NationStates Jolt Archive

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. Funny thing is, many companies have voluntarily taken up maximum ratio systems. In Europe, I believe, the standard is 29. Here in America, up to 500 is acceptable. But the government already controls minimum wage legislation-I don't see minimum wage laws forcing people in the streets, unless it is a time of economic hardship, which I can elaborate upon, should you wish.

Under a maximum ratio system, wages would be slashed for all people in the company, but a low paying job in hardship is better than no job in hardship, and it would effect all in the business; CEO and workers. But as the economy gets better, wages rise because there is more wealth in the company, and so the CEO raises his own wages, and thus everyone elses wages. The limit in money hording for the CEO in this system allows for him to invest in his own company and open up new jobs. The unemployment keeps wages low thoery would not apply because they would be keeping the CEO's wages low as well. We know the CEO, thinking of money, would not lower his own salary.




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. I can see how the federations might work for a system of government, but there are bugs to be worked out of communo-anarchism. The communo part is one of them; an individualist anarchy would be more preferable to me because it protects your right to own your own property, wealth, etc. UNder the communo-anarchism system, the communo kicks in and your things become the community's things, just like that.



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.



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. Yet the societies you quote appear to be stone age-ish societies; Native American groups, South American groups, Asian groups, and Pacific Islanders (not sure on this last one). They appear to be groups that would have fought bow-and-arrow against cannons and firearms, and it seems to me that these people lived the primitive way they did for thousands of years, and these native groups I would say are tribal, and I would have to guess that the tribe elders would be given some authority, if limited, and have a hierarchy evolve.

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. Funny thing is, many companies have voluntarily taken up maximum ratio systems. In Europe, I believe, the standard is 29. Here in America, up to 500 is acceptable. But the government already controls minimum wage legislation-I don't see minimum wage laws forcing people in the streets, unless it is a time of economic hardship, which I can elaborate upon, should you wish.

Under a maximum ratio system, wages would be slashed for all people in the company, but a low paying job in hardship is better than no job in hardship, and it would effect all in the business; CEO and workers. But as the economy gets better, wages rise because there is more wealth in the company, and so the CEO raises his own wages, and thus everyone elses wages. The limit in money hording for the CEO in this system allows for him to invest in his own company and open up new jobs. The unemployment keeps wages low thoery would not apply because they would be keeping the CEO's wages low as well. We know the CEO, thinking of money, would not lower his own salary.




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. I can see how the federations might work for a system of government, but there are bugs to be worked out of communo-anarchism. The communo part is one of them; an individualist anarchy would be more preferable to me because it protects your right to own your own property, wealth, etc. UNder the communo-anarchism system, the communo kicks in and your things become the community's things, just like that, if I understand it right.



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.



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. Yet the societies you quote appear to be stone age-ish societies; Native American groups, South American groups, Asian groups, and Pacific Islanders (not sure on this last one). They appear to be groups that would have fought bow-and-arrow against cannons and firearms, and it seems to me that these people lived the primitive way they did for thousands of years, and these native groups I would say are tribal, and I would have to guess that the tribe elders would be given some authority, if limited, and have a hierarchy evolve.

Here's one very, very good reason.
I will accept that you, and Free Soviets, have shown that anarchistic societies may work. But the only ones you have shown have been primitive hunter gatherers or failed Spanish anarchists and hippy communes.
Neither of those would be able to produce the medicines that keep my asthma at bay.
In other words, I'm not an anarchist because it would literally kill me.
(Lots of other reasons, that's just one...)

Neither of those would be able to produce the medicines that keep my asthma at bay.
In other words, I'm not an anarchist because it would literally kill me.

In other words, you reject it because there are no anarchistic pharmaceudical companies. That's pretty weak reasoning.

I can see how the federations might work for a system of government, but there are bugs to be worked out of communo-anarchism. The communo part is one of them; an individualist anarchy would be more preferable to me because it protects your right to own your own property, wealth, etc. UNder the communo-anarchism system, the communo kicks in and your things become the community's things, just like that, if I understand it right.

All forms of anarchism leave you no way of getting rich because getting rich invariably means getting paid more than you deserved. Do you really believe a rich person works 100 hours a week 40 times harder than the average worker? No. That would give anyone a heart attack and it just wouldn't be worth it.

Anarcho-communism differs from individualist anarchism in that money and markets aren't used, so you only have to work as long as been calculated necessary rather than what would maximize profit. You also get free distribution, so you don't have to sell your labor to would-be capitalists to survive.

Yet the societies you quote appear to be stone age-ish societies; Native American groups, South American groups, Asian groups, and Pacific Islanders (not sure on this last one). They appear to be groups that would have fought bow-and-arrow against cannons and firearms, and it seems to me that these people lived the primitive way they did for thousands of years, and these native groups I would say are tribal, and I would have to guess that the tribe elders would be given some authority, if limited, and have a hierarchy evolve.

They didn't have tribal elders with coersive authority. That's the 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

Neither of those would be able to produce the medicines that keep my asthma at bay.
In other words, I'm not an anarchist because it would literally kill me.
(Lots of other reasons, that's just one...)

but that may just be an accident of history. no state society could have done anything for you either up until very recently. besides, i'm not sure i see anything inherent to anarchist organization that would prevent us from making medicine or doing scientific research.

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

'cause I'm a monarchist.

'cause I'm a monarchist.

Why? Kings are useless bums who at best waste tax dollars on obscene privilage and at worst kick us around.

-----------------------------------------
"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 how the federations might work for a system of government, but there are bugs to be worked out of communo-anarchism. The communo part is one of them; an individualist anarchy would be more preferable to me because it protects your right to own your own property, wealth, etc. UNder the communo-anarchism system, the communo kicks in and your things become the community's things, just like that.

actually, we make a distinction between personal possessions and 'property' that prevents that very thing. essentially the distinction runs between things that you have for your own personal use - like your toothbrush, and things that are used by multiple people in order to create stuff - like the toothbrush factory.

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB3.html#secb31

I am selling my toothbrush, because I have a new one, to someone for two cents. By that FAQ, I am exploiting people because it views everything that is used to make profits as exploiting people. I don't agree with that. The evil opressive exploitation anarchists believe in quite frankly does not exist. You are under the evil system now, yet it has not locked you in jail or killed you, regardless of what former, more evil, governments may have done in the ancient past.

We are in the age of slightly socialistic capitalism for now, and the combination of the two in the more developed nations have yielded fantastic results. The democracy that comes along in that system allows people such as your selves to promote your anti-government ideals while under the government. You are not dead, in jail, etc. etc. I suppose because you are debating with me (and others) about how anarchism is so great and our current system is so bad.

Letila, you keep contradicting yourself; I'm tired of you going in circles.

