NationStates Jolt Archive

I know quite a few people on these forums are anarchists, and I'm just wondering: what do you think are the pros and cons of no government at all? I mean a pure anarchy without any kind of authority?

This post has been brought to you by Czardas, Ruler of the Multiverse. All hail Czardas!

There is no benefit to it. Take a look at most of the people who claim to be one, they are all young punks who just have a problem being told what to do. They don't like the idea that someone might outrank them and be able to tell them not to do something, and they don't like the idea that someone might be able to tell them what they are doing is wrong. Its not a political ideology, its an excuse to be a society of morons.

There is no benefit to it. Take a look at most of the people who claim to be one, they are all young punks who just have a problem being told what to do. They don't like the idea that someone might outrank them and be able to tell them not to do something, and they don't like the idea that someone might be able to tell them what they are doing is wrong. Its not a political ideology, its an excuse to be a society of morons.

Look out, loose cannon! Outta control! :p

Look out, loose ! Outta control! :p

Hahaha quiet you, or I'll have you locked up for insubordination!

Let's get this thread off on the right foot. While I'm not trying to say that you are ignorant of Anarchist ideology, many individuals are.

Anarchy is not:
1. Massively Extreemist Libertarianism.
In fact, many Anarchists are Communists and the madern Anarchist movement disavows any connection to the group known as Anarcho-Capitalists.
2. An absolute lack of leadership.
Although Anarchists necessarily believe that forceful authority is an unwise and perhaps unethical way of running a society, we think leadership by the most intelegent and charismatic individuals is definately useful.
3. Rule by biker gangs.
Despite what this game might have you believe, an Anarchist country does not require the leadership of long haired bearded men who haven't bathed in years, though that is certainly an option.

There is no benefit to it. Take a look at most of the people who claim to be one, they are all young punks who just have a problem being told what to do. They don't like the idea that someone might outrank them and be able to tell them not to do something, and they don't like the idea that someone might be able to tell them what they are doing is wrong. Its not a political ideology, its an excuse to be a society of morons.

Oy, look. I'm not an anarchist, and I can't claim I understand fully why they'd wish for it, but to each their own. However, broadly labelling them as "young punks" who don't like authority (which may or may not be true, but perhaps not in all cases), and calling them all "morons", is ignorance. I've met some very bright people who followed authority well, but were anarchists. They disagreed with established forms of governments for various reasons, and I respected that.

For those who are actually currious as to what anarchism is (and is not) about, check out the following link. It's a fairly good essay on the subject.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2419/anaintro.html

Well the anarchy wasn't invented by Sex pistols,you know.
In fact it was in the late 19 century in Russia.So if you don't want to show off your ignorance in future you might read Kropotkin,Berkman,Gi Dibor and many others.Or if you really want to know,I'm sure that here there are many people who would explain you the basics of ideology of the anarchism.

hmm, pros and cons. won't the assignment of characteristics into such categories be inherently influenced by your ethical/value judgements? i mean, i would rank the lack of authoritarian leadership as a pro, but an authoritarian would disagree. likewise, i would rank equality as a pro, but a person who liked class society would not.

True anarchy would never work. Complete chaos would ensue.

Anarchists arne't really anarchists; what they endorse is actually a communist direct democracy, where laws are decided by all people.

Which would never work in the real world as well. I happen to think most anarchists are insane :p

To put it generally a lack of forceful government has two major results.
1. Less control.
2. More freedom.


If one assumes that people are intelligent, freedom will always be more successful than control in achieving the goals for which the people severally strive. (In making assumptions of intelligence, the intelligent benefit, and deservedly so since talent and effort should be rewarded. Secondly, if people in general are not even intelligent enough to follow the advice of truly intelligent individuals, then we are most likely doomed as a species anyway since we, unlike animals, depend so heavily on reason, rather than instinct, to make decisions.) While the goals of one will sometimes interfere with the goals of another, Anarchists do not belief that the use of force is always illegitimate. The use of governmental force, however, is. An Anarchist would say that it is unwise to use force to achieve any goal envolving a gain in happiness for the individual against whom the force is used. This includes forcing an individual to participate in society through taxes or in any other form.

Anarchists arne't really anarchists; what they endorse is actually a communist direct democracy, where laws are decided by all people.

since we invented the term to describe ourselves, i find the first clause a little strange

since we invented the term to describe ourselves, i find the first clause a little strange
I agree. Furthermore, not all Anarchists favor direct democracy. I perfer pure contitutionalism except on a few issues (such as annual budgets and issues which simply could not have been imagined when the constitution was written) in which case the treatment of such issues would be clearly defined within the constitution.

To put it generally a lack of forceful government has two major results.
1. Less control.
2. More freedom.
Total collapse of society.


If one assumes that people are intelegent, freedom will always be more successful than control in achieving the goals for which the people severally strive. (In making assumptions of intelegence, the intelegent benefit, and deservedly so since talent and effort should be rewarded. Secondly, if people in general are not even intelegent enough to follow the advice of truly intelegent individuals, then we are most likely doomed as a species anyway since we, unlike animals, depend so heavily on reason, rather than instinct, to make decisions.) While the goals of one will sometimes interfere with the goals of another, Anarchists do not belief that the use of force is always illegitimate. The use of governmental force, however, is. An Anarchist would say that it is unwise to use force to achieve any goal envolving a gain in happiness for the individual against whom the force is used. This includes forcing an individual to participate in society through taxes or in any other form.

I like how you rambled on about nothing and managed to spell "intelligence" wrong 5 times. Face it, Anarchy would not work in the real world. People are not intelligent, and would not make smart decisions. If we simply allowed people to do whatever they want, there would be no one to stop violence. Husbands quarelling with their wives would not think twice or regret their spent bullets. Starving children would not spare the life of the local grocer to get food they need. Basically, without authority, we go back to the stone ages.

There is no benefit to it. Take a look at most of the people who claim to be one, they are all young punks who just have a problem being told what to do. They don't like the idea that someone might outrank them and be able to tell them not to do something, and they don't like the idea that someone might be able to tell them what they are doing is wrong. Its not a political ideology, its an excuse to be a society of morons.

No argument here, i've known a few anarchists. Exactly are you described them. :).

I know quite a few people on these forums are anarchists, and I'm just wondering: what do you think are the pros and cons of no government at all? I mean a pure anarchy without any kind of authority?

This post has been brought to you by Czardas, Ruler of the Multiverse. All hail Czardas!

Umm, what happened to Czardas? Or is this a puppet?

Generally theory requires that we break down capitalism first and gradually reduce the state until it becomes vestigal, almost an appendix to society. The first stage requires full employment and nationalized services from where the need for money in society is steadily eroded and power devolves steadily.

It's a long-term goal though. We do not advocate an instant destruction of authority (because if we did it would become tribal/feudal quite quickly).

There is no benefit to it. Take a look at most of the people who claim to be one, they are all young punks who just have a problem being told what to do. They don't like the idea that someone might outrank them and be able to tell them not to do something, and they don't like the idea that someone might be able to tell them what they are doing is wrong. Its not a political ideology, its an excuse to be a society of morons.
I was gonna write my opinion, but he beat me to it.

