Anarchy

[SavannahMann]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

Well, since we are redefining words to mean things that they really don't, let me say that for the purposes of this discussion, we are redefining the word Idiot to mean a person who has had an idea. Using that definition, you are an idiot.

The problem with your redefined word idea, is not just that it means what it doesn't mean, but that it doesn't work. There will be inevitable disagreements between people, and those inevitable disagreements will need to be judged by someone. In the old Testiment, it was the priests or Kings, or ministers, later Judges, that decided what was right. King Solomon identified the mother of a baby as one example.

But there is always someone in charge. Either through Devine right, as in a king, or chief, or through selection of the people.

Let's say your loose association of people who agree to live together in some sort of harmony does exist. Further lets say that two people have a disagreement about a trade, or a deal, or something. Who decides which party is wrong, or right? Do you put it up before the people to decide? Then it's a popularity contest, and the more charming fellow will be victorious.

John Roberts when he was being considered for the Supreme Court gave a great answer. He was asked if he would side with the little guy, or the big guy when deciding cases. John Roberts said that he may want to side with the little guy, but the deciding factor was the Constitution. The Constitution may say that the big guy is the one who is right, in which case the big guy would win. That is the way it is supposed to work, and I know we all have multiple examples of that not happening but for the purposes of this discussion that is determined to be irrelevant. So you may not bring it up.

I might well support a number of reforms. If we decided that our Representatives in Washington would be 535 randomly selected people. It could be like Jury Duty. Imagine, in September you walk to your Mailbox and then see the hated envelope. "God Damn It." You shout. "I just got selected for Congress."

Several alternates would be named, and you could go and complain to the judge that you can't do Congress because your Wife needs you.

At the end of your term, your duty as a Congressperson is ended. Then you move along and get back to your life, and some other poor schmuck gets stuck with his turn in Congress.

Each district could send someone. There could be houses set aside and you go to the assigned house for the district you live in, like Public Housing. A community that you live in with all the other congress critters. At the end of your term, you move out, and the next poor soul moves in.

Imagine the long faces of the people as they arrive, and the happy faces as they are leaving. You get the representative for the term, and you don't get professionals who are going to be wheeling and dealing to make themselves rich, or powerful.

But redefining a word to mean something other than what it does mean isn't the answer. Especially when there are already words that describe the type of society you envision. The better word would be Commune. You could set up what they described in Monty Python. You could be Dennis.



As I said, using my new definition, you've had an idea. So you're an idiot.

The Random House Dictionary: definition of anarchy: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

Now don't you feel STUPID?

Not at all. You left out the rest of the Definition.

anarchy

So why did you leave out the parts you think should not be there? Other than redefining words to trick people into agreeing with you, or making a terrible attempt at it. Come now Dennis. Use the right word.

I've discussed this with anarchists before. They always forget one little part of it. Yes, they would be able to do whatever they wanted without repercussions. However, so would everyone else. You could go and take food if you were hungry. And the others could bash you in the noggin without repercussions.

So I just played along, and redefined the word Idiot, which of course you are, under any definition you like. For the purposes of this discussion, Ithink I will define the word Stupid to be short for Stupendous. Which of course, I am.

 

[Rustic]

Federal government could be 1000 times smaller than what it is now and function fine…

If your car breaks down, you buy a better car. You don't decide to walk.

It's imbecilic to toss out the concept of government because it has yet to obtain perfection.

We have to decide WHAT minimal functions we want government to provide and then limit its power to strictly those functions.

… And the federal government could be 1000 times smaller and the country would do just fine, if… The federal government and the people would live within their means. But that is impossible with socialism is it not? Got to spend other peoples money

 

[SeaGal]

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.

...and there you have it. The reason a stateless society has much to fear.

The best form of government is one designed around the following principles; We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The appeal of a completely harmonious and voluntary society working and playing peacefully side by side without the interference of a formal government is understandable - it is the far-right's Utopian counterpart to the far-left's concept of Utopia. It might work in small-isolated communities whose existence is protected by laws enforced by the State.

