Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People naturally organize into some form of self governance. It might be only local but it isn't anarchy either.
But are we talking about systems of control and coercion or about specialization of labor, mutually-beneficial exchange, and the formation of local proximity affinity groups?
So here's the problem. If you have people whose main occupation is growing food and making things, they will get very good at growing food and making things. If you have people whose main occupation is fighting, they will get very good at fighting. Good enough to take what food and things they want, in fact. So instead of growing food and making things, they install themselves as rulers. They'll fight to protect their assets, even. This holds for biker gangs shaking down hippies, feudal lords ruling over serfs, Spartans ruling Helots, mill owner running the company town.
It's a depressing fact - but for most of history, feudalism has simply been the order of things.
We are insanely blessed to live in an age where things are arranged so we can quit a job we don't like, move where we want, get a voice in electing our lawmakers, take even the rich and powerful to court. And as far as I'm concerned, we should work to improve that system - make it more fair, less lopsided, more free.
I don't trust the outcome of anarchy. My family saw some tough times in post-war Europe, where all authority was suddenly absent. Let's just say it wasn't Little House on the Prairie.
I don't exactly disagree with you, and I don't think it contradicts what I was saying. If you have a population that wants a society without rulers, that population just needs to have the ability to fight off anyone who would try to take over.
That's how it is even now. If a biker gang, or the rich, etc. got together and tried to take over the U.S, it would come down to who can win the fight.
I also like the analogy of living with your strict parents vs moving out.
With the parents, you can have things provided for you, but they decide when you need to go to bed, what you're allowed to eat or drink, who is allowed to come over, they decide what you watch on TV or what music you listen to, how you spend your allowance, what chores you need to do, etc.
If you move out, you have nobody guaranteeing you anything, but you're free to make your own choices and decisions over your own life. You could get roommates or have friends that help you out, so it's not even like you're just on your own in the scary world...you just don't have anyone dictating how you live.
Unless you run into someone with her/his own army.
Because it's not the case that strict parents are the only people who want to tell you what to do. There ARE other people in the world. These lone-wolf fantasies often fail to take into account that there are few places to truly escape to.
"Statist"? They kicked out the state. (Well, apart from public utilities, they liked those.) I have no sympathy for them whatsoever, but the point holds: When people with a liking for violence showed up, they got to call the shots right quick.
They simply set up their own State.
Let's talk about definitions. I'm using this one for State...
State: any involuntary centralized entity that initiates force on others without permission.
They moved in and made their own rules. People, a smaller group and pretty like-minded I'll grant you, just used voting again to decide stuff. There are laws there that you will have to abide by passed by parties that hashed out such matters in the 1970s.
In any event, T0103E's point remains: the history of aggression, statist aggression (the biker gang is a centralized hierarchical organization that utilizes voting and freely used force on non-compliers...they are a state) is of one statist entity attacking another.
U.S. vs. Sioux
U.S. vs. Germany
U.S. vs. Confederacy
Bloods vs. Crips
Hell's Angels vs. Bandidos
Centralized hierarchical organizations that use(d) aggression to garner resources over non-compilers. You either submit, join, flee, or die.
Anarchists like myself see no difference in the "cause" or whatever else these entities have claimed to promote. The first rule to live by is non-aggression...PERIOD. The second rule is private property rights.
Look at that list. None of them jive with what I'm talking about.
Unless you run into someone with her/his own army.
Because it's not the case that strict parents are the only people who want to tell you what to do. There ARE other people in the world. These lone-wolf fantasies often fail to take into account that there are few places to truly escape to.
That's why you ally with others who don't have a desire to rule you. Nobody can make it on their own, but they can (potentially) live within a society where most people don't try to control their entire life.
As I said in my posts to Dane, if you can defend yourselves, it will last. If you can't defend yourselves, it may not.
Let's talk about definitions. I'm using this one for State...
State: any involuntary centralized entity that initiates force on others without permission.
They moved in and made their own rules. People, a smaller group and pretty like-minded I'll grant you, just used voting again to decide stuff. There are laws there that you will have to abide by passed by parties that hashed out such matters in the 1970s.