Anarchy is merely the absence of a government. It does NOT mean that all societal structures break down.

Government has total and near monopolies on many different aspects of our lives (police security, military, health care, charity, roads, many others), and they maintain that monopoly through the use of force and coercion. Anarchists believe that governments create far more problems than they solve.

There are different types of anarchy. The one I envision working the best is anarcho-capitalism. Instead of the government providing services, businesses would compete to provide them. You would have absolute freedom to choose , therefore you have much greater control over your life and much less inefficiency and expense. Monopolies are created by governments for their friends. Anarchy would eliminate that.

In the end, you would have much more freedom, much more money, and you'd be much happier. And so would everyone else.

You can get more background info at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_capitalism

People are not intelligent, and would not make smart decisions.

which is why it is a much better idea to let a tiny minority of said people hold a huge amount of power over your life, obviously.


If we simply allowed people to do whatever they want, there would be no one to stop violence. Husbands quarelling with their wives would not think twice or regret their spent bullets. Starving children would not spare the life of the local grocer to get food they need.

good thing anarchists don't propose anything of the sort then, no?

Basically, without authority, we go back to the stone ages.

heh, interesting that you should bring that up. perhaps you have heard of 'the original affluent society'? and how remarkably egalitarian 'stone age' societies tended to be?

Generally theory requires that we break down capitalism first and gradually reduce the state until it becomes vestigal, almost an appendix to society. The first stage requires full employment and nationalized services from where the need for money in society is steadily eroded and power devolves steadily.

It's a long-term goal though. We do not advocate an instant destruction of authority (because if we did it would become tribal/feudal quite quickly).

how does this differ from leninism?

Other anarchist groups disassociate themselves with us anarcho-capitalists. I am against the state, but not of order itself or against society. There will still be law, but it will not be upheld by a state as it is now.

I think we anarcho-capitalists follow the definition of anarchy as lack of a state not lack of a hierarchy.

From what I've found most people labeled as anarchist are usually either anarcho-socialists or simply people who believe that an anarcho-socialist society is a perfect society, but would likely endorse most forms of democratic socialism.

how does this differ from leninism?

Basically? We like the idea of democracy rather than dictatorship.

which is why it is a much better idea to let a tiny minority of said people hold a huge amount of power over your life, obviously.




good thing anarchists don't propose anything of the sort then, no?



heh, interesting that you should bring that up. perhaps you have heard of 'the original affluent society'? and how remarkably egalitarian 'stone age' societies tended to be?

1) No, this is why we ELECT leaders to make laws we want made, because not all of us are intelligent enough to decide on laws.

2) They don't endorse it, but the society anarchists propose will lead to that sort of thing.

3) I know. What I meant was that our economy would collapse, there'd be no food, no electricity, people would kill for the tiniest scraps of food. Utter. Chaos.

There's a balance of authority and chaos that must be obtained. With the lack of authority comes complete chaos, with too much authority comes opression. It's a simple equation.

I think anarchists have forgotten to read their Thomas Hobbes :p
Not all of his scripts are useful in this case, but he explains that people are evil and that's why they can't live with each other without any kind of authority. They are affected by jealousy, vanity and rivalry, which would bring the total chaos to the society, finally.

Forgot to read or simply disagreed?

A simple difference between the left and the right: the extreme right believes people are evil, the extreme left believes they are good.

Basically? We like the idea of democracy rather than dictatorship.
If you get rid of the state, who keeps the democracy together? Do you really think the populous could hold it together?

I think this sums up my views on the subject. (http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp12102002.shtml)

I think this sums up my views on the subject. (http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp12102002.shtml)
Beutiful

Anarchy=Chaos=The downfall of it's nation.

Anarchy=Chaos=The downfall of it's nation.

Do you feel the same way about communism? If not, you don't know what anarchy is.

Do you feel the same way about communism? If not, you don't know what anarchy is.
Just replace Anarchy with Atheists or Gays and you'll have his answer on that subject.

Just replace Anarchy with Atheists or Gays and you'll have his answer on that subject.

Typical ignorant people. :headbang:

I know quite a few people on these forums are anarchists, and I'm just wondering: what do you think are the pros and cons of no government at all? I mean a pure anarchy without any kind of authority?

This post has been brought to you by Czardas, Ruler of the Multiverse. All hail Czardas!

no government, no contest

anti-government, anti-progress

no government, no contest

anti-government, anti-progress
That's actually a catchy motto.

what do you think are the pros and cons of no government at all?

Speaking as an anarchist, I would say that I see few "pros" to a situation without any government "at all." Of course, there are different types of anarchism. Anarchist individualists seem to prefer sitting on their porch protecting the homestead with a shotgun, government-be-damned... but that really doesn't appeal to me. So-called "anarcho-capitalists" (I maintain that they are not true anarchists) are the closest you'll find to serious intellectuals who advocate the absolute abolition of government.

As for me, I prefer to think of anarchism as a condition of true self-government--in both the Platonic/Freudian sense and the democratic one.

I mean a pure anarchy without any kind of authority?

It seems this discussion badly needs a lesson in the difference between authority and power. (Note: Like most modern anarchists who have given up on nineteenth-century romanticism, I think that power is a necessary part of the social order. As an anarchist, however, I also believe in the most egalitarian distribution of power possible... and I also believe that under different social and economic conditions, the need for law-enforcement through coercive means can be reduced to an almost neglible minimum.)

So, power and authority:

I suspect you already know what "power" is, in the political sense. Where most people seem to be confused is on the issue of authority.

Authority, in the first place, must necessarily be authorized. There is no such thing as "illegitimate authority," since this would be a contradiction in terms. Someone may be considered an "authority" because they are wise or knowledgable, or they have acquired certain certifications of wisdom or knowledge. For instance, we consider someone an authority on a subject after they earn an advanced degree on that subject -- although we may require more, such as the respect of their colleauges. Someone acts as a political authority when they gain power through the accepted (legitimate) avenues. This may be customary authority, or it may be legal authority (e.g. he/she legally won an election), or it may be authority gained through reputation and charisma.

In any case, authority is distinguishable from power. Again, authority is natural... people can hardly help but to regard intelligent, charismatic individuals as authorities to whom trust may be given. But there is no reason that an authority ALSO has to have power. A scientific authority rarely has the power to enforce her/his judgments... even political authorities rely in large part on the willingness of people to recognize their authority as law: without that recognition, even the most brutal use of power may not suffice to preserve them.

Similarly, it is possible to have power without authority... but that should be obvious.

I know quite a few people on these forums are anarchists, and I'm just wondering: what do you think are the pros and cons of no government at all? I mean a pure anarchy without any kind of authority?

This post has been brought to you by Czardas, Ruler of the Multiverse. All hail Czardas!
There are two main principles behind Anarchism which help clarify it:
#1. All governments inherent prohibit freedom. - Anarchists go about politics the same way as Libertarians, and to some extent, Liberals do. Instead of asking, "What's best for society?" they hold the belief that liberty is the most fundamentally important concept in politics, and all politics should center around protecting liberty unless absolutely necessary. They hold the belief that all laws violate liberty.