Basically, all the anarchist arguments rest on the assumption that people in general are essentially good, which they are not. That is why anarchy can't work. It's an ideal system if people are perfect, since perfect ppl don't need to be governed, but people aren't perfect. Drive around sometime and watch all the people breaking traffic laws...speeding, weaving in and out of lanes with no signal, creating major hazards on the road and endangering lives. If you drop a wallet with $100, what are the chances of getting the money back? Does anyone remember the LA riots? The police (GOV'T!!!) had to quell out of control PEOPLE to protect everyone else. You can't argue that because governments aren't perfect they should be abolished. The fact that slavery and segregation were ended by a government shows that rule can be corrected. That's not true when there are no officials. One woman in NY was raped twice and killed in front of her appt. building while the other residents just watched, each assuming somone else would do something. Where is the cooperation? The slim possibility that Gacy could get into office is nullified by the fact that should he ever get there, he'd be in the public eye and would be incarcerated even faster.

If gov't is so evil, why do we have it?

Basically, all the anarchist arguments rest on the assumption that people in general are essentially good, which they are not. That is why anarchy can't work. It's an ideal system if people are perfect, since perfect ppl don't need to be governed, but people aren't perfect. Drive around sometime and watch all the people breaking traffic laws...speeding, weaving in and out of lanes with no signal, creating major hazards on the road and endangering lives. If you drop a wallet with $100, what are the chances of getting the money back? Does anyone remember the LA riots? The police (GOV'T!!!) had to quell out of control PEOPLE to protect everyone else. You can't argue that because governments aren't perfect they should be abolished. The fact that slavery and segregation were ended by a government shows that rule can be corrected. That's not true when there are no officials. One woman in NY was raped twice and killed in front of her appt. building while the other residents just watched, each assuming somone else would do something. Where is the cooperation? The slim possibility that Gacy could get into office is nullified by the fact that should he ever get there, he'd be in the public eye and would be incarcerated even faster.

Supporting government assumes that people are inherently good. It assumes that the people in government won't abuse power.

If gov't is so evil, why do we have it?

That's a dumb question. If drugs are so evil, then why do we have them?

I am selling my toothbrush, because I have a new one, to someone for two cents. By that FAQ, I am exploiting people because it views everything that is used to make profits as exploiting people. I don't agree with that. The evil opressive exploitation anarchists believe in quite frankly does not exist. You are under the evil system now, yet it has not locked you in jail or killed you, regardless of what former, more evil, governments may have done in the ancient past.

First, read the rest of the FAQ on this issue and how business owners make money off of property.

Second, the government has arrested and even executed anarchists before and they have more to gain by allowing anarchists to live, making us think we are free.

-----------------------------------------
"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 doesn't work. Let's assume anarchy became the de facto system in Georgia (U.S.), where I live. What's to stop the rednecks in the northern mountains from banding together and attacking the blacks in Atlanta, simply because they don't like the "n--gers?" It'll result in numerous, small-scale wars between groups that don't like each other. What if, in the suburbia I live in, I decide to take power, and distribute guns to my friends and overthrow the commune? Then the good citizens of Towne Lake will have to suffer under my rule, or if some other strongman overthrows me?
Oh, and if someone takes my computer, at least I can file a police report. And if the government repossesses it, then it's either because I didn't pay for it, and if it was arbitrary, then I can sue the gov't.

Supporting government assumes that people are inherently good. It assumes that the people in government won't abuse power.

That's a dumb question. If drugs are so evil, then why do we have them?

First, read the rest of the FAQ on this issue and how business owners make money off of property.

Second, the government has arrested and even executed anarchists before and they have more to gain by allowing anarchists to live, making us think we are free.



Ok, and if people abuse power they lose their job. This is what happens whenever it is discovered. Why do you think bush is going to lose the re-election?

No answer needed, its obvious that we need government to protect us from those who dont want it. Anarchists bomb everything, but it really just turns people away from the cause.

Oh you mean by leasing and renting it? Or even selling it for more than they make? God forbid someone is an entrepruener.

The reason those people were executed was most likley because they killed people, meaning they ended someones freedom.

Letila or Free Soviets (or somone else who represents anarchism is this post),
Who makes the communal decisions under anarchism? Who has the power?

Basically, all the anarchist arguments rest on the assumption that people in general are essentially good, which they are not. That is why anarchy can't work. It's an ideal system if people are perfect, since perfect ppl don't need to be governed, but people aren't perfect.

actually, most of us assume that people are mostly alright on average, but with great capacity to do bad things. if people were perfect government would be unobjectionable. it is the very fact that they aren't that makes being ruled an intolerable evil.

One woman in NY was raped twice and killed in front of her appt. building while the other residents just watched, each assuming somone else would do something. Where is the cooperation?

if you train people their whole lives to rely on others to do things for them or to order them around, you can't be surprised when they don't know how to respond on their own. a better question might be where was the government to protect that woman? it looks to me that relying on them for protection didn't work out so well in this case either.

If gov't is so evil, why do we have it?

if rape is so bad, why does it happen?

Letila or Free Soviets (or somone else who represents anarchism is this post),
Who makes the communal decisions under anarchism? Who has the power?

There are many different means of decision making. The particular one used will depend on the size and nature of the group in question and the type of the decision in question. Most communal structures involve the establishment of a rotating administrative position. This position does not involve power as such but is responsible for making day to day decisions, such as what to cook for dinner. Decisions of this nature are really about basic coordination of activity. More important decisions are made by participatory democracy with consensus requirements.

Letila or Free Soviets (or somone else who represents anarchism is this post),
Who makes the communal decisions under anarchism? Who has the power?

in the most general sense, those affected by the outcome of those decisions.

Anarchists bomb everything, but it really just turns people away from the cause.

in a single day bush has thrown more bombs and destroyed more property and killed more people than anarchists have in our entire history.

I am selling my toothbrush, because I have a new one, to someone for two cents. By that FAQ, I am exploiting people because it views everything that is used to make profits as exploiting people. I don't agree with that.

you wouldn't be able to sell your toothbrush because people could get their own for free. but more importantly, we aren't against exchange per se. we are against exchange that relies on exploitation and command.

