NationStates Jolt Archive

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/split.jpgfrom http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=400404

----------------------------

You know, I would consider it if I didn't have this penchant for Libertarian Police States.

:mp5:

As an anarchist, I believe that the results of all actions will discourage bad descisions and encourage good ones. Therefore, there is no need for government. Furthermore, any government that does exist has no rights other than those of the people. (For example, the government does not have the right to forcible collect taxes.) I believe that people have the capacity to make intelegent descisions in all situations and that once we get rid of the government crutch we will be able to realize our potential as individuals and as a society. Anarchists of the world unite!

Ok, Mr. Anarchist, who's gonna build our highways, post offices, bridges, street signs and what happens if a bridge fails?

The principals of anarchy are:
1. Complete separation of powers and responsibilities. (The people who run our schools should have nothing to do with the people who build our roads other than the natural relations that these two groups might develope.)
2. Optional participation. (Noone should be forced to participate in society in any way, including forced taxation and voting.)
3. No punishment. (In an anarchy there is no such thing as punishment. People suffer the natural results of their action. If they do not learn from their mistakes they suffer more.)
4.This is the big one. I almost forgot it. Compitition for the government. (Not as in elections those are more like compititions for the board of directors for the government. I mean each individual chooses what type of government he or she wants to live under.)Anarchists of the world unite!

Ok, Mr. Anarchist, who's gonna build our highways, post offices, bridges, street signs and what happens if a bridge fails?
We hire businesses of our own choosing to do all of those things.
Anarchists of the world unite.

There's something ironic about the phrase "Anarchists Unite!"

There's something ironic about the phrase "Anarchists Unite!"
Exactly! The point is that anachists aren't really against unity, only the forced unity imposed by governments. Societies that fail to operate in harmony should suffer the consequences of disunity so that they can learn from their mistakes. Anarchists of the world unite!

Ok, so who hires people to build highways? And what if half the people dont wanna pay for it and half do? Do only half get to use it? What if the cheap half use it? Can I shoot them? What if they shoot back? What if a little old lady gets killed in the crossfire, and has no family to get revenge? She just "disappears" and thats it? All this because you dont want to pay your taxes? YOU CHEAP BASTARD!

Ok, so who hires people to build highways? And what if half the people dont wanna pay for it and half do? Do only half get to use it? What if the cheap half use it? Can I shoot them? What if they shoot back? What if a little old lady gets killed in the crossfire, and has no family to get revenge? She just "disappears" and thats it? All this because you dont want to pay your taxes? YOU CHEAP BASTARD!
Individuals do. Any business in road construction could offer licenses that allow individuals to access all roads owned by that business. Individuals caught driving on a road without a license to do so will suffer the natural consequences, the wrath of the company from which they have stolen services. Secondly, if you shoot anybody without being threatened yourself, you will be placed in a confinement facility paid for by all ethical and intelegent individuals. Thirdly, I would be one of those individuals, I'm not trying to get out of paying for the services that are vital to the health of the society in which I live. If I were attempting such a thing the natural consequences of that choice would be personally harmful and I would learn from my mistakes or eventually die due to my own ignorance thus eliminating myself from the gene pool.
Anarchists of the world unite!

HHMMMM all that makes sense! Kinda sounds like a..... uuhhmmmmm.....aaahhhhhhh..... Oh ya, A GOVERNMENT!!!! Only difference is its the business that is the government(business issued license) Go back to being insignifant, you anarchists are better at that!

HHMMMM all that makes sense! Kinda sounds like a..... uuhhmmmmm.....aaahhhhhhh..... Oh ya, A GOVERNMENT!!!! Only difference is its the business that is the government(business issued license) Go back to being insignifant, you anarchists are better at that!
Your right that it it very much like government. The differance is that unethical and unreasonable individuals are not forced to take part by paying taxes. Also, individuals only participate in the programmes they truly care about. By outsourcing our descision on when to use force, this method is employed more often than it ought to be. Anarchists of the world Unite!

<ooc>Is this thread OOC or IC? 'Cause my response depends on that.</ooc>

OOC: Please read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism) before continuing.

Yes, I've been an anarchy for quite a few months with no real adverse effects.

<ooc>Is this thread OOC or IC? 'Cause my response depends on that.</ooc>
I created this post. I'm new to the whole posting thing so I'm not sure what you mean by ooc and ic. Please explain. Anarchists of the world unite!

<OOC>"OOC" means out-of-character, and "IC" means in-character. IE, is this a roleplay thread (IC), or a discussion thread (OOC). As Weyr has decided (by virtue of posting a comment OOC and a comment IC) to consider this an IC thread, I will follow suit.</OOC>

Pastafaria be headed on de road to Anarchy as well, mon. Ever since we learned of this "par-lee-a-ment" thing (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8287283&postcount=2) we be thinking that no government is good government. Elimination of business laws, here we come!

There really wouldn't be much of a differance for me since I run my nation the way it I think it ought to be.

Congradulations Pastsfaria on your descision to repeal business laws. Less laws=more freedome. Anarchists of the world unite.

The time is now for every nation in the NS world to adopt the policies of anarchy. Let your citizens make all the mistakes they will so they can grow as individuals and as a community. Anarchists of the world unite!

No thank you, I rather like keeping my citizens under my thumb at all times.

A untited anarchy=oxymoron

Nodamista did you read my previous post in response to the same opinion? Anarchists are not against unity. We are only against the forced unity applied by governments. Societies should be free to suffer the natural consequences of disunity.
Anarchists of the world unite!

Why are conservatives more strongly opposed to anarchy then liberals?
I may be wrong, but it just seems that way to me.
Anarhists of the world unite!

I would like to start an Anarchists' alliance which would serve to convince the world of the benifits of anarchy. Anyone who would like to join the alliance or is interested in the concept of society without government please respond.

Have you thought about renaming this thread "ignorant children of the world, unite!" Considering you used that cliched phrase and support a style of government which is bound to fail, and will do nothing but create dictatorships and civil war, this label would be very fitting.

Now this may sound ridiculous but I'm ok with that. If humans are by nature so illogical and unethical that without the threat of government they would allow dictatorships and civil wars to develope in their own communities, then they entirely deserve those consequences.
Anarchists of the world unite!

There's something ironic about the phrase "Anarchists Unite!"
:rolleyes:

A untited anarchy=oxymoron

:rolleyes:

I would think that out of all the time I've heard this assumption that would have at least seen a reason for it.

But no, just "Anarchist organisation is an oxymoron" (or various permutations of it) with no reasoning. *Sigh* I guess I never will be able to get into the mindset of anti-anarchists. :(

I realized that there are other anarchist regions, but those are filled with all kinds of governments with a token anarchy here and there. I would prefer that An Archy be composed if not entirely, mostly of anarchies.
Anarchists of the world unite!

Do you mean of Nations with Anarchy! as a UN category? (As mine is at the moment iirc).

The problem with that is that you are being shortsighted. As intelligent as Max Barry and the coders of the game are, I doubt they are well versed in Anarchist literature (I would actually go so far to say many anarchists are either, but that is a different thread). And therefore Anarchy [the UN category in NS] != Anarchism as we know (and love) it in real life.

3. No punishment. (In an anarchy there is no such thing as punishment. People suffer the natural results of their action. If they do not learn from their mistakes they suffer more.)