For example, a government collects taxes. Did I ever AGREE to pay taxes? No. In some cases, we don't even recieve a benefit from the taxes we pay. In democracies, individuals also have limited control over law-making. Yes, you can run for office, but according to recent statistics, it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars (or even millions) to run for even the lowest politics offices. Simply put: Most governments are run by the wealthy elite. And every law protects restricts one person's liberty to protect another person's liberty. Anarchist don't believe it's ethical to have a social contract imposed upon you.

#2. In our time, we can govern ourselves. - With religion, most modernists agree, you don't need a priest or a rabbi to tell what to believe anymore. But in our age of high literacy rates and free education, we are all intelligent and knowledgeable enough, not only to choose our religion, but make rational decisions as individuals.

Anarchists go about this through different means, though:
Anarchoindividualists believe in no coercive authority at all, and that all people should govern themselves as individuals.

Anarchoprimitivists believe that government evolved "unnaturally," and that human beings were born into an anarchist, non-technological, utopia. While technology may have improved our lives, it has also shortened them (TVs, computers, and cell-phones cause cancer), we must work even harder to keep this technology (primitive societies work only a few hours a week), and so they claim we're more miserable, with weaker family values and intimate ties with society, and practically no time to just enjoy life.

Anarchosyndicalists believe that the best society is one where people's rights are protected by trade unions and employee-owned companies. In a sense, they're advocates of democracy, but only within business, without any central government body. They support concepts such as the Mondragon concept in Spain.

Anarchocommunists, whom are also known as "Libertarian Socialists," are really very, very close to modern-day Libertarians. They believe in unrestricted freedom, but still see the need for government. However, they oppose a central government, but instead support a voluntary federation of states (essentially, the U.S. without a Federal government). This was basically the same ideology agreed with during the Civil war, where the southern states wanted their independence. The major difference between the Confederates and Libertarians, and Anarcho-Communists, though, is that Anarcho-Communists oppose a coercive police force or military, but don't offer any construct to deal with criminals.

Anarchocapitalists are basically just another term for Libertarian. It shares a distinct history, yes, but it was founded by Libertarians and it basically holds the same ideals: the government should not be coercive and a "free market" economy is the ideal.

Religious Anarchism, founded by Leo Tolstoy, is sometimes called "Christian Anarchism," because Tolstoy, himself, was a Christian. Religious Anarchism holds the principle that governments are unnecessary, if people certainly accept and abide by certain religious principles. In other words, if everyone converted to Christianity, governments wouldn't be necessary. There are even many Christians who would be inclined to agree. Religious Anarchists have also typically held that they should accept political rule, but outright refuse in moral matters. For example, although the Quakers aren't really religious anarchists, they were a major driving force in getting governments to recognize "conscientious objectors."

And finally, it's important to remember that violent anarchists are the minority. There's also a great deal of punk-rockers that used it as a banner, while not even understanding what it meant. And while I, too, agree, the case for Anarchism is poor, the ideal of Anarchism is grand, and "small government," should be encouraged. Through improvements in technology and societal evolution, Anarchism may even one day be a relevant possibility, so it should not be completely disregarded as nonsense, but as a relevant, intelligent, and intellectual philosophy.

I think anarchists have forgotten to read their Thomas Hobbes :p

Actually, I am quite a fan of Hobbes... I might even let you call me a "Hobbesian anarchist."

While Hobbes himself was certainly no anarchist, in principle nothing about Hobbesian thought contradicts the anarchist enterprise... Indeed, anarchists can find much to support their cause in a careful reading of Hobbes.

It is, at any rate, supremely ironic that Hobbes is often regarded as the grandfather to capitalist thought.

To begin with, Hobbes argues that private property does not exist -- cannot exist -- in the state of nature. Property depends on a system of laws that defend it. By the same argument, he undermines the capitalist logic that supposes that those who obtain wealth have "earned" it, so that they have a "right" to property that society may not infringe for the benefit of the worse-off:

"Again, a man may be worthy of riches, office, and employment, that nevertheless, can plead no right to have it before another; and therefore cannot be said to merit or deserve it. For merit presupposeth a right..." And there is no "right" except what has been established by the commonwealth. (Page 522 in Classics of Moral and Political Theory, Third Edition, Ed. Micheal Morgan)

Moreover, Hobbes "first, and fundamental law of nature; which is to seek peace, and follow it" (534), leads to his conclusion that the Sovereign power -- whatever form it may take, monarchist, democratic or otherwise -- should work to promote relative equality in wealth... if for no other reason than that he wanted to prevent the possibility of class war.

Perhaps more telling yet, the fifth law of nature, "COMPLAISANCE; that is to say, that every man strive to accomodate himself to the rest. ... For as that stone which by the asperity, and irregularity of figure, takes more room from others, than itself fills; and for the hardness, cannot be easily made plain, and thereby hindereth the building, is by the builders cast away as unprofitable, and troublesome: so also, a man that by asperity of nature, will strive to retain those things which to himself are superfluous, and to others necessary; and for the stubbornness of his passions, cannot be corrected, is to be left, or cast out of society, as cumbersome thereunto" (541).

Read that again. Sounds like a critique of class greed to me.

Indeed, he goes on to say that if the Sovereign command a man "to abstain from the use of food, air, medicine, or any other thing, without which he cannot live; yet hath that man the liberty to disobey" (563). In other words, if the only thing keeping me from getting the medicine I need is the set of laws and economic relations that say I have to pay for it with money I don't have... then I am free by the law of nature, according to Hobbes, to disobey and break the law to get it. Since Hobbes values order above all else, he would certainly seem to approve a Sovereign who does everything it can to provide the necessary things in life to all citizens.

I'll stop here. I think I've made my point.

Did I ever AGREE to pay taxes? No. In some cases, we don't even recieve a benefit from the taxes we pay.
Except for living in relative stability because of police. And being able to get from place to place because you have roads. Also, your education, which allows you to even read or write any of this. And a military to defend you from foreign invaders. etce etc.


#2. In our time, we can govern ourselves. - With religion, most modernists agree, you don't need a priest or a rabbi to tell what to believe anymore. But in our age of high literacy rates and free education, we are all intelligent and knowledgeable enough, not only to choose our religion, but make rational decisions as individuals.

which is great, until someone decides rationally that he would prefer it if he had your car and house and computer and might like to beat the crap out of you in the process.


[While technology may have improved our lives, it has also shortened them (TVs, computers, and cell-phones cause cancer),

Before the industrial revolution, the average life expectancy was about 45, as it remains in most of your so-called "primitive" societies.

[

Basically? We like the idea of democracy rather than dictatorship.

so your anarchism is essentially a democratic revision of leninism - isn't that essentially the same position held by most of the trots these days?

maybe its me, but anarchism has never seemed particularly compatible with expanding the role of the state to get rid of capitalism and then hoping to maybe one day abolish the state. no matter what chomsky thinks.

