The merits of an anarchistic society

[Foxfyre]

In his recent post C_Clayton_Jones offered this description of anarchism:

Anarchism is a most misunderstood set of ideas. It is constantly portrayed as meaning chaos and violence. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists believe in creating a classless society. They oppose capitalism as a system that puts the profits of a small minority of bosses before the needs of the vast majority. It is a system based on the exploitation of workers, a system that inevitably causes poverty starvation and war. Anarchists oppose authority in the sense of opposing the 'right' of any small minority to have power over everyone else. They oppose the State (meaning government, army, police, courts) as an institution whose purpose is to enforce the will of a minority on the majority.

An Anarchist Perspective on the Spanish Civil War

How is that a definition of Anarchism? How is that ANY different from the most simple definition of pure Communism/Marxism?

Or are those promoting an anarchistic society on this thread actually promoting the Marxist model but with a more politically palatable label?

(Disclaimer: I don't think the member was actually promoting that as the preferred definition of Anarchism but only using it as an illustration of the various definitions that exist.)

 

[FA_Q2]

In his recent post C_Clayton_Jones offered this description of anarchism:

Anarchism is a most misunderstood set of ideas. It is constantly portrayed as meaning chaos and violence. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists believe in creating a classless society. They oppose capitalism as a system that puts the profits of a small minority of bosses before the needs of the vast majority. It is a system based on the exploitation of workers, a system that inevitably causes poverty starvation and war. Anarchists oppose authority in the sense of opposing the 'right' of any small minority to have power over everyone else. They oppose the State (meaning government, army, police, courts) as an institution whose purpose is to enforce the will of a minority on the majority.

An Anarchist Perspective on the Spanish Civil War

How is that a definition of Anarchism? How is that ANY different from the most simple definition of pure Communism/Marxism?

Or are those promoting an anarchistic society on this thread actually promoting the Marxist model but with a more politically palatable label?

(Disclaimer: I don't think the member was actually promoting that as the preferred definition of Anarchism but only using it as an illustration of the various definitions that exist.)

Considering I have heard TASB refer to himself as an anarcho-capitalist I find that literally impossible for him to ascribe to a Marxist or communist ideal. Just saying.

 

[Foxfyre]

In his recent post C_Clayton_Jones offered this description of anarchism:

Anarchism is a most misunderstood set of ideas. It is constantly portrayed as meaning chaos and violence. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists believe in creating a classless society. They oppose capitalism as a system that puts the profits of a small minority of bosses before the needs of the vast majority. It is a system based on the exploitation of workers, a system that inevitably causes poverty starvation and war. Anarchists oppose authority in the sense of opposing the 'right' of any small minority to have power over everyone else. They oppose the State (meaning government, army, police, courts) as an institution whose purpose is to enforce the will of a minority on the majority.

An Anarchist Perspective on the Spanish Civil War

How is that a definition of Anarchism? How is that ANY different from the most simple definition of pure Communism/Marxism?

Or are those promoting an anarchistic society on this thread actually promoting the Marxist model but with a more politically palatable label?

(Disclaimer: I don't think the member was actually promoting that as the preferred definition of Anarchism but only using it as an illustration of the various definitions that exist.)

Considering I have heard TASB refer to himself as an anarcho-capitalist I find that literally impossible for him to ascribe to a Marxist or communist ideal. Just saying.

Well true as Marxism rejects all concepts of capitalism.

So what would an anarcho-captialist be? Strictly black market? Mafia? Piracy? With no legal enforcement or personal protections for anybody, how would that work?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In his recent post C_Clayton_Jones offered this description of anarchism:

Anarchism is a most misunderstood set of ideas. It is constantly portrayed as meaning chaos and violence. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists believe in creating a classless society. They oppose capitalism as a system that puts the profits of a small minority of bosses before the needs of the vast majority. It is a system based on the exploitation of workers, a system that inevitably causes poverty starvation and war. Anarchists oppose authority in the sense of opposing the 'right' of any small minority to have power over everyone else. They oppose the State (meaning government, army, police, courts) as an institution whose purpose is to enforce the will of a minority on the majority.

An Anarchist Perspective on the Spanish Civil War

How is that a definition of Anarchism? How is that ANY different from the most simple definition of pure Communism/Marxism?

Or are those promoting an anarchistic society on this thread actually promoting the Marxist model but with a more politically palatable label?

