The merits of an anarchistic society

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

What are you talking about? I fully understanf what the founders tried to do and what it became. This doesn't address anything. More or else, it's an attempt at underhandedly insulting my knowledge.

The USA IS an empire. Whether or not it was suppose to be that is completely irrelevant at this point. The fact that it WAS successful means litttle. And the irish celts were also successful at anarchy until it met a similar demise to that of the founder's vision.

I really have no idea what you're even attempting to convey at this point. it's liek you just want to somehow talk the founder's vision back to reality. it's no longer in service, that system. It has been molested and long lost....I get that. It has little if nothing to do with the merits of anarchy....

 

[Foxfyre]

Well TASB, I accept you have no idea what I am trying to convey and I apologize for being unable to explain it to you in a way you could understand. However, I am pretty sure that those with a good grasp of American history got the point I was making. Or maybe not? Who knows?

The Founders' concept worked. It worked beautifully. It was successful. It was a grand experiment--something that had never before been tried--and it produced a mighty nation that was free, prosperous, productive, innovative, creative, and benevolent. It produced a nation that was the #1 choice that people all over the world looked to as a place of freedom, opportunity, and a better way of life.

History is full of circumstances in which evil or short sighted men have altered or destroyed good things. That happened, is still happening, to the United States of America. But it does not change the fact that the Founders' concept was the successful in producing the liberty they envisioned. And it does not change the fact that it still would if we would just have the will to put it back into place.

Anarchy has not been sustainable or a good thing anywhere it has been tried. And there is no reason to believe that it would not produce the same miserable results if it was installed here or anywhere else.

 

[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.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry TASB. You have to violently redefine 'anarchy' to make your opinion of the success of anarchy credible.

But if you equate 'anarchy' with some other system, then of course it works for you just as modern American liberals try to equate that liberalism with liberty and justice, when it is anything but, or when self described libertarians would use the federal government to accomplish their social goals which of course completely negates the entire concept of libertarianism.

 

[High_Gravity]

Somalia is as close to anarchy as I've seen, lovely place. Lets move there.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Sorry TASB. You have to violently redefine 'anarchy' to make your opinion of the success of anarchy credible.

No i dont. I've provided examples and once again, you're using subjective terminology to try and paint a picture. "Success" as in what? I never made claim that it was successful by your understanding of success (which I can only assume mean you're trying to equate it with the Founder's FAIILED vision).

Anarchy has merit and can be sustained. It can even thrive. But, like all other "systems", men tend to molest things for their own gain and control. They commit terrible acts against other humans in the name of securing things for themselves. And thats why NO system ever lasts within the human construct.

Whether it be anarchy, libertairansim, LOLberalism, socialism, etc...etc..etc..

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Not according to what you have said in this very thread. Yu have stated that the founders system failed but, by your own admission, anarchy has failed as well for the exact same reasons. I will submit that to say that the founders did not fail but rather the system was subverted is the same as stating that anarchy has also not failed but instead been subverted by statists. Or they both failed. Either way, it seems irrelevant to the discussion anymore as the focus then should be on what provides a more free society. Would you contend that Somalia, what you claim as a working anarchy, or the Celts provide a more free and better access to rights than MODERN America which has actually fallen?

I don’t believe that is true in the least and that would not lead credence to the idea that an anarchist society was superior to a limited government. As you think it is superior, tell us why. The ideal, remember, is not well grounded and I could argue easily that ideal Marxism is better but we all know that Marxism is a complete failure.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Would you contend that Somalia, what you claim as a working anarchy, or the Celts provide a more free and better access to rights than MODERN America which has actually fallen?

In some ways yes. MODERN Amercian society is an illusion of freedoms. I mean, how free am I to live the way I please and keep the fruits of my labor? I'm not. We have local, state AND federal governments all reaching into my pocket to steal from me. With the only consent being that I'm present. A tacit compliance. What rights do I really have at this point here?

Anarchy allows for an even and local level of authority from each individual to govern themselves. It allows all other kinds of systems to come to life within the local environments. Yes, there are bad sides to that too. What is perfect out there? Communal living, freedom of exchange, freedom to choose the medium of exchange, the actual ownership of property vs. the rental system of the US, etc...all of these things make anarchism very appealing. They have there downsides too, sure. Like the fact that someone might (OK they WILL) take advantage in a given area. Then it's on the people to step up and drag these type back down to the dirt. No system is flawless in the human construct. My point is that anarchy has merits. That was the topic of discusssoin here.

We veered pretty far off course when the battle of assertions began. Such as anarchy can only last mere months, always ends in dictator control, etc...

 

[Asclepias]

Anarchy is the absence of power. Its a vacuum. If you know anything about humans and the laws of nature that is impossible to maintain. Humans are social and even 2 people alone will establish an hierarchy thus negating any semblance of anarchist society. The very term anarchist society is a false hood.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

tell that to the Irish Celts or the folks in Somalia.

