What are anarchists?

[JoeNormal]

I have my own not-so-kind impressions but I'll leave them out of this until I hear from some real anarchists. And while we're at it, please explain how anarchy could possibly work.

 

[gipper]

It is a society without a state.

An anarchist society is one without physical coercion. As such, it must necessarily exclude the state, since the state is nothing more than physical coercion.

A statist society, like the one we have today and humans have long suffered under since civilization began, is nothing more than legal organized crime.

The Great Murray Rothbard explains it all here:
Society without a State - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

 

[Ava]

I have my own not-so-kind impressions but I'll leave them out of this until I hear from some real anarchists. And while we're at it, please explain how anarchy could possibly work.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Anarchist=Libertarian.

 

[JoeNormal]

It is a society without a state.

An anarchist society is one without physical coercion. As such, it must necessarily exclude the state, since the state is nothing more than physical coercion.

A statist society, like the one we have today and humans have long suffered under since civilization began, is nothing more than legal organized crime.

The Great Murray Rothbard explains it all here:
Society without a State - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

Perhaps I don't have time enough to give this thesis a fair chance but after reading it for about 20 minutes, it seems more unworkable than the most utopian ideas I've seen yet.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Unless they are living off the grid, they are not anarchs, so if one does post, he's a fraud

It could work, but people would have to force others to comply with helping the community.

 

[JoeNormal]

I have my own not-so-kind impressions but I'll leave them out of this until I hear from some real anarchists. And while we're at it, please explain how anarchy could possibly work.

I'm not sure what point you're making here. That US overreach is the reason we were bombed and if we were anarchist, it wouldn't have happened?

BTW, why does Megyn Kelly always look like she just smelled something bad?

 

[JoeNormal]

Anarchist=Libertarian.

Libertarians would apparently disagree.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Anarchist=Libertarian.

Libertarians would apparently disagree.

Vans a liar

 

[konradv]

The Ringleaders

 

[gipper]

It is a society without a state.

An anarchist society is one without physical coercion. As such, it must necessarily exclude the state, since the state is nothing more than physical coercion.

A statist society, like the one we have today and humans have long suffered under since civilization began, is nothing more than legal organized crime.

The Great Murray Rothbard explains it all here:
Society without a State - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

Perhaps I don't have time enough to give this thesis a fair chance but after reading it for about 20 minutes, it seems more unworkable than the most utopian ideas I've seen yet.

An anarchist society is difficult to comprehend for most people, as it is entirely alien to the human experience. There are no recent examples of an anarchist society to reference. However we have many examples of statist societies, and all have and are failures. Some have been colossal failures, resulting in enormous death and suffering. So...we know what does not work.

Death by the state (democide or genocide) has a long history. Why continue the slaughter?

 

[JoeNormal]

I have my own not-so-kind impressions but I'll leave them out of this until I hear from some real anarchists. And while we're at it, please explain how anarchy could possibly work.

So nothing from Bripat? I'd think he'd want to shout his ideology from the rooftops.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Clueless adolescent "Rebels"....

Revolucion Comrades !!! Lol

 

[Skylar]

It is a society without a state.

An anarchist society is one without physical coercion. As such, it must necessarily exclude the state, since the state is nothing more than physical coercion.

A statist society, like the one we have today and humans have long suffered under since civilization began, is nothing more than legal organized crime.

The Great Murray Rothbard explains it all here:
Society without a State - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

Perhaps I don't have time enough to give this thesis a fair chance but after reading it for about 20 minutes, it seems more unworkable than the most utopian ideas I've seen yet.

Most flavors of anarchy have several common problems. First, they have no reliable method of conflict resolution. Second, they have no way of enforcing their social tenets, for example, "without physical coercion". Third, their lack of cooperation makes them grossly inefficient. And neighboring societies with a state and collective projects can gobble them up.

Anarchy is something that could only plausibly exist within the protection of a strong state. And then only for about a generation. While like-minded folks can get together and make their utopia work, it all starts to break down once their kids begin taking the reigns. Grouping is natural. Leadership is natural. Physical coercion is natural. You'll need some pretty strong mechanisms to prevent them. Which anarchy just can't provide.

 

[JoeNormal]

It is a society without a state.

An anarchist society is one without physical coercion. As such, it must necessarily exclude the state, since the state is nothing more than physical coercion.

A statist society, like the one we have today and humans have long suffered under since civilization began, is nothing more than legal organized crime.

The Great Murray Rothbard explains it all here:
Society without a State - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

Perhaps I don't have time enough to give this thesis a fair chance but after reading it for about 20 minutes, it seems more unworkable than the most utopian ideas I've seen yet.

Most flavors of anarchy have several common problems. First, they have no reliable method of conflict resolution. Second, they have no way of enforcing their social tenets, for example, "without physical coercion". Third, their lack of cooperation makes them grossly inefficient. And neighboring societies with a state and collective projects can gobble them up.

Anarchy is something that could only plausibly exist within the protection of a strong state. And then only for about a generation. While like-minded folks can get together and make their utopia work, it all starts to break down once their kids begin taking the reigns. Grouping is natural. Leadership is natural. Physical coercion is natural. You'll need some pretty strong mechanisms to prevent them. Which anarchy just can't provide.

I tend to agree with your analysis.

 

[Skylar]

It is a society without a state.

An anarchist society is one without physical coercion. As such, it must necessarily exclude the state, since the state is nothing more than physical coercion.

A statist society, like the one we have today and humans have long suffered under since civilization began, is nothing more than legal organized crime.

