NationStates Jolt Archive

What the title says. Why aren't you an anarchist?

-----------------------------------------
"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

Umm.. Cause I just dont feel like it.

Because its a bad idea that never really works?

Because I am not dying under the opression of my government.....I mean, that free speach and all, I'm sure it is opressive :roll:

I'm not an anarchist because life would be scary without a government to keep people from slitting my throat in my sleep.

Because its a bad idea that never really works?

It has worked: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI8.html

Because I am not dying under the opression of my government.....I mean, that free speach and all, I'm sure it is opressive

So? Anarchism is still an improvement.

-----------------------------------------
"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

Because its a bad idea that never really works?

Right-o! it never works out the way you want because deep inside, everyone needs order and stability! (like the stability you get with a ruthless dictatorship!) you know you want it.... :P

Because its a bad idea that never really works?

It has worked:
More often than not it has failed... Like in Africa ... There was anarachy there just a couple years ago and one group tried to exterminate another with homemade knives and axes.

Because its promises are farfetched

Why? Becuase I know Anarchy never works. With out a government who would peovide a Military fro defence,Who would provide an educational system, who would Provide Police forces, Who would make laws, Who would provide health care? No one and then War lords would start recuiting people and install an Opressive dictator ship wich would needlessly kill Innocent people OR War lords would fight each other stealing all supplies and starving those that do not support their cuase. Most Countries that are in anarchy are Filled with desease and Constently starving and People are forced To starve and watch each other die.

Thats why

...Because I am not the equivilent to an unruly 14 year old whinning about adherence to higher authority. Oh, and I'm a Capitalizt pig who enjoys exploiting poor uneducated minorites for finacial gain. :)


____________________
www.StudentsForWar.com

More often than not it has failed... Like in Africa ... There was anarachy there just a couple years ago and one group tried to exterminate another with homemade knives and axes.

Somalia is not anarchy! Anarchy is a society without 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

My people say 'Screw you guys-i'm going home'

Just because it worked once doesn't mean it will ever work again.

Maybe it did work for a little while in civil war Spain. But I wonder, had the war ended with the fascists defeated, it would have taken for there to be bloodshed on the streets.

People always want power, without government, who is going to stop some brutal dictator promising riches to his followers to take over the world.

I'm just one of those free-thinking people who is chamelionic enough to fit into the regimented corporate world. That's a life I currently consider good enough for me. I see no point in committing myself to anarchy, when I can enjoy the best of both worlds.

Anarchy would probably offer me nothing but a pay cut.

I'm not an anarchist because life would be scary without a government to keep people from slitting my throat in my sleep.

of course, any objective look at history will show that government has been particularly adept at slitting people's throats while they sleep. much more so than individuals or non-governmental organizations.

I'm just one of those free-thinking people who is chamelionic enough to fit into the regimented corporate world. That's a life I currently consider good enough for me. I see no point in committing myself to anarchy, when I can enjoy the best of both worlds.

So you don't care about having a better life?

People always want power, without government, who is going to stop some brutal dictator promising riches to his followers to take over the world.

He won't have riches to promise people. Even if he did, people would have plenty of other ways to get stuff.

Anarchy would probably offer me nothing but a pay cut.


And infinite deflation.

-----------------------------------------
"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 should be be anarchists?

of course, any objective look at history will show that government has been particularly adept at slitting people's throats while they sleep. much more so than individuals or non-governmental organizations.

Well, that's why you have democracy. So that if the government does slit people's throats, (literally or figuratively) you can always elect a new one.

I'm not an anarchist because life would be scary without a government to keep people from slitting my throat in my sleep.

of course, any objective look at history will show that government has been particularly adept at slitting people's throats while they sleep. much more so than individuals or non-governmental organizations.

If think that the government now will kill less people like that then when there is no government and criminals will run free.

I'm just one of those free-thinking people who is chamelionic enough to fit into the regimented corporate world. That's a life I currently consider good enough for me. I see no point in committing myself to anarchy, when I can enjoy the best of both worlds.
So you don't care about having a better life?
I currently have almost everything I want. I am content. An individual's life is essentially a never-ending quest to survive and find contentment. Barring any unfortunate or unforseen events, I have it made. Irrespective of what anarchy may offer, the status quo serves some well enough.

Alright, heres a question for you Letila: Whats so great about BEING an anarchist? What possibile advantages have I missed, other than the fact that some crazy whackjob with a knife can kill me whenever he wants?

I currently have almost everything I want. I am content. An individual's life is essentially a never-ending quest to survive and find contentment. Barring any unfortunate or unforseen events, I have it made. Irrespective of what anarchy may offer, the status quo serves some well enough.

But anarchism offers more. Why be content with a lesser life?

If think that the government now will kill less people like that then when there is no government and criminals will run free.

Which is why poverty should be eliminated to reduce crime.

Alright, heres a question for you Letila: Whats so great about BEING an anarchist? What possibile advantages have I missed, other than the fact that some crazy whackjob with a knife can kill me whenever he wants?

Freedom, equality, no use of money. Why be for government? So that any president can tax you?

-----------------------------------------
"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

He won't have riches to promise people. Even if he did, people would have plenty of other ways to get stuff.


He will if he raids all the homes of the people that appose him.

Plus, who is going to watch the schools to make sure they are teaching students properly and who is going to watch over child abuse.

What the title says. Why aren't you an anarchist?
If you can answer "Why am I an Inoffensive Centrist Democracy?" I'll answer your question

He will if he raids all the homes of the people that appose him.

And how is he supposed to if he is opposed by a communal militia?

-----------------------------------------
"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

He will if he raids all the homes of the people that appose him.

And how is he supposed to if he is opposed by a communal militia?

-----------------------------------------
"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
This communal militia is organized by?...

Alright, heres a question for you Letila: Whats so great about BEING an anarchist? What possibile advantages have I missed, other than the fact that some crazy whackjob with a knife can kill me whenever he wants?

Freedom, equality, no use of money. Why be for government? So that any president can tax you?


Because goverments offer a secure enviroment, and not some free-for-all battleground where its whoever has the biggest gun wins. Face it, whenever theres anarchy (like when the goverment goes "poof" and theres nothing to fill the vacuum), it rather rapidly deteriorates into what I just described, where every oppurtunistic bastard snatches a new sofa, and all bets are off concerning murder and rape.

I currently have almost everything I want. I am content. An individual's life is essentially a never-ending quest to survive and find contentment. Barring any unfortunate or unforseen events, I have it made. Irrespective of what anarchy may offer, the status quo serves some well enough.
But anarchism offers more. Why be content with a lesser life?
This is the same argument that libertarian capitalists make. Why not have more? Always more! Because I have enough. This is one example of where a law of diminishing returns may come into play. I have no wish to travel the difficult path of promoting a radically different ideology just so I can enjoy a few extra unspecified benefits. As I said, the status quo works in my favour, so there is no incentive for me to change anything.

A government is required to ensure that the rights of it's citizens are protected.

He will if he raids all the homes of the people that appose him.

And how is he supposed to if he is opposed by a communal militia?

-----------------------------------------
"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

Lets say, some leader in the Central part of the US says that he will promise glory and riches and power to all its people, they then form an army and march eastward, they will have a large army comapred to those of the militia.

He will if he raids all the homes of the people that appose him.

And how is he supposed to if he is opposed by a communal militia?

-----------------------------------------
"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

Lets say, some leader in the Central part of the US says that he will promise glory and riches and power to all its people, they then form an army and march eastward, they will have a large army comapred to those of the militia.

He will if he raids all the homes of the people that appose him.

And how is he supposed to if he is opposed by a communal militia?

-----------------------------------------
"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
This communal militia is organized by?...

I think Letila is under the impression that "anarchy" and "socialism" are the same thing. In an anarchy, there wouldn't be any "communal militia", because thats *gasp!* organized and goes against the fundamental principles of anarchy.

I remember him saying something like:
'Communism is a step toward anarchy' at one point, I think I pointed out to him at that point that in a Communist state the govornment owns EVERYTHING...

Scenario in Anarchy. I have a nice home, but not far away is a slighlty bigger house with a wonderful view of the ocean, so in the night i go in and kill the occupant, now i have a wonderful house by the ocean. Yay!

Scenario in Anarchy. I have a nice home, but not far away is a slighlty bigger house with a wonderful view of the ocean, so in the night i go in and kill the occupant, now i have a wonderful house by the ocean. Yay!
Nah, the owner of the house pays thirty rather deranged men to keep him alive...Im afraid you were tourtured slowly to death in the basement by a homosexual wookie on viagra.

What possibile advantages have I missed, other than the fact that some crazy whackjob with a knife can kill me whenever he wants?

last i checked, that was the case in every society that has ever existed, including the current one.

as for the benefits of anarchism, basically it comes down to being in control of your own life and not being subjected to the arbitrary commands of authority. it is about collective freedom and equality, and ending the artificial concept of poverty created by class society - an end to privilege and injustice.

I think Letila is under the impression that "anarchy" and "socialism" are the same thing. In an anarchy, there wouldn't be any "communal militia", because thats *gasp!* organized and goes against the fundamental principles of anarchy.

Anarchism is a form of socialism, but without the state.

A government is required to ensure that the rights of it's citizens are protected.

Like from governments?

This is the same argument that libertarian capitalists make. Why not have more? Always more! Because I have enough. This is one example of where a law of diminishing returns may come into play. I have no wish to travel the difficult path of promoting a radically different ideology just so I can enjoy a few extra unspecified benefits. As I said, the status quo works in my favour, so there is no incentive for me to change anything.

You are being exploited by the status quo.

Because goverments offer a secure enviroment, and not some free-for-all battleground where its whoever has the biggest gun wins. Face it, whenever theres anarchy (like when the goverment goes "poof" and theres nothing to fill the vacuum), it rather rapidly deteriorates into what I just described, where every oppurtunistic bastard snatches a new sofa, and all bets are off concerning murder and rape.

Anarchism is organization without hierarchy, not chaos!

I remember him saying something like:
'Communism is a step toward anarchy' at one point, I think I pointed out to him at that point that in a Communist state the govornment owns EVERYTHING...

Except for anarcho-communism, which has no state.

Scenario in Anarchy. I have a nice home, but not far away is a slighlty bigger house with a wonderful view of the ocean, so in the night i go in and kill the occupant, now i have a wonderful house by the ocean. Yay!

Then you must deal with the commune. You'd have to be insane to do that in the first place.

-----------------------------------------
"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

Scenario in Anarchy. I have a nice home, but not far away is a slighlty bigger house with a wonderful view of the ocean, so in the night i go in and kill the occupant, now i have a wonderful house by the ocean. Yay!
Nah, the owner of the house pays thirty rather deranged men to keep him alive...Im afraid you were tourtured slowly to death in the basement by a homosexual wookie on viagra.

but that sounds like a dangerous job to guard someones house. You could be killed. What is he going to pay me that i can't steal myself.

What the title says. Why aren't you an anarchist?

-----------------------------------------
"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
Not now mommy, I wanna watch tv!

i am not an anarchist because i find the theory to be utterly untenable.
it relies on a model of human behavior and human psychology that is unrealistic. we are not NICE, not alturistic, not peaceful, not cooperative. there have been NO successful utopian communities over the long run and those were created by people who really wanted to have it all work out. ( i suppose the most successful were the shakers but they had that ban on sexual activity so they kinda died out)

plus, just when you are getting into the theory of anarchy and thinking "hey this is cool" SOMEONE BLOWS SOMETHING UP
the biggest problem is that, in the real world, anarchists are NUTZ no matter how wonderful the theory sounds on paper.

Scenario in Anarchy. I have a nice home, but not far away is a slighlty bigger house with a wonderful view of the ocean, so in the night i go in and kill the occupant, now i have a wonderful house by the ocean. Yay!

Then you must deal with the commune. You'd have to be insane to do that in the first place.


'
Well unfortuntly there are people that are insane in the world.

I think Letila is under the impression that "anarchy" and "socialism" are the same thing. In an anarchy, there wouldn't be any "communal militia", because thats *gasp!* organized and goes against the fundamental principles of anarchy.

anarchy is order, anarchy is organization (that's why the symbol is an 'a' inside an 'o'). the fundamental principle of anarchy is a lack of rulers. people often equate anarchy with anomie, but the distinction is there and blurring it will require arguments that take into account anarchist theory of egalitarian organization.

You are being exploited by the status quo.
If my life is one of exploitation, then ignorance is bliss. :lol:

Seriously. You have to accept that a lot of people do well in organised societies. A lot of people do badly, but that's beside the point here. I'm doing OK, so have no need to pursue change. Maybe someone else does, but that's not my problem.

Scenario in Anarchy. I have a nice home, but not far away is a slighlty bigger house with a wonderful view of the ocean, so in the night i go in and kill the occupant, now i have a wonderful house by the ocean. Yay!

Then people find out what you've done and take action to stop you being a further threat to their society...

Anarchy doesn't give you freedom to take away other people's freedoms - it's just that with anarchy regular people act to maintain society, rather than the government. The problem with vigilantes is that they're usually rather dumb, so we'd have to have one hell of an education system for it to work.

Scenario in Anarchy. I have a nice home, but not far away is a slighlty bigger house with a wonderful view of the ocean, so in the night i go in and kill the occupant, now i have a wonderful house by the ocean. Yay!
Nah, the owner of the house pays thirty rather deranged men to keep him alive...Im afraid you were tourtured slowly to death in the basement by a homosexual wookie on viagra.

but that sounds like a dangerous job to guard someones house. You could be killed. What is he going to pay me that i can't steal myself.

No, no, he payed somebody else. I suppose he could ensure they get a good place to sleep, dont get killed due to numbers...that sort of thing.


Except for anarcho-communism, which has no state.

Excuse me...the whole point of Communism is that the state owns everything, and everybody. Since the state owns everything, everybody is equal, except the people who work for the state who live quite well.

What possibile advantages have I missed, other than the fact that some crazy whackjob with a knife can kill me whenever he wants?

last i checked, that was the case in every society that has ever existed, including the current one.

as for the benefits of anarchism, basically it comes down to being in control of your own life and not being subjected to the arbitrary commands of authority. it is about collective freedom and equality, and ending the artificial concept of poverty created by class society - an end to privilege and injustice.

At least in this society, said whackjob will get a needle in the arm instead of being lauded for "excersising his free will".

Under an anarchy, yes you wouldn't be "subjected to the arbitrary commands of authoirty." You would be subjected to the arbitrary commands of whoevers bigger and stronger than you are.

You are being exploited by the status quo.
At least hes contributing, unlike some people.

And I don't know what the hell you people are thinking, but a commune sure sounds like a form of goverment to me.

Scenario in Anarchy. I have a nice home, but not far away is a slighlty bigger house with a wonderful view of the ocean, so in the night i go in and kill the occupant, now i have a wonderful house by the ocean. Yay!
Nah, the owner of the house pays thirty rather deranged men to keep him alive...Im afraid you were tourtured slowly to death in the basement by a homosexual wookie on viagra.

but that sounds like a dangerous job to guard someones house. You could be killed. What is he going to pay me that i can't steal myself.