The evil opressive exploitation anarchists believe in quite frankly does not exist. You are under the evil system now, yet it has not locked you in jail or killed you, regardless of what former, more evil, governments may have done in the ancient past.

yeah, because nobody has declared themselves president-for-life in months at least. there is a lot more to the world than the relatively stable global north. and even here, i know several anarchists that are serving long prison terms, and at least one that was killed by the state. not to mention the openly holding people without charge thing, or the deporting people to countries that are not known for their stunning human rights record so that they can be "questioned" thing, or the launching wars of aggression thing. which is all above and beyond the standard shakedowns and abuses and exploitation and "obey or else" we see under 'nice' government.

you wouldn't be able to sell your toothbrush because people could get their own for free. but more importantly, we aren't against exchange per se. we are against exchange that relies on exploitation and command. But who can garuantee that the toothbrush factory owned buy the workers will provide enough toothebrushes to keep up with demand? Someone(s) with skills in predicting would need to be employed to direct the workers on how much/how are needed, and what about variety? For example, in the clothing world, how would one keep up to date in fashion/be able to provide all the humongously differant selections? Would there need to be uniforms?


yeah, because nobody has declared themselves president-for-life in months at least. there is a lot more to the world than the relatively stable global north. and even here, i know several anarchists that are serving long prison terms, and at least one that was killed by the state. But were the anarchists arested because of the anarchist views, or because they actualy launched a small scale revolution? I would imagine that some of them-such as those that launch hacker attacks on the government-would justifiably be arresteable, because of actual damage the attacks can do to non-anarchists, etc.


not to mention the openly holding people without charge thing, or the deporting people to countries that are not known for their stunning human rights record so that they can be "questioned" thing,
This is true, and should be stopped, but what's to prevent this from happening under anarchism? You obviously view anything and everything that is the government as evil, so what is to prevent you from abusing statists in a possible revolution? I mean, they did this to you, the whole 'eye for an eye' thing might kick in.


or the launching wars of aggression thing. which is all above and beyond the standard shakedowns and abuses and exploitation and "obey or else" we see under 'nice' government. It appears that this is seen under anarchism; either you like the commune/confederation and stay, or you don't like it and leave, which would happen because it seem anarchists are a minority in the world today. Also, what's to stop anarchists from 'liberating' thier neighbors and attacking them to make them a part of the confederation? One could easily apply the 'we are freeing you from the evil government' trick and rally public support behind you.

And I've always wondered, how does crime and punishment work under anarchism?

Supporting government assumes that people are inherently good. It assumes that the people in government won't abuse power. Who's to say that the people not in government are evil, too? If supporting the government is saying people are good natured, then isn't going against the government saying people are bad natured? And if so, doesn't that mean that we can't trust the people for elections, which we are doing now?



That's a dumb question. If drugs are so evil, then why do we have them? Obviously because people want them, and the black market has made the cost of them so outrageous that even selling a small portion of them makes one rich rather quickly. This is why I am for legalizing all of those drugs, so it won't be so easy to profit from them.


First, read the rest of the FAQ on this issue and how business owners make money off of property. Ok, will do, let's see what they have to say....


Second, the government has arrested and even executed anarchists before and they have more to gain by allowing anarchists to live, making us think we are free. But most of this, I would assume, is in the past, making this point a moot one because we have come a long way from then. Many places no longer allow the death penalty, very few states left in the US if I recall. We are in the 21st century, not the 19th or 20th, and such ideals as Marxism were heavily influenced by the very real opression of that era, which, if it still exists, is very little in the modern world. His ideals were disproven; his ideals thought that the most advanced nations would have communist revolts in them, but so far anything calling itself communist that has revolted has revolted in a less-than-1st world setting. He did get the "dictatorship of the proletariat" part right; most of communism quickly evolved into Stalinism/dictatorship/whatever.

Maybe this will get rid of the annoying extra page....

actually, most of us assume that people are mostly alright on average, but with great capacity to do bad things. if people were perfect government would be unobjectionable. it is the very fact that they aren't that makes being ruled an intolerable evil. Because of the fact that people are good, with the possibility of evil, I would have to assume that that only certain leaders within the government are evil, because not everyone has evil tendancies, nor does everyone make a bad leader. There are many examples of good leaders, but the current people funning for President here (Kerry, Bush, Nader) are not exactly the best leaders in all of history.


if you train people their whole lives to rely on others to do things for them or to order them around, you can't be surprised when they don't know how to respond on their own. a better question might be where was the government to protect that woman? it looks to me that relying on them for protection didn't work out so well in this case either. It is because the government wasn't here that I'd feel better; if the government could patrol every street, every corner, every alley, everything, there would be less crime but yet there would be a high invasion of property. Also, people are trained to think for themselves because of the 'strongest survive' ideal that is commonplace. Anarchism, from how I understand, provides a community setting where everyone is tought to rely on each other, while in capitalism it is every man and/or family /and/or small group for himself. Programs such as welfare and charity have lessened this.


if rape is so bad, why does it happen? It happens because, as you said, some people have a tendancy towards evil. It's more of a power thing than a sexual thing from what I hear about it, but I don't know, never experienced it.

Who's to say that the people not in government are evil, too? If supporting the government is saying people are good natured, then isn't going against the government saying people are bad natured? And if so, doesn't that mean that we can't trust the people for elections, which we are doing now?

If the people in government are evil, they would abuse their power and so forth, making a government no better and much worse than no government.

Obviously because people want them, and the black market has made the cost of them so outrageous that even selling a small portion of them makes one rich rather quickly. This is why I am for legalizing all of those drugs, so it won't be so easy to profit from them.

But despite being bad, both government and drugs exist.

But most of this, I would assume, is in the past, making this point a moot one because we have come a long way from then. Many places no longer allow the death penalty, very few states left in the US if I recall. We are in the 21st century, not the 19th or 20th, and such ideals as Marxism were heavily influenced by the very real opression of that era, which, if it still exists, is very little in the modern world. His ideals were disproven; his ideals thought that the most advanced nations would have communist revolts in them, but so far anything calling itself communist that has revolted has revolted in a less-than-1st world setting. He did get the "dictatorship of the proletariat" part right; most of communism quickly evolved into Stalinism/dictatorship/whatever.

Show me one government that doesn't tax people. That alone is unjustifiable as it is a form of armed robbery. If a government can grant you a freedom, it can take it away.

-----------------------------------------
"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 don't know.....Why aren't you an apathetic-ist?






( In other politcal news, vote Dio http://dioforamerica.com/ :wink: )

Buddy....do you want to live in straw huts for the rest of your life? Anarchy is a very stupid idea. All supporters of anarchy think that if they were in an anarchic system, they'd have all the great technologies today to play around with like computers, TV, beautiful houses, nice clean city streets, parks, cars, airplanes, etc.

Well hey the truth is, Skeezicks, that its because of organization and Governments that we actually have all of these great technologies today! With Anarchy, you get nothing. You'll be living in a straw hut eating a loaf of bread a day like people did in Mesopotamia if we were living in Anarchy.

We, as humans, are a social people. Anarchy would never work... humans are just too smart. As I said, we are a social people, and we are beings that must work together. Amarchy doesn't advance humans or society, it does the opposite. It's because of hundreds of years of co-operation and control, and governments that we have all the great things we do now. If we had anarchy, it wouldnt work since as humans we NEED and have the urge to work together. And if people started to co-operate and work together within anarchy, it wouldn't be anarchy anymore, would it?

It can not work.

Because I am a Southerner!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.huether-net.de/lsimg/ron76.jpg
If I leave here tommorow, will you still remember me?

If the people in government are evil, they would abuse their power and so forth, making a government no better and much worse than no government. That is if the people are evil; you would hope that what you are voting for is not evil because I would think that the evilness factor would stand out fairly early in thier careers. Some things, such as the Patriot Act, while good in theory have invaded our privacy and that is why I think Bush won't get reelected; the Republican party has strayed from its roots, but that is for another debate.