Exactly. People always say 'oh but we need cops, without cops there would be a bunch of people running around committing crimes', and as that may be true for some, most people have more sense than that and wouldn't abandon their morals just because there is no one to enforce them.. People who commit crimes would be punished by others in the society, and this would mean a fairer punishment depending on whatever act was committed.

:rolleyes:



:rolleyes:

I would think that out of all the time I've heard this assumption that would have at least seen a reason for it.

But no, just "Anarchist organisation is an oxymoron" (or various permutations of it) with no reasoning. *Sigh* I guess I never will be able to get into the mindset of anti-anarchists. :(
Thank you! If we anarchists were entirely against unity that would just be idiotic. Working together is part of human nature. I use the slogan as a way to get that message across.
Anarchists of the world unite!

I believe An archy is not stressing enough the most important aspects of anarchy, which are competition for government and no social contract. Although no sane and intelligent individual would deny the opportunity to form communities with others for the sake of mutual benefit, no sane and intelligent individual would necessarily expect the same from insane and unintelligent individuals. Therefore, competent individuals would form communities that would probably be exactly like our current government except that they do not necessarily expect others to accept this contract (thus no social contract). Because no one is necessarily placed in a certain agreement (the social contract) without regard to what he or she actually wants, anarchy allows people to come to agreements without the silly expectation that others naturally agree with them (human nature arguments for the social contract, like made by Locke). The use of force to protect individuals is still possible (as long as people agree to this), but it is not necessary if they do not agree to it. The current social contract in most nations requires the use of force to stop murder, rape, etc. Although this is reasonable, it is not reasonable to expect all people to agree with this. Therefore, competition for the government would result, and communities with the best systems (whatever they may be) would eventually attract the most individuals.

Do you mean of Nations with Anarchy! as a UN category? (As mine is at the moment iirc).

The problem with that is that you are being shortsighted. As intelligent as Max Barry and the coders of the game are, I doubt they are well versed in Anarchist literature (I would actually go so far to say many anarchists are either, but that is a different thread). And therefore Anarchy [the UN category in NS] != Anarchism as we know (and love) it in real life.
Some governments would be acceptable.
Anarchists of the world unite!

I believe the most important aspect of anarchy is optional nonparticipation. With this feature of anarchy in place the others would flow naturally from human nature.
Anarchists of the world unite!

Anarchy is, now pay attention kiddies, a lot like Marxist Communism. Both ideals sound good in theory, but usually, there has to be the Stalin, or Napoleon, or Bush (Had to,) etc. that comes in and spoils the whole "All for one, one for all" type of deal. Anarchy and communism would NEVER work with a large country. there would be no way every person could make sure every other person was equal (or not participating) in a landmass as the United States (or Russia, or Brazil). Also, neither would work in a land such as China, (or the U.S.) where there are gigantic numbers of people.

In conclusion, IF there was a humanitarian-minded individual, and IF s/he wanted to promote pure anarchy/comm, and IF s/he obtained a reasonably (small) country, and IF s/he was charismatic to make a coup successful, THEN yes, either would work.

but that's a whole lotta If's

Yes, optional non-participation would be anarchic enough for me. Also, by advancing this idea instead of disestablishment, we might convince more people who think that the current system is at least close to correct (myself included).

Anarchy is, now pay attention kiddies, a lot like Marxist Communism. Both ideals sound good in theory, but usually, there has to be the Stalin, or Napoleon, or Bush (Had to,) etc. that comes in and spoils the whole "All for one, one for all" type of deal.

:rolleyes:
The Anarchists were the original opposition to Marx, Marx threw Bakunin and his supports out of the First International. I see nothing in Marx that particuarly appeals to me, especially not the methods.

You have taken an assumption that both philosophies share (they are good in theory), then tied together with an asumption that is only really present in one of them (that Marxist revolutionary methods will result in a dictatorship).

Please explain how a dictator can arise in an Anarchy?

Anarchy and communism would NEVER work with a large country.

???
What's this got to do with anything?

there would be no way every person could make sure every other person was equal (or not participating) in a landmass as the United States (or Russia, or Brazil).

Dude, wtf?
You are arguing over a completely irrelevent point.

Also, neither would work in a land such as China, (or the U.S.) where there are gigantic numbers of people.

In conclusion, IF there was a humanitarian-minded individual, and IF s/he wanted to promote pure anarchy/comm, and IF s/he obtained a reasonably (small) country, and IF s/he was charismatic to make a coup successful, THEN yes, either would work.

but that's a whole lotta If's
Try some of the major Anarchist website (eg InfoShop.org), most of them have a wide reading list with links to many free articles, pamphlets and books.

Originally Posted by Chiantissini
Anarchy is, now pay attention kiddies, a lot like Marxist Communism.

Now pay attention, straw men, I don't think you understand what these guys mean by anarchy. They do not mean a total lack of organization (which is a common and acceptable definition), but competition for government, optional non-participation and a lack of a social contract. People should not expect that everyone "naturally" agrees to some governmental precepts. Also, even if these precepts are natural, people should still be allowed to reject them, as the most natural characteristic of people is the ability to choose. These agreements sometimes include governments, but governments should not be so presumptuous as to conclude that they are "necessary evils" to correct bad human nature.

Go to Profile:

http://img174.exs.cx/img174/7941/profile5kf.jpg

Then Go to the signature option:

http://img174.exs.cx/img174/4244/sig8wf.jpg
My computer is having problems loading those pages.
Anarchists of the world unite!

OOC: Nobody here really seems to have a grasp of what the hell anarchy even is, ie statements like "anarchists unite? OXYMORON!" and "capitalists are ok in my anarchy group"

Anyway...

IC:
GAF Command Dispatch:

We support the effots of any people to cast off the yoke of oppression. Many of our GAF comrades were anarchists in their younger days, and we still have an anarchist wing. However, at the moment our poeple have opted for a state in response to the continued threat of outside invasion. We are merely operating on the wishes of the majority. Allahu akbar, long live the Islamic Green Revolution!

OOC: Nobody here really seems to have a grasp of what the hell anarchy even is, ie statements like "anarchists unite? OXYMORON!" and "capitalists are ok in my anarchy group"

Anyway...

Capitalizt. Something perculiar to NS as far as I know. In terms of the game is only slightly less libertarian than [NS]Anarchy, but with the same level of economic and civil rights iirc (there is a map of the government types somewhere, I'll try and find it).

OOC:

This makes no sense at all...Anarchists dont organize.

:rolleyes:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8322338&postcount=29

History and nearly ever anarchist on the planet disagrees with you.

Capitalizt. Something perculiar to NS as far as I know. In terms of the game is only slightly less libertarian than [NS]Anarchy, but with the same level of economic and civil rights iirc (there is a map of the government types somewhere, I'll try and find it).



:rolleyes:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8322338&postcount=29

History and nearly ever anarchist on the planet disagrees with you.

Do you guys know what anarchy is? Anarchist states have no cohesive governments! Who is going to organize it?! NO BODY! why? Because no one is in charge of an anarchy! because its a gol dern ANARCHY!

Everyone in a true anarchist state is an individual. There are no groups or anything.

Do you guys know what anarchy is?

Being an Anarchist, yes. And by the looks of it, I know more about it than you.

Anarchist states have no cohesive governments!

Anarchism doesn't form states. Therefore the nature of the government therein is moot.