I agree that prosperity and happiness are fostered by a 'least restrictive environment' envisioned by the authors of the Constitution - yet for some people the environment at that time was extremely restrictive. We've got the best form of government going for a country as large as we are, with as diverse a population as we have. Has it become too restrictive for some, but not restrictive enough for others, overstepped it's bounds, yet not done enough?...yes. All, if not with the blessings of the people, at least with their acquiescence.

I believe that the theory of anarchy as per your definition has been proven since time began to be an unworkable model. Human nature - the influence of natural law - makes it so.

 

[fncceo]

Federal government could be 1000 times smaller than what it is now and function fine…

If your car breaks down, you buy a better car. You don't decide to walk.

It's imbecilic to toss out the concept of government because it has yet to obtain perfection.

We have to decide WHAT minimal functions we want government to provide and then limit its power to strictly those functions.

… And the federal government could be 1000 times smaller and the country would do just fine, if… The federal government and the people would live within their means. But that is impossible with socialism is it not? Got to spend other peoples money

Socialism is the expansion of government power into the decisions of private business.

What we need is the removal of government power into private business.

Civil litigation, tort law, and mediation is the correct way to decide redress of civil grievance, not the state.

 

[NightFox]

I support smaller government, but no government is not a viable option.

Under the current circumstances this really isn't in doubt, the state didn't come into existence without cause thus it has existed and continues to exist for concrete reasons grounded in human nature.

That being the case IMHO the important questions with respect to anarchism theory are:
1. Would human beings be better off if there was no need for the state?
2. What would it take to eliminate the need for the state and replace it with something based solely on voluntarism? If it's even possible in a world of infinite wants and finite resources.

The whole subject is a philosophical question since history has demonstrated that anarchistic society at scale is as close to impossible as you can get under the current constraints of human nature.

Personally I think the elimination the state as we know it is a worthy goal however I don't see any path to getting there that won't take centuries to traverse.

"The State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation -- that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class -- that is, for a criminal purpose. No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient." -- Albert Jay Nock

 

[Rustic]

Federal government could be 1000 times smaller than what it is now and function fine…

If your car breaks down, you buy a better car. You don't decide to walk.

It's imbecilic to toss out the concept of government because it has yet to obtain perfection.

We have to decide WHAT minimal functions we want government to provide and then limit its power to strictly those functions.

… And the federal government could be 1000 times smaller and the country would do just fine, if… The federal government and the people would live within their means. But that is impossible with socialism is it not? Got to spend other peoples money

Socialism is the expansion of government power into the decisions of private business.

What we need is the removal of government power into private business.

Civil litigation, tort law, and mediation is the correct way to decide redress of civil grievance, not the state.

The 10th amendment needs to be strengthened, that will help neuter federal government for the people.

 

[gipper]

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.

...and there you have it. The reason a stateless society has much to fear.

The best form of government is one designed around the following principles; We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The appeal of a completely harmonious and voluntary society working and playing peacefully side by side without the interference of a formal government is understandable - it is the far-right's Utopian counterpart to the far-left's concept of Utopia. It might work in small-isolated communities whose existence is protected by laws enforced by the State.

I agree that prosperity and happiness are fostered by a 'least restrictive environment' envisioned by the authors of the Constitution - yet for some people the environment at that time was extremely restrictive. We've got the best form of government going for a country as large as we are, with as diverse a population as we have. Has it become too restrictive for some, but not restrictive enough for others, overstepped it's bounds, yet not done enough?...yes. All, if not with the blessings of the people, at least with their acquiescence.

I believe that the theory of anarchy as per your definition has been proven since time began to be an unworkable model. Human nature - the influence of natural law - makes it so.

I don't believe you are correct.

Is nature ordered like a statist society? Is it human nature to be denied your freedom, by a ruling class? I don't think so.