Anarchy is the absence of formal government, not the absence of power.

 

[Foxfyre]

Somalia is as close to anarchy as I've seen, lovely place. Lets move there.

LOL yes. Anarchy has worked out sooooo well for them. It is on the U.S. list of places not to go for ANY reason. A recent Australian travel alert:

We strongly advise you not to travel to any part of Somalia because of armed conflict, the ongoing very high threat of terrorist attack and dangerous levels of violent crime, including kidnapping.
• If you are in Somalia, we strongly urge you to leave if it is safe to do so.
• If, despite our advice, you travel to or remain in Somalia, you should be aware that the ability of the Australian government to provide consular services to Australians in Somalia is extremely limited. The Australian High Commission in Kenya is responsible for Somalia.
• There is an ongoing very high threat of terrorist attack in Somalia. Westerners have been targeted and killed in terrorist attacks throughout the country, including the capital Mogadishu.
• Terrorists have targeted aircraft. Airports are also possible targets.
• Australians holding Somali citizenship will be regarded by Somali officials as Somali in the first instance and therefore may find they have limited capacity to notify the Australian government of their situation.
• Somali-based militants represent a significant risk to Westerners in Somalia and elsewhere in East Africa. Since early 2010, there has been an increase in major terrorist attacks in Somalia. Somali-based militants have also claimed responsibility for terrorist attacks as far afield as Uganda.
• Recent terrorist attacks include the 14 April 2013 suicide bombing at the Supreme Court in Mogadishu, where 19 people were killed, and on 6 May 2013, a car packed with explosives rammed a government convoy in Mogadishu, killing eight people and injuring many others.
• There is no effective police force in Somalia and lawlessness, violent crime, banditry and looting are common.
• Foreigners, including Australians, face an ongoing very high threat of kidnapping in Somalia and are actively targeted by kidnappers. Western aid workers, journalists and religious representatives have all been targeted by kidnappers.
Somalia | Travel advice | Smartraveller: The Australian Government's travel advisory and consular assistance service

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Who would have ever guessed that Somalian militants would hate westerners?

 

[Asclepias]

tell that to the Irish Celts or the folks in Somalia.

Anarchy is the absence of formal government, not the absence of power.

Government by its very nature is power. Either way the absence of it is a vacuum and we know the law about that.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Oh, ok.

 

[FA_Q2]

Would you contend that Somalia, what you claim as a working anarchy, or the Celts provide a more free and better access to rights than MODERN America which has actually fallen?

In some ways yes. MODERN Amercian society is an illusion of freedoms. I mean, how free am I to live the way I please and keep the fruits of my labor? I'm not. We have local, state AND federal governments all reaching into my pocket to steal from me. With the only consent being that I'm present. A tacit compliance. What rights do I really have at this point here?

Anarchy allows for an even and local level of authority from each individual to govern themselves. It allows all other kinds of systems to come to life within the local environments. Yes, there are bad sides to that too. What is perfect out there? Communal living, freedom of exchange, freedom to choose the medium of exchange, the actual ownership of property vs. the rental system of the US, etc...all of these things make anarchism very appealing. They have there downsides too, sure. Like the fact that someone might (OK they WILL) take advantage in a given area. Then it's on the people to step up and drag these type back down to the dirt. No system is flawless in the human construct. My point is that anarchy has merits. That was the topic of discusssoin here.

We veered pretty far off course when the battle of assertions began. Such as anarchy can only last mere months, always ends in dictator control, etc...

I think here is the problem then. I don’t see Somalia as giving grater access to your natural rights than even modern America does let alone the system that we have now. You mention things like the rental property that we have here yet in Somalia it is even worse where any gang that is stronger than the immediate local people can take what you ‘own.’ Essentially, in such a place you are only capable of owning what you yourself can protect. Over here, it is true that the government can do the same BUT you have basic protections from not only everyone else but also the government and a process for redress when your rights have been violated. You do not have any redress in an anarchy UNLESS you have a bigger gang. That is the essential underlying problem I have with an anarchist society.

I don’t think that our definitions of the best society actually differ much. Where you want a complete lack of government where people can trade freely with one another I also want the same thing with a single caveat – I want a gang in lace that is big enough to ensure that the other gangs don’t try and taking over my freedoms. That enforcement ensures not only do I have rights but that I have ACCESS to those rights. I think that in a pure anarchist society that a gang is going to come along and take that access away and when that happens I have no recourse whatsoever. The government remedies that issue with a small cost as long as that government remains small and in existence to solely provide the protection of rights rather than the ‘betterment’ of the people (which essentially ends up being the government). I realize that the government is going to grow out of control but I don’t see the difference in that and the eventual takeover from statists in an anarchy.

 

[FA_Q2]

Who would have ever guessed that Somalian militants would hate westerners?

Militants might not like foreigners but the very existence of those militants on a scale that threatens travel there essentially means they are not simply targeting tourism. When the violent do not have the target of their choice, they pick another.