No, no, he payed somebody else. I suppose he could ensure they get a good place to sleep, dont get killed due to numbers...that sort of thing.


Except for anarcho-communism, which has no state.

Excuse me...the whole point of Communism is that the state owns everything, and everybody. Since the state owns everything, everybody is equal, except the people who work for the state who live quite well.

Excuse me...the whole point of Communism is that the state owns everything, and everybody. Since the state owns everything, everybody is equal, except the people who work for the state who live quite well.

No, it's an economic system where money isn't used.

And I don't know what the hell you people are thinking, but a commune sure sounds like a form of goverment to me.

You don't take orders in it, though.

Well unfortuntly there are people that are insane in the world.

And they do a lot of harm if they get into government.

i am not an anarchist because i find the theory to be utterly untenable.
it relies on a model of human behavior and human psychology that is unrealistic. we are not NICE, not alturistic, not peaceful, not cooperative.

Which is why we shouldn't let people into government, where they can do a great deal of harm.

there have been NO successful utopian communities over the long run and those were created by people who really wanted to have it all work out.

Actually, there have been anarchistic communes, some still around today.

-----------------------------------------
"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

In response to the original question:

Because I believe in freedom being promoted via positive measures rather than its promotion via the removal of negative ones. In effect I'm a modern liberal rather than a classical one.

In response to the original question:

Because I believe in freedom being promoted via positive measures rather than its promotion via the removal of negative ones. In effect I'm a modern liberal rather than a classical one.

In response to the original question:

Because I believe in freedom being promoted via positive measures rather than its promotion via the removal of negative ones. In effect I'm a modern liberal rather than a classical one.

At least in this society, said whackjob will get a needle in the arm instead of being lauded for "excersising his free will".

Under an anarchy, yes you wouldn't be "subjected to the arbitrary commands of authoirty." You would be subjected to the arbitrary commands of whoevers bigger and stronger than you are.

there is a distinction you are missing - it is possible to have order and stability without hierarchical command. in an anarchist society you do not have the freedom to harm others. and if you do, the federation will have some process in place to deal with you.

we do not intend to just destroy the existing structure and call it a day. would you be interested in the quick and dirty explanation of societal organization proposed by anarchism? i'm willing to run through it, but if we'd rather just keep this to one-liners and stereotypes, that's fine too.

At least in this society, said whackjob will get a needle in the arm instead of being lauded for "excersising his free will".

Under an anarchy, yes you wouldn't be "subjected to the arbitrary commands of authoirty." You would be subjected to the arbitrary commands of whoevers bigger and stronger than you are.

there is a distinction you are missing - it is possible to have order and stability without hierarchical command. in an anarchist society you do not have the freedom to harm others. and if you do, the federation will have some process in place to deal with you.

we do not intend to just destroy the existing structure and call it a day. would you be interested in the quick and dirty explanation of societal organization proposed by anarchism? i'm willing to run through it, but if we'd rather just keep this to one-liners and stereotypes, that's fine too.

people are into heirarchy. there is no way to do without it, from the ladies committee at church to the UN.

any society foolish enough to go with it would soon find themselves overrun by the mean nasty heirarchical beast waiting outside their borders for the chance to get something for the price of conquest

Because i dont want to be labeled in the same catagory as those whiney 13 year old 'punks' who wear the anarchy logo on thier T Shirts, and listen to shitty music.

Also i dont want to be living in fear, Without police, and fire departments.

Without an army, who would defend the country if we should ever be invaded? Random, unorganized groups from assorted communes with home-made knives?

Because i dont want to be labeled in the same catagory as those whiney 13 year old 'punks' who wear the anarchy logo on thier T Shirts, and listen to shitty music.

I don't want to be in the same catagory as genocidal dictators: "The [Nazi] Party is based on the fundamental principle of private property" - Adolf Hitler

Without an army, who would defend the country if we should ever be invaded? Random, unorganized groups from assorted communes with home-made knives?

Why? There would be much less war that way.

-----------------------------------------
"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 aren't I an anarchist?

Because I'm got too many ambitions to become a bloody fisted tyrant.

Because i dont want to be labeled in the same catagory as those whiney 13 year old 'punks' who wear the anarchy logo on thier T Shirts, and listen to shitty music.

I don't want to be in the same catagory as genocidal dictators: "The [Nazi] Party is based on the fundamental principle of private property" - Adolf Hitler

Without an army, who would defend the country if we should ever be invaded? Random, unorganized groups from assorted communes with home-made knives?

Why? There would be much less war that way.

-----------------------------------------
"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

A. Hitler was a psycho, should I bring up the extremist Anarchists who firebomb people?

B. Yes, there would be one, very short war, which would end with lots of raping, looting and pillaging, 'cause we couldnt resist.

What the title says. Why aren't you an anarchist?

-----------------------------------------
"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

Because it WONT work. See Somalia, Afganistan, Iraq, and several african countries.

Its worse than communism, or libertarians.

Because it WONT work. See Somalia, Afganistan, Iraq, and several african countries.

They aren't anarchist. Anarchism is a specific political theory.

Its worse than communism, or libertarians.

It is both communist and libertarian, at least for most anarchists.

Hitler was a psycho, should I bring up the extremist Anarchists who firebomb people?

Name some examples? Czolgosz? De Sade? The government side has numerous psychos. Pinochet, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin, Nixon, need I say more?

Yes, there would be one, very short war, which would end with lots of raping, looting and pillaging, 'cause we couldnt resist.

If people were really like that, then the government would be doing that stuff, too. If that is the case, their greater power gives them much more power to harm and they should be abolished.

-----------------------------------------
"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

But anarchism offers more. Why be content with a lesser life?

Which is why poverty should be eliminated to reduce crime.

Freedom, equality, no use of money. Why be for government? So that any president can tax you?


1. I like having paved roads, working fire hydrants, police officers, EMT's, hospitals, librarys, post offices, air pollution standards, enviromental standards, and stocked fisheries. Just think of anarchy as lasseiz faire capitalism where corporations control everything.

2. But if there is no government to control capitalism, who will control everything? Corporations. Who will defend us from external aggressors? Not the military, because we are anarchists, and aarchists dont want a military.

3. Tax me to pay for services, yes i really disagree with the corporate military, etc. But our government right now is better than no government at all.

And for the arguemnt that anarchism has no heichary is useless. It is human nature to try to gain power.

Anarchy leadss to social disorder. I'm a Libertarian. That means I believe in a very limited government, that only serves to protect the freedoms of people, and intervenes in no other way.

I like having paved roads, working fire hydrants, police officers, EMT's, hospitals, librarys, post offices, air pollution standards, enviromental standards, and stocked fisheries. Just think of anarchy as lasseiz faire capitalism where corporations control everything.

That would not be anarchism, but stateless capitalism. Anarchism is a form of socialism.

And for the arguemnt that anarchism has no heichary is useless. It is human nature to try to gain power.

But no where does it say they will succeed.

Anarchy leadss to social disorder. I'm a Libertarian. That means I believe in a very limited government, that only serves to protect the freedoms of people, and intervenes in no other way.

People can protect their own freedom by banding together.

-----------------------------------------
"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

But anarchism offers more. Why be content with a lesser life?

Which is why poverty should be eliminated to reduce crime.

Freedom, equality, no use of money. Why be for government? So that any president can tax you?


1. I like having paved roads, working fire hydrants, police officers, EMT's, hospitals, librarys, post offices, air pollution standards, enviromental standards, and stocked fisheries. Just think of anarchy as lasseiz faire capitalism where corporations control everything.

2. But if there is no government to control capitalism, who will control everything? Corporations. Who will defend us from external aggressors? Not the military, because we are anarchists, and aarchists dont want a military.

3. Tax me to pay for services, yes i really disagree with the corporate military, etc. But our government right now is better than no government at all.

And for the arguemnt that anarchism has no heichary is useless. It is human nature to try to gain power.

Because people aren't responsible enough.

Because people aren't responsible enough.

Except for those in government, of course. :roll:

-----------------------------------------
"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

Gaining power is human nature, in fact, many animals have a heirarchy, so why go against nature.

Because when times get hard and push comes to shove, ALL political systems centralize. Authority and hierarchy are the meat and butter of organized armed forces.

I'm not an anarchist, because these communities wouldn't be able to defend themselves if a 100+ people decided NOT to play by the new rules of the game. In a world of 6 billion people, I'd rather be the one holding the guns in an organised force then some "liberated" dood in a communal militia.

Gaining power is human nature, in fact, many animals have a heirarchy, so why go against nature.

Yes, just like many animals get sick. Why try to cure illness and go against nature?

-----------------------------------------
"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 the title says. Why aren't you an anarchist?

-----------------------------------------
"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.jpgToo much order in anarchy for me.

my thoughts exactly :wink:

I'm not an anarchist, because these communities wouldn't be able to defend themselves if a 100+ people decided NOT to play by the new rules of the game. In a world of 6 billion people, I'd rather be the one holding the guns in an organised force then some "liberated" dood in a communal militia.

It takes more than 100 people to defeat a confederation of communes.

Too much order in anarchy for me.

What do you mean?

-----------------------------------------
"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

Gaining power is human nature, in fact, many animals have a heirarchy, so why go against nature.

Yes, just like many animals get sick. Why try to cure illness and go against nature?


exactly, you cant fight human nature and you will only grow bitter trying to force people to be good. people are people and you cant change that. there will always be illness and there will always be human nature

Ummm...okay, lemme clarify something, the only reason I ever was/am an anarchist is because I don't like the way authority holds itself above the people. But anarchy wouldn't be a good way to aleviate this problem.

Ummm...okay, lemme clarify something, the only reason I ever was/am an anarchist is because I don't like the way authority holds itself above the people. But anarchy wouldn't be a good way to aleviate this problem.

What other answer is there?

exactly, you cant fight human nature and you will only grow bitter trying to force people to be good. people are people and you cant change that. there will always be illness and there will always be human nature

So we should just get sick? As a side note, hunter-gatherer cultures were usually pretty close to anarchy.

-----------------------------------------
"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

As a side note, hunter-gatherer cultures were usually pretty close to anarchy.
That's the point you are missing, complex societies centralise with scale. This applies to businesses/corporations as much as it does to modern states, military forces, etc. An anarchic hunter-gatherer society is feasible, because it has low social complexity. An anarchic industrial society is impossible, as it breaks down under the weight of its own complexity unless it has a high degree of centralisation (it also breaks down when a certain limit of sustainable complexity is reached). You really should read up on complexity theory.

That's the point you are missing, complex societies centralise with scale. This applies to businesses/corporations as much as it does to modern states, military forces, etc. An anarchic hunter-gatherer society is feasible, because it has low social complexity. An anarchic industrial society is impossible, as it breaks down under the weight of its own complexity unless it has a high degree of centralisation (it also breaks down when a certain limit of sustainable complexity is reached). You really should read up on complexity theory.

Coersion and centralization aren't necessary for a modern society: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/coll_l.html

-----------------------------------------
"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

So we should just get sick? As a side note, hunter-gatherer cultures were usually pretty close to anarchy.



and what happened to the hunter gaherer cultures? they were overrun by the mean nasty hierarchical ones who oppressed people into making weapons for conquest. the only ones left are in remote areas that, it seems, no one else wants

no we shoudl not just get sick but WE WILL GET SICK. thats the way the world works. there will always be illness and there will always be human nature

Because people aren't responsible enough.

Except for those in government, of course. :roll:



Look at the governments the people choose to represent them...
Do you really think these people are capable of governing themselves? I'd rather have a corrupt government than no government at all.

That's the point you are missing, complex societies centralise with scale. This applies to businesses/corporations as much as it does to modern states, military forces, etc. An anarchic hunter-gatherer society is feasible, because it has low social complexity. An anarchic industrial society is impossible, as it breaks down under the weight of its own complexity unless it has a high degree of centralisation (it also breaks down when a certain limit of sustainable complexity is reached). You really should read up on complexity theory.
Coersion and centralization aren't necessary for a modern society: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/coll_l.html
I hold ideological dogma in far lower esteem than I do with objective academic analysis. What you suggest is patently absurd. Wishful thinking, flying in the face of reality and millenia of human experience with self-organising societies.

I hold ideological dogma in far lower esteem than I do with objective academic analysis. What you suggest is patently absurd. Wishful thinking, flying in the face of reality and millenia of human experience with self-organising societies.

You genuinely believe there were no anarchists in the Spanish civil war? What would it take to prove that anarchism is possible?

-----------------------------------------
"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

The anarchists are gone now...kinda wiped out.

Gaining power is human nature, in fact, many animals have a heirarchy, so why go against nature.

Yes, just like many animals get sick. Why try to cure illness and go against nature?



Actually animals do try to cure themselves. Some animals know that if you eat a certain plant that it can help things. Humans have just carried it further.

If every man was a saint there would be no need for governments. But every man is not a saint, therefore we need a degree of government to maintain law and order.

You genuinely believe there were no anarchists in the Spanish civil war? What would it take to prove that anarchism is possible?
There has never been a sustainable functioning example on a national scale. We have had every type of theocracy, autocracy, monarchy, all those things constitutional and absolutist, various configuration of democracy, dictatorships, etc. All have worked on a large scale, for extended periods of time, in some time and place. Anarchy, the concept is so ridiculous, I will believe it when I see it. Which is to say, never.

If every man was a saint there would be no need for governments. But every man is not a saint, therefore we need a degree of government to maintain law and order.

You genuinely believe there were no anarchists in the Spanish civil war? What would it take to prove that anarchism is possible?





The insane anarchists attacked the clergy and went on rampages throughout Spain. Thank God Franco won.

I'm not an anarchist, because IMHO so-called "anarchists" are really hypocrites. They claim to want to end any kind of social organization, and yet what do they do...they conglomerate and form social organizations.

At least the vast majority of the world realizes that, in order to have order and a good chance at advancement in life, you need to submit yourself to society.

The insane anarchists attacked the clergy and went on rampages throughout Spain. Thank God Franco won.

Franco was a brutal dictator. Why was his dictatorship preferable to some attacks against an organization that did do the Inquisition?

If every man was a saint there would be no need for governments. But every man is not a saint, therefore we need a degree of government to maintain law and order.

If every man was a saint, a government made up of ordinary men could be trusted to rule. Since we aren't saints, we will abuse power.

There has never been a sustainable functioning example on a national scale. We have had every type of theocracy, autocracy, monarchy, all those things constitutional and absolutist, various configuration of democracy, dictatorships, etc. All have worked on a large scale, for extended periods of time, in some time and place. Anarchy, the concept is so ridiculous, I will believe it when I see it. Which is to say, never.

What about women's equality? Women were oppressed for pretty much since civilization began, yet we are getting close to a society free of sexism.

