascism. Anarchism would never work, and plus I prefer a strong central government.
Did fasicism work? I think I'd last longer with no govt than in Nazi Germany or even fascist Italy or Spain.

Fascism worked well enough for the Nazis to take over practically all of Europe.

Fascism tends to run out of steam when the controlling body gets too small and the body to be controlled gets too large.

Perhaps authority is the wrong word, but you cannot argue that I could not say "make the decision for me and I will follow your command."
You could say that. I have no idea why you would, though, unless you are totally convinced of your own incompetence. Actually I think the wrong word you used was submission, as it suggests yielding to superior force.
Anyway, what happens if the authority tell you to do something you don't want to do? You have already signed away your freedom to make decisions for yourself, bringing us back to the point 'authority= loss of freedom'.

No, I think authority is a fine word. I can grant you the authority to direct my action if I wish, or you can put me in a position where my options are limitted to following your direction or suffers some worse fate due to your use fo force. Authority by force is bad, authority by submission is not.
Problem here is, all authority ultimately rests on force. But we will ingore that for the moment.
There is a system in which you freely grant people authority over you. It's called representative democracy. But, you were arguing in support of fascism, which involves a police state and no democracy. I can't think of a better example of authority by force than the police state which is an integral part of fascism.

Perhaps authority is the wrong word, but you cannot argue that I could not say "make the decision for me and I will follow your command."
You could say that. I have no idea why you would, though, unless you are totally convinced of your own incompetence. Actually I think the wrong word you used was submission, as it suggests yielding to superior force.
Anyway, what happens if the authority tell you to do something you don't want to do? You have already signed away your freedom to make decisions for yourself, bringing us back to the point 'authority= loss of freedom'.

The ultimate freedom is the ability to give up your freedom without fear.

No, I think authority is a fine word. I can grant you the authority to direct my action if I wish, or you can put me in a position where my options are limitted to following your direction or suffers some worse fate due to your use fo force. Authority by force is bad, authority by submission is not.
Problem here is, all authority ultimately rests on force. But we will ingore that for the moment.
There is a system in which you freely grant people authority over you. It's called representative democracy. But, you were arguing in support of fascism, which involves a police state and no democracy. I can't think of a better example of authority by force than the police state which is an integral part of fascism.

I do not believe that authority necessarily rests only on force, but do agree that force is a potent and common source of it.

When exactly was I advocating fascism? Certainly fascism is an example of a system by which force is used as a source of authority, but I fail to see how I was arguing for fascism by saying that?

The ultimate freedom is the ability to give up your freedom without fear.
Funny, I thought the ultimate freedom was being free and not fearing you would have to give it up. Well, there you go

When exactly was I advocating fascism?
Umm... Was this thing not started by you saying you admired Mussolini?
I might have been dreaming, but then I think Leitla challenged you about liking freedom.
See, fascism is not preferrable to anarchy in terms of freedom. It has been established that forced authority in fascism excludes freedom.

Just to clarify, I also wasn't supporting fascism. Fascism is wasteful; it inevitably leads to corruption, and with the centralization of power in so few hands, it also inevitably leads to bad decisions, such as Mussolini's numerous strategic blunders. In fascism, there is no clear-cut method of succession, which would inevitably, although no fascist government survived long enough, lead to civil wars and probable national self-destruction. Fascism, for those who are anti-big government like I tend to be, is also flawed in that it creates a sort of dual system of authority with a national government and a party government, both suspicious of each other and leading yet again to more corruption and waste. Fascism, as I stated earlier, is only preferable as an alternative to anarchy and communism. Nazism, on the other hand, is a mutated form of fascism which is worse, or at least equivalent, to both.

The ultimate freedom is the ability to give up your freedom without fear.
Funny, I thought the ultimate freedom was being free and not fearing you would have to give it up. Well, there you go

When exactly was I advocating fascism?
Umm... Was this thing not started by you saying you admired Mussolini?
I might have been dreaming, but then I think Leitla challenged you about liking freedom.
See, fascism is not preferrable to anarchy in terms of freedom. It has been established that forced authority in fascism excludes freedom.

No, that wasn't me, though I don't remember who it was either... :?

Oops, my mistake there. Still, the thread is about fascism vs. anarchy.

My takes on both systems:

Anarchy: system of conjecture; with no government, no laws. I can do whatever I want. And if anyone protests I can just kill them. From what I can decipher from all the crazy anarchists here, you have no leader, no laws, no enforcing of anything. You expect to survive via the 'goodness' of man. Sounds like communism, which sounds nice and peachy like this does. Only that never worked. In theory, good system. In practive, bad.

Fascism: system in which the motto is "The State over all." Wouldn't be so bad if anaylists hadn't predicted that the German economy under Hitler would have broken down in the 60s, along with the whole bullshit racial purity stuff. And the fact that the government of fascism has absolutely no concern whatsoever for the good of its people. All it wants is to strengthen the nation militarily as a whole so it can conquer the world.