Who is going to organize it?!

My friends and I have organised a great deal all things without the government overseeing. I can only assume that if there was not a government, we can still organise things.

NO BODY! why? Because no one is in charge of an anarchy! because its a gol dern ANARCHY!

No, everyone is in charge in an Anarchy.

However, this doesn't address the question of how organisation is incompatible with anarchism. Since to organise you don't always need some one in charge.

Everyone in a true anarchist state is an individual. There are no groups or anything.

Anarchist state is an oxymoron. True, in anarchism everyone is an individual. But cannot the same be said of Democracy, Republicanism or even tyranny (the individual still exist, even if the state doesn't recognise it)?

Groups are made up of individuals. Everyone being an individual has no bearing on if there are groups or not.

Try a different tactic.

OOC. Well, it seems we have ONE person who understands Anarchy.

Capitalizt. Something perculiar to NS as far as I know. In terms of the game is only slightly less libertarian than [NS]Anarchy, but with the same level of economic and civil rights iirc (there is a map of the government types somewhere, I'll try and find it).

Still don't understand how anything dealing with a capitalist economy can be considered anarchy.

Still don't understand how anything dealing with a capitalist economy can be considered anarchy.

Well the game mechanics are a bit crude, if a Nation fulfils the basic criteria for a category it is put into the category. For example, I've been Capitalizt (a form of radical capitalism were even the Government is privatised and corporations rule supreme), even though I had a tax rate of 100%. So in terms of NS Capitalizt can be seen as vaguely Anarchistic. Even if in real life it would be an Anarchist's nightmare.

This of course ignores the pleas of "Anarcho"-Capitalists (*spits* ;))

This of course ignores the pleas of "Anarcho"-Capitalists (*spits* ;))

Everytime I see that word, I shudder.

Everytime I see that word, I shudder.

Anarcho-capitalist.

Originally Posted by Qassam
Everytime I see that word, I shudder.

Wherefore? Any anarchy is by definition a free-trade economy, which is capitalist. Perhaps in a truly free trade economy, no one would be stupid enough to trade in the way that we currently do in our limited free-market, opting instead to live in communes because they are free to do so. However, the market would still be completely free for anyone to accept or reject the opportunity to work at a company producing goods in exchange for goods produced by the work of others. Maybe no one would do this, but they would be free to do so, making the economy capitalist.

Wherefore? Any anarchy is by definition a free-trade economy, which is capitalist.

True dat, mon. Though it be an interestin' question what's the relationship of laissez faire and Marxist Communism from an anarchist perspective. One advocates trade (and ownership) wit'out restriction, an' the other calls for ownership of de means of production by de workers, mon. Be these things contradictory?

To prevent monopolies or to restric' any individual from a particular business practice be requiring laws an' a government to make an' enforce 'em. But monopolistic, exploitative practices ain't in keepin' wit' the anarchist ideal.

Wherefore? Any anarchy is by definition a free-trade economy,

True

which is capitalist.

Not true. A free market is simply a market where everything can be bought an sold with no restriction, and is politically neutral.

Capitalism includes various aspects that most anarchists disagree with. This mainly comes down to property. Anarchists do agree that you can hold property but only in a de facto way, that is, if you occupy somewhere you own it, rather then buying the rights to land and owning it even you do nothing with it. Another capitalist aspect anarchists tend to disagree with is landlordism, demanding rent to living. I'm not to hot on definitions, but I think I have got the main parts.

Originally Posted by Anarchic Conceptions
Capitalism includes various aspects that most anarchists disagree with. This mainly comes down to property. Anarchists do agree that you can hold property but only in a de facto way, that is, if you occupy somewhere you own it, rather then buying the rights to land and owning it even you do nothing with it. Another capitalist aspect anarchists tend to disagree with is landlordism, demanding rent to living. I'm not to hot on definitions, but I think I have got the main parts.
Actually free-trade does imply potential capitalism. In a free trade economy, people can make any agreement they want. Some of these agreements might be like this: "I will allow you to have exclusive use of that if you allow me to have exclusive use of this." A more evolved agreement might include the precept that both parties will protect the other party's exclusive ownership of said property. Furthermore, many people might make this agreement as a whole. Also, the agreement could further state that only a few of the parties to the contract have to protect the property of the rest. In exchange for this, the rest give the few protectors exclusive right to some of their property (the objects for which they would have exclusive possession, according to the agreement).

If a certain person had exclusive right to some real estate property (through one of these agreements), he could rent it to others. If the renters do not pay the agreed fee, the owner could get the "protecters" to take back his property for him. This could all occur solely throught the self-organization and agreements of people, as opposed to according to the order of a government.

Originally Posted by Pastafaria
But monopolistic, exploitative practices ain't in keepin' wit' the anarchist ideal.
In an anarchy people would not be expected or required to accept agreements that are bad for them. People can form agreements not to work for or do business with companies with bad policies. In not too long, most people would make these agreements, allowing them access to lists of companies (which themselves are a different type of agreement) to boycott. If companies tried to cheat this system by bribing the enforcers of the strike/boycott agreements, individuals would have a great incentive to "blow the whistle" and start their own strike/boycott agreement. Thus, businesses would have to sell themselves as good social stewards before being able to sell anything else, and they would be making this sale to experienced buyers who specialize in considering which businesses the people of their agreement should patronize.

Interestingly, agreements in anarchy often involve the use of force. I do not think "the lack of use of force" is an applicable definition for anarchy because no one could force people to stop forcing others to do things. In situations like this, the best option is to allow every individual to do whatever he or she wants regarding the use of force. It is like the argument for legalizing guns: "If you illegalize handguns, then only criminals will have them." Similarly, if no one is allowed to use force, then those who break this law will rule.

The problem with mankind is that they "are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." It is too easy for people to accept that they can never use force to get what they want (no matter how noble), but the government can do so. In fact, the most important change in anarchy would be a change of mindset. People would no longer take any sort of oppression, nor would they consider themselves obliged by contracts they never made (the social contract).

However, I do not think that force is the way to anarchy. This is a way to freedom that people wouldn't accept because we would lose more in fighting for freedom than we would gain be achieving it. This is the underlying idea of the Thomas Jefferson quote above. Unless people find an effective way to free themselves, they will continue to live under oppression. The more effective way to freedom from a social contract is through selective non-participation.

Therefore, even the most communist of anarchists should support free-market laws pushed by Libertarians. These laws (or lack thereof, more accurately) would allow selective non-participation, which would allow even communists (who may be right about their system being the best) to implement their ideas completely, within communes. Eventually competition among communes would reflect the competition for government required for effective anarchy. At this point, no one would be expected to naturally fit in a certain governments definition of the natural social contract, and people would be free to make whatever agreements they deem best for themselves.

Wherefore? Any anarchy is by definition a free-trade economy, which is capitalist.

Capitalism is hierarchal, which is incompatible with anarchy.

However, the market would still be completely free for anyone to accept or reject the opportunity to work at a company producing goods in exchange for goods produced by the work of others.

I've always held that an anarchist society would do away with the notion of exchanging goods and services.

Maybe no one would do this, but they would be free to do so, making the economy capitalist.

They would be free to do it, but I still do not believe that any capitalist society would qualify as anarchist.

Anarchism doesn't form states. Therefore the nature of the government therein is moot.


Anarchism doesn't form states? Why can't it?


