NationStates Jolt Archive

My question is why are the top states almost all anarchist states? In my opinion an anarchist state would do the worst of all the kinds of government aside from a corrupt, or oppressive government.

Also is the form of government known as Anarchy here a government that does not abide by the common rules of other countries/ the UN, or is it a state with no real government just anarchy? In my opinion it can't really be anarchy unless there is no government at all, which would not be very easily kept due to most people's need for a stable day to day life; thus the creation of a government out of anarchy.

My question is why are the top states almost all anarchist states?

I'm guessing your talking about the NS top nation-thingy well really its because all they have done is answer the most free (or whatever) on every issue and done so for a few years

so really its just that NS was built to only last a few months

In my opinion an anarchist state would do the worst of all the kinds of government aside from a corrupt, or oppressive government.

what governments aren't corrupt?

Also is the form of government known as Anarchy here a government that does not abide by the common rules of other countries/ the UN, or is it a state with no real government just anarchy? In my opinion it can't really be anarchy unless there is no government at all

1) in NS anarchy is just another government course in real life it could still obey the U.N just on a commune level

2) legitimate government involves a monopoly on the use of force so there is nothing to say people can't get organized like in ye olde olde times of tribes and such

most people's need for a stable day to day life; thus the creation of a government out of anarchy.

don't be silly look at how unhappy people are in even the most wealthiest of nations whilst small farming communities remain happy

course people have steady day to day lives with or without government, whats to stop you working 9-5?

don't be silly look at how unhappy people are in even the most wealthiest of nations whilst small farming communities remain happy

course people have steady day to day lives with or without government, whats to stop you working 9-5?
People may be unhappy in some nations, but that doesn't mean there lives are not stable, but total anarchy cannot last long before people put together at least unsaid rules.


2) legitimate government involves a monopoly on the use of force so there is nothing to say people can't get organized like in ye olde olde times of tribes and such

That usually becomes true after the original government is set up. A government may come into power through force, or through the people choosing. Usually both become stable because they as you put it hold a monopoly on the use of force, because a government will not change on its own accord; force may be necessary to stay in power, and to keep the people together, and in line.

People may be unhappy in some nations, but that doesn't mean there lives are not stable

so even if there unhappy with it, they will be stable or else?

why makes you think anarchy won't have stability?

but total anarchy cannot last long before people put together at least unsaid rules.

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

the difference between laws in an anarchist commune and that of a state is that in anarchy you can just go "okay I don't agree" and just go to whatever community makes you happy there is no "do this or else" involved

updated to last edit I read:

force may be necessary to stay in power, and to keep the people together, and in line.

1) there is no real power sure some guy can get elected to represent or make some decisions but there is no real power in the position

2) people need to be kept together? (reminds me of Putin bitching about Scotland's independence movement :p)

3) in line? militias can deal with any defense/policing that is required, course it won't be fair and just more an angry mob but thats another story

so even if there unhappy with it, they will be stable or else?

why makes you think anarchy won't have stability?


Because the way I see anarchy is the lack of stability. Without the slightest hint of any rule system. And without rules you have chaos, and I don't think people can maintain a stable life in chaos; this is why dictators come into power: because people want someone that can sort things out for them, and as long as they have stability; good, or bad they will be contempt. Most revolutions start because of the lack of everyday necessities; mainly food. Because without food people cannot maintain stability. As long as the majority of people can work, have a sheltered place to sleep and have food on the table they will remain contempt, but when that goes away the possibility of revolution arises.

I'm only 15, and I don't know a lot about this sort of thing, which is why I am posting. I suppose if I post my opinions on these things, and people show me the flaws in them then I can learn something.

Because the way I see anarchy is the lack of stability. Without the slightest hint of any rule system. And without rules you have chaos

human nature provides stability on its own, the human race has lasted (and in some parts continues to) without any thugs assuming power and demanding money in return

this is why dictators come into power:

no warlords (I beleive is the word your looking for) come to power when they have a big group of muscle men followers kind of like the bullies at a school do only without teachers

then comes everything else that leads to now i.e nerds tired of wedgies rising up

because people want someone that can sort things out for them, and as long as they have stability; good, or bad they will be contempt.

groups do form leaders however its a big leap from people asking someone what to do next and people being told what to do next

Most revolutions start because of the lack of everyday necessities; mainly food. Because without food people cannot maintain stability. As long as the majority of people can work, have a sheltered place to sleep and have food on the table they will remain contempt, but when that goes away the possibility of revolution arises.

prisons and such traditionally get used as tools to counter any revolution after all lets say that by rising up your significant other would be sent to the dungeons, unless your absolutely desperate you won't be normally willing to take that sort of risk (though to be fair silent and bloodless revolutions are far more common look at Gandhi's, Martin Luther King's movements for example)

I'm only 15, and I don't know a lot about this sort of thing, which is why I am posting. I suppose if I post my opinions on these things, and people show me the flaws in them then I can learn something.

don't worry I only really learnt this a few months ago so you got 2 years yet :)

in my opinion your opinion is wrong.

in my opinion your opinion is wrong.

wasn't that far off was I?

wasn't that far off was I?

not yours, quarto-wotsits. i was taking the piss out of the OP.