At any rate, statist society is not a safe society. That is a bill of goods the ruling class tries to sell us. I don't know how anyone can conclude our society today is safe.

We have a government of predators. They are like wolves at our door.

 

[gipper]

There is no way in a stateless society that mass death and destruction can occur.

Again .... really?

Yeah...a stateless society can murder 262,000,000 people, like state run societies did in the last century.

Really?

A lawless society will have no hospitals, no farms, no protection from the elements for the majority of the population.

None of those things exist in a society where at anytime someone can come and loot what you've created.

People in Hunter-gather societies tend not to have long lifespans.

Actually a capitalist republic has all of those things, but the difference is they are in the right proportion unlike in Socialism.

I would argue that they're out of proportion even in our society. Government and government sanctioned entities still has the power to loot productivity.

I support smaller government, but no government is not a viable option.

Too late for a smaller government. It is a fire raging out of control.

I suspect you are dreaming, as am I.

 

[NightFox]

Not at all. You left out the rest of the Definition.
.

Er.. no, he's using ONE definition that is appropriate for the context in which he's using the word, it's not a multi-part definition, it's multiple definitions based on context.

 

[gipper]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

Well, since we are redefining words to mean things that they really don't, let me say that for the purposes of this discussion, we are redefining the word Idiot to mean a person who has had an idea. Using that definition, you are an idiot.

The problem with your redefined word idea, is not just that it means what it doesn't mean, but that it doesn't work. There will be inevitable disagreements between people, and those inevitable disagreements will need to be judged by someone. In the old Testiment, it was the priests or Kings, or ministers, later Judges, that decided what was right. King Solomon identified the mother of a baby as one example.

But there is always someone in charge. Either through Devine right, as in a king, or chief, or through selection of the people.

Let's say your loose association of people who agree to live together in some sort of harmony does exist. Further lets say that two people have a disagreement about a trade, or a deal, or something. Who decides which party is wrong, or right? Do you put it up before the people to decide? Then it's a popularity contest, and the more charming fellow will be victorious.

John Roberts when he was being considered for the Supreme Court gave a great answer. He was asked if he would side with the little guy, or the big guy when deciding cases. John Roberts said that he may want to side with the little guy, but the deciding factor was the Constitution. The Constitution may say that the big guy is the one who is right, in which case the big guy would win. That is the way it is supposed to work, and I know we all have multiple examples of that not happening but for the purposes of this discussion that is determined to be irrelevant. So you may not bring it up.

I might well support a number of reforms. If we decided that our Representatives in Washington would be 535 randomly selected people. It could be like Jury Duty. Imagine, in September you walk to your Mailbox and then see the hated envelope. "God Damn It." You shout. "I just got selected for Congress."

Several alternates would be named, and you could go and complain to the judge that you can't do Congress because your Wife needs you.

At the end of your term, your duty as a Congressperson is ended. Then you move along and get back to your life, and some other poor schmuck gets stuck with his turn in Congress.

Each district could send someone. There could be houses set aside and you go to the assigned house for the district you live in, like Public Housing. A community that you live in with all the other congress critters. At the end of your term, you move out, and the next poor soul moves in.

Imagine the long faces of the people as they arrive, and the happy faces as they are leaving. You get the representative for the term, and you don't get professionals who are going to be wheeling and dealing to make themselves rich, or powerful.

But redefining a word to mean something other than what it does mean isn't the answer. Especially when there are already words that describe the type of society you envision. The better word would be Commune. You could set up what they described in Monty Python. You could be Dennis.



As I said, using my new definition, you've had an idea. So you're an idiot.

The Random House Dictionary: definition of anarchy: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

Now don't you feel STUPID?

Not at all. You left out the rest of the Definition.

anarchy

View attachment 145549

So why did you leave out the parts you think should not be there? Other than redefining words to trick people into agreeing with you, or making a terrible attempt at it. Come now Dennis. Use the right word.