I'm not an anarchist, because IMHO so-called "anarchists" are really hypocrites. They claim to want to end any kind of social organization, and yet what do they do...they conglomerate and form social organizations.

Actually, we oppose hierarchy, not organization.

-----------------------------------------
"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

even if there was anarchy it wouldn't last long because power thirsty individuals would eventually emerge and take over :tantrum: :tantrum:

Because its a bad idea that never really works?

It has worked: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI8.html

Because I am not dying under the opression of my government.....I mean, that free speach and all, I'm sure it is opressive

So? Anarchism is still an improvement.



Your point?

I can find links that say national socialism worked.

When you can find something that isn't propaganda then we'll talk.

Also, Franco won the civil war so the anarchists and other freaks lost. Anarchism didn't work because only a tiny minority wanted it and they tried to force it on the entire nation, the army didn't want it though. And the army won.

25-30% of recent spanish immigrants to the USA left to return to Spain shortly after Franco won the war. They preferred nationalist Spain to the "American democracy".

What about women's equality? Women were oppressed for pretty much since civilization began, yet we are getting close to a society free of sexism.
So were blacks, asians, homosexuals, you name it. That is an entirely different issue to social architecture at the larger scales.

But with anarchy, you are subject to the whims of the people. If the majority of the people dislike another group of people, it will be worse.

I'm not an anarchist, because IMHO so-called "anarchists" are really hypocrites. They claim to want to end any kind of social organization, and yet what do they do...they conglomerate and form social organizations.

Actually, we oppose hierarchy, not organization.

Uh...to have a hierarchy, you MUST have organization. When you organize society, a hierarchy develops. Ask Russia.

What the title says. Why aren't you an anarchist?

-----------------------------------------
"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

Because it is an idealistic position, depending upon everyone to do what is best for himself and his society, when clearly, people are selfish bastards and will look for a way to do the least work and take from others.

Becuase education, welfare, social security, and all services provided by the government will be done away with.

People are to stupid to govern themselves. And becuase of greed, humanity would stagnant under such a system.

MY websites up

http://www.achu.bravehost.com

So were blacks, asians, homosexuals, you name it. That is an entirely different issue to social architecture at the larger scales.

In other words, nothing will convince you that anarchism works, even though it has been tested on a large scale several times and failed because of Marxist betrayal? Now that's dogmatic.

When you can find something that isn't propaganda then we'll talk.


Everything is biased. It is impossible to describe the successes of anarchism without advocating anarchism in some sense.

even if there was anarchy it wouldn't last long because power thirsty individuals would eventually emerge and take over

They have no way to enforce their will on others. They need an army.

Because it is an idealistic position, depending upon everyone to do what is best for himself and his society, when clearly, people are selfish bastards and will look for a way to do the least work and take from others.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If that's true, then governments would be a bad idea.

But with anarchy, you are subject to the whims of the people. If the majority of the people dislike another group of people, it will be worse.

How is it worse than government? You don't even have to be a member of a commune if you don't want.

People are to stupid to govern themselves. And becuase of greed, humanity would stagnant under such a system.

Then they are too stupid to govern others.

-----------------------------------------
"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

They have no way to enforce their will on others. They need an army.



A mercenary army of the greedy.

I find it disappointing that anarchists are quite content to do away with thousands of years of social, political and economic evolution for the sake of a system built on chaos. I feel that their outlook on the prevailing state of affairs must be so bleak that it is not one I would ever wish to share.

I'm not an anarchist because life would be scary without a government to keep people from slitting my throat in my sleep.


I'de like to make a point that,in most cases anarchy wouldnt work.Yet,there are way that anarchy is in motion and its not what everyone els would consider anarchy but it really is.People that dont like the idea of abortion that rebel aguinst the abortion and visa versa.Simple rebelions like so are actually anarchy in motion yet people only think of anarchy as an anti athority world where kids riot and destroy the higher being but thats a mis conseption.

But in respons to the cut throat,thing in the perfect anarchist mind there would be peace and anarchy so if anarchy where to take over(if possible,your throught would stay safe until anti-nonconformists struck you.

A final note is anarchy(in sterotype) would only work until someone took over and people liked them,but,honestly,that would never happen.Then again when people began to dislike they would rebel again and anarchy would be in motion again.It would continue on like so unitl eventualy the world would be so deluded that there wouldnt be enough people for any party democratic,republican,dictatorship ect.

I'de like to make a point that,in most cases anarchy wouldnt work.Yet,there are way that anarchy is in motion and its not what everyone els would consider anarchy but it really is.People that dont like the idea of abortion that rebel aguinst the abortion and visa versa.Simple rebelions like so are actually anarchy in motion yet people only think of anarchy as an anti athority world where kids riot and destroy the higher being but thats a mis conseption.

But in respons to the cut throat,thing in the perfect anarchist mind there would be peace and anarchy so if anarchy where to take over(if possible,your throught would stay safe until anti-nonconformists struck you.

A final note is anarchy(in sterotype) would only work until someone took over and people liked them,but,honestly,that would never happen.Then again when people began to dislike they would rebel again and anarchy would be in motion again.It would continue on like so unitl eventualy the world would be so deluded that there wouldnt be enough people for any party democratic,republican,dictatorship ect.



Good Lord you're evidence of why we need a government. Education, something you obviously lack.

Why am I not anarchist? Quite simply because anarchism leads to hierarchal society.

The world tried anarchy once upon a time. Hunter-gather societies worked together without hierarchies. Here is what happened. Along the way, someone saved up or gathered enough resources not to have to gather and grow more resources. That person then was able to turn their attention to other things such as developing skills. Once this person had a trade, it can be used as a way to provide the person with resources; the other people who are still hunting and gathering will pay some of what they get for the skills and products the tradesperson provided. This continues for a while, but there is still not really a hierarchy.

Eventually some of these tradespersons gain enough resources (employees included) so that they no longer have to practice their trade to make a living, but rather organize their trade. This is where hierarchy beings. The organizer has power over the workers. The organizer tells them where to go, which jobs to do, and when to do them. Over time organizers gain more influence, taking up organizing more than one small trade, until eventually the organizer (or a group of organizers) is in charge of everything. The city-state develops.

Religion develops along side this social structure and the rulers of the city-state are usually religious leaders as well as political leaders. Welcome to the dawn of civilization. This kind of thing happened in many places in the early history of humanity. The one I know the most about is Mesopotamia. I just finished a semester studying the progression of civilization from its dawn until after the rise of Islam, and also in Central America from the beginnings of the Mayans to the Spanish coming.

All this takes time. Lots of it. Many significant barriers have to be overcome for even this level of civilization; language, sometimes a writing system, along with the new problems that many people living close together bring about. Nevertheless, from here it is an inevitable march forward. Given time, city-states eventually expand to rule several cities, then larger tracts of land and amounts of people. Again, more problems have to be overcome, but over time, people learn how to do it. Eventually huge and powerful empires exist. These empires conquer less powerful and less organized nations, empires collapse and are rebuilt, and eventually you have the modern world.

All the comforts we enjoy today are because of civilization. Medical and technological progress would not have gotten this far without civilization and hierarchy. I am for progress. I am for learning and discovering. The problems that current societies have can be overcome from within society. The right plans just have not been put into action, or possibly even thought up yet. I see no reason to step backwards, especially when anarchy would eventually lead back to hierarchal civilization. There are many more benefits to be gained from society, we just have to learn how.

ANARCHY does NOT = ANARCHISM.

ANARCHY is a complete lack of order. Nobody in their right mind wants that, but that's just my opinion. :wink:
ANARCHISM is a complete lack of oppression. Theoretically at least, only those who gain more than they lose by oppression could NOT want this. However, for a variety of reasons, reality paints a very different picture.

The theories around ANARCHISM are rich and varied. Most people, because of humanity's sad propensity towards intellectual slothfulness, dismiss these theories with little to no investigation of their merits. More disappointing perhaps, most proponents have equally little knowlegde of these ideas. :cry:

From what I have read here, I don't think most of you have bothered to explore the idea. You should though. I think you'd appreciate it. :)

Contopon just totally pwned everyone.

Why am I not anarchist? Quite simply because anarchism leads to hierarchal society.

The world tried anarchy once upon a time. Hunter-gather societies worked together without hierarchies. Here is what happened. Along the way, someone saved up or gathered enough resources not to have to gather and grow more resources. That person then was able to turn their attention to other things such as developing skills. Once this person had a trade, it can be used as a way to provide the person with resources; the other people who are still hunting and gathering will pay some of what they get for the skills and products the tradesperson provided. This continues for a while, but there is still not really a hierarchy.

Eventually some of these tradespersons gain enough resources (employees included) so that they no longer have to practice their trade to make a living, but rather organize their trade. This is where hierarchy beings. The organizer has power over the workers. The organizer tells them where to go, which jobs to do, and when to do them. Over time organizers gain more influence, taking up organizing more than one small trade, until eventually the organizer (or a group of organizers) is in charge of everything. The city-state develops.

Religion develops along side this social structure and the rulers of the city-state are usually religious leaders as well as political leaders. Welcome to the dawn of civilization. This kind of thing happened in many places in the early history of humanity. The one I know the most about is Mesopotamia. I just finished a semester studying the progression of civilization from its dawn until after the rise of Islam, and also in Central America from the beginnings of the Mayans to the Spanish coming.

All this takes time. Lots of it. Many significant barriers have to be overcome for even this level of civilization; language, sometimes a writing system, along with the new problems that many people living close together bring about. Nevertheless, from here it is an inevitable march forward. Given time, city-states eventually expand to rule several cities, then larger tracts of land and amounts of people. Again, more problems have to be overcome, but over time, people learn how to do it. Eventually huge and powerful empires exist. These empires conquer less powerful and less organized nations, empires collapse and are rebuilt, and eventually you have the modern world.

All the comforts we enjoy today are because of civilization. Medical and technological progress would not have gotten this far without civilization and hierarchy. I am for progress. I am for learning and discovering. The problems that current societies have can be overcome from within society. The right plans just have not been put into action, or possibly even thought up yet. I see no reason to step backwards, especially when anarchy would eventually lead back to hierarchal civilization. There are many more benefits to be gained from society, we just have to learn how.

i would argue that rather than trade and the division of labor being the origins of hierarchy in human society, it comes from warfare and domination. labor really gets divided after we have hierarchy developing and those in control of the spears can charge people for their right to exist. after the hierarchy is established it goes about justifying itself through various religious and political means. eventually the dominated come to believe that there is no other way, because that is what culture tells them. but clearly there is another way, their ancestors lived it.

the greatly lower levels of hierarchy seen in non-state societies is more of a function of the group operating as a coalition against would-be dominators than anything inherent to being 'uncivilized'. break the spell of authority and establish a political and social framework to protect against any attempted push towards centralization and you can have an egalitarian society at any technological level. we have already seen movements towards egalitarianism in european cultures within the past few hundred years, and they have gone off more or less well - as long as they had adequate societal institutitions to keep the nobles from retaking power. or wanna be dictators from overthrowing them.

other than that, your post is drenched in the idea of progress. but there is nothing inevitable about the march of progress up to the modern world. civilizations rise and fall, and when they fall society tends to change back to less hierarchal forms. for example, the plains indians of north america had only relatively recently gone back to a foraging lifestyle when europeans encountered them after spending a few centuries in a very hierarchical agricultural society. conditions change, and an imposed hierarchy will not always be able to defend itself. and this time around we are not at a technological disadvantage, nor will we be surprised by the very existence of the threat of hierarchy. we know our enemy and can therefore be better able to fight it.

I find it disappointing that anarchists are quite content to do away with thousands of years of social, political and economic evolution for the sake of a system built on chaos. I feel that their outlook on the prevailing state of affairs must be so bleak that it is not one I would ever wish to share.

but we don't advocate chaos. care to try again?

I'm not an anarchist because life would be scary without a government to keep people from slitting my throat in my sleep.

A person just around the corner in my neighborhood was murdered. The presence of a city, county, state, and federal government didn't seem to prevent that murder. All the law can do is punish criminal behavior, but it cannot prevent criminal behavior.

(EDIT: and besides that, your argument is an appeal to fear, and is therefore illogical.)

People always want power, without government, who is going to stop some brutal dictator promising riches to his followers to take over the world.

What is going to stop the brutal dictator from exploiting that government to do exactly that? You're right. People want power, and so we have government. Government is the mechanism by which that power is achieved.

I don't want to be in the same catagory as genocidal dictators: "The [Nazi] Party is based on the fundamental principle of private property" - Adolf Hitler


Considering the fact that Hitler deprived millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled and others of their private property and their lives, I'm more apt to say that Hitler was a lying S.O.B.

The equation of private property with Hitler is patently false and illogical.

People always want power, without government, who is going to stop some brutal dictator promising riches to his followers to take over the world.

What is going to stop the brutal dictator from exploiting that government to do exactly that? You're right. People want power, and so we have government. Government is the mechanism by which that power is achieved.

i will never understand the argument that government is there to protect us from people who would otherwise rule us. it seems patently absurd on the face of it.

Why am I not an Anarchist? Um.... I'm not really sure. I thought I was one until Letila told me I wasn't. :roll:

Never mind. I'm going to stop calling myself an Anarchist anyway. When I say "Anarchy" people think of chaos, lawlessness and kids throwing bricks through McDonald's windows. Either that or they cite some civil war as a case where "Anarchism" has failed (surely these are failed states! There are multiple govts, not no govts). This just starts a long debate about how to label the ideology.

For instance I haven't heard anyone on this board criticise Anarchism in a way that leads me to believe they understand what Anarchists, or even a single Anarchist faction like the Anarcho-communists, are advocating. Proudhonistes points out that people are too intellectually slothful to research Anarchism but it's hardly surprising. There are millions of things you could read and there isn't time to read them all. Just the name "Anarchism" is probably enough to put most people off.

So you communists can keep the word "Anarchy". As an anarcho-capitalist (hereafter called "Libertarian") I can realise that it is poor PR and marketing.

What the title says. Why aren't you an anarchist?



Ummm- because then I'd be like you?

I find it disappointing that anarchists are quite content to do away with thousands of years of social, political and economic evolution for the sake of a system built on chaos. I feel that their outlook on the prevailing state of affairs must be so bleak that it is not one I would ever wish to share.

but we don't advocate chaos. care to try again?

So let me see: No law, no means by which to enforce order, no state, no hierarchy and total faith in the human disposition to work for a common good. For me those are the ingredients for chaos, either way I see the system as one built one a condemnation of the current socio/political/economic structure and offers no real alternative, it bases its whole argument on the absence of traditional structures and gives no mention to those which would replace it.

Did you ever wonder why it was called anarchism?

I'ma lover not a fighter against society baby!

im an anarchist.

So let me see: No law, no means by which to enforce order, no state, no hierarchy and total faith in the human disposition to work for a common good. For me those are the ingredients for chaos, either way I see the system as one built one a condemnation of the current socio/political/economic structure and offers no real alternative, it bases its whole argument on the absence of traditional structures and gives no mention to those which would replace it.

