Anarchism

[Sociobiology]

Not all states are equally legitimate. But, we're discussing perfect anarchism here, we need to compare it to perfect statism.
Few states restrict people from leaving. But the view is that it is not that state's problem if you can't find anywhere else to go, and that they need to be conservative about who they let in.


And this is the stance that I think you'll see most supporters of the state take - and most anarchists, when you really get down to it. Then the debate is over practical concerns about exactly what constitutes utility/suffering and exactly what is required to maximise/minimise them.

It must be emphasized that the anarchist critique of democracy is merely an extension of their critique of the state in particular. The current system of government fails to legitimately defend the rights of minorities (individuals) and thus the preferable course of action, to the anarchist, would be to abolish it. The statist doesn't see it this way - however, most arguments I've seen from many statists unlike myself are faulty - either it's from an individual viewpoint that the anarchist can dismiss simply because they don't see it that way ("I don't see the state as coercive and neither should you") or it's based on the crappy deontological defense. There are utilitarian defenses of anarchism - anything from David Friedman, actually, presents a point, that the state is wasteful, or that private enterprises can do a more efficient job in some aspects than the state, or the state actually causes the most amount of death and unhappiness compared to other entities. Whatever, you get the point.

My personal philosophy of justifying the state is mostly utilitarian. Here is how it can be defended:

A.) The state is inevitable. Due to force being the primary means of human interaction and sustainability, the state must maintain the monopoly of force.

B.) Force (in this I mean aggression) is undesired by most people, if it affects them negatively. Because all force effects everyone negatively to some degree, it should be minimized to the greatest amount possible. Only until people recognize that their grievances of force are universal can happiness be achieved without it's use.

C.) Therefore, the best system of governance is a minimal state controls all force, but limits it's use (in my case, to the courts, police, and military).

Of course, there are other more statist utilitarians that disagree - they think that the state's ability to provide happiness negates any unhappiness caused by it. But this is a somewhat typical non-anarchist Libertarian's defense. A fascist defense could be totally different mind you, and I'd have to come back to you after reading some of Mussolini's work.

the other big problem is people do not agree on what constitutes force, hence laws and courts to provide at least a consistent and enforceable definition of illegitimate force.

[Sociobiology]

if it IS your body why is it wrong?

Because it overrides my own self-ownership. That was easy.

which doesn't answer the question, why violating your ownership is wrong?

except it in no way requires self ownership, and they were hardly the first to put forward non-aggression principles, hell even the greeks weren't the first. Nor does it actually require a non-aggression principle, if anything the opposite it implies you must impose laws on society.

They are modern examples. Jesus came up with his own rendition of the NAP, with Epicurus being one of the very first recorded to do so. However, these were deontological arguments, and not consequentialist ones. Hayek said following the NAP provides for better results, as did, more or less, every other Austrian economist who wasn't also a proper philosopher. The NAP is built upon self-ownership.

which might matter if all arguments for NAP relied on self ownership, but since you admit they do not you have boxed yourself in a corner, because you have to take your conclusion as your assumption.
Oh and Hayek was by no means the first to use a consequentialist argument.

which actually in no requires the concept of self ownership.

Of course it does. The person and the body are arguably separable.

no
unless you are talking about the brain as compared to the rest of the body. person = brain

where did I use the phrase personal standard of living? also please tell me where I said it would be the only metric used?

Maybe in the future you ought use more adjectives. I understood standard of living as personal standard of living.

maybe you should consider what a lack of an adjective means.

Whether it's used as the only metric or part of many metrics, it's a really useless and counterproductive metric to use at all.

because?
by that logic you can't worry about property and force at the same time because all property is an initiation of force.

sure it is if we accept that principle then no self ownership is required. Its not my fault you don't understand the idea of something not being property.

All is property.

because you say so?

What isn't one or another form of property? And yes, air, the oceans, and space fall into one category of property.

because you are taking that as an assumption, not everyone agrees with that subjective opinion.