(Disclaimer: I don't think the member was actually promoting that as the preferred definition of Anarchism but only using it as an illustration of the various definitions that exist.)

Communism/Marxism as existed at the time was predicated on a ridged, hierarchical structure designed to maintain strict adherence to political dogma. Indeed, Anarchism was a response to and rejection of Communism/Marxism.

Remember also that Anarchism originated in culturally balkanized Southern Europe, where various ethnic groups were subject to the rule of ethnic majorities, such as the Basque who are not ethnically Spanish. For such ethnic minorities, therefore, Anarchism affords them a kind of political and cultural autonomy and opportunity to achieve self-determination.

It seems that some in the United States, misunderstanding the actual intent and origins of European Anarchism, have contrived a naïve fantasy that they too might realize some sort of ‘autonomy’ where they can form ‘societies’ free from Federal, state, and local laws.

 

[Foxfyre]

In his recent post C_Clayton_Jones offered this description of anarchism:

Anarchism is a most misunderstood set of ideas. It is constantly portrayed as meaning chaos and violence. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists believe in creating a classless society. They oppose capitalism as a system that puts the profits of a small minority of bosses before the needs of the vast majority. It is a system based on the exploitation of workers, a system that inevitably causes poverty starvation and war. Anarchists oppose authority in the sense of opposing the 'right' of any small minority to have power over everyone else. They oppose the State (meaning government, army, police, courts) as an institution whose purpose is to enforce the will of a minority on the majority.

An Anarchist Perspective on the Spanish Civil War

How is that a definition of Anarchism? How is that ANY different from the most simple definition of pure Communism/Marxism?

Or are those promoting an anarchistic society on this thread actually promoting the Marxist model but with a more politically palatable label?

(Disclaimer: I don't think the member was actually promoting that as the preferred definition of Anarchism but only using it as an illustration of the various definitions that exist.)

Communism/Marxism as existed at the time was predicated on a ridged, hierarchical structure designed to maintain strict adherence to political dogma. Indeed, Anarchism was a response to and rejection of Communism/Marxism.

Remember also that Anarchism originated in culturally balkanized Southern Europe, where various ethnic groups were subject to the rule of ethnic majorities, such as the Basque who are not ethnically Spanish. For such ethnic minorities, therefore, Anarchism affords them a kind of political and cultural autonomy and opportunity to achieve self-determination.

It seems that some in the United States, misunderstanding the actual intent and origins of European Anarchism, have contrived a naïve fantasy that they too might realize some sort of ‘autonomy’ where they can form ‘societies’ free from Federal, state, and local laws.

Communism/Marxism presumes the rigid heirarchal structure necessary to wrest control from the capitalists and wealthy and dismantle all property rghts. But once that is accomplished, the government is dissolved and the people assume a blissful, utopian, classless society in which nobody owns anything and nobody has authority over anybody, but all share in their mutual bounty and live in peace. Unfortunately no nation that has ever implemented the concept ever gets past the rigid heirarchy stage. Absolute power is a very heady thing that is very dificult to voluntarily give up.

It is obvious that there are many ideas, concepts, and definitions for anarchy. But my definition of anarchy is without government. And it won't work to replace government for the same reason that Communism/Marxism never realizes its utiopian goals. Human nature.

 

[Asclepias]

In his recent post C_Clayton_Jones offered this description of anarchism:



How is that a definition of Anarchism? How is that ANY different from the most simple definition of pure Communism/Marxism?

Or are those promoting an anarchistic society on this thread actually promoting the Marxist model but with a more politically palatable label?

(Disclaimer: I don't think the member was actually promoting that as the preferred definition of Anarchism but only using it as an illustration of the various definitions that exist.)

Communism/Marxism as existed at the time was predicated on a ridged, hierarchical structure designed to maintain strict adherence to political dogma. Indeed, Anarchism was a response to and rejection of Communism/Marxism.

Remember also that Anarchism originated in culturally balkanized Southern Europe, where various ethnic groups were subject to the rule of ethnic majorities, such as the Basque who are not ethnically Spanish. For such ethnic minorities, therefore, Anarchism affords them a kind of political and cultural autonomy and opportunity to achieve self-determination.

It seems that some in the United States, misunderstanding the actual intent and origins of European Anarchism, have contrived a naïve fantasy that they too might realize some sort of ‘autonomy’ where they can form ‘societies’ free from Federal, state, and local laws.