Kind of ridiculous, since anarchy is no government, not no rules.
Well, no rules too, but just against all authority.
Well, not just against all authority, but against all authority too.
But not because someone posted it on a forum,
just against all authority including things people list on forums.



I can only guess it is self-serving when Libertarians try and claim
their philosophy is "anarchy". Um, not exactly. You still have this
authority called a government which you refuse to let people get rid
of from their lives completely.

And especially when these Libertarians have control of a lot of the resources.
It seems like they only want gov't away from doing anything that
might harm THEIR authority over control of resources...and thus other people.
i.e. be the authority, de facto government

Because the way I see anarchy is the lack of stability. Without the slightest hint of any rule system.

You are confusing not having rules with not having rulers.

While FSA is the only nation I care about maintaining, I have done a few experiments of all kinds with other nations. I tested anarchism, and was disappointed.

The only way to achieve anarchism in this game is far right libertarianism, which isn't anarchism at all. It's just anarcho-capitalism.

Mr. Max Barry and/or his programmers need to learn that most anarchists are anarcho-syndicalists and not anti-government pro-market.

While FSA is the only nation I care about maintaining, I have done a few experiments of all kinds with other nations. I tested anarchism, and was disappointed.

The only way to achieve anarchism in this game is far right libertarianism, which isn't anarchism at all. It's just anarcho-capitalism.

Mr. Max Barry and/or his programmers need to learn that most anarchists are anarcho-syndicalists and not anti-government pro-market.


yeah.
a couple years ago when i came here the first time i suggested they try some scenarios so you could not allow the legal entities that are corporations in your country. you know, you could not allow the laws that create corporations and just have regular businesses instead.
while that is not exactly anarchism, or even communism or any other specific ideology, it would put a whole new twist on things.
see http://www.poclad.org for my reasoning behind this.



somebody flipped out on me and told me I didn't even know what the book was about. I had just joined nationstates
I admitted I did not and thought I had stumbled upon an online game that someone made a book about.

You are confusing not having rules with not having rulers.

Indeed.

A post of mine, some of which addresses the meaning of "anarchy," can be found here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13030072&postcount=103

In NationStates, an Anarchy is a nation that has such high levels of freedom, the government has essentially giving away all of its authority to the citizens. Since there are no restrictions on freedom at all, there is no government. Therefore, any time a ranking comes up that deals with freedoms, Anarchies are going to top the list.

The only way to achieve anarchism in this game is far right libertarianism, which isn't anarchism at all.

Not true.

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=the%20loyal%20opposition

The Loyal Opposition is currently a "Civil Rights Lovefest" which is one step away from "Anarchy." Note the 39% income tax rate and "Imploded" economy. Hardly far right libertarianism. Now, if it can manage to abolish the last 1% of its "Administration" budget (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/nationdata.cgi/nation=the%20loyal%20opposition) (presumably via a "pro-economy" response to an issue), it will indeed be an anti-far-right-libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism) anarchy. :D

Not true.

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=the%20loyal%20opposition

The Loyal Opposition is currently a "Civil Rights Lovefest" which is one step away from "Anarchy." Note the 39% income tax rate and "Imploded" economy. Hardly far right libertarianism. Now, if it can manage to abolish the last 1% of its "Administration" budget (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/nationdata.cgi/nation=the%20loyal%20opposition) (presumably via a "pro-economy" response to an issue), it will indeed be an anti-far-right-libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism) anarchy. :D


FWIW my nation for several years had a 100% income tax rate and still held the 'Anarchy' designation. Since then I've gone to 0% without any classification change.

In NationStates, an Anarchy is a nation that has such high levels of freedom, the government has essentially giving away all of its authority to the citizens. Since there are no restrictions on freedom at all, there is no government. Therefore, any time a ranking comes up that deals with freedoms, Anarchies are going to top the list.

but this still leaves in (or out) the factor of laws that create corporations.

in game play a question might come up about pollution regulation.
then if player opts to place pollution regulation on, this is computed by the
game as a restriction on freedoms.

since a corporation is a set of laws to begin with and not even a real natural person, it can hardly be considered a restriction on human freedoms.

it is some ideology that equates someone selling french fries from their kitchen with something like a fastfood restaurant. i'm not just talking size. and that ideology is built into the game play, itself merely a reflection of national politics to some extent. it leaves out a whole slew of possibilities, even though i am sure nationstates has done their best so far.
one can only imagine what a nationstates II with the option of revoking corporate charters, as we can do in the real world, would look like. or not having corporations in one's country at all.