The merits of an anarchistic society

[Asclepias]

i know you did, and like Fox, you're playing fast and loose with terminology. Hence why this thread is basically become a place fo being and listening to absurdity. there is absolutely no why to have an intelligent conversation regarding this subject if people aren't even sure how to properly identify and context terms, definitions, etc...

This is from Wiki. Is this the definition you are referring to? If not can you show me what you are talking about?

Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be immoral, or alternatively as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations. Proponents of anarchism (known as "anarchists") advocate stateless societies based on what sometimes is defined like non-hierarchical organizations, and in another times is defined like voluntary associations.

 

[PaulS1950]

Well Webster defines Anarchy as:

Definition of ANARCHY
1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature &#8212; Israel Shenker>

If you look at the synonyms:
lawlessness, misrule

And related words:
commotion, tumult, uproar; chaos, confusion, disarray, disorder, disorderliness, disorganization, misorder; disruption, disturbance, havoc, riot, strife, turbulence, turmoil, unrest, upheaval; mutiny, rebellion, revolution, uprising; criminality, outlawry

You find what the common accepted meaning and the connotation of the word is.

 

[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.

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?

 

[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.

All excellent questions.

In fact the exact right questions.

Well done, Dave.

Thank you. I've been asking these questions of anarchists for years.

Never have gotten any realistic answers.

 

[daveman]

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?

 

[daveman]

Good luck on returning to a concept that has been steamrolled. Let me know how that works out for you. it'll never happen. I'd love for it to be true, but it isnt and it wont.

Governments as a total concept is a failure at securing rights. Whether it's because the concept is not sound, or those weilding it deviate, is irrelevant.

As for Somalia, there are benefits to it the same as anythign else. There are also drawbacks. The point, again for the second time, was to show that anarchy can be sustained longer than a previous posters assertion.

Yes, Somalia is anarchistic.

Do you want to live there?

Me, neither. Neither, do I suspect, does the average Somali. It's a shithole, any way you look at it. The only people truly thriving are the warlords.

 

[daveman]

To those who say ignorant things like "anarchy never lasts"...

Idiots, family law always supersedes your hatred. The word has survived countless "governments", it will outlast all of them.

And yet, oddly, family law required a defined hierarchy.

You know -- a government.

 

[daveman]

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.

The Democratic Party is systematically destroying the black family, by rewarding its dissolution.

If you promise people enough goodies, some of them will abandon the natural family structure.

 

[daveman]

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.

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.

 

[daveman]

The USA IS an empire.

No, it's not.

 

[daveman]

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?

 

[daveman]

How come anarchists are not flocking to Somalia?

Because they love the lifestyle government assures them.

It's rather amusing. I envision most anarchists sitting around Starbucks muttering all the time.

 

[daveman]

Thanks for that profound assessment.

He's right. Both systems are doomed to failure from the start.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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.

A society can function anarchistically so long as everybody shares and is committed to mutual virtues and self restraint. But once some are motivated to benefit themselves at the expense of the others--and the history of humankind has demonstrated that as not just a possibility but as an inevitablity--anarchy falls apart as a viable system. At least a viable system in which people can expect to live in peace and have freedom to aspire to personal goals.

 

[daveman]

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.

A society can function anarchistically so long as everybody shares and is committed to mutual virtues and self restraint. But once some are motivated to benefit themselves at the expense of the others--and the history of humankind has demonstrated that as not just a possibility but as an inevitablity--anarchy falls apart as a viable system. At least a viable system in which people can expect to live in peace and have freedom to aspire to personal goals.

It seems some people value the system over peace and aspirations.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well Webster defines Anarchy as:

Definition of ANARCHY
1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

If you look at the synonyms:
lawlessness, misrule

And related words:
commotion, tumult, uproar; chaos, confusion, disarray, disorder, disorderliness, disorganization, misorder; disruption, disturbance, havoc, riot, strife, turbulence, turmoil, unrest, upheaval; mutiny, rebellion, revolution, uprising; criminality, outlawry

You find what the common accepted meaning and the connotation of the word is.

Those definitions are accurate, of course. But they do represent an Anglo-American bias.

In Southern Europe, for example, Anarchism is perceived as something very different.

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

Needless to say Anarchism as expressed by movements in countries like Spain, Italy, or Greece could never exist in a Constitutional Republic such as the United States, nor would we want it to. Anarchism evolved in societies devoid of democratic principles and the rule of law, where the people lacked a constitution, an independent judiciary, and the means by which to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

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.

 

[editec]

The way MOST self declared ANARCHISTS describe their anarchistic society is NOT a society without a government.

Ergo they are describing a kind of society that is NOT anarchistic.

Their society has leaders, rules, and laws...it has proscribed WAYS of deciding what that society will do or not do

How the fuck is that anarchy?

 

[FA_Q2]

The way MOST self declared ANARCHISTS describe their anarchistic society is NOT a society without a government.

Ergo they are describing a kind of society that is NOT anarchistic.

Their society has leaders, rules, and laws...it has proscribed WAYS of deciding what that society will do or not do

How the fuck is that anarchy?

Because, as I have blasted posters for doing on other occasions, I am not going to define the political ideology of others. It is asinine to demand that a person that belongs to one political ideology must inherently accept YOUR definition of it. It never leads to anything coherent in a discussion. In this case, if most anarchists tend to agree on the basics then I am going to accept that basis for their beliefs. I might not totally agree with the specifics in the usage of words but that is a non-issue as long as we are able to communicate effectively about the issues.

You do not define the political ideology of ideologies that you are not a part of. Simple, right?

 

[Asclepias]

The definition I pulled from Wiki seems to support that anarchism is not anarchy per say. It appears to be some sort of shape shifting ideology. In one instance it doesn't have a hierarchy (which I think is impossible with humans) and in another instance voluntary associations.