Communism/Marxism presumes the rigid heirarchal structure necessary to wrest control from the capitalists and wealthy and dismantle all property rghts. But once that is accomplished, the government is dissolved and the people assume a blissful, utopian, classless society in which nobody owns anything and nobody has authority over anybody, but all share in their mutual bounty and live in peace. Unfortunately no nation that has ever implemented the concept ever gets past the rigid heirarchy stage. Absolute power is a very heady thing that is very dificult to voluntarily give up.

It is obvious that there are many ideas, concepts, and definitions for anarchy. But my definition of anarchy is without government. And it won't work to replace government for the same reason that Communism/Marxism never realizes its utiopian goals. Human nature.

Thats because just like anarchy its a pipe dream. Humans dont work like that. They form hierarchies every time 2 or more people get together. They then form classes were one is better than the other. Its been like that since the beginning of time.

 

[National Socialist]

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.

Yeah it seems its "illegal" to protect your family according to certain people on this site. I apologize for nothing and I stand by what I said.

 

[FA_Q2]

In his recent post C_Clayton_Jones offered this description of anarchism:



How is that a definition of Anarchism? How is that ANY different from the most simple definition of pure Communism/Marxism?

Or are those promoting an anarchistic society on this thread actually promoting the Marxist model but with a more politically palatable label?

(Disclaimer: I don't think the member was actually promoting that as the preferred definition of Anarchism but only using it as an illustration of the various definitions that exist.)

Considering I have heard TASB refer to himself as an anarcho-capitalist I find that literally impossible for him to ascribe to a Marxist or communist ideal. Just saying.

Well true as Marxism rejects all concepts of capitalism.

So what would an anarcho-captialist be? Strictly black market? Mafia? Piracy? With no legal enforcement or personal protections for anybody, how would that work?

Its actually the only thing that makes any sense at all. ALL other forms of economic systems require a central planner of some sort. Some entity that redistributes the goods of the economy. On a small scale, that is entirely possible within a family or tribe without much of a government but once we start to get to county size and above that whole plan requires a state to manage. Without that, there is no way to get the cars from Detroit over to CA and the avocadoes from CA to Detroit. That is one of the reasons that Marxism never dissolves the government. Sure, absolute power does not just walk away but even if it did the system would STILL fail because the flow of goods would suddenly have nothing to determine where they were needed at a national level.

Capitalism, on the other hand, does away with all that because the flow of goods goes to where the trade money is. Pure and unadulterated capitalism is essentially the only system that makes any sense within a true anarchy because capitalism requires nothing at all to ‘manage’ it. That happens on its own as people freely trade.

Now, is that overly idealistic? Absolutely. I don’t think that unadulterated capitalism can actually work as all capitalistic system tend to the monopoly as that gains massive amounts of power (including the power to block new startups). If bad actors did not exist then that might be a different story BUT we are not strictly speaking in practicality anymore tbh as both of us do not believe that anarchy itself is a practical form of government on today’s society. Given that, I find that unadulterated capitalism is just as impractical as the anarchy that it comes with, no more and no less.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

In his recent post C_Clayton_Jones offered this description of anarchism:



How is that a definition of Anarchism? How is that ANY different from the most simple definition of pure Communism/Marxism?

Or are those promoting an anarchistic society on this thread actually promoting the Marxist model but with a more politically palatable label?

(Disclaimer: I don't think the member was actually promoting that as the preferred definition of Anarchism but only using it as an illustration of the various definitions that exist.)

Considering I have heard TASB refer to himself as an anarcho-capitalist I find that literally impossible for him to ascribe to a Marxist or communist ideal. Just saying.

Well true as Marxism rejects all concepts of capitalism.

So what would an anarcho-captialist be? Strictly black market? Mafia? Piracy? With no legal enforcement or personal protections for anybody, how would that work?

Voluntary exchanges and associations, free of thrid party coercion (now,. i know this is where the boogeyman shows up and forces some to do their will. That boogeyman is also government. That's what governments do.). It allows for maximum economic freedom of the individual, and the beauty of voluntary associations is that they are always mutually beneficial. It's not eocnomically harmonious for people to go around fucking each other over. More so, there is the ultimate, and only true regulation to contend with in voluntary free market societies; FAILURE. Which, in a consumer based, technologically advanced world, is rather easy to achieve.

