NationStates Jolt Archive

Tell me, anarchists of NS, how could anarchy work, when as we know, humans are naturally selfish. There is no way that such a system could work, not in theory, not in fact.

Tell me, anarchists of NS, how could anarchy work, when as we know, humans are naturally selfish. There is no way that such a system could work, not in theory, not in fact.
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/intro.html

Although you'll actually have to find one to know more.

what does being selfish have to do with anarchy?

link is defective

what does being selfish have to do with anarchy?

Anarchy cannot work because human beings are exploitive and selfish, and without the rule of law and the social contract, there would be complete chaos which would be horrible.

Anarchy cannot work because human beings are exploitive and selfish, and without the rule of law and the social contract, there would be complete chaos which would be horrible.

anarchism means a lack of rulers, not of rules.

link is defective
Neither the Infoshop or Geocities mirrors (and lists of mirrors) are working. How infuriating!

Here we go:

http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/

anarchism means a lack of rulers, not of rules.

Not true

according to the American Heritage Dictionary it is

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Anarchy)

Tell me, anarchists of NS, how could anarchy work, when as we know, humans are naturally selfish.

Complex question, but nevermind. Let's assume that humans are naturally selfish. What does that have to do with anarchism?

Neither the Infoshop or Geocities mirrors (and lists of mirrors) are working. How infuriating!

This one is working:

http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/

Anarchy cannot work because human beings are exploitive and selfish, and without the rule of law and the social contract, there would be complete chaos which would be horrible.

lol yeah those bloody remote villages going about there peaceful business who are they to think they can have a society without a concept of statehood that only began in the 1800’s

And does it somehow horrify you that these villagers work for no reason at all, or have you never been unemployed?

Not true

according to the American Heritage Dictionary it is

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Anarchy)

None of which excludes the 'anarchy can still have rules' argument.

By the way - you are using 'lay' definitions to argue a political term.. your 'jargon' is not applicable.

And notice, they no longer exist, could this be because they figured out that it did not work?

This one is working:

http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/
Already there.:D

Not true

The only definition there that is sort of right in this context is the first: "absence of any form of political authority."

And there's room for dispute over "any form."

And notice, they no longer exist, could this be because they figured out that it did not work?
You'll find no shortage of anarchists here, even if they don't suddenly swarm to this thread.

None of which excludes the 'anarchy can still have rules' argument.

By the way - you are using 'lay' definitions to argue a political term.. your 'jargon' is not applicable.

I am using the official definition, kiddo. :rolleyes:

Tell me, anarchists of NS, how could anarchy work, when as we know, humans are naturally selfish. There is no way that such a system could work, not in theory, not in fact.

Anarchy cannot work because human beings are exploitive and selfish, and without the rule of law and the social contract, there would be complete chaos which would be horrible.

I don't think that humans are "exploitative and selfish", but rather purpose-oriented. If the people wanted security, they would naturally cooperate to achieve this good. In order to cooperate, they would have to follow a generally accepted code among one another and enforce it. This would provide a rule of law without a mythical "social contract" to prevent "chaos".

But someone has to enforce the rules, lest the society descend into chaos.

And even then, governments will arise. People will unite for mutual self-defense, then create rules to govern their society. In time, they will appoint policemen to enforce their rules.

Not true

according to the American Heritage Dictionary it is

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Anarchy)

The dictionary and political definitions are very much different.

But someone has to enforce the rules, lest the society descend into chaos.

OK. So what?

And even then, governments will arise. People will unite for mutual self-defense, then create rules to govern their society. In time, they will appoint policemen to enforce their rules.

OK. That's fine too. You can enforce a code of conduct in a stateless society; you seem to confuse "anarchy" with chaos.

Not true

according to the American Heritage Dictionary it is

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Anarchy)This is the definition of "anarchy". Isidoor said "anarchism".

I don't think that humans are "exploitative and selfish", but rather purpose-oriented. If the people wanted security, they would naturally cooperate to achieve this good. In order to cooperate, they would have to follow a generally accepted code among one another and enforce it. This would provide a rule of law without a mythical "social contract" to prevent "chaos".

rule of law is the essence of the social contract, go study the enlightenment.

If anarchy works, how do you explain Somalia, the closest thing our world has seen to anarchy.

I am using the official definition, kiddo. :rolleyes:

Which 'office'? Official, how?

Dictionary definition =/= appropriate definition in 'technical' matters.

1. a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.
2. the methods or practices of anarchists, as the use of violence to undermine government.

here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchism)

rule of law is the essence of the social contract, go study the enlightenment.

If anarchy works, how do you explain Somalia, the closest thing our world has seen to anarchy.

Christiana would have been a better example.

1. a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.
2. the methods or practices of anarchists, as the use of violence to undermine government.

here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchism)

Curiously - still nothing that says there can be no rules...

1. a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.
2. the methods or practices of anarchists, as the use of violence to undermine government.

here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchism)Ugh. That definition is better, but isn't sufficient either. It's entirely possible to undermine government without using violence.

Seems I had my definition of 'anarchy' wrong then. The definition I was going by was a society with no rulers or enforcers. Which I got from an above poster.

Will an anarchist please define anarchy?

rule of law is the essence of the social contract, go study the enlightenment.

I have studied it, your pompousness. Rule of law isn't only limited to social contract; it includes natural law and the law of reason, among other theories.

If anarchy works, how do you explain Somalia, the closest thing our world has seen to anarchy.

It's a failed state more than anything else, and chaos is to be expected of a failed state. There are state-like entities there who wish to replace the state, such as the Islamic Courts. It's really not a very good example; a better example of anarchy is medieval Ireland and Iceland, in which people acted by way of voluntary association without a coercive government ordering them about.

Seems I had my definition of 'anarchy' wrong then. The definition I was going by was a society with no rulers or enforcers. Which I got from an above poster.

Will an anarchist please define anarchy?

I'm not quite sure there's a widely accepted definition, but mine is "An order that is not based upon, but rather opposed to, aggression by some against others."

Christiana would have been a better example.


Cristiana has town meetings, therefore it is not anarchy

I don't think that anarchism can work.

If you are working in a project with 20 or 30 other people, you already need a projectleader, or it will end in total chaos.

So, how could a whole state with millions of people could rule itself without any form of government?

a society with no rulers

Right.

or enforcers.

Wrong.

I have studied it, your pompousness. Rule of law isn't only limited to social contract; it includes natural law and the law of reason, among other theories.


Natural law is a myth thought up by Locke.

The Law of Reason leads to the Social Contract.

Cristiana has town meetings

So would an anarchist society.

In fact, such "town meetings" would be the basis of politics in an anarchist society.

Honestly... read the Anarchist FAQ. It was linked to you twice.

Ugh. That definition is better, but isn't sufficient either. It's entirely possible to undermine government without using violence.

ok, reject the dictionary, just like you reject authority. You rebel.

I'd imagine that existing within a state of anarchy as individuals would closely mirror the behavior of states international situation from the past four centuries, knowing that the international situation is anarchic.

Seems I had my definition of 'anarchy' wrong then. The definition I was going by was a society with no rulers or enforcers. Which I got from an above poster.

Will an anarchist please define anarchy?

The important part of the term is 'arch', as in patriarch, oligarchy or ethnarch - where -arch denotes someone exerting control over others.

An-arch-y is a lack of such 'external' control.

Theoretically, an anarchistic society could still have comprehensive laws that they agreed on in a directly democratic manner.

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

*sigh* your missing on e important bit anarchy is not a government form in itself there is always a word that comes after that usually forms the basis of how it is structured (for example see anarcho-capitalism)

And notice, they no longer exist, could this be because they figured out that it did not work?

No they still exist and they have lasted a lot longer than anything else(as in since they settled into the area most likely before civilizations itself)

And odds are they will continue thriving or centuries to come IMHO

But someone has to enforce the rules, lest the society descend into chaos.

Or *gasp* the people might be able to take care of themselves!

And even then, governments will arise. People will unite for mutual self-defense, then create rules to govern their society. In time, they will appoint policemen to enforce their rules.

No people will not need such a structure it has been shown militias will form on there own and disband again when the need arises (and seeing how successful the people can be it makes well settled anarchy almost impossible to defeat) the only reason nations have formed is because there was thugs (which will be hard to create in a well established anarchic society)

Cristiana has town meetings, therefore it is not anarchy

Why? Who says anarchists can't organise?

I do not deal in theory, I deal in reality.

Natural law is a myth thought up by Locke.

Natural law is far, far older than Locke.

The Law of Reason leads to the Social Contract.

Which law of reason?

anarchism means a lack of rulers, not of rules.

Yes, we are aware. Anarchism =/= anarchy. Two different concepts. By definition, therefore, an anarchist is one who supports anarchy, not anarchism which is a form of government (though theoretical).

I do not deal in theory, I deal in reality.

I've yet to see evidence of either...

ok, reject the dictionary, just like you reject authority. You rebel.Not every dictionary says the same thing. A far more accurate definition is from the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition

The belief that all existing governmental authority should be abolished and replaced by free cooperation among individuals.

Why? Who says anarchists can't organise?

Would the individual be subordinate to the will of the council, or would he be able to say "screw you" if he were to disagree?

Natural law is a myth thought up by Locke.

The Law of Reason leads to the Social Contract.

Natural law is not a myth, rather it is what can be expected of people acting purposefully.

And social contract simply doesn't exist, a more proper definition is social thing-that-you-don't-really-agree-to-but-at-the-same-time-you-do-agree-to-and-that's-why-the-government-gets-to-tell-you-what-to-do, since it's not a volitional agreement and thus not a contract.

isnt anyone going to answer buristans original question?

how would anarchy work in the real world?

stop nitpicking the definitions and answer it.

Rationale

ok, reject the dictionary, just like you reject authority.

Hmm... who's more knowledgeable about what anarchists advocate?

The writers of dictionary? Or actual anarchists?

:rolleyes:

Not every dictionary says the same thing. A far more accurate definition is from the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition

The belief that all existing governmental authority should be abolished and replaced by free cooperation among individuals.

Which allows 'rules', but rejects 'rulers'.

Yes, we are aware. Anarchism =/= anarchy. Two different concepts. By definition, therefore, an anarchist is one who supports anarchy, not anarchism which is a form of government (though theoretical).Er, no. An anarchist supports anarchism, by definition.

Would the individual be subordinate to the will of the council, or would he be able to say "screw you" if he were to disagree?

He always has the option of doing so, what with voluntary association and all. There's just no enforced hierarchy.

Would this society be considered anarchy:

This society is governed by a codified set of laws drafted and voted on by an assembly of all the people - hence it is very small. All citizens are authorized to arrest violators of the law, and bring them before the assembly for trial. In the event that a criminal is too strong/smart/well-armed for an ordinary citizen to handle, the assembly may authorize the creation of a special task force to deal with this criminal.

After a while, the assembly notices that Don, Frank, and Kelly are really good at tracking down criminals. They are declared to be a permanent task force, charged with tracking down dangerous criminals and bringing them to trial. Usage of lethal force, however, requires the consent of the assembly.

isnt anyone going to answer buristans original question?

how would anarchy work in the real world?

stop nitpicking the definitions and answer it.

bravo! Here is a cookie! :p

I'd imagine that existing within a state of anarchy as individuals would closely mirror the behavior of states international situation from the past four centuries, knowing that the international situation is anarchic.

but states can't love...can they?

He always has the option of doing so, what with voluntary association and all. There's just no enforced hierarchy.

Fair enough.

OK. So what?



OK. That's fine too. You can enforce a code of conduct in a stateless society; you seem to confuse "anarchy" with chaos.

Maybe that's because "anarchy" is chaos...

but states can't love...can they?

States are made up of individual people, and they reflect the beliefs and feelings of said people, thus a state can exhibit traits rather similar to love, hate, greed, generosity, avarice and patience.

bravo! Here is a cookie! :p

thank you!

yummy

Would this society be considered anarchy:

This society is governed by a codified set of laws drafted and voted on by an assembly of all the people - hence it is very small. All citizens are authorized to arrest violators of the law, and bring them before the assembly for trial. In the event that a criminal is too strong/smart/well-armed for an ordinary citizen to handle, the assembly may authorize the creation of a special task force to deal with this criminal.