[Jack O Land]

Arkolon's just got a crazy hard-on for property rights. He should be a lawyer. Maybe then he'll stop derailing threads with circular arguments about this crap again and again. You guys started with, "the government doesn't have the right to take my things, it's a gangster" and now you're at "Duuude, do we even own our own bodies?"

Neither of you chucklers are going to convince the other. Talk about something else, like how monopolies are/aren't going to form in an anarchist society, or welfare for individuals with special needs, or food quality assurance, or defending resources from other countries, or convicting criminals, or any other of the thousand problems a stateless society would cause.

Also, Arkolon, didn't you say you weren't an anarcho-capitalist?

[Arkolon]

Monopoly on violence is the accepted abbreviation of monopoly on legitimate use of physical force. Weber wrote it himself as "Gewaltmonopol des Staates"-- literally, "The state's monopoly on violence". It's not even close to sensationalism. However, do abbreviate your justification of the modern state, much like I did for the Weberian definition of a state. I can do my own part if you want. Q: How is the modern state justifiable? A: It's not.

it's as justifiable as any other form of society. and monopoly on violence and monopoly on legitimate violence means the same thing in practice because if you have a monopoly on violence then you only have to justify it to the people with the monopoly on violence. You seem to want some ultimate measure of legitimacy, but to have that you need a monopoly on violence, because you need a set of universally enforced rule on legitimate violence to have illegitimate violence. So catch 22.

Why are you assuming that legitimacy needs to be enforced by a state? The legitimacy works fine in anarcho-capitalism. Overriding self-ownership, which is, to various extents, in direct relation to the non-aggression principle-- which itself is built from natural law, whch is built upon natural rights, which come from self-ownership (there is no logical loop here. It is just in the way that I described the things)-- is illegitimate. You don't need a world government to enforce the legitimacy. Legitimacy doesn't even have to be enforced by a state for it to be legitimate. It's not a requirement for legitimacy.

[Arkolon]

Because it overrides my own self-ownership. That was easy.

which doesn't answer the question, why violating your ownership is wrong?

You can't seriously start continuously asking "why why why" now. Overriding my self-ownership, which is, to one extent, claiming ownership over me, is illegitimate because it is a direct breach of my freedom as an individual.

They are modern examples. Jesus came up with his own rendition of the NAP, with Epicurus being one of the very first recorded to do so. However, these were deontological arguments, and not consequentialist ones. Hayek said following the NAP provides for better results, as did, more or less, every other Austrian economist who wasn't also a proper philosopher. The NAP is built upon self-ownership.

which might matter if all arguments for NAP relied on self ownership, but since you admit they do not you have boxed yourself in a corner, because you have to take your conclusion as your assumption.
Oh and Hayek was by no means the first to use a consequentialist argument.

The NAP is a rendition of natural law. Natural law come from natural rights. Natural rights come from self-ownership. This is the course the thread took: first you attacked anarchism, which I defended with the NAP. Then you attacked the NAP, which I defended with natural law. And so on, and so forth. You're digging down at the very bedrocks of natural-rights libertarian philosophy, and it seems as if all you've been asking the whole time is "why?", sans cesse.

Hayek's a big name, and I gave him as a name. Nowhere did I say that he was the first to give a consequentialist rendition and defense of the NAP.

Of course it does. The person and the body are arguably separable.

no
unless you are talking about the brain as compared to the rest of the body. person = brain

The person is the self: the mind, the "soul".

Maybe in the future you ought use more adjectives. I understood standard of living as personal standard of living.

maybe you should consider what a lack of an adjective means.

Failure to correctly elaborate on oneself's expressions?

Whether it's used as the only metric or part of many metrics, it's a really useless and counterproductive metric to use at all.

because?
by that logic you can't worry about property and force at the same time because all property is an initiation of force.

Where does property come into play for this one? And no, it isn't, you're wrong.

All is property.

because you say so?

