Anarchy

[Votto]

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.

Looking at US history, the Article of Confederation was the law of the land, but it went broke so they came up with the Constitution.

Put another way, let's say that the government went broke and the land was ruled by a loosely joined group of states. What happens when a centralized power like England or France tried to fight the US again, like in the war of 1812?

The Ukraine is in a similar position. It is not in NATO and trying to remain independent of Putin. What I do know is, if it were not for the NATO members Putin would own them by now and they are more at risk for not being in NATO.

So how does one remain free of such powers if they do not unite to fight them. Then when they unite to fight them, how do they avoid becoming what they are fighting?

There is nothing in an Anarchic society that prevents unifying, to fight a common enemy.

So you honestly think that an anarchist community could put together a military that could tangle with the US or Putin?

 

[NightFox]

Given that there has never been a philosophically anarchistic society of scale in recorded human history.

Gee... you think there's a reason for that?

Yeah and I already gave you what I thought were the reasons in a previous post, that doesn't however preclude giving consideration to the arguments put forth by adherents to the various strains of the philosophy.

 

[thanatos144]

No thank you. I dont want to live in a authoritarians dictatorship and that is what will happen.

Yeah 'cause the institution of the state NEVER results in "authoritarian dictatorships" .

Apparently you missed the fact that "authoritarian dictatorship" and anarchistic society are mutually exclusive.

Anarchy leads to less liberty never more.

...and you know this how? Given that there has never been a philosophically anarchistic society of scale in recorded human history.

History. Learn it.

"History" is a broad subject, can you be more specific? like for instance citing some actual examples or would that be too much to hope for?

Where would you like to start???? The Russian revolution or the Wiemar republic? Both had periods of anarchy BEFORE the murderous regimes took over. .

There's your problem right there, perhaps you should go read the opening post and you'll find that the topic here isn't about anarchy as chaos it's about anarchy as a philosophy based on voluntarism and the absence of state coercion, neither one of your examples qualify.

Thanks for trying.

Anarchy Like communism has REAL world consequences when used. To ignore what happened is foolish. The philosophy is just like Marx's ideology it is steeped in assumptions that people are like Robots.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Naw, if you were the state you'd confiscate half of your daughters production and half of your sons production and threaten to kill them both if they didn't pay.

I fundamentally agree, especially with this part.

But, all government should be is a grant to some individuals the power to do for us what we still have the power and right to do ourselves, but, for convenience purposes, we assign to others. Government only becomes a problem when it assumes authority that the governed do not naturally posses.

All examples of society and government can be best examined (in my opinion) by returning to the barter system. If I am a hunter, and I provide skins for clothing/etc., stealing and giving them to someone who provided nothing in return is DECIDEDLY authority that the governed do NOT possess. On the flip side, asking someone to stand guard full time in exchange for skins and meat from the hunter, clothing from the tailor, a home from the logger and carpenter, etc, is simply sharing of responsibility.

So, to the extent that government is anything more than an aid to the people to do what the people have the authority/right to do for themselves, it is tyranny, and should be discarded. Whatever the form.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We must remember we have all been indoctrinated to think we need the State. If it was possible to control the state, like controlling a fire, then good things can be attained. The problem arises when the State becomes uncontrolled. I don't believe anyone can make the case that the government of the USA, is controlled by the people.

We're back to what is a "state" and how do you prevent it? I believe it is impossible.

I agree that the U.S. government (and all local governments) are wildly out of control. The problem is the governed, who have the real authority, are too stupid or irresponsible to demand proper behavior. Anarchy does not solve this problem. It invites it, but so does any other system. Other systems are better at burying or masking the real problems, but the real issue is that all governments gradually take more power and authority than they should, because greedy-ass, lazy, selfish, prideful, lustful, envious human beings will always take more than they should. That is why communism (or any derivative thereof) never works.

Thus, the REAL solution to all of the world's problems, every time, no matter how civilized humans become is to constantly overthrow governing bodies that overreach, which means the solution to all of the worlds problems is WAR. Pick any issue. The real solution is war, every time.

 

[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.W


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

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

Looking at US history, the Article of Confederation was the law of the land, but it went broke so they came up with the Constitution.

Put another way, let's say that the government went broke and the land was ruled by a loosely joined group of states. What happens when a centralized power like England or France tried to fight the US again, like in the war of 1812?

The Ukraine is in a similar position. It is not in NATO and trying to remain independent of Putin. What I do know is, if it were not for the NATO members Putin would own them by now and they are more at risk for not being in NATO.

