Anarchy vs Governance - Merged Topics

[Terra Agora]

Basically this.

As Andrew Ryan put it:

"A man chooses. A slave obeys."

You both seem to believe that rulers cannot be overthrown, and that a leader will step down or only be followed because they have good ideas.

I do?

No I was only pointing out there is a difference.

An example of a leader could be your boss.

An example of a ruler is the president or any other government official that uses coercion.

[Indeos]

You both seem to believe that rulers cannot be overthrown, and that a leader will step down or only be followed because they have good ideas.

I do?

No I was only pointing out there is a difference.

An example of a leader could be your boss.

An example of a ruler is the president or any other government official that uses coercion.

A leader can use coercion as much as a ruler can. There is no difference between the two.

[Terra Agora]

I do?

No I was only pointing out there is a difference.

An example of a leader could be your boss.

An example of a ruler is the president or any other government official that uses coercion.

A leader can use coercion as much as a ruler can. There is no difference between the two.

Then he would no longer be a leader. Just as if a dog turned into a cat it is no longer a dog.

[Distruzio]

Cavemen tried this [anarchy] for thousands of years. They were primitive and uncivilised savage brutes.

Then what happened? They established hierarchies and built vast empires!

More like, "they agreed to respect what would eventually be collated into the theory of property rights and were able to build vast empires that collapsed in short time as soon as they began to dismiss property rights!"

[Conserative Morality]

Then he would no longer be a leader. Just as if a dog turned into a cat it is no longer a dog.

Redefining words Does Not Work Like That.

[Indeos]

A leader can use coercion as much as a ruler can. There is no difference between the two.

Then he would no longer be a leader. Just as if a dog turned into a cat it is no longer a dog.

Leaders lead. The difference was created by anarchists so there would be one.

Anarchy wouldn't work because people would still use coercion to gain power.

[Natapoc]

I do?

No I was only pointing out there is a difference.

An example of a leader could be your boss.

An example of a ruler is the president or any other government official that uses coercion.

A leader can use coercion as much as a ruler can. There is no difference between the two.

I also do not really see the difference. I think it's an ancap thing they use to justify bosses. One of the reasons I don't really think anarcho-capitalism should be classified as part of the anarchist tradition.

[Terra Agora]

Then he would no longer be a leader. Just as if a dog turned into a cat it is no longer a dog.

Anarchy wouldn't work because people would still use coercion to gain power.

So there is nothing that would stop this from happening?

Thank you for telling me oh great wise one...

[Conserative Morality]

I also do not really see the difference. I think it's an ancap thing they use to justify bosses. One of the reasons I don't really think anarcho-capitalism should be classified as part of the anarchist tradition.

Ancaps were never anarchists. Thoughtcrime doubleplusbad comrade.

[Terra Agora]

A leader can use coercion as much as a ruler can. There is no difference between the two.

I also do not really see the difference. I think it's an ancap thing they use to justify bosses. One of the reasons I don't really think anarcho-capitalism should be classified as part of the anarchist tradition.

Im not AnCap.

It doesnt have to be a boss. It can be anyone. A leader could be a inspirational figure.

[Indeos]

Anarchy wouldn't work because people would still use coercion to gain power.

So