Personaly, neither is relatively attracting to me. Its like choosing between dying from a bullet or from being stabbed.

hmm.

i picked Fascism and evened out the votes to 11-11.

neither of them are particularly charming solutions to any real issue, but it seems to me that the unified will of mankind behind one leader would be better for the general progress of humanity than a truly anarchist society. after all, it didn't say "moderate anarchy" on the poll, so nobody would have an economy larger than the one they would run out of their home, and other than basic trading everybody would subsist on what they make themselves.

neither of them would last for very long, but anarchy would cease to be anarchy when opportunistic people offer protection in exchange for basic services, setting up a simple feudalistic society which would doubtless grow and be copied. that's just human nature, or else we never would've had government at all.

i can't think of an instance where fascism has gone off in a very agreeable manner, because for one man to lead an entire country takes extreme intelligence. Hitler was a genius, but a twisted one, as many are, and the hideous things he did twisted him further. The reason fascism doesn't work is because although it seeks to kindle human pride and efficiency, it ignores human imperfection in placing all power in the hand of a dictator whose duties could only be properly and beneficially administered by Jesus Christ, if he ever so desired to lead humanity in such a way.

the unified will of mankind behind one leader would be better for the general progress of humanity than a truly anarchist society.
I assume here you are talking about the cultural and philosophical progress of humanity. Never would that progress under fascism. Fascist states have been uniformly reactionary in cultural terms. No thought or idea outside the ruling ideology would be allowed to flourish. Innovation, the essence of human advancement would be stifled if it conflicted in any way with the ruling ideology.
Anarchy, a system based on freedom and equality is the optimum environment for human advancement. In the totality of hellenic city states, all were monarchies and oligarchies, except one, the athenian democracy. This state had more freedom, more equality than all others and was, by no coincidence, the cultural and philosophical hub of that society.
The USA, a nation radical it its time as an experiment in democratic rule produced an enourmous amount of ideas, artistic movements etc.
The point here is, the more freedom of ideas and actions, the quicker and better the philosophical advancement. Anarchy gives close enough total freedom, it is the way forward for humanity.

Having said that, it is 1. 30 and I think im seeing double.

neither of them would last for very long, but anarchy would cease to be anarchy when opportunistic people offer protection in exchange for basic services, setting up a simple feudalistic society which would doubtless grow and be copied. that's just human nature, or else we never would've had government at all.

Actually, their attempt to create feudalism would fail when the people refuse their deal.

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

...

If everyone hates government, how did we get it in the first place? I believe hierarchy is a natural accurance.

I must say, nice propaganda here. Comparing all government to fascism. Nice job.

If everyone hates government, how did we get it in the first place? I believe hierarchy is a natural accurance.

While people once lived pretty close to anarchism, they didn't really subscribe to an ideology known as anarchism and didn't realize what was going on. Also, technological advancement increased food production and shrewd rulers took advantage of this to take power before people knew what hit them. Nonetheless, there are still many nigh-anarchist societies.

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Then the people are obviously stupid and can't control themselves, thus needing a leader. They would have to notice something going on. You'd think if we didn't like leaders we'd rebel against them and form a society that has no leaders.

Give me an example of a near-anarchy society.

If you had to choose where to live.

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Given a choice? I would pick Fascism. Every time. And I'd find the addresses of the people who voted for anarchism, and give them to the Thought Police.

In response to the original question: I would rather have a fascist nation whereby my positive freedoms are limited by the state rather than removed entirely by the prevailing sense of chaos that anarachy would lead to due to its foolish misplacement of faith in human nature.

Fascism. Anarchism will lead to being invaded by an organized military, something that anarchs cannot stand against.

I'm not disagreeing that Fascists would fight a much stronger war, but there have been anarchist armies in the past. There were several small anarchist brigades fighting throughout Spain during the Spanish civil war, but they were badly outnumbered and poorly armed. This may in large part be due to the fact that they were flown in from all over the world. There was actually one from America...I think it was the the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. And during the Russian civil war Nestor Makhno led a a massive number of anarchist troops into battle. They actually preformed remarkably well for parts of the war, liberating vast portions of land for some time. Unfortunately they sided with the Bolsheviks and were eventually either absorbed into the Red ranks, or destroyed. However, there initial success suggests there's at least a chance the anarchists could stand against a hostile invasion.

In response to the original question: I would rather have a fascist nation whereby my positive freedoms are limited by the state rather than removed entirely by the prevailing sense of chaos that anarachy would lead to due to its foolish misplacement of faith in human nature.

How is not having violent force to keep you in line going to lead to chaos?

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

You obviously wouldn't be kept in line. No police to keep you from robbing a bank, no laws to prevent you from doing so, no leader to ask you not to.

In collectivist anarchism you could be punished. It is against a ruling head. However, it would be possible to sanction a person if the community wished it so. It's the difference between Anarchism and anarchy.

-double post-

You are then essentialy running a communist government, which you have just shown to have leaders and was called 'collective' anarchism, and things such as 'the community wished it so.' You would have to have something to enforce this, the person could obviously still do something if there wasn't anything to stop him.

In collectivist anarchism you could be punished. It is against a ruling head. However, it would be possible to sanction a person if the community wished it so. It's the difference between Anarchism and anarchy.

Exactly.

You are then essentialy running a communist government, which you have just shown to have leaders and was called 'collective' anarchism, and things such as 'the community wished it so.' You would have to have something to enforce this, the person could obviously still do something if there wasn't anything to stop him.