In any event, T0103E's point remains: the history of aggression, statist aggression (the biker gang is a centralized hierarchical organization that utilizes voting and freely used force on non-compliers...they are a state) is of one statist entity attacking another.
U.S. vs. Sioux
U.S. vs. Germany
U.S. vs. Confederacy
Bloods vs. Crips
Hell's Angels vs. Bandidos
Centralized hierarchical organizations that use(d) aggression to garner resources over non-compilers. You either submit, join, flee, or die.
Broad definitions in play here. By defining states as entities that do bad things, you make the case that states do bad things. Internally consistent, admittedly - but doesn't really make for much of a compelling argument.
Quote:
Anarchists like myself see no difference in the "cause" or whatever else these entities have claimed to promote. The first rule to live by is non-aggression...PERIOD. The second rule is private property rights.
Sounds nice, and I don't mean that sarcastically at all. But does it work?
I don't exactly disagree with you, and I don't think it contradicts what I was saying. If you have a population that wants a society without rulers, that population just needs to have the ability to fight off anyone who would try to take over.
That's how it is even now. If a biker gang, or the rich, etc. got together and tried to take over the U.S, it would come down to who can win the fight.
There is an ambitious and intelligent young woman involved in bitcoin and cryptocurrency trying to do this right now. She has a British mercenary force that will contract with individuals or groups to provide their security. I think one small country has already agreed to honor their sovereignty or passports or something. Can't remember exactly. I do recall she struck me as creating a very intriguing concept.
You're actually half right. If people in that society want a strong ruler and government disappears, they'll end up with a strong ruler. If the society doesn't want a ruler, it will be impossible for any ruler to have any power. They need their subjects to believe in their right to rule...brute force won't cut it. That's why governments, especially dictators, love to control the media.
So it all depends on what the people in that society overwhelmingly want.
*It's also funny that you chose no government, and your reason was that it might turn into absolute government.
Doesn't matter what the people in that society want; if a strong tyrant comes along, they will be ruled by a strong tyrant. Unless they organize together, create the structure for mutual defense, leadership to make decisions, you know, form a government.
So it's not funny my choice, but quite specific. We got very lucky to have men who didn't want to be tyrants. Most of history has gone the other way. We could be there now if a few things had been different at some key times in recent history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
...
Anarchists like myself see no difference in the "cause" or whatever else these entities have claimed to promote. The first rule to live by is non-aggression...PERIOD. The second rule is private property rights.
Look at that list. None of them jive with what I'm talking about.
And if someone refused to live by the first rule, what are you going to do about it? That's the whole point why fantasy worlds don't exist outside the ivory tower. Real people are involved and reality has a nasty way of upsetting fantasy. Sheep can pretend the wolf doesn't exist, but that doesn't protect the sheep. Or the sheep can have a shepherd and a dog, brother to the wolf, to guard the sheep.
Broad definitions in play here. By defining states as entities that do bad things, you make the case that states do bad things. Internally consistent, admittedly - but doesn't really make for much of a compelling argument.
Sounds nice, and I don't mean that sarcastically at all. But does it work?
What about "Is it right?" instead of "Will it work?"?
Also, is there any chance that "doing what is right" automatically means "it works"?
And non-statist organizations can "do bad things". But they can be dissolved/abandoned.
Imagine no States...which are all involuntary. Now imagine you and I form a voluntary organization based on a one-year contract and develop a hierarchical structure within it. We buy, sell, trade goods/services with others as an organization. One tenet in our organizations states that neither of us will kill other people (outside of self-defense of course).
So one night I decide to go a few blocks down from my house and kill 10 people. I willingly and knowingly break the contract. Upon breaking the contract our relationship is automatically dissolved and you are not liable/responsible for my actions.
Contrast that with the involuntary State. Since there is no consent needed to join (the social contract puts us in at birth) and there is no way out (renouncing citizenship, aside from being illogical since you never announced citizenship by consenting, does not mean you are exempt from laws/regulations) you are inherently responsible for the actions of a collective to some degree.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
