The merits of an anarchistic society

[TakeAStepBack]

It's a Catch 22 or chicken and egg kind of thing. Law with no authority to enforce it is an expectation rather than law--so you can't have law without some form of government. And you can't have a government without law. Even your linked definition backs up the concept.

Strange. it happened often in colonial times. Common law prevailed. No formal government. People who stole, nurdered, etc, were dealt with by the community. So there was law, and there was enforcement of it. At the same time, there was no formal government.

Amazing!

It doesn't have to be written down. If the community enforced the laws they expected to be followed, there WAS government. Maybe not an official one, but one that was recognized by all just the same. Anarchy however does not protect the rights of the weak but allows the strongest to prevail whether that be for good or for bad. It is the way of the wild beast and to the victor go the spoils.

Humankind via social contract found a way in the original U.S. Constitution to protect the weak while not inhibiting the more industrious, creative, innovative, brave to move society forward as the society chose to do. But without protection of those unalienable rights, there would not have been the progress, prosperity, innovation, creativity, and/or benevolence that American people inevitably produce given the liberty and time to accomplish their goals.

It was a government given its power by the people rather than the government assigning the rights to the people.

And it was not anarchy or anything close to that.

Are we playing repeater now?

Again, no one is suggesting the constitutional govt of the founders was anarchy. Not in the least.

The rest of that can not be substantiated in the least. It's a logical fallacy to suggest what might have occurred absent the US govt. in north america.

 

[Foxfyre]

Strange. it happened often in colonial times. Common law prevailed. No formal government. People who stole, nurdered, etc, were dealt with by the community. So there was law, and there was enforcement of it. At the same time, there was no formal government.

Amazing!

It doesn't have to be written down. If the community enforced the laws they expected to be followed, there WAS government. Maybe not an official one, but one that was recognized by all just the same. Anarchy however does not protect the rights of the weak but allows the strongest to prevail whether that be for good or for bad. It is the way of the wild beast and to the victor go the spoils.

Humankind via social contract found a way in the original U.S. Constitution to protect the weak while not inhibiting the more industrious, creative, innovative, brave to move society forward as the society chose to do. But without protection of those unalienable rights, there would not have been the progress, prosperity, innovation, creativity, and/or benevolence that American people inevitably produce given the liberty and time to accomplish their goals.

It was a government given its power by the people rather than the government assigning the rights to the people.

And it was not anarchy or anything close to that.

Are we playing repeater now?

Again, no one is suggesting the constitutional govt of the founders was anarchy. Not in the least.

The rest of that can not be substantiated in the least. It's a logical fallacy to suggest what might have occurred absent the US govt. in north america.

The logical fallacy is grasping at straws to pretend that the American colonies were Anarchists. They were not. I am arguing for a return to the principles the Founders fought, bled, and risked their very lives and fortunes to make possible for us to have.

You seem to be wanting to dismantle that by declaring it a failed system and install anarchy as an alternative.

It was not a failed system. It was brilliant and worked magnificently until it was dismantled at the turn of the 20th Century. Does that mean that nothing bad ever happened within that framework? No mistakes were made? People were never stupid? Not at all. People being imperfect are going to do things imperfectly. And even though they did it imperfectly, it still produced the greatest, most free, most powerful, most innovative, most creative, most prosperous, and most benevolent nation the world has ever known.

To replace the rule of law with anarchy would be the most stupid thing we as a people have ever done.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The logical fallacy is grasping at straws to pretend that the American colonies were Anarchists. They were not.

Except no one pretended or even asserted that ALL the American colonies were anarchist. There were however, plenty of examples of government free communities in those times. I've even given example int eh thread.

And it IS a logical fallacy. We call that Fallacy of False alternatives.

 

[PaulS1950]

Show me a state in which anarchy survived for more than a single decade.............

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Somalia, Celtic Ireland. But, the question is fallacious. A State signifies a government.

 

[Foxfyre]

The logical fallacy is grasping at straws to pretend that the American colonies were Anarchists. They were not.

Except no one pretended or even asserted that ALL the American colonies were anarchist. There were however, plenty of examples of government free communities in those times. I've even given example int eh thread.

And it IS a logical fallacy. We call that Fallacy of False alternatives.