So how does one remain free of such powers if they do not unite to fight them. Then when they unite to fight them, how do they avoid becoming what they are fighting?

There is nothing in an Anarchic society that prevents unifying, to fight a common enemy.

So you honestly think that an anarchist community could put together a military that could tangle with the US or Putin?

You have hit on a problem with anarchy. If other nations are aggressors, than anarchic nations could be easy prey.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You have hit on a problem with anarchy. If other nations are aggressors, than anarchic nations could be easy prey.

Which is the primary reason groups of people form alliances for mutual protection and trade (the stated purpose for forming the United States of America) resulting in the "state".

As I have stated, the "state" is inevitable. Anarchy is temporary at best. We're better off forming the type of state that works best for the people, before the warlords attack and conquer.

EDIT: and notice the solution. War. It all goes back to war. All of it.

 

[gipper]

You have hit on a problem with anarchy. If other nations are aggressors, than anarchic nations could be easy prey.

Which is the primary reason groups of people form alliances for mutual protection and trade (the stated purpose for forming the United States of America) resulting in the "state".

As I have stated, the "state" is inevitable. Anarchy is temporary at best. We're better off forming the type of state that works best for the people, before the warlords attack and conquer.

EDIT: and notice the solution. War. It all goes back to war. All of it.

There are a number of nations without a military force. So, it can be done.

List of countries without armed forces - Wikipedia

 

[thanatos144]

You have hit on a problem with anarchy. If other nations are aggressors, than anarchic nations could be easy prey.

Which is the primary reason groups of people form alliances for mutual protection and trade (the stated purpose for forming the United States of America) resulting in the "state".

As I have stated, the "state" is inevitable. Anarchy is temporary at best. We're better off forming the type of state that works best for the people, before the warlords attack and conquer.

EDIT: and notice the solution. War. It all goes back to war. All of it.

There are a number of nations without a military force. So, it can be done.

List of countries without armed forces - Wikipedia

All are protected by someone else. Utopia doesnt exist.

 

[Votto]

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.W


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

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

Looking at US history, the Article of Confederation was the law of the land, but it went broke so they came up with the Constitution.

Put another way, let's say that the government went broke and the land was ruled by a loosely joined group of states. What happens when a centralized power like England or France tried to fight the US again, like in the war of 1812?

The Ukraine is in a similar position. It is not in NATO and trying to remain independent of Putin. What I do know is, if it were not for the NATO members Putin would own them by now and they are more at risk for not being in NATO.

So how does one remain free of such powers if they do not unite to fight them. Then when they unite to fight them, how do they avoid becoming what they are fighting?

There is nothing in an Anarchic society that prevents unifying, to fight a common enemy.

So you honestly think that an anarchist community could put together a military that could tangle with the US or Putin?

You have hit on a problem with anarchy. If other nations are aggressors, than anarchic nations could be easy prey.

Well, it's a pretty big problem don't ya think?

In the US, we enjoyed a relatively limited government in terms of world wide regimes, but then Wilson took us into WW1 and took measures to centralize power and the economy and the military. FDR took it further with his involvement in WW2.

Could the US have survived had they not entered either war? Who knows. The fact is that before WW1, the US had a rather inept military. Wilson and FDR made the US the military power it is. Ironically, they were both Dims and it is Dims who now complain about the size and scope of the military.

Dims think they can support a more powerful and centralized government at home, and at the same time, restrain it internationally.

It's like the movie Frankenstein. You create the beast and then try to restrain it and have it do what you want it to do, but it simply does not work that way.

Frank will do as he pleases

 

[Skull Pilot]

 

[gipper]

You have hit on a problem with anarchy. If other nations are aggressors, than anarchic nations could be easy prey.

Which is the primary reason groups of people form alliances for mutual protection and trade (the stated purpose for forming the United States of America) resulting in the "state".

As I have stated, the "state" is inevitable. Anarchy is temporary at best. We're better off forming the type of state that works best for the people, before the warlords attack and conquer.

EDIT: and notice the solution. War. It all goes back to war. All of it.

I believe it is only a matter of time, before the ruling class causes catastrophic wars that might lead to the destruction of the human race. Many nations now have nuclear weapons and more will in the years to come. These weapons will be used again and millions will die...because the state is the most murderous invention known to man.

 

[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 .W


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

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

Looking at US history, the Article of Confederation was the law of the land, but it went broke so they came up with the Constitution.

Put another way, let's say that the government went broke and the land was ruled by a loosely joined group of states. What happens when a centralized power like England or France tried to fight the US again, like in the war of 1812?