After a while, the assembly notices that Don, Frank, and Kelly are really good at tracking down criminals. They are declared to be a permanent task force, charged with tracking down dangerous criminals and bringing them to trial. Usage of lethal force, however, requires the consent of the assembly.

Assuming membership is based upon voluntary association, yes, it would be anarchist.

Not every dictionary says the same thing. A far more accurate definition is from the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition

The belief that all existing governmental authority should be abolished and replaced by free cooperation among individuals.

link me to prove it.

Would the individual be subordinate to the will of the council, or would he be able to say "screw you" if he were to disagree?

'Government', such as it is, in anarchy is direct, and participatory.

A good example would be the old Viking idea of 'Wapentak' (weapon-hand), with which you would, for example, vote for war by presenting arms.

Then, if there is war, you fight.

Similarly, in an anarchy, consensus is required. If one person 'opts-out', they are no longer participatory... but then, they shouldn't expect everyone else to 'participate' with them, either.

Maybe that's because "anarchy" is chaos...

Only in the vernacular. The idea that 'anarchy' must equate to violence or disorder is not one based on the concept of 'anarchy', but on the way the terminology has been historically misapplied.

You guys are mistaking anarachy for Absolute Democracy.


You still haven't answered my question, how would anarchy work in the real world?

bravo! Here is a cookie! :p

*wipes crumbs off face*

is it obvious yet that no one here can even make a stab at a reasonable process of acheiving or maintaining anarchy in the modern world?

i wonder if its because none of the respondants are anarchists or because there is no answer that is not absurd.

link me to prove it.The last definition on this page:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchism

The one you provided is the first, they get better as you go down.

Assuming membership is based upon voluntary association, yes, it would be anarchist.

Yes, you can leave at any time. But let me make a few additions:

1. You cannot live within the jurisdiction of the society and be immune to its rules. Disagree with the laws? Fine? But you have to leave.
2. The assembly also is authorized to form a militia should the society come under outside attack.

isnt anyone going to answer buristans original question?

how would anarchy work in the real world?

stop nitpicking the definitions and answer it.
Soheran and I gave him a good place to start looking on the first page.

*wipes crumbs off face*

is it obvious yet that no one here can even make a stab at a reasonable process of acheiving or maintaining anarchy in the modern world?

i wonder if its because none of the respondants are anarchists or because there is no answer that is not absurd.

lol.

'Government', such as it is, in anarchy is direct, and participatory.

A good example would be the old Viking idea of 'Wapentak' (weapon-hand), with which you would, for example, vote for war by presenting arms.

Then, if there is war, you fight.

Similarly, in an anarchy, consensus is required. If one person 'opts-out', they are no longer participatory... but then, they shouldn't expect everyone else to 'participate' with them, either.

That just sounds like an immensely weakened version of the modern state...

*wipes crumbs off face*

is it obvious yet that no one here can even make a stab at a reasonable process of acheiving or maintaining anarchy in the modern world?

i wonder if its because none of the respondants are anarchists or because there is no answer that is not absurd.We are anarchists, and so we support anarchism. Anarchism is different than anarchy.

The last definition on this page:


As an anarchist:

:upyours: You can tell me what to do!

As an anarchist:

:upyours: You can tell me what to do!
:confused: Er, okay.

Only in the vernacular. The idea that 'anarchy' must equate to violence or disorder is not one based on the concept of 'anarchy', but on the way the terminology has been historically misapplied.

The only modern example of "anarchy" was in Somalia before the Islamic Courts System took control. And yes, it was (and arguably still is) chaos. In the absence of a unifying state, the populace degenerates to chaotic whims and disorder; rallying behind faction leaders that assume de facto control of specific groups of the populace. This perpetuates continued chaotic tendencies until another unifying agent assumes control, thereby bringing the stateless society out of the condition of "anarchy."

States are made up of individual people, and they reflect the beliefs and feelings of said people, thus a state can exhibit traits rather similar to love, hate, greed, generosity, avarice and patience.

nope its like saying the laws of quantum (that govern atoms downward) are the same of the laws of relativity (which govern things in our world)

A key example is that a nation can move itself through another nation (a very hard thing for us to do unless the person is a giant;) ) much like how if there where no electrons if you shot a snooker ball at another ball it would simply pass right through (its actually the repelling of electrons that causes me to sit on this chair well not sit I’m actually floating :p )

wow I can't help but hijack :(

:confused: Er, okay.

Sorry, bad joke. I give myself a A for Affort (tey tech me to spelle rally good at me skool)

We are anarchists, and so we support anarchism. Anarchism is different than anarchy.

so quit nitpicking definitions and get to what your best case scenario is for anarchy in the modern world.

nope its like saying the laws of quantum (that govern atoms downward) are the same of the laws of relativity (which govern things in our world)

A key example is that a nation can move itself through another nation (a very hard thing for us to do unless the person is a giant;) ) much like how if there where no electrons if you shot a snooker ball at another ball it would simply pass right through (its actually the repelling of electrons that causes me to sit on this chair well not sit I’m actually floating :p )

wow I can't help but hijack :(

I can agree with you on this much.

Soheran and I gave him a good place to start looking on the first page.

fine so what is YOUR idea of how anarchism would work in the modern world?

nope its like saying the laws of quantum (that govern atoms downward) are the same of the laws of relativity (which govern things in our world)
The analogy doesn't work at all.

A key example is that a nation can move itself through another nation (a very hard thing for us to do unless the person is a giant;) ) much like how if there where no electrons if you shot a snooker ball at another ball it would simply pass right through (its actually the repelling of electrons that causes me to sit on this chair well not sit I’m actually floating :p )

wow I can't help but hijack :(

As I said, it would be the international system on an individual level.

Individuals could make war on other individuals to kill them, take their stuff or enslave them, actions which have analogs in the international system.

Single individuals would not move against other nations, as there would be no other nations, just other individuals, who would be analogous to nations.

You guys are mistaking anarachy for Absolute Democracy.


You still haven't answered my question, how would anarchy work in the real world?

It isn't a 'mistake'. Direct Democracy is the most logical way to orchestrate a 'real world' anarchy.

The two things aren't the same, but they are logically compatible.

That just sounds like an immensely weakened version of the modern state...

You mean... like a version where the 'control' is internal rather than external...?

The only modern example of "anarchy" was in Somalia before the Islamic Courts System took control. And yes, it was (and arguably still is) chaos. In the absence of a unifying state, the populace degenerates to chaotic whims and disorder; rallying behind faction leaders that assume de facto control of specific groups of the populace. This perpetuates continued chaotic tendencies until another unifying agent assumes control, thereby bringing the stateless society out of the condition of "anarchy."

It wasn't true the first time it was said. It doesn't get more likely to be true with repetition.

You guys are mistaking anarachy for Absolute Democracy.

No, you just don't have a clue what anarchism is.

Yes, you can leave at any time. But let me make a few additions:

1. You cannot live within the jurisdiction of the society and be immune to its rules. Disagree with the laws? Fine? But you have to leave.

Depends. What's the jurisdiction of the society?

2. The assembly also is authorized to form a militia should the society come under outside attack.

Nothing anti-anarchist about that.

It wasn't true the first time it was said. It doesn't get more likely to be true with repetition.

Care to provide a refutation?

fine so what is YOUR idea of how anarchism would work in the modern world?

It would work through a federation of freely-associating autonomous communes run with direct democracy and adhering to socialist economic principles.

Still haven't show me a RL example.

Care to provide a refutation?

Not worth wasting my time on you. You are using the 'lay' definition, thus, are not having the same debate as me, even.

Go on about your business... just don't expect it to be taken seriously.

You mean... like a version where the 'control' is internal rather than external...?

I hate to come across as ignorant, but I don't fully understand the meaning of that phrase, could you explain for me?

Tell me, anarchists of NS, how could anarchy work, when as we know, humans are naturally selfish. There is no way that such a system could work, not in theory, not in fact.

Under the classical definition, "anarchy" equates to political disorder/chaos that ineveitably results from the lack of a centralized government. However, the theoretical (and practical) "modern" definition asserts a system that is an "anti-authoritarian society that is based on voluntary association of free individuals in autonomous communities, operating on principles of mutual aid, voluntary association, and direct action." (Wikipedia)

Still haven't show me a RL example.

Your inability to comprehend is not equivalent to nothing being shown...

Still haven't show me a RL example.

http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secA5.html#seca56

It would work through a federation of freely-associating autonomous communes run with direct democracy and adhering to socialist economic principles.

How to you get past the entrenched system of states that currently exists, save for a gigantic cataclysm?

(When I say cataclysm, I don't mean some sort of fanciful revolution, I mean a comet hitting the Earth and obliterating 97% of the population, or a supervolcano lighting off in the center of the US and doing the exact same thing)

Not worth wasting my time on you. You are using the 'lay' definition, thus, are not having the same debate as me, even.

Go on about your business... just don't expect it to be taken seriously.

You know what? You can't refute it. Because that is the inevitable result of your anarchy. And since when did debate degenerate into "holier than thou" pretentiousness that only reveals a lack of intelligent debate points on your part, because you can't find anythign wrong with my post, and thus stoop to saying that I am necessarily on a lower level than you?

http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secA5.html#seca56

is there some reason why you cant either use your own words or quote the relevant parts?

Cristiana has town meetings, therefore it is not anarchyI have to know... this Christiana.. is it Christiania in Denmark or what? 'Cause that has nothing to do with anarchy, whatsoever.1) Correct, they have town meeting, and 2) They are still forced to obey the Danish law, though they refuse to pay taxes and are in some cases contradict to the rest of the society, but as it is currently functioning it has nothing to do with anarchy, socialism or anything like that.

I do understand the basis of philosophical anarchism, as when an individual bases his choices on reason, instead of assignment, and I actually rather think that's a good way to do things, so don't take me as hostile to all of anarchism. It's just that so much of the practice concepts make me think "religious pipe-dream".

I hate to come across as ignorant, but I don't fully understand the meaning of that phrase, could you explain for me?

You say it comes across as a 'weaker' version of the state... it does, it is a 'state' without the external control. Instead, the process is direct... a literal 'of the people, for the people', rather than a representational mechanism.

http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secA5.html#seca56

an anarchist revolution, not sucessful.

You say it comes across as a 'weaker' version of the state... it does, it is a 'state' without the external control. Instead, the process is direct... a literal 'of the people, for the people', rather than a representational mechanism.

More Athenian then?

You still haven't answered my question, how would anarchy work in the real world?

what type just saying anarchy is a very large brush to paint with


2. The assembly also is authorized to form a militia should the society come under outside attack.

I would say this is where it stops being anarchist

The analogy doesn't work at all.

I fail to see why not (unless all electrons in the universe are about to spiral into an atomic nucleus :eek:)

Individuals could make war on other individuals to kill them, take their stuff or enslave them, actions which have analogs in the international system..

Yet you ignore key factors like all people needing food (which nations can produce themselves), shelter and one that’s running through my head now of all nations do not put on/lose weight

And lets not forget no man is an island

Single individuals would not move against other nations, as there would be no other nations, just other individuals, who would be analogous to nations.

Individuals however do not move against individuals on there own people need to have a mob behind them to feel strong

How to you get past the entrenched system of states that currently exists, save for a gigantic cataclysm?

I'll need to know what, exactly, you see as the problem here before answering this question.

It requires a fairly radical decentralization of political power, yes - but not so radical that it need accompany the utter destruction of presently-existing human society.

You know what? You can't refute it. Because that is the inevitable result of your anarchy. And since when did debate degenerate into "holier than thou" pretentiousness that only reveals a lack of intelligent debate points on your part, because you can't find anythign wrong with my post, and thus stoop to saying that I am necessarily on a lower level than you?

Not lower. You aren't arguing the same argument as me... it would be folly to address it as though it was.

You were talking anarchy in the vernacular... chaos and destruction. Neither is required for a 'technical' interpretation of anarchy, and, as already presented, Christiania would be a better example of a 'technical' anarchy.

