What do you think about anarchists?

[Skinia]

Depends on the type of anarchism this is in. The people, private groups, private police, courts, arbitration groups.

Then, even if the people exercise some sort of power, wouldn't they be the rulers? Of themselves, at least?

Yes. That is a central tenet in anarchism. Self-rule instead of someone ruling over someone else.

[The Cobalt Sky]

The people would then be rulers of themselves though, right? So wouldn't there still be rulers, even if the power is far more divided?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. If I try to murder you, you can act in self defense, and possibly even kill me first. That's not coercion, because I tried to harm you in the first place. If I murder you, then the community would be quite reasonable to feel threatened, and could take action against me. Again, not coercion, because I have already engaged in an act of violence against the community.

I mean ruler as in one (or several) who are exercising power or dominion over others.

[Servica]

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

This makes no sense. Everyone is self employed all of a sudden or what?

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

So you propose barter? That sure is inefficient.

How would capitalism fare in a cynical and perfectionistic world?

Irrelevant. All systems of trade rely on trust, protection, retribution, etc.

1. How would you ensure that there will be no dissidence and everything will be according to the principles of the free market? Perhaps through mercenary organizations? I don't think anarcho-capitalism is unorthodox enough, I think it's simply a dumbed-down version of traditional polity. There's has to be a cultural development.

2. Yes. I think less land should be covered with concrete and more land should be used for food production.
Don't get me wrong, I approve of technological development and such - but I don't think the traditional "city" is as efficient as it looks.
After all, alienation, which capitalism is so fond of promoting through indirect means, is a product of being surrounded by so many people that one could care less what happens to most of them. It's one of those actually-relevant things that are most ignored in the world today, because cities almost seems like a natural constant in everyday life.

3. Oh, you best believe that is quite relevant. You see, different tendencies of thought tend to arise out of nowhere. If it happens that you make a problem that they can solve, with disregard for your trend, there's going to be clashes. Unfortunately for the capitalist camp: they need people to work for their agenda, and it's imperative. The problem is that you cannot uphold censure and be an anarchist, that makes you a bureaucrat at best.

[MERIZoC]

Who enforces the laws, then?

Depends on the type of anarchism this is in. The people, private groups, private police, courts, arbitration groups.

Private police/courts enforcing the law would constitute a third party intervention, after which it is no longer self-defense.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Then, even if the people exercise some sort of power, wouldn't they be the rulers? Of themselves, at least?

Yes. That is a central tenet in anarchism. Self-rule instead of someone ruling over someone else.

People have been saying it means no rulers instead of no laws. So if the people govern themselves, they're still rulers, right?

[MERIZoC]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. If I try to murder you, you can act in self defense, and possibly even kill me first. That's not coercion, because I tried to harm you in the first place. If I murder you, then the community would be quite reasonable to feel threatened, and could take action against me. Again, not coercion, because I have already engaged in an act of violence against the community.

I mean ruler as in one (or several) who are exercising power or dominion over others.

If I kill you in self-defense, am I your ruler?

[Skinia]

Yes. That is a central tenet in anarchism. Self-rule instead of someone ruling over someone else.

People have been saying it means no rulers instead of no laws. So if the people govern themselves, they're still rulers, right?

That is the same thing. No one rules over the other = everyone rules over themselves only.

[The Cobalt Sky]

I mean ruler as in one (or several) who are exercising power or dominion over others.

If I kill you in self-defense, am I your ruler?

I think so... you're certainly stronger than me. And you can certainly exercise more dominion than I can. So, I think so.

[MERIZoC]

I was speaking hypothetically. If anarchism was truly in the best interest of the majority of the population, we likely would have seen an anarchist revolution of some form, but have we? No. Because anarchism could not work. Also, in socialist countries the majority of people long for democracy but their government crushes all resistance to its rule. If the people of those countries could change the government, the majority would change it to democracy. To quote John F. Kennedy:

"Democracy is not perfect."

No political system is perfect, but some are much worse than others. If you believe anarchism is truly the way forward, then you are entitled to that belief, but I am just trying to make my point here.

How can you be so sure that the people know what's in their best interests? Conforming to the beliefs of the majority just because you think "they must be right" isn't a great way to form your political identity.

[MERIZoC]

If I kill you in self-defense, am I your ruler?

I think so... you're certainly stronger than me. And you can certainly exercise more dominion than I can. So, I think so.

But I haven't employed any form of coercion over you. That's what you tried to do to me.

[Servica]

Depends on the type of anarchism this is in. The people, private groups, private police, courts, arbitration groups.

Then, even if the people exercise some sort of power, wouldn't they be the rulers? Of themselves, at least?

There's a clear difference between self-rule and sovereign-subordinate rule. The other is a natural quality and hence influences the individual given that they are capable of reasoning despite of the dominant culture, while the other is imposed by the culture onto the individual. An individual cannot function without consent, or at least an attitude leaning toward consent, whatever may be the driving force behind it.