But despite being bad, both government and drugs exist. THe fact that the government is bad or not is the whole reason that we are having this debate, and I personally don't see the government as evil. That is my opinion, and your opinion differs from my own.


Show me one government that doesn't tax people. That alone is unjustifiable as it is a form of armed robbery. If a government can grant you a freedom, it can take it away. There are examples of the such in reality: I believe some middle-eastern nations, such as Bahrain or Qatar, maybe a few others, have no income taxes whatsoever because income is gotten from owning oil, etc. etc. But it is justifiable. How would large social programs to give money to the poor be funded if there was no tax? The military? Police, Anything government related? The only solution is to end currency, but then that is going to really make a great deal of people mad because all of thier wealth and power disappeared, from the mega rich to the dirt poor. Also, how would any trade from the foriegn world go on? Would you have a primitive barter system and thus create currency in another form?

Because I am a Southerner!

no need to be left out based strictly on geography.

http://www.southeastanarchist.org/

'cause I'm a monarchist.

Why? Kings are useless bums who at best waste tax dollars on obscene privilage and at worst kick us around.

:shock:
OH NO! I finally found something something you said that I can completely, 100% agree without any exceptions. :?
:wink:

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


Anarchy, as I see it... Is a manifestation of adolescent's rebellious behavior.

I'm not an anarchist, and I'm sure most people aren't... For the simple reason that the law protects me from any "anarchist" fool who wants to try to rob my home when there is a power outage/other crisis.



EDIT: and I think it was Letila also that said that taxation is an unarmed form of robbery. The government protects you, keeps you safe, etc, and in return you help fund it. If you lived a long time ago and were raided by foreign barbarians you would quickly see the need for a government to band together and protect you and maintain order in the region. I think that was part of the reason government was created.

Anarchy, as I see it... Is a manifestation of adolescent's rebellious behavior.

except that globally, most anarchists are not teenagers. the largest anarchist organizations are unions. though the us tends to have a slightly younger crowd, mostly people in there 20s and early 30s.

EDIT: and I think it was Letila also that said that taxation is an unarmed form of robbery. The government protects you, keeps you safe, etc, and in return you help fund it. If you lived a long time ago and were raided by foreign barbarians you would quickly see the need for a government to band together and protect you and maintain order in the region. I think that was part of the reason government was created.

beyond the fact that government's were formed (at least in some cases) in order to attack rather than defend, there is a difference between taxation under a government and contributing services/resources/whatever to collective projects under anarchism. under anarchism your contribution is voluntary. under the state you contribution is demanded under threat of force. under anarchism you have a full and equal say in those collective services. under the state, your say is far less, assuming you have any at all. for example, the ruling class can send people to war whether i want them to or not, and they'll make me pay for it.

Neither of those would be able to produce the medicines that keep my asthma at bay.
In other words, I'm not an anarchist because it would literally kill me.
(Lots of other reasons, that's just one...)

but that may just be an accident of history. no state society could have done anything for you either up until very recently. besides, i'm not sure i see anything inherent to anarchist organization that would prevent us from making medicine or doing scientific research.

It might be. But no sucessful example I know of anarchist societies have developed beyond upper-paleolithic technology.

Anyway, the general point was that the only examples of anarchist societies we have we small hunter gatherer tribes with low levels of technology. There are, to my knowledge, no examples of any anarchist societies being able to compete against state societies technologically.

(And Letila, expecting your response, you can argue til you're blue that the Spanish anarchists were an example of sucessful anarchist societies, but it won't make them either sucessful or societies.)

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.jpgI've read some anarchist pamplets and material. Seemed quite...structured.

beyond the fact that government's were formed (at least in some cases) in order to attack rather than defend, there is a difference between taxation under a government and contributing As you point out, it was not everywhere, but probably the majority in that day and age. We have advanced much farther than 'King tells you to do it so you do it' in most nations, I think.


services/resources/whatever to collective projects under anarchism. under anarchism your contribution is voluntary. Which is why the system is doomed to failure. Given a choice, I expect that people looking after themselves would not donate and use thier wealth for themselves. Even if the majority (let's say 80%) donate, that last 20% would still be hurting you, and I doubt that you'd get as much even if everyone donated (smaller donations).


under the state you contribution is demanded under threat of force. True, yet without this force maintained a government or any system would quickly fail because of less people donating/smaller donations from those who do donate.


under anarchism you have a full and equal say in those collective services. Even under anarchism, I would expect that if I was one of an extreme minority of people who wanted the clothing factory to produce tie-died shirts, I wouldn't get them because the demand would be much harder to calculate, and an over production would use it extra resources and under production a group of still unsatisfyied people.


under the state, your say is far less, assuming you have any at all. Assuming most people are under democratic systems, the people have a say in what the government does, and the checks and balances in place in many nations already limit what the government can attempt to do. The leader himself has to have approval of other bodies to declare war, as in the US.


for example, the ruling class can send people to war whether i want them to or not, and they'll make me pay for it. The majority in any democratic society can enact policies I like or not.

There must be a new definition for anarchy here... anarchy is order? I just looked it up in the dictionary and got:

1.) The complete absence of government and law
2.) Political disorder and violence; hence,
3.) Disorder in any sphere of activity.

Hmm, doesn't quite sound like utopian order to me. And also, you can't remove systems entirely, because everything functions on a fundamental system, and without rules in place to prop up the system, someone is bound to come along and mess with it. Ever watch SLC Punk? Though the quote has language that can not be repeated in Nation States, it basically sums things up towards with end with a disillusioned "F*%$ anarchy!"

There is anarchy and then there is Anarchism.
anarchism - a doctrine that advocates the abolition of organized authority. Anarchists believe that all government is corrupt and evil. Anarchism was a force in nineteenth century Russia, associated with Prince Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921) and Mikhail Bakunin (1814-76). Types of anarchism range from pacifism to violent revolution. (http://www.fast-times.com/politicaldictionary.html)


anarchism
Belief that an ideal human society should have no organized government, often accompanied by a practical disregard for the authority of existing governments and by a proposal for abolishing them. Prominent modern anarchists include Godwin, Proudhon, and Bakunin. (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a4.htm#anar)

Letila or Free Soviets (or somone else who represents anarchism is this post),
Who makes the communal decisions under anarchism? Who has the power?

in the most general sense, those affected by the outcome of those decisions.

My question was asked because I believe this will necessitate a hierarchical system. Everyone in an anarchist society will be affected by the decisions made in that society, but not everyone can take part in the decision-making process. Would you allow toddlers to vote? How about people with severe psychotic conditions that are at present incurable? How about people with Alzheimer's disease? Or citizens in comas? If you cannot explain how these groups can vote, and they are only a small sample of possibilities, then you are creating the most fundamental hierarchical division in a society, between those who have political power and those who do not.