It's not a matter of holier than thou... you are off topic, and I choose not to debate your tangent.

what type just saying anarchy is a very large brush to paint with

Give me any example, if it is as viable as you say it is, it should not be like pulling teeth.

what type just saying anarchy is a very large brush to paint with



for gods sake if you are an anarchist you must have some idea of what you want.

how about ANY type that you would consider anarchist and viable in the modern world?

not sucessful.

Yes, because it was destroyed by external forces. So?

More Athenian then?

I guess... of course, Athenian might not be the exact model you'd want to employ... I seem to remember that didn't turn out for the best...

anarchism means a lack of rulers, not of rules.

Though you can't really enforce any law without leadership.

Anarchism is freedom, freedom for the strong to opress the week.

Yes, because it was destroyed by external forces. So?

External forces that if it was as large as your article makes it sound, it would have been able to beat them if it was a normal government.

Though you can't really enforce any law without leadership.


Opinion?

What about a Christian community where the law is 'in the book', and 'enforced' by people just 'trying to be a good christian'?

Or, does ideology count as 'leadership'?

External forces that if it was as large as your article makes it sound, it would have been able to beat them if it was a normal government.

Um... the Republicans fell in the end, too.

Though you can't really enforce any law without leadership.

Because you say so?

Anarchism is freedom, freedom for the strong to opress the week.

I thought your whole argument was that anarchism would be leaderless?

Or is it that you think anarchism, with its abolition of all statist laws, will go as far as to abolish the laws of logic with them, permitting it to exist in a contradictory fashion?

Or, does ideology count as 'leadership'?

Probably

Um... the Republicans fell in the end, too.


That is because the republicans were too fractured, the Nationalists were united.

Because you say so?


How can law enforcement, if it were to exist in an anarchy, be regulated and not turn into a corrupt and inneficient orginization?


I thought your whole argument was that anarchism would be leaderless?

Or is it that you think anarchism, with its abolition of all statist laws, will go as far as to abolish the laws of logic with them, permitting it to exist in a contradictory fashion?

Who says it's only the government that can opress people?

an anarchist revolution, not sucessful.

Yes it was.
Then it got taken over again, like a normal state.

Not lower. You aren't arguing the same argument as me... it would be folly to address it as though it was.

You were talking anarchy in the vernacular... chaos and destruction. Neither is required for a 'technical' interpretation of anarchy, and, as already presented, Christiania would be a better example of a 'technical' anarchy.

It's not a matter of holier than thou... you are off topic, and I choose not to debate your tangent.

You know, as I was typing that, I started laughing...here I was, trying my best to pour all my frustration into a post which sole attempt was to bait you, egg you on, and in my frustration I realized that it's just not worth it, it's not the same trying to type genuine anger so much as it is to speak it.

Yeah, you're right, so far as I can tell. This prompted me to do some research, and the more I read, the more I realize how pointless it is for me to debate something I agree with more and more.

How to you get past the entrenched system of states that currently exists, save for a gigantic cataclysm?

people voting? steady change?

for gods sake if you are an anarchist you must have some idea of what you want.

not much of an anarchist I've just had to deal with enough of them to know the principle

how about ANY type that you would consider anarchist and viable in the modern world?

Anarcho-capitalism

Many or one company provides the peoples defence for a cost, another company/s provide the education and so on

The balance of power is maintained by rival companies and stingy people. companies have to appeal to the people to be successful and so must be:

1) cheap (thus not able to afford wars)
2) without the slightest hint of oppression
3) police force orientated in its image

The society is driven by competition (which is the case for all of human history) so in theory this means the human race as a whole becomes more efficient and productive

people voting? steady change?



not much of an anarchist I've just had to deal with enough of them to know the principle



Anarcho-capitalism

Many or one company provides the peoples defence for a cost, another company/s provide the education and so on

The balance of power is maintained by rival companies and stingy people. companies have to appeal to the people to be successful and so must be:

1) cheap (thus not able to afford wars)
2) without the slightest hint of oppression
3) police force orientated in its image

The society is driven by competition (which is the case for all of human history) so in theory this means the human race as a whole becomes more efficient and productive

so you consider the book jennifer government to be a depiction of a viable form of anarchism that would be possible in the real world?

As reasonable and mature people all already know, anarchism is a fantasy of the ignored margins.

Anarchism needs no refutation beyond history and the common-sense thought experiment of which most people are capable that indicates people are not disposed to live together peacefully and in cooperation.

How can law enforcement, if it were to exist in an anarchy, be regulated and not turn into a corrupt and inneficient orginization?

By putting it under direct democratic control.

Who says it's only the government that can opress people?

No one. What does that have to do with anything?

As reasonable and mature people all already know

What do you know about reasonable and mature people?

indicates people are not disposed to live together peacefully and in cooperation.

And the fact that they've primarily done so for the entire duration of the human species' existence is just an outlier?

By putting it under direct democratic control.


Like a government? Whos going to organize the vote and make sure everyone gets to vote?


No one. What does that have to do with anything?


With the abolishment of the government, companies can exploit people, organized crime rings can oppress/abuse people etc...

And the fact that they've primarily done so for the entire duration of the human species' existence is just an outlier?


Done so in sizable populations only ever under the natural human hierarchical organization.

Bands of marginal ignored can certainly go out and form little communes, and successfully run them the same way small bands of people always have. The problem, as reasonable and mature people understand, is that the world is not composed of small bands of people anymore, and hasn't been for eons.

Population necessitates organization, which in human affairs takes an embodiment anathema to the fantasy of anarchism.

It isn't by accident or random chance that the world has turned out not to have any anarchist 'countries.'

isnt anyone going to answer buristans original question?

how would anarchy work in the real world?

stop nitpicking the definitions and answer it.

I think there have been multiple explications of how it would work in the real world, but it won't hurt to repeat it one more time. My take on it is as follows; people act purposefully. If people act purposefully, and they want the good of security, they will act to produce the good of security. If there are multiple people who desire security, and if there is a benefit in cooperation to provide security as opposed to doing so alone (i.e. an economy of scale of security production), then people will cooperate with one another to produce security. Same thing with basically any good or service that people could want. Through the ideals of peaceful cooperation, voluntary association and mutually beneficial exchange, there is no need for a state to provide any good or service; rather, people can provide it on their own.

If you want real world examples, you should look at medieval Ireland and medieval Iceland. Both worked upon the above principles, and both orders were quite prosperous comparatively.

You know, as I was typing that, I started laughing...here I was, trying my best to pour all my frustration into a post which sole attempt was to bait you, egg you on, and in my frustration I realized that it's just not worth it, it's not the same trying to type genuine anger so much as it is to speak it.

Yeah, you're right, so far as I can tell. This prompted me to do some research, and the more I read, the more I realize how pointless it is for me to debate something I agree with more and more.

:eek: :eek:
Someone actually won an argument!
It's a miracle! :p :D

Like a government?

You could perhaps call it that, but not at all like the presently existing governments.

Whos going to organize the vote and make sure everyone gets to vote?

A problem primarily significant in statist democracies, but to answer your question, the community itself would democratically decide on a way.

With the abolishment of the government, companies can exploit people, organized crime rings can oppress/abuse people etc...

And the people would just accept these oppressors like sheep, would they?

so you consider the book jennifer government to be a depiction of a viable form of anarchism that would be possible in the real world?

I don't see why not India under the East India company proved very effective when the British government/evangelicals/white settlers weren’t interrupting money making *has clearly never read Jennifer government*

Done so in sizable populations only ever under the natural human hierarchical organization.

Depends on how "sizeable" you're talking about... and since most anarchists advocate decentralizing authority anyway, this objection doesn't hold much water.

The problem, as reasonable and mature people understand, is that the world is not composed of small bands of people anymore, and hasn't been for eons.

We're aware of that, thanks.

Population necessitates organization, which in human affairs takes an embodiment anathema to the fantasy of anarchism.

Only if it is hierarchical. No anarchist would object to voluntary egalitarian organization.

It isn't by accident or random chance that the world has turned out not to have any anarchist 'countries.'

True. Statists have always been intentional about destroying the opposition.

Depends on how "sizeable" you're talking about... and since most anarchists advocate decentralizing authority anyway, this objection doesn't hold much water.

We're aware of that, thanks.

Only if it is hierarchical. No anarchist would object to voluntary egalitarian organization.

True. Statists have always been intentional about destroying the opposition.

1) And how does one "decentralize authority" ?

"HI, I'm your neighborhood anarchist, and this area now has decentralized authority, you may not collude with other areas to centralize an authority, because this authority is now decentralized." ?

2) Ah, the plethora of 'voluntary egalitarian organization' in the world. How, pray tell, does one disestablish non-voluntary non-egalitarian organizations and establish the opposite?

Why should people be expected to forgo striving to gain at others' expense?

3) As indeed "statists" (read: people who want some advantage over other people) always have, and most likely always will.

Again, why should people be expected to forgo striving to gain at others' expense?

How, aside from unanimous or near-unanimous "refusal to be a state" can the anarchist "voluntary egalitarian organization" be brought about?

Why should people be expected to unanimously or near-unanimously refuse to be a state?


These questions all need to be answered compellingly to defend anarchism as a practical (necessary for being reasonable) model for running things in the real world.

You could perhaps call it that, but not at all like the presently existing governments.


No, but it would have to evolve into one, to make sure everything gets organized and regulated properly.


A problem primarily significant in statist democracies, but to answer your question, the community itself would democratically decide on a way.


Intresting, are you saying each community votes who they want to enforce the law and what the law is, and that it is different within each community? Wouldn't that cause problems with many convicts just running to different communities where the laws are different?


And the people would just accept these oppressors like sheep, would they?

Nope, they will just be forced to.

1) And how does one "decentralize authority" ?

"HI, I'm your neighborhood anarchist, and this area now has decentralized authority, you may not collude with other areas to centralize an authority, because this authority is now decentralized." ?

"Collud[ing]" with other areas is perfectly acceptable, as long as it occurs on the basis of free association.

I'm sure you know what "decentralization" means.

2) Ah, the plethora of 'voluntary egalitarian organization' in the world. How, pray tell, does one disestablish non-voluntary non-egalitarian organizations and establish the opposite?

The methods vary; some advocate revolution, others advocate various kinds of gradualism.

Why should people be expected to forgo striving to gain at others' expense?

Straw man. That is not the expectation.

Get rid of grievous inequities in power, and people won't be ABLE to gain at others' expense.

3) As indeed "statists" (read: people who want some advantage over other people) always have, and most likely always will.

Again, why should people be expected to forgo striving to gain at others' expense?

No reason at all. The idea is to stop them from doing so.

How, aside from unanimous or near-unanimous "refusal to be a state" can the anarchist "voluntary egalitarian organization" be brought about?

Through the overthrow of the existing states... or through their peaceful transformation through, legal democratic means... or whatever method suits you.

Why should people be expected to unanimously or near-unanimously refuse to be a state?

I don't expect that. The dissolution of the state need not be unanimous or even near-unanimous.

No, but it would have to evolve into one, to make sure everything gets organized and regulated properly.

Why?

Intresting, are you saying each community votes who they want to enforce the law and what the law is, and that it is different within each community? Wouldn't that cause problems with many convicts just running to different communities where the laws are different?

Have you ever heard of "extradition"?

Nope, they will just be forced to.

Because they're sheep? Because they're stupid? Because they're incapable of defending themselves? Why?

I think there have been multiple explications of how it would work in the real world, but it won't hurt to repeat it one more time. My take on it is as follows; people act purposefully. If people act purposefully, and they want the good of security, they will act to produce the good of security. If there are multiple people who desire security, and if there is a benefit in cooperation to provide security as opposed to doing so alone (i.e. an economy of scale of security production), then people will cooperate with one another to produce security. Same thing with basically any good or service that people could want. Through the ideals of peaceful cooperation, voluntary association and mutually beneficial exchange, there is no need for a state to provide any good or service; rather, people can provide it on their own.