Black market indicates that there is illegal voluntary mutual exchange taking place. Mafia runs protection rackets, just like government. Piracy is in violation of voluntary exchange. Since that's theft, not exchange.

Anarcho-captialism works off the same premise of the NAP in the same fashion as that of libertarians. The difference being, that anarcho-capitalists generally believe that judicial system serviices can also be lent to a competitive market, instead of a monopoly of govenrment. Which would, of course, increase services, expedite service and lower overall costs. Since competition would be involved.

it is essentially the disolve of a monopoly on the use of force and violence. That is not to say there will be no force or violence. But, there is force and violence now, the difference is who gets to use it and for what purposes.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Interesting..the irish celts got by for over 1,000 years as anarchists. It wasn't until Statists showed up with their monarchy and army that they were forced into war and subsequently lost after a very long struggle. So it wasn't the irish anarchists that destroyed their way of life, it was the Statists. Funny, that.

So it's well established than a small, insular, zero-technology agrarian society can function anarchistically -- until it comes up against another force.

That's why I asked about national defense and foreign policy. Thank you for highlighting anarchy's fatal weakness.

And herein is the underlying problem I have with an anarchist system. I have to admit though, the thread was about the MERITS of an anarchist society and in that regard I believe that TASB has presented valid points. There are, indeed, some actual merits there in the way that he (and I have to assume other anarchists) define their version of anarchy. The problem with the society is that I don’t think one is possible to sustain in a peaceful and free way in modern time, scale and technology. I am not so sure that TASB totally disagrees with that supposition either though and maybe he will comment on that further if he has not abandoned the thread. I know, in another thread, he was willing to admit that the proverbial cat is out of the bag in reference to the world of statist war that we have and in such a place a military was a requirement.

I have to admit that anarchy HAS merits but as far as transitioning to a system such as that it is not possible atm.

Correct.

 

[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.

Suppose my small town decided to organize an anarchistic society...except for me. I'm not moving, and I have no intent to play by their rules.

What should be done about me?

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?

That seems rather simplistic and unrealistic. All throughout history, nation-states, regardless of their form of organization, have coveted what other nation-states have.

Do you really think that covetousness is solely a product of government?

How does one organize an anarchistic society? isn't that completely antithetical? In other words, people are left to work amongst themselves to advance their standard of living. What rules woudl an anarchistic society implement that you would refuse to play by?

The idea is that outside of molestinng other people's persons or property, you're free to go about your business as you like. The question seems almost silly.

Yes, with Statism running rampant, there is no room for a society built on voluntary, peaceful exchange without the worries of Statists showing up and violently/forcefully exacting control over people in one form or another. There would have to be defense mechanisms. But, like the old Japanese saying about invading the main land of america goes, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Anarchy also doesn't imply that people can not volunteer to participate in programs dreamed up by whoever is believed to be the smartest turd in the room. If people want to participate in some sort o fsocial security program, they can. if they want to form a community where gays aren't allowed (or are), they can. The difference being built under the guise of being forced to participate whether you like it or not and having a gun put to your head for noncompliance to the rules on an aggregate level.

Who pays for these anarchistic social programs?

If a society is built off voluntary exchange, the people who sign up for such programs would pay for them exclusively. Since wealth redistribution efforts would be considered tabboo, and also the immediate pings of a State forming. The whole crux of it is that no one has the authority to force someone else to participate in such things. The basic standard of rules involves the NAP. That each person is his own State and those who do molest other people or their property are dealt with quickly and swiftly.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Anarchy has not been sustainable or a good thing anywhere it has been tried.

Except of course in the areas already discussed in this thread that you continue to want to ignore. over a 1,000 years of anarchy in Ireland. Over 20 years of sustained anarchy, with growth and production economcically well documented in Somalia. It worked in American colonial times for those folks.

As for it being a "good thing", that's rather subjective, dont you think? The people of ireland seemed to think it was a good thing. They certianly weren't looking to get steamrolled by the monarchy. Or else they would have embraced them instead of fighting them.

You can repeat that type of claim all you want, but it's false. It's also false to assert that "installing" it in America was even a topic of discussion. You made that up and ran with it.

In the end, you really dont have a case against anarchic systems. You simply point to the Founder's vision of a consititutional republic (that has failed) and then try and change the entire discussion to one of resurrecting this dead concept, and begging that we work to restore it, more or less.

