The Anarchy thread.

[oZma]

this is some great writing right here!

wish i could take credit for it!
http://www.seesharppress.com/anarchismwhatis.html

libertarian "anarcho-capitalists" who seem to end up always advocating for a minarchist state, which kind of ends up doing the exact WRONG thing with a government and engenders police and military brutality.

i would argue these libertarian "anarcho-caps" are on a path towards anarchy.  its too hard to jump from modern day liberal or conservative to anarchist... but going from conservative to libertarian to minarchist to anarchist is more prevalent.  there is A LOT of learning that goes along with anarchy.  its not just something you can accept over night, it takes a lot to accept and wrap your brain around.  i will admit, i am most likely in the libertarian stage as i am not yet ready to let go of my coercive violent government just yet... as much as i want to.... i just don't feel i have adequate knowledge to defend an anarchist perspective just yet... maybe someday!!

basically, the thing about capitalism, especially as it exists today, is that anyone living in a state that participates in it is nonconsensually compelled into participation, and in a true anarchist state (not in the government sense, but in the sense of a state of being) that isn't going to occur.

i would argue capitalism does not exist today and most likely never has... well i speak of laissez faire free markets of course... maybe we got close with Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, and JP Morgan... but not really

today, i would call it crony capitalism, crapitalism, corporationism... gov and corporations are in bed together to prevent competition and that goes against everything laissez faire free markets are about.

it would be incredibly hard to create a true anarchic society of 100% voluntary cooperation and zero non-consensual participation especially when it comes to industries that rely on natural resources... but that doesn't mean the theories should be abandoned... it just means we need to work harder to figure it out!

but at the same time... saying anarchy isn't practical, or is impossible because it can't be implemented PERFECTLY is kind of worthless because the system we have right now ISN'T perfect either! 

so we seem to be at a stale mate ~ there is no perfect way to govern people... so why even attempt? 

[Kevin Peña]

Well, transtrender, I understand that anarchy doesn't mean chaos. It's a society where people follow rules not because a govt. tell thm to, but out of their own moral character. This requires that everyone agree on everything and that people all be of perfect moral character. That isn't going to happen. If you have a society where everyone is allowed to be completely individually free to do whatever he/she wants, then you have no order.

To your point, Penny, I understand that the system is not perfect. I'm not saying that it is. The govt. could use a lot of work, starting with replacing most of our congressional members. However, that isn't to say that we should all go from an imperfect system to no system at all. A court system would immediately cancel out anarchy. You can't have one fully embodying standard court system and still be an anarchist society. Anarchy is an ideal society, and we need standards. You can't have a society where individual preference takes precedent. Can we cut down on laws? Sure. Should we get rid of govt? No.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

You can speak positively all you want about anarchy, but, in the end, it's like communism in that it only works on paper.
1. During the Boston police strikes, crime and violence increased exponentially.
2. After California earthquakes, people often go looting since blackouts and cracked roads make it easier to get away with it.

**3. A system similar to anarchy would be to go into a classroom, give each kid a book, and then leave them alone to teach themselves and do some work. From your own school experience, do you think that people are going to do it? Not a lot. The same holds true for anarchy. You just get a bunch of people into a society and trust in them to be able to keep themselves behaved. Not going to happen. We've seen that people have desires. No one is going to stand for being equal. There will always be people that want more. That's why communism doesn't work, and it's why anarchy won't work. There needs to be some standard for people to follow, and that's what govt. is.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Ozma, a completely laissez-faire capitalistic society never existed because it would never work. Look at what happened after the Revolutionary War. The govt was weak with the Articles of Confederations, and each state was basically given essentially limitless individual freedom. Needless to say, that system failed.

Next, 100% laissez-faire capitalism, essentially anarchy, would not work. Even with laws against it, there are people who provide unsafe practices: excessive hours, lack of hygiene, and improper waste disposal come to mind. US unions came together and demanded rights, but failed because they had no leverage and business owners could do what they wanted to the union workers. Once govt. backed up unions, they became strong.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Anarchy is great, in theory. However, once you come off of paper, it can't work. History has proven that time and time again. Keep dreaming of a perfect anarchist society, but don't fool yourself and admit that you're doing just that: dreaming.