If you want real world examples, you should look at medieval Ireland and medieval Iceland. Both worked upon the above principles, and both orders were quite prosperous comparatively.

no there has been NO example of how it would work in the real world. not on this thread. im still waiting for one.

preferably by an actual anarchist who has some idea of what s/he is advocating changing current systems to.

youll have to tell me what about medieval ireland and iceland was anarchic.

then youll have to tell me how that would translate into a viable system in the modern world.

small governments are still governments, arent they?

With the abolishment of the government, companies can exploit people, organized crime rings can oppress/abuse people etc...

oh and with governement there is no organised crime?
iirc the transition from 'old-fashioned' police to some kind of militia-police greatly reduced the organised crime in chiapas. but i don't have time to search for a link.

no there has been NO example of how it would work in the real world. not on this thread. im still waiting for one.

preferably by an actual anarchist who has some idea of what s/he is advocating changing current systems to.


The Diggers.

I don't see why not India under the East India company proved very effective when the British government/evangelicals/white settlers weren’t interrupting money making *has clearly never read Jennifer government*

doesnt matter.

you think that THAT model is one you would advocate if you were really an anarchist?

did it work well for the indian people?

Why?


I answered that in the second half of the statement


Have you ever heard of "extradition"?


What if a community refuses to co-operate, how would you get every community to co-operate with each other without a government.


Because they're sheep? Because they're stupid? Because they're incapable of defending themselves? Why?

Because they are weak, the oppressors are strong (hence the expression "freedom for the strong to oppress the weak")

The Diggers.

perhaps you would explain what "the diggers" means and how it is relevant to this thread?

I answered that in the second half of the statement

No, you didn't. Why is organization and regulation only possible within a statist framework?

What if a community refuses to co-operate, how would you get every community to co-operate with each other without a government.

You don't. Let the community disassociate with the others. What of it?

Because they are weak, the oppressors are strong (hence the expression "freedom for the strong to oppress the weak")

Why are the people weak?

perhaps you would explain what "the diggers" means and how it is relevant to this thread?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diggers

perhaps you would explain what "the diggers" means and how it is relevant to this thread?

Perhaps you could read the post that I was replying to and then look at the Wikipedia page you were linked to? Or learn to use Wikipedia yourself.

No, you didn't. Why is organization and regulation only possible within a statist framework?


Any form of oustide regulation or organization of other organizations is for all intensive purposes a government.


You don't. Let the community disassociate with the others. What of it?


I still feel it is very inconsistent to have a different law based on which community you live in, a national law is far more effective, otherwise organized crime will just develop far more easily.


Why are the people weak?

It's not "the people" I am talking about, but the weak people. Society can be broken down into the strong and weak, the weak being the poor and defenceless, the strong being the rich and the powerful.

Perhaps you could read the post that I was replying to and then look at the Wikipedia page you were linked to? Or learn to use Wikipedia yourself.

you have a problem wiht copy and paste?

you only posted "the diggers" in response to ME. if you had already talked about it in another post why didnt you refer me to that post?

why should everyone have to look at your link when you could just as easily post the relevant portion HERE and save us all the time?

did it work well for the indian people?

depends how you look at it east India was a monopoly so it committed some very naughty things but for the age it was practically a saint (you have to remember during this time the common European imperial strategy was pillage)

One example is that East India was very much formed of Indianised white merchants drastically different to the white settlers of the time (who eventually caused all the trouble)

Any form of oustide regulation or organization of other organizations is for all intensive purposes a government.


The key word there, I believe, is "outside". It's not government if the people regulate themselves.

depends how you look at it east India was a monopoly so it committed some very naughty things but for the age it was practically a saint (you have to remember during this time the common European imperial strategy was pillage)

One example is that East India was very much formed of Indianised white merchants drastically different to the white settlers of the time (who eventually caused all the trouble)

now thinking about it, is it a system that YOU would work to establish?

"Collud[ing]" with other areas is perfectly acceptable, as long as it occurs on the basis of free association.

I'm sure you know what "decentralization" means.

The methods vary; some advocate revolution, others advocate various kinds of gradualism.

Straw man. That is not the expectation.

Get rid of grievous inequities in power, and people won't be ABLE to gain at others' expense.

No reason at all. The idea is to stop them from doing so.

Through the overthrow of the existing states... or through their peaceful transformation through, legal democratic means... or whatever method suits you.

I don't expect that. The dissolution of the state need not be unanimous or even near-unanimous.


1) I didnt ask what decentralization means, I asked how you propose to 'decentralize authority.' By fiat? Whose?

2) Specifics! Revolution by what means, by whom and against whom. Also, explain why the revolution would be popular and how it would counteract the problems of previous revolutions like those in china and the soviet union.

What specifically is meant by gradualism here, what steps would be taken and why would they work? Who would support them, what safeguards would be in place to ensure that they werent turned against the ideals of their architects.

3) What means will be used to prevent people from colluding to gain advantage at others' expense? Why should people be expected to acquiesce in this, especially in the long-term?

4) By what means, specifically, would all states be overthrown? What mechanism would prevent states not overthrown from preying immediately on those in the chaos of being overthrown? Why should people be expected to democratically abolish their democratic government?

Lastly:

In what way is it in people's interests to abolish their government and establish a society of "decentralized authority." Who stands to gain the most from this, who stands to lose the most, and who of the two is more powerful?

What is the long-term interest in keeping a society like this? In whose interests would it be to subjugate such a society, and what safeguards would prevent that from happening?

If anarchism is to be reasonable, it has to be practical, and to do this it has to answer all of these questions compellingly and specifically .

Perhaps you could read the post that I was replying to and then look at the Wikipedia page you were linked to? Or learn to use Wikipedia yourself.

you want to return us to 1649?

no thanks

you have a problem wiht copy and paste?

you only posted "the diggers" in response to ME.
Which is why it baffled me that you didn't realise that it was a reply to your request (quoted in my reply).

why should everyone have to look at your link when you could just as easily post the relevant portion HERE and save us all the time?
Wasn't my link ;)

Furthermore, it's considered bad manners to post a huge section of a Wikipedia article in a forum. It breaks up the discussion.

Finally, calm down. It's a forum.

The key word there, I believe, is "outside". It's not government if the people regulate themselves.

But what do you mean specifically when you say the people regulate themselves?

you want to return us to 1649?

no thanks

You seem to have forgotten your original question. Read it again, just to refresh your memory.

no there has been NO example of how it would work in the real world. not on this thread. im still waiting for one.

preferably by an actual anarchist who has some idea of what s/he is advocating changing current systems to.

youll have to tell me what about medieval ireland and iceland was anarchic.

then youll have to tell me how that would translate into a viable system in the modern world.

small governments are still governments, arent they?

Iceland (http://www.mises.org/story/1121)

Ireland (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp) It is buried in the middle of the document. Use your browser's search to find "The most remarkable historical example of a society of libertarian law and courts."

If you're looking for "how that would translate into a viable system in the modern world", it would run on the fundamental axiom of human action, which is the same now as it was before and will be so long as humans exist- human beings act purposefully. It is perfect evidence that people did not need a powerful state in order to satisfy their needs, but rather were and are able to do so by individual action. You also seem to confuse "government" with "state", the latter of which anarchists oppose. A government, so long as it is merely the enforcer of the law of individual rights and is based on voluntary association, is fine. A state is an involuntary association based on hierarchy, and thus can never be acceptable.

I'd like to suggest, also, that you stop acting so belligerently to the people who are trying to debate with you. I'm not saying that you can't disagree- I'm saying that you should do so with a bit more civility.

The Diggers.

Which is why it baffled me that you didn't realise that it was a reply to your request (quoted in my reply).

Wasn't my link ;)

Furthermore, it's considered bad manners to post a huge section of a Wikipedia article in a forum. It breaks up the discussion.

Finally, calm down. It's a forum.

apparently you didnt realize that you neither posted a link nor a reference to wherever "the diggers" had been mentioned. ALL you posted was "the diggers" (see above)

dont rag on me for your error.

apparently you didnt realize that you neither posted a link nor a reference to wherever "the diggers" had been mentioned. ALL you posted was "the diggers" (see above)

Oh god! Really? Really? Really?

Check my post. The link had been given before my reply.
Now please, stop this stupid argument. Instead of a discussion about anarchy, it's turned into the Ashmoria Trivial Point Hour.

The Diggers.

You seem to have forgotten your original question. Read it again, just to refresh your memory.

the original question is how would anarchy work in the modern world

what about 1649 is applicable to the modern world?

the original question is how would anarchy work in the modern world

Well, it wasn't, but I won't "rag on you" about it.

what about 1649 is applicable to the modern world?

Please read the Wikipedia article now.

Iceland (http://www.mises.org/story/1121)

Ireland (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp) It is buried in the middle of the document. Use your browser's search to find "The most remarkable historical example of a society of libertarian law and courts."

If you're looking for "how that would translate into a viable system in the modern world", it would run on the fundamental axiom of human action, which is the same now as it was before and will be so long as humans exist- human beings act purposefully. It is perfect evidence that people did not need a powerful state in order to satisfy their needs, but rather were and are able to do so by individual action. You also seem to confuse "government" with "state", the latter of which anarchists oppose. A government, so long as it is merely the enforcer of the law of individual rights and is based on voluntary association, is fine. A state is an involuntary association based on hierarchy, and thus can never be acceptable.

I'd like to suggest, also, that you stop acting so belligerently to the people who are trying to debate with you. I'm not saying that you can't disagree- I'm saying that you should do so with a bit more civility.


im sorry but i dont debate by link

im not interested in a debate of definitions.

all i want to know is if any anarchist on this forum has a realistic model of what anarchy would be in the modern world.

either you have one or you dont.

how, for example, would you get rid of "the state"?

Well, it wasn't, but I won't "rag on you" about it.


Please read the Wikipedia article now.

i read enough of it.

how would it be applicable to the modern world?

all i want to know is if any anarchist on this forum has a realistic model of what anarchy would be in the modern world.


Anarchy could start in a variety of ways. Using my example, which you chose to ignore, it could start through a group of squatters acquiring government land and using it for agricultural purposes. Yes, there would be problems, as you could have read in the Wikipedia article, but the modern world is different. It's easier to farm, now, for example.

Some links that could be helpful would be www.strike-the-root.com , www.lewrockwell.com , www.mises.org , or any sites that those three link to. for security and defense, there's a well-written paper referring to that: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf .

Anarchism is freedom, freedom for the strong to opress the week.
Anarchism =/= anarchy.

I find it highly indicative of the general ignorance of the populace regarding anarchism that Somalia was brought up as an example of it...

As reasonable and mature people all already know, anarchism is a fantasy of the ignored margins.
Geniuses and ideologues do tend to be marginalised, so no biggy.

Anarchism needs no refutation beyond history and the common-sense thought experiment of which most people are capable that indicates people are not disposed to live together peacefully and in cooperation.
Even assuming this were true, have humans have simply stop progressing forward in time?

Like a government? Whos going to organize the vote and make sure everyone gets to vote?
Law provision need not be done by compulsion. There is also the delusion that government-provided goods are sacrosanct, and cannot be provided by the market (a view which would be held regarding footwear if shoes were government-provided).

With the abolishment of the government, companies can exploit people, organized crime rings can oppress/abuse people etc...
You're assuming that anarchism will just form out of a void, de novo. Most probably, it would be done gradually (otherwise, possibly by mass tax-rebellion, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe outlined). Agorism is a good bet too. There is reason to believe that large corporations can only exist by virtue of government fiat, and would dwindle without the State. At this point, they'd either have to employ coercion, and be resisted fiercely, and suffer massive profit-losses as a result of their consumers becoming their enemies, or they'd accept the new state of affairs. The same would apply for any other group trying to oppress the masses (i.e. they'd face resistance).

For those willing to read links, here is an idea put forward by David Friedman, an anarchocapitalist:
http://www.strike-the-root.com/62/olesen/olesen1.html

so you consider the book jennifer government to be a depiction of a viable form of anarchism that would be possible in the real world?
I haven't read this book, but what does it give as an example of anarchism? If the corporate State is what you mean, no most certainly it is not. The book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is a novel that apparently does speak of anarchism, namely anarchocapitalism apparently (for a thorough non-fictional treatment I can recommend no other than Rothbard's "For a New Liberty").