My friends and I have organised a great deal all things without the government overseeing. I can only assume that if there was not a government, we can still organise things.

Yes... for example you could organize a GOVERNMENT. Someone else could organize a tyrannical one. Someone else could organize a semi-republic. Is that what you want, or did you have the notion that everyone would be an anarchist someday and therefore, no one anywhere would form states or governments?

It is the nature of anarchist societies - and anarchy - to form states. Evidence? All humanity was originally "anarchist." Now almost none of it is. The reasons we've come from there to here are the same reasons why any attempt at anarchist utopia will shift into feuding states competing for limited resources. It's said that nature abhors a vacuum. Well, people abhor a power vacuum. People who are at all ambitious or politically motivated will grate against the anarchist societies and eventually overthrow them.

Anarchism is nice in theory. So is Eden. Neither is practical.

I believe that a true anarchy is essentially capitalist if the individuals in that society desire it to be. The question of whether private property, as an institution, is natural and beneficial would be left to individuals. It would, therefore, be incorrect to call an entire anarchist society either an-soc or an-cap since this descision would be made individuals rather than society as a whole. To do so, even if the grand majority of individuals in the society do prefer one system over the other, would be like saying that the United States as a whole is Christian. (By the way, I feel that anarchism is essentially capitalistic, since a lack of buisiness laws is essentially what early capitalists, such as Adam Smith were advocating. There is the exception of government protection of property rights, however. Most capitalists are in favor of this. The reason why a capitalizt government is ok in my anarchist group is not because I agree that the government should protect private property but because that is the only issue in which a capitalizt state necessarily differs from an anarchy. I know for a fact that that is the case with Charles's ideal government.)
Anarchist of the world unite!

Capitalism is hierarchal, which is incompatible with anarchy.

How is capitalism heirarchical?

How is capitalism heirarchical?

It requires a class system, as well as a private property system backed up by force.

It would, therefore, be incorrect to call an entire anarchist society either an-soc or an-cap since this descision would be made individuals rather than society as a whole.

Hierarchy is incompatible with anarchism, so to speak of an-cap societies is meaningless. Its simply stateless capitalism, but not anarchism. Anarchism is more than just "no government".

It requires a class system, as well as a private property system backed up by force.

Capitalism requires a class system? Prove it.

Capitalism requires a private property system to be backed up by force? Prove that as well.

Capitalism requires a class system? Prove it.

There is no equal distribution of wealth in capitalism, so invariably some will have more wealth than others, over time. Throw in the typical arrangement of a capitalist business (bosses, managers, workers) and you've got yourself a nice class system.

Capitalism requires a private property system to be backed up by force? Prove that as well.

Capitalism is based around private property. If nothing backs up your private property claims, then they don't exist. In order to maintain those claims, they need to be backed up with something: force.

Originally Posted by Qassam
There is no equal distribution of wealth in capitalism, so invariably some will have more wealth than others, over time. Throw in the typical arrangement of a capitalist business (bosses, managers, workers) and you've got yourself a nice class system.

Well, a class system involves authority, not material resources. A system with unequal distribution of wealth can have all members equally powerful politically. In anarchy, no political power exists, only contractual power, and all are free to make whatever agreements they want regardless of wealth. Furthermore, anarchy does not mean the lack of a class system, if it is one to which all parties of the system agree. In fact, anarchy does not allow any restraints that would keep people from agreeing to anything, including a class system. Although businesses use a class system, it is one to which all the members of the business agree. Perhaps if trade were more free, people would not make this agreement. However, they would be free to make it or not make it. Therefore, class systems are possible within anarchy.

Capitalism is based around private property. If nothing backs up your private property claims, then they don't exist. In order to maintain those claims, they need to be backed up with something: force.

As I said before, the use of force is not contradictory to anarchy. If people form agreements that only a specific person (the "owner") may use certain objects, and these people agree to use force to protect this agreement, nothing within anarchy could stop them from doing this. This "property agreement" might not happen in a completely free-trade economy, but it would certainly be allowed.

Of course it is reasonable to assume that the poor or the workers would never make this agreement because they could gain so much more from being allowed to use the property of the rich. However, they might make this agreement if they were paid. They would do this (instead of having all the resources of the rich available to them) because seizing the supposed property of the rich would be difficult; it would be protected by those whom the wealthy pay to enforce their "property agreements." The rich could gain so much by having the poor as part of their property agreements (they wouldn't have as much "property" "stolen," and they wouldn't have to pay as many protectors), that they would be willing to pay members the poor and workers enough so that this agreement would happen. This would effectively be redistribution of wealth. So really, even this could occur (and probably would occur) in an "anarcho-capitalist" system.

Originally Posted by Santa Barbara
Anarchism is nice in theory. So is Eden. Neither is practical.

Ignorance is bad in theory, but it seems to occur quite frequently.

I believe you misunderstand our meaning of anarchy. While you say that all anarchies become governments, we say that all governments are basically anarchic, but the people just don't recognize it. That is, in the current system people really are free to kill, to murder, or to do whatever else they want to do that they can do. More importantly, they are free to make agreements that compete with the government. This makes the social contract ineffective because individuals would rather make agreements among themselves than to be bound by an agreement that they never made.

Because people can make agreements that compete with the government, people have the choice not to participate in the social contract, or the government. Thus, optional non-participation really is an option, even now. As I said earlier, the greatest change in anarchy would not be a governmental change, but a change in the way people think.

for example you could organize a GOVERNMENT. Someone else could organize a tyrannical one. Someone else could organize a semi-republic. Is that what you want

As you can see from my post, yes it is. The only precepts of anarchy are that people are not considered obligated by agreements they have not made (particularly the social contract), that governmental powers can only be gained through the agreement of those under the authority (thus, competition for government), and that people who do not want to make an agreement do not have to make that agreement, no matter how common it is (optional non-participation).

There is no equal distribution of wealth in capitalism, so invariably some will have more wealth than others, over time. Throw in the typical arrangement of a capitalist business (bosses, managers, workers) and you've got yourself a nice class system.

Oh, now I see where you are trying to go with this. The fact is that class actually arises out of value judgements made by people about other people because of a particular characteristic they displayed. Class is a social perception that is foisted on people by other people. It really is not inherently tied to money. A class system can be based on skin pigmentation or eye color, nakedness or sex. The root of the problem is not that some have more resources than others, but that people allow that fact to affect their perception of other people in a harmful way. In the case of the managers, they see their position as giving them some sort of superiority over the workers, which means that they hold the workers in less esteem, which allows them to rationalize treating the workers with less respect than they deserve.

Capitalism is based around private property. If nothing backs up your private property claims, then they don't exist. In order to maintain those claims, they need to be backed up with something: force.

What about a consensual agreement? If two parties decide to allow each other the use of a certain object, and they do so, where is the force? What if nobody else tries to come and take it away because everyone respects the idea of private property? Where is the force?

Capitalism is not inherently heirarchical or based on force, that is simply (and unfortunately) the way it is commonly implemented. Let's not make the mistake of assuming that the way it has always been done is the only way of doing it. :)

Ignorance is bad in theory, but it seems to occur quite frequently.

I believe you misunderstand our meaning of anarchy.

Whatever. Everyone is ignorant about some things. Because I am apparently ignorant of your particular conception of anarchy means only that I don't give a shit.