1) No, this is why we ELECT leaders to make laws we want made, because not all of us are intelligent enough to decide on laws.

oh come on. we're too stupid to make our own decisions, but we are smart enough to figure out who is smart enough to make them for us? that's bullshit on several levels.

firstly, it just doesn't logically make sense, which is why the 'masses are too stupid' line is usually favored by authoritarians and not democrats. using it shows the inherently authoritarian nature of your thinking. someone commited to statist democratic principles typically holds that elected representatives are needed to temper the passions of the masses or some such, not to do their thinking for them.

secondly, are you honestly trying to tell me that the people who actually have been elected to make such decisions are the people smart enough to make such decisions? i'm not sure whether that would qualify as patently absurd or hopelessly delusional.

2) They don't endorse it, but the society anarchists propose will lead to that sort of thing.

i fail to see how. why don't you lay it out for me. make sure you use as your starting point at least one of the actual anarchist theories of social organization. i don't care whether it's proudhon, bakunin, tucker, kropotkin, malatesta, or any of the other major writers and theorists - take your pick.

3) I know. What I meant was that our economy would collapse, there'd be no food, no electricity, people would kill for the tiniest scraps of food. Utter. Chaos.

so not the stoneage at all, but just your standard societal collapse and warlordism. authority seems to get us there much more frequently than anarchism has.

If you get rid of the state, who keeps the democracy together? Do you really think the populous could hold it together?

is it your understanding that all democracy must ultimately be a sham?

There is no such thing as "illegitimate authority," since this would be a contradiction in terms.
[...]
Similarly, it is possible to have power without authority... but that should be obvious.

so would you hold that it makes more sense to talk about illegitimate power rather than illegitimate authority?

Except for living in relative stability because of police. And being able to get from place to place because you have roads. Also, your education, which allows you to even read or write any of this. And a military to defend you from foreign invaders. etce etc.
Yes, but the point is: They never agreed to it. Furthermore, on the issue of gun control. If citizens are not allowed to keep and bear arms, then it isn't a social contract, but social extortion, as the citizens have no means of cancelling said contract (rebellion). This is dangerous, because theoretically, if our democracy ever becomes corrupt, a coupe de'tat, even with the manpower of over 50% of the citizens, would be impossible.


which is great, until someone decides rationally that he would prefer it if he had your car and house and computer and might like to beat the crap out of you in the process.
If you'd read my last paragraph, you'd read that I don't advocate anarchism, except for its ideals. And yes, out of all Anarchism, Anarcho-individualism is the least thought-out.


Before the industrial revolution, the average life expectancy was about 45, as it remains in most of your so-called "primitive" societies.
But "leisure time," has decreased exponentially. In hunter\gatherer societies, people work, on average, three or four hours a week. In modern society, we work 40 hours a week.

Now, ask yourself, who "lives longer":
Man with an 80 year lifespan and a 40-hour work week
Man with an 45 year lifespan and a 4-hour work week

When it comes to apes in the wild, they spend virtually no time working as well, but spend almost all of their time resting and playing.

so would you hold that it makes more sense to talk about illegitimate power rather than illegitimate authority?

Certainly.

Anarchy is merely the absence of a government. It does NOT mean that all societal structures break down.

Government has total and near monopolies on many different aspects of our lives (police security, military, health care, charity, roads, many others), and they maintain that monopoly through the use of force and coercion. Anarchists believe that governments create far more problems than they solve.

There are different types of anarchy. The one I envision working the best is anarcho-capitalism. Instead of the government providing services, businesses would compete to provide them. You would have absolute freedom to choose , therefore you have much greater control over your life and much less inefficiency and expense. Monopolies are created by governments for their friends. Anarchy would eliminate that.

In the end, you would have much more freedom, much more money, and you'd be much happier. And so would everyone else.

You can get more background info at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_capitalism

I don't think anarcho-capitalism would work. The "you are free to spend your own money" arguments have no meaning when you are working for 8 cents an hour. Corporations would want to make profit, and one of the easiest ways for them to do that would be to lower wages. Therefore, you would get society split into two classes (rich vs. poor, bourgeoisie vs. proletariat, whatever you want to call it), and the majority would be worse off.

For my opinion on Anarchism, look no further than Jello Biafra.

(Taken from Wikipedia)
"Biafra claims to be an anarchist in his personal dealings with people, though does not advocate the replacement of current governments with an anarchic system. He claims that mankind is not yet ready for anarchy, and still needs government to control the order of human life for the safety and progression of human events."

I don't think anarcho-capitalism would work. The "you are free to spend your own money" arguments have no meaning when you are working for 8 cents an hour. Corporations would want to make profit, and one of the easiest ways for them to do that would be to lower wages. Therefore, you would get society split into two classes (rich vs. poor, bourgeoisie vs. proletariat, whatever you want to call it), and the majority would be worse off.

An interesting way that many companies lure employees is by offering higher wages than their competitors. With current modes of information-passing, this information travels quickly. I think, for the sake of awesomeness and to make the point, I will quote Tucker Max on this issue:


During the spring, Fenwick announced that they were going to pay summer associates only $2,100, which was below the $2,400 that most big firms in New York, LA and Chicago were paying their summers. Yet, right before we arrived in Palo Alto, Fenwick, along with every other Silicon Valley firm, announced that they were going to pay summers $2,400, commensurate with the big firms in other major cities.

What does this have to do with anything? Well, I was almost single-handedly responsible for Fenwick, and basically every other Silicon Valley firm, raising their summer associate salary from $2,100 to 2,400. How is that possible, you ask? The beauty of the internet, and the influence of an amazing website called Infirmation.com.

Infirmation.com is a job-related website that has message boards on it, where anyone can anonymously post anything. The message boards are divided by region, one being for New York associates, one for Silicon Valley, one for Chicago, etc. These message boards, called “Greedy Associate” boards, had vaulted to fame in the preceding months as a means for associates at different firms to anonymously share information with each other about salary, benefits, work conditions, anything they choose. One of the sparking events was when Gunderson, a relatively small firm in Silicon Valley, raised their starting associate salaries from somewhere around the industry average of $100,000 to $125,000. One of the first places this information was posted and disseminated was the messages boards on Infirmation.com, and from that event, as well as a few others like it, junior associates at all the major firms started sharing info with each other about the relative benefits and detriments of their particular firms on these Greedy Associate boards.

As a result of these developments, partners at all the majors firms monitored these message boards, looking for the latest gossip about their firms and their competing firms. They had to stay up to date, because a change in benefits in Firm A could mean a flood of associates or law students to that firm, and away from Firm B, before Firm B even knew what was going on.

How does this relate to the story? The summer salaries had already been announced in New York at $2,400, and everyone was waiting for the Silicon Valley firms to announce their summer salaries [Fenwick had four major competitors in Silicon Valley at the time: Cooley, Wilson, and Brobeck (these are abbreviated names of law firms)]. Fenwick was the first to announce; they did so sometime around late April, and they announced at $2,100, which was below NY salaries.