What isn't one or another form of property? This device is my property. This building is property of whoever owns the hotel chain. The sky outside is our common property. I can't find a single thing that isn't property. Disprove me.

What isn't one or another form of property? And yes, air, the oceans, and space fall into one category of property.

because you are taking that as an assumption, not everyone agrees with that subjective opinion.

Show me that what I'm saying is subjective by giving me an example of something that is not property.

[Arkolon]

Arkolon's just got a crazy hard-on for property rights. He should be a lawyer. Maybe then he'll stop derailing threads with circular arguments about this crap again and again.

As much as I appreciate the career advice, I'm set for a different path. The arguments aren't even circular and, until someone manages to give me a proper reason why not, aside from "I personally disagree" with no consistent backing, my arguments are all consistent. It's easy to have consistent logic from my side, considering what I'm saying is a central tenet of, like, the last few millenia of philosophical thought.

You guys started with, "the government doesn't have the right to take my things, it's a gangster"

Actually, that was TSS interjecting with "anarchy is bad, state is good" rhetoric. Self-ownership has been going on strong for quite a few pages now.

and now you're at "Duuude, do we even own our own bodies?"

If you acquiesce to self-ownership, deontological libertarianism is the only justifiable position you can adopt. I'm getting there, but everyone's reluctant to accept the very simple fact that yes, you own yourself.

Neither of you chucklers are going to convince the other. Talk about something else, like how monopolies are/aren't going to form in an anarchist society, or welfare for individuals with special needs, or food quality assurance, or defending resources from other countries, or convicting criminals, or any other of the thousand problems a stateless society would cause.

That's boring, though. The defense of anarchism is largely philosophical.

Also, Arkolon, didn't you say you weren't an anarcho-capitalist?

I'm definitely not an ancap. I am a Nozickian.

[MERIZoC]

Well, this is interesting.
http://roarmag.org/2014/08/pkk-kurdish-struggle-autonomy/

[Len Hyet]

Hello everyone

Seeing that anarchism regularly comes up as a topic for discussion, even in threads that have nothing to do with anarchism; I decided to create this thread.

Here we can debate anarchism.

Topics (not limited to):

Anarchism vs Capitalism

Different organizational forms of anarchism, such as: egoism, syndicalism, insurrectionism, primitivism, radical LGBT, autonomy, collectivism, anarchist communism etc

Anti-state vs State

Anarchism vs Marxism

Praxis vs Theoreticism

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Helpful links:

Anarchist Library: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/
Anarchist FAQ: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html
Anarchy Archives: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/
MIA: http://www.marxists.org/
Cosmologies of Capitalism (by Alan MacFarlane): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=micJ4FnvbY4

Is a childish theory that doesn't hold up under actual situations and real life practice? Whose defendants only argument is a no true scotsman fallacy?

[Threlizdun]

The Purge is a terrible movie idea that depicts anomie, depicting power being scattered among varying groups and the total breakdown of any societal ethical standards. Anarchy is a society devoid of social hierarchies. They are two very different things.

It's impossible to breakdown social hierarchies. They exist even at the most basic levels of organization like families and even groups of friends. While those groups don't have official titles it is clear in many cases that some people consistently lead, some follow, some act as subordinates. The world has hierarchies because we're human and it comes naturally to us. It's not a bad thing either because it allows us to stay organised and productive.

How ridiculous. If you have hierarhies in your friendships then they aren't your friends. If your romantic relationships are hierarchal then it is an abusive relationship.

[MERIZoC]

Hello everyone

Seeing that anarchism regularly comes up as a topic for discussion, even in threads that have nothing to do with anarchism; I decided to create this thread.

Here we can debate anarchism.