Communes, worker syndicates, ahierarchial militias, etc. Actually read something about anarchism before you say it has no proposed structures.

-----------------------------------------
"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

I was for a while, then I got bored with it.

Did you ever wonder why it was called anarchism?
Because it means 'without rulers' in greek. Pretty self-explanatory.

I'm not an anarchist because I fundamentally believe that it just can't work. People need the government in order to protect them. Anarchy would allow people to be used and abused by others.

Whilst it's a very nice idea, that's all it can ever be.

I'm not an anarchist because I fundamentally believe that it just can't work. People need the government in order to protect them. Anarchy would allow people to be used and abused by others.

Then why don't people in government abuse their power, then?

-----------------------------------------
"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

Then why don't people in government abuse their power, then?

Well, you see they do as well. However, it is much easier to monitor than in a free society. The government may abuse it's power, but look at the West. These governments do much more good (within their own nation) then they do harm.

Well, you see they do as well. However, it is much easier to monitor than in a free society. The government may abuse it's power, but look at the West. These governments do much more good (within their own nation) then they do harm.

As though communes can't moniter people and the CIA didn't back a coup in Chile.

-----------------------------------------
"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

So... Let's hear it for questions!

Let's see who'll rally around that banner.

Then why don't people in government abuse their power, then?

Well, you see they do as well. However, it is much easier to monitor than in a free society. The government may abuse it's power, but look at the West. These governments do much more good (within their own nation) then they do harm.
But don't you see, Letila? The state gassing the Jews was *much* more civilised than letting them be killed by common murderers. The state taking half your wages to launch imperialistic wars is *far better* than if some individual thug was to mug you to pay for some crack.

The govt's theft, murder, slavery and kidnapping of victimless "criminals" is all the more shameful for being in the open and accepted by the majority.

To claim that govts do more good than harm is to display a profound misunderstanding of free market economics. I'm afraid you've fallen for some propaganda like "free markets only benefit the rich" or "poor people won't be able to afford necessities" or "if the govt doesn't help the unfortunate nobody will". As if compassion has to be enforced at bayonet point!

To claim that govts do more good than harm is to display a profound misunderstanding of free market economics. I'm afraid you've fallen for some propaganda like "free markets only benefit the rich" or "poor people won't be able to afford necessities" or "if the govt doesn't help the unfortunate nobody will". As if compassion has to be enforced at bayonet point!

Depends on what kind of free market you are talking about. One where workers control their own labor or one where they must take orders?

-----------------------------------------
"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

I'm not an anarchist because I fundamentally believe that it just can't work. People need the government in order to protect them. Anarchy would allow people to be used and abused by others.

Whilst it's a very nice idea, that's all it can ever be.
Why would people stop protecting each other without a govt? Extensive govt involvement in security production is only a recent "innovation" which in fact replaced a more efficient, effective, moral and generally superior system of privately produced security. There is absolutely no doubt that your person and property would be better protected by voluntary associations such as neghbourhood watch schemes, mutual aid societies and private security firms than by lightly armed bureaucrats. The theoretical and historical/empirical case for private law is overwhelming. The only problem is convincing people to "sleep without the lights on".

We currently produce protection from crime the same way the Soviet Union provided shoes and food - and with comparable results. What makes you think the govt is any better at protecting you than it is at providing medicine, education or mail delivery?

To claim that govts do more good than harm is to display a profound misunderstanding of free market economics. I'm afraid you've fallen for some propaganda like "free markets only benefit the rich" or "poor people won't be able to afford necessities" or "if the govt doesn't help the unfortunate nobody will". As if compassion has to be enforced at bayonet point!

Depends on what kind of free market you are talking about. One where workers control their own labor or one where they must take orders?

On a free market the workers do control their labour. Just not in the way you mean. You're free to work for anyone who offers to employ you or for nobody at all.

If you are literally forced to take orders it isn't a free market. Employers don't "force" people to work for them any more than consumers "force" businessmen to provide them with cheap goods. Your conception of "force" seems to extend to offering someone a good deal which is much better than the alternative. By your logic the woman who says "marry me or I'm leaving you" is literally forcing the man down the isle. You might passingly refer to this as "forcing" but strictly speaking no force or threat of force is implied.

Under Anarchy, there's no way to either a) plan the economy or b) enforce regulations. Therefore, it's really not too useful as a system.

Does anarchy work or not...remember what happened to the caveman? Hope that answers the question. (i.e. anarchy doesn't work).

In true sectarian splitters fashion, I sense this thread being turning into a debate over individualistic anarchism versus social anarchism. I sympathise with the latter but I'm not yet persuaded. Guess I'm still a left libertarian until I see the light...

Does anarchy work or not...remember what happened to the caveman? Hope that answers the question. (i.e. anarchy doesn't work).
What in the blue hell are you babbling about?

In true sectarian splitters fashion, I sense this thread being turning into a debate over individualistic anarchism versus social anarchism. I sympathise with the latter but I'm not yet persuaded. Guess I'm still a left libertarian until I see the light...

Actually, it's about stateless capitalism vs. anarchism. Individualist anarchism is still anti-capitalist.

-----------------------------------------
"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

Under Anarchy, there's no way to either a) plan the economy or b) enforce regulations. Therefore, it's really not too useful as a system.
a) It depends on the type of anarchism. In libertarianism the economy will be planned the most efficient way possible. The price structure. Resources will be allocated to where they do the most good which is where the generate the highest returns on investment, as opposed to todays statist mis-appropriation which causes poverty and harship for billions.

b) "Regulations" will be enforced by the market. If a product is dodgy you won't buy it. Regulations are in place to stifle competition and are responsible for about half the cost of most goods. Without official regulations things will be cheaper and companies will be smaller and there will be no reduction in quality. It just isn't in a company's interest to produce dodgy goods. This has been proven true in empirical studies, in case you bring out the "don't be so naive" argument.

Thalidemide is usually brought up as proving the need for regulation but millions have died as a result of delayed entry of good drugs to the market. Someone once claimed that if penicillin were invented today it wouldn't meet FDA safety standards.

In true sectarian splitters fashion, I sense this thread being turning into a debate over individualistic anarchism versus social anarchism. I sympathise with the latter but I'm not yet persuaded. Guess I'm still a left libertarian until I see the light...

Actually, it's about stateless capitalism vs. anarchism. Individualist anarchism is still anti-capitalist.

Weeeell, not quite, I disagree. They're all currents in the great river of anarchism.

Damn, I quite fancy a debate but I've got to go. See y'all anon...

Anarchy is in my mind the best thing a country could ever adopt if they could find a way to make it work. Unfortunately there is little reason to believe it ever could work as it goes against the fundamentals of human nature. Sure not everyone is a thief or a killer, but human nature has a built in hierarchy of self, family, others, that will always cause anarchy to fail. Therefore I vote for a direct democracy in which the people are still peers in the legislative process, and only a few elected and highly supervised officials run executive and judicial functions. Such a system actually could work and is close enough to anarchy. This is the system used by Keyet.

If a government comprised of people are not to be trusted to govern others, then why should the people trusted with anything?

Why am I not anarchist? Quite simply because anarchism leads to hierarchal society.

The world tried anarchy once upon a time. Hunter-gather societies worked together without hierarchies. Here is what happened. Along the way, someone saved up or gathered enough resources not to have to gather and grow more resources. That person then was able to turn their attention to other things such as developing skills. Once this person had a trade, it can be used as a way to provide the person with resources; the other people who are still hunting and gathering will pay some of what they get for the skills and products the tradesperson provided. This continues for a while, but there is still not really a hierarchy.

Eventually some of these tradespersons gain enough resources (employees included) so that they no longer have to practice their trade to make a living, but rather organize their trade. This is where hierarchy beings. The organizer has power over the workers. The organizer tells them where to go, which jobs to do, and when to do them. Over time organizers gain more influence, taking up organizing more than one small trade, until eventually the organizer (or a group of organizers) is in charge of everything. The city-state develops.

Religion develops along side this social structure and the rulers of the city-state are usually religious leaders as well as political leaders. Welcome to the dawn of civilization. This kind of thing happened in many places in the early history of humanity. The one I know the most about is Mesopotamia. I just finished a semester studying the progression of civilization from its dawn until after the rise of Islam, and also in Central America from the beginnings of the Mayans to the Spanish coming.

All this takes time. Lots of it. Many significant barriers have to be overcome for even this level of civilization; language, sometimes a writing system, along with the new problems that many people living close together bring about. Nevertheless, from here it is an inevitable march forward. Given time, city-states eventually expand to rule several cities, then larger tracts of land and amounts of people. Again, more problems have to be overcome, but over time, people learn how to do it. Eventually huge and powerful empires exist. These empires conquer less powerful and less organized nations, empires collapse and are rebuilt, and eventually you have the modern world.

All the comforts we enjoy today are because of civilization. Medical and technological progress would not have gotten this far without civilization and hierarchy. I am for progress. I am for learning and discovering. The problems that current societies have can be overcome from within society. The right plans just have not been put into action, or possibly even thought up yet. I see no reason to step backwards, especially when anarchy would eventually lead back to hierarchal civilization. There are many more benefits to be gained from society, we just have to learn how.

i would argue that rather than trade and the division of labor being the origins of hierarchy in human society, it comes from warfare and domination. labor really gets divided after we have hierarchy developing and those in control of the spears can charge people for their right to exist. after the hierarchy is established it goes about justifying itself through various religious and political means. eventually the dominated come to believe that there is no other way, because that is what culture tells them. but clearly there is another way, their ancestors lived it.

the greatly lower levels of hierarchy seen in non-state societies is more of a function of the group operating as a coalition against would-be dominators than anything inherent to being 'uncivilized'. break the spell of authority and establish a political and social framework to protect against any attempted push towards centralization and you can have an egalitarian society at any technological level. we have already seen movements towards egalitarianism in european cultures within the past few hundred years, and they have gone off more or less well - as long as they had adequate societal institutitions to keep the nobles from retaking power. or wanna be dictators from overthrowing them.

other than that, your post is drenched in the idea of progress. but there is nothing inevitable about the march of progress up to the modern world. civilizations rise and fall, and when they fall society tends to change back to less hierarchal forms. for example, the plains indians of north america had only relatively recently gone back to a foraging lifestyle when europeans encountered them after spending a few centuries in a very hierarchical agricultural society. conditions change, and an imposed hierarchy will not always be able to defend itself. and this time around we are not at a technological disadvantage, nor will we be surprised by the very existence of the threat of hierarchy. we know our enemy and can therefore be better able to fight it.

You can argue that warfare and domination brings about hierarchy, but that is simply not the case. First off, people cannot wage war unless there are enough resources to supply an army, or even a small militia group to raid others. Division of labor and specialization are required for this amount of resource surplus. Also, at the dawn of civilization growing that much food required farming techniques beyond simple slash and burn farming. Extensive irrigation projects in river valleys where civilization began were the only places able to raise this much food at the dawn of civilization, and those irrigation projects did not happen without some sort of government and hierarchy being in place first. This happened in many places. The Mesopotamian river valley, the Indus river valley, and the Nile river valley are the most notable. Warfare simply could not be waged until after civilization and hierarchy were established. Second, there was nothing to be gained by warfare until after civilizations had begun. There was no surplus of resources to be taken and so no point in attacking anyone. Warfare and domination fueled empires, but not the birth of civilization and hierarchy.

You also addressed the point that empires and civilizations break down and collapse. You are right, they most certainly do. I acknowledged that they did in my first post. Empires falling apart and being rebuild have nothing to do with the start of hierarchy, but rather problems that occurred from the amount of people, land, and ethnic groups attempting to be ruled. The reasons empires broke down varied; leadership falling apart, disease, famine, rebellion, and many other reasons, but this is not because civilization does not work. It just did not work in the ways it was being tried and on the scales it was being tried. Empires broke down into their component parts, but were eventually built up again under a different ruler from a different place. The point is that each failure leads to new techniques being tried and working ways to govern, provide, and unify greater and greater amounts of people being discovered. That is why the march to the modern world is inevitable. Those who did not have the ability to conquer were eventually conquered.

But again, the building of empires has nothing to do with the roots of hierarchy and civilization. The roots came from specialization and trade learning within the labor force, and everything built from there. Specialization and trade is inevitable, and then from there the building of city-states, then nations, then empires, then the modern world was just a matter of time and trial and error.

Anarchy is in my mind the best thing a country could ever adopt if they could find a way to make it work. Unfortunately there is little reason to believe it ever could work as it goes against the fundamentals of human nature. Sure not everyone is a thief or a killer, but human nature has a built in hierarchy of self, family, others, that will always cause anarchy to fail. Therefore I vote for a direct democracy in which the people are still peers in the legislative process, and only a few elected and highly supervised officials run executive and judicial functions. Such a system actually could work and is close enough to anarchy. This is the system used by Keyet.
Why would you not protect yourself against thieves and killers without a state? I repeat again that stateless justice systems have been historically more successful in every way than bureaucratic justice. Did the Russians have more or less food when the state stopped "providing" it? Why would protection be any different?

You can argue that warfare and domination brings about hierarchy, but that is simply not the case. First off, people cannot wage war unless there are enough resources to supply an army, or even a small militia group to raid others. Division of labor and specialization are required for this amount of resource surplus.

nah. foraging people engaged in raids against each other long before anyone came up with the idea of a standing army and long before there was any significant division of labor or hierarchy. when people first take up small scale agriculture everyone is a farmer. you have agriculturalists before you have very much in the way of hierarchy, but you only have god -kings once they have the weapons to back it up. so yes, you do need excess resources available to supply an army, but it is the possibility of monopolizing those resources that drove the formation of armies and political domination.

Also, at the dawn of civilization growing that much food required farming techniques beyond simple slash and burn farming. Extensive irrigation projects in river valleys where civilization began were the only places able to raise this much food at the dawn of civilization, and those irrigation projects did not happen without some sort of government and hierarchy being in place first. This happened in many places. The Mesopotamian river valley, the Indus river valley, and the Nile river valley are the most notable.

well yes, the state probably did administer the irrigation systems. the problem with the irrigation hypothesis is that it doesn't fit the known timeline. in many of the places with large scale irrigation projects, they were made well after the state had been created. so yeah, government did that, but that was just an added function of an already existing structure of political power.

The point is that each failure leads to new techniques being tried and working ways to govern, provide, and unify greater and greater amounts of people being discovered. That is why the march to the modern world is inevitable. Those who did not have the ability to conquer were eventually conquered.

maybe so. but then we are just looking for a way to conquer the conquerers.

though i still see nothing inevitable about it because there is nothing that necessitates a rise from the fall - where were the reborn cities of cahokia or moundville?

Succesful Forms of government (ranked in order of Efficeny)
1. Democracy/republic
2. Dictatorship
3. Monarchy
4. Socialism

Forms that dont work.
1. Communism
2. Libertarian
3. Theocracy
4. Anarchy

I'm not an anarchist, because these communities wouldn't be able to defend themselves if a 100+ people decided NOT to play by the new rules of the game. In a world of 6 billion people, I'd rather be the one holding the guns in an organised force then some "liberated" dood in a communal militia.