Anarchy could start in a variety of ways. Using my example, which you chose to ignore, it could start through a group of squatters acquiring government land and using it for agricultural purposes. Yes, there would be problems, as you could have read in the Wikipedia article, but the modern world is different. It's easier to farm, now, for example.

ok

so your vision of anarchy is to set up an ideal community within an existing state. your community would come together under anarchist ideals and run a farming community.

squatters implies taking land without paying for it. in what country could this be done? or is there some country where one can aquire land through a process like that of the US homestead act?

squatters implies taking land without paying for it. in what country could this be done? or is there some country where one can aquire land through a process like that of the US homestead act?

It can be done in any country. Anarchists typically don't go through legal channels to establish anarchy.

im sorry but i dont debate by link

You asked for how Ireland and Iceland were anarchistic. I thus furnished links for you. It's your loss if you take the intellectually lazy route of not reading the answer to your own question.

all i want to know is if any anarchist on this forum has a realistic model of what anarchy would be in the modern world. either you have one or you dont.

If you were paying attention you would know by now. I myself have supplied you with two models.

how, for example, would you get rid of "the state"?

Perhaps agorism. I would give you a link to it on wikipedia, but since you seem to be deathly allergic to hyperlinks I'll explain it. Basically, agorism, or economic secession, is what happened in Soviet Russia and the rest of the eastern bloc. People, instead of relying on the state, turned to grey and black markets to satisfy their needs, thus weakening the authority and coffers of the state. Agorism would also advocate tax evasion and the use of non-government currency, such as gold. I could go on, but I think I've shown the basic point.

You asked for how Ireland and Iceland were anarchistic. I thus furnished links for you. It's your loss if you take the intellectually lazy route of not reading the answer to your own question.

If you were paying attention you would know by now. I myself have supplied you with two models.


you supplied two models from the middle ages. they are interesting but not particularly relevant to the modern world.

you would now have to show how we could set up even one "medieval iceland" in the modern world.



Perhaps agorism. I would give you a link to it on wikipedia, but since you seem to be deathly allergic to hyperlinks I'll explain it. Basically, agorism, or economic secession, is what happened in Soviet Russia and the rest of the eastern bloc. People, instead of relying on the state, turned to grey and black markets to satisfy their needs, thus weakening the authority and coffers of the state. Agorism would also advocate tax evasion and the use of non-government currency, such as gold. I could go on, but I think I've shown the basic point.

thank you. the normal process is to explain what you are talking about then, perhaps, give a link to a further explanation or leave it to the other person to look it up.

i think i have a hold on what you are talking about

so, as an anarchist, you bring about this projected new more cooperative world by undermining the current state using methods such as those above? (im sure there are more to be found if i were interested in looking them up.)

how do you get from weakening the current state to establishing a more cooperative system? especially considering that you used non-cooperative methods to destroy the state. once you get people used to not obeying, how do you get them to work together?

It can be done in any country. Anarchists typically don't go through legal channels to establish anarchy.

yeah but in most countries the best farming land is already taken. this is true of the united states and europe.

how do you keep the government from coming in and rousting the lot of you? there is, for example, quite a bit of land out here in the west that is owned by the government and let lay as it is. if they find that someone has decided to squat on it, they are removed.

once you get people used to not obeying, how do you get them to work together?

Obedience doesn't mean working together. It implies a hierarchy. People would have to work together to bring about anarchy and they're have to work together to maintain it.

Anarchism =/= anarchy.

I find it highly indicative of the general ignorance of the populace regarding anarchism that Somalia was brought up as an example of it...


The expression still applies to anarchy.


Law provision need not be done by compulsion. There is also the delusion that government-provided goods are sacrosanct, and cannot be provided by the market (a view which would be held regarding footwear if shoes were government-provided).


The vote is not a consumerist good.

yeah but in most countries the best farming land is already taken. this is true of the united states and europe.
If it's already cultivated, so much the better.

how do you keep the government from coming in and rousting the lot of you?

Guns, for example. Or making it an unattractive prospect for the government to evict you. There are different options available.

Obedience doesn't mean working together. It implies a hierarchy. People would have to work together to bring about anarchy and they're have to work together to maintain it.

i know it doesnt mean the same

but when one is accustomed to obeying the laws of the country they are living in and then is convinced to NOT obey them but to act in their own best interest, avoid taxes and fees, undermine the rule of law, they THEN have to be convinced not to do those things in the new anarchic system. they would have to voluntarily pony up their fair share of the fees for the police and roads, for example. when you have millions of people avoiding those fees when levied by the state, its going to take some convincing to get them to pay them voluntarily.

people are still people after all.

If it's already cultivated, so much the better.



Guns, for example. Or making it an unattractive prospect for the government to evict you. There are different options available.

youre not being realistic

you cannot steal land from people. you cannot keep the government from evicting you from land. you having guns just gives them an excuse to act.

i know it doesnt mean the same

but when one is accustomed to obeying the laws of the country they are living in and then is convinced to NOT obey them but to act in the interests of the common good, avoid taxes and fees, undermine the rule of law, they THEN have to be convinced not to do those things in the new anarchic system. they would have to voluntarily act as police and maintain the roads, for example. when you have millions of people avoiding those fees when levied by the state, its going to take some convincing to get them to pay them voluntarily, however, if the people need roads and police to keep their own farms running, it is in their interests to maintain them.

people are still people after all.

Corrected.

you cannot steal land from people.

Oh yes you can. I know that you hate reading Wikipedia articles, but for once, do me the favour of actually reading the Diggers article, would you?

you supplied two models from the middle ages. they are interesting but not particularly relevant to the modern world.

you would now have to show how we could set up even one "medieval iceland" in the modern world.

How are they not applicable to the modern world? Technology may have progressed, but man's essence is the same. It does not follow that man could at one point be able to act with others without coercion to supply his needs for security, but be unable to decide and apply his wants now.

thank you. the normal process is to explain what you are talking about then, perhaps, give a link to a further explanation or leave it to the other person to look it up.

But I wanted to be nice to you and give you an account with authoritative sources and footnotes and all that jazz instead of just trying to quickly give you my interpretation. Can you really fault me for that?

I can still give you a summary, if that's what you want.

i think i have a hold on what you are talking about

so, as an anarchist, you bring about this projected new more cooperative world by undermining the current state using methods such as those above? (im sure there are more to be found if i were interested in looking them up.)

how do you get from weakening the current state to establishing a more cooperative system? especially considering that you used non-cooperative methods to destroy the state. once you get people used to not obeying, how do you get them to work together?

No, these are cooperative methods- people working together to satisfy one another's needs. Agorism specifically rejects the "red market"- that is, a market of violence etc. The only uncooperative element is that of the state bursting in and shooting people and throwing them in jail because people wouldn't let the state micro-manage their lives. Once the state is out of the way, they'll just keep doing what they've been doing before to satisfy their needs, and that's all they have to do in the end to have the cooperative society.

First of all, don't use dictionary definitions in arguments where they bear no relevance. Anarchism in common speech means a very different thing from anarchism as a political ideology.

Secondly, there is a difference between a STATE and a COMMUNITY. You can have town meetings without being a state.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist. The state is not a prerequisite for providing law and order. In Medieval Ireland, the judges were hired to settle disputes. There was no state to dictate law. Another example is Medieval Iceland. Of course you haven't heard of either of these places. They existed pretty peacefully on their own, and as they didn't participate in wars they aren't really mentioned in your highschool history textbook (well, besides the Irish and Icelandish poets and scientists being the last bastions of science in Europe before Charlemagne . . .).

Anyway, I'm not in the mood to go to great length defending my arguments. I've already done that a dozen times on other forums. For example, in an anarcho-capitalist society, you could and would sue industry if they dumped cyanide in your section of the river. Right now, the government doesn't allow people to own bodies of water, nor to sue industries for damages of that nature (since 1828 the courts have decided such cases are anti-business). Everything works better with competition. Insurance companies would provide police services, as such is in their interest to make money. The poor would have police, just as the poor have cars. They just wouldn't be the greatest. Of course they would be open to competition, making them infinitely better than our current coercive-monopolized police forces. A private defence agency wouldn't last a day if it commited the sort of attrocities ours does, or if it donated resources to victimless crimes. Our country was, in fact, founded on the Minarchism started by John Locke. Minarchism is one step above anarcho-capitalism, and says that the government is necessary to provide defence and nothing else. Read your declaration of independence. They had something called the Articles of Confederation which limited government in the extreme. The Federalists realized they couldn't do anything under this system (the whole point), so they scrapped it and replaced it with the Constitution. Ta-daaaa. Since that time, the government has been expanding its power, regulating business, and regulating its people, within an inch of their lives.

Like I said, I have defended this position, succesfully I might add, on debates on other forums which have stretched for pages :) I'm not in the mood to argue with a bunch of nit-wits though, so I'll leave my post at that and recommend that you read the works of the 19th-century american Individualists like Spencer.

Also, I choose to identify myself with the Libertarians (most of whom are minarchists) because they are more easily-accepted, and I think are our best bet for shrinking the government. Most anarchists are idiotic, naive fools who make dangerous assumptions about human nature (like the anarcho-syndicalists).

i know it doesnt mean the same

but when one is accustomed to obeying the laws of the country they are living in and then is convinced to NOT obey them but to act in their own best interest, avoid taxes and fees, undermine the rule of law, they THEN have to be convinced not to do those things in the new anarchic system. they would have to voluntarily pony up their fair share of the fees for the police and roads, for example. when you have millions of people avoiding those fees when levied by the state, its going to take some convincing to get them to pay them voluntarily.

people are still people after all.

first of all there would be no taxes in an anarcho-capitalistic system. and it would be in their own best interest to obey the laws of their community. who would want to trade with someone that breaks contracts etc.

i'm not a big fan of anarchocapitalism by the way, and don't know a lot of it, so my arguements could be flawed, if anyone knows more about this topic, please correct me.

The vote is not a consumerist good.
Vote, for what? You pay for the service provided by a defence agency (i.e. enforcing your right to self-defence, which you delegate to it).

Corrected.

why would scoff laws suddenly start acting in the common good?

Oh yes you can. I know that you hate reading Wikipedia articles, but for once, do me the favour of actually reading the Diggers article, would you?

only if you can convince me that the diggers isnt from 1649.

where in the modern world can you steal someone else's farmland?

you supplied two models from the middle ages. they are interesting but not particularly relevant to the modern world.

you would now have to show how we could set up even one "medieval iceland" in the modern world.
This is the usual argument for more statism - the world is more complex now, hence it should be more regulated. Incorrect. That it is more complex is precisely why it is more difficult for government to regulate. Primitive societies would be much easier to control and plan than modern ones, for various reasons (the morality of this is another issue).

first of all there would be no taxes in an anarcho-capitalistic system. and it would be in their own best interest to obey the laws of their community. who would want to trade with someone that breaks contracts etc.
Indeed. It would also mean that a person would have to be trialled in absentia if they do not choose to contract with a law-enforcement agency, and would likely have no power to appeal against a court's decision. It would also be in the best interest of the defence agencies to maximise their clientele, both for practical reasons and to maximise profit.

only if you can convince me that the diggers isnt from 1649.

I think I get it now. You read the date on the first line of the Wikipedia article, thought "booooring! It's old stuff" and refused to read any more. Ok.

where in the modern world can you steal someone else's farmland?

I live about fifteen minutes from a large section of cultivated farmland, and within sight of several acres of arable public land. Honestly, use your imagination.

Of course you haven't heard of either of these places.

I actually tried to tell him of these places earlier in the threads. He didn't want to read the links I provided him.

How are they not applicable to the modern world? Technology may have progressed, but man's essence is the same. It does not follow that man could at one point be able to act with others without coercion to supply his needs for security, but be unable to decide and apply his wants now.


saying they are applicable is not the same as showing that they are applicable.


But I wanted to be nice to you and give you an account with authoritative sources and footnotes and all that jazz instead of just trying to quickly give you my interpretation. Can you really fault me for that?

no no. you did exactly as i would have asked you to do. that wasnt criticism but sincere thanks.