Topics (not limited to):

Anarchism vs Capitalism

Different organizational forms of anarchism, such as: egoism, syndicalism, insurrectionism, primitivism, radical LGBT, autonomy, collectivism, anarchist communism etc

Anti-state vs State

Anarchism vs Marxism

Praxis vs Theoreticism

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Helpful links:

Anarchist Library: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/
Anarchist FAQ: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html
Anarchy Archives: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/
MIA: http://www.marxists.org/
Cosmologies of Capitalism (by Alan MacFarlane): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=micJ4FnvbY4

Is a childish theory that doesn't hold up under actual situations and real life practice? Whose defendants only argument is a no true scotsman fallacy?

Most of human history disagrees.

[Kumuri]

Primitive communism, anyone?

[Conscentia]

Primitive communism, anyone?

What about it?

[Sociobiology]

which doesn't answer the question, why violating your ownership is wrong?

You can't seriously start continuously asking "why why why" now.

I can if your argument hinges on us accepting your subjective claim as objectively true.

if you keep saying "it just is" the correct response is "why?"

Overriding my self-ownership, which is, to one extent, claiming ownership over me, is illegitimate because it is a direct breach of my freedom as an individual.

freedoms which are not inherent, but are created by the actions of society. thus if you want a society that cannot enforce them (aka a stateless one) you need to describe why they would still exist.

which might matter if all arguments for NAP relied on self ownership, but since you admit they do not you have boxed yourself in a corner, because you have to take your conclusion as your assumption.
Oh and Hayek was by no means the first to use a consequentialist argument.

The NAP is a rendition of natural law. Natural law come from natural rights.

both of which you have been unable to demonstrate objectively exist.

Natural rights come from self-ownership.

so circular reasoning, "natural rights exist because self-ownership exists, and self ownership exists because natural rights exist."
Aaand down the rabbit hole we go...
so basically your entire argument is based on a very well known fallacy.

This is the course the thread took: first you attacked anarchism, which I defended with the NAP. Then you attacked the NAP, which I defended with natural law. And so on, and so forth. You're digging down at the very bedrocks of natural-rights libertarian philosophy, and it seems as if all you've been asking the whole time is "why?", sans cesse.

because you keep claiming that we should just accept that these things exist with no evidence.
I am systematically dissecting your logic to find out just how full of holes it is, in hopes you might notice just how unfounded your claims are.

no
unless you are talking about the brain as compared to the rest of the body. person = brain

The person is the self: the mind,

which equals the brain.

maybe you should consider what a lack of an adjective means.

Failure to correctly elaborate on oneself's expressions?

expressions?

because?
by that logic you can't worry about property and force at the same time because all property is an initiation of force.

Where does property come into play for this one?

because your entire argument is based on it

And no, it isn't, you're wrong.

convincing.

because you say so?

What isn't one or another form of property? This device is my property. This building is property of whoever owns the hotel chain. The sky outside is our common property. I can't find a single thing that isn't property. Disprove me.

the mind, people, light, ideas, ect.

What isn't one or another form of property? And yes, air, the oceans, and space fall into one category of property.

because you are taking that as an assumption, not everyone agrees with that subjective opinion.

Show me that what I'm saying is subjective by giving me an example of something that is not property.[/quote]
people, space, the ocean, ideas... what part of everyone does not agree with you was confusing?
hell there are people who believe animals cannot be property.

[Sociobiology]

it's as justifiable as any other form of society. and monopoly on violence and monopoly on legitimate violence means the same thing in practice because if you have a monopoly on violence then you only have to justify it to the people with the monopoly on violence. You seem to want some ultimate measure of legitimacy, but to have that you need a monopoly on violence, because you need a set of universally enforced rule on legitimate violence to have illegitimate violence. So catch 22.

Why are you assuming that legitimacy needs to be enforced by a state?

I'm not
I'm assuming to functionally exist, legitimacy must be enforced.

The legitimacy works fine in anarcho-capitalism. Overriding self-ownership, which is, to various extents, in direct relation to the non-aggression principle-- which itself is built from natural law, whch is built upon natural rights, which come from self-ownership (there is no logical loop here. It is just in the way that I described the things)

so you see the massive flaw in your reasoning, but suffer from so much cognitive dissonance, that is you are so unwilling to even question your own beliefs, you just can't admit it.