What he means is that the community might refuse to work with some who is lazy, for example.

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

In response to the original question: I would rather have a fascist nation whereby my positive freedoms are limited by the state rather than removed entirely by the prevailing sense of chaos that anarachy would lead to due to its foolish misplacement of faith in human nature.

How is not having violent force to keep you in line going to lead to chaos?

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Because a state regulates the relationship between people and without that force people will inevitably act in their own interests at the expense of others, without concerning themselves with the issue of justice which no anarchic society will contain.

What does laziness have to do with anything? You are now creating a hierarchy," you aren't good enough for us, so bye".

Because a state regulates the relationship between people and without that force people will inevitably act in their own interests at the expense of others, without concerning themselves with the issue of justice which no anarchic society will contain.

If that's true, then the state would act in it's own interests and can't be trusted.

What does laziness have to do with anything? You are now creating a hierarchy," you aren't good enough for us, so bye".

That's an example.

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

"That's an example."

That would be an example of your 'collectivist anarchism' if they can kick out lazy people.

If everyone hates government, how did we get it in the first place? I believe hierarchy is a natural accurance.

Heirarchy is absolutely natural, unavoidable, and even sometimes desired, as I described in more detail earlier on this thread.

What does laziness have to do with anything? You are now creating a hierarchy," you aren't good enough for us, so bye".

That's not so much a hierarchy as simple class division, but when you get down to it, it would be an effective form of punishment. Look at what we do now. When someone does something society disapproves of, we lock them up and make them less than the rest of society. To sanction a person in a collective, they would drop them from their ranks. It's pruning the bad branches. Or at least thats my perspective on it. They also may choose rehabilitation.

That would be an example of your 'collectivist anarchism' if they can kick out lazy people.

And they can if necessary to protect themselves.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a
beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at
Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Anarchism, at least I'd be free! I don't like collective/communis anarchism I'd rather we had good strong economy and I could keep my own damn money, I'd work with others even live with others but some personal money would be good. For safety just carry a gun around.

Because a state regulates the relationship between people and without that force people will inevitably act in their own interests at the expense of others, without concerning themselves with the issue of justice which no anarchic society will contain.

If that's true, then the state would act in it's own interests and can't be trusted.

What does laziness have to do with anything? You are now creating a hierarchy," you aren't good enough for us, so bye".

That's an example.

-----------------------------------------
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

The democratic state is not completely autonomous and consists of a number of checks and balances in order to ensure that no one person or party becomes supremely powerful as is the case in a dictatorship, so your argument does not follow.

A hierarchy is inevitable and as has been said before to some degree desirable, surely it is better to have on that is regulated and designed upon the principle of justice than one which has no such regulation and lacks any moral underpinning or coherent ideology.

There are all too many reasons that spring to mind why anarchism could not and should not work and I could probably sit here until daybreak typing them all out, but I'm not going to since my bed is calling to me from across the room and I no longer feel capable of resisting its subtle temptations.

Anarchism, at least I'd be free! I don't like collective/communis anarchism I'd rather we had good strong economy and I could keep my own damn money, I'd work with others even live with others but some personal money would be good. For safety just carry a gun around.

I'd prefer to be measured by something other than material wealth. Who needs money when you have free distribution?

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Anarchism, at least I'd be free! I don't like collective/communis anarchism I'd rather we had good strong economy and I could keep my own damn money, I'd work with others even live with others but some personal money would be good. For safety just carry a gun around.

Freedom is just a word unless it is properly protected.

The democratic state is not completely autonomous and consists of a number of checks and balances in order to ensure that no one person or party becomes supremely powerful as is the case in a dictatorship, so your argument does not follow.

An anarchist society has checks and balances. People can refuse to associate with the lazy or prone to stealing.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Fascism is the way to go it is the only one with control

well anyway how about a list of near anarchy nations?

If people would control themselves things could work out you know in my opinion if we lived by the commandments and worked etc. we could get it to work, I'd honestly prefer neither but would lean toward an anarchaic society rather than fascism government is fine when kept limited and efficient etc.

And they can if necessary to protect themselves.


Then you have government and laws, as anyone deemed unsafe for society needs to be kicked out. You can't have laws if you have anarchism, each person supposably is his own master, all are equal, etc. etc. You are supposed to remove hierarchy, all you are doing is keeping it.

Come on! Where's the desire for freedom?

Then you have government and laws, as anyone deemed unsafe for society needs to be kicked out. You can't have laws if you have anarchism, each person supposably is his own master, all are equal, etc. etc. You are supposed to remove hierarchy, all you are doing is keeping it.

Self defence. It's not hierarchy.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

You arent giving us freedom, you are just promoting a thoeretical system which relys upon the non-existant goodwill of man.

So you would accept my freedom to employee people at whatever wage the market will support? This seems to fly in the face of everything I understood you to post before....

There is no market or in anarcho-communism. You'd have to compete with people giving away products and doing work they mostly enjoy.

:D In a perfect world where there unlimited supplies of material goods and time, there would be no scarcity, and thus no market. But we do not live on the Big Rock Candy Mountain. There is no way to rid humanity of the market. It goes part and parcel with being human. Even gift economies have a market that follows discoverable natural laws of exchange. Reputation and status are generally the mediums of exchange.