No, these are cooperative methods- people working together to satisfy one another's needs. Agorism specifically rejects the "red market"- that is, a market of violence etc. The only uncooperative element is that of the state bursting in and shooting people and throwing them in jail because people wouldn't let the state micro-manage their lives. Once the state is out of the way, they'll just keep doing what they've been doing before to satisfy their needs, and that's all they have to do in the end to have the cooperative society.

ok. so you undermine the state by acting as if it didnt exist. in essense getting everyone to stop using state services and stop paying taxes and fees as much as possible.

once the government is gone, we then have to rebuild all the services we just destroyed but this is somehow not going to involve individual accumulation of money or power.

is there some place in the world where you think this tactic would work?

once the government is gone, we then have to rebuild all the services we just destroyed but this is somehow not going to involve individual accumulation of money or power.


What services would we have to rebuild? We would need hospitals, yes, and probably a certain level of infrastructure, but it's not like they'd disappear. Doctors would still exist, the facilities to treat people would still exist, but the government bodies that own them wouldn't.

I think I get it now. You read the date on the first line of the Wikipedia article, thought "booooring! It's old stuff" and refused to read any more. Ok.

thats right. thats why its your responsibility to quote the relevant paragraph.

are you saying that there are people out there today who have appropriated farmland and are living an anarchic communities?



I live about fifteen minutes from a large section of cultivated farmland, and within sight of several acres of arable public land. Honestly, use your imagination.


so do i and i say its not possible to build a community on stolen farmland.

sure you might be able to sneak to the edge and plant your own dope or steal a row or 2 of corn. thats not my impression of what you were talking about.

thats right. thats why its your responsibility to quote the relevant paragraph.


Sorry. No. You've been given the articles, you have to actually read them yourself.

are you saying that there are people out there today who have appropriated farmland and are living an anarchic communities?

Dear Ashmoria,
We don't live in an Anarchy
Thanks
Your Pal, Saint Newly


i say its not possible to build a community on stolen farmland.


Because the government will kick you off, right? There are, amazingly, ways of resisting the government.

are you saying that there are people out there today who have appropriated farmland and are living an anarchic communities?
I am not sure how the Amish organise themselves, but aren't they pretty much agrarian communities? The government leaves them alone for the most part I believe.

I may be coming in late, but I'll take my turn at the plate.

1: What is often called anarchy or anarchism by idealistic socialists is actually just a simple tribal system of government. They couldn't even make up their own term so they just stole another word.

Anarchy is lack of goverment, by dictionary and common usage.

2: So called "Anarchists" always cite primitive, tribal societies to demonstrate the effectiveness of their form of government. What they forget to take into account is that the societies they are referring to typically lived in communities of fewer than 100 people, everyone knew each other, and war with neighboring tribes/villages was a common occurence.

They also forget to mention that we now live in a technologically advanced civilization with communities numbering from the thousands to the millions. It is impossible, in todays world, for any town or city of any significance to have a population that knows each other.

The reason these tribal societies work is that everyone knows each other, thus, they can rely on interpersonal relationships to take care of any problems. If someone is found to be a thief or just doesn't want to carry their own weight, they are simply ostracized by the community. When these small, simple societies reach a size where not everybody can know each other personally, they split, not always peacefully, I might add, and one group moves down the road a bit and there is another village that the original village is in a constant state of mild war with.

When a certain geographic region becomes so saturated with these tribes and villages that they are all at a constant state of war with each other and there is no more room for another tribe, they tend to form monarchies, the simplest form of actual government. Some tribe, which happens to be stonger than the others, will rise up and declare itself ruler of the land. At first, a certain geographic area will have many monarchies, and is considerd to be a state of feudalism, but over time one of these monarchies will eventually rise to the top and you will have a greater monarchy.

Civilization has evolved like this all over the world, it is the natural state of things.

The remarkable thing about democracy, and what really sets it apart from other forms of government, is that it is not in fact a natural form of government. Democracy requires restraint and compromise, which are traits human beings do not possess when they find themselves in positions of power. Observe President Bush, one of our most human presidents, he has shown remarkably little restraint and compromise over his time in office.

In conclusion, what is inaccurately called anarchy simply cannot work in the modern world with the possible exception of a few isolated communes in sparsely populated areas. There are just far too many people.

So, "Anarchists" keep on truckin with your pipe dreams and misuse of the english language, but I wouldn't expect the world to revert to a tribal state anytime soon.

What services would we have to rebuild? We would need hospitals, yes, and probably a certain level of infrastructure, but it's not like they'd disappear. Doctors would still exist, the facilities to treat people would still exist, but the government bodies that own them wouldn't.

who would own these facilities?

who would own these facilities?

Nobody would own them.

who would own these facilities?
Depends on how the de-statisation is done. Dr Hoppe has suggested that government should turn over public facilities to the employees (using a modified strategy of syndicalists for transferring ownership), and where possible to the taxpayers.

Nobody would own them.

weren't we discussing anarcho-capitalism? wouldn't there still be private ownership in that kind of system?

weren't we discussing anarcho-capitalism? wouldn't there still be private ownership in that kind of system?
I don't think he's an anarchocapitalist. Look at my answer for a suggested method.

weren't we discussing anarcho-capitalism? wouldn't there still be private ownership in that kind of system?

I wasn't discussing Anarcho-Capitalism. I believe the others were, but Ashmoria and I were discussing the Diggers and by association Anarcho-Communism.

saying they are applicable is not the same as showing that they are applicable.

To show an example, the Iceland article commented on godi (who were chieftains) and things (who were free farmers). The godi did not have serfs and the like, but rather would contract with the things so as to provide them with law and security. They could not tax or otherwise coerce the things, because the things could simply contract with another godi. Thus an illustration of people working together to gain a good, those goods being security and law.

To apply this to a modern world, let's say that there are a number of neighborhoods in an anarchy. I offer to the people of these neighborhoods that I will protect them and arbitrate disputes between them in exchange for premiums to cover these risks (like insurance). They agree to this, and all proceeds well, the people receiving their desired security and law while I get my money. But then I turn into a dictator and start trying to order the people to do what I want them to. Instead of having to obey, they simply turn to another person to arbitrate disputes and provide them with security. Same basic concept as the medieval Iceland order, but it is completely applicable to the present world.

no no. you did exactly as i would have asked you to do. that wasnt criticism but sincere thanks.

Oh, alright. Sorry about the confusion.

ok. so you undermine the state by acting as if it didnt exist. in essense getting everyone to stop using state services and stop paying taxes and fees as much as possible.

once the government is gone, we then have to rebuild all the services we just destroyed but this is somehow not going to involve individual accumulation of money or power.

is there some place in the world where you think this tactic would work?

I never said there would be no accumulation of money in rebuilding these services; in fact, I would think it would be a profitable good to sell like cars or houses or the like. The difference between this anarchic order and the statist order is that in the anarchic order you aren't forced to buy from one supplier, but rather have the freedom of choice to compare the various services available to you and pick the one you like most, or none at all if you so wish. I imagine that this tactic of agorism would most likely be most effective in the western world, seeing as how there are longer standing traditions of trust and respect for individual rights than in other parts of the world, not to mention the high deficits and debt that would make any interruptions in the state's services and taxation all the more debilitating for the state, thus making it easier to bring down.

I don't think he's an anarchocapitalist. Look at my answer for a suggested method.

I wasn't discussing Anarcho-Capitalism. I believe the others were, but Ashmoria and I were discussing the Diggers and by association Anarcho-Communism.

oh sorry, i got confused.
so under anarchocapitalism all employees would own it. so everybody would receive equal shares.
and in anarchocommunism the everybody would be free to use it.
or am i wrong again? (i'm pretty tired after a long day of studying)

oh sorry, i got confused.
so under anarchocapitalism all employees would own it. so everybody would receive equal shares.
and in anarchocommunism the everybody would be free to use it.
or am i wrong again? (i'm pretty tired after a long day of studying)

I don't think that's far off. Except I believe your definition of anarchocapitalism is closer to that of anarchosyndicalism.

so under anarchocapitalism all employees would own it. so everybody would receive equal shares.
and in anarchocommunism the everybody would be free to use it.
It's very possible that in anarcho-capitalism, formerly state-owned enterprises will become cooperative firms, with joint share-ownership, but it would depend on the scale of the operation. As for equal shares, no. It would depend on the experience of the employee, their years of service etc.

I don't think that's far off. Except I believe your definition of anarchocapitalism is closer to that of anarchosyndicalism.

i thought anarchosyndicalism was closer to anarcho communism than to -capitalism. the most significant difference being that in syndicalism the workers own the means of production and in communism the community owns it, or something like that.

I don't think that's far off. Except I believe your definition of anarchocapitalism is closer to that of anarchosyndicalism.
No, he is correct - all property will be private under anarchocapitalism (although it may be jointly owned if individuals contract in such a manner). What he was referring to is Dr Hoppe's suggestion for the immediate destatisation of state-provided services (since finding an alternative method of privatisation for these would be hard).

i thought anarchosyndicalism was closer to anarcho communism than to -capitalism. the most significant difference being that in syndicalism the workers own the means of production and in communism the community owns it, or something like that.

Er, yeah. I dunno what I'm on about, I'm knackered.

Well, I guess no one can come up with a counter for my arguments so the discussion just devolved into a debate about the definitions of made-up words.

VICTORY! The sensible party wins again!

Hooray me! :D

Well, I guess no one can come up with a counter for my arguments so the discussion just devolved into a debate about the definitions of made-up words.

VICTORY! The sensible party wins again!

Hooray me! :D

Yep, you showed us.

Yep, you showed us.

Yeah, it was pretty awesome.

youre not being realistic

you cannot steal land from people. you cannot keep the government from evicting you from land. you having guns just gives them an excuse to act.

Have you heard of FARC-EP and the Colombian situation? It seems to me that it must have passed by you, cause that is excactly what has happend.

Well, I guess no one can come up with a counter for my arguments so the discussion just devolved into a debate about the definitions of made-up words.

VICTORY! The sensible party wins again!

Hooray me! :D

Way to go! You beat us!

... whatever it was you said.

Have you heard of FARC-EP and the Colombian situation? It seems to me that it must have passed by you, cause that is excactly what has happend.

:fluffle: I'd forgotten about them

Sorry. No. You've been given the articles, you have to actually read them yourself.

Dear Ashmoria,
We don't live in an Anarchy
Thanks
Your Pal, Saint Newly



Because the government will kick you off, right? There are, amazingly, ways of resisting the government.

so you have no plan for anarchy in the modern world.

ok.

so you have no plan for anarchy in the modern world.

ok.

When did I say that?

I am not sure how the Amish organise themselves, but aren't they pretty much agrarian communities? The government leaves them alone for the most part I believe.

considering the way the amish organize their communities, do they really qualify as anarchic?

im not saying that you couldnt have an anarchic commune. its possible on a limited basis.

im not sure how many anarchists are interested in such a small scale experiment. if thats what they mean by advocating anarchy, then more power to them.

considering the way the amish organize their communities, do they really qualify as anarchic?
Oh, I doubt they are. My point is just that it would seem that radically different societies can exist successfully in without significant problems. Perhaps this would bode well for anarchical agrarian communities, in that they can exist alongside the rest of the world without fear of disintigreation?

im not saying that you couldnt have an anarchic commune. its possible on a limited basis.

im not sure how many anarchists are interested in such a small scale experiment. if thats what they mean by advocating anarchy, then more power to them.
Ideally, we'd argue that the more who joined our side the better. But to be honest, I'd be happy with small experiments to begin with. If anything, it would put the theory to the test of reality in its entirety.

To show an example, the Iceland article commented on godi (who were chieftains) and things (who were free farmers). The godi did not have serfs and the like, but rather would contract with the things so as to provide them with law and security. They could not tax or otherwise coerce the things, because the things could simply contract with another godi. Thus an illustration of people working together to gain a good, those goods being security and law.