I've discussed this with anarchists before. They always forget one little part of it. Yes, they would be able to do whatever they wanted without repercussions. However, so would everyone else. You could go and take food if you were hungry. And the others could bash you in the noggin without repercussions.

So I just played along, and redefined the word Idiot, which of course you are, under any definition you like. For the purposes of this discussion, Ithink I will define the word Stupid to be short for Stupendous. Which of course, I am.

Really?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Anarchy is the essence of might makes right with a crumbled society dissolving into tribes ruled by tribal warlords.

 

[NightFox]

Anarchy is the essence of might makes right with a crumbled society dissolving into tribes ruled by tribal warlords.

If it's "ruled" by somebody it isn't anarchism and "might makes right" is a perfect description of how the institution of the state has always operated and still continues to operate.

 

[bendog]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

I know. I thought the exact same thing when I accidentally turned on the Orange ONE's rally after my netlfix episode of Marco Polo ended.

 

[SavannahMann]

Not at all. You left out the rest of the Definition.
.

Er.. no, he's using ONE definition that is appropriate for the context in which he's using the word, it's not a multi-part definition, it's multiple definitions based on context.

No he is being dishonest. Earlier I questioned how disagreements would be managed. Others did too. No examples or suggestions. An absence of a commonly agreed upon system means chaos. You can't just pretend the chaos would not result. Well, Gipper can. But for intellectually honest people, we can't.

Second. He claimed the chaos was not a part of the definition. As if Random House had left it out. He used that as proof that chaos was not an inevitable part of anarchy.

The Random House Dictionary: definition of anarchy: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

Now don't you feel STUPID?

Lastly. If we are using the rules of anarchy you don't get to force your views upon me. I am just as free to do what I want as you are.

 

[SeaGal]

Is nature ordered like a statist society?.

No, and that was my point. Nature is ordered as survival of the fittest, caring not for the weaker. A statist society protects it's members from the worst of human nature. Not that all 'states' are created equal - by no means is that so.

That said, I too believe our government has become intrusive, parasitic, bloated and distant, even disdainful of us. But there is millennia of evidence disputing your theory - can you offer even one instance supporting it?

 

[NightFox]

Not at all. You left out the rest of the Definition.
.

Er.. no, he's using ONE definition that is appropriate for the context in which he's using the word, it's not a multi-part definition, it's multiple definitions based on context.

No he is being dishonest.

He was clear as to which definition he was discussing in his opening post, so IMHO you should just thank him for his specificity and cease your efforts to prove that you don't know how to use a dictionary.

 

[SavannahMann]

Not at all. You left out the rest of the Definition.
.

Er.. no, he's using ONE definition that is appropriate for the context in which he's using the word, it's not a multi-part definition, it's multiple definitions based on context.

No he is being dishonest.

He was clear as to which definition he was discussing in his opening post, so IMHO you should just thank him for his specificity and cease your efforts to prove that you don't know how to use a dictionary.

Sorry. It's anarchy and you can't tell me what to do. Douche.

 

[SavannahMann]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

Well, since we are redefining words to mean things that they really don't, let me say that for the purposes of this discussion, we are redefining the word Idiot to mean a person who has had an idea. Using that definition, you are an idiot.

The problem with your redefined word idea, is not just that it means what it doesn't mean, but that it doesn't work. There will be inevitable disagreements between people, and those inevitable disagreements will need to be judged by someone. In the old Testiment, it was the priests or Kings, or ministers, later Judges, that decided what was right. King Solomon identified the mother of a baby as one example.

But there is always someone in charge. Either through Devine right, as in a king, or chief, or through selection of the people.

Let's say your loose association of people who agree to live together in some sort of harmony does exist. Further lets say that two people have a disagreement about a trade, or a deal, or something. Who decides which party is wrong, or right? Do you put it up before the people to decide? Then it's a popularity contest, and the more charming fellow will be victorious.