Also, if everyone does the work they enjoy, what of the jobs no one enjoys?
And what of imbalances. To take an extreme example, if no one likes food production (including gathering) what happens?

In a perfect world where there unlimited supplies of material goods and time, there would be no scarcity, and thus no market. But we do not live on the Big Rock Candy Mountain. There is no way to rid humanity of the market. It goes part and parcel with being human. Even gift economies have a market that follows discoverable natural laws of exchange. Reputation and status are generally the mediums of exchange.

The gift economy is exactly what would be employed.

Also, if everyone does the work they enjoy, what of the jobs no one enjoys?
And what of imbalances. To take an extreme example, if no one likes food production (including gathering) what happens?

Those jobs are distributed throughout the community. That would make them much less.

You arent giving us freedom, you are just promoting a thoeretical system which relys upon the non-existant goodwill of man.

The not-so-good will of the government, actually.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

hmmm...I was going to post a reply like "What's wrong with you, Letila? Who would actually say they'd rather live in a facist society?" but you appear to be thinking more realistically than I am :shock:
Some scary people out there...

edit: maybe you should mention that they are going to be the oppressed, not the oppressors.

edit: maybe you should mention that they are going to be the oppressed, not the oppressors.

I know. I hate how racists, sexists, fascists, etc. place themselves at top and then praise their élitist ideas.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Why do you not understand that voluntary submission to authority is freedom?

there can be no freedom if there is authority. that is the lesson of the stanford prison experiment and the milgram experiments on obedience to authority. 'freely' submitting to authority ends freedom. which makes the alleged freedom of that action a contradiction.

You do realize that anarchy is an obscure idea.. It could/would never hold. As soon as a few people get together and decide on a set of rules in which to live by, say good-bye to anarchy..

Aren't you a poli sci person? Surely you know that anarchism means 'no rulers', not 'no rules'.

i am now 20 percent stupider for reading this entire thread

Anarchy wins hands down IMHO.

i am now 20 percent stupider for reading this entire thread

That takes you down to what, 8 IQ points? :wink: :lol:

Also, I find it interesting that the poll is split almost exactly fifty/fifty.

Also, I find it interesting that the poll is split almost exactly fifty/fifty

Maybe a 50:50 split of anarchism and fascism would be the best solution?

Yeah, this is one of the most thrilling polls I've seen. Fascism's winning, then anarchism, then fascism... It's great. Of course I'm really surprised anarchism isn't winning hands down. I mean, we've actually seen how bad fascism is.

Fascism. Anarchism would never work, and plus I prefer a strong central government.
Did fasicism work? I think I'd last longer with no govt than in Nazi Germany or even fascist Italy or Spain.

Fascism worked well enough for the Nazis to take over practically all of Europe.
For all of, what, 4 or 5 years? If genocide and imperialism are what you are looking for from a political system then Fasicism "works" in the short term.

Problem here is, all authority ultimately rests on force. But we will ingore that for the moment.
There is a system in which you freely grant people authority over you. It's called representative democracy. But, you were arguing in support of fascism, which involves a police state and no democracy. I can't think of a better example of authority by force than the police state which is an integral part of fascism.
That's funny because I live in a representative democracy and I didn't vote on the grounds that I didn't want to grant people authority over me but they still confiscate half my earnings and force me not to smoke pot.

well anyway how about a list of near anarchy nations?

If people would control themselves things could work out you know in my opinion if we lived by the commandments and worked etc. we could get it to work, I'd honestly prefer neither but would lean toward an anarchaic society rather than fascism government is fine when kept limited and efficient etc.
Pre Norman England, medieval Ireland, medieval Iceland, the free cities of medieval Europe, 19th century England, revolutionary America, the not-actually-wild west, various African tribes, modern Somalia (it ain't doing well but it's better with no state than when the govt death squads were running around i.e. statelessness better than state)

All examples of little or no govt. Law and order were supplied on a private or community basis and was generally more humane and respected than state law. States arose out of centralised militaries.

All governments are limited solely by what the people will bear. No constitution or popularity contest ever changed that.

well anyway how about a list of near anarchy nations?

If people would control themselves things could work out you know in my opinion if we lived by the commandments and worked etc. we could get it to work, I'd honestly prefer neither but would lean toward an anarchaic society rather than fascism government is fine when kept limited and efficient etc.
Pre Norman England, medieval Ireland, medieval Iceland, the free cities of medieval Europe, 19th century England, revolutionary America, the not-actually-wild west, various African tribes, modern Somalia (it ain't doing well but it's better with no state than when the govt death squads were running around i.e. statelessness better than state)

All examples of little or no govt. Law and order were supplied on a private or community basis and was generally more humane and respected than state law. States arose out of centralised militaries.

All governments are limited solely by what the people will bear. No constitution or popularity contest ever changed that.

Someday the communism will be weeded out of anarchism.

Problem here is, all authority ultimately rests on force. But we will ingore that for the moment.
There is a system in which you freely grant people authority over you. It's called representative democracy. But, you were arguing in support of fascism, which involves a police state and no democracy. I can't think of a better example of authority by force than the police state which is an integral part of fascism.
That's funny because I live in a representative democracy and I didn't vote on the grounds that I didn't want to grant people authority over me but they still confiscate half my earnings and force me not to smoke pot.