While you say that all anarchies become governments, we say that all governments are basically anarchic, but the people just don't recognize it. That is, in the current system people really are free to kill, to murder, or to do whatever else they want to do that they can do.

Really, ya think so? Sure - and they take the consequences. Most people aren't suicidal or fond of prison, so most people don't do all you think they are "free" to after all.



As I said earlier, the greatest change in anarchy would not be a governmental change, but a change in the way people think.



Ah. Kind of like how communism depended on a similar, revolutionary, worldwide change in how people think. In other words, it's impractical, as I said earlier.

As you can see from my post, yes it is. The only precepts of anarchy are that people are not considered obligated by agreements they have not made (particularly the social contract), that governmental powers can only be gained through the agreement of those under the authority (thus, competition for government), and that people who do not want to make an agreement do not have to make that agreement, no matter how common it is (optional non-participation).

Oh, well guess what? In your anarchist world, tyrants will have no compelling reason to only rule over people who 'agree' to it. So much for anarchism. Unless of course you plan to change human nature such that tyrants won't come about or some such. Good luck with that, I'll be hanging out amongst the libertarians and common sense.

Originally Posted by Santa Barbara
Really, ya think so? Sure - and they take the consequences. Most people aren't suicidal or fond of prison, so most people don't do all you think they are "free" to after all.

I wasn't arguing that people don't do the things that they are free to do. I was arguing that people don't even realize that they may do the things that they are free to do. Of couse they would take the consequences for their actions. But these consequences need not be more than the natural consequences of having someone else do the same or worse to them.

However, many people feel bound by the social contract, by the government, not to do things when the natural consequences would be a more compelling reason not to do these things than the "mindset" of not being allowed to them. As you can see, government itself is actually an attempt to change the way people think.

Ah. Kind of like how communism depended on a similar, revolutionary, worldwide change in how people think. In other words, it's impractical, as I said earlier.

Notice that I said the greatest change in anarchy would be in the way people think. The first and most fundamental change would be to dissestablish the government by allowing selective non-participation and competition for the powers of government. This would necessarily change the way people think.

People would no longer rely on the social contract to protect them. Instead they would form personal agreements with other people to achieve whatever they define as good. Thus, people would have greater consequence attached to their decisions, because they would be in control of governmental powers (the power to make agreements which are now part of the social contract).

Oh, well guess what? In your anarchist world, tyrants will have no compelling reason to only rule over people who 'agree' to it.

Also, people would have no compelling reason not to kill would-be-tyrants before they gain power. Furthermore, individuals would have no compelling reason to agree to a tyrant in the first place. In the current political situation a tyrant might arise because individuals are not personal responsible for their government because no competition (and therefore choice) of governments exists. In anarchy, a tyrant could never rise to power because there would be no political ladder for him to climb. The only way a person could exercise authority over others is by getting them to agree to this authority.

Notice that my definition of anarchy is not even close to what you describe. The current political system would probably be one of many choices people could make about which government will have authority over them. In fact, I would probably join a government (among all the ones that compete for my membership) that is very much like the current political situation. However, I wouldn't have to deal with people who rightfully don't consider themselves bound by the social contract. In anarchy, no social contract exists. The only people who would be fellow citizens in whatever government I choose would agree to whatever type of power structure this government has.

As pointed out by Charles de Montesquieu earlier, anarchy is more about a
change in mentality. However, that won't easily come from our kind of society (since we are "controlled" -- that is, force is used against us ad nauseum because of that so-called social contract that we are all supposed to agree with -- at quite a high level).

Anyway, here are a few ideas to help anarchy:

First, our economy has to be freed (for it is totally controlled by international banks). No need to burn every dollars you come across. We could just create our own economic system. Ever heard of the Ithaca HOURS (www.ithacahours.com)? Well, some people realised that true power only came from agreement, so they agreed to create a new system based on time, like, "I pay you one hour of work", they had quarter-hours, half-hours, hours, two hours, etc. Of course, you could always ask for people to pay you more (e.g.: I'm a doctor, I had to study a lot, so my services are worth more -- or something like that). The big advantage here? Well, for one, you don't have to pay for the debts of other people. Our governments have debts because our economic system doesn't belong to them or us, but to banks. For when you have control over your own money (when you can *create* money), how can you be in debt? You can just create more money. In the Ithaca system, everyone decided how money would be created and the like. So, maybe a new kind of "system", one to which enough people agree, would be a good bet.

Second, you could also (also through agreement) create a gift economy. It works like this: usually, people try to get more than they give, right? That's called profit, and it's supposed to be a good thing. But in a gift economy, you try to *give* more than you receive. We call that deficit, and it's supposed to be a bad thing, but think about it. What if people agree to this system? You eliminate a great deal of poverty-relied problems. Why? Simply because poverty exists because money is seen as an end, rather than as a mean.

E.g.: Money is supposed to be circulating among people. However, everyone looks for profit, which means to gain more than you give and, to some extent, to pile up this cash, right? Some people make better deals than others, some are just unlucky (like, they bought something that broke and the like), etc. So, you end up with people who made "profit" and other "deficit". Result: you've got some "rich" people and some "poor" people. In this system, you need money to gain money. So rich people gain even more money, and poor people lose money. Rich people keep their money, that's why they're rich. So you've got less and less money money in circulation, and thus some people are always rich, and some people always poor.

In a gift economy, you give more than you receive. That means it is much harder to pile up money. Also, you can't give more than you have, right? That means that, while there will always be some people with a bit more and others with a bit less, the first will tend to give more, while the latter will give less. It's a "self-regulating" system. Now, I know some of you are thinking "Well, it's an anarchy, so people can cheat if they want, right? Will someone force them to give more? If not, what will happen, etc." But, this is an anarchy. So if people try to cheat, the others can stop dealing with them, can't they? Ultimately, this system could indeed work, if people agreed to this. I know it sounds utopic, but it would really reduce crime and the like, because poverty often creates crime, and this system is designed to reduce poverty.


Anyway, that were my two cents. If you want to argue about this, please, no flame, no insults, and please, give me better arguments other than the usual "You're just crazy, that's an utopia, human nature can't be fought", etc.

Topic split from a region-pimping thread in Gameplay.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team

Originally Posted by Da Wolverines
As pointed out by Charles de Montesquieu earlier, anarchy is more about a change in mentality.

No, I said that the greatest change in anarchy would be a change in mentality. However, anarchy is not about a change in mentality; this would simply be its greatest effect. In saying this I was trying to avoid the type of silliness that plagued the philosophy of early socialists. I don't expect to change human nature, but to give people a different sociological state that would necessarily change their behavior in such a way that they would act with greater personal responsibility, especially with regard to social norms like our current laws enforce.

Instead of a few (or even a majority) deciding these norms rather arbitrarily for every individual, everyone would have a choice as to what norms would apply to himself or herself. That way, the government really does rely on consent of the people. Everyone participating in the same government would agree to its social norms and power structure as much or more than the workers of a company agree to its authority. Thus, governments (through competition) would become as efficient at providing their citizens with the societies they want as businesses are at providing their customers with the products they want.

Notice that I said the greatest change in anarchy would be in the way people think. The first and most fundamental change would be to dissestablish the government by allowing selective non-participation and competition for the powers of government. This would necessarily change the way people think.


It would necessarily REQUIRE a change in the way people think. Everywhere.