I was unhappy with this, so I immediately posted this info on the Infirmation.com Silicon Valley/SF Greedy Associate board, and then, using four or five different anonymous screen names, proceeded to have a thread discussion on how horrible this was, how Fenwick was insulting it’s summers, how no one was going to accept their offers because the firm was so cheap it wouldn’t fork over the extra $300 a week, etc, etc. I even used one of my aliases to play the other side. It was beautiful. Of the 20 messages on this topic on the first day, I probably posted 10 of them. I kept this up, at a slightly lower output, for about three days.

About a week after Fenwick’s announcement, and the resulting Infirmation.com message board “explosion,” Wilson, a Fenwick competitor, announced they were paying summers $2,400. Each of the other Silicon Valley firms quickly fell in line after that, including Fenwick.

Granted, his means were unscrupulous, as can be expected from him, but the point comes across that businesses will compete pretty swiftly for good employees.

I don't think anarcho-capitalism would work. The "you are free to spend your own money" arguments have no meaning when you are working for 8 cents an hour. Corporations would want to make profit, and one of the easiest ways for them to do that would be to lower wages. Therefore, you would get society split into two classes (rich vs. poor, bourgeoisie vs. proletariat, whatever you want to call it), and the majority would be worse off.

If there is no governmnet to protect them, corporations can't just pay people whatever they like. They would still have to deal with massive worker unrest that would follow very low wages. This would undermine the stability of the corporation and force the executives to raise wages. The system of anarcho-capitalism would thus occasion the eventual establishment of roughly fair wages for all work as a means of avoiding militancy. Given the choice, most companies would rather pay their employes more than face a worker revolt.

I like how you rambled on about nothing and managed to spell "intelligence" wrong 5 times. Face it, Anarchy would not work in the real world. People are not intelligent, and would not make smart decisions. If we simply allowed people to do whatever they want, there would be no one to stop violence. Husbands quarelling with their wives would not think twice or regret their spent bullets. Starving children would not spare the life of the local grocer to get food they need. Basically, without authority, we go back to the stone ages.
Excuse me for my spelling error and thank you for correcting my mistake. (I am typically somewhat obsesive in eliminating spelling and major grammatical errors from my posts. In fact, now that you have pointed out my mistake I will not be able to suppress the urge to edit my post simply to correct the error.)

I do not understand why you say that I "rambled on about nothing." I stated that the assumption of intelligence leads to Anarchist political ideology and provided two reasons explaining why it is wise to make that assumption. If I was unclear in making these points, I apologize.

or they could just hire a few guys with better guns and training to kill anyone who demands higher wages.

Frankly, I can't see being stoked about governmental system (or, I suppose, lack thereof) whose benefits are purely ideological and whose defecits are many and tangible.

Except for living in relative stability because of police.

The ones who had the man power for a "crack down" on loitering but not enough man power to respond promptly to a domestic violence call? Cause I can tell you that made me feel realy safe to know they were getting rid of those evil loiterers. I felt so safe secure and stable that it didn't matter some fuckwad was beating his wife to a pulp next door.

The ones who had the man power for a "crack down" on loitering but not enough man power to respond promptly to a domestic violence call? Cause I can tell you that made me feel realy safe to know they were getting rid of those evil loiterers. I felt so safe secure and stable that it didn't matter some fuckwad was beating his wife to a pulp next door.
Well, police departments, like most things, are imperfect. But even having bad or inefficient or mean cops is better than having murderers, rapists and carjackers running around with no fear of authority.

Speaking as a former Anarchocapitalist, the error that group makes is the assumption that the property agreement is natural. I still agree that quite often it is natural and most beneficial to make the agreement not to claim as one's own that which another has produced, but this agreement becomes unnatural and costly when a small minority amasses a large majority of the wealth.

Given the choice, most companies would rather pay their employes more than face a worker revolt.

unless it is cheaper to put down attempted revolts through the use of hired goons. i know that currently and in the recent past the capitalists have relied on the state to subsidize the hired goon side of things, but has anyone actually worked out the costs of strike breaking and the occassional murder vs. the cost of increased wages and safety precautions?

unless it is cheaper to put down attempted revolts through the use of hired goons. i know that currently and in the recent past the capitalists have relied on the state to subsidize the hired goon side of things, but has anyone actually worked out the costs of strike breaking and the occassional murder vs. the cost of increased wages and safety precautions?
Well I know that strike breaking used to be very common. It might be cheaper to pay workers what they want, but then again it might not. Some libertarian economist will probably work out the numbers and tell us that it would be cheaper, but that doesn't really mean anything as nobody really knows what it would cost to hire mercenaries to get control over workers and nobody knows how high worker demands will be, especially since once the workers figure out they can physically intimidate their bosses into paying them what they want they are bound to start wanting more and more. After a while, having hired goons to prevent yourself from being extorted would be part of the cost of doing business. So it's not hard to imagine that the mercenaries, who fight for a living, would get better and better at controlling workers to the point that owners could use them to drive wages back down.

The thing is, a society like that would end up back where it started, only worse because at least in most modern democratic governments authorities with the power to use force are at least somewhat accountable. Here whoever had the money and influence to bring the most force to bear would be a crude despot, at least until someone with the power to bring even more force to bear killed him. Read a brief history of modern Afghanistan for an example of how great it is to live in a nation where the government falls and no legitimate authority is able to take its place.

There is no benefit to it. Take a look at most of the people who claim to be one, they are all young punks who just have a problem being told what to do.

Just like this young punk?:

http://www.nndb.com/people/839/000024767/peter-kropotkin.jpg

They don't like the idea that someone might outrank them and be able to tell them not to do something,

You say that like it is a bad thing.

I like how you rambled on about nothing and managed to spell "intelligence" wrong 5 times. Face it, Anarchy would not work in the real world. People are not intelligent, and would not make smart decisions. If we simply allowed people to do whatever they want, there would be no one to stop violence. Husbands quarelling with their wives would not think twice or regret their spent bullets. Starving children would not spare the life of the local grocer to get food they need. Basically, without authority, we go back to the stone ages.

People only don't murder because they are frightened of the state coming down on then like a tonne of bricks?

I think anarchists have forgotten to read their Thomas Hobbes :p

Did he have a hotline to God too :p

Well, police departments, like most things, are imperfect. But even having bad or inefficient or mean cops is better than having murderers, rapists and carjackers running around with no fear of authority.

Does it apear to you that the murderers, rapists and carjackers are being stoped by "fear of authority"? It looks to me like we still have them . . .

Does it apear to you that the murderers, rapists and carjackers are being stoped by "fear of authority"? It looks to me like we still have them . . .
Well of course. We also have disease but that doesn't mean we should stop making medicine. If there were no police then we would have a lot more murderers and rapists. CF any place in the world where authority has broken down, or the places in cities (like the favelas of Brazil) where police don't have much of a presence.

Just like this young punk?:

http://www.nndb.com/people/839/000024767/peter-kropotkin.jpg

the black and white photo hides it, but that beard was actually dyed blue with purple streaks. and kro (as his punk rawk friends called him) was big into x-treme sports™.