It takes more than 100 people to defeat a confederation of communes.

Too much order in anarchy for me.

What do you mean?

-----------------------------------------
"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

I took 100 people out of nowhere. Even if a small percentage of the world's population refused to become anarchists. Their armed forces would annihilate any type of communal militias. Nowadays with the advent of WMD's, a small percentage of the population can easily wipe out a much larger force.

Armed Forces require order, discipline and duty out of their components. Communal militias are by nature rife with internal problems, lack of centralized plans and overall...well anarchy. Every single instance in history were a well prepared numerically sufficient force with proper leadership has met rabbles (Communal militias are rabbles) the former has lost.

So let me see: No law, no means by which to enforce order, no state, no hierarchy and total faith in the human disposition to work for a common good. For me those are the ingredients for chaos, either way I see the system as one built one a condemnation of the current socio/political/economic structure and offers no real alternative, it bases its whole argument on the absence of traditional structures and gives no mention to those which would replace it.

Did you ever wonder why it was called anarchism?

not at all. from the start we have put forth fairly detailed ideas about possible alternatives. you can have criticisms of any of our ideas, but to say we have none only shows your own ignorance on the subject.

as for why it is called anarchism, it is because we mean what it means. an-archos, without ruler/chief/head. what you want to argue against is anomie (a-nomos, without law/order/name), not anarchy. unfortunately, we can't provide that argument for you. maybe go find some nihilists or something.

i believe the use of the name comes from this part of proudhon's "what is property".


What is to be the form of government in the future? hear some of my younger readers reply: "Why, how can you ask such a question? You are a republican." "A republican! Yes; but that word specifies nothing. Res publica; that is, the public thing. Now, whoever is interested in public affairs - no matter under what form of government - may call himself a republican. Even kings are republicans." "Well! you are a democrat?" -- "No." -- "What! you would have a monarchy." -- "No." -- "A constitutionalist?" -- "God forbid!" -- "You are then an aristocrat?" -- "Not at all." -- "You want a mixed government?" -- "Still less." -- "What are you, then?" -- "I am an anarchist."

"Oh! I understand you; you speak satirically. This is a hit at the government." -- "By no means. I have just given you my serious and well-considered profession of faith. Although a firm friend of order, I am (in the full force of the term) an anarchist. Listen to me."

I do not trust my fellow humans enough.

Succesful Forms of government (ranked in order of Efficeny)
1. Democracy/republic
2. Dictatorship
3. Monarchy
4. Socialism

Forms that dont work.
1. Communism
2. Libertarian
3. Theocracy
4. Anarchy

haha, and this is just an example of your own biases. historically god-king theocracies are the absolute longest lasting states by several orders of magnitude. and under what strange definition of efficiency is a republic more efficient than the extremely centralized and hierachal command of a dictator or a monarch?

Succesful Forms of government (ranked in order of Efficeny)
1. Democracy/republic
2. Dictatorship
3. Monarchy
4. Socialism

Forms that dont work.
1. Communism
2. Libertarian
3. Theocracy
4. Anarchy

haha, and this is just an example of your own biases. historically god-king theocracies are the absolute longest lasting states by several orders of magnitude. and under what strange definition of efficiency is a republic more efficient than the extremely centralized and hierachal command of a dictator or a monarch?

There is corruption in centralized government such as a monarchy, much much more than democracies, meaning that government spending is efficent.

Succesful Forms of government (ranked in order of Efficeny)
1. Democracy/republic
2. Dictatorship
3. Monarchy
4. Socialism

Forms that dont work.
1. Communism
2. Libertarian
3. Theocracy
4. Anarchy

haha, and this is just an example of your own biases. historically god-king theocracies are the absolute longest lasting states by several orders of magnitude. and under what strange definition of efficiency is a republic more efficient than the extremely centralized and hierachal command of a dictator or a monarch?

There is corruption in centralized government such as a monarchy, much much more than democracies, meaning that government spending is efficent.

There is corruption in centralized government such as a monarchy, much much more than democracies, meaning that government spending is efficent.

I wouldn't say that. Look at the US's national debt.

-----------------------------------------
"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

I do not trust my fellow humans enough.

to rule over you or to work with you?

There is corruption in centralized government such as a monarchy, much much more than democracies, meaning that government spending is efficent.

heh, yeah totally. *snicker*

obviously we don't live on the same planet.

There is corruption in centralized government such as a monarchy, much much more than democracies, meaning that government spending is efficent.

This sounds as if it is straight out of the Civ II handbook (or maybe Civ III :?: )

All of our problems are solved here.



http://www.achu.bravehost.com

All of our problems are solved here.



http://www.achu.bravehost.com

No, this one is better: terp.bravehost.com

-----------------------------------------
"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

All of our problems are solved here.



http://www.achu.bravehost.com

http://achu.bravehost.com/myPictures/coptica.JPG

Is this meant to be a perverted St. Omers Cross

http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/resources/image/small/k145742.jpg

PS: Use a spell checker.

No, this one is better: terp.bravehost.com


On technocracy, you state that it is little more than rehashed Marxism, which could be considered untrue. As the early Utopian Socialists such as Owen, Saint-Simon and Fourier were very technocratic and were around well before Marx. In fact Marx put forward his 'scientific' socialism to try and rid the socialist movement of Utopian socialsm (partially, there is more to it).

Also you say "Lets look at the FAQ" which FAQ is this. This is not a critisism, but just an inquiry.

It may be possible to appropriate these two quotations from Bakunin.

‘I detest communism because it is the negation of liberty because I can conceive nothing human without liberty’

[The Socialist state would be] ‘nothing but a barracks: a regime, where regimented working men and women will sleep, wake, work and live to the beat of a drum.’

On technocracy, you state that it is little more than rehashed Marxism, which could be considered untrue. As the early Utopian Socialists such as Owen, Saint-Simon and Fourier were very technocratic and were around well before Marx. In fact Marx put forward his 'scientific' socialism to try and rid the socialist movement of Utopian socialsm (partially, there is more to it).

I'm talking about it's "energy accounting", which is basically the command economy of the USSR with supply and demand added, as well as the fact that it distinguishes property and possession, a characteristic of all forms of socialism, both libertarian and authoritarian, such as anarchism and Marxism.

Also you say "Lets look at the FAQ" which FAQ is this. This is not a critisism, but just an inquiry.

The official Technocracy FAQ from the technocracy homepage.

-----------------------------------------
"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

Anarchy can only work if people are perfect. Only perfect people will always act fairly, do the right thing every time. How can a society function with Charles Mansons, Ted Bundys, John Wayne Gacys, David Berkowitzs, Jeffrey Dahmers, ect. running around without laws and thus restrictions? I invite any anarchist to live in the same area as one of these deviants and still preach anarchy. What about monopolies? Our government (with the exception of dumbass George W Bush) usually protects us from unfair corporate behavior. Caveat emptor, anarchist.

What happens to an anarchist society when a power-hungry conqueror "visits" and then "moves in"? They are assimilated or destroyed, a good example of social Darwinism. What happens when a power-hungry individual takes over their own society, and then oppresses the masses? I dare an anarchist to tell a minority that government is bad. Was the US government evil when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclimation? How much technology would you have without government run and sponsored research & development?

All the anarchists claims are vague, baseless generalities. True anarchy has never worked, and it never will. Just because you can't do whatever you want doesn't mean that rules are bad. Start looking at the consequenses of what you and others do and you'll soon understand the need for order.

:oops:

Anarchy can only work if every human being on Earth decided that at that exact instant that they were all going to adopt this form of government and maintain it forever with no ambition for power. If one group adopts it earlier than the other than other powers will set up a hierarchy for them. If, miraculously, everyone does adopt it at the same time, everywhere, forever there is still one problem: People. We want power no matter the circumstance. We could be in a utopian heaven and one person would still want dominance over the other. Anarchy cannot work because everyone has ambition. Unless humanity all thought as one, and had no free will (which we dont thank god), this can not and will not work no matter how many times it is attempted.

Anarchy can only work if people are perfect. Only perfect people will always act fairly, do the right thing every time. How can a society function with Charles Mansons, Ted Bundys, John Wayne Gacys, David Berkowitzs, Jeffrey Dahmers, ect. running around without laws and thus restrictions? I invite any anarchist to live in the same area as one of these deviants and still preach anarchy. What about monopolies? Our government (with the exception of dumbass George W Bush) usually protects us from unfair corporate behavior. Caveat emptor, anarchist.


First, when those people get into government, we end up with things like Nazi Germany. Second, a communal militia can deal with them if the need arises. Finally, anarchism is a form of socialism and would have no corporations.

I dare an anarchist to tell a minority that government is bad. Was the US government evil when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclimation?

Who enforced slavery in the first place? Who enforced segregation? Who denied women the right to vote? See my point?

-----------------------------------------
"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

On technocracy, you state that it is little more than rehashed Marxism, which could be considered untrue. As the early Utopian Socialists such as Owen, Saint-Simon and Fourier were very technocratic and were around well before Marx. In fact Marx put forward his 'scientific' socialism to try and rid the socialist movement of Utopian socialsm (partially, there is more to it).

I'm talking about it's "energy accounting", which is basically the command economy of the USSR with supply and demand added, as well as the fact that it distinguishes property and possession, a characteristic of all forms of socialism, both libertarian and authoritarian, such as anarchism and Marxism.

Out of interest, have you read up on the Utopian socialists? Just about all parts of technogracies philosophies predated Marx by a significant margin, it is not rehashed Marxism but prehashed Marxism (please forgive me for that, I couldn't resist).

Also you say "Lets look at the FAQ" which FAQ is this. This is not a critisism, but just an inquiry.

The official Technocracy FAQ from the technocracy homepage.


Thank you, where is that found. I remember trying to find a serious site on technocracy a while ago, but only got gaming sites and stuff like that.

Out of interest, have you read up on the Utopian socialists? Just about all parts of technogracies philosophies predated Marx by a significant margin, it is not rehashed Marxism but prehashed Marxism (please forgive me for that, I couldn't resist).

I'll look into those guys. They sound interesting.

Thank you, where is that found. I remember trying to find a serious site on technocracy a while ago, but only got gaming sites and stuff like that.

www.technocracy.ca

-----------------------------------------
"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

People who think like you do scare me.

Anarchism cannot work because people will still band together for mutual protection, it is a characteristic of many mammals and I believe humans fall into this category 100%. And from those groups of people, certain individuals will look up to people with leadership skills and choose to follow them. Order is inevitable, it is human nature.

Anarchism is a fallacy, nothing more, nothing less.

Anarchism cannot work because people will still band together for mutual protection, it is a characteristic of many mammals and I believe humans fall into this category 100%. And from those groups of people, certain individuals will look up to people with leadership skills and choose to follow them. Order is inevitable, it is human nature.

Anarchism is about banding together for mutual aid. What makes you think that coersive hierarchies will evolve, though?

-----------------------------------------
"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

People who think like you do scare me.

Yeah, I don't trust those who want to live free and peaceful too.

Anarchism cannot work because people will still band together for mutual protection, it is a characteristic of many mammals and I believe humans fall into this category 100%. And from those groups of people, certain individuals will look up to people with leadership skills and choose to follow them. Order is inevitable, it is human nature

Your right, order is inevitable. Good for anarchists that anarchy is order. You may have seen the symbol somewhere.

Also please do not dress up your own opinions as fact without evidence. I know that Letila can back up his claims that humans don't naturally produce a hierarchical society.

That doesnt even make sense. The very meaning of the word anarchy is lack of order. Your entire philosophy is bunk.

Anarchism is about banding together for mutual aid. What makes you think that coersive hierarchies will evolve, though?


Your definitions of anarchism seem to change from page to page. Anarchism is (and I quote from the dictionary) "Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority". How is banding together for mutual protection not a form of control or authority? What I am refering to is a trait that is seen in wolves. They hunt together in a pack, yes, but there is always an "Alpha male". Even in nature there is order, order is inevitable.

That doesnt even make sense. The very meaning of the word anarchy is lack of order. Your entire philosophy is bunk.

No it isn't, your showing your ignorance. It is a combination of two greek words that means "no masters" rather than lack of order. It may interest you to know that in the 18th century and before "republicanism" had the Same connotations as anarchy does now.

This is just idiocy.

The modern connotation of anarchism is a lack of centralized government. I believe, from the context of arguments made in favor of anarchy here, that this is what Letila is arguing for. Anarchy is not order. It can not have order, because the only way to achieve any semblance of order, because of natural human behavior, is through social and political hierarchy. A small and simple hierarchy is best because anarchists are correct in their fear of large governing bodies, but without a leader or leaders survival of the fittest becomes rule. It is human instinct to avoid this and so power stuctures emerge. AMG is correct in his description of wolves and their "alpha male." It is only natural that the strongest person or people be chosen to lead, and that being said anarchy can not work because of simple human nature.

Your definitions of anarchism seem to change from page to page. Anarchism is (and I quote from the dictionary) "Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority". How is banding together for mutual protection not a form of control or authority? What I am refering to is a trait that is seen in wolves. They hunt together in a pack, yes, but there is always an "Alpha male". Even in nature there is order, order is inevitable.

Wow, the dictionary :shock: . No offence meant but you could use the encyclopedia (sp?) definition.

How is banding together for mutual protection coercion. No one is forced to be there or do what they don't want.

Human's are not wolves.

Anarchy is order

http://www.angelfire.com/bc2/imagedisrupt/links/images/anarchy.gif

The modern connotation of anarchism is a lack of centralized government. I believe, from the context of arguments made in favor of anarchy here, that this is what Letila is arguing for. Anarchy is not order. It can not have order, because the only way to achieve any semblance of order, because of natural human behavior, is through social and political hierarchy. A small and simple hierarchy is best because anarchists are correct in their fear of large governing bodies, but without a leader or leaders survival of the fittest becomes rule. It is human instinct to avoid this and so power stuctures emerge. AMG is correct in his description of wolves and their "alpha male." It is only natural that the strongest person or people be chosen to lead, and that being said anarchy can not work because of simple human nature.

I should point out that there is a distinction between leadership by wisdom and coersive power. A leader can appear in anarchism, but without police or military, their power is limited to what the other people will take seriously.

-----------------------------------------
"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

Human's are not wolves.


No, but humans are mammals. It is not just mammals that have leadership castes. Insects such as ants and bees have a Queen. Wolves, birds and other such creatures all have leadership in some fashion. It is impossible to not have leadership, and history has proven it. How do you think modern society was built? It was built upon leadership, plain and simple. Anarchism cannot work and I challenge anybody to show an example of anarchism that still works to this day. Granted, nations rise and fall, but the ideals stay the same, be it in the form of democracy or dictatorship.