Otherwise all you are doing is reshuffling the deck.

People would no longer rely on the social contract to protect them. Instead they would form personal agreements with other people to achieve whatever they define as good.

Those personal agreements will become the social contract. And then people will rely on them.



Also, people would have no compelling reason not to kill would-be-tyrants before they gain power. Furthermore, individuals would have no compelling reason to agree to a tyrant in the first place.

You don't have to agree to a tyrant. That's the nature of how tyranny works, how it rises. How did the first tyrant arise, out of egalitarian tribal societies much like your anarchist viewpoint? Answer: same way the first post-anarchist-revolution tyrant will rise. Power.

In the current political situation a tyrant might arise because individuals are not personal responsible for their government because no competition (and therefore choice) of governments exists.

I disagree. A tyrant might also arise because of power! I also disagree when you say there is no competition for government. Of course there is. Political parties, for one. Other nations or states for another.

In anarchy, a tyrant could never rise to power because there would be no political ladder for him to climb.

Disagree. First you assume there's no political ladder and secondly you assume you require one to 'climb' in order to be tyrannical. There's always a hiearchy, and there will always be people at different ends of it.


Notice that my definition of anarchy is not even close to what you describe. The current political system would probably be one of many choices people could make about which government will have authority over them. In fact, I would probably join a government (among all the ones that compete for my membership) that is very much like the current political situation. However, I wouldn't have to deal with people who rightfully don't consider themselves bound by the social contract. In anarchy, no social contract exists. The only people who would be fellow citizens in whatever government I choose would agree to whatever type of power structure this government has.

You say "social contract" a lot. I think it's a BS term, myself. Maybe you could explain it better and what you mean by it?

Also what IS your definition of anarchy?

You say "social contract" a lot. I think it's a BS term, myself. Maybe you could explain it better and what you mean by it?

SB, how old are you IRL? I only ask this because the term "social contact" and its meaning are part of the social studies curriculum in (AFAIK) all American high schools.

This Wiki entry should give you the basic idea.

Social Contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract)

SB, how old are you IRL? I only ask this because the term "social contact" and its meaning are part of the social studies curriculum in (AFAIK) all American high schools.

I am old enough. I was asking what he meant by it. Because perhaps he meant it in some other way than that dead frenchman's spewing, which really has nothing to do with the practicality of changing human nature a la global anarchism or global communism.

Santa Barbara you obviously believe that political parties qualify as compitition for the government. First of all, we have the same government, the same constitution, no matter who we elect. Secondly, elections qualify merely as compitition for control of the government. Finally, that competition does not reach a personal level. If it did, then all the democrats in the U.S. could claim Kerry as their president rather than Bush. Libertarians could claim Badnarik. The separate factions could even write their own constitutions and battle for control over various regions. (For example the Right-Wing faction would gain complete control over the South.) Supposing that these political rivalries erupted into civil war, society would merely be getting the natural consequences of our inability to agree to disagree.
Anarchists of the world unite!

My nation, An Archy, is now a Capitalizt nation. I regret this, but in this game anarcho-capitalist countries sometimes turn into Capitalizt or Libertarian Police States. Anarcho-socialist nations have a tendency to become Democratic Socialist or other government types. My proposal is that, in this forum, we begin discussing what it is that qualifies anarchism and based on that discussion (which will be entirely open to both forms of anarchy) we each write several issues meant to help anarchies in N.S. be recognized as such and allow them to succeed as societies in the way that we all believe that they can. That way we can lessen the crime and poverty that plague anarchies in N.S.
Anarchists of the world unite!

Originally Posted by Santa Barbara
It would necessarily REQUIRE a change in the way people think. Everywhere.

Otherwise all you are doing is reshuffling the deck.

As I already said, government changes the way people think. Lack of government would merely "change back" the way we think. For instance, before the New Deal, people did not have the same view of the U.S. Government that they do today. Government involvement in economics changed the way people think about the government. By changing the way people view government, the new deal changed the way people think about the nature of their involvement with society in general. If we ended the New Deal reforms immediately, people would have to reevaluate the nature of their involvement in society. This would be a change in the way people think, but more accurately it would be a "change back" to the way we thought before the New Deal.

Those personal agreements will become the social contract. And then people will rely on them.

As you mention later, it looks like we have a different definition of social contract. For the sake of clarity for this argument, I am using the defintion "an implicit agreement among people that results in the organization of society." (WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University). Personal agreements are not implicit agreements. When individuals make direct agreements with one another, they are doing the opposite of making an implicit agreement. Instead of assuming that some agreement between them is natural or already known by all parties, they are clarifying directly to one another the complete nature of the agreement, making it very not implicit.

You don't have to agree to a tyrant. That's the nature of how tyranny works, how it rises. How did the first tyrant arise, out of egalitarian tribal societies much like your anarchist viewpoint? Answer: same way the first post-anarchist-revolution tyrant will rise. Power.

More importantly, how (instead of where) did the first tyrant arise? The first tyrants considered that they had a "mandate from heaven" (to borrow the Chinese phrase) to rule their subjects. The people believed that the gods or spirits (or some other supernatural force) favored a certain person to rule. Thus, they believed that there was a natural, implicit order to society. In other words, the first tyrants rose from the first social contracts.

I disagree. A tyrant might also arise because of power! I also disagree when you say there is no competition for government. Of course there is. Political parties, for one. Other nations or states for another.

Tyrants must do more than claim power; they must get at least a few others to agree that power is rightfully or naturally theirs. Once again, this is an instance of a belief in some implicit, natural way to order society. Furthermore, as mentioned by An archy, political parties are only competition for complete control of governmental powers. Imagine how ridiculous it would be if we applied the same logic to competitions for resources other than authority. What if we all had to shop at wal-mart because it is the most popular general store? What if the New York Yankees were the only baseball team allowed to play? Full competition doesn't allow for this tyranny of the majority. The kind of complete competition that exists for businesses is the kind of competition for government that would exist in anarchy. The fact that many more people shop at Krogers and agree to the authority and protection of the Democratic or Republican parties should not stop me from shoping at Winn-Dixie and agreeing to the authority and protection of the Libertarian party.

Disagree. First you assume there's no political ladder and secondly you assume you require one to 'climb' in order to be tyrannical. There's always a hiearchy, and there will always be people at different ends of it.

Sure, there is always a hierarchy, but tyrants only arise when people assume that someone's power is part of the natural order of government. A tyrant, by the definition I believe we are both using, is a person who rules against the will of his subjects. If personal agreements (instead of implicit agreements) were the only way that a person could gain authority, than no one could possibly have authority over those who do not agree to it.

There would still possibly be people who gain authority by force, but at least in this case they gain the authority through agreement (even if the subjects only agreed out of fear). Of course, this is also possible (and even more so) in a society where people assume that there is some social contract that allows this use of force for the person using it to take power, without allowing retribution by the dissenting masses.

I didn't realise this was continued. Saw it had been trimmed by Frisbeeteria in my subscriptions, didn't guess it had been split.

Alright, one last post and I'm done with this topic. I'm rather tired of anarchismists.

As I already said, government changes the way people think. Lack of government would merely "change back" the way we think.

Lack of government has always merely lead to rise of more government. I see no reason for this to change without your magical global-turn-everyone-into-anarchist revolution.