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


that is the most retarded question i've ever heard

Because of the fact that people are good, with the possibility of evil, I would have to assume that that only certain leaders within the government are evil, because not everyone has evil tendancies, nor does everyone make a bad leader. There are many examples of good leaders, but the current people funning for President here (Kerry, Bush, Nader) are not exactly the best leaders in all of history.

Fluffy, I've read lots of your posts and picked this one as representative. Your views are well thought out on the whole but I'll tell you why I disagree with them.

Firstly there is more than one form of "Anarchism". Anarchists believe that the state should be abolished but generally disagree about what should happen next, just as democrats believe the govt should be elected but don't necessarily agree on what govt they should elect. Personally I'm a Libertarian which means that I believe that free markets and other forms of individual liberty should exist and that all the important goals of society can be met without a state.

Why do I believe this? Basically I believe that the govt should obey the same morals as everybody else. This apparantly obvious statement is in fact very radical. Clearly if Walmart were to provide food via taxation this would be seen as thinly disguised banditry (or at best extortion) but this is how the govt provides its services thus taxation is armed robbery. Clearly if Walmart were to conscript people into being its clerks this would be slavery thus govt conscription (into the army, juries etc) is slavery. Clearly if I were to drop a bomb on an innocent person this would be murder thus warfare (especially agressive warfare, defensive war is the lesser of 2 evils) is murder since every modern war has involved the deaths of innocents.

There are as I see 3 important goals you might view as a justification for govt coercion and which if not met by Libertarianism even I would probably stop being an anarchist. 1) Financian aid to the weak 2) law and order 3) military defence.

1) With the spectacular explosion of wealth a truly free market (no taxes or regulations) would generate I'm almost tempted to ask "what poor?" But of course there will always be those who are unable to work or just plain unlucky. The important thing to realise is that no welfare state does not mean no welfare. People hare always been willing to help the poor through voluntary means (charity, churches, communities, families) whenever necessary. (e.g. 19th century America did a good job considering of course the wealth of society at the time). Kindness doesn't need to be enforced at bayonet point. In fact, if people didn't want to help the poor why would they vote for the welfare state?

With more money to give and less people to help people would be able to take care of those who need help. In fact if this weren't true already politicians would have repealed the welfare state. People would particularly be willing to help poor children get the medical care and education they require. Thus the poor will be taken care of.

2) Privately produced law and order is not unusual. In fact before the rise of modern states (in the last century or so) it was the norm. Privately produced law and order has existed even relatively recently in 19th century America in the "wild" west (which was actually no more violent than modern cities on average and was less violent than the urbanised East coast) and in San Francisco when the corrupt govt was unable to supply justice.

In modern times this would probably be handled by insurance companies and private security. Already in America several towns have contracted out full police services. One town replaced its $180 000 state police which had a 45 minute response time with $90 000 private police with a 5 minute response time and cut crime by a third. Presumably by focusing on real crimes instead of harassing minorities and drug users.

Also with widespread gun ownership, more efficient police and no drug laws causing crime there would be less crime to prevent.

Punishment would generally consist of recompensing the victim for damages done and the cost of investigation, thus ensuring that even the poor are adequately protected.

3) Is a military even necessary? Costa Rica does okay without. A Libertarian society is a peaceful society which nobody will view as a threat and is unlikely to be invaded in the first place. But I still think some armed forces would be necessary. How would military defence be provided?

There are many things that could be done. Firstly the majority of the population could be trained in non-violent resistence a la Ghandhi. Secondly there would be widespread gun ownership and probably voluntary town militias a la revolutionary America. These could launch a guerilla war which would make occupation untenable like in USSR-Afgahnistan or US-Vietnam. Thirdly there would be elite professional mercenaries funded by charity ("Coca Cola supprt our Free Republic") who could coordinate and train militias as well as provide the first line of defence. Such a society would be a very prickly pear indeed and attacking it would bring you a lot of grief and very little gain. The larger the area is the more chance it has (as with all systems). The key phrase is "coordination without centralisation" in order to prevent the reemergence of a state.

I hope this has gone some way to answering your concerns. An important observation is that nowhere did I assume people will be better than they are now. I only assumed they would act pretty much the same and refrain from violence and theft most of the time and occasionally help those less fortunate. If you're interested in reading on you can find more details here.

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

Fluffy, I've read lots of your posts and picked this one as representative. Your views are well thought out on the whole but I'll tell you why I disagree with them. Ok, all's fair in love and political debating. *listens* I must say, you and Free Soviets, in my mind, appear to be much better in defending your anarchism than Letila is.


Firstly there is more than one form of "Anarchism". I'll agree with this, I think there were things such as communo-anarchism and individualist-anarchism, who knows how many more there could be.


Why do I believe this? Basically I believe that the govt should obey the same morals as everybody else. This apparantly obvious statement is in fact very radical. It, if very radical in a democratic state, is probably very radical in dictatorial states, the worst kinds of governments. I personally think that anarchists have been very affected by these dictatorial states, or at least more ancient states, and try to pass off older policies in states that were less than democratic as fact today.

As I think I said earlier, Marx and them were obviously rightfully affected at that point in history, yet nowadays less and less people work in factories and more in service industries-fast food, clerks, etc. The opression of workers in that day in age is so small-if it even exists-that you don't even notice it. As with that, government opression is very small, with some policies that invade privacy still in place and some less than great cops, but many of those break the rules when in a modernizing Western state.


Clearly if Walmart were to provide food via taxation this would be seen as thinly disguised banditry (or at best extortion) but this is how the govt provides its services thus taxation is armed robbery. The government is not practicing armed robery, otherwise in a modernized society many, many more people would be speaking out against it in rallies, the media, etc. etc. Most people have no problem with taxes because if there were no taxes there would be no services. No police, no military, no welfare, no education, no nothing.


Clearly if Walmart were to conscript people into being its clerks this would be slavery thus govt conscription (into the army, juries etc) is slavery. Jury duty is compensated for and does not last very long, if I know my facts right. Also, there are ways you can get out of it. Also, I know of no modernized army in a modernized nation which conscripts its soldiers. One reason is it makes the army worse, and another is because many people didn't like it.

Clearly if I were to drop a bomb on an innocent person this would be murder thus warfare (especially agressive warfare, defensive war is the lesser of 2 evils) is murder since every modern war has involved the deaths of innocents. Assuming that anarchists want to revolt to start an anarchist society, it is very possible that they too would kill innocents-even accidentally, as most modern nations try not to kill innocents-and they would then become murderers. I don't think I heard anything yet tof having an anarchist society be prevented from wars, so they can also attack people to 'liberate' them, if the people vote that way.

There are as I see 3 important goals you might view as a justification for govt coercion and which if not met by Libertarianism even I would probably stop being an anarchist. 1) Financian aid to the weak 2) law and order 3) military defence.


1) With the spectacular explosion of wealth a truly free market (no taxes or regulations) would generate I'm almost tempted to ask "what poor?" But of course there will always be those who are unable to work or just plain unlucky. The important thing to realise is that no welfare state does not mean no welfare.

