The merits of an anarchistic society

[daveman]

Paging [MENTION=44236]AnCapAtheist[/MENTION]:

First, define "anarchism".

Second, detail why people should embrace it.

Third, detail what you would do to people who do not willingly embrace it.

Fourth, outline how national defense and foreign policy would work.

 

[National Socialist]

1. Anarchism is simply without government
2.People should embrace it to get back to their natural roots of self governance and self reliance. Its not for everyone. But it is gaining steam
3.Nothing,Its not for everyone. National Anarchists choose to set up no go areas for the state/government where we take care of ourselves our own etc..others can do as they choose
4.National Defense would be the same as a militia. Voluntary army/navy etc...We know to defend our society we would have to band together to keep our society safe.Foreign Policy,do unto others as they do unto us. What else is there to say? What most people don't understand about National Anarchy is its never intended to be a HUGE thing...its intended for people in communities to take care of their own people in their community,confederacies can happen voluntarily but there would be no central government to coerce people into paying for anything,pr obeying their rules etc...there would be communities of whatever people want...people want an all black one so be it,all gay one go ahead,all muslim OK fine go ahead...voluntaryism at its best.

 

[daveman]

1. Anarchism is simply without government

Okay. So who builds the roads and bridges? If private individuals, how do they recoup their costs?

2.People should embrace it to get back to their natural roots of self governance and self reliance. Its not for everyone. But it is gaining steam

Can you point to a successful anarchist society?

3.Nothing,Its not for everyone. National Anarchists choose to set up no go areas for the state/government where we take care of ourselves our own etc..others can do as they choose

What if doing as they choose involves moving to your area and trying to take over?

4.National Defense would be the same as a militia. Voluntary army/navy etc...We know to defend our society we would have to band together to keep our society safe.

Militias have hierarchy. I thought you frowned on that.

Foreign Policy,do unto others as they do unto us.

Too simplistic. I'd like details.

What else is there to say? What most people don't understand about National Anarchy is its never intended to be a HUGE thing...its intended for people in communities to take care of their own people in their community,confederacies can happen voluntarily but there would be no central government to coerce people into paying for anything,pr obeying their rules etc...there would be communities of whatever people want...people want an all black one so be it,all gay one go ahead,all muslim OK fine go ahead...voluntaryism at its best.

Okay. Seems to me, though, that like Communism, it fails to take human nature into account and is therefore doomed to failure.

 

[National Socialist]

1. Anarchism is simply without government

Okay. So who builds the roads and bridges? If private individuals, how do they recoup their costs?

2.People should embrace it to get back to their natural roots of self governance and self reliance. Its not for everyone. But it is gaining steam

Can you point to a successful anarchist society?

What if doing as they choose involves moving to your area and trying to take over?

Militias have hierarchy. I thought you frowned on that.

Foreign Policy,do unto others as they do unto us.

Too simplistic. I'd like details.

What else is there to say? What most people don't understand about National Anarchy is its never intended to be a HUGE thing...its intended for people in communities to take care of their own people in their community,confederacies can happen voluntarily but there would be no central government to coerce people into paying for anything,pr obeying their rules etc...there would be communities of whatever people want...people want an all black one so be it,all gay one go ahead,all muslim OK fine go ahead...voluntaryism at its best.

Okay. Seems to me, though, that like Communism, it fails to take human nature into account and is therefore doomed to failure.

Same people that build the roads now. Everything done is done for the good of the community.
Sure can. List of anarchist communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Then they would be fought off. This country is large enough people wouldn't go through the trouble to try and attack another community and take it over. There won't be a centralized government so they known well enough that they would get shot for their troubles that's the great thing about self reliance. We do things our way as a community.We defend each other.
A community militia would fight together against a common enemy. There would be no professional soldiers but every day men and women who defend their community. No hierarchy involved but if the people of the community chose to elect a commander someone with previous experience then so be it.It would be up to them.
Foreign Policy,we would trade and talk with other nations like how things are supposed to be.If we are attacked we will defend ourselves. Foreign policy shouldn't be much harder to explain than that.
How does it fail to take human nature into account? Human nature is to naturally want to be near people like yourself. Oh and to continue on the roads thing I am in favor of a local currency although some NA aren't. Some are in favor of everyone sharing what they need to survive live etc...its a little to capitalistic for my taste but on a local level it seems to be OK...as long as people aren't exploiting others then things will be OK...take a factory for example it won't be owned by anyone but by the community as a whole...people will be paid the local currency the same currency to everyone everything equal. A much simpler life.Grow your own food,take care of each other look out for each other.

 

[daveman]

1. Anarchism is simply without government

Okay. So who builds the roads and bridges? If private individuals, how do they recoup their costs?

Can you point to a successful anarchist society?