I'm an anarchist mainly because I just don't see authority as moral. It's based on force and deception if you ask me. I also don't see why its necessary. The justifications for it are often quite contradictory. If we have a bad human nature and need government, then doesn't government become quite dangerous due to human nature?

Not to mention the fact that capitalism simply isn't individualistic at all (corporations are legally persons, sounds pretty collectivist to me) nor is it free (in the third world, it can be quite brutal, look at my link on sweatshops).

Not to mention the fact that capitalism simply isn't individualistic at all (corporations are legally persons, sounds pretty collectivist to me) nor is it free (in the third world, it can be quite brutal, look at my link on sweatshops).

The US is not capitalist. The US is a big-business socialism, or state corporatism. Most laws are aimed at providing benefits to politicians' corporate contributors.

True capitalism is simply private ownership with no government interference. It is individualistic to its core.

Some libertarian economist will probably work out the numbers and tell us that it would be cheaper, but that doesn't really mean anything as nobody really knows what it would cost to hire mercenaries to get control over workers and nobody knows how high worker demands will be, especially since once the workers figure out they can physically intimidate their bosses into paying them what they want they are bound to start wanting more and more.
etc.
The workers will only be able to demand wages equal to the cost of the mercenaries' wages plus the wages they would receive if the employer did resort to using mercenaries to lower wages through violence and the employer will only be able to demand a wage as low as the wage the workers could receive by using violence minus the cost of using violence.
Note that the statement regarding the workers' ability to demand higher wages is true regardless of their decision concerning the use of violence. The same applies, respectively, to the statement regarding the employer's ability to demand that his/her workers accept a lower wage. I admitt, though, that the cost of the decision to use violence is effected by the other party's decision on the matter, though this fact does not change the truth my statements. I also admitt that the end result of this is that the stonger (stronger defined as most capable of achieving one's goals) side wins (the size of the victory depending on the discrepancy in strength), however, any feeling that this is somehow unfair is caused by one's values. If a grand majority of individuals hold such a value of fairness the outcome of the matter is changed since, assuming people act intelligently, they will aid the side whose victory will best achieve the goal of fairness. In fact, violence will probably be entirely avoided since both sides will likely place a high value on avoiding violence.

The workers will only be able to demand wages equal to the cost of the mercenaries' wages plus the wages they would receive if the employer did resort to using mercenaries to lower wages through violence and the employer will only be able to demand a wage as low as the wage the workers could receive by using violence minus the cost of using violence.
Note that the statement regarding the workers' ability to demand higher wages is true regardless of their decision concerning the use of violence. The same applies, respectively, to the statement regarding the employer's ability to demand that his/her workers accept a lower wage. I admitt, though, that the cost of the decision to use violence is effected by the other party's decision on the matter, though this fact does not change the truth my statements. I also admitt that the end result of this is that the stonger (stronger defined as most capable of achieving one's goals) side wins (the size of the victory depending on the discrepancy in strength), however, any feeling that this is somehow unfair is caused by one's values. If a grand majority of individuals hold such a value of fairness the outcome of the matter is changed since, assuming people act intelligently, they will aid the side whose victory will best achieve the goal of fairness. In fact, violence will probably be entirely avoided since both sides will likely place a high value on avoiding violence.


You assume a lot here that doesn't ring true when you look at the way human s exist.

First, the most powerful tool in a situation like this is the will to use violence, followed by training, strength, and the types of weapons used. 15 mercenaries with sawed off shotguns and automatic rifles could take control of 100 untrained workers.

The thing is, with the threat of violence looming in the air at all times, both sides would eventually find it necessary to arm themselves. Hopefully over the long run an equilibrium would evolve and outbreaks of violence would calm down, but they would still exist for various reasons, many of them having to do with the fact that human beings don't always behave rationally.

Anyway, the upshot is this: you haven't removed the problem you are aiming for. In the end, whoever controls the guys with the guns is the government. Your anarchist utopia becomes a feudal state of mercenaries and warlords. And without a constitution or a representative form of government they have noone to answer to but themselves. So in the end you've given up a thousand years of political progress, ironically in an attempt to set the world free.

The US is not capitalist. The US is a big-business socialism, or state corporatism. Most laws are aimed at providing benefits to politicians' corporate contributors.

True capitalism is simply private ownership with no government interference. It is individualistic to its core.

We can argue over the exact definition of capitalism but in truth, what you're describing sounds little different. How do you plan on enforcing property laws without a state?

Forgot to read or simply disagreed?

A simple difference between the left and the right: the extreme right believes people are evil, the extreme left believes they are good.

Well seeing as this was about anarchy and anarcho-capitalists are generally considered to the 'right' while anarcho-socialists are considered to the 'left' I'd simply disagree with you. One ideology beleives that peopleleft pretty mush to their own devices so long as they employ no force to coerce should be left alone. The other feels that others should be forced under threat of violence and coerced. So the first (anarcho-capitalism) is based on the premise that people's good will overcome while the other (anarcho-socialism) beleives that people are so corrupt that they have to be forced to be good. That is based upon the self defined anarchists' descriptionsof their position...

But "leisure time," has decreased exponentially. In hunter\gatherer societies, people work, on average, three or four hours a week. In modern society, we work 40 hours a week.

Now, ask yourself, who "lives longer":
Man with an 80 year lifespan and a 40-hour work week
Man with an 45 year lifespan and a 4-hour work week

When it comes to apes in the wild, they spend virtually no time working as well, but spend almost all of their time resting and playing.

A. I'm pretty sure your figures are off.
B. If you really think it's preferable then turn off your computer and bugger off to some jungle to live like a free egalitarian savage. Nobody's got a gun to your head...

I don't think anarcho-capitalism would work. The "you are free to spend your own money" arguments have no meaning when you are working for 8 cents an hour. Corporations would want to make profit, and one of the easiest ways for them to do that would be to lower wages. Therefore, you would get society split into two classes (rich vs. poor, bourgeoisie vs. proletariat, whatever you want to call it), and the majority would be worse off.

So you don't think perhaps a group of prominent businessmen could defeat one of the world's greatest military powers in a war of sucession totally lacking in anything more that the rudiments of a few fragmented governmental bodies? Talking about the Revolutionary war that is.

has anyone actually worked out the costs of strike breaking and the occassional murder vs. the cost of increased wages and safety precautions?

Sure, Appalachian coal mining companies, in the not-too-distant past.

(They opted for murder.)

I know quite a few people on these forums are anarchists, and I'm just wondering: what do you think are the pros and cons of no government at all? I mean a pure anarchy without any kind of authority?

If you are asking 'why am I an anarchist?', then the answer is simple: because I believe that people educated 'properly'* need neither to rip each other off nor a heirarchical system of governance to survive and to prosper.


* as to what constitutes 'properly' here, well, therein lies the nub of the debate.

A. I'm pretty sure your figures are off.
B. If you really think it's preferable then turn off your computer and bugger off to some jungle to live like a free egalitarian savage. Nobody's got a gun to your head...