By not voting you're just throwing away your only chance of changing something. Unless you want to start protesting or become a politician or possibly you could stage a revolution, how about that?. You won't change anything by sitting down doing nothing (except smoking some pot once in a while I guess)

And no one is forcing you not to smoke pot. If you want to smoke pot, then you can smoke pot. But then of course, you'll have to take the risk of getting caught... But if you want to smoke pot that bad, then it might be worth paying that price? If not then maybe you shouldn't smoke pot?

Everything has a price my friend.

Pre Norman England, medieval Ireland, medieval Iceland, the free cities of medieval Europe, 19th century England, revolutionary America, the not-actually-wild west, various African tribes, modern Somalia (it ain't doing well but it's better with no state than when the govt death squads were running around i.e. statelessness better than state).

"Numerous warlords and factions are still fighting for control of Mogadishu and the other southern regions. Suspicion of Somali links with global terrorism further complicates the picture."

"Environment - current issues: famine; use of contaminated water contributes to human health problems; deforestation; overgrazing; soil erosion; desertification"

"following the breakdown of national government, most regions have reverted to either Islamic (Shari'a) law with a provision for appeal of all sentences, or traditional clan-based arbitration"

- From the CIA world factbook about Somalia.

Yeah... Somalia really sounds like a great place... real peaceful... NOT. As for the rest of the countries... they have all developed into other forms of societies... Hmmm wonder why? And technically most of it is not even a anarchist state since it's ruled by the Shari'a, the law of Islam.


For all of, what, 4 or 5 years? If genocide and imperialism are what you are looking for from a political system then Fasicism "works" in the short term

Actually it was more like 10 years :wink: Hitler got power 1936 if my memory doesn't fail me and the Third reich collapsed in May 1945. Hitler lost allot of supporters in the conquered countries because of his "superior race" politics. Allot of people in the Soviet union saw the Germans as liberators and wanted to help the Germans but their support dissapeared as the Germans started to become unfriendly. So if Hitler would have been a bit more "normal" like Moussilini, he would have gotten allot of extra soldiers. And what if he wouldn't had started invading at all and wouldn't have had his "race" politics? Then his third reich might have thrived for another 20-50 years or even more. There was quite allot of foreigners that supported Hitler, both in Europe and in the US.

Also think of all the monarchies that the world have had. Many of them have lasted hundreds of years...

I'm not saying that a facist state is good, but unlike Anarchy/anarchism, facism actually works (but it's not a good system)

That's why I voted on Anarchism, since it doesn't work and then I can find other people that wants to restore the old society and simply build a new society.

Problem here is, all authority ultimately rests on force. But we will ingore that for the moment.
There is a system in which you freely grant people authority over you. It's called representative democracy. But, you were arguing in support of fascism, which involves a police state and no democracy. I can't think of a better example of authority by force than the police state which is an integral part of fascism.
That's funny because I live in a representative democracy and I didn't vote on the grounds that I didn't want to grant people authority over me but they still confiscate half my earnings and force me not to smoke pot.

By not voting you're just throwing away your only chance of changing something. Unless you want to start protesting or become a politician or possibly you could stage a revolution, how about that?. You won't change anything by sitting down doing nothing (except smoking some pot once in a while I guess)

And no one is forcing you not to smoke pot. If you want to smoke pot, then you can smoke pot. But then of course, you'll have to take the risk of getting caught... But if you want to smoke pot that bad, then it might be worth paying that price? If not then maybe you shouldn't smoke pot?

Everything has a price my friend.
I don't want a government so how will voting for a government get me what I want? I didn't say I was doing nothing. Why should I have to convince 51% of the population if I want to be left alone?

And um........ getting caught and put in jail is kinda what it means to be "forced not to smoke pot".

Try thinking through your responses to make sure you're happy with the implications.

Let's see your solution for Nazism. "The Jews who voted agreed to abide by the outcome. The ones who didn't have no grounds to complain." "Nobody forced the Jews to be killed but if they want to be Jewish they have to run the risk of being caught and executed. Everything has a price".


"Numerous warlords and factions are still fighting for control of Mogadishu and the other southern regions. Suspicion of Somali links with global terrorism further complicates the picture."

"Environment - current issues: famine; use of contaminated water contributes to human health problems; deforestation; overgrazing; soil erosion; desertification"

"following the breakdown of national government, most regions have reverted to either Islamic (Shari'a) law with a provision for appeal of all sentences, or traditional clan-based arbitration"

- From the CIA world factbook about Somalia.

Yeah... Somalia really sounds like a great place... real peaceful... NOT. As for the rest of the countries... they have all developed into other forms of societies... Hmmm wonder why? And technically most of it is not even a anarchist state since it's ruled by the Shari'a, the law of Islam.


First of all the CIA world factbook doesn't seem like a neutral document for asessing a stateless society. Have you not learned how much to trust the US govt's "suspicion of links to terror?" Government is not society by the way and statelessness is not lawlessness. Law can and has existed without the state. The "traditional clan based arbitration" upon further examination is a system based on outlawing violence and theft without any state intervention, exactly what I'm advocating, so that is a good thing.