Anarchy works and is sustainable just fine. YOU might not like what it produces, but no one is asking you to live in an anarchic system. Anarchy is just as sustainable as the Founder's vision afer all.

How many people do you know who would like to live in a zero-technology agrarian society (like the Celts) or in a violent winner-take-all society like Somalia?

As for Somalia, it seems anarchy is on the way out:

As part of the official "Roadmap for the End of Transition", a political process which provides clear benchmarks leading toward the establishment of permanent democratic institutions in Somalia by late August 2012,[25] Somali government officials met in the northeastern town of Garowe in February 2012 to discuss post-transition arrangements. After extensive deliberations attended by regional actors and international observers, the conference ended in a signed agreement between TFG President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, Prime Minister Abdiweli Mohamed Ali, Speaker of Parliament Sharif Adan Sharif Hassan, Puntland President Abdirahman Mohamed Farole, Galmudug President Mohamed Ahmed Alim and Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jama'a representative Khalif Abdulkadir Noor stipulating that: a) a new 225 member bicameral parliament would be formed, consisting of an upper house seating 54 Senators as well as a lower house; b) 30% of the National Constituent Assembly (NCA) is earmarked for women; c) the President is to be appointed via a constitutional election; and d) the President selects a Prime Minister, who then appoints a Cabinet.[140][141] On June 23, 2012, the Somali federal and regional leaders met again and approved a draft constitution after several days of deliberation.[26] The National Constituent Assembly overwhelmingly passed the new constitution on August 1, with 96% of the 645 delegates present voting for it, 2% against it, and 2% abstaining.[28][142] To come into effect, it must be ratified by the new parliament.[27]
Concurrent with the end of the TFG's interim mandate on August 20, 2012, the Federal Parliament of Somalia was inaugurated, ushering in the Federal Government of Somalia, the first permanent central government in the country since the start of the civil war.[29] On September 10, 2012, parliament also elected Hassan Sheikh Mohamud as the new President of Somalia.[143] President Mohamud later appointed Abdi Farah Shirdon as the new Prime Minister on October 6, 2012.[144] On November 4, 2012, Shirdon named a new Cabinet,[145] which was later endorsed by the legislature on November 13, 2012.[146]​

Now why would they do that, if anarchy was working out so great?

Gee, I don't know. maybe because people have a tendencey to gravitate towards power (especially sociopaths...just look at the USA political climate) and control. Because Statists love that type of stuff more than anything else. Above all, Somalia wasn't a chosen anarchic society, it became one after the meddlings of imperial statists starting in the early 1900s.

Just a guess.

 

[Foxfyre]

Considering I have heard TASB refer to himself as an anarcho-capitalist I find that literally impossible for him to ascribe to a Marxist or communist ideal. Just saying.

Well true as Marxism rejects all concepts of capitalism.

So what would an anarcho-captialist be? Strictly black market? Mafia? Piracy? With no legal enforcement or personal protections for anybody, how would that work?

Voluntary exchanges and associations, free of thrid party coercion (now,. i know this is where the boogeyman shows up and forces some to do their will. That boogeyman is also government. That's what governments do.). It allows for maximum economic freedom of the individual, and the beauty of voluntary associations is that they are always mutually beneficial. It's not eocnomically harmonious for people to go around fucking each other over. More so, there is the ultimate, and only true regulation to contend with in voluntary free market societies; FAILURE. Which, in a consumer based, technologically advanced world, is rather easy to achieve.

Black market indicates that there is illegal voluntary mutual exchange taking place. Mafia runs protection rackets, just like government. Piracy is in violation of voluntary exchange. Since that's theft, not exchange.

Anarcho-captialism works off the same premise of the NAP in the same fashion as that of libertarians. The difference being, that anarcho-capitalists generally believe that judicial system serviices can also be lent to a competitive market, instead of a monopoly of govenrment. Which would, of course, increase services, expedite service and lower overall costs. Since competition would be involved.

it is essentially the disolve of a monopoly on the use of force and violence. That is not to say there will be no force or violence. But, there is force and violence now, the difference is who gets to use it and for what purposes.

Well thank you for offering a reasoned argument that does not include ad hominem insults or accusations.

And if that is your definition of anarcho-capitalism, then okay, though for me, anarchy is still a society without rules other than survival of the fittest.

What you describe may or may not be what the Founders intended: i.e. a central government strong enough to secure our rights, but prohibited from interfering with how we otherwise choose to live our lives or what sort of societies we choose to form.