[oZma]

Well, transtrender, I understand that anarchy doesn't mean chaos. It's a society where people follow rules not because a govt. tell thm to, but out of their own moral character. This requires that everyone agree on everything and that people all be of perfect moral character. That isn't going to happen. If you have a society where everyone is allowed to be completely individually free to do whatever he/she wants, then you have no order.

To your point, Penny, I understand that the system is not perfect. I'm not saying that it is. The govt. could use a lot of work, starting with replacing most of our congressional members. However, that isn't to say that we should all go from an imperfect system to no system at all. A court system would immediately cancel out anarchy. You can't have one fully embodying standard court system and still be an anarchist society. Anarchy is an ideal society, and we need standards. You can't have a society where individual preference takes precedent. Can we cut down on laws? Sure. Should we get rid of govt? No.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

You can speak positively all you want about anarchy, but, in the end, it's like communism in that it only works on paper.
1. During the Boston police strikes, crime and violence increased exponentially.
2. After California earthquakes, people often go looting since blackouts and cracked roads make it easier to get away with it.

**3. A system similar to anarchy would be to go into a classroom, give each kid a book, and then leave them alone to teach themselves and do some work. From your own school experience, do you think that people are going to do it? Not a lot. The same holds true for anarchy. You just get a bunch of people into a society and trust in them to be able to keep themselves behaved. Not going to happen. We've seen that people have desires. No one is going to stand for being equal. There will always be people that want more. That's why communism doesn't work, and it's why anarchy won't work. There needs to be some standard for people to follow, and that's what govt. is.

Anarchy is great, in theory. However, once you come off of paper, it can't work.

to have anarchy work, you need to teach anarchy... just like we were taught how this system we have today works...

you can't just throw anarchy in people's faces and say THERE YA GO! ANARCHY! see if it works and when it doesn't say anarchy doesn't work as your proof

you're examples of riots, earthquakes and classrooms won't work then.  its all about education. monkey see, monkey do

also remember, i never said i was an anarchist... maybe someday

[Kevin Peña]

You can't teach anarchy. Plus, you can't just dismiss my arguments because of some convenient hypothetical of a society filled with perfectly good people who all hold hands and get along.

What if people don't take the bait? We can throw hypothetical scenarios back and forth, but in the end, what's the most realistic?

[oZma]

You can't teach anarchy.

why?

[Kevin Peña]

Teaching anarchy is essentially teaching that you have individual freedom from standardized rule, but you can't do whatever you want.

There has to be a consensus of what is right and wrong. You can't just have individuals decide that for themselves. If you do, then the instant that someone does something that is "wrong," you will have a disagreement and a lack of actual rules. At that point, it basically becomes a matter of which side has the bigger mob backing it, and minority rights would be disregarded. You need standards.

you started with the hypos!

--->**3. A system similar to anarchy would be to go into a classroom, give each kid a book, and then leave them alone to teach themselves and do some work.

I didn't say all hypothetical scenarios weren't to be used. Read my entire quote (now who's using a Straw Man argument?  )

You can't teach anarchy. Plus, you can't just dismiss my arguments because of some convenient hypothetical of a society filled with perfectly good people who all hold hands and get along.

I just have a problem with YOUR hypothetical since it is too much of a stretch. I provided a realistic hypothetical, not one where you assume that people are perfect. What you did is the equivalent of a Pre-Crisis Superman comic. Superman needs to win, so he just gets a new perfectly convenient power.

[oZma]

You can't just have individuals decide that for themselves.

sure you can

I just have a problem with YOUR hypothetical

sounds like YOUR problem

Teaching anarchy is essentially teaching that you have individual freedom from standardized rule, but you can't do whatever you want.

i don't see the problem with teaching this...? if you can teach people to be nazi's, you can teach them anything


ill stand by my argument that you CAN teach people they DON'T NEED RULERS and they can provide for themselves WITHOUT RULERS telling them how to



Diana, why do you even bother to argue with me?  If you say i'm dreaming... let me dream?

[oZma]

[oZma]

There needs to be some standard for people to follow, and that's what govt. is.