[quote=Libertovania] Kindness doesn't need to be enforced at bayonet point. In fact, if people didn't want to help the poor why would they vote for the welfare state? So that the government could do it for them; not everyone is going to just run out and donate to charity, or if they do, donate the amounts that taxes collect. In a nation such as the US, do you think charity is going to raise the 1.3 (or in that area) trillion dollars raised for welfare?



2)....even relatively recently in 19th century America in the "wild" west (which was actually no more violent than modern cities on average and was less violent than the urbanised East coast) and in San Francisco when the corrupt govt was unable to supply justice. We aren't in the 19th century any longer, and this helps my arguement that anarchists look towards the past. We are in the 21st century, a full 200 years or so later.


In modern times this would probably be handled by insurance companies and private security. Already in America several towns have contracted out full police services. One town replaced its $180 000 state police which had a 45 minute response time with $90 000 private police with a 5 minute response time and cut crime by a third. Presumably by focusing on real crimes instead of harassing minorities and drug users. I am sure if more police forces modeled themselves after the private security forces such as this one, there would be no need to hire out mercanaries for police forces; this is probably also an extreme case in a small town, based upon the small amounts of money.


Also with widespread gun ownership, more efficient police and no drug laws causing crime there would be less crime to prevent. I agree with no drug laws because it helps in very many ways; drugs are cheaper and less people will sell them, addicts won't waste aware as much, prisons will be less crowded, etc.

Punishment would generally consist of recompensing the victim for damages done and the cost of investigation, thus ensuring that even the poor are adequately protected.

3) Is a military even necessary? Costa Rica does okay without. A Libertarian society is a peaceful society which nobody will view as a threat and is unlikely to be invaded in the first place. But I still think some armed forces would be necessary. How would military defence be provided?


There are many things that could be done. Firstly the majority of the population could be trained in non-violent resistence a la Ghandhi. Secondly there would be widespread gun ownership and probably voluntary town militias a la revolutionary America. In a peaceful society trained like Ghandi, why would there be widespread gun ownership? I mean, if you are as great a pacafist as he was, I'm sure you would be as pacafistic in many areas, such as dealings with neighbors. If everyone were like Ghandi, there would probably be virtualy no crime and no one would need a gun to defend themself is what I mean.


These could launch a guerilla war which would make occupation untenable like in USSR-Afgahnistan or US-Vietnam. Thirdly there would be elite professional mercenaries funded by charity ("Coca Cola supprt our Free Republic") who could coordinate and train militias as well as provide the first line of defence. I am sure there would be some resistance, but with the non-violent resistance methods you have trained everyone it is probably not going to be on as large a scale as you anticipate. Again with the non-violent principles, less people might own guns.

Such a society would be a very prickly pear indeed and attacking it would bring you a lot of grief and very little gain. If such an anarchist system was initiated within someone such as the US, terrorists would pounce all over that. They already use guerilla warfare and are organized fairly well, what's to stop them from stealing nuclear weapons from us and using them to get back at us for Afghanistan?

The larger the area is the more chance it has (as with all systems). The key phrase is "coordination without centralisation" in order to prevent the reemergence of a state. I'd imagine that this is going to be fairly impossible to lead an army with no central figure, no person to rally around. Look at almost every succesful army. The Army during the Revolution in America was headed by George Washington; in Russia, I assume Lenin; al-Qaeda, some chief militant (some might argue Osama but I believe he was the spiritual guy in the group, terrorist though he was); WIlliam the Conquer lead the army into England (or was it some other guy? I know it was the Duke of Normandy for sure). All of these had leaders in a fairly rigid hierarchy to ensure order and discipline on the field of battle.


I hope this has gone some way to answering your concerns. An important observation is that nowhere did I assume people will be better than they are now. I only assumed they would act pretty much the same and refrain from violence and theft most of the time and occasionally help those less fortunate. If you're interested in reading on you can find more details here.

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

I'll read up on that, so that I can understand what I am argueing against a little better. But if it is not going to make us any better, why go through all the trouble for naught?

I'm too cool, too smart, and too damn pessimisstic to go for such an obviously crack-pot idea. People are greedy-- they always have been and they always will be. Somebody is always gonna want power and will always have millions of sheep from which to gather followers. Besides which real anarchy would destroy us all. Because if there is no figure of authority than there is no one to stop people when they get out of control and begin to do things their way at the expense of others. In fact there was a rather good story about that. It showed what happened when a park full of people was locked down with no authority. The park fell into chaos with people worrying about rape or murder or whatever. Finally after a long day and night they got out and everyone was glad to be under the protective gaze of the government. Of course that's not completely true but it's true enough that it's easy to recongize government as the less of two evils as oppose to whatever you're preaching.

I'm too cool, too smart, and too damn pessimisstic to go for such an obviously crack-pot idea. People are greedy-- they always have been and they always will be. Somebody is always gonna want power and will always have millions of sheep from which to gather followers. Besides which real anarchy would destroy us all. Because if there is no figure of authority than there is no one to stop people when they get out of control and begin to do things their way at the expense of others. In fact there was a rather good story about that. It showed what happened when a park full of people was locked down with no authority. The park fell into chaos with people worrying about rape or murder or whatever. Finally after a long day and night they got out and everyone was glad to be under the protective gaze of the government. Of course that's not completely true but it's true enough that it's easy to recongize government as the less of two evils as oppose to whatever you're preaching.

I must say, you and Free Soviets, in my mind, appear to be much better in defending your anarchism than Letila is.

i don't know about libertovania, but i'm both older and have been an anarchist for longer than letila, so i've got a bit more practice with this debate. if i remember right, letila is about 16. i think he does alright - probably better than i would have done when i first started calling myself an anarchist.


(and jeebus, this thread is moving quickly. appologies in advance to everyone if i don't get around to answering some question you asked. i'm a bit busy getting ready to move to honolulu next week. if you have something that you would really like to hear my thoughts on, feel free to telegram me with it.)

The government is not practicing armed robery, otherwise in a modernized society many, many more people would be speaking out against it in rallies, the media, etc. etc. Most people have no problem with taxes because if there were no taxes there would be no services. No police, no military, no welfare, no education, no nothing.

What about the Matrix? Was that not slavery because people didn't know about it?

Is a military even necessary? Costa Rica does okay without. A Libertarian society is a peaceful society which nobody will view as a threat and is unlikely to be invaded in the first place. But I still think some armed forces would be necessary. How would military defence be provided?

Communal militias.

I'd imagine that this is going to be fairly impossible to lead an army with no central figure, no person to rally around. Look at almost every succesful army. The Army during the Revolution in America was headed by George Washington; in Russia, I assume Lenin; al-Qaeda, some chief militant (some might argue Osama but I believe he was the spiritual guy in the group, terrorist though he was); WIlliam the Conquer lead the army into England (or was it some other guy? I know it was the Duke of Normandy for sure). All of these had leaders in a fairly rigid hierarchy to ensure order and discipline on the field of battle.