What if doing as they choose involves moving to your area and trying to take over?

Militias have hierarchy. I thought you frowned on that.

Too simplistic. I'd like details.

What else is there to say? What most people don't understand about National Anarchy is its never intended to be a HUGE thing...its intended for people in communities to take care of their own people in their community,confederacies can happen voluntarily but there would be no central government to coerce people into paying for anything,pr obeying their rules etc...there would be communities of whatever people want...people want an all black one so be it,all gay one go ahead,all muslim OK fine go ahead...voluntaryism at its best.

Okay. Seems to me, though, that like Communism, it fails to take human nature into account and is therefore doomed to failure.

Same people that build the roads now. Everything done is done for the good of the community.

But concrete, steel, and labor are all valuable. Nobody would provide materials for free, and nobody would work for free.

And if your community doesn't have a steel mill or concrete batch plant, plus all the raw materials necessary to make steel and concrete, you're kinda out of luck, aren't you?

Sure can. List of anarchist communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I said SUCCESSFUL communities. None of these are successful.

Then they would be fought off. This country is large enough people wouldn't go through the trouble to try and attack another community and take it over. There won't be a centralized government so they known well enough that they would get shot for their troubles that's the great thing about self reliance. We do things our way as a community.We defend each other.

Uh huh. How you gonna defend yourself against a nation-state?

A community militia would fight together against a common enemy. There would be no professional soldiers but every day men and women who defend their community. No hierarchy involved but if the people of the community chose to elect a commander someone with previous experience then so be it.It would be up to them.

Amateur soldiers tend to die a lot when faced with professionals.

Foreign Policy,we would trade and talk with other nations like how things are supposed to be.If we are attacked we will defend ourselves. Foreign policy shouldn't be much harder to explain than that.

So, nothing concrete. Understood.

How does it fail to take human nature into account?

You said it yourself on the other thread: Human nature is hierarchical. There are natural leaders and natural followers.

Human nature is to naturally want to be near people like yourself. Oh and to continue on the roads thing I am in favor of a local currency although some NA aren't. Some are in favor of everyone sharing what they need to survive live etc...its a little to capitalistic for my taste but on a local level it seems to be OK...as long as people aren't exploiting others then things will be OK...take a factory for example it won't be owned by anyone but by the community as a whole...people will be paid the local currency the same currency to everyone everything equal.

Everyone paid equal wages? Don't you think a doctor, say, should command more compensation than a ditch-digger?

A much simpler life.Grow your own food,take care of each other look out for each other.

That's fine, in very small zero-technology agrarian societies. In the modern world, it's simply not going to work. You can't build your own cell phone, your own tractor, your own diesel fuel to run the tractor.

Everything you espouse has been tried and been found wanting. You can tell because nobody's doing it now.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Everything you espouse has been tried and been found wanting. You can tell because nobody's doing it now.

I wouldn't normally interrupt these things but it looks like yer debate partner there is gonna' be away for a while.

So... Not advocating Anarchism but...

On the other hand Giant, Far Reaching, Police State American Gov't hasn't been working out that well wouldn't ya' agree?

Low Economic Growth
High Unemployment
Insecure Retirement
High Taxes
Loss of Personal Freedom

Plus a Steady diet of Military Industrial Complex Wars since WWII have been draining the Treasury.

If you had to chose between Anarchism and the Police State, well... let's just say I wouldn't like my "comfortable prison".

 

[Sallow]

Everything you espouse has been tried and been found wanting. You can tell because nobody's doing it now.

I wouldn't normally interrupt these things but it looks like yer debate partner there is gonna' be away for a while.

So... Not advocating Anarchism but...

On the other hand Giant, Far Reaching, Police State American Gov't hasn't been working out that well wouldn't ya' agree?

Low Economic Growth
High Unemployment
Insecure Retirement
High Taxes
Loss of Personal Freedom

Plus a Steady diet of Military Industrial Complex Wars since WWII have been draining the Treasury.

If you had to chose between Anarchism and the Police State, well... let's just say I wouldn't like my "comfortable prison".

We have no where near what you are talking about in terms of your laundry list with the exception of the Military Industrial Complex.

And I find it interesting all the societies listed in the wiki nest themselves in an established, well protected and well funded one.

None are doing the "venture out into the wilderness" and making on their own.

 

[Katzndogz]

Someone wants to be Amish.

Go do it. A community is bound to accept you.

 

[daveman]

Everything you espouse has been tried and been found wanting. You can tell because nobody's doing it now.

I wouldn't normally interrupt these things but it looks like yer debate partner there is gonna' be away for a while.

So... Not advocating Anarchism but...

On the other hand Giant, Far Reaching, Police State American Gov't hasn't been working out that well wouldn't ya' agree?