This is reasonable that a leader depends on what the people take seriously, but then again the masses contain many ignorant, dangerous people who will refute most everything reasonable. A leader needs power in order to work for the good of his people. That is a true leader, one who leads for the sake of others and not himself. Petty tyranny is the result of leaders who care only for themselves, and petty tyranny can be easily prevented if the government is small.

A leader can appear in anarchism, but without police or military, their power is limited to what the other people will take seriously.


Isn't that contradictory to everything you've argued so far?

Human's are not wolves.


No, but humans are mammals. It is not just mammals that have leadership castes. Insects such as ants and bees have a Queen. Wolves, birds and other such creatures all have leadership in some fashion. It is impossible to not have leadership, and history has proven it. How do you think modern society was built? It was built upon leadership, plain and simple. Anarchism cannot work and I challenge anybody to show an example of anarchism that still works to this day. Granted, nations rise and fall, but the ideals stay the same, be it in the form of democracy or dictatorship.

You're point on ants and bees is pointless, because we do not have hive minds. Yes we are mammals, but we are sentient and have greater potentials than other mammals

History has proven nothing of the sort. Maybe you have never heard of the Ukranian Anarchists, or the Spanish ones, or the French syndicalists or the Paris Commune.

To you use your challenge would mean that a republic or a democracy would be impossible in the 'modern' world before the 18th Century. Just because something has never happened does not mean that it can't.

No one is contesting the fact that the world was upon leadership, but it will not be topped by it.

Isn't that contradictory to everything you've argued so far?.

No. someone can have a talent, such as asministration and organising so using many definitions he is a leader. But no one is under any compulsion to follow him.

Isn't that contradictory to everything you've argued so far?.

No. someone can have a talent, such as asministration and organising so using many definitions he is a leader. But no one is under any compulsion to follow him.

Isn't that contradictory to everything you've argued so far?.

No. someone can have a talent, such as asministration and organising so using many definitions he is a leader. But no one is under any compulsion to follow him.

Isn't that contradictory to everything you've argued so far?

No, the leader has no coersive power, just the fact that others take the leader seriously.

No, but humans are mammals. It is not just mammals that have leadership castes. Insects such as ants and bees have a Queen. Wolves, birds and other such creatures all have leadership in some fashion. It is impossible to not have leadership, and history has proven it. How do you think modern society was built? It was built upon leadership, plain and simple. Anarchism cannot work and I challenge anybody to show an example of anarchism that still works to this day. Granted, nations rise and fall, but the ideals stay the same, be it in the form of democracy or dictatorship.

The earliest human societies, hunter-gatherer societies, were often close to anarchism. They had no real government and were often communistic, too.

-----------------------------------------
"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

I can see that this conversation (as with mose conversations in General) is going nowhere. Letila, I understand you are a die hard anarchist (or whatever you choose to call yourself), and Lord knows you are entitled to that opinion.

However, I don't see you promoting anarchism as much as I see you telling everybody else that they're wrong.

I dare an anarchist to tell a minority that government is bad.

http://www.illegalvoices.org/apoc/

First, when those people get into government, we end up with things like Nazi Germany. Second, a communal militia can deal with them if the need arises. Finally, anarchism is a form of socialism and would have no corporations.

You don't even know what anarchism is! It's a rejection of government, not a form of socialism. You can't guarantee that there would be no corporations because you have no controls. Are you relying on a persons honor to folow the non-rule rules?

Actually, Hitler was not like the others I mentioned. He had a distorted viewpoint, but didn't fall into the serial killer category by far. Speaking of him, if no governments had existed, no organization could have stopped him. Your militia argument is weak since no militia will compare to a standing military force.

Who enforced slavery in the first place? Who enforced segregation? Who denied women the right to vote? See my point?

Certain state gov'ts enforced some laws, which were overturned by the national government. In case you've forgotten, slavery is a practice dating back thousands of years. Only through government has it been abolished. It's not that women were actively denied by gov't, they were never granted the right. Haven't you noticed that change is enacted by gov't, not by an unorganized group of ppl.

You keep making these assumptions that require ambitionless, selfless, honorable, responsible people. Good luck finding a state's worth of those people, much less an entire planet.

You don't even know what anarchism is! It's a rejection of government, not a form of socialism. You can't guarantee that there would be no corporations because you have no controls. Are you relying on a persons honor to folow the non-rule rules?

Anarchism is the absence of coersive authority. Read up on it.

Actually, Hitler was not like the others I mentioned. He had a distorted viewpoint, but didn't fall into the serial killer category by far. Speaking of him, if no governments had existed, no organization could have stopped him. Your militia argument is weak since no militia will compare to a standing military force.

What about the Makhnovists? They did very well considering what they were up against.

Certain state gov'ts enforced some laws, which were overturned by the national government. In case you've forgotten, slavery is a practice dating back thousands of years. Only through government has it been abolished. It's not that women were actively denied by gov't, they were never granted the right. Haven't you noticed that change is enacted by gov't, not by an unorganized group of ppl.

Actually, it was the government that enforced segregation laws and ordinary people that opposed them by disobeying the government.

-----------------------------------------
"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

Also please do not dress up your own opinions as fact without evidence. I know that Letila can back up his claims that humans don't naturally produce a hierarchical society.

So why doesn't s/he? Or anyone else for that matter?

All anarchy needs is a spark. It's the inevitable end to society anyway. Humans will eventually destroy themselves, and what few survivors there are will probably not be able to restore order to the chaos that follows. It's only a matter of time. Time and a spark.

You don't even know what anarchism is! It's a rejection of government, not a form of socialism. You can't guarantee that there would be no corporations because you have no controls. Are you relying on a persons honor to folow the non-rule rules?

round and round and round we go.

care to explain why the first person to call himself an anarchist was pierre joseph proudhon, one of the key figures in the socialist movement of the mid 1800s, if anarchism has no relation to socialism?

This is my own little paper I wrote up for fun on anarchism, and why I think anarchism is a bad idea.




Anarchism. One would argue that this, theoretically, is the perfect system, as one would with communism, even dictatorship. I am here to dispell that notion, for I feel that anarchism just isn't possible here in the real world. Before I go on I will say that anarchism, communism, etc. have worked on a small scale (the village of Zoar is a prime example of communism working for a limited time), but it seems these systems are, ultimately, doomed to fail.

It appears anarchism has a variety of flavors; one with money, one without, communo-anarchism and individualist (?)-anarchism, but it appears communo-anarchism is the most widely eaten flavor on this forum , so I will, therefore, debate against communo-anarchism.

Before I begin debating against communo-anarchism, allow me to try and outline the system as I understand it. Small groups of workers organize themselves into communes, form a loose confederation with other communes, and practice direct democracy, where the votes decide what policy is to be enacted, with no central leader. The votes decide what happens; if everyone votes to fight this enemy, they fight them. If they vote to ban someone from the confederation or commune, they will do so. It is from this direct democracy that one would think that anarchism isn't such a bad idea. But even this direct democracy has its own problems.

For comparison to this direct democracy, let us look at the United States. The people select leaders based upon the majority, and this leader enacts policy based upon public opinion, although this is not always the case. Checks and balances are in place so that if he decides the people want to slaughter a portion of the population, they can't. This has become even more true as the natural evolution of laws and policies have ended government sponsored racism and sexism; it seems that the government now leans more towards the formerly opressed.

In an anarchist society, I assume, if the people vote to kill off a portion of society, they must do it; the people want it, they voted for it, and the lack of government checks and balances, unless some guidlines are in place, will allow the slaughter to commence. In a less extreme but more real situation, a small commune can vote someone out of the commune, although I would assume most of the time they would have reason to do so, other times they may vote someone out simply because they do not like them. That's not to say governments haven't done wrongs, but laws can be enacted to ensure they don't happen.

Now that we have gone over why extreme direct democracy is not exactly enjoyable, let us go over why the system will end eventualy. FOr this example, we should look at the city of Zoar, Ohio, though it is not anarchist, it was communist, I believe. Though it was indeed prosperous for a short time-the community of 200 or so people had acquired, in the 1800s, $1 million-the community did not last long after its leader died and because of exposure to outside ideas. The younger members of the community, in particular, prefered the non-communist ideals of the outside, and after 50 or so years of communism, Zoar officialy ended communism.

Such I thing, I think, would happen in an anarchist society. Because the society is supposed to be free for all people to have ideas-much like democracy, otherwise Letila and them would be arrested by now-the younger members of society, even if the older ones are hardline anarchists, would develop anti-anarchist tendancies, which, even if no contact with other ideas were made, would almost certainly develop because of the very nature of a commune.

What is so bad about a commune, you ask? Many who look for an alternative lifestyle seem to think that if they close their eyes and wish real hard, all their problems will go away. But such escapism will not solve the problems of the real world. A commune represses the rights of an individual to choose to be what he wants to be. His labor is assigned to whatever the people need, it appears, and only the working/those unable to work are rewarded for thier labor. And it seams only pysichal labor is rewarded. He who devotes all of his time thinking, up new ways for people to apply labor, advising them on what to do, or thinking of what the people need are not doing hard labor, and thus might even be voted out for being lazy. Engineers, scientists, intelectuals; thier days would seem numbered unless the commune deems such non-working personell as useful. If they, those who do not do hard labor, are useful, why are not those who make descisions? Are not they useful? They don't do hard labor either, and many of the descisions they make can be as damaging from stress as hard labor. I'll leave you to think on that.

But what is truly horrible, in my opinion, is that they seek a cure for a disease that does not exist. There is no opression in the truly democratic, well established, nations of the west. Only those going from pre-industrial to fully industrial society seem to suffer, and it would seem it is all across the board, and temporary. Walk through the United States, as you go you hand out anarchist papers to all you come across. You even hand it to a policeman. Using you right to free speech, no one can arrest you, even though you clearly stated that the government and all hierarchies are pure evil, and that they must be destroyed in some manner. Corporate opression you say? Well I say minimum wage or maximum ratio laws; the US has a minimum wage laws, though maybe not maximum ratio laws, to try and ensure that corporations don't try and exploit the less aware. If maximum ratio laws were accepted, people wouldn't complain about CEOs making too much, because the workers' wages would have to be raised to increase his wage. He then has extra money to invest in the company and create new jobs, or to increase wages.

Hierarchies you say? No problem, they are natural and can evolve around the silliest things. The 'cool' kids in school are looked upon in a much better light than the reclusive, super succesful, 'nerd' who spends more of his time studying than raising hell. Sometimes even differances in jobs can make someone seem better, or someone with greater work ethics is championed above one who has worse work ethics. Those who sided with the majority in a vote might even somehow seem superior. Sily though these are, the basis of many societies is that 'all men are created equal' and all people, usualy, have equal opportunities, assuming they are not disabled.

This concludes my rant, let's all pray it gets through.

I'm not subversive enough to go against today's current accepted form of government 8)

Anarchism is the absence of coersive authority. Read up on it.


Which totally contradicts your claim that it's a form of socialism, which has some component of gov't and doesn't recognize personal ownership.


What about the Makhnovists? They did very well considering what they were up against.


If you think loosing is doing well...


Actually, it was the government that enforced segregation laws and ordinary people that opposed them by disobeying the government.


You mean the same gov't that enforced desegregation and protected minorities from ordinary ppl opposed to it? Had there been no gov't, those ordinary ppl that opposed segregation would have been attacked by mobs in favor of the status quo.

A playground is a virtual anarchy. With the exception of occasional teacher intervention, there is (at first) no social order, no rules (even school rules can be broken if no adults see it). Inevitably, a social order develops, bullies and victems emerge.

This illustrates the fact that unless there is some sort of rule, there will never be a safe or productive society.

Which totally contradicts your claim that it's a form of socialism, which has some component of gov't and doesn't recognize personal ownership.

No, socialism is where the workers control the means of production.

You mean the same gov't that enforced desegregation and protected minorities from ordinary ppl opposed to it? Had there been no gov't, those ordinary ppl that opposed segregation would have been attacked by mobs in favor of the status quo.

The government enforced racism for decades. It wasn't until the 60s that it stopped supporting it under pressure from ordinary people.

In an anarchist society, I assume, if the people vote to kill off a portion of society, they must do it; the people want it, they voted for it, and the lack of government checks and balances, unless some guidlines are in place, will allow the slaughter to commence. In a less extreme but more real situation, a small commune can vote someone out of the commune, although I would assume most of the time they would have reason to do so, other times they may vote someone out simply because they do not like them. That's not to say governments haven't done wrongs, but laws can be enacted to ensure they don't happen.

Governments do this all the time. It's called genocide. Ultimately, minorities are no safer under government than in anarchism.

Now that we have gone over why extreme direct democracy is not exactly enjoyable, let us go over why the system will end eventualy. FOr this example, we should look at the city of Zoar, Ohio, though it is not anarchist, it was communist, I believe. Though it was indeed prosperous for a short time-the community of 200 or so people had acquired, in the 1800s, $1 million-the community did not last long after its leader died and because of exposure to outside ideas. The younger members of the community, in particular, prefered the non-communist ideals of the outside, and after 50 or so years of communism, Zoar officialy ended communism.

It's interesting to note that Peter Kropotkin, a major anarcho-communist thinker, wrote about communal experiments like that and how they usually fail very quickly. The fact that it lasted 50 years says a lot.

What is so bad about a commune, you ask? Many who look for an alternative lifestyle seem to think that if they close their eyes and wish real hard, all their problems will go away. But such escapism will not solve the problems of the real world. A commune represses the rights of an individual to choose to be what he wants to be. His labor is assigned to whatever the people need, it appears, and only the working/those unable to work are rewarded for thier labor. And it seams only pysichal labor is rewarded. He who devotes all of his time thinking, up new ways for people to apply labor, advising them on what to do, or thinking of what the people need are not doing hard labor, and thus might even be voted out for being lazy. Engineers, scientists, intelectuals; thier days would seem numbered unless the commune deems such non-working personell as useful. If they, those who do not do hard labor, are useful, why are not those who make descisions? Are not they useful? They don't do hard labor either, and many of the descisions they make can be as damaging from stress as hard labor. I'll leave you to think on that.

Actually, living in these communes is voluntary and you vote on what is done, rather than just following the "will of the collective" as people like to claim. Engineers and scientists do work. Where did you get the idea that they don't?

Hierarchies you say? No problem, they are natural and can evolve around the silliest things. The 'cool' kids in school are looked upon in a much better light than the reclusive, super succesful, 'nerd' who spends more of his time studying than raising hell. Sometimes even differances in jobs can make someone seem better, or someone with greater work ethics is championed above one who has worse work ethics. Those who sided with the majority in a vote might even somehow seem superior. Sily though these are, the basis of many societies is that 'all men are created equal' and all people, usualy, have equal opportunities, assuming they are not disabled.

Actually, coolness in school is connected to social class outside of it, which is why expensive clothes are considered cool.

-----------------------------------------
"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 aren't I an anarchist? Oh, but I am :)

Ummm...okay, lemme clarify something, the only reason I ever was/am an anarchist is because I don't like the way authority holds itself above the people. But anarchy wouldn't be a good way to aleviate this problem.