Well if you're going to nitpick, I didn't say ALL American colonies either. So if you are going to base your argument on intellectual honesty, you're going to have to be more precise than you have been thus far.

So far you have shown me no evidence that any recognized American colonies were anarchist in nature or practice. Perhaps one or two actually did exist that were, but I can't believe they were successful or they would be enshrined in history.

My argument is not to cherry pick or manufacture some obscure example that I will hold up to make my case. I point to the recorded and unimpeachable evidence of the success of a nation operating under self governance until unscrupulous or misguided men decided to reinstall authoritarian government.

Self governance, as designed by the Founders, however, was not lack of government. It was not anarchy in any form.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

A successful anarchist society enshrined in the writing of histories winners? Yeah.

Anyway, they were not successful. Because Statists, by use of force and violence, either executed them, or brought them reluctantly into the fold.

Self governance, as designed by the Founders, however, was not lack of government. It was not anarchy in any form.

How many times do you plan to repeat this? No one is suggesting it. You seem to be hard put to make SURE (by way of constant repetition) that no one makes any connection there. Which is great, because no one is trying to make that connection. Which is why I keep asking you why you keep saying it. And then you just say it again.

OK, I think we've had enough of this. I'm gonna unsubscribe now and leave you to it.

Cheers.

 

[Foxfyre]

I repeat it because you keep rejecting my defense of the Founders system and have proclaimed it a failed system. But cheers. I hate circular arguments too, but I will not capitulate what I believe true freedom and a superior concept of government to be just because somebody insists that it is all bunk.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It is a failed system. it is no longer operational. Hence way i've called it a failure. Whether the intentions were good or not is irrelevant to observation. Under observation, the Founders system didn't stand up to the test of time. Whether that be from deviant men, or the because the system itself was in error (a combo of both IMO).

the hard fact is, it has failed.


Ok, now we'll let it go.

Cheers.

 

[Foxfyre]

I knew you wouldn't unsubsribe.

The system did not and was not failing. It was those who would not allow it to work and the system they replaced it with that have failed.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I knew you wouldn't unsubsribe.

The system did not and was not failing. It was those who would not allow it to work and the system they replaced it with that have failed.

Same can be said of anarchic societies. Welcome to the fold. In the end, the same societies I'm attempting to give credibility failed for the same reason you're saying the Founders system (failed, but somehow didn't) ended.

 

[arKangel]

Show me a state in which anarchy survived for more than a single decade.............

Quaestio falsum...
False question.

Does your use of the word "state", in context, not imply government?
How can something that is not government "survive" as a government?


Ah, those silly pinkos.


People have maintained family based order since the dawn of mankind. Stupid gangster governments have their election shows and asinine wars... but family survives eternally.
Show me one of your "states" that have outlived the structure of the natural family...

Now we will hear the crickets chirp.

 

[Foxfyre]

I knew you wouldn't unsubsribe.

The system did not and was not failing. It was those who would not allow it to work and the system they replaced it with that have failed.

Same can be said of anarchic societies. Welcome to the fold. In the end, the same societies I'm attempting to give credibility failed for the same reason you're saying the Founders system (failed, but somehow didn't) ended.

I'm not in your fold my friend. Nowhere even close. But the Founder's system being thrown out and replaced is not the same thing as the Founder's system failing. A championship pro football team excels at football, but if you tell them they can no longer play football but will instead play ice hockey, they will likely not be excellent. And their failure won't be a fault of football.

 

[arKangel]

It is a failed system. it is no longer operational. Hence way i've called it a failure. Whether the intentions were good or not is irrelevant to observation. Under observation, the Founders system didn't stand up to the test of time. Whether that be from deviant men, or the because the system itself was in error (a combo of both IMO).

the hard fact is, it has failed.


Ok, now we'll let it go.

Cheers.

It seems that you have presented yourself as a straw man?
Why do you insist on arguing in the false context/construct presented?


Anytime there are a families who settle disputes without involving outsiders... that is anarchy.
And it happens every few seconds of every minute, it always has and always will be.

People do not need government, they simply need honesty.

 

[Foxfyre]

An immediate family is not an anarchy. It is an organized group with a social contract that includes a governing authority, rules, consequences for violating them, expectations of its various members, shared resources, and mutual benefit.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I knew you wouldn't unsubsribe.

