What do you think about anarchists?

[Servica]

Wouldn't those be laws then?

Also, this topic may cover this discussion:
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p22694403

Anarchy = no rulers.

Wouldn't that include capitalists, then?

[The GAmeTopians]

Anarchism is perhaps the worst idea ever devised! Without a government there would be chaos, instability, and lawlessness. Governments may make bad policies sometimes, but without them to make laws and policies, all the sickos out there (and we all know there are) will be able to commit crimes without any hindrance whatsoever. Also, if anarchism worked, nations could not exist.

They could though. Anarchism means without rulers, not without laws. A true democracy is actually anarchism.

[Skinia]

Anarchy = no rulers.

Wouldn't that include capitalists, then?

Capitalism has rulers.

[Sibirsky]

Not true at all. Most anarchists have graduated, gotten degrees, and everything. They have jobs.

Is there any reason I should believe you over the other dude? Can either of you support your claims with evidence?

Most prominent anarchists are college educated. Rothbard, Friedman, Leeson, Woods, Tucker, Kinsella, etc.

They just don't believe in mass-production of things they can make themselves.

The fuck does that have to do with anarchism?

Nothing.

[MERIZoC]

Children Confused Teens People who have most commonly dropped out of high-school and would rather live in a completely free society with no laws and no economy than get a minimum wage job and listen to higher-ups.

That lazy dropout Kropotkin. What did he ever do in life?

[Sibirsky]

Anarchism is perhaps the worst idea ever devised! Without a government there would be chaos, instability, and lawlessness. Governments may make bad policies sometimes, but without them to make laws and policies, all the sickos out there (and we all know there are) will be able to commit crimes without any hindrance whatsoever.

Anarchy = no rulers, not no laws.

Most of anarchist writing deals with issues of crime, and how to address it.

In political science, you fail.

Also, if anarchism worked, nations could not exist.

What? That's like saying if socialism worked, capitalism could not exist. Yet clearly we see both. Anarchism and statism are not mutually exclusive on a global scale. Only territories.

[Socialist Czechia]

Silly fellas

[Sibirsky]

Anarchy = no rulers.

Wouldn't that include capitalists, then?

No. Their rule is limited and voluntary.

[Skinia]

Wouldn't that include capitalists, then?

No. Their rule is limited and voluntary.

Limited by what?

[Settrah]

What? That's like saying if socialism worked, capitalism could not exist. Yet clearly we see both. Anarchism and statism are not mutually exclusive on a global scale. Only territories.

Are you sure about that? Because socialism and capitalism refer to the ownership of the means of production. If the means of production are privately owned, that's capitalist. Because it's privately owned, it can never be socialist under that routine, because socialism is fundamentally against private ownership. If it's a mixed economy, it would still be capitalist. If it's a market socialist economy, it's publicly owned so it's socialist, but that doesn't mean it's capitalist.

Also, how in any pragmatic sense could anarchism and statism co-exist?

[Sibirsky]

No. Their rule is limited and voluntary.

Limited by what?

By the fact that bosses do not have authority over employees outside of work.

[Skinia]

What? That's like saying if socialism worked, capitalism could not exist. Yet clearly we see both. Anarchism and statism are not mutually exclusive on a global scale. Only territories.

Are you sure about that? Because Socialism and Capitalism refer to the ownership of the means of production. If the means of production are privately owned, that's Capitalist. Because it's privately owned, it can never be Socialist under that routine, because Socialism is fundamentally against private ownership. If it's a mixed economy, it would still be Capitalist. If it's a Market Socialist economy, it's publicly owned so it's Socialist, but that doesn't mean it's Capitalist.

Also, how in any pragmatic sense could Anarchism and Statism co-exist?

Yet again another stupid "socialism is state ownership"-argument.

[Vazdaria]

Do you think they are lazy, spoiled, or idealists? Pick what you want!

theyre idealists....

[Settrah]

Are you sure about that? Because Socialism and Capitalism refer to the ownership of the means of production. If the means of production are privately owned, that's Capitalist. Because it's privately owned, it can never be Socialist under that routine, because Socialism is fundamentally against private ownership. If it's a mixed economy, it would still be Capitalist. If it's a Market Socialist economy, it's publicly owned so it's Socialist, but that doesn't mean it's Capitalist.

Also, how in any pragmatic sense could Anarchism and Statism co-exist?

Yet again another stupid "socialism is state ownership"-argument.

Except I never made that argument.

Try reading again.

[Saviola]

What I meant by "If Anarchism worked nations would not exist" is that if anarchism truly worked and was better than all other systems, than everyone would adopt it and dissolve their respective nations for anarchism=anti-state. Also, without a government who would pass and enforce these laws you are saying are integral to anarchism. I did not say that anarchism was synonymous with crime, only that those willing to commit crime would be able to take advantage of the fact that there is no government or police to enforce the law.

[Skinia]

Limited by what?

By the fact that bosses do not have authority over employees outside of work.

They're still rulers. The 'voluntary rule' of someone over someone else doesn't make it non-rule. Hence, capitalism isn't anarchist.

[Sibirsky]

What? That's like saying if socialism worked, capitalism could not exist. Yet clearly we see both. Anarchism and statism are not mutually exclusive on a global scale. Only territories.

Are you sure about that? Because socialism and capitalism refer to the ownership of the means of production. If the means of production are privately owned, that's capitalist. Because it's privately owned, it can never be socialist under that routine, because socialism is fundamentally against private ownership. If it's a mixed economy, it would still be capitalist. If it's a market socialist economy, it's publicly owned so it's socialist, but that doesn't mean it's capitalist.