Low Economic Growth
High Unemployment
Insecure Retirement
High Taxes
Loss of Personal Freedom

Plus a Steady diet of Military Industrial Complex Wars since WWII have been draining the Treasury.

If you had to chose between Anarchism and the Police State, well... let's just say I wouldn't like my "comfortable prison".

There's a fine balance between not enough and too much.

Let's say the Founding Fathers had it pretty dang close.

 

[PaulS1950]

Anarchy never lasts long, it is not a stable form of governing. People revert to the structure of a government very quickly. Anarchy usually stabilizes into a form of oligarchy. That is, the strongest of the anarchists form a group to govern the rest of the country.

What you seem to really want is a republic where in people are free to exercise their rights and freedoms without a heavy hand by the government interfering with those rights and freedoms. That is what The USA started as but over the centuries since its founding the government has been allowed to circumvent the constitutional restriction on their powers and become an oligarchy.

 

[martybegan]

Everything you espouse has been tried and been found wanting. You can tell because nobody's doing it now.

I wouldn't normally interrupt these things but it looks like yer debate partner there is gonna' be away for a while.

So... Not advocating Anarchism but...

On the other hand Giant, Far Reaching, Police State American Gov't hasn't been working out that well wouldn't ya' agree?

Low Economic Growth
High Unemployment
Insecure Retirement
High Taxes
Loss of Personal Freedom

Plus a Steady diet of Military Industrial Complex Wars since WWII have been draining the Treasury.

If you had to chose between Anarchism and the Police State, well... let's just say I wouldn't like my "comfortable prison".

There's a fine balance between not enough and too much.

Let's say the Founding Fathers had it pretty dang close.

It seems the anarchist couldnt follow the rules and got banned.

 

[Katzndogz]

Everything you espouse has been tried and been found wanting. You can tell because nobody's doing it now.

I wouldn't normally interrupt these things but it looks like yer debate partner there is gonna' be away for a while.

So... Not advocating Anarchism but...

On the other hand Giant, Far Reaching, Police State American Gov't hasn't been working out that well wouldn't ya' agree?

Low Economic Growth
High Unemployment
Insecure Retirement
High Taxes
Loss of Personal Freedom

Plus a Steady diet of Military Industrial Complex Wars since WWII have been draining the Treasury.

If you had to chose between Anarchism and the Police State, well... let's just say I wouldn't like my "comfortable prison".

You aren't describing an anarchistic society but a tribal society. It works for very small tribes not a national scale.

 

[arKangel]

Anarchy is the purest form of law.
Anarchy is eternal, it has always existed, and always will.

Government is defined simply by which is the most violent, hateful, and dishonest gang who is in "control", striking terror into the hearts of family minded people.

Government, is the least stable form of government.
Family is the time tested, absolute most stable form of life for human beings.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Everything you espouse has been tried and been found wanting. You can tell because nobody's doing it now.

I wouldn't normally interrupt these things but it looks like yer debate partner there is gonna' be away for a while.

So... Not advocating Anarchism but...

On the other hand Giant, Far Reaching, Police State American Gov't hasn't been working out that well wouldn't ya' agree?

Low Economic Growth
High Unemployment
Insecure Retirement
High Taxes
Loss of Personal Freedom

Plus a Steady diet of Military Industrial Complex Wars since WWII have been draining the Treasury.

If you had to chose between Anarchism and the Police State, well... let's just say I wouldn't like my "comfortable prison".

We have no where near what you are talking about in terms of your laundry list with the exception of the Military Industrial Complex.

And I find it interesting all the societies listed in the wiki nest themselves in an established, well protected and well funded one.

None are doing the "venture out into the wilderness" and making on their own.

And, President Obama has put that beast on a strict diet.

Instead of more wars, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders, women and children, putting us deeper in debt for no reason, Obama sends drones.

And, the some people howl about ONE collateral death?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So who builds the roads and bridges?

And socialism rears its head.

 

[arKangel]

So who builds the roads and bridges?

And socialism rears its head.

I live in a private community.
We built our own road, and our own bridge. It was actually quite fun when we paved the road last spring, great Bar-b-Que when we were done.

Police officers are not allowed in the community without direct permission from a resident.
Interestingly enough we have no crime... no police = no crime.

 

[FA_Q2]

I wouldn't normally interrupt these things but it looks like yer debate partner there is gonna' be away for a while.

So... Not advocating Anarchism but...

On the other hand Giant, Far Reaching, Police State American Gov't hasn't been working out that well wouldn't ya' agree?

Low Economic Growth
High Unemployment
Insecure Retirement
High Taxes
Loss of Personal Freedom

Plus a Steady diet of Military Industrial Complex Wars since WWII have been draining the Treasury.

If you had to chose between Anarchism and the Police State, well... let's just say I wouldn't like my "comfortable prison".