 

[Foxfyre]

Who would have ever guessed that Somalian militants would hate westerners?

When Somalia had a forward thinking and stable government, it was one of the jewels of Africa. But over the last 20 years or so, if you think the anarchists, i.e. those who respect no law or no rules, aren't making life a living hell for most Somalians, especially for women, then we have to assume that you don't read much?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Would you contend that Somalia, what you claim as a working anarchy, or the Celts provide a more free and better access to rights than MODERN America which has actually fallen?

In some ways yes. MODERN Amercian society is an illusion of freedoms. I mean, how free am I to live the way I please and keep the fruits of my labor? I'm not. We have local, state AND federal governments all reaching into my pocket to steal from me. With the only consent being that I'm present. A tacit compliance. What rights do I really have at this point here?

Anarchy allows for an even and local level of authority from each individual to govern themselves. It allows all other kinds of systems to come to life within the local environments. Yes, there are bad sides to that too. What is perfect out there? Communal living, freedom of exchange, freedom to choose the medium of exchange, the actual ownership of property vs. the rental system of the US, etc...all of these things make anarchism very appealing. They have there downsides too, sure. Like the fact that someone might (OK they WILL) take advantage in a given area. Then it's on the people to step up and drag these type back down to the dirt. No system is flawless in the human construct. My point is that anarchy has merits. That was the topic of discusssoin here.

We veered pretty far off course when the battle of assertions began. Such as anarchy can only last mere months, always ends in dictator control, etc...

I think here is the problem then. I don’t see Somalia as giving grater access to your natural rights than even modern America does let alone the system that we have now. You mention things like the rental property that we have here yet in Somalia it is even worse where any gang that is stronger than the immediate local people can take what you ‘own.’ Essentially, in such a place you are only capable of owning what you yourself can protect. Over here, it is true that the government can do the same BUT you have basic protections from not only everyone else but also the government and a process for redress when your rights have been violated. You do not have any redress in an anarchy UNLESS you have a bigger gang. That is the essential underlying problem I have with an anarchist society.

I don’t think that our definitions of the best society actually differ much. Where you want a complete lack of government where people can trade freely with one another I also want the same thing with a single caveat – I want a gang in lace that is big enough to ensure that the other gangs don’t try and taking over my freedoms. That enforcement ensures not only do I have rights but that I have ACCESS to those rights. I think that in a pure anarchist society that a gang is going to come along and take that access away and when that happens I have no recourse whatsoever. The government remedies that issue with a small cost as long as that government remains small and in existence to solely provide the protection of rights rather than the ‘betterment’ of the people (which essentially ends up being the government). I realize that the government is going to grow out of control but I don’t see the difference in that and the eventual takeover from statists in an anarchy.

42% of my property, is a small cost?

And you're absolutely right. There is no solution that will last for very long except the ultimate control of the biggest gang dominating the entire world. Governments are nothing more than gangs themselves that offer protection for a fee (protection racket) form other gangs and keeps those gangs out of their territory in order to secure their own power. it's not as if they give a flying crap about you if your rights are there or not.

Ultimately, I am a limited govt. libertarian. But I KNOW that it is an unworkable model. We had a good run of it (I, unfortunately was never around to enjoy its better aspects), but it didn't last and now there is absolutely no going back.

The reason I walk the stairs and do not fear or hate anarchy is for this reason. It, as a system has merits. It can last a LONG time free of warring factions, dictators or central government. it's just as good a system as any other in the end. Because again, none of it will last in teh human construct. We always make our way right back to some sort of despotic or tyrannical rule before too long.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Who would have ever guessed that Somalian militants would hate westerners?

When Somalia had a forward thinking and stable government, it was one of the jewels of Africa. But over the last 20 years or so, if you think the anarchists, i.e. those who respect no law or no rules, aren't making life a living hell for most Somalians, especially for women, then we have to assume that you don't read much?

Perhaps western civiliation shouldn't have occupied them when they did and create the environment that is there now. The British govt. gets to own the state that Somalia is in today with their EMPIRE and natin building of the early 1900s.

There are, however, good things going on in this "hell hole".

Such as telecom, and a host of other economic advancements DESPITE any formal protection racket.

yes, I do read, Stop fucking insulting me already or Im going to give it back.

 

[Foxfyre]

TASB, if you can show me an example of anarchy anywhere that provided freedom from fear and oppression for anybody, that provided opportunity for prosperity for most, that was not marked by brutal lawlessness and preying on the weak, or that wasn't overtaken by a ruthless dictatorship as soon as he could assert his superior strength, go for it. The examples you have thus far provided simply don't hold up in the light of the recorded history because the examples you have so far held up have not been anarachies and/or the places where anarchist systems are in effect have all been hellish, unstable places.

The ONLY areas in which anything good is happening in Somalia at this time is due to efforts to reinstitute a stable government and the influence that is having. Anarchy cannot be given the credit for that.