The answer here is that the chap working a 40 hour week with suitable regulation in an advanced technological society, on average, lives longer than compared to a classical hunter-gatherer: once you start to lose your sight or you get to 60 and your hip joints start playing up to the extent that you are more of a burden than a boon to your community, then the standard practice was to abandon you.

We can argue over the exact definition of capitalism but in truth, what you're describing sounds little different. How do you plan on enforcing property laws without a state?

Subscription to private armed security forces seems to be the standard answer her, but, following Nozick, the responsibility of keeping such private armies in line always seems to fall to some heirarchical shadow state apparatus which is infrequently mentioned and badly explained at best.

The answer here is that the chap working a 40 hour week with suitable regulation in an advanced technological society, on average, lives longer than compared to a classical hunter-gatherer: once you start to lose your sight or you get to 60 and your hip joints start playing up to the extent that you are more of a burden than a boon to your community, then the standard practice was to abandon you.


Actually, the modern increase in human life-expectancy is highly exaggerated if "life-expectancy" is distinguished from infant mortality. Since average life-expectancy is usually calculated to include the short lives of of dying infants, high rates of infant mortality drag the average down and distort the picture of how long the average adult sticks around.

Accounting for infant mortality, human life-expectancy has been the about the same in most cultures throughout most of human history.

Meh, anarchism will never work. People need governing forces, they will always need governing forces. An anarchist system would only survive with an unofficial government(or in situations where relative isolationism can exist) but people by their nature create some level of order so that a coherent society can exist. This order is either created by the unofficial government(church, Johnny's gang, Crap co., The charismatic Bobby McAwesome or some other force) when the unofficial government fails or something then an official government is created to solve these failures. If the failure is created by extreme chaos(as would probably be the down-fall of an anarchy anyway) then a government will arise to end that problem forever(chaos is ended by authoritarianism).

Accounting for infant mortality, human life-expectancy has been the about the same in most cultures throughout most of human history.

Yes, but the difference between a 20 year life expectancy for neolithic man and a modern man, even including infant mortality is in large part a result of technological advances. Like it or not, technology does help a random individual at birth to live longer on average: the question that remains is how to embrace this humanocentric advantage of technological adeptness to our advantage without embracing the heirarchical systems which have histroically tended to go hand in hand with it.

Having said this, you seem to be ignoring the tendency for semi-nomadic hunter-gatherers to abandon the sick and the old to nature when they begin to consume more than they are able to produce: there is no place for a chimney-corner woman if you do not in fact have a chimney corner.

Note: 'pologies for typing/spelling errors. Couple of drinks, you know.

Yes, but the difference between a 20 year life expectancy for neolithic man and a modern man, even including infant mortality is in large part a result of technological advances.

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with that... I just wanted to make sure everyone is on the same page. ;)

We can argue over the exact definition of capitalism but in truth, what you're describing sounds little different. How do you plan on enforcing property laws without a state?

There are many ways to provide non-statist property protection: militias, mercenaries, guerrillas, protection-insurance agencies, etc. You have an inalienable right to defend your property with any means available.

The state merely holds a monopoly over law enforcement. It doesn't mean it's the only way to get it done.

Meh, anarchism will never work. People need governing forces, they will always need governing forces. An anarchist system would only survive with an unofficial government(or in situations where relative isolationism can exist) but people by their nature create some level of order so that a coherent society can exist. This order is either created by the unofficial government(church, Johnny's gang, Crap co., The charismatic Bobby McAwesome or some other force) when the unofficial government fails or something then an official government is created to solve these failures.

so any system of societal order = government, right? well then, anarchists have never opposed government per se. we merely seek the replacement of the current ones with our own better system.

Having said this, you seem to be ignoring the tendency for semi-nomadic hunter-gatherers to abandon the sick and the old to nature when they begin to consume more than they are able to produce

nah. egalitarian foraging cultures tend to hang on to a disproportionate number of free-loading young people; the elderly are as secure as anyone. i believe richard lee's numbers for people 60+ amoung the ju/'hoansi was about 10% - not that far off of those of the modern united states.

nah. egalitarian foraging cultures tend to hang on to a disproportionate number of free-loading young people; the elderly are as secure as anyone. i believe richard lee's numbers for people 60+ amoung the ju/'hoansi was about 10% - not that far off of those of the modern united states.

Right... Once you get to age 35-45, your chances of living to be 60-80 are pretty much the same in any society you want to choose. It's mostly that first decade, with all its childhood illnesses, that accounts for deaths in societies lacking advanced medical arts.

Of course, modern societies may save a few elderly folk, starting hearts after heart-attacks and so on... but on the other hand, there wouldn't be so many heart-attacks if people lived healthier, less sedentary lives. I'm not sure if it balances out in terms of life-expectancy... but I would be none-too-surprised if it does.

As Plato, Rousseau, and others have pointed out... we wouldn't need so many doctors if we didn't live such unhealthy lives.

(Of course, don't listen to me... I'm certainly no primitivist. On the other hand, I do see the value in taking their argument seriously.)

I believe in the concept of direct democracy. Direct democracy is a form of anarchism. Therefore, I am an anarchist.

The reason that I believe in direct democracy is that I believe that people should have the power to make their own decision, and also that more people making decisions would tend to lead to better decisions being made rather than said decisions being made by a few people.

You assume a lot here that doesn't ring true when you look at the way human s exist.

First, the most powerful tool in a situation like this is the will to use violence, followed by training, strength, and the types of weapons used. 15 mercenaries with sawed off shotguns and automatic rifles could take control of 100 untrained workers.
Actually, let me clarify that I do not necessarily assume in any way that the grand majority of people have a high value of fairness or nonviolence. I simply mean to say that, if those are values that most people hold, agreements and decisions will be made to achieve those goals. If most people do not hold those values, then enforcing a system to guarantee protection of those values is rather pointless. I do admitt, however, that I contue to base all of my conclusions on the assumption of intelligence.

The thing is, with the threat of violence looming in the air at all times, both sides would eventually find it necessary to arm themselves. Hopefully over the long run an equilibrium would evolve and outbreaks of violence would calm down, but they would still exist for various reasons, many of them having to do with the fact that human beings don't always behave rationally.
I agree that at first there would be major problems. People would have great difficulty behaving rationally all the time. In the long run, however, people learn from their mistakes so an equilibrium will probably be achieved. You are absolutely right that people will never behave completely rationally but that does not mean that in time they cannot learn to behave more rationally.

Anyway, the upshot is this: you haven't removed the problem you are aiming for. In the end, whoever controls the guys with the guns is the government. Your anarchist utopia becomes a feudal state of mercenaries and warlords. And without a constitution or a representative form of government they have noone to answer to but themselves. So in the end you've given up a thousand years of political progress, ironically in an attempt to set the world free.
Anarchism does not necessarily seek to remove the problem of violence. If people have a problem with violence, in an anarchic they will learn to handle it themselves. Anarchy might marginalize individuals who do not behave rationally, but I have to admitt that in my ideal anarchic system I would protect children and mentally retarded individuals without their consent since I admitt that those individuals are not intelligent. I suspect that many other people share my value for protecting individuals who do not have the complete capacity for making rational decisions, but if I am wrong I would not force others to help me protect those individuals. I think that is, in fact, the essence of Anarchy, the refusal to force another to use force. It certainly does not mean that people should not organize themselves freely into groups that run similarly to government. Anarchists see nothing wrong with individuals making agreements not to harm one another and to protect one another. We simply see that forcing another person to make such an agreement does not make sense if we believe that that person is rational. Much of the organizational innovation or political progress would not be forsaken because many of those concepts have wonderfully convenient applications that rational indivuals would gladly accept.