What other answer is there?

Democracy of course!

Governments do this all the time. It's called genocide. Ultimately, minorities are no safer under government than in anarchism.

The governments that do this often are extremist governments or dicatorships, or have a high population of racists. However, as someone said, it was the government, listening to those in plight, that repealed racist laws. I would say, at those times, at least here in the US anyways, that the racist laws were still fairly popular, especialy down south.


It's interesting to note that Peter Kropotkin, a major anarcho-communist thinker, wrote about communal experiments like that and how they usually fail very quickly. The fact that it lasted 50 years says a lot.

Funny you say that, I was reading one of his letters about that as I wrote this. But 50 years is roughly one generation, not long in the history of man (as if anything nowadays has been).


Actually, living in these communes is voluntary and you vote on what is done, rather than just following the "will of the collective" as people like to claim. But from what it seems would happen if you don't work in one is that you would leave, and be with no one. Maybe your family and a few friends. Maybe a sort of 'outcast' society would form outside of communes.


Engineers and scientists do work. Where did you get the idea that they don't? I got that idea from you somewhere; something like 'CEOs aren't useful so we should get rid of them.' It was something of the like that they don't work manualy, and labor is rewarded, and so they might not be useful because of the lack of manual labor. But head scientists, chief engineers, etc. must be given some authority in order to head a project, to make a final descision, etc. etc.



Actually, coolness in school is connected to social class outside of it, which is why expensive clothes are considered cool. But those working harder, looking better, or acting nicer are still considered better, silly as it is. All forms of hierarchy are sillly when it boils down to it, but they can't just be wiped away. They seem natural.

Ummm...okay, lemme clarify something, the only reason I ever was/am an anarchist is because I don't like the way authority holds itself above the people. But anarchy wouldn't be a good way to aleviate this problem.

What other answer is there?

Democracy of course!

Only direct democracy can work in this way. And direct democracy can only come about through either technology (electronic voting, ie. a vote box on TV) or by a decentralised communal system.

I like anarchy, its a great system. So why am i not an anarchist.....

Too lazy really to change the world.

power cannot tolerate a vacuum. someone will ALWAYS sieze power. it only takes one who is ambitious and clever enough to take power to ruin an anarchy and become a tyrant. I'd much rather have democracy and at least have a small voice in determining which tyrant it will be.

Anarchy, according to Merriam Webster's:
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>

Problem, without government, what do you think happens to all government run programs? Examples: roads, water purification, electricity in some places (like where I live), etc. It also becomes a dog-eat-dog world where anything goes, including cutthroat competition, literally. It turns into simply "might=right" and if you can't protect yourself, too bad.

Anarchism, according to merriam-webster's:
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

Problem with this is that everyone has to be fully committed to making a better world and being nice to each other. It only takes one person to screw everything up for everyone else. It's too fragile, and it counts on everyone being perfectly good-natured. Sounds nice, but it's woefully unrealistic.

In an anarchist society, I assume, if the people vote to kill off a portion of society, they must do it; the people want it, they voted for it, and the lack of government checks and balances, unless some guidlines are in place, will allow the slaughter to commence. In a less extreme but more real situation, a small commune can vote someone out of the commune, although I would assume most of the time they would have reason to do so, other times they may vote someone out simply because they do not like them. That's not to say governments haven't done wrongs, but laws can be enacted to ensure they don't happen.

actually, direct democracy as advocated by anarchists has the ultimate system of checks and balances. firstly, it has a decentralized decision making structure. that means that bad ideas would have to work harder to spread than they do in a hierarchical power structure, and that there would be plenty of other nodes of power to attempt to deal with the problem. secondly, most anarchist theory suggests a implementing a decision making structure with built-in safeguards against rushing to bad judgements - either through some variation on the consensus model or at least with designated facilitators and devil's advocates to make sure that the process isn't being one-sided. third, the entire thing is founded on free association and mutual aid, so that any group that found itself being persecuted would be able to leave and seek help from elsewhere.

of course, if it is ever the case that a majority of people want to go actively kill some smaller group, you can bet that their will be a lot of deaths, no matter what the system in place is. especially in a hierarchical system, where at least some of those who want to kill group x will more often than not be in a position within the hierarchy to aid the process - lynchings in the south where the sheriff brought the rope or at least refused to charge anyone with a crime. at least in an egalitarian system, no one will be able to use their status to avoid justice later.

OOC: To me, the phrase 'Anarchy' brings to mind images of teenagers with mohawks & black lipstick trying to break down my front door to steal my computer, DVD player, TV, gun collection, etc. while I wait on the other side of the door with a shotgun, hoping there's fewer than six of them.

You asked. That's why.

OOC: To me, the phrase 'Anarchy' brings to mind images of teenagers with mohawks & black lipstick trying to break down my front door to steal my computer, DVD player, TV, gun collection, etc. while I wait on the other side of the door with a shotgun, hoping there's fewer than six of them.

You asked. That's why.

Yeah. It became a catchcry of idiotic punks with no idea. :roll:

power cannot tolerate a vacuum. someone will ALWAYS sieze power. it only takes one who is ambitious and clever enough to take power to ruin an anarchy and become a tyrant. I'd much rather have democracy and at least have a small voice in determining which tyrant it will be.

good thing we don't propose a power vacuum then, isn't it? in fact we propose the only structures i've ever heard of that actually allow you your full say in the running of your life, your community, your workplace, etc. we propose bottom-up democratic federations of communities and workplaces. we propose democratically self-managed workplaces neighborhood assemblies. what we propose is that we really don't need to be ruled because we already have the tools to allow us to run our own lives collectively without having to follow the arbitrary orders of authority.

actually, direct democracy as advocated by anarchists has the ultimate system of checks and balances. firstly, it has a decentralized decision making structure. that means that bad ideas would have to work harder to spread than they do in a hierarchical power structure, and that there would be plenty of other nodes of power to attempt to deal with the problem. secondly, most anarchist theory suggests a implementing a decision making structure with built-in safeguards against rushing to bad judgements - either through some variation on the consensus model or at least with designated facilitators and devil's advocates to make sure that the process isn't being one-sided. third, the entire thing is founded on free association and mutual aid, so that any group that found itself being persecuted would be able to leave and seek help from elsewhere.

It sounds very similar to the current government-except decentralisation, which appears to be contradicted later in that statement-and it is still able to have corruption occur in it, as any other government system can have. Devil's advocate groups can possibly be persuaded to side with this person/group or this person/group on issues, denounce this idea against the government council (if I take it right), etc. I assume this can still occur. Advocate groups could possibly attempt a take over of some sort; if they banded together and emphasized only thier ideals, they could put down any 'bad' votes the people want, and allow 'good' votes to pass.



of course, if it is ever the case that a majority of people want to go actively kill some smaller group, you can bet that their will be a lot of deaths, no matter what the system in place is. especially in a hierarchical system, where at least some of those who want to kill group x will more often than not be in a position within the hierarchy to aid the process - lynchings in the south where the sheriff brought the rope or at least refused to charge anyone with a crime. at least in an egalitarian system, no one will be able to use their status to avoid justice later.

Anarchism is a hierarchal system as well; hierarchies are natural all over nature and appear to evolve in every society on this planet. Even simple parent-child relationships involve hierarchy, and as I pointed out, they can evolve over the most silly things. If money or power can't exist under anarchism, looks, work ethics, attitude, etc. etc. could become the place holders.

Imagine a world where the computer you are reading this message from can be taken from you by anyone who chooses to at any time, and you would have no way to reclaim your right over the computer.

Sounds fun, doesn't it?

In case you've forgotten, slavery is a practice dating back thousands of years. Only through government has it been abolished.

which convientienly ignores the fact that it could only survive through the continuous application of coercion, mostly in the form of the state.

don't you see, the very instrument you are holding up as our savior could tomorrow have you held in prison without charge for the rest of your life, or force you into slavery, or ship you off to die in order to make some rich men richer. sure, it is working out fairly well for you now, but there is very little you could do should the situation change. you have handed over your keys to people you've never met, and they've got you sitting in the backseat watching the scenery go by with the child-proof locks turned on.

People who think like you do scare me.

Yeah, I don't trust those who want to live free and peaceful too.

You too...It's those of you who are stupid or naive enough to think it would work properly.

Like lemmings, you are.

Imagine a world where the computer you are reading this message from can be taken from you by anyone who chooses to at any time, and you would have no way to reclaim your right over the computer.

Sounds fun, doesn't it?

The computer wouldn't be yours, it would be the shared property of the community. On the commune, you would ration time so that everyone in the community can have access to it if they so wish.

Imagine a world where the computer you are reading this message from can be taken from you by anyone who chooses to at any time, and you would have no way to reclaim your right over the computer.

Sounds fun, doesn't it?

You have every right to take it back, hell, you can kill them if you have to to get it back.

Imagine a world where the computer you are reading this message from can be taken from you by anyone who chooses to at any time, and you would have no way to reclaim your right over the computer.

Sounds fun, doesn't it?

that's nearly a perfect description of the state actually. except that you'd have to replace 'anyone' with 'anyone with the proper credentials'. and no, it doesn't sound fun.

Imagine a world where the computer you are reading this message from can be taken from you by anyone who chooses to at any time, and you would have no way to reclaim your right over the computer.

Sounds fun, doesn't it?

The computer wouldn't be yours, it would be the shared property of the community. On the commune, you would ration time so that everyone in the community can have access to it if they so wish.

OOC: One needs to also consider those people who like the old system of democracy better. They would most likely fight the people trying to take their computer. Violence would lead to more violence, and eventually there would be a great civil war over the use of a set of microchips encased in a plastic shell.

Anarchy is defined as the total lack of any social order. Your community ideology worked for many centuries in the form of a tribal society, where food was shared amongst the people equally, reguardless of who killed the animal it came from, or who climbed the tree to get it.

OOC: I also believe that if we keep this debate civil & keep the insults to a minimum, the Moderators will allow us to continue our debate instead of locking the thread.

don't you see, the very instrument you are holding up as our savior could tomorrow have you held in prison without charge for the rest of your life, or force you into slavery, or ship you off to die in order to make some rich men richer. sure, it is working out fairly well for you now, but there is very little you could do should the situation change. you have handed over your keys to people you've never met, and they've got you sitting in the backseat watching the scenery go by with the child-proof locks turned on.

The fact is, most of the world isn't a dictatorship, I think. If we lived in 'communist' China, the Soviet Union, or some other dictatorial nation, you're right, we can't do a thing. But as it stands, dictatorships are failing all over and capitalistic democracies are popping up. All you need to cure exploitation is deploy strict maximum ratio laws, and then wages all over would rise, and/or new jobs would be created, and/or businesses would do better.

What is maximum ratio, you ask? It is a system, in place of minimum wage, that sets a standard for how much a CEO can be paid. His salary is a multiple of his worst paid worker's salaries. If the ratio is set to 10, for an example, and the CEO makes one million dollars, his least paid worker must make 1/10 of his salary, which in this case is $100,000. In many of the huge corporations you see nowadays, this would give the multi billion dollar CEOs less money and workers much, much more money. It would also permit more of them. It also is based more on succes; if I do poorly and make less I slash wages (and thus my own) to survive, rather than cut workers to be able pay minimum wage.

Imagine a world where the computer you are reading this message from can be taken from you by anyone who chooses to at any time, and you would have no way to reclaim your right over the computer.

Sounds fun, doesn't it?

The computer wouldn't be yours, it would be the shared property of the community. On the commune, you would ration time so that everyone in the community can have access to it if they so wish.

OOC: One needs to also consider those people who like the old system of democracy better. They would most likely fight the people trying to take their computer. Violence would lead to more violence, and eventually there would be a great civil war over the use of a set of microchips encased in a plastic shell.

Anarchy is defined as the total lack of any social order. Your community ideology worked for many centuries in the form of a tribal society, where food was shared amongst the people equally, reguardless of who killed the animal it came from, or who climbed the tree to get it.

Yes, you're right. Which is hence why Marx believed in the transitionary dictatorship. While I don't believe in a "Proletarian dictatorship", I believe a transitionary socialist democracy would be a good alternative. Maybe we're moving towards this evolution, or maybe not.

It sounds very similar to the current government-except decentralisation

in a certain sense, it is. in another sense it is totally different. think of it as finally shedding the cultural myths of monarchy that got slightly modified and transfered over to us during the enlightenment. in a certain sense we are democrats (not the party) who actually take our justifications seriously - power really does come from the people, and with them it should remain. the only way to do that is to not build up elaborate hierarchies of power that require elected kings to command, but to keep things leveled and organized into federations instead of chains of command.

Devil's advocate groups can possibly be persuaded to side with this person/group or this person/group on issues, denounce this idea against the government council (if I take it right), etc.

actually, the point of having a designated devil's advocate type position would be to make sure that minority opinions were properly defended. a devil's advocate that openly sided with the majority would no longer be fulfilling their role and a new one would need to be found.

Anarchism is a hierarchal system as well; hierarchies are natural all over nature and appear to evolve in every society on this planet.

no it isn't and no they dont.

http://boas.ukc.ac.uk/cgi-bin/uncgi/Ethnoatlas/show_groups?r=70&rv=1&c=74&cv=1

many societies have gone out of their way to create and maintain egalitarian social relations. for example, among societies such as the !kung or the inuit its is considered very rude show any sign of thinking you are better than anyone else, and they will do all that they can to knock you back down. we live in a hierarchical society and thus hierarchy seems necessary and normal. in egalitarian societies they are very aware of the possibility of hierarchy and instituted social mores that serve as leveling mechanisms.

Why am I not an anarchist? That's easy: I'm not stupid.

What is maximum ratio, you ask? It is a system, in place of minimum wage, that sets a standard for how much a CEO can be paid. His salary is a multiple of his worst paid worker's salaries. If the ratio is set to 10, for an example, and the CEO makes one million dollars, his least paid worker must make 1/10 of his salary, which in this case is $100,000. In many of the huge corporations you see nowadays, this would give the multi billion dollar CEOs less money and workers much, much more money.
Congratulations, you've just destroyed your economy! At least the "workers" don't have to worry about being exploited... they've all lost their jobs to a country that realizes that it isn't up to legislation to decide how much people can trade their labour for.

I should point out that there is a distinction between leadership by wisdom and coersive power. A leader can appear in anarchism, but without police or military, their power is limited to what the other people will take seriously.

Ah ha! So you finally realise that free market firms do not constitute a hierarchy!

OOC: To me, the phrase 'Anarchy' brings to mind images of teenagers with mohawks & black lipstick trying to break down my front door to steal my computer, DVD player, TV, gun collection, etc. while I wait on the other side of the door with a shotgun, hoping there's fewer than six of them.