As you mention later, it looks like we have a different definition of social contract. For the sake of clarity for this argument, I am using the defintion "an implicit agreement among people that results in the organization of society." (WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University). Personal agreements are not implicit agreements.

No, I said they will become implicit over time. (That is how a social contract rises in the first place. It may start out explicit but becomes implicit.) Sounds like we're using the same definition..

When individuals make direct agreements with one another, they are doing the opposite of making an implicit agreement. Instead of assuming that some agreement between them is natural or already known by all parties, they are clarifying directly to one another the complete nature of the agreement, making it very not implicit.

Yeah, but then their children adopt the same agreement, and their children's children, and oh hey look hereditary title!


More importantly, how (instead of where) did the first tyrant arise?

That's exactly what I said. :confused: I didn't say where...

The first tyrants considered that they had a "mandate from heaven" (to borrow the Chinese phrase) to rule their subjects. The people believed that the gods or spirits (or some other supernatural force) favored a certain person to rule. Thus, they believed that there was a natural, implicit order to society. In other words, the first tyrants rose from the first social contracts.

Just as the new tyrants rise from the new social contracts. Or do you think you can eliminate the whole concept of a social contract too? I hope so, because I hate the phrase "social contract" for some reason.

And I disagree. I think there were plenty of tyrants operating on a mandate from heaven principle. But that wasn't how THEY became to be the tyrant - anyone with the power would have adopted something like that as an essentially PR maneuver. They personally rose to power by taking it, by politicking and fighting tooth and nail for it. They wrangled important people onto their side and carved out empire. Social contracts maybe helped their dynasty, but historically most dynasties met bloody ends. The constant is power, and people taking power and ruling over others.

Tyrants must do more than claim power; they must get at least a few others to agree that power is rightfully or naturally theirs. Once again, this is an instance of a belief in some implicit, natural way to order society.

Not really. That could have been an explicit arrangement. You seem to think no one comes to power unless it's via the all-powerful social contract. No one needs grand beliefs about natural orders or nature in order to choose a leader, or have one chosen for them.

Furthermore, as mentioned by An archy, political parties are only competition for complete control of governmental powers. Imagine how ridiculous it would be if we applied the same logic to competitions for resources other than authority. What if we all had to shop at wal-mart because it is the most popular general store? What if the New York Yankees were the only baseball team allowed to play? Full competition doesn't allow for this tyranny of the majority. The kind of complete competition that exists for businesses is the kind of competition for government that would exist in anarchy.

Except modern business competition is protected by and really can't exist without the government.

And you know what it is when you have a bunch of competing governments? Warfare. Only in your anarchist world, smaller, vicious and never ending scales that can quickly destroy the global economy.


Sure, there is always a hierarchy, but tyrants only arise when people assume that someone's power is part of the natural order of government. A tyrant, by the definition I believe we are both using, is a person who rules against the will of his subjects. If personal agreements (instead of implicit agreements) were the only way that a person could gain authority, than no one could possibly have authority over those who do not agree to it.

That's rather naive. 'Personal agreements?' OK, like Biker Lord Drako comes to you and says you're in his turf and can live, but pay him half of everything you got. The alternative is death. What do you choose?

Tyranny by personal agreement is just as possible as by implicit agreement.

There would still possibly be people who gain authority by force, but at least in this case they gain the authority through agreement (even if the subjects only agreed out of fear).

I don't see how that's really an improvement.

Of course, this is also possible (and even more so) in a society where people assume that there is some social contract that allows this use of force for the person using it to take power, without allowing retribution by the dissenting masses.

There is always possibility of retribution from the dissenting masses. History has shown that. History also shows the dissenting masses - every one of them raging against the social contract and desiring personal power and agreements - merely form governments of their own.

At least in the non-anarchist world, there is the rule of law and the existence of sovereignty. It seems both have tyrannies. It seems both have social contracts. But in the anarchist one, the states are smaller, the laws and economy and culture far smaller, and unless you have a personal agreement with rubber farmers you won't drive a car, a personal agreement with grain farmers you'll starve, a personal agreement with your neighbor he'll stab you in the back.

Unless of course you can change everybody's mindset in the world. That is, again, something I dislike about utopian philosophies like this and communism. It depends on globally changing the human condition.

Well, do you admit that my magical global-turn-everyone-into-anarchist revolution would work, if it is successful? If so, your only arguments are that my revolution is impossible or that having statist government is preferrable. You discuss both of these in your post. However, if my revolution is possible and my type of anarchy is preferable, then all my arguments hold. I will first discuss why this anarchy (by my definition) is preferable.

The only requirement for my type of anarchy is optional non-participation. The current system of government need not dissappear, and the vast majority of people (myself included) would probably agree to it. However, people in this system would not have to deal with oppressing those who do not agree to it. Because individuals may choose the authority that directs them (and may found authorities for themselves and try to convince others to submit to their form of social order), tyranny (by the definition we are both using) would be unlikely because individuals would have the ability to choose the government they prefer. Thus, these individuals would not be under tyranny because they would not be under an authority with which they disagree. How could someone agree to a government to which he disagrees?

Thus, my system of anarchy is preferable to any form of statism (assuming that you don't like tyranny) because only in my system is tyranny unprofitable, because all your subjects could leave you. You could argue that competing governments might attempt to force people to participate in them, but this is about as intelligent as saying that companies might force people to buy their products if they are allowed to compete. Fortunately, you haven't argued this yet. I suppose you are intelligent enough to realize that it is in the interest of a competing government not to force people to participate in it (as this would only encourage the oppressed to overthrow it). A government can only have control of its citizens if it can get these citizens to actively agree to this control or not to actively undermine it. By allowing individuals to choose whatever government they want, governments (like businesses in the current capitalist system) insure that everyone who is in their organization agrees to its principles and to their place in it.

This shows that optional non-participation (my form of anarchy) is preferable. Now, the second question is whether it is possible. Optional non-participation is possible because it is not only preferable for regular individuals, but also for those who want power. As I stated earlier, it is in the best interest of those in power that those under them agree to this power. By allowing people who disagree to leave, rulers who would be tyrants can more easily get rid of dissent. Thus, they will be able to gain more power for themselves by having absolute authority (if they choose) in whatever government they form.

Of course, you also argue that as governments split and become smaller and smaller, they are less able to protect themselves against anyone who would take control by force (by promising a group of soldiers compensation as paid by taxes that these soldiers forcibly take). However, to protect themselves against this, individuals would usually join the largest governments possible, making these governments larger and larger. Of course, this might conclude in a situation in which only one government exists; but this would not mean a lack of competition for government. People would still have the option not to participate in the government in which most everyone is participating; the government would be powerful enough, however, to stop anyone who threatens to overthrow it or seize power within it. In other words, I am not against large governments, if all those under its authority agree to it (which they reasonably might do). Furthermore, I personally support the idea of large government because it is more stable. However, I believe that it is in the interest of any government (large or small) to allow dissenters not to participate in their social order.

This addresses your reasoning that an explicit agreement would eventually become implicit. Although one large government would probably dominate, it need not expect that everyone agrees to it, and in fact doing so would be unprofitable for this government. Our current government could allow dissenters not to pay taxes, not to participate in the military (which we already do), and not to help increase the governments power in any way. Because these people would be choosing not to participate in the government, they would be choosing not to have the protection it offers (so that no one can refuse to pay taxes but still benefit from them). Thus the agreement would not be implicit (not everyone would necessarily be assumed to agree to it), but it would remain a powerful agreement.

