Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kebooo]

In political anarchy they would be unable to bend and abuse the rules because the only rule would be that you cannot force participation.  At this point their only form of power would be through social pressure or propaganda, something that's just as effective whether it comes from the common masses or the rich elite.  And as soon as it disintegrated into thuggery and coercion, it would cease to be political anarchy and become just plain chaotic anarchy.

Problem is that political anarchy is basically nothing more then this insanely naive idea that everyone can do anything they want but that shit will actually get done and it won't collapse into utter chaos. Of course in a true lawless society half the people (specifically the strong, able bodied ones) would quickly decide that they like having rape for breakfast and murder for lunch while the less physically fit will spend most of their time in abject terror or simply screaming.

I think you're confusing political anarchy and anarchy that describes general chaos and disorder.  Rape is against political anarchy because it is a coercive force upon someone, someone is deciding that they want to force their body on yours without your voluntary association.  And, as you know, rape and murder happen (and will happen) in every possible form of government.  The problem with political anarchy is the way to deal with the rapist, without a central state to have power over the police and judiciary, it becomes increasingly chaotic to try to punish the criminals.

[Kebooo]

Also keboo: an anarchist taht accepts limited state is not an anarchist. You just want a small government. Its like saying you are a vegitarian but eat beef. Mutually exclusive.

I understand, hence why in my post I described the correct term - minarchist.  It is a well accepted political description of this group of people.  The simplest way to describe them are anarchists that believe in the necessary evil of a state which would only enforce rights.  Obviously they are not specifically anarchist because the second part goes against what an anarchist believes.  But if you take the anarchist foundation, or rather, their vision of social order, and throw on the second part, you have an easy to understand picture of minarchism.  I was just trying to make it easier for people to immediately envision what minarchism entails.

[Cthulhu]

If it were anarchy, a roving gang of road-students would've shot you and taken your A for themselves.

[piecewise]

In political anarchy they would be unable to bend and abuse the rules because the only rule would be that you cannot force participation.  At this point their only form of power would be through social pressure or propaganda, something that's just as effective whether it comes from the common masses or the rich elite.  And as soon as it disintegrated into thuggery and coercion, it would cease to be political anarchy and become just plain chaotic anarchy.

Problem is that political anarchy is basically nothing more then this insanely naive idea that everyone can do anything they want but that shit will actually get done and it won't collapse into utter chaos. Of course in a true lawless society half the people (specifically the strong, able bodied ones) would quickly decide that they like having rape for breakfast and murder for lunch while the less physically fit will spend most of their time in abject terror or simply screaming.

I think you're confusing political anarchy and anarchy that describes general chaos and disorder.  Rape is against political anarchy because it is a coercive force upon someone, someone is deciding that they want to force their body on yours without your voluntary association.  And, as you know, rape and murder happen (and will happen) in every possible form of government.  The problem with political anarchy is the way to deal with the rapist, without a central state to have power over the police and judiciary, it becomes increasingly chaotic to try to punish the criminals.

I'm not saying that rape and murder are "allowed" under political anarchy, just that it would near instantly collapse into that

[fenrif]

Also keboo: an anarchist taht accepts limited state is not an anarchist. You just want a small government. Its like saying you are a vegitarian but eat beef. Mutually exclusive.

I understand, hence why in my post I described the correct term - minarchist.  It is a well accepted political description of this group of people.  The simplest way to describe them are anarchists that believe in the necessary evil of a state which would only enforce rights.  Obviously they are not specifically anarchist because the second part goes against what an anarchist believes.  But if you take the anarchist foundation, or rather, their vision of social order, and throw on the second part, you have an easy to understand picture of minarchism.  I was just trying to make it easier for people to immediately envision what minarchism entails.

I get that it refers to people that just want a small government, but describing them as "anarchists that accept the state" just seems to be using the word anarchist for its edgy, rebellions and cool conotations to describe something that is its exact opposite of the word.

[TheDarkJay]

I find it best to assume people are bastards who are only kept in line through fear of bad shit happening to them if they actually act like...well, bastards. The few times that fear isn't enough to stop the bastardry, if no formal system of punishment is in place such situations can escalate as effectively "all bets are off" and one act leads to another leads to another leads to complete destruction of one or both parties involved.

Not everyone is going to play by the same rules, no matter how reasonable those rules are, except by force. End of story really. This applies on a micro-scale to individual groups, and to a macro-scale of interaction between groups.

I'm not saying Anarchy causes the bastards, people are the bastards regardless of the system imposed. The ideal system maximises happiness and minimises suffering, is anarchy capable of this? I don't know, my instinct is to say no...

Fascinating thought: If you view a government as an individual person (metaphorically), and the world as therefore a small village...is that a good representation of how humans would act in an inherently rule-less system?

[Kebooo]

Also keboo: an anarchist taht accepts limited state is not an anarchist. You just want a small government. Its like saying you are a vegitarian but eat beef. Mutually exclusive.

I understand, hence why in my post I described the correct term - minarchist.  It is a well accepted political description of this group of people.  The simplest way to describe them are anarchists that believe in the necessary evil of a state which would only enforce rights.  Obviously they are not specifically anarchist because the second part goes against what an anarchist believes.  But if you take the anarchist foundation, or rather, their vision of social order, and throw on the second part, you have an easy to understand picture of minarchism.  I was just trying to make it easier for people to immediately envision what minarchism entails.