Also, how in any pragmatic sense could anarchism and statism co-exist?

Cuba is socialist. Canada is capitalist. They coexist. Get it? Very basic.

So, country A gets rid of their government and becomes anarchist. Country B retains their government and stays statist.

Still confused?

[Servica]

Wouldn't that include capitalists, then?

No. Their rule is limited and voluntary.

So, say..
if nobody conformed to a capitalists, capitalists will be okay with not being productive?

Also, what if we happen to find no use of currency in the future? What would become of capitalism?

How would capitalism fare in a cynical and perfectionistic world?

[Ifreann]

*snort* Bullshit.

How so? By advocating the overthrow of the current system with a revolution anarchists can stir up quite a hate and make quite a few enemies.

Not really. Plenty of people would disagree, but that isn't hatred. Anarchists don't really do anything to provoke hatred. Whereas fascists started a rather large war and killed quite a few people, as you may be aware. And moreover, fascists have some political viability in some parts of the world, which threatens the rights and safety of many people. Not so much with anarchists.

[Skinia]

Yet again another stupid "socialism is state ownership"-argument.

Except I never made that argument.

Are you sure about that? Because Socialism and Capitalism refer to the ownership of the means of production. If the means of production are privately owned, that's Capitalist. Because it's privately owned, it can never be Socialist under that routine, because Socialism is fundamentally against private ownership. If it's a mixed economy, it would still be Capitalist. If it's a Market Socialist economy, it's publicly owned so it's Socialist, but that doesn't mean it's Capitalist.

Public ownership = state ownership.

[Settrah]

Are you sure about that? Because socialism and capitalism refer to the ownership of the means of production. If the means of production are privately owned, that's capitalist. Because it's privately owned, it can never be socialist under that routine, because socialism is fundamentally against private ownership. If it's a mixed economy, it would still be capitalist. If it's a market socialist economy, it's publicly owned so it's socialist, but that doesn't mean it's capitalist.

Also, how in any pragmatic sense could anarchism and statism co-exist?

Cuba is socialist. Canada is capitalist. They coexist. Get it? Very basic.

So, country A gets rid of their government and becomes anarchist. Country B retains their government and stays statist.

Still confused?

Oh right, you're saying the countries co-exist in the world.

I thought you were implying that the two systems could co-exist in the same country.

Yeah, that's my bad. Misunderstood that.

[Skinia]

How so? By advocating the overthrow of the current system with a revolution anarchists can stir up quite a hate and make quite a few enemies.

Not really. Plenty of people would disagree, but that isn't hatred. Anarchists don't really do anything to provoke hatred. Whereas fascists started a rather large war and killed quite a few people, as you may be aware. And moreover, fascists have some political viability in some parts of the world, which threatens the rights and safety of many people. Not so much with anarchists.

Fair enough.

Are you sure about that? Because socialism and capitalism refer to the ownership of the means of production. If the means of production are privately owned, that's capitalist. Because it's privately owned, it can never be socialist under that routine, because socialism is fundamentally against private ownership. If it's a mixed economy, it would still be capitalist. If it's a market socialist economy, it's publicly owned so it's socialist, but that doesn't mean it's capitalist.

Also, how in any pragmatic sense could anarchism and statism co-exist?

Cuba is socialist. Canada is capitalist. They coexist. Get it? Very basic.

So, country A gets rid of their government and becomes anarchist. Country B retains their government and stays statist.

Still confused?

Are Cuba's businesses really socially owned? Does it have any form of socialism, even state socialism?

[Settrah]

Except I never made that argument.

Are you sure about that? Because Socialism and Capitalism refer to the ownership of the means of production. If the means of production are privately owned, that's Capitalist. Because it's privately owned, it can never be Socialist under that routine, because Socialism is fundamentally against private ownership. If it's a mixed economy, it would still be Capitalist. If it's a Market Socialist economy, it's publicly owned so it's Socialist, but that doesn't mean it's Capitalist.

Public ownership = state ownership.

Actually I was referring to public ownership as owned by the public. But that was probably a very bad use of wording (due to it meaning something completely opposite). Replace that with common, or mutual, ownership.

[Sibirsky]

What I meant by "If Anarchism worked nations would not exist" is that if anarchism truly worked and was better than all other systems, than everyone would adopt it and dissolve their respective nations for anarchism=anti-state. Also, without a government who would pass and enforce these laws you are saying are integral to anarchism. I did not say that anarchism was synonymous with crime, only that those willing to commit crime would be able to take advantage of the fact that there is no government or police to enforce the law.

More bullshit.

This is like saying since capitalism is better than socialism, all nations would be capitalist. Clearly, they are not. Your argument fails.

Who said there would be no police? You? You have been wrong on everything so far, maybe it's time to get the hint?

Private police would be able to provide protection services. Unlike government police, who have no obligation to protect you, despite your obligation to pay taxes that support them, private police would have a contractual obligation to protect you.

[Fortschritte]

I think the ideology of anarchism is foolish, and that the idea of a anarchist society is unrealistic and undesirable.

However, I try not to judge people by their political affiliations, so I don't have one opinion for all people who are anarchists. Some anarchists are kind, smart people, while other anarchists are asssholes. I judge the individual by their actions, not their ideology. Ergo, I will not group all anarchists into one "category."