Anarchy does not mean without rules or standards, but is a philosophy and social system without rulers.  Some people incorrectly define anarchy as no rules or boundaries, but that most certainly would be a world of chaos and confusion. The distinction between rules and rulers is important. Likewise, anarchy does not mean a social system without leaders. In any group of people certain individuals will exhibit or demonstrate special or unique skills and abilities to lead others and to coordinate individual actions. Thus, anarchy is not barbarism. Anarchy is not Utopian or idealistic but a realistic logical conclusion to the principles of self and trespass.

Trespass is any violation of an individual's body or resources. By definition, trespass includes the threat of violation. Anarchy does not necessarily prohibit self-defense, but prohibits initiating trespass. Many philosophical anarchists believe that any self-defense must be proportional to stopping the trespass.

Anarchy as a social system contains a presumption of self-government. Anarchy depends upon the concepts of reciprocity, mutual benefit, free association, and voluntary exchange. Philosophical anarchists are not against law and order, but against the fiat legislation and rule of a privileged or self-appointed few. All philosophical anarchists oppose coerced, fiat, dictatorial law and social systems.

Anarchy and statism are incompatible, which explains why statists must mislead people by defining anarchy as chaos and disorder. Somebody once declared that the only two political theories that are completely consistent are anarchy and totalitarianism. Anarchy fully embraces the concept of self, totalitarianism fully rejects that concept. Statism always degenerates into totalitarianism.

Anarchy means self-government.
Anarchy means self-responsibility.
Anarchy does not mean no rules, only no rulers.
Anarchy is not confusion.
Anarchy does not mean chaos, disorder, and bomb throwing.
Anarchy does not mean no law or order, but ordered liberty.
Anarchy means do not trespass.
Anarchy does not mean resistance but ignoring.
Anarchy means respect for legitimate property rights.
Anarchy means freedom to associate.
Anarchy means voluntary association.
Anarchy means being free to pursue your own happiness.
Anarchy means no individual is superior to another.
Anarchy is not force and coercion, but cooperation.
Anarchy is not political power, but persuasion.
Anarchy rejects political privilege.
Anarchy is liberty.
Anarchy is not a political system. Anarchy is apolitical. Anarchism is a philosophy — a social system. Anarchism is a conscientious decision to honor the freedom to choose without fear of trespass.

Anarchists do not pretend to know how humans will or should form their social structures and communities. Anarchists believe that such choices must belong strictly to each group of people, but also believe that all such choices must be based upon free association and voluntary exchange. With thousands of existing different worldviews, anarchists accept and embrace that many different communities would exist in anarchy.

An anarchist is an individual who is at peace with neighbors and chooses not to use force and coercion to satisfy needs and wants; even the force and coercion used under the illusion of the color of law. An anarchist rejects the idea that various beliefs or worldviews can be forced upon other people, or that various non-trespassing human actions such as "vices" can be coercively stopped or controlled.

Anarchy is a logical conclusion to the concept of self.

Liberty is anarchy.

stolen from:
http://www.simpleliberty.org/essays/what_is_liberty.htm



I must say Diana, you are helping me to accept my anarchic tendencies by provoking me to do research on Anarchy.  I need to thank you for that

[Kevin Peña]

Why anarchy is impossible.

[oZma]

love it! now you're getting it LOL

[Heather]

Let me just add one thing. If there was anarchy where would I get my spiro and my estradiol? Anarchy sounded good when I was like 13. But as an adult no way.

[oZma]

Let me just add one thing. If there was anarchy where would I get my spiro and my estradiol? Anarchy sounded good when I was like 13. But as an adult no way.

the same place u get it now... a pharmacy?  i don't understand why it would be different

[Heather]

the same place u get it now... a pharmacy?  i don't understand

But why would company make something if there is no profit to it? Since there is no law once people start stealing things and killing each other! What would be the point in making stuff like spiro and estradoil? And who would regulate corporations to make sure they are producing medicine that want kill you?

[oZma]

But why would company make something if there is no profit to it? Since there is no law once people start stealing things and killing each other! What would be the point in making stuff like spiro and estradoil? And who would regulate corporations to make sure they are producing medicine that want kill you?

From my post above:
Anarchy does not mean no rules, only no rulers.
Anarchy does not mean chaos, disorder, and bomb throwing.
Anarchy does not mean no law or order, but ordered liberty.
Anarchists are not against law and order, but against the fiat legislation and rule of a privileged or self-appointed few. All philosophical anarchists oppose coerced, fiat, dictatorial law and social systems.