I believe in the concept of direct democracy. Direct democracy is a form of anarchism. Therefore, I am an anarchist.

The reason that I believe in direct democracy is that I believe that people should have the power to make their own decision, and also that more people making decisions would tend to lead to better decisions being made rather than said decisions being made by a few people.
I agree that direct democracy is the next best thing to being allowed to choose one's own government. The way I see it, though, forcing the most popular government on all people is like forcing every soccer fan to cheer for Man U.

I agree that direct democracy is the next best thing to being allowed to choose one's own government. The way I see it, though, forcing the most popular government on all people is like forcing every soccer fan to cheer for Man U.Well, on one hand I believe that democracy should be tempered to a degree by a Constitution. However, I think that the people who don't especially agree with a particular government can either choose to live in the same area and pressure for reform, or leave the area and form their own government based upon their own principles.

I like how you rambled on about nothing and managed to spell "intelligence" wrong 5 times. Face it, Anarchy would not work in the real world. People are not intelligent, and would not make smart decisions. If we simply allowed people to do whatever they want, there would be no one to stop violence. Husbands quarelling with their wives would not think twice or regret their spent bullets. Starving children would not spare the life of the local grocer to get food they need. Basically, without authority, we go back to the stone ages.

Exactly. I hate to say it, but most human being are stupid/biggoted/Subjective and would always try and find a leader to stand behind because they have no ideas of their own to offer to the community.

Anarchy, like Communism, would be great, if humans were different.

There aren't really any adult anarchists; just kids who think they are, but aren't educated or thoughtful enough to know any better. they always grow out of it.

There aren't really any adult anarchists; just kids who think they are, but aren't educated or thoughtful enough to know any better. they always grow out of it.
Whoa, so you mean Kropotkin, Proudhon, and Bakunin didn't really exist? Neither did Emma Goldman? The Spanish anarchists were just a figment of the world's collective imagination?

People never tell me these things earlier!

There aren't really any adult anarchists; just kids who think they are, but aren't educated or thoughtful enough to know any better. they always grow out of it.

Age: 33
Education: BA & MA
Political belief: Anarcho-Communist

Haven't really shown any signs of growing out of it recently...

Haven't really shown any signs of growing out of it recently...

Hey, me neither!!

Age: 25
Education: BA & MA, almost a Ph.D. (political science).
Political belief: Anarchist (Economically, a sort of mixed communism and market socialism.)

Whereas I actually am 17 doing Politics,Law and Ancient History at A-level. :p

I am a staunch supporter of the Libertarian Party in the United States (for those of you who aren't American.) Therefore, I get accused of being an anarchist quite often, which isn't the case at all. We Libertarians only want to beat the government back down to its 3 responsibilities listed in the Constitution of the United States and stop them from mettling with the bill of rights as well as business. The government cries that the U.S. is the shining becon of liberty as it passes new, stricter, gun laws and has protesters shot with tear gas. It also complains about business outscoursing.... They have no one to blame but themselves for that.... Businesses outscourse because of all the B.S. they have to put up with here. The problem i have with the authority of the government a lot of the time, is they are given their powers by the CONSENT of the people.... as said quite plainly in the Declaration of Independance. Thus, they are supposed to be our mouthpiece.... Instead, they are following their own agenda which is unconstitution in and of itself. I think the United States needs to give Libertarianism a chance..... The Government is enroaching on our rights and it is OUR responsibility to protect them from being crushed. One needs only to look at the Patriot Act, the National ID card, the ridiculously high taxes, and government run welfare to figure that out.

There aren't really any adult anarchists; just kids who think they are, but aren't educated or thoughtful enough to know any better. they always grow out of it.

i could add to the list of adult anarchists who are doing or have completed postgrad work, but that's not really all that important as far as the movement goes. i think i'd rather ask you who you think you are and what makes you think that you have any ability to speak about the education or thoughtfulness of anarchists? because clearly you don't have a fucking clue.

I am a staunch supporter of the Libertarian Party in the United States (for those of you who aren't American.) Therefore, I get accused of being an anarchist quite often, which isn't the case at all. We Libertarians only want to beat the government back down to its 3 responsibilities listed in the Constitution of the United States and stop them from mettling with the bill of rights as well as business. The government cries that the U.S. is the shining becon of liberty as it passes new, stricter, gun laws and has protesters shot with tear gas. It also complains about business outscoursing.... They have no one to blame but themselves for that.... Businesses outscourse because of all the B.S. they have to put up with here. The problem i have with the authority of the government a lot of the time, is they are given their powers by the CONSENT of the people.... as said quite plainly in the Declaration of Independance. Thus, they are supposed to be our mouthpiece.... Instead, they are following their own agenda which is unconstitution in and of itself. I think the United States needs to give Libertarianism a chance..... The Government is enroaching on our rights and it is OUR responsibility to protect them from being crushed. One needs only to look at the Patriot Act, the National ID card, the ridiculously high taxes, and government run welfare to figure that out.


Honestly, I would vote Libertarian if the party stopped nominating such nutcases for President.

There aren't really any adult anarchists; just kids who think they are, but aren't educated or thoughtful enough to know any better. they always grow out of it.
Actually, I'm open to the possibility that I will grow out of it. But it just makes too much sense for now. If someone comes along and offers me arguments I find acceptable (Unfortunately, reality must be interpreted subjectively. That is in fact the nature of interpretation.), then I will "grow out of it."

Because told me to be 1

hi free soviets

As I've heard it put, "Anarchy: it's not the law, it's just a good idea."

Can't say I agree with that position, though. Law is necessary for an orderly society that protects the rights of its members. "Only the strong survive" is not a good replacement theory.

Because told me to be 1

hi free soviets
gravedigger! GRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOW! SPIIIIIIT! HISSSSSSSSSSS! nasty MEOW!

gravedigger! GRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOW! SPIIIIIIT! HISSSSSSSSSSS! nasty MEOW!


Moron! FUCK OFF DIE SHUTUP etc.

gravedigger! GRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOW! SPIIIIIIT! HISSSSSSSSSSS! nasty MEOW!

I saw that Free Soviets was on this thread. I posted.

I don't remember this thread, yet I posted in it.

I don't remember this thread, yet I posted in it.

It's all the drugs you're on, hippy.

It's because an anarchist movement took over his user account and posted in here!

I saw that Free Soviets was on this thread. I posted.

and i was here digging up some anarchist commentary on hobbes

Any excuse is good. :D

It's all the drugs you're on, hippy.
Hm. Good point.