To apply this to a modern world, let's say that there are a number of neighborhoods in an anarchy. I offer to the people of these neighborhoods that I will protect them and arbitrate disputes between them in exchange for premiums to cover these risks (like insurance). They agree to this, and all proceeds well, the people receiving their desired security and law while I get my money. But then I turn into a dictator and start trying to order the people to do what I want them to. Instead of having to obey, they simply turn to another person to arbitrate disputes and provide them with security. Same basic concept as the medieval Iceland order, but it is completely applicable to the present world.



where are these homogenous neighborhoods coming from? today neighbors cant agree on what color to paint their front doors (and can come to blows over the issue of having acceptable colors at all). why would they suddenly cooperate?

what if i dont agree to your settlement of my dispute? if im bound, you may as well be my current municiple judge.



I never said there would be no accumulation of money in rebuilding these services; in fact, I would think it would be a profitable good to sell like cars or houses or the like. The difference between this anarchic order and the statist order is that in the anarchic order you aren't forced to buy from one supplier, but rather have the freedom of choice to compare the various services available to you and pick the one you like most, or none at all if you so wish. I imagine that this tactic of agorism would most likely be most effective in the western world, seeing as how there are longer standing traditions of trust and respect for individual rights than in other parts of the world, not to mention the high deficits and debt that would make any interruptions in the state's services and taxation all the more debilitating for the state, thus making it easier to bring down.

and how would your new money system be different from the current tyranny of the corporations? whats to stop anyone from accumulating money and power?

Have you heard of FARC-EP and the Colombian situation? It seems to me that it must have passed by you, cause that is excactly what has happend.

no i havent. do you think that colombia is or will become an anarchic state because of this?

When did I say that?

when you never said how anarchism would work in the modern world.

anyone can do anarchistic things like poach on someone else's farmland or blow up a building. that is not anarchism working in the modern world. thats just tactics.

when you never said how anarchism would work in the modern world.

anyone can do anarchistic things like poach on someone else's farmland or blow up a building. that is not anarchism working in the modern world. thats just tactics.

I think your argument is floundering a little here. I already said how anarchy could come about, how the anarchocommunist society would be structured, and examples from the past of similar societies working.
You've failed to refute, or in most cases address the points I raised, instead ignoring them for the sake of your argument.

I think your argument is floundering a little here. I already said how anarchy could come about, how the anarchocommunist society would be structured, and examples from the past of similar societies working.
You've failed to refute, or in most cases address the points I raised, instead ignoring them for the sake of your argument.

so your anarchic ideal is poaching a farm with a bunch of friends?

i dont think that will cover the whole world but if its your plan, good luck with it.

so your anarchic ideal is poaching a farm with a bunch of friends?

No, but interestingly enough, that would be a sustainable anarchy, should it be sufficiently defended from landowners and the government. Very imaginative of you.

i dont think that will cover the whole world but if its your plan, good luck with it.

Here's a fun challenge: Find the part where I said the anarchy should be global.

I think your argument is floundering a little here. I already said how anarchy could come about, how the anarchocommunist society would be structured, and examples from the past of similar societies working.
You've failed to refute, or in most cases address the points I raised, instead ignoring them for the sake of your argument.

my argument is FOUNDERING here because i dont have an argument.

all im asking for is an anarchist to tell me how anarchy would work in the modern world.

so far its either very small scale or requiring an unrealistic level of cooperation and peacefulness in people.

No, but interestingly enough, that would be a sustainable anarchy, should it be sufficiently defended from landowners and the government. Very imaginative of you.


Here's a fun challenge: Find the part where I said the anarchy should be global.

hey, as i said to others, if all you want out of anarchy is a commune, go for it. i dont see the point of getting all political about it though.

my argument is FOUNDERING here because i dont have an argument.


Oh my god! I used a letter "l" incorrectly! You are right. I hereby renounce my worldview.

anarchism means a lack of rulers, not of rules.

Wrong.The meaning of "anarchy" is about the same as "chaos".I believe what you seek is libertarianism,although you are not aware of it.

hey, as i said to others, if all you want out of anarchy is a commune, go for it. i dont see the point of getting all political about it though.

So a political opinion can either be on a tiny scale, or internationalist?
Talk about black-and-white.

Wrong.The meaning of "anarchy" is about the same as "chaos".I believe what you seek is libertarianism,although you are not aware of it.
No. Anarchism (as political ideology) is the lack of a State (defined as a territorial monopoly of justice, with the power to tax). What form it may take depends on the ideology advocated. It can indeed be subsumed under the libertarian-left and -right movements though.

So a political opinion can either be on a tiny scale, or internationalist?
Talk about black-and-white.

they can be personal or societal. if you want to work to make your own life anarchist, go for it.

working to make society anarchist, except for convincing people to make it their personal philosophy, is something else completely

if one can be an anarchist and a democrat, its not all that political.

1) I didnt ask what decentralization means, I asked how you propose to 'decentralize authority.' By fiat? Whose?

By any of the ways political change typically takes place... with the condition that the process must be libertarian in means as well as in ends, so as to avoid the sorts of centralization whose removal is desired.

2) Specifics!

Whose? I didn't give specifics because views vary. Substantially.

Me, I'm flexible. I don't like violence and I don't like electoral politics; I'd prefer to do it by organizing the political institutions, or at least their foundations, first, and then using mass direct action to move the state in the right direction.

3) What means will be used to prevent people from colluding to gain advantage at others' expense?

No system is perfect, and it's absurd to expect anarchism to avoid ALL such collusion.

However, the idea is that the voluntary character of association, and the radically democratic manner of regulating its conditions, would prevent the more grievous abuses of power by continually ensuring that all the members of the community have a voice, and have options if they wish to leave.

Why should people be expected to acquiesce in this, especially in the long-term?

Because freedom benefits them.

4) By what means, specifically, would all states be overthrown?

Again, this varies between anarchists... and perhaps more importantly, would vary based on circumstance.

What mechanism would prevent states not overthrown from preying immediately on those in the chaos of being overthrown?

Firstly, popular resistance to any such invasion would make such an attempt highly costly, and secondly, war is just generally not profitable for states anymore.

Why should people be expected to democratically abolish their democratic government?

Again, because freedom benefits them.

If the people don't ever agree with anarchist principles, I don't expect them to be applied - indeed, by their very nature, they could NEVER be applied upon such a populace.

In what way is it in people's interests to abolish their government and establish a society of "decentralized authority."

It is in their interests for the same reason democracy is in their interests - it permits them greater freedom in choosing how their society is run, and permits them to better advance their own welfare, rather than having the course of their lives dictated to them by hierarchies.

Who stands to gain the most from this,

The bottom 60% of the population or so - those who would be most benefitted by a socialist economy that can be kept effectively accountable by direct public control.

who stands to lose the most,

Those at the top of the statist-capitalist hierarchies that rule our society.

and who of the two is more powerful?

Probably the former, in terms of "who would win in a fight?" Most of the power of the powerful is a legal illusion enforced by the state; a large-scale rejection of the present framework on the part of ordinary people would be fairly effective at collapsing the system.

What is the long-term interest in keeping a society like this?

I've answered this question more than once already.

In whose interests would it be to subjugate such a society,

This one really depends on the circumstances.

and what safeguards would prevent that from happening?

In a world dominated by states and corporations, an organized military of the anarchist federation would probably be necessary, though somewhat inconsistent with anarchist principle.

where are these homogenous neighborhoods coming from? today neighbors cant agree on what color to paint their front doors (and can come to blows over the issue of having acceptable colors at all). why would they suddenly cooperate?

what if i dont agree to your settlement of my dispute? if im bound, you may as well be my current municiple judge.

I wasn't aware that your average neighborhood is critical mass of tension waiting to explode into violence. They would want some way to not have to get into fisticuffs every second that they have a disagreement that they cannot resolve, and they would want some kind of security to keep them from being aggressed upon. Hence, why they would buy services that would better allow them to cooperate, instead of having to do so entirely by themselves.

If you don't agree to the settlement of my dispute, when you signed a contract that said that you would abide to my ruling, then you are in trouble. I can take it from you by force if you will not uphold your end of the bargain. Even if I don't, your credit rating will probably plummet, and people will be far more reluctant to deal with you seeing as how your word is not your bond and you are not trustworthy.

and how would your new money system be different from the current tyranny of the corporations? whats to stop anyone from accumulating money and power?

Well, there wouldn't be corporate personhood, seeing as how that's an entirely state-made protection. They wouldn't have subsidies or monopolies, either, so they would be all the more dependent on satisfying their consumers, employees and partners. That's just a few I can think of off the top of my head.

I wasn't aware that your average neighborhood is critical mass of tension waiting to explode into violence. They would want some way to not have to get into fisticuffs every second that they have a disagreement that they cannot resolve, and they would want some kind of security to keep them from being aggressed upon. Hence, why they would buy services that would better allow them to cooperate, instead of having to do so entirely by themselves.

If you don't agree to the settlement of my dispute, when you signed a contract that said that you would abide to my ruling, then you are in trouble. I can take it from you by force if you will not uphold your end of the bargain. Even if I don't, your credit rating will probably plummet, and people will be far more reluctant to deal with you seeing as how your word is not your bond and you are not trustworthy.


youve never been to a homeowners association meeting have you?

Well, there wouldn't be corporate personhood, seeing as how that's an entirely state-made protection. They wouldn't have subsidies or monopolies, either, so they would be all the more dependent on satisfying their consumers, employees and partners. That's just a few I can think of off the top of my head.
Add to this that aggressions against property (such as pollution) and person (such as fraud) under a libertarian law code will be punishable to their fullest extent, unlike the present situation where courts often refuse to allow class actions against polluters or even recognise pollution as a property violation as this they argue would hamper industry. This will force malicious producers to rethink their strategies, and exit the market if they cannot provide via efficiency.

youve never been to a homeowners association meeting have you?

I don't know about you, but I haven't had any fist fights with my neighbors recently, so I think people can cooperate fairly well. And the arbitration backup would encourage the resolution of disputes before they get sent up, so no one would have to spend money on court fees.

Add to this that aggressions against property (such as pollution) and person (such as fraud) under a libertarian law code will be punishable to their fullest extent, unlike the present situation where courts often refuse to allow class actions against or even recognise pollution as a property violation as this they argue would hamper industry. This will force malicious producers to rethink their strategies, and exit the market if they cannot provide via efficiency.

Exactly. :D

No. Anarchism (as political ideology) is the lack of a State (defined as a territorial monopoly of justice, with the power to tax). What form it may take depends on the ideology advocated. It can indeed be subsumed under the libertarian-left and -right movements though.

Hah, you wish. Anarchism is against all authorities and domination, from the largest state the smallest rapist and everything in between.

Hah, you wish. Anarchism is against all authorities and domination, from the largest state the smallest rapist and everything in between.
To democratic councils (ie majoritarian authority)? Yes, in which case it devolves into pure anarchy, and is of no merit as an ideology, since if that were the definition nothing short of permanent rebellion could fall under its description.

Tell me, anarchists of NS, how could anarchy work, when as we know, humans are naturally selfish. There is no way that such a system could work, not in theory, not in fact.

Very true, Buristan. Amen.

Well, my ideal method, speaking from the point of view of an American, goes as follows:

A bunch of people who wish to form an anarchist community form a town. They hold all meetings directly democratically. The town taxes the citizens at the rate that isn't taken up by all the other taxes in the U.S., and the citizens make decisions, democratically, again, on how the money will be spent.
Once the town has a few goals, such as sustaining its own food production and some entertainment, it becomes a city. The city will be a little bit bigger, but I believe that with current technology direct democracy is possible with groups of at least 1,000 people. The city's goals will be to have schools, its own medical facilities, and methods for crime prevention.
Once the city reaches its goals, the city becomes its own state (in the U.S. meaning). The state will have a little bit more money to spend, and will have greater goals, such as having its own college or university, its own standing military, etc. It might be a good idea to acquire 2 or 3 nukes at this point.
Once the state achieves its goals, the state secedes, via democratic methods. Many people say that the Constitution forbids secession, but secession has never been tried Constitutionally, so that seems like quite the assertion.
Once the community secedes, it can form its own confederacy of communities, with each setting up their own laws.


Like I said, I have defended this position, succesfully I might add, on debates on other forums which have stretched for pages :) Ooh, pages. I quiver in awe of your awesomeness. :rolleyes:

Well, I guess no one can come up with a counter for my arguments What arguments?