John Roberts when he was being considered for the Supreme Court gave a great answer. He was asked if he would side with the little guy, or the big guy when deciding cases. John Roberts said that he may want to side with the little guy, but the deciding factor was the Constitution. The Constitution may say that the big guy is the one who is right, in which case the big guy would win. That is the way it is supposed to work, and I know we all have multiple examples of that not happening but for the purposes of this discussion that is determined to be irrelevant. So you may not bring it up.

I might well support a number of reforms. If we decided that our Representatives in Washington would be 535 randomly selected people. It could be like Jury Duty. Imagine, in September you walk to your Mailbox and then see the hated envelope. "God Damn It." You shout. "I just got selected for Congress."

Several alternates would be named, and you could go and complain to the judge that you can't do Congress because your Wife needs you.

At the end of your term, your duty as a Congressperson is ended. Then you move along and get back to your life, and some other poor schmuck gets stuck with his turn in Congress.

Each district could send someone. There could be houses set aside and you go to the assigned house for the district you live in, like Public Housing. A community that you live in with all the other congress critters. At the end of your term, you move out, and the next poor soul moves in.

Imagine the long faces of the people as they arrive, and the happy faces as they are leaving. You get the representative for the term, and you don't get professionals who are going to be wheeling and dealing to make themselves rich, or powerful.

But redefining a word to mean something other than what it does mean isn't the answer. Especially when there are already words that describe the type of society you envision. The better word would be Commune. You could set up what they described in Monty Python. You could be Dennis.



As I said, using my new definition, you've had an idea. So you're an idiot.

The Random House Dictionary: definition of anarchy: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

Now don't you feel STUPID?

Not at all. You left out the rest of the Definition.

anarchy

View attachment 145549

So why did you leave out the parts you think should not be there? Other than redefining words to trick people into agreeing with you, or making a terrible attempt at it. Come now Dennis. Use the right word.

I've discussed this with anarchists before. They always forget one little part of it. Yes, they would be able to do whatever they wanted without repercussions. However, so would everyone else. You could go and take food if you were hungry. And the others could bash you in the noggin without repercussions.

So I just played along, and redefined the word Idiot, which of course you are, under any definition you like. For the purposes of this discussion, Ithink I will define the word Stupid to be short for Stupendous. Which of course, I am.

Really?

Yes. Really. I am stupendous.

 

[NightFox]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

I know. I thought the exact same thing when I accidentally turned on the Orange ONE's rally after my netlfix episode of Marco Polo ended.

Good series, one wonders why you want to follow that up with the Trumpian Comedy Act, you should have just quit while you were ahead.

 

[Crixus]

Not at all. You left out the rest of the Definition.
.

Er.. no, he's using ONE definition that is appropriate for the context in which he's using the word, it's not a multi-part definition, it's multiple definitions based on context.

No he is being dishonest. Earlier I questioned how disagreements would be managed. Others did too. No examples or suggestions. An absence of a commonly agreed upon system means chaos. You can't just pretend the chaos would not result. Well, Gipper can. But for intellectually honest people, we can't.

Second. He claimed the chaos was not a part of the definition. As if Random House had left it out. He used that as proof that chaos was not an inevitable part of anarchy.

The Random House Dictionary: definition of anarchy: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

Now don't you feel STUPID?

Lastly. If we are using the rules of anarchy you don't get to force your views upon me. I am just as free to do what I want as you are.

Not at all. You left out the rest of the Definition.
.

Er.. no, he's using ONE definition that is appropriate for the context in which he's using the word, it's not a multi-part definition, it's multiple definitions based on context.

No he is being dishonest.

He was clear as to which definition he was discussing in his opening post, so IMHO you should just thank him for his specificity and cease your efforts to prove that you don't know how to use a dictionary.

Sorry. It's anarchy and you can't tell me what to do. Douche.

But there is a way an anarchist can boss another anarchist around. Back in the early 90's before old Viking stuff was copied by nazi's anarchist would harken back to the old days of their whiteness and they said issues would be settled by this,



Holmgang - Wikipedia