Why do you assume corporations want to kill you?  if they did that, they would have no-one to sell products to LOL

Anarchists do not pretend to know how humans will or should form their social structures and communities. Anarchists believe that such choices must belong strictly to each group of people, but also believe that all such choices must be based upon free association and voluntary exchange. With thousands of existing different worldviews, anarchists accept and embrace that many different communities would exist in anarchy.

[Kevin Peña]

But by the time you're dead, they've made their fortune and can retire in luxury. 

Besides, how are bad actions measured? Anarchy implies getting everyone on the same page. Good luck getting the US population to agree on anything. 

Such as if a homophobe assaulted a gay person for no reason in an alley. No witnesses were around. The assaulter says that he saw that the gay person was about to rob a store, or something. Who do you trust? A court system would be needed to judge guilt.

Government: The governing body of a nation, state, or community.
Synonyms: Rule, administration, management.

If a court system is used and its word is final, that's a government. Not just any government, but an aristocracy, which you claim to be against. Therefore, you no longer have anarchy. Anarchy = utopia, and we all know that doesn't exist.

The alternative is that everyone just get together and decide as a mob what to do. Mob rule doesn't work, either.

[oZma]

But by the time you're dead, they've made their fortune and can retire in luxury. 

Besides, how are bad actions measured? Anarchy implies getting everyone on the same page. Good luck getting the US population to agree on anything. 

Such as if a homophobe assaulted a gay person for no reason in an alley. No witnesses were around. The assaulter says that he saw that the gay person was about to rob a store, or something. Who do you trust? A court system would be needed to judge guilt.

Government: The governing body of a nation, state, or community.
Synonyms: Rule, administration, management.

If a court system is used and its word is final, that's a government. Not just any government, but an aristocracy, which you claim to be against. Therefore, you no longer have anarchy. Anarchy = utopia, and we all know that doesn't exist.

The alternative is that everyone just get together and decide as a mob what to do. Mob rule doesn't work, either.

that's your opinion of what would happen if we were free from the oligarchy coercive government... and you're entitled to it... i don't anticipate being able to change your mind so let us stop arguing with each other i appreciate your questions as they made me do research about anarchy and i'm almost able to call myself an anarchist! almost...

and to repeat this for the third time...

Anarchists do not pretend to know how humans will or should form their social structures and communities. Anarchists believe that such choices must belong strictly to each group of people, but also believe that all such choices must be based upon free association and voluntary exchange. With thousands of existing different worldviews, anarchists accept and embrace that many different communities would exist in anarchy.

[Heather]

From my post above:
Anarchy does not mean no rules, only no rulers.
Anarchy does not mean chaos, disorder, and bomb throwing.
Anarchy does not mean no law or order, but ordered liberty.
Anarchists are not against law and order, but against the fiat legislation and rule of a privileged or self-appointed few. All philosophical anarchists oppose coerced, fiat, dictatorial law and social systems.

Why do you assume corporations want to kill you?  if they did that, they would have no-one to sell products to LOL

Anarchists do not pretend to know how humans will or should form their social structures and communities. Anarchists believe that such choices must belong strictly to each group of people, but also believe that all such choices must be based upon free association and voluntary exchange. With thousands of existing different worldviews, anarchists accept and embrace that many different communities would exist in anarchy.

Your living in a fantasy if you believe that! At one point we did have anarchy in the US I think they called it the wild west and it did not work. And about corporations its always about the cheapest way to produce something and with all that cost cutting the end product suffers.

[oZma]

Your living in a fantasy if you believe that! At one point we did have anarchy in the US I think they called it the wild west and it did not work. And about corporations its always about the cheapest way to produce something and with all that cost cutting the end product suffers.

i'm not living in a fantasy world... it's philosophy... the idea that it is possible to live without RULERS!

and the best way to make money is not to use the cheapest materials... it's to create REPEAT customers (i.e. not dead ones)

[Heather]

i'm not living in a fantasy world... its philosophy... the idea that it is possible to live without RULERS!

and the best way to make money is not to use the cheapest materials... its to create REPEAT customers!

I just prefer some order to the chaos you want.