The Ukraine is in a similar position. It is not in NATO and trying to remain independent of Putin. What I do know is, if it were not for the NATO members Putin would own them by now and they are more at risk for not being in NATO.

So how does one remain free of such powers if they do not unite to fight them. Then when they unite to fight them, how do they avoid becoming what they are fighting?

There is nothing in an Anarchic society that prevents unifying, to fight a common enemy.

So you honestly think that an anarchist community could put together a military that could tangle with the US or Putin?

You have hit on a problem with anarchy. If other nations are aggressors, than anarchic nations could be easy prey.

Well, it's a pretty big problem don't ya think?

In the US, we enjoyed a relatively limited government in terms of world wide regimes, but then Wilson took us into WW1 and took measures to centralize power and the economy and the military. FDR took it further with his involvement in WW2.

Could the US have survived had they not entered either war? Who knows. The fact is that before WW1, the US had a rather inept military. Wilson and FDR made the US the military power it is. Ironically, they were both Dims and it is Dims who now complain about the size and scope of the military.

Dims think they can support a more powerful and centralized government at home, and at the same time, restrain it internationally.

It's like the movie Frankenstein. You create the beast and then try to restrain it and have it do what you want it to do, but it simply does not work that way.

Frank will do as he pleases

The bigger problem which we face at this very moment, is a state out of control. The government of the USA is a predator and seeking world domination at any cost. It is without ethics or morals. It has proven it's willingness to murder vast numbers of people.

 

[Crixus]

Another thing about an anarchist, when they are getting their ass stomped, they never hesitate to call the cops and beg them to protect them from whoever is correcting their bad behavior.

Which "anarchist(s)" are you referring to? would it perchance be the ones found on city streets hurling Molotov cocktails at buildings because the gub'mint isn't giving them enough free shit and they want to replace it with one that will? If so those aren't relevant to the OP's topic since they generally speaking aren't philosophical anarchists, they're people that are attempting to foment anarchy (in the chaos sense of the word) to overthrow the current incarnation of the state in order to replace it with another form of the state.

It's the difference between anarchy as a philosophy and anarchy as a tool.

The serious adherents of the various strains of anarchist philosophy that I've encountered generally speaking honor the non-aggression principle so they're unlikely to be found in such situations.

Another thing about an anarchist, when they are getting their ass stomped, they never hesitate to call the cops and beg them to protect them from whoever is correcting their bad behavior.

Which "anarchist(s)" are you referring to? would it perchance be the ones found on city streets hurling Molotov cocktails at buildings because the gub'mint isn't giving them enough free shit and they want to replace it with one that will? If so those aren't relevant to the OP's topic since they generally speaking aren't philosophical anarchists, they're people that are attempting to foment anarchy (in the chaos sense of the word) to overthrow the current incarnation of the state in order to replace it with another form of the state.

It's the difference between anarchy as a philosophy and anarchy as a tool.

The serious adherents of the various strains of anarchist philosophy that I've encountered generally speaking honor the non-aggression principle so they're unlikely to be found in such situations.

Yes. Philosophy gets put into action though. That's what the anarchist many here hold in high reguards do and who the OP supports, if he even knows what he supports. Modern anarchy?



Mission Statement - Black Rose Anarchist Federation

Mission Statement
We are an organization of revolutionaries who share common visions of a new world – a world where people collectively control their own workplaces, communities and land and where all basic needs are met. A world where power and participation flow from the bottom upwards and society is organized for peoples’ aspirations, passions, and needs rather than profit, white supremacy and racial domination, patriarchy, or imperialism; and where we live sustainably with the planet.

We believe that this vision can only be brought about through the revolutionary power of the working class organized in the workplaces, community, schools, and streets to overthrow the state and capitalism and build a new world from the bottom up.


That's fine, but throughout history Anarchist have only really inspired, well, anarchy. Like in 1919.




1919 United States anarchist bombings - Wikipedia



All through history anarchist have been associated with burnin cars, busted windows and bombs. As a political philosophy it was rejected because it's just really doing what you want. Most who want anarchy would be beaten, robbed, raped and killed if anarchy were the law of the land tomorrow.

 

[NightFox]

Yeah 'cause the institution of the state NEVER results in "authoritarian dictatorships" .

Apparently you missed the fact that "authoritarian dictatorship" and anarchistic society are mutually exclusive.

...and you know this how? Given that there has never been a philosophically anarchistic society of scale in recorded human history.

History. Learn it.

"History" is a broad subject, can you be more specific? like for instance citing some actual examples or would that be too much to hope for?