The way to analyse Somalia is not to ask how Somalia without govt compares to the UK or US with govt but to ask how Somalia without govt compares to *Somalia* with govt. Somalia is still recovering from centuries of imperialism, decades of socialism and years of civil war and a US led invasion so it would be pretty poor under any system (or non-system)

Things are bad there but they were worse with a state. It was the failed govt filled mass graves with bodies. The economy there now is actually doing well despite the violence. The capital Mogadishu has several mobile phone and cable companies.

Those parts of Somalia which were never subject to strong govt have remained quite peaceful while those which are recovering from govt have seen violence.

I'd rather be in anarchist Somalia than statist Rwanda or Zimbabwe.

Stateless has done better than the state and this is all you can ask of it to consider it a success.


Actually it was more like 10 years icon_wink.gif Hitler got power 1936 if my memory doesn't fail me and the Third reich collapsed in May 1945. Hitler lost allot of supporters in the conquered countries because of his "superior race" politics. Allot of people in the Soviet union saw the Germans as liberators and wanted to help the Germans but their support dissapeared as the Germans started to become unfriendly. So if Hitler would have been a bit more "normal" like Moussilini, he would have gotten allot of extra soldiers. And what if he wouldn't had started invading at all and wouldn't have had his "race" politics? Then his third reich might have thrived for another 20-50 years or even more. There was quite allot of foreigners that supported Hitler, both in Europe and in the US.

Also think of all the monarchies that the world have had. Many of them have lasted hundreds of years...

I'm not saying that a facist state is good, but unlike Anarchy/anarchism, facism actually works (but it's not a good system)

That's why I voted on Anarchism, since it doesn't work and then I can find other people that wants to restore the old society and simply build a new society.
I said they controlled Europe for 4 or 5 years.

What do you mean fascism "worked"? It led to warfare, loss of all liberty, dictatorship, collectivism and poverty. What exactly are you looking for from a political system?

Why do you claim Anarchy (or rather, statelessness) doesn't work? I gave you several examples and every time it "worked" better than state meddling and usurpation. You can stick to your knee-jerk reactions if you like but those of us who are scientific enough to base our opinions on EVIDENCE would rather you left us alone.

For instance, medieval iceland peacefully remained almost entirely ungoverned for 3 centuries. By contrast,the US democracy lasted 80 years before descending into civil war. Anarchism has historically lasted, what, about 10 times as long as any fascist dictatorship? I think some African tribes have existed without states for centuries longer than this and medieval Ireland had a mostly private justice system for about a millenium.

I have a question: Would an absence of international law and institutions such as the U.N and NATO lead to a form of international anarchism beteen nations?

I have a question: Would an absence of international law and institutions such as the U.N and NATO lead to a form of international anarchism beteen nations?
It's not really the same. You could call it that if you want but you wouldn't gain any knowledge by labelling it "anarchism".

The analogy doesn't work because

(a) nation states behave in a different way from individuals.
(b) without a government people could and would freely form associations for mutual protection (kinda like NATO). Laws would still exist too, they'd just be formed and enforced from the bottom up rather than top down.
(c) there is no current world government ruling over nations (although the UN would love this more than anything.)

Someday the communism will be weeded out of anarchism.

Then it will be a sad day for those who value respect and hard work over money.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

What's the distinction between states and hierarchies?

Looking at the Somalia example people are going "yay, no state" and saying the use of Islamic (Shari'a) Law and clan-based arbitration is a good thing. That's endorsing the hierarchies which have formed, which I thought Anarchism was against?

The earlier arguments that the employee is subservient to the employer is ignoring the existance of labor unions: Which have repeatedly used collective bargining to improve conditions for their members.

Ultimately, I voted for anarchism, because it gives me, as a free-market statist (or the physical embodyment of evil, it seems) the right to wonder off with a group of like minded people and start my own thing and trade with others.

What's the distinction between states and hierarchies?

Looking at the Somalia example people are going "yay, no state" and saying the use of Islamic (Shari'a) Law and clan-based arbitration is a good thing. That's endorsing the hierarchies which have formed, which I thought Anarchism was against?

The earlier arguments that the employee is subservient to the employer is ignoring the existance of labor unions: Which have repeatedly used collective bargining to improve conditions for their members.

Ultimately, I voted for anarchism, because it gives me, as a free-market statist (or the physical embodyment of evil, it seems) the right to wonder off with a group of like minded people and start my own thing and trade with others.

I don't want a government so how will voting for a government get me what I want? I didn't say I was doing nothing. Why should I have to convince 51% of the population if I want to be left alone?

Well find a anarchist politcal party and vote for it. Or if there is none: create your own. My suggestion for a slogan is: "Give all the power to us and then we'll give it back to you" That slogan will sure work like a charm :wink: :D

Why should you try to convince everyone else? You want change do you? In the system you're currently living in you have two choices as I see it on how to change society: convince the majority that your system is the best system or stage an armed revolution.

What kind of method had you in mind? You didn't think that society would simply go dissapear in a puff of smoke and then reappear as a anarchist society? Changes doesn't happen by themselves...


And um........ getting caught and put in jail is kinda what it means to be "forced not to smoke pot".

Try thinking through your responses to make sure you're happy with the implications.