The Makhnovists had a democratically elected staff and commanders.

Which is why the system is doomed to failure. Given a choice, I expect that people looking after themselves would not donate and use thier wealth for themselves. Even if the majority (let's say 80%) donate, that last 20% would still be hurting you, and I doubt that you'd get as much even if everyone donated (smaller donations).

The benefits (the respect of others, for example) outweigh the bad effects (not having something anymore but being able to get some of it back if needed).

Even under anarchism, I would expect that if I was one of an extreme minority of people who wanted the clothing factory to produce tie-died shirts, I wouldn't get them because the demand would be much harder to calculate, and an over production would use it extra resources and under production a group of still unsatisfyied people.

They can create their own syndicate that produces them.

Assuming most people are under democratic systems, the people have a say in what the government does, and the checks and balances in place in many nations already limit what the government can attempt to do. The leader himself has to have approval of other bodies to declare war, as in the US.

Did you consent to selective service? To taxes? To drug laws?

The majority in any democratic society can enact policies I like or not.

Then you can leave the commune. The rules are only binding on members.


I've read some anarchist pamplets and material. Seemed quite...structured.

It isn't the chaos you expected.

and I think it was Letila also that said that taxation is an unarmed form of robbery. The government protects you, keeps you safe, etc, and in return you help fund it. If you lived a long time ago and were raided by foreign barbarians you would quickly see the need for a government to band together and protect you and maintain order in the region. I think that was part of the reason government was created.

An armed form of robbery. If an armed robber gives some of the money back to you, he still robbed you. It is also possible that there are ulterior motives for these things.

-----------------------------------------
"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 question was asked because I believe this will necessitate a hierarchical system. Everyone in an anarchist society will be affected by the decisions made in that society, but not everyone can take part in the decision-making process. Would you allow toddlers to vote? How about people with severe psychotic conditions that are at present incurable? How about people with Alzheimer's disease? Or citizens in comas? If you cannot explain how these groups can vote, and they are only a small sample of possibilities, then you are creating the most fundamental hierarchical division in a society, between those who have political power and those who do not.

Ooooh! Good questions!

My question was asked because I believe this will necessitate a hierarchical system. Everyone in an anarchist society will be affected by the decisions made in that society, but not everyone can take part in the decision-making process. Would you allow toddlers to vote? How about people with severe psychotic conditions that are at present incurable? How about people with Alzheimer's disease? Or citizens in comas? If you cannot explain how these groups can vote, and they are only a small sample of possibilities, then you are creating the most fundamental hierarchical division in a society, between those who have political power and those who do not.

Given that government doesn't solve this problem and has it to an even worse extent, it seems odd that you would use it as an attack on anarchism.

An anarchist society is unlikely to make rules banning people with alzheimers disease. What, do you think they would associate them with Ronald Reagan or something? Given that governments rarely do this sort of thing even though they could easily, I don't think it would be a danger in an anarchist society.

-----------------------------------------
"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 question was asked because I believe this will necessitate a hierarchical system. Everyone in an anarchist society will be affected by the decisions made in that society, but not everyone can take part in the decision-making process. Would you allow toddlers to vote? How about people with severe psychotic conditions that are at present incurable? How about people with Alzheimer's disease? Or citizens in comas? If you cannot explain how these groups can vote, and they are only a small sample of possibilities, then you are creating the most fundamental hierarchical division in a society, between those who have political power and those who do not.

alright, everyone who is able to take part - and people who are less able could take part to the best of their ability. it is a little bit fuzzy at the extremes and stuff like that would have to be worked out in detail. in the case of toddlers, most anarchists do desire a much less authoritarian system of child raising, where children have more control over their lives starting at earlier ages. and the summerhill experience has shown that children (though not toddlers) actually can be quite responsible for making collective decisions, given the right structures.

in a sense, there will probably always be some who cannot take part in the decision making process for some reason. at least under anarchism those reasons would be restricted actual inabilities, and not the arbitrary exclusions that make up hierarchical society. and i don't mean just exclusions like not allowing felons to vote, i mean the arbitrary exclusion from power because you aren't high enough in the hierarchy. we may not be able to get rid of all hierarchy absolutely but we can easily get rid of a damn large chunk of it.

and the summerhill experience has shown that children (though not toddlers) actually can be quite responsible for making collective decisions, given the right structures.
There is no such thing as a collective decision.

There is no such thing as a collective decision.

wha? decisions made by more than 1 person are collective decisions.

... I'm sure it on my to " do list " ...

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=komokom)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "
" Don't you have a life ? " ( pause ) " Silly question I suppose ... "

wha? decisions made by more than 1 person are collective decisions.
No. If you decide to get a pizza and I decide to get a pizza then that is 2 individual decisions.

If you decide we're going to get a pizza that's 1 individual decision.

If you decide that we're going to get a pizza and I agree then there are 2 individual decisions. 1) You decide we're getting pizza. 2) I decide to agree.

If you and I and another person all write down what we want to share secretly and agree to go with the majority, there are three individual decisions (to agree with the majority), and three more individual decisions (what each of us want).

And if people make decisions that make other people do something, that's collectivism.

Individuals make decisions because decisions are made by minds, and only individuals have minds.

As an analogy, if you take 3 apples and put them together, you don't have 1 apple three times the size. You have 3 apples.

Much of what you say I would have agreed with about 18 months ago and I'll tell you why I changed my mind.

It, if very radical in a democratic state, is probably very radical in dictatorial states, the worst kinds of governments. I personally think that anarchists have been very affected by these dictatorial states, or at least more ancient states, and try to pass off older policies in states that were less than democratic as fact today.

As I think I said earlier, Marx and them were obviously rightfully affected at that point in history, yet nowadays less and less people work in factories and more in service industries-fast food, clerks, etc. The opression of workers in that day in age is so small-if it even exists-that you don't even notice it. As with that, government opression is very small, with some policies that invade privacy still in place and some less than great cops, but many of those break the rules when in a modernizing Western state.

I don't think you've really grasped just how deeply the observation "the govt should obey the same moral laws as everyone else" drives a stake through the very heart of what govt is. Govt oppression is not small even in democratic states. Thousands of people are in jail simply for posessing powder. About half of your yearly earnings are confiscated by force. You can't even sell an orange less than a certain diameter without being served a court order.

So in modern states the govt doesn't execute you for not paying taxes, but they do sell your house. I don't care whether the king is appointed by the pope, inherits his title or is chosen by democratic institutions. Neither way gives them the right to push people around. Even democratic states have only one tool, the sword. Everything the govt does is accomplished with the use or threat of agressive force. "Thou shalt do this or rot in jail."

Democracy shields us from the worst of the abuse but it is not an ideal to strive towards or a mandate to oppress the unpopular. It is simply mob rule. Workers are not oppressed by their employers, that's absurd Marxist nonsense.