But wthin the social contract there of necessity must be rules in order to secure our rights. My neighbor should not be able to pollute my well with impunity; my neighbor's cattle should not be able to trample my garden without consequence; my neighbor should not have license to disturb my peace. One neighbor should not assume privilege to utilize his property in a way that diminishes the property values of everybody else.

But neither should I have power to dictate to my neighbor in how he must believe, think, speak, or live when it does not affect me personally. At least some mutually agreed rules of practice and conduct are necessary in order for our rights to be secured and to ensure a more satisfying quality of life. To me that is something quite different from anarchy.

But if there is no means to enforce mutually agreed rules, then anarchy results. So that is where government of the people, by the people, for the people comes in. But in the Founders vision, the people give the power to government to do specific things. The government has no power choose what the people will be alowed to do.

And if that is your view of anarcho-captialism, I can go along with that. I will just think it a silly word to use for the system.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yeah, i used a lot of ad hom in here....Anyway,

I'm definitely not steering back into a discussion of the Founders failed system. We've gone over it ad neaseum.

 

[DailyPolitrix.]

I think the land within the city limits of Detroit should be declared an anarcho capitalist territory. Seriously. I was thinking the other day that Detroit needs to have creative people and people with some money to buy land , build there. Because there is really no draw there or reason to move there. So the tax base or potential tax base is never going to recover there .

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I think the land within the city limits of Detroit should be declared an anarcho capitalist territory. Seriously. I was thinking the other day that Detroit needs to have creative people and people with some money to buy land , build there. Because there is really no draw there or reason to move there. So the tax base or potential tax base is never going to recover there .

That's impossible. A fine point regarding anarcho-capitalism is the rejection of legal tender, allowing individuals to decided and competition to determine mediums of exchange. inside the of the US, the federal government has placed legal restrictions against competitive currency. For good reason too (as they wouldn't be able to create debt societies like the one we have today). For that matter, foreign nations are also restrictive (like all authoritarian states) about what modes of exchange can happen, and all exchanges are taxed or levied by states. There is no way it could possibly work.

 

[FA_Q2]

So it's well established than a small, insular, zero-technology agrarian society can function anarchistically -- until it comes up against another force.

That's why I asked about national defense and foreign policy. Thank you for highlighting anarchy's fatal weakness.

And herein is the underlying problem I have with an anarchist system. I have to admit though, the thread was about the MERITS of an anarchist society and in that regard I believe that TASB has presented valid points. There are, indeed, some actual merits there in the way that he (and I have to assume other anarchists) define their version of anarchy. The problem with the society is that I don’t think one is possible to sustain in a peaceful and free way in modern time, scale and technology. I am not so sure that TASB totally disagrees with that supposition either though and maybe he will comment on that further if he has not abandoned the thread. I know, in another thread, he was willing to admit that the proverbial cat is out of the bag in reference to the world of statist war that we have and in such a place a military was a requirement.

I have to admit that anarchy HAS merits but as far as transitioning to a system such as that it is not possible atm.

Correct.

Well I am glad that I have found some common ground to understand what you are getting at then. You know, you sound a lot less crazy when someone takes the time to understand what you mean rather than what they think you mean

Thank you TASB for the informative debate thus far, it has taught me a LOT about how some anarchists such as yourself view the ideal government (or lack thereof) and what anachy actually means in that context.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think the land within the city limits of Detroit should be declared an anarcho capitalist territory. Seriously. I was thinking the other day that Detroit needs to have creative people and people with some money to buy land , build there. Because there is really no draw there or reason to move there. So the tax base or potential tax base is never going to recover there .

That's impossible. A fine point regarding anarcho-capitalism is the rejection of legal tender, allowing individuals to decided and competition to determine mediums of exchange. inside the of the US, the federal government has placed legal restrictions against competitive currency. For good reason too (as they wouldn't be able to create debt societies like the one we have today). For that matter, foreign nations are also restrictive (like all authoritarian states) about what modes of exchange can happen, and all exchanges are taxed or levied by states. There is no way it could possibly work.

I would add that an ‘anarchy’ that was declared by a state kind or belittles the idea in the first place. A state does not declare a place as an anarchist society; the people would have to do that as the entire thing requires the rejection of the state as an authority.

The state declaring an anarchist ‘reserve’ is an oxymoron as I see it.