Let's see your solution for Nazism. "The Jews who voted agreed to abide by the outcome. The ones who didn't have no grounds to complain." "Nobody forced the Jews to be killed but if they want to be Jewish they have to run the risk of being caught and executed. Everything has a price".

No, that's not a valid comparison. The jews couldn't stop being jews but you can stop smoke pot. Even if they would stop celebrating their jewish traditions they would not stop being jews and the Nazis would kill them anyway. Everyone has a right to live and the Nazis were breaking this rule.

If you smoke pot, you risk jail or whatever punishment you have in your country. If you don't work, then you risk becoming poor and starve. If you can prove that something is more dangerous then useful to the majority or of the people then you should be able to make it illegal. The Nazis couldn't do this as Jews are not dangerous and did not try to take over the system.



First of all the CIA world factbook doesn't seem like a neutral document for asessing a stateless society. Have you not learned how much to trust the US govt's "suspicion of links to terror?" Government is not society by the way and statelessness is not lawlessness. Law can and has existed without the state. The "traditional clan based arbitration" upon further examination is a system based on outlawing violence and theft without any state intervention, exactly what I'm advocating, so that is a good thing.


The CIA factbook is just as neutral as the Liberalist propaganda pages you base your examples of different "anarchist" nations from. You know that the major religion of the Somalia is Islam right? You know what? The islam religion has taxes. Each year, each Muslim should give about 2,5% of their savings to the poor and needing.

The way to analyse Somalia is not to ask how Somalia without govt compares to the UK or US with govt but to ask how Somalia without govt compares to *Somalia* with govt. Somalia is still recovering from centuries of imperialism, decades of socialism and years of civil war and a US led invasion so it would be pretty poor under any system (or non-system)

There's still war and people still get killed. Where's the improvement?

Things are bad there but they were worse with a state. It was the failed govt filled mass graves with bodies. The economy there now is actually doing well despite the violence. The capital Mogadishu has several mobile phone and cable companies.[quote]

Do you have any kind of figures on this that doesn't come from one of your Anarchist sites?

[quote="Libertovania]
I said they controlled Europe for 4 or 5 years.

Yeah, you were wrote as if Nazi Germany only existed during this period.

What do you mean fascism "worked"? It led to warfare, loss of all liberty, dictatorship, collectivism and poverty. What exactly are you looking for from a political system?

Poverty?! :shock: You know that Hitler brought Germany out of a extreme depression right? With "worked" I mean, people got work, they got payed, they had proper healthcare, education e.t.c. How can you not call it sucessful? The reason why the nazi state was unacceptable was because they killed Jews and invaded Europe. The people wanted (or were brainwashed depending on how you see it) to have Hitler as a leader.

Why do you claim Anarchy (or rather, statelessness) doesn't work? I gave you several examples and every time it "worked" better than state meddling and usurpation. You can stick to your knee-jerk reactions if you like but those of us who are scientific enough to base our opinions on EVIDENCE would rather you left us alone.

No you haven't given me any evidence, because who knows how it was to live on Iceland 800 years ago? How can you prove it was better? You can't even prove that they followed the rules that they had set up themselves. Plus you have no evidence that such a state existing in a modern industrulized society. A industrial city is very different from a village in wilderness of Africa. I have proof that democracy works, since I live in a democratic state and my country is surrounded by other democratic states. My country (Sweden) have been a democracy for about 80-90 years but there are other countries that have been democracies longer then that (with democracies in this case I mean a democracy with a state)

The reason I think Anarchy doesn't work is because 1. It have never been tested in a modern industrlized state, country or city. Todays society is much more advanced then the societies before 2. Becasue of the human will to dominate others and because of human greed 3. People have different ideas of what a "good" society is and some people don't agree with the anarchist society.

For instance, medieval iceland peacefully remained almost entirely ungoverned for 3 centuries. By contrast,the US democracy lasted 80 years before descending into civil war. Anarchism has historically lasted, what, about 10 times as long as any fascist dictatorship? I think some African tribes have existed without states for centuries longer than this and medieval Ireland had a mostly private justice system for about a millenium.

How do you know why had anarchy when we were cave men? How can you prove that we didn't have any leaders in our tribes? The Egyptian "empire" lasted about 3000 years or something I think. And some of the old middle eastern civilisations might even have lasted longer then that.

Someday the communism will be weeded out of anarchism.

Then it will be a sad day for those who value respect and hard work over money.

Honestly, you need to learn to actually say things, and to write more than one line replies to everything. I've decided that I don't respect anyone who's signiture is longer than his posts.

If you choose anarchy what country would you go to? If you choose Fascism what country would you go to?

Well find a anarchist politcal party and vote for it. Or if there is none: create your own. My suggestion for a slogan is: "Give all the power to us and then we'll give it back to you" That slogan will sure work like a charm :wink: :D

Why should you try to convince everyone else? You want change do you? In the system you're currently living in you have two choices as I see it on how to change society: convince the majority that your system is the best system or stage an armed revolution.

What kind of method had you in mind? You didn't think that society would simply go dissapear in a puff of smoke and then reappear as a anarchist society? Changes doesn't happen by themselves...