[Arkolon]

Well, this is interesting.
http://roarmag.org/2014/08/pkk-kurdish-struggle-autonomy/

It's going to last exactly four years, and in those four years Free Kurdistan will be used as an example of working anarchism. After those four years, and an external force armed with guns takes over, it will be used as an example of failed anarchism. This is true of every example given thus far.

[The Liberated Territories]

Right of conquest is crap and you know it. Might doesn't necessarily make right. The person - the individual - who mixed his labor first has the strongest claim. The state comes after individuals agree to a mutual pact of some sort - whether it be defense, welfare, or whatever, and is only legitimate as long as every member continues to observe it and the contract is not made under duress and if it can be canceled by any member without further obligation on their part.

which might be possible if people never died, no further humans were ever born, and all exchanges had to happen at the exact same time. Under that definition skipping out on a check at a restaurant is completely OK because otherwise they are forcing you to meet an obligation you no longer wish to meet.

also by your argument the state still owns the majority of the land, by investing in expeditions to map unoccupied territory, thus mixing their labor.

Except you enter the restaurant willingly and voluntarily, and imply that you are going to pay for the food. You do not enter the state willingly or voluntarily. And the services the state provides would be equivalent to your neighbor mowing your lawn for you for free without your consent/knowledge and then threatening to hold you hostage at the barrel of the gun if you don't pay up his services. (implicitly)

I believe that the definition of "force" (in this context, aggression) can be compromised into something near the Libertarian definition of force. Say you have a group of communists - in the voluntary minimal state, these communists who believe that capitalism is forceful may withdraw from capitalist society and establish their own communes. Same with white nationalists or any other group. The only thing that doesn't make such a pluralist society possible is the insistence by some that their ideology doesn't allow for compromise.

[Arkolon]

You can't seriously start continuously asking "why why why" now.

I can if your argument hinges on us accepting your subjective claim as objectively true.

if you keep saying "it just is" the correct response is "why?"

"You own yourself, don't you?"
"I don't want to"
"But you still do"
"Why?"

In any case, you aren't doing it very well.

Overriding my self-ownership, which is, to one extent, claiming ownership over me, is illegitimate because it is a direct breach of my freedom as an individual.

freedoms which are not inherent, but are created by the actions of society. thus if you want a society that cannot enforce them (aka a stateless one) you need to describe why they would still exist.

At which point in the transition from a statist to a stateless society do I revoke ownership over my body?

The NAP is a rendition of natural law. Natural law come from natural rights.

both of which you have been unable to demonstrate objectively exist.

I backed them each up with a new term, which were all ultimately backed by self-ownership.

Natural rights come from self-ownership.

so circular reasoning, "natural rights exist because self-ownership exists, and self ownership exists because natural rights exist."
Aaand down the rabbit hole we go...
so basically your entire argument is based on a very well known fallacy.

1. You own yourself.
2. This gives you certain immutable rights which are granted from birth as a result of 1.
3. Assuming a society larger than one individual, yourself, other individuals equally satisfy 1 and 2.
4. From this, we conclude that your rights cannot trump another's-- your rights end where another's begins.
5. This develops into a principle by which aggression, or any form of rejection or trumping of 1 or 2 would be illegitimate as they directly contravene such axioms.
6. From 5, you can prove any instance of free-market capitalism ethically correct.

Where is the circular argument? You're the only one to have ever suggested such a circular loop in logic. If you're having difficulty, here you go: 1 is self-ownership, 2 is natural rights, 4 is natural law, and 5 is the non-aggression principle.

This is the course the thread took: first you attacked anarchism, which I defended with the NAP. Then you attacked the NAP, which I defended with natural law. And so on, and so forth. You're digging down at the very bedrocks of natural-rights libertarian philosophy, and it seems as if all you've been asking the whole time is "why?", sans cesse.

because you keep claiming that we should just accept that these things exist with no evidence.
I am systematically dissecting your logic to find out just how full of holes it is, in hopes you might notice just how unfounded your claims are.