The Great Murray Rothbard explains it all here:
Society without a State - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

Perhaps I don't have time enough to give this thesis a fair chance but after reading it for about 20 minutes, it seems more unworkable than the most utopian ideas I've seen yet.

An anarchist society is difficult to comprehend for most people, as it is entirely alien to the human experience. There are no recent examples of an anarchist society to reference. However we have many examples of statist societies, and all have and are failures. Some have been colossal failures, resulting in enormous death and suffering. So...we know what does not work.

Death by the state (democide or genocide) has a long history. Why continue the slaughter?

The utility of any system can really only be determined in relation to other systems. Otherwise, its only represents costs. If its costs are significantly lower than all other viable options, then its utility is revealed.

So why continue the slaughter...in comparison to what? Obviously the absence of violent conflict would be ideal. But is there really a system that can produce that? Or is it an unrealistic hypothetical? It may be that a certain amount of conflict is inevitable. And all we're able to do is mitigate it.

I've never been confident in anarchy's ability to produce the benefits that it promises. Not over generations and not in relation to other states.

 

[gipper]

It is a society without a state.

An anarchist society is one without physical coercion. As such, it must necessarily exclude the state, since the state is nothing more than physical coercion.

A statist society, like the one we have today and humans have long suffered under since civilization began, is nothing more than legal organized crime.

The Great Murray Rothbard explains it all here:
Society without a State - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

Perhaps I don't have time enough to give this thesis a fair chance but after reading it for about 20 minutes, it seems more unworkable than the most utopian ideas I've seen yet.

An anarchist society is difficult to comprehend for most people, as it is entirely alien to the human experience. There are no recent examples of an anarchist society to reference. However we have many examples of statist societies, and all have and are failures. Some have been colossal failures, resulting in enormous death and suffering. So...we know what does not work.

Death by the state (democide or genocide) has a long history. Why continue the slaughter?

The utility of any system can really only be determined in relation to other systems. Otherwise, its only represents costs. If its costs are significantly lower than all other viable options, then its utility is revealed.

So why continue the slaughter...in comparison to what? Obviously the absence of violent conflict would be ideal. But is there really a system that can produce that? Or is it an unrealistic hypothetical? It may be that a certain amount of conflict is inevitable. And all we're able to do is mitigate it.

I've never been confident in anarchy's ability to produce the benefits that it promises. Not over generations and not in relation to other states.

If there is no state, as in an anarchic society, then necessarily there can be no conflicts between states or within states causing horrendous death and destruction. Think no Stalin, no Mao, no Hitler, no Pol Pot, no murderous leaders period. That in of itself, is a HUGE benefit.

Our current statist existence is hardly a system we can commend or recommend considering its horrendous history.

 

[pinqy]

I have my own not-so-kind impressions but I'll leave them out of this until I hear from some real anarchists. And while we're at it, please explain how anarchy could possibly work.

There are three basic types of Anarchism: Pure Anarchy, Anarcho-Communism and Anarcho-Capitalism.

Pure Anarchy is no laws, rules, or cooperation. It's dog-eat-dog and would not really satisfy any definition of society.

Anarcho-Communism is no official laws or government but a group consensus of what is best for the society with everyone contributing their skills and abilities for everyone's benefits. But....as you increase the size of a group, the ability to gain a 100% consensus drops quickly. Without formal rules, it is more difficult to gain the cooperation of those dissenting from the majority decision and also no enforcement against those who choose not to fully contribute their work.

Anarcho-Capitalism is no official laws or government, but rational self-interest leading people to mutually support each other through trade and agreements. But....people aren't always rationale and often (usually?) go with short-term rather than long-term self interest. It does not deal well with externalities (costs or benefits resulting as a side effect from others' actions), and suffers a similar free-rider problem with public goods as Anarcho-Communism

 

[Skylar]

If there is no state, as in an anarchic society, then necessarily there can be no conflicts between states or within states causing horrendous death and destruction.

So says the anarchist state. But a conflict has two sides. And you're completely omitting the goals, motivations and desires of the other state.

What if your neighboring federation of smaller states disagrees? What if they like your land, or your resources, or your women.....or dislike your culture or your people or your religion? If they're a centralized society, they'll have full time professional soldiers supported by the labor of the people, a robust modern military, roads, factories and power plants in number far beyond a decentralized community of folks living under a stateless state.

They'll also be far more organized, able to make decisions on the fly, able to mobilize their society for the conflict in a way an anarchist society would have grave difficulty doing. Their professional soldiers will almost certainly have better training, more experience, better organization, and better equipment on average than the men you'll be able to muster in defending yourself.

In a military conflict, the anarchist society is at an extreme disadvantage. You can tell them there is no need for state to state conflicts anymore. But if they disagree, there's really not much you can do.

Think no Stalin, no Mao, no Hitler, no Pol Pot, no murderous leaders period. That in of itself, is a HUGE benefit.

Not in your Stateless State. But what about your neighbor? If their Statists or even Nationalists, they're going to have some pretty significant disadvantages in dealing with them if they get surly.

Our current statist existence is hardly a system we can commend or recommend considering its horrendous history.

You mean the US? Its survived for over 2 centuries. Something's gotta be working.

 

[Skylar]

Anarcho-Communism is no official laws or government but a group consensus of what is best for the society with everyone contributing their skills and abilities for everyone's benefits. But....as you increase the size of a group, the ability to gain a 100% consensus drops quickly.

Yeah, the threshold of that type of community is about what? 300 people? Maybe 400.