Well, my ideal method, speaking from the point of view of an American, goes as follows:

A bunch of people who wish to form an anarchist community form a town. They hold all meetings directly democratically. The town taxes the citizens at the rate that isn't taken up by all the other taxes in the U.S., and the citizens make decisions, democratically, again, on how the money will be spent.
Once the town has a few goals, such as sustaining its own food production and some entertainment, it becomes a city. The city will be a little bit bigger, but I believe that with current technology direct democracy is possible with groups of at least 1,000 people. The city's goals will be to have schools, its own medical facilities, and methods for crime prevention.
Once the city reaches its goals, the city becomes its own state (in the U.S. meaning). The state will have a little bit more money to spend, and will have greater goals, such as having its own college or university, its own standing military, etc. It might be a good idea to acquire 2 or 3 nukes at this point.
Once the state achieves its goals, the state secedes, via democratic methods. Many people say that the Constitution forbids secession, but secession has never been tried Constitutionally, so that seems like quite the assertion.
Once the community secedes, it can form its own confederacy of communities, with each setting up their own laws.


im unclear about the meaning of the bolded part. does that mean that the town would take all moneys earned by the people that arent being taken by the government already?

do you think that this is a realistic plan in the united states?

have you studied up on communes and other idealistic communities in the US? what about current towns that are governed by "town meetings" rather than councils?

do you hope to try this out some day?

where would you find a good spot for a town where a town doesnt exist now?

do many anarchists have good farming skills?

im unclear about the meaning of the bolded part. does that mean that the town would take all moneys earned by the people that arent being taken by the government already?Yes. The point is to institute communism, and this is a roundabout, if flawed, way to do it.

do you think that this is a realistic plan in the united states? Yes and no. I'm not entirely certain if it's legal for a town to tax at a higher rate than a state. If it is, then yes, I think it's realistic.

have you studied up on communes and other idealistic communities in the US? what about current towns that are governed by "town meetings" rather than councils?No, but I do participate in an organization that is run, for the most part, via direct democracy.

do you hope to try this out some day? Yes, I'd like to.

where would you find a good spot for a town where a town doesnt exist now? Most likely out west somewhere...eastern Montana or northern Wyoming.

do many anarchists have good farming skills?I'm not certain, though many of the anarchists that I know seem to enjoy it.

I'm not certain, though many of the anarchists that I know seem to enjoy it.
Farming, maybe. Plumbing? :) The problem is for us highly abstract individuals to convince the more grounded ones to join us in order to do work we are loathe doing. :D

Farming, maybe. Plumbing? :) The problem is for us highly abstract individuals to convince the more grounded ones to join us in order to do work we are loathe doing. :DLol. I'm not certain about plumbing. If worse comes to worst, we'll all use outhouses.

"Collud[ing]" with other areas is perfectly acceptable, as long as it occurs on the basis of free association.

I'm sure you know what "decentralization" means.

The methods vary; some advocate revolution, others advocate various kinds of gradualism.

Straw man. That is not the expectation.

Get rid of grievous inequities in power, and people won't be ABLE to gain at others' expense.

No reason at all. The idea is to stop them from doing so.

Through the overthrow of the existing states... or through their peaceful transformation through, legal democratic means... or whatever method suits you.

I don't expect that. The dissolution of the state need not be unanimous or even near-unanimous.


1) I didnt ask what decentralization means, I asked how you propose to 'decentralize authority.' By fiat? Whose?

2) Specifics! Revolution by what means, by whom and against whom. Also, explain why the revolution would be popular and how it would counteract the problems of previous revolutions like those in china and the soviet union.

What specifically is meant by gradualism here, what steps would be taken and why would they work? Who would support them, what safeguards would be in place to ensure that they werent turned against the ideals of their architects.

3) What means will be used to prevent people from colluding to gain advantage at others' expense? Why should people be expected to acquiesce in this, especially in the long-term?

4) By what means, specifically, would all states be overthrown? What mechanism would prevent states not overthrown from preying immediately on those in the chaos of being overthrown? Why should people be expected to democratically abolish their democratic government?

Lastly:

In what way is it in people's interests to abolish their government and establish a society of "decentralized authority." Who stands to gain the most from this, who stands to lose the most, and who of the two is more powerful?

What is the long-term interest in keeping a society like this? In whose interests would it be to subjugate such a society, and what safeguards would prevent that from happening?

If anarchism is to be reasonable, it has to be practical, and to do this it has to answer all of these questions compellingly and specifically .

1) I didnt ask what decentralization means, I asked how you propose to 'decentralize authority.' By fiat? Whose?

2) Specifics! Revolution by what means, by whom and against whom. Also, explain why the revolution would be popular and how it would counteract the problems of previous revolutions like those in china and the soviet union.

What specifically is meant by gradualism here, what steps would be taken and why would they work? Who would support them, what safeguards would be in place to ensure that they werent turned against the ideals of their architects.

3) What means will be used to prevent people from colluding to gain advantage at others' expense? Why should people be expected to acquiesce in this, especially in the long-term?

4) By what means, specifically, would all states be overthrown? What mechanism would prevent states not overthrown from preying immediately on those in the chaos of being overthrown? Why should people be expected to democratically abolish their democratic government?

Lastly:

In what way is it in people's interests to abolish their government and establish a society of "decentralized authority." Who stands to gain the most from this, who stands to lose the most, and who of the two is more powerful?

What is the long-term interest in keeping a society like this? In whose interests would it be to subjugate such a society, and what safeguards would prevent that from happening?

If anarchism is to be reasonable, it has to be practical, and to do this it has to answer all of these questions compellingly and specifically .

1) That's what the revolution is for.

2) The working class, through direct action and general strikes, appropriates the means of production, ending private ownership of productive property, and creating socialism. At the same time, direct action is taken to severely weaken the power of the state to shore up bourgeious interests.

3) This is where direct democracy and public ownership comes in. One cannot conspire against the community, as political and economic decision making are distributed more or less equally.

4) The state is abolished by making it irrelevant. It can no longer control the means of production, the majority of the populace no longer heeds its decrees. It becomes irrelevant and either withers away (not in a Marxist fashion) or is abolished outright.

5) It is the majority of people's interest to establish anarchy because the state exists solely as a means of hierarchal control. It serves the interests of the ruling class, who stand to lose much with anarchy. But the majority of people have everything to gain (freedom, equality, self-management, solidarity)

1) That's what the revolution is for.

2) The working class, through direct action and general strikes, appropriates the means of production, ending private ownership of productive property, and creating socialism. At the same time, direct action is taken to severely weaken the power of the state to shore up bourgeious interests.

3) This is where direct democracy and public ownership comes in. One cannot conspire against the community, as political and economic decision making are distributed more or less equally.

4) The state is abolished by making it irrelevant. It can no longer control the means of production, the majority of the populace no longer heeds its decrees. It becomes irrelevant and either withers away (not in a Marxist fashion) or is abolished outright.

5) It is the majority of people's interest to establish anarchy because the state exists solely as a means of hierarchal control. It serves the interests of the ruling class, who stand to lose much with anarchy. But the majority of people have everything to gain (freedom, equality, self-management, solidarity)


1) What is "direct action?" How specifically and in detail do strikes and 'direct action' "appropriate the means of production?"

2) What "direct action" weakens the government?

3) What safeguards are there that a new government wont emerge?

4) What will force people not to elect a new government when they have democratic rights?

5) Why can't one "conspire against the community?"

6) How are "political and economic decisions making distributed more or less equally?"

7) Why would people abolish the police, the military, &c, that comprise the government? How would they do this? By whom would it be abolished

8) Why is "heirarchical control" against anyone's interests? Why would things be more efficient without "heirarchical control" and, in detail, what measures would be in place to prevent people from establishing new heirachies?

9) What safeguard would there be against other states taking advantage of the weakness and chaos of anarchy to invade or pillage?

10) What safeguards would there be agaisnt the strong, the smart and the willfull taking power over the weak?

?

1) What is "direct action?" How specifically and in detail do strikes and 'direct action' "appropriate the means of production?"

2) What "direct action" weakens the government?

3) What safeguards are there that a new government wont emerge?

4) What will force people not to elect a new government when they have democratic rights?

5) Why can't one "conspire against the community?"

6) How are "political and economic decisions making distributed more or less equally?"

7) Why would people abolish the police, the military, &c, that comprise the government? How would they do this? By whom would it be abolished

8) Why is "heirarchical control" against anyone's interests? Why would things be more efficient without "heirarchical control" and, in detail, what measures would be in place to prevent people from establishing new heirachies?

9) What safeguard would there be against other states taking advantage of the weakness and chaos of anarchy to invade or pillage?

10) What safeguards would there be agaisnt the strong, the smart and the willfull taking power over the weak?

?

1) Protests, strikes, sit-ins... the list goes on. Basically, you force those in power to give it up.

2) Same as above. Strikes and protests, civil disobedience, establishemnt of alternative institutions, stuff like that.

3) The safeguard is direct democracy. IF they really want to vote in a new state, they will, but if they don't, chances are it won't happen.

4) They can if they want. But why would they?

5) Because the community won't let you.

Seems like the more I think I know
The more I find I don't
Every answer opens up so many questions

Anarchy sounds good to me
Then someone asks, "Who'd fix the sewers?"
"Would the rednecks just play king
Of the neighborhood?"


How many liberators
Really want to be dictators
Every theory has its holes
When real life steps in


So how do we feed
And make room for
All the people crowded on our earth
And transfer all that wealth
From the rich to those who need it


Where Do Ya Draw the Line
Where Do Ya Draw the Line
I'm not telling you
I'm asking you


Ever notice hard line radicals
Can go on star trips too
Where no one's pure and right
Except themselves


"I'm cleansed of the system."
('Cept when my amp needs electric power)
Or - "The Party Line says no.
Feminists can't wear fishnets."


You wanna help stop war?
Well, we reject your application
You crack too many jokes
And you eat meat


What better way to turn people off
Than to twist ideas for change
Into one more church
That forgets we're all human beings
Where do ya draw the line


In Toronto someone blew up
A cruise missile warhead plant
10 slightly hurt, 4 million dollars damage


Why not destroy private property
When it's used against you and me
Is that violence
- Or self-defense
You tell me


Where Do Ya Draw the Line
I'm not telling you, I'm asking you
Where Do Ya Draw the Line
I'm not telling you, I'm asking you
Where Do Ya Draw the Line?

Who would provide the sewers? The private sector silly. They would be competing and we would thus get the best service available. Why should the rich give up their money for the poor. There are charities. Everybody's possessions belong to them, and forced "sharing" is a step towards communism.

Who would provide the sewers? The private sector silly. They would be competing and we would thus get the best service available. Why should the rich give up their money for the poor. There are charities. Everybody's possessions belong to them, and forced "sharing" is a step towards communism.

So what?

Who would provide the sewers? The private sector silly. They would be competing and we would thus get the best service available. Why should the rich give up their money for the poor. There are charities. Everybody's possessions belong to them, and forced "sharing" is a step towards communism.And since communism is a form of anarchism, what's your point?

And since communism is a form of anarchism, what's your point?

Are you stoned or just stupid?

Are you stoned or just stupid?
Whilst I happen to disagree with Jello and agree with you, I do not see why either of the above should apply to him. People have differences in opinion. Either deal with it by way of argumentation, or make a friend in silence.

Are you stoned or just stupid?

option c - factually correct. look it up.

Anarchism - abolishment of state
Communism - the state controls all aspects of the economy to keep things equal.

There are "anarcho-communists", but it is utopian in the extreme to believe that you can abolish capitalism (i.e. trading goods and services) AND the government.

You should read up on anarcho-capitalism and the various American anarchists of the 19th century.

Look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-Capitalism

Are you stoned or just stupid?

Neither, he's just talking about fantasy.

He may as well be saying "well, unicorns are a KIND of gnome!"

What he means is that fairytale communism, the made-up kind, not the real kind, in which everyone just magically gets along for the common good is the same as fairytale anarchism, the made-up kind, not the real kind, where everyone just magically gets along for the common good.