To further address the idea that the social contract could become implicit by being inherited, I will use the example of businesses. If my father owns a business that involves him in several explicit agreements, and I inherit this business, I may choose to continue or end these agreements. Thus, they are explicit agreements after inheritence. However, for some reason you believe that if my father makes an explicit protection contract with a government, this agreement becomes implicit through inheritence.

I have addressed your problem with the rise of forceful powers within anarchy by agreeing that anarchy would probably lead to big governments (as it historically has done), and that I do not have a problem with this. I do have a problem with these governments not allowing dissenters optional non-participation as this is against the interests of the governments themselves. I believe this nullifies your points about anarchy leading to a lack of order because of the inefficiencies of smaller governments.

Your other points include:
That's exactly what I said. I didn't say where...

You didn't say where, but the example you used was where a tyranny arises, not how.

They personally rose to power by taking it, by politicking and fighting tooth and nail for it. They wrangled important people onto their side and carved out empire.

Yes, and I agree that large governments are better at protecting against this.

No one needs grand beliefs about natural orders or nature in order to choose a leader, or have one chosen for them...Tyranny by personal agreement is just as possible as by implicit agreement.


But if people choose the leader, he is (by the definition we are using) not a tyrant, and I have already addressed the way that people would prevent leaders being chosen for them or forced upon them (and this way agrees with your way to prevent this).

Therefore, the only difference between our prefered form of governments (I assume) is that yours would not allow optional non-participation, and mine would. We both agree that large governments are more efficient protectors, that historically anarchy leads to large governments, etc. However, I believe that the best way for a government to insure its stability is to allow people optional non-participation. Perhaps you agree with this. So far the debate has not centered around this topic, and it should have (seeing as how we seem to agree on everything else). Of course, the idea of the social contract is part of the topic of optional non-participation. If there is a social contract, then optional non-participation would not occur because the agreement to participate in the order of society would be implicitly made by everyone.

The point is that in an anarchy people get what they deserve. If human nature is such that a tyrant (Interestingly the word tyrant origanally had a positive conotation, more like an enlightened despot. That fact, however, is entirely aside from the point.) will necessarily take over if we have to choose individually what kind authority by which to live, then we deserve tyranny. Governments originally were formed in places and times when people were much less intelegent than we are today. I believe that is why they gained power. In today's society I believe that people would be intelegent enough to avoid tyranny. Also, if competition for government, the way I described it, would necessarily result in mass warfare, then people deserve mass warfare. Anarchy is an opportunity to form society in whatever way we modern more intelegent people see fit rather than the governmentalist system developed by people who had just invented the wheel. In this new society, if people really are significantly more intelgent, most individuals will not use double layered force. (As in, if you don't help us force potential murderers not to murder by paying taxes then we will take away your possessions and throw you in jail. Your other option is to leave the country thus partially forfieting your natural right to the persuit of happiness.) Furthermore, I believe that most individuals would would agree to participate in using force against the use of double layered force. One of the most imortant aspects of anarchy is that the people know correct behavior. (I'll leave the definition of correct behavior alone for now.) If they don't, then what I'm describing really is not possible. However, if any person or group of people is intelegent enough to come up with a system to accurately describe correct behavior (not necessarily perfectly) then I assume that they would be intelegent enough to share that system with society in general and to convince them of the natural benefits of following that system. If no one on the planet knows the essence of correct behavior or if a majority of individuals (I say a majority here because I believe that part of correct behavior involves using force when the incorrect behavior of others makes it necessary.) are not intelegent enough to willfully follow one of the many at least generally correct systems of correct behavior that probably exist, then not only does our species deserve extinction, but it is probably inevitable anyway.
Anarchists of the world unite!

The point is that in an anarchy people get what they deserve.

Well, assuming that the majority of humans are not anarchists (which seems plausible to me) and that they don't support anarchy, obviously we don't deserve anarchy, right?
furthermore, your belief that we need to wipe everything clean and then choose what kind of society to live in discounts how government has evolved over time.

There are so many misconceptions about anarchism. I suggest you read a little on it.

www.infoshop.org

flag.blackened.net

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/anarchism

There are so many misconceptions about anarchism. I suggest you read a little on it.

www.infoshop.org

flag.blackened.net

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/anarchism
I am an anarcho-capitalist. Don't pretend that anarcho-capitalism is not part of the anarchist movement. I could treat your anarcho-socialist leanings as entirely separate from the anarchist movement. But if the different factions of anarchist thought all did this, then how could the
Anarchists of the world unite!

I am an anarcho-capitalist. Don't pretend that anarcho-capitalism is not part of the anarchist movement.

No it isn't. Mainly for the fact that it is completely removed from the tradition that anarchist encompasses. Not to mention key parts of the idea that hold the various parts of anarchist theory. Meh, but this has be done loads of time and I really don't care what you call yourself though.

I could treat your anarcho-socialist leanings as entirely separate from the anarchist movement.

Only if you employ a stalinesque rewritting of history.

But if the different factions of anarchist thought all did this, then how could the
Anarchists of the world unite!The fact that all the other faction do not consider AnCaps as Anarchists is telling, no?

Anyway, I thought you said before that you didn't want ancaps in your region :confused:

Originally Posted by Anarchic Conceptions
No it isn't. Mainly for the fact that it is completely removed from the tradition that anarchist encompasses.

This depends on what you mean by anarcho-capitalist. If you mean someone who believes that the only function of government is to protect private property, then capitalists are obviously not anarchists. If by anarcho-capitalist you mean absolute free-marketeer (including no government protection of property "rights"), capitalism in this form is anarchic, as it only entails a lack of government involvement in the market process.

Only if you employ a stalinesque rewritting of history.

Actually, An archy could easily consider most socialists non-anarchists, or hypocrites and liars, as most socialists support government involvement in macro-economics. However, anarcho-socialists do not support this (at least in the long run), so describing all socialists as non-anarchists is the same flaw as describing capitalists as necessarily non-anarchists. In both cases, you are taking all the qualities of one group (governmental capitalists or socialists) and applying them to a similar group (anarchic capitalists or socialists). However, the fundemental differences between anarchists and statists are apparent in the differing beliefs of anarco-capitalists (or socialists) and government enforced capitalists (or socialists).

I really don't care what you call yourself though.

I think this misunderstanding is merely about names. Anarcho-capitalism is the same (in practice) as anarcho-socialism or communism. In both forms of government (or lack thereof), there is no general, socially enforced way for one person to enforce his or her will over another. Instead, the only way for any person to get what he or she wants is through personal actions and agreements with others.

The only difference between capitalist anarchists and socialist anarchists is in expectations. Capitalist anarchists expect people to form "property agreements" whereby they all protect one another's property. (This differs from government capitalists in that governmentalists think that one entity seperate from the people, government, should force all others to participate in this agreement.) Socialists expect people to form communes in which all property is shared according to need. (This differs from government socialists in that these later socialists think that one entity seperate from the people, government, should enforce the distribution of goods in communes.) Either of these forms of anarchy is just as viable an agreement, as no force would exist that could limit the free decisions of people to organize themselves.

Anyway, I thought you said before that you didn't want ancaps in your region

Actually, I believe he said he is allowing anarcho-capitalists in his region.