The jews couldn't stop being jews but you can stop smoke pot. Even if they would stop celebrating their jewish traditions they would not stop being jews and the Nazis would kill them anyway. Everyone has a right to live and the Nazis were breaking this rule.

If you smoke pot, you risk jail or whatever punishment you have in your country. If you don't work, then you risk becoming poor and starve. If you can prove that something is more dangerous then useful to the majority or of the people then you should be able to make it illegal. The Nazis couldn't do this as Jews are not dangerous and did not try to take over the system.


The view you're putting forward here is that the majority should decide for everyone. But if you think that the majority is right in every case that makes you a morally bankrupt sheep. How do you judge if anything the majority does is right or wrong? Well, you touched on it when you said the jews had a right to live. Rights are the things that we use to say to the majority or the government acting in its name "you may not do that". I think people have a right to do pretty much whatever they want provided they don't use violence or steal. This includes smoking pot.


The CIA factbook is just as neutral as the Liberalist propaganda pages you base your examples of different "anarchist" nations from. You know that the major religion of the Somalia is Islam right? You know what? The islam religion has taxes. Each year, each Muslim should give about 2,5% of their savings to the poor and needing.

Are there any historical facts from "my propaganda" you take issue with? "Should" give is alright and doesn't constitute a tax, it is "forced to" give which constitutes theft/taxation. In fact I agree that everyone "should" give money to charity. I'm not defending sharia but I think it would be an improvement over any potential Somali government.


There's still war and people still get killed. Where's the improvement?

There is less fighting, and the areas which were always ruled by customary law are quite peaceful, and the economy is better. Improvement, no? Remember, don't compare statelessness to an ideal govt, compare it to the actual govt. Somalia is better without the state than with it and that's all you can ask. It's messy now but it would be more messy under any other system.

Remember, most states are stable because they evolved over centuries. To go straight into statelessness without any education or input from those who have given it thought is bound to be messy as there is a huge power vacuum. What we envision is that there are organisations ready to fill that vacuum such as could happen with private security firms in America or anarchist educators like the Ukraine (I think), Letila will tell you the guy's name. Attempts to create states from scratch in e.g. Somalia, Afgahnistan or Iraq have been equally or more disasterous as attempts to create stable stateless societies, and people are supposed to know how to "work" a state.

The lesson to be learned is that there needs to be education about the alternatives to state rule. I don't deny that if the UK govt were to disappear overnight the first thing people would do is start another govt.

Do you have any kind of figures on this that doesn't come from one of your Anarchist sites?
No, who else would write about it except people trying to argue for or against anarcho-capitalism. Most people writing about it, journalists and CIA included, have probably never even heard of anarcho-capitalism.

What do you mean fascism "worked"? It led to warfare, loss of all liberty, dictatorship, collectivism and poverty. What exactly are you looking for from a political system?

Poverty?! :shock: You know that Hitler brought Germany out of a extreme depression right? With "worked" I mean, people got work, they got payed, they had proper healthcare, education e.t.c. How can you not call it sucessful? The reason why the nazi state was unacceptable was because they killed Jews and invaded Europe. The people wanted (or were brainwashed depending on how you see it) to have Hitler as a leader.

Keynesian policies don't work in the long term. The only fascist state that survived for more than a few years was Spain which was impoverished.

Why do you claim Anarchy (or rather, statelessness) doesn't work? I gave you several examples and every time it "worked" better than state meddling and usurpation. You can stick to your knee-jerk reactions if you like but those of us who are scientific enough to base our opinions on EVIDENCE would rather you left us alone.

No you haven't given me any evidence, because who knows how it was to live on Iceland 800 years ago? How can you prove it was better? You can't even prove that they followed the rules that they had set up themselves. Plus you have no evidence that such a state existing in a modern industrulized society. A industrial city is very different from a village in wilderness of Africa. I have proof that democracy works, since I live in a democratic state and my country is surrounded by other democratic states. My country (Sweden) have been a democracy for about 80-90 years but there are other countries that have been democracies longer then that (with democracies in this case I mean a democracy with a state)

The reason I think Anarchy doesn't work is because 1. It have never been tested in a modern industrlized state, country or city. Todays society is much more advanced then the societies before 2. Becasue of the human will to dominate others and because of human greed 3. People have different ideas of what a "good" society is and some people don't agree with the anarchist society. [/quote:aeca5de786]
Based on the available literature the Icelandic murder rate was about the same as a modern US city. California had no govt and had a flourishing mining industry. 19th century England was well documented and industrialised. The commercial revolution was only possible because of the medieval law merchants who established rules of trade. Why should catching theives and murderers be any more complex now than 1000 years ago?

For instance, medieval iceland peacefully remained almost entirely ungoverned for 3 centuries. By contrast,the US democracy lasted 80 years before descending into civil war. Anarchism has historically lasted, what, about 10 times as long as any fascist dictatorship? I think some African tribes have existed without states for centuries longer than this and medieval Ireland had a mostly private justice system for about a millenium.

How do you know why had anarchy when we were cave men? How can you prove that we didn't have any leaders in our tribes? The Egyptian "empire" lasted about 3000 years or something I think. And some of the old middle eastern civilisations might even have lasted longer then that.
African tribes were still around as recently as the 50s with no rulers, (possibly later).