We have no where near what you are talking about in terms of your laundry list with the exception of the Military Industrial Complex.

And I find it interesting all the societies listed in the wiki nest themselves in an established, well protected and well funded one.

None are doing the "venture out into the wilderness" and making on their own.

And, President Obama has put that beast on a strict diet.

Instead of more wars, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders, women and children, putting us deeper in debt for no reason, Obama sends drones.

And, the some people howl about ONE collateral death?

WOW.

The military industrial complex has never been more prevalent, had a longer arm or been more powerful. There is no Obama diet for the military. Not even close.

We are engaged all over the planet constantly bobming other nations at a scale that is insane. We drop bombs EVERY DAY. Hundreds of them. Because you don’t see it in the news anymore (as it has been occurring over a decade now and people just don’t care) does not mean that anything has really changed. I am taken aback at how you can support such militarism under Obama when there was so much resistance under Bush.

You do realize that keeping boots off the ground does not solve any of the problems that come with a military industrial complex or the international problems from bombing the crap out of any country that we want.

By the way, drones account for a small sliver of the munitions that are released in the ME. Most are carried by manned bombers carrying dozens of warheads.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Paging [MENTION=44236]AnCapAtheist[/MENTION]:

First, define "anarchism".

Second, detail why people should embrace it.

Third, detail what you would do to people who do not willingly embrace it.

Fourth, outline how national defense and foreign policy would work.

Anarchy, sperate from monarchy, means no crown as a direct translation. Anarchists reject the authority of the State/Government to have a monopoly over the use of force and violence in the same fashion that people got fed up with Kings and Queens "divine right to rule" BS.

People SHOULD embrace it because it allows for maximum freedom of the individual. In eocnomic, relgious and social affairs. Of course, this brings on immediate anxiety of those without the mental fortitude to think and care for themselves, regarding having a big brother to take care of them.

People can go ahead and form communities organized with all the collective mantras and decor they like if they feel lonely and helpless int eh cruel world. The difference is in not having the authority to FORCE others to join them.

There woul dbe no "foreign policy". That's a politicians door to control, war and backroom deals. Without meddling politicians and their self authored authority, people would get along and trade just fine.

Any other questions?

 

[Asclepias]

So who builds the roads and bridges?

And socialism rears its head.

I live in a private community.
We built our own road, and our own bridge. It was actually quite fun when we paved the road last spring, great Bar-b-Que when we were done.

Police officers are not allowed in the community without direct permission from a resident.
Interestingly enough we have no crime... no police = no crime.

Interesting. How large is your community? Do all inhabitants work within the community?

 

[Foxfyre]

Paging [MENTION=44236]AnCapAtheist[/MENTION]:

First, define "anarchism".

Second, detail why people should embrace it.

Third, detail what you would do to people who do not willingly embrace it.

Fourth, outline how national defense and foreign policy would work.

Anarchy, sperate from monarchy, means no crown as a direct translation. Anarchists reject the authority of the State/Government to have a monopoly over the use of force and violence in the same fashion that people got fed up with Kings and Queens "divine right to rule" BS.

People SHOULD embrace it because it allows for maximum freedom of the individual. In eocnomic, relgious and social affairs. Of course, this brings on immediate anxiety of those without the mental fortitude to think and care for themselves, regarding having a big brother to take care of them.

People can go ahead and form communities organized with all the collective mantras and decor they like if they feel lonely and helpless int eh cruel world. The difference is in not having the authority to FORCE others to join them.

There woul dbe no "foreign policy". That's a politicians door to control, war and backroom deals. Without meddling politicians and their self authored authority, people would get along and trade just fine.

Any other questions?

I disagree. Anarchy is not the 'purest form of government' and it allows for no freedom at all. It recognizes no rights of others, no structure, no sense of propriety. It is the brutal existence of the survival of the fittest and winner take all.

Ants, bees, wolves, horses, et al and humans are all intended to be social creatures who govern themselves. The most local form of government is the family that, if useful and functional, includes a social order involving responsibility, integrity, self restraint, and mutual expectations that includes rules.

Unrelated people put together in a general location will inevitably work out ways to cooperate for mutual benefit and develop a social order involving responsibility, integrity, self restraint, and mutual expectations. In time, more formal rules and expectations will be put into effect for the mutual benefit of all.

Government that controls and dictates is always the inevitable result of anarchy, and even when it includes elements of benevolence, it will always be self serving first.

Government that the Founders gave us is directed and controlled by the people for mutual benefit of all and does not dictate the sort of society the people will have.

Those incapable of understanding social contract as the Founders understood it have been slowly but surely moving us away from that concept for the last 100 years. And we are fast approaching having a wholly totalitarian government that will dictate to us what rights and privileges we shall have and will have no reluctance to take them away, most especially if we displease that government.