Thank you for explaining yourself. Without it, I would have persisted in thinking that you were just repeating yourself to waste both our times.

The person is the self: the mind,

which equals the brain.

The actual person themselves is not the brain. I AM myself, but I OWN my body.

Failure to correctly elaborate on oneself's expressions?

expressions?

As in, verb, to express oneself.

Where does property come into play for this one?

because your entire argument is based on it

Not in the argument posed above it wasn't. How is property an initation of force? Is my life, therefore, an initiation of force? Left-wing libertarianism falls to pieces when we look at their views on property.

What isn't one or another form of property? This device is my property. This building is property of whoever owns the hotel chain. The sky outside is our common property. I can't find a single thing that isn't property. Disprove me.

the mind, people, light, ideas, ect.

I AM myself; people individually own themselves; light is the product of whatever is emitting it; ideas are the product of whatever emits them. They all fall into one or another category of property.

Show me that what I'm saying is subjective by giving me an example of something that is not property.

people, space, the ocean, ideas... what part of everyone does not agree with you was confusing?
hell there are people who believe animals cannot be property.

People individually own themselves; space and oceans are comprised of smaller beings and property (unless I'm mistaken, space itself isn't anything at all); ideas are the product of whoever emits them.

Until you manage to prove me that there isn't something that falls into one or another form of property, I will have a very hard time believing that such a statement is "subjective".

People might not want to want to call things property, but that's what they are.

[MERIZoC]

Well, this is interesting.
http://roarmag.org/2014/08/pkk-kurdish-struggle-autonomy/

It's going to last exactly four years, and in those four years Free Kurdistan will be used as an example of working anarchism. After those four years, and an external force armed with guns takes over, it will be used as an example of failed anarchism. This is true of every example given thus far.

The Kurds are pretty tight with some world powers, so that may not happen quite as fast as you think it will.

[Arkolon]

Why are you assuming that legitimacy needs to be enforced by a state?

I'm not
I'm assuming to functionally exist, legitimacy must be enforced.

Legitimacy =/= legality.

The legitimacy works fine in anarcho-capitalism. Overriding self-ownership, which is, to various extents, in direct relation to the non-aggression principle-- which itself is built from natural law, whch is built upon natural rights, which come from self-ownership (there is no logical loop here. It is just in the way that I described the things)

so you see the massive flaw in your reasoning, but suffer from so much cognitive dissonance, that is you are so unwilling to even question your own beliefs, you just can't admit it.

See above post.

[Maqo]

Well, this is interesting.
http://roarmag.org/2014/08/pkk-kurdish-struggle-autonomy/

It's going to last exactly four years, and in those four years Free Kurdistan will be used as an example of working anarchism. After those four years, and an external force armed with guns takes over, it will be used as an example of failed anarchism. This is true of every example given thus far.

Hey now. 4 years would be a new record.
Calling it successful would still be like calling the original Tacoma bridge a stable structure.

[Maqo]

which might be possible if people never died, no further humans were ever born, and all exchanges had to happen at the exact same time. Under that definition skipping out on a check at a restaurant is completely OK because otherwise they are forcing you to meet an obligation you no longer wish to meet.

also by your argument the state still owns the majority of the land, by investing in expeditions to map unoccupied territory, thus mixing their labor.

Except you enter the restaurant willingly and voluntarily, and imply that you are going to pay for the food. You do not enter the state willingly or voluntarily. And the services the state provides would be equivalent to your neighbor mowing your lawn for you for free without your consent/knowledge and then threatening to hold you hostage at the barrel of the gun if you don't pay up his services. (implicitly)

I believe that the definition of "force" (in this context, aggression) can be compromised into something near the Libertarian definition of force. Say you have a group of communists - in the voluntary minimal state, these communists who believe that capitalism is forceful may withdraw from capitalist society and establish their own communes. Same with white nationalists or any other group. The only thing that doesn't make such a pluralist society possible is the insistence by some that their ideology doesn't allow for compromise.