Where would you like to start???? The Russian revolution or the Wiemar republic? Both had periods of anarchy BEFORE the murderous regimes took over. .

There's your problem right there, perhaps you should go read the opening post and you'll find that the topic here isn't about anarchy as chaos it's about anarchy as a philosophy based on voluntarism and the absence of state coercion, neither one of your examples qualify.

Thanks for trying.

Anarchy Like communism has REAL world consequences when used.

Again.. you're making gigantic assumptions since neither of them have ever been put into practice at scale, personally I don't think an anarchist society can work under the current constraints of human nature but that doesn't mean the ideas underpinning the philosophy aren't worthy of consideration and serious discussion, IMHO the human race without the criminal organization commonly known as "the state" would be far better off in a material, emotional, intellectual and spiritual sense, we just won't get there without solving the economic problem of infinite wants competing for finite resources along with overcoming our baser instincts.

BTW Communism is a form of anarchy since it's based on a stateless society.

 

[Votto]

Looking at US history, the Article of Confederation was the law of the land, but it went broke so they came up with the Constitution.

Put another way, let's say that the government went broke and the land was ruled by a loosely joined group of states. What happens when a centralized power like England or France tried to fight the US again, like in the war of 1812?

The Ukraine is in a similar position. It is not in NATO and trying to remain independent of Putin. What I do know is, if it were not for the NATO members Putin would own them by now and they are more at risk for not being in NATO.

So how does one remain free of such powers if they do not unite to fight them. Then when they unite to fight them, how do they avoid becoming what they are fighting?

There is nothing in an Anarchic society that prevents unifying, to fight a common enemy.

So you honestly think that an anarchist community could put together a military that could tangle with the US or Putin?

You have hit on a problem with anarchy. If other nations are aggressors, than anarchic nations could be easy prey.

Well, it's a pretty big problem don't ya think?

In the US, we enjoyed a relatively limited government in terms of world wide regimes, but then Wilson took us into WW1 and took measures to centralize power and the economy and the military. FDR took it further with his involvement in WW2.

Could the US have survived had they not entered either war? Who knows. The fact is that before WW1, the US had a rather inept military. Wilson and FDR made the US the military power it is. Ironically, they were both Dims and it is Dims who now complain about the size and scope of the military.

Dims think they can support a more powerful and centralized government at home, and at the same time, restrain it internationally.

It's like the movie Frankenstein. You create the beast and then try to restrain it and have it do what you want it to do, but it simply does not work that way.

Frank will do as he pleases

The bigger problem which we face at this very moment, is a state out of control. The government of the USA is a predator and seeking world domination at any cost. It is without ethics or morals. It has proven it's willingness to murder vast numbers of people.

Ok, do you prefer to speak Chinese or Russian?

 

[gipper]

There is nothing in an Anarchic society that prevents unifying, to fight a common enemy.

So you honestly think that an anarchist community could put together a military that could tangle with the US or Putin?

You have hit on a problem with anarchy. If other nations are aggressors, than anarchic nations could be easy prey.

Well, it's a pretty big problem don't ya think?

In the US, we enjoyed a relatively limited government in terms of world wide regimes, but then Wilson took us into WW1 and took measures to centralize power and the economy and the military. FDR took it further with his involvement in WW2.

Could the US have survived had they not entered either war? Who knows. The fact is that before WW1, the US had a rather inept military. Wilson and FDR made the US the military power it is. Ironically, they were both Dims and it is Dims who now complain about the size and scope of the military.

Dims think they can support a more powerful and centralized government at home, and at the same time, restrain it internationally.

It's like the movie Frankenstein. You create the beast and then try to restrain it and have it do what you want it to do, but it simply does not work that way.

Frank will do as he pleases

The bigger problem which we face at this very moment, is a state out of control. The government of the USA is a predator and seeking world domination at any cost. It is without ethics or morals. It has proven it's willingness to murder vast numbers of people.

Ok, do you prefer to speak Chinese or Russian?

It won't matter. We are likely to all be dead.

 

[Tehon]

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.

Sounds wonderful, we will have to abolish capitalism first however. No possible way to have a cooperative society with an economic system based on competition.

 

[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.

Sounds wonderful, we will have to abolish capitalism first however. No possible way to have a cooperative society with an economic system based on competition.

How can it be anarchy without the FREE exchange of goods and services?

How can it be anarchy if a central authority controls the economic system?

 

[Tehon]

How can it be anarchy without the FREE exchange of goods and services?

That is called a market and it is not synonymous with capitalism. Capitalism is a method of producing commodities.

How can it be anarchy if a central authority controls the economic system?

It can't.