I get that it refers to people that just want a small government, but describing them as "anarchists that accept the state" just seems to be using the word anarchist for its edgy, rebellions and cool conotations to describe something that is its exact opposite of the word.

It's like this: imagine an all-meat meal with bread around it.  Yea, it wouldn't be an all-meat meal anymore and having bread goes against its identify as an all-meat meal.  Yet I'm sure you can very easily picture it.  The purpose is for people to immediately picture what I'm describing.  Minarchists still view the state as morally evil, simply necessary.  I don't consider anarchism edgy, rebellious or cool.  In fact, I dislike the fact anyone would associate with it out of some desire to feel rebellious or cool.  I identify with minarchism (idealistically), but not out of any rebelliousness (I actually prefer order and structure and many reserved social practices), only out of the fact I do not want to coerce others or be coerced if I have committed no crime.

[Aqizzar]

If it were anarchy, a roving gang of road-students would've shot you and taken your A for themselves.

This is even closer to truth than the awesome mental image would suggest.  Just by virtue of being in a classroom, you're still under the geas of the school system.  You still get graded, you still have their rules and standards to contend with.  The classroom was a pseudo-utopianist collective, within the Federation of the school, within the District Empire, which is part of the State Confederation of Schools, which answers to the overall National Alliance of Education.  It's amazing just how many authorities you theoretically have to answer to every day.

[Rooster]

I know how it ended last time, so I'll keep my anarchism to myself, and won't even bother explaining what it actually is about.

But, I will bring the fact that anarchism collective groups, or what-have-you have happened in the past, and there exists the very last one ,
http://www.christiania.org/modules.php?name=Side&navn=linkeng
but it may not last for very long, seeing that the government wants to destroy them.

It is located in Denmark. I admit, on wiki it says that there were criminal groups, but it was to be expected. Eventually, a mutual agreement formed, and now everybody can smoke weed in such an anarchistic city, that I don't give more than 5 years.

Anarchistic groups, have formed, and have worked, but never more than a hundred years at time.
Pirates for one, were anarchistic.

[Aqizzar]

Anarchistic groups, have formed, and have worked, but never more than a hundred years at time.
Pirates for one, were anarchistic.

A) They were "anarchistic" in that they elected their captains by ad hoc "who's gonna knock me down" contest, and were killed if they disagreed.  B) The economy that sustained their "society" relied on stealing shit from non-anarchistic, i.e. productive, people.  Not exactly a great example of anarchy forming a stable society.

[Cthulhu]

Eventually, a mutual agreement formed, and now everybody can smoke weed in such an anarchistic city,

Such a wonderful accomplishment.

What I like about cool, rebellious Anarchists is that it always seems like they're the ones who would be first to go in an Anarchist society.  You know, the middle class suburban kids.

[Diakron]

Anarchy always has a despotism feel to it as Humans tend to gravitate to the strong for guidance but that doesn't mean it is not anarchism at any point some one can chose to go his own way with out fear of retribution (in the case of a pirate, gets a group of friends together and steals a ship in port)

[Aqizzar]

Anarchy always has a despotism feel to it as Humans tend to gravitate to the strong for guidance but that doesn't mean it is not anarchism at any point some one can chose to go his own way with out fear of retribution (in the case of a pirate, gets a group of friends together and steals a ship in port)

That's one heck of a sentence.  I want to say it's still a poor understanding of the history or definition of anarchy, but I almost think you're joking.

[piecewise]

Anarchy always has a despotism feel to it as Humans tend to gravitate to the strong for guidance but that doesn't mean it is not anarchism at any point some one can chose to go his own way with out fear of retribution (in the case of a pirate, gets a group of friends together and steals a ship in port)

Actually most pirates signed up for a specific "Time before the mast" and would be chased down if they tried to jump ship early. Otherwise you'd probably have people jumping ship at every port and no one would have any experience.

[Servant Corps]

Also keboo: an anarchist taht accepts limited state is not an anarchist. You just want a small government. Its like saying you are a vegitarian but eat beef. Mutually exclusive.

I understand, hence why in my post I described the correct term - minarchist.  It is a well accepted political description of this group of people.  The simplest way to describe them are anarchists that believe in the necessary evil of a state which would only enforce rights.  Obviously they are not specifically anarchist because the second part goes against what an anarchist believes.  But if you take the anarchist foundation, or rather, their vision of social order, and throw on the second part, you have an easy to understand picture of minarchism.  I was just trying to make it easier for people to immediately envision what minarchism entails.

Didn't the US have a miniarchist form of government prior to the rise of welfare liberalism in the 1880's? Doesn't revolutionary movements want to form something new, instead of returning to a golden era?

This is even closer to truth than the awesome mental image would suggest.  Just by virtue of being in a classroom, you're still under the geas of the school system.  You still get graded, you still have their rules and standards to contend with.  The classroom was a pseudo-utopianist collective, within the Federation of the school, within the District Empire, which is part of the State Confederation of Schools, which answers to the overall National Alliance of Education.  It's amazing just how many authorities you theoretically have to answer to every day.

This was in a univeristy classroom, meaning there is less accountability (tenure and all).

The reason I brought this up was that this system only seemed to work becuase you had these people came up with the plan for the rest of the classroom. I suppose these people could be 'representives of the collective will', but to me, they seem like elites, the same elite you find in a regular State, and I was worried if that dynamic exist in (real) anarchical societies as well.