Implied consent? IMPLIED CONSENT?! If I wear a short skirt is that implied consent to rape me???taxation is literally worse than rape.
^^ shit arkolon says


More realistically: the initial citizens, and all immigrants, give explicit consent. The 'issue' comes when people are born in the state. If you consider that the state owns its territory, then these babies are trespassing. Obviously rounding up and arresting newborns isn't a good solution to anything, so we need something better. But the state shouldn't have to tolerate trespassers either. So 'implicit consent' or consent-by-proxy is assumed.
If you want to have born citizens give explicit consent upon reaching their majority, fine. But why should the state continue to allow non-consenters to live within its borders? Do you get to live in any other property rent free forever if you were born while your parents live there? No: you get evicted if you refuse to pay rent. But if you keep living there and paying rent, the state is within its rights to think you consent to their rules.

[Benuty]

It's going to last exactly four years, and in those four years Free Kurdistan will be used as an example of working anarchism. After those four years, and an external force armed with guns takes over, it will be used as an example of failed anarchism. This is true of every example given thus far.

Hey now. 4 years would be a new record.
Calling it successful would still be like calling the original Tacoma bridge a stable structure.

Given the Ukrainian experiment lasted seven years I fail to see how just four years is impressive. Not to mention they were fighting multiple enemies at the same time.

[MERIZoC]

Except you enter the restaurant willingly and voluntarily, and imply that you are going to pay for the food. You do not enter the state willingly or voluntarily. And the services the state provides would be equivalent to your neighbor mowing your lawn for you for free without your consent/knowledge and then threatening to hold you hostage at the barrel of the gun if you don't pay up his services. (implicitly)

I believe that the definition of "force" (in this context, aggression) can be compromised into something near the Libertarian definition of force. Say you have a group of communists - in the voluntary minimal state, these communists who believe that capitalism is forceful may withdraw from capitalist society and establish their own communes. Same with white nationalists or any other group. The only thing that doesn't make such a pluralist society possible is the insistence by some that their ideology doesn't allow for compromise.

Implied consent? IMPLIED CONSENT?! If I wear a short skirt is that implied consent to rape me???taxation is literally worse than rape.
^^ shit arkolon says

Piss poor comparison. One doesn't consent to rape. One does consent to paying for a meal, because if they don't, then they've broken a law.

[Arkolon]

It's going to last exactly four years, and in those four years Free Kurdistan will be used as an example of working anarchism. After those four years, and an external force armed with guns takes over, it will be used as an example of failed anarchism. This is true of every example given thus far.

Hey now. 4 years would be a new record.
Calling it successful would still be like calling the original Tacoma bridge a stable structure.

99.8% of human history is quite a feat, and is arguably longer than 4 years.

[Arkolon]

Except you enter the restaurant willingly and voluntarily, and imply that you are going to pay for the food. You do not enter the state willingly or voluntarily. And the services the state provides would be equivalent to your neighbor mowing your lawn for you for free without your consent/knowledge and then threatening to hold you hostage at the barrel of the gun if you don't pay up his services. (implicitly)

I believe that the definition of "force" (in this context, aggression) can be compromised into something near the Libertarian definition of force. Say you have a group of communists - in the voluntary minimal state, these communists who believe that capitalism is forceful may withdraw from capitalist society and establish their own communes. Same with white nationalists or any other group. The only thing that doesn't make such a pluralist society possible is the insistence by some that their ideology doesn't allow for compromise.

Implied consent? IMPLIED CONSENT?! If I wear a short skirt is that implied consent to rape me???taxation is literally worse than rape.
^^ shit arkolon says

Taxation on labour is slavery, and "implied consent" is almost an oxymoron.