The government is not practicing armed robery, otherwise in a modernized society many, many more people would be speaking out against it in rallies, the media, etc. etc. Most people have no problem with taxes because if there were no taxes there would be no services. No police, no military, no welfare, no education, no nothing.

Taxation is armed robbery. If you don't agree then try not paying. People don't protest because they've been brought up to believe that tax is necessary for the reasons you give. The point I'm trying to make is that police etc would still be there without taxes. Imagine you'd only known communism all your life and some "radical" came along saying we should privatise farming. You'd say, "but then who would grow the food? How do you know there'd be enough? How would the poor eat?" Yet it was the USSR not the USA where people starved. Not only would these services still exist without the state but they'd be better and cheaper.



Jury duty is compensated for and does not last very long, if I know my facts right. Also, there are ways you can get out of it. Also, I know of no modernized army in a modernized nation which conscripts its soldiers. One reason is it makes the army worse, and another is because many people didn't like it.

Slaves receive rations. That doesn't mean they aren't slaves. Many European states (Germany) still have conscription. Perhaps slavery makes juries worse too? Of course it is a lesser degree of slavery but that doesn't excuse it.


Assuming that anarchists want to revolt to start an anarchist society, it is very possible that they too would kill innocents-even accidentally, as most modern nations try not to kill innocents-and they would then become murderers. I don't think I heard anything yet tof having an anarchist society be prevented from wars, so they can also attack people to 'liberate' them, if the people vote that way.

If the American govt was interested in not killing civilians they wouldn't start wars. Very few Libertarians advocate violent revolution. An anarchist society wouldn't start wars, at least not as much as a state, and wouldn't be a threat which needed eliminating. Therefore it'd "increase the peace".



Kindness doesn't need to be enforced at bayonet point. In fact, if people didn't want to help the poor why would they vote for the welfare state? So that the government could do it for them; not everyone is going to just run out and donate to charity, or if they do, donate the amounts that taxes collect. In a nation such as the US, do you think charity is going to raise the 1.3 (or in that area) trillion dollars raised for welfare?

This is probably why the vote for it, true. But without the state there'd be less people needing help and more wealth from which to support them so we wouldn't need $1.3 trillion. Also private charity is more efficient and effective and concentrates on getting people out of charity as soon as possible. Most of that $1.3 trillion doesn't accomplish anything good.

We aren't in the 19th century any longer, and this helps my arguement that anarchists look towards the past. We are in the 21st century, a full 200 years or so later.

It's recent enough to be relevant, i.e. after the industrial revolution. There have been no changes in those 130 or so years that suggest it worked then but wouldn't now.


I am sure if more police forces modeled themselves after the private security forces such as this one, there would be no need to hire out mercanaries for police forces; this is probably also an extreme case in a small town, based upon the small amounts of money.

Police forces can't imitate the market. It just isn't possible given the nature of markets and bureacracies. In a large town the efficiency of the market would if anything save more money (in %) relative to a small town. "Mercenaries?" Public police get paid too.


I agree with no drug laws because it helps in very many ways; drugs are cheaper and less people will sell them, addicts won't waste aware as much, prisons will be less crowded, etc.

More to the point it is an invalid use of violence to put people in jail for snorting dust. It's agression, pure and simple.

In a peaceful society trained like Ghandi, why would there be widespread gun ownership? I mean, if you are as great a pacafist as he was, I'm sure you would be as pacafistic in many areas, such as dealings with neighbors. If everyone were like Ghandi, there would probably be virtualy no crime and no one would need a gun to defend themself is what I mean.

I don't advocate pacifism. It's agressive violence I detest. I'm advocating civil disobedience as a strategy which works, not because I have moral objections to shooting invaders.

I am sure there would be some resistance, but with the non-violent resistance methods you have trained everyone it is probably not going to be on as large a scale as you anticipate. Again with the non-violent principles, less people might own guns.

See above.

If such an anarchist system was initiated within someone such as the US, terrorists would pounce all over that. They already use guerilla warfare and are organized fairly well, what's to stop them from stealing nuclear weapons from us and using them to get back at us for Afghanistan?

If an anarchist society had nukes (they'd have to be funded by charity) why would they be less guarded than they are today. I'm more worried about what Dubya might do if Jesus told him to push the button than I am that terrorists would get hold of one. Note that if it wasn't for the govt's adventuring terrorists wouldn't have any reason to attack America in the first place. You're asking the govt to treat the symptoms (terrorism) not the disease (imperialism).

I'd imagine that this is going to be fairly impossible to lead an army with no central figure, no person to rally around. Look at almost every succesful army. The Army during the Revolution in America was headed by George Washington; in Russia, I assume Lenin; al-Qaeda, some chief militant (some might argue Osama but I believe he was the spiritual guy in the group, terrorist though he was); WIlliam the Conquer lead the army into England (or was it some other guy? I know it was the Duke of Normandy for sure). All of these had leaders in a fairly rigid hierarchy to ensure order and discipline on the field of battle.

Washington wasn't appointed by a state, he was the leader because people chose to follow him. Soldiers elected their officers. In times of war people would form around one or a very few leaders but as long as this is voluntary and not coercive this is fine. Mercenaries are generally well disciplined and professional. This isn't a problem for us.


I'll read up on that, so that I can understand what I am argueing against a little better. But if it is not going to make us any better, why go through all the trouble for naught?

Not make you better!!!??? You'd be wealthier, safer, wouldn't get put in jail for victimless crimes and above all you'd be free. In what way would you NOT be better off?

Out of intertest Libertovania, where do you hail from?

Glasgow. The heart of British Socialism. :x

Well, Glasgow now. Formerly Isle of Arran.

wha? decisions made by more than 1 person are collective decisions.
No. If you decide to get a pizza and I decide to get a pizza then that is 2 individual decisions.

If you decide we're going to get a pizza that's 1 individual decision.

If you decide that we're going to get a pizza and I agree then there are 2 individual decisions. 1) You decide we're getting pizza. 2) I decide to agree.

If you and I and another person all write down what we want to share secretly and agree to go with the majority, there are three individual decisions (to agree with the majority), and three more individual decisions (what each of us want).

And if people make decisions that make other people do something, that's collectivism.

Individuals make decisions because decisions are made by minds, and only individuals have minds.

As an analogy, if you take 3 apples and put them together, you don't have 1 apple three times the size. You have 3 apples.

jeez, do we have to play egoist semantics? fine. when a union of egoists comes together for the purposes of eating pizza together (because each egoist takes pleasure in the company of the others while eating said pizza), they each must individually decide what kind of pizza to get. however, each of them individually wants to get one pizza that they will all share the cost of. and so they discuss what sort of pizza they each want. it turns out that each of them wants a slightly different pizza, but they value each other's company and sharing of the cost more than they want to each get their own pizza and pay for it themselves. and so they each compromise and come up with a collectively agreeable decision. ta-da!

what you call collectivism is better known as hierarchy or rulership. what i would call collectivism (if i ever used the term) is the opposite of that.