You asked. That's why.
To me the word "democracy" means 10 hillbillies and a black guy deciding who's going to pick the cotton. Or 10 Aryans and a jew deciding who's going to be the ubermensch. Or 300 million westerners deciding whose oil needs "liberating". Or 50 businessmen and 10 hippies deciding whether to ban cannabis or not. The "will of the people" has become the excuse for all manner of violence, oppression and legalised plunder of the productive.

Some scattered thoughts, glittering like motes of dust caught on a sunbeam...

Sorry, felt like a half-arsed attempt at poetry would alleviate some of the drudgery and greyness around me right now. Anyway, what follows is just my understanding of certain relevant aspects of this debate. If there are any glaring errors, please point them out. Think of everything written below as being preceded by the phrase 'in my opinion'. There's no dogma here.

I love the idea of living in an anarchist society. Genuine freedom, no obligations... sounds great. I think many people here misunderstand the term 'anarchy' in the sense that its proponents advocate. Anarchy is, as stated before, derived from the Greek 'anarchia', meaning 'without ruler'. Note that this does not mean without order. Most anarchists hold that peaceful natural order will arise in an anarchy.

There are actually several different forms of anarchy, but for the sake of brevity let's just say there are social anarchists and individualist anarchists (or, if you prefer, anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists). The former hold that property is an unwelcome concept. They advocate mutual aid, solidarity and the will of the group as a tool of justice. Individualists hold the market sacrosanct and believe that an individual's behaviour and possessions are 'none of your business'.

I don't find individualism attractive as a concept. I can't help but feel that it alienates and breeds distrust. I also don't appear to be able to bring myself to trust the benevolence of the invisible guiding hand of the market. It all sounds a bit too woolly and mystical to me. Finally, there's no mechanism for preventing people from acting in a destructive manner; causing environmental damage, for example. Social anarchism is much more to my taste but it suffers from a staggering faith in the goodness of humanity. One may well argue that this goodness can only be truly brought out in a free society. I suspect this is true; however, we're a long way from being at a point where we can safely contemplate such a utopian existence. It does at least imbue the individual with a sense of society and consequaently offers some defence against destructive behaviour.

It seems to me that successful anarchy is several generations away from fruition.

In the meantime, how about direct democracy? Sounds good, allows for some concrete checks and balances on the little government there is. However, one only has to look at the possibility of tyranny by majority and the potential stupidity of that majority to fear for the viability of the system. The way around this would be to ensure that all members of the democracy (and then you have to define who participates, of course) are educated and well-informed. How do you ensure this? Umm... might need government.

So, perhaps we should be looking at all of this as an evolutionary process towards smaller government. Clearly we need the anarchists and libertarians to remind us that government is an evil, but we perhaps should acknowledge that, for the time being, it is a necessary evil.

Having written all of this in a fairly optimistic tone, I should point out that I actually believe we'll just continue screwing up and stumbling our way to different shades of dystopia. Perhaps others have more hope for us than I do.

I have a life.

actually, direct democracy as advocated by anarchists has the ultimate system of checks and balances. firstly, it has a decentralized decision making structure. that means that bad ideas would have to work harder to spread than they do in a hierarchical power structure, and that there would be plenty of other nodes of power to attempt to deal with the problem. secondly, most anarchist theory suggests a implementing a decision making structure with built-in safeguards against rushing to bad judgements - either through some variation on the consensus model or at least with designated facilitators and devil's advocates to make sure that the process isn't being one-sided. third, the entire thing is founded on free association and mutual aid, so that any group that found itself being persecuted would be able to leave and seek help from elsewhere.
And that's the major problem I have with anarchists today- I don't actually have the same problems with anarchism as a political theory. The anarchist 'movement' seems satisfied to stay in its ghetto, advocating direct democracy, but doing very little to put it into practice. (Social centres for people already in the movement hardly count). Anarchists remind me of fundamentalist Christians waiting for the rapture. You can sit round waiting for the revolution. I'd rather do stuff today, on the ground, even if that is 'reformist'.

Some scattered thoughts, glittering like motes of dust caught on a sunbeam...

Sorry, felt like a half-arsed attempt at poetry would alleviate some of the drudgery and greyness around me right now. Anyway, what follows is just my understanding of certain relevant aspects of this debate. If there are any glaring errors, please point them out. Think of everything written below as being preceded by the phrase 'in my opinion'. There's no dogma here.

I love the idea of living in an anarchist society. Genuine freedom, no obligations... sounds great. I think many people here misunderstand the term 'anarchy' in the sense that its proponents advocate. Anarchy is, as stated before, derived from the Greek 'anarchia', meaning 'without ruler'. Note that this does not mean without order. Most anarchists hold that peaceful natural order will arise in an anarchy.

There are actually several different forms of anarchy, but for the sake of brevity let's just say there are social anarchists and individualist anarchists (or, if you prefer, anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists). The former hold that property is an unwelcome concept. They advocate mutual aid, solidarity and the will of the group as a tool of justice. Individualists hold the market sacrosanct and believe that an individual's behaviour and possessions are 'none of your business'.

I don't find individualism attractive as a concept. I can't help but feel that it alienates and breeds distrust. I also don't appear to be able to bring myself to trust the benevolence of the invisible guiding hand of the market. It all sounds a bit too woolly and mystical to me. Finally, there's no mechanism for preventing people from acting in a destructive manner; causing environmental damage, for example. Social anarchism is much more to my taste but it suffers from a staggering faith in the goodness of humanity. One may well argue that this goodness can only be truly brought out in a free society. I suspect this is true; however, we're a long way from being at a point where we can safely contemplate such a utopian existence. It does at least imbue the individual with a sense of society and consequaently offers some defence against destructive behaviour.

It seems to me that successful anarchy is several generations away from fruition.

In the meantime, how about direct democracy? Sounds good, allows for some concrete checks and balances on the little government there is. However, one only has to look at the possibility of tyranny by majority and the potential stupidity of that majority to fear for the viability of the system. The way around this would be to ensure that all members of the democracy (and then you have to define who participates, of course) are educated and well-informed. How do you ensure this? Umm... might need government.

So, perhaps we should be looking at all of this as an evolutionary process towards smaller government. Clearly we need the anarchists and libertarians to remind us that government is an evil, but we perhaps should acknowledge that, for the time being, it is a necessary evil.

Having written all of this in a fairly optimistic tone, I should point out that I actually believe we'll just continue screwing up and stumbling our way to different shades of dystopia. Perhaps others have more hope for us than I do.
Happy to point out some "glaring errors" :lol:

Firstly anarcho-capitalists are in favour of mutual aid too. Charity is a voluntary transfer of property and is therefore a part of the market, and one which is often overlooked by opponents of free markets. Believe it or not we don't want to see the weak starving in the streets! Charity, community etc are important parts of our whole philosophy. We don't, however, believe that charity is enough. We think that most goals will be more effectively realised via trade and commerce.

Community, charity and trust have historically flourished in free markets so the claim that free markets destroy communities is in fact the opposite of the truth. It is only when the welfare state replaced the (superior) functioning of charity, community and family that these values declined.

If the functioning of the free market seems wooly and mystical then perhaps you should learn more about it (this is friendly advice, not criticism). What other system would seem more concrete? Anarcho-communism where people act out of goodwill? State communism where you're forced to provide things? In what way are these less wooly?

There are mechanisms to stop people acting in a destructive manner. If you damage another persons body or property you will be required to provide restitution for full damages. This includes the environment. The reason whales are hunted, rivers polluted and rainforests plundered is that they are unowned. We aren't running out of cows and pine, after all. Grant property rights in whales, rivers and rainforests and they will be preserved. Costa Rica is preserving its rainforests in exactly this way, for instance.

Environmental problems are symptomatic of socialised justice's failure to protect property. More and more environmentalists are beginning to realise that free markets are the best way to protect the environment. I believe that it is impossible to consistently expect to protect the environment without free markets. Communist countries polluted far worse than free market ones.

Your criticism of direct democracy is fairly close to the mark. It would be awfully conservative in it's own way. It's unlikely the scientific or industrial revolutions would have taken place under such a system. The mass of the public opposed Galileo's physics experiments back then just the same as they try to hamper genetic research today. It's breathtakingly depressing that people criticise the catholic church for hampering science in the past and yet advocate exactly the same thing today when man "plays god"!

Because Anarchist in the past have been corrupt, evil and crude. Besides they are a bunch of SOBs anyways, wanting to take peoples right away and all. To sum up my belief, I'll quote Self_righteous_tuna, "Why am I not an anarchist? That's easy: I'm not stupid.", he is dead on. Wake up and stop following lost causes. Why are you an anarchist by the way, especially if your a young person like you imagine you are?

Thought-provoking stuff

Hmm, more for me to dwell on. I've been meaning to read up on Costa Rica for a while now (they have no military! I like this). Thing is, how do you apportion ownership of nature? I can see how it works for land, but what about those parts that don't respect artificial boundaries? Is this a recipe for disbanding the concept of the nation state(gasp!). Being of the non-patriotic persuasion, I'm intrigued...

Because Anarchist in the past have been corrupt, evil and crude. Besides they are a bunch of SOBs anyways, wanting to take peoples right away and all. To sum up my belief, I'll quote Self_righteous_tuna, "Why am I not an anarchist? That's easy: I'm not stupid.", he is dead on. Wake up and stop following lost causes. Why are you an anarchist by the way, especially if your a young person like you imagine you are?

Good of you to lower the tone...

Thought-provoking stuff

Hmm, more for me to dwell on. I've been meaning to read up on Costa Rica for a while now (they have no military! I like this). Thing is, how do you apportion ownership of nature? I can see how it works for land, but what about those parts that don't respect artificial boundaries? Is this a recipe for disbanding the concept of the nation state(gasp!). Being of the non-patriotic persuasion, I'm intrigued...
The nation state is evil, harmful and unnecessary. I'm not sure what you are asking when you say "I can see how it works for land, but what about those parts that don't respect artificial boundaries?". Do you mean how are property rights assigned? The libertarian idea is that property belongs to whoever first brings it into production so if you look at preserving rainforest as "bringing it into production" then whoever first invests in preserving it aquires the property rights. (probably some charity or such).

The whole libertarian case is here

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

or alternatively here (you'll have to join the link back up)

http://search.lycos.co.uk/searchFrame/searchframe.html?url=http%3A%2F%2F
www.ruwart.com%2F&query=mary%2Bruwart%2Bhealing&SITE=uk&cat=web&
qstr=query%3Dmary%2Bruwart%2Bhealing%26dom%3Dcom%26cat%3Dweb%
26matchmode%3Dand%26mtemp%3Dmain%26etemp%3Derror

Preservation as production? Interesting. That does kind of answer my question, but I was also referring to wildlife. Unless you slap a chip in a whale (or pen it in), you're not going to be able to keep track of it. Also, what's stopping someone claiming land and exploiting it in a harmful way? I guess that relates more generally to the ability of libertarianism and anrchism to be socially responsible, for want of a better phrase. The lack of accountability concerns me.

I'm currently reading a summary of anarchism (Demanding the Impossible, by Peter Marshall) but I'll bookmark the links you provided and check them at some point.

Preservation as production? Interesting. That does kind of answer my question, but I was also referring to wildlife. Unless you slap a chip in a whale (or pen it in), you're not going to be able to keep track of it. Also, what's stopping someone claiming land and exploiting it in a harmful way? I guess that relates more generally to the ability of libertarianism and anrchism to be socially responsible, for want of a better phrase. The lack of accountability concerns me.

I'm currently reading a summary of anarchism (Demanding the Impossible, by Peter Marshall) but I'll bookmark the links you provided and check them at some point.
I'd imagine it's directed more at traditional anarcho socialists.

You can grant exclusive whaling rights in some patch of ocean.

What do you mean by exploiting the land in a harmful way? Harmful to what? If it harms someone else or their property they will have to provide restitution. If it doesn't then it's nobody elses' problem. People are accountable for anything that harms others, but if it doesn't then what are you holding them accountable for? The opposite side of the coin is that there is little incentive for govts to be socially responsible or accountable in contrast to market firms which are accountable to their customers on a daily basis.

Preservation as production? Interesting. That does kind of answer my question, but I was also referring to wildlife. Unless you slap a chip in a whale (or pen it in), you're not going to be able to keep track of it. Also, what's stopping someone claiming land and exploiting it in a harmful way? I guess that relates more generally to the ability of libertarianism and anrchism to be socially responsible, for want of a better phrase. The lack of accountability concerns me.

I'm currently reading a summary of anarchism (Demanding the Impossible, by Peter Marshall) but I'll bookmark the links you provided and check them at some point.
I'd imagine it's directed more at traditional anarcho socialists.

You can grant exclusive whaling rights in some patch of ocean.

What do you mean by exploiting the land in a harmful way? Harmful to what? If it harms someone else or their property they will have to provide restitution. If it doesn't then it's nobody elses' problem. People are accountable for anything that harms others, but if it doesn't then what are you holding them accountable for? The opposite side of the coin is that there is little incentive for govts to be socially responsible or accountable in contrast to market firms which are accountable to their customers on a daily basis.

Well, if someone wants to slash and burn a rainforest, how do you stop them? You migth argue that it's not in their interest to do that, but we see time and time again that people only think in the short-term. I don't have enough faith in humanity as it currently stands to believe that people will act appropriately. Of course, this applies to government as well, especially given the focu on election terms.

The book covers anarcho-capitalism as well, though there is a leaning to the 'left'. He makes the case that the Daoists were the earliest established anarchists (not including nameless communal societies that history hasn't recorded).

To all proponents of government and capitalism: What if John Wayne Gacy became a president or CEO?

-----------------------------------------
"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

Well, if someone wants to slash and burn a rainforest, how do you stop them? You migth argue that it's not in their interest to do that, but we see time and time again that people only think in the short-term. I don't have enough faith in humanity as it currently stands to believe that people will act appropriately. Of course, this applies to government as well, especially given the focu on election terms.

The book covers anarcho-capitalism as well, though there is a leaning to the 'left'. He makes the case that the Daoists were the earliest established anarchists (not including nameless communal societies that history hasn't recorded).
Clearly people destroying rainforests is a problem for all systems: anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-socialism, welfare statism or state communism. In each system whoever decides on the use of rainforests may decide to destroy them. In anarcho-socialism I'm actually not sure who this would be but there is no more reason to expect they would conserve rather than plunder, probably less reason since someone else could plunder it if you don't (I'm guessing). If there is a govt they will probably control the rainforests and go for short term farming, logging or mining rather than conservation.

In anarcho-capitalism it would at least initially be controlled by people interested in it's conservation and whose permanent control of the asset means they have an interest in conserving it. The question isn't whether this system is perfect or open to abuse, all systems are open to abuse. The relevant question is "is there another way which is better or less open to abuse?" I think the answer is no.

Private conservation (in Costa Rica for example) is more successful than either state supervision or unowned commons. Isn't this all you can ask?

To all proponents of government and capitalism: What if John Wayne Gacy became a president or CEO?

Who?

You never heard of John Wayne Gacy? I thought everyone had.

-----------------------------------------
"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