[The Cobalt Sky]

People have been saying it means no rulers instead of no laws. So if the people govern themselves, they're still rulers, right?

That is the same thing. No one rules over the other = everyone rules over themselves only.

But they'd still kind of be rulers, right? Even if it's only of themselves?

[Yorkopolis]

Ideally speaking, I would be an anarcho-communist. Anarchism - most specifically anarcho-communism or anarchistic socialism - is a very sound idea in and of itself. However, the implementation of anarchism is a very, very complex issue and very hard to undertake, which is why I'm more for a libertarian socialist approach. Also note counter-revolutionaries starting armies and suddenly creating their own kingdoms, destroying the anarchic society. Anarchist communes and societies are desirable as such, but the fact that, if they're not kept in place, counter-revolutionaries could easily trample them unless the communes/groups cooperate in such a way that it would become impossible. See Nestor Makhno and the Ukrainian Free Territory for that.

I do, however, personally believe that anarchists are politically the most misunderstood group. If there is any political group in the world that is very seriously misunderstood in its ideas, it's anarchists. People automatically stick to the judgement of "anarchism wants to abolish the state and create chaos", while that is not what anarchists want. Anarchists simply see that the monopoly of violence that a state creates is intolerable, and wish to replace states with free, democratic and bottom-up communes. Socialism is, as such, at the very basis of the ideas of anarchism.

And also, for those on this thread crying that "anarchists are simply teens seeking to rebel", I'd like to inform you that there's a good amount of anarchists who know exactly what they're talking about and who aren't kids, but are in fact already way above their 30s.

[Zottistan]

How can you have laws without a ruling party? That doesn't make sense.

True democracy. Every citizen participates in the decision making, thus no ruling party.

In which case the majority are the rulers of the minority who disagree.

[Servica]

If I kill you in self-defense, am I your ruler?

I think so... you're certainly stronger than me. And you can certainly exercise more dominion than I can. So, I think so.

If I can urinate farther than you, am I your ruler?
If I can fart louder than you, am I your ruler?
I don't think either of those is true. The paradigm in question is a cultural thing (also present in animal culture because of lack of motivation for engineering between members), and an unpleasant one on that.

[Skinia]

That is the same thing. No one rules over the other = everyone rules over themselves only.

But they'd still kind of be rulers, right? Even if it's only of themselves?

Semantics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

There's no difference.

[The Cobalt Sky]

I think so... you're certainly stronger than me. And you can certainly exercise more dominion than I can. So, I think so.

But I haven't employed any form of coercion over you. That's what you tried to do to me.

I'm not sure I understand...

Then, even if the people exercise some sort of power, wouldn't they be the rulers? Of themselves, at least?

There's a clear difference between self-rule and sovereign-subordinate rule.

No one really clarified. It was just "no rulers".

[Skinia]

True democracy. Every citizen participates in the decision making, thus no ruling party.

In which case the majority are the rulers of the minority who disagree.

Exactly. That is what democracy is and that is why all anarchists should oppose it.

[Sibirsky]

Depends on the type of anarchism this is in. The people, private groups, private police, courts, arbitration groups.

Then, even if the people exercise some sort of power, wouldn't they be the rulers? Of themselves, at least?

People are rulers of themselves. That's still anarchy as no one else rules over them.

[Sibirsky]

I was speaking hypothetically. If anarchism was truly in the best interest of the majority of the population, we likely would have seen an anarchist revolution of some form, but have we? No. Because anarchism could not work. Also, in socialist countries the majority of people long for democracy but their government crushes all resistance to its rule. If the people of those countries could change the government, the majority would change it to democracy. To quote John F. Kennedy:

"Democracy is not perfect."

No political system is perfect, but some are much worse than others. If you believe anarchism is truly the way forward, then you are entitled to that belief, but I am just trying to make my point here.

You've made no relevant points. You have only expressed your wrong opinion.

There have been periods of anarchy throughout history.

Using your logic, there would never have been slavery and women would have always been able to vote. But both are recent developments.

[The Cobalt Sky]

But they'd still kind of be rulers, right? Even if it's only of themselves?

Semantics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

There's no difference.

Ruler is meant as one who rules over others beyond themselves, then? If that's the case, then I think I understand.

[Sibirsky]

Anarchists are a cancer to civilized, orderly society.

Anarchists are important contributors to society.

[Servica]

Then, even if the people exercise some sort of power, wouldn't they be the rulers? Of themselves, at least?

People are rulers of themselves. That's still anarchy as no one else rules over them.

To make that clearer, anarchy is the dominance of the 'self' over the 'other'.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Then, even if the people exercise some sort of power, wouldn't they be the rulers? Of themselves, at least?

People are rulers of themselves. That's still anarchy as no one else rules over them.

I think I understand now.

[Brillnuck]

I like the idea of anarchy, but it wouldn't work out if you did it in today's society. Humanity isn't ready for such a thing. Crime would be high, and society would be broken.

Anarchism is a lovely ideology, but it will never work in such a large scale. I support Anarcho Capitalism and Anarcho Communism though.