The system did not and was not failing. It was those who would not allow it to work and the system they replaced it with that have failed.

Same can be said of anarchic societies. Welcome to the fold. In the end, the same societies I'm attempting to give credibility failed for the same reason you're saying the Founders system (failed, but somehow didn't) ended.

I'm not in your fold my friend. Nowhere even close. But the Founder's system being thrown out and replaced is not the same thing as the Founder's system failing. A championship pro football team excels at football, but if you tell them they can no longer play football but will instead play ice hockey, they will likely not be excellent. And their failure won't be a fault of football.

You're saying that the Founders system failed because men wouldn't allow it to work or molested it. Thats the same reason that the Irish celts anarchic system failed too. They were doing just fine until Statists showed up and forced them to abide the rules of other men. So, then are you saying that anarchy isn't a failure, it just wasn't allowed to work the same as the Founders consititution was not allowed to work?

because that's really what you're saying by digging in your heels that the founders system didn't fail, it just wasn't allwoed to work due to man. Same can be said for anarchic systems. They were molested by mena dn in so, not allowed to work. Of course, saying not allwoed to work, and failure is the same thing........

 

[Foxfyre]

Same can be said of anarchic societies. Welcome to the fold. In the end, the same societies I'm attempting to give credibility failed for the same reason you're saying the Founders system (failed, but somehow didn't) ended.

I'm not in your fold my friend. Nowhere even close. But the Founder's system being thrown out and replaced is not the same thing as the Founder's system failing. A championship pro football team excels at football, but if you tell them they can no longer play football but will instead play ice hockey, they will likely not be excellent. And their failure won't be a fault of football.

You're saying that the Founders system failed because men wouldn't allow it to work or molested it. Thats the same reason that the Irish celts anarchic system failed too. They were doing just fine until Statists showed up and forced them to abide the rules of other men. So, then are you saying that anarchy isn't a failure, it just wasn't allowed to work the same as the Founders consititution was not allowed to work?

because that's really what you're saying by digging in your heels that the founders system didn't fail, it just wasn't allwoed to work due to man. Same can be said for anarchic systems. They were molested by mena dn in so, not allowed to work. Of course, saying not allwoed to work, and failure is the same thing........

Anarchy cannot work because once the weaker have been destroyed, which is the natural result of anarchy, somebody with the power to control everybody inevitably assumes authority and anarchy is ended. So any attempt at an anarchal system will be short lived, bloody, and violent.

Under the concept of the U.S. Constitution as the Founders' designed it, classical liberalism/libertarianism worked fine for most of 150 years. And because it was one of our most popular Presidents of all time who did it, the people didn't pay attention when he dismantled the basic principle of that Constitution. The transition was subtle and hardly noticable at first. And by the time people figured out what had happened, the die had been cast, the most basic principle undergirding the Constitution was destroyed, and the results have been devastating to much of our liberty and our unalienable rights. And if we do not reverse it, soon, we will lose it all. I do believe this is the last generation that will have any chance to do that short of another bloody revolution.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Anarchy cannot work because once the weaker have been destroyed, which is the natural result of anarchy, somebody with the power to control everybody inevitably assumes authority and anarchy is ended. So any attempt at an anarchal system will be short lived, bloody, and violent.

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.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Under the concept of the U.S. Constitution as the Founders' designed it, classical liberalism/libertarianism worked fine for most of 150 years. And because it was one of our most popular Presidents of all time who did it, the people didn't pay attention when he dismantled the basic principle of that Constitution. The transition was subtle and hardly noticable at first. And by the time people figured out what had happened, the die had been cast, the most basic principle undergirding the Constitution was destroyed, and the results have been devastating to much of our liberty and our unalienable rights. And if we do not reverse it, soon, we will lose it all. I do believe this is the last generation that will have any chance to do that short of another bloody revolution.

There will be no reversing of it. History is crystal clear on this about the collapse of empires.

 

[Foxfyre]

The USA was not designed to be an empire. Anything but. It was designed to be a place of liberty and self governance, a concept that had NEVER been tried before in all of human history. And it was successful beyond even the most visionary of the Founders' dreams.

The fact that TakeaStepBack and a few others seem to be incapable of separating the Founders' concept from what they themselves have experienced or been indoctrinated with or whatever does not change history. It only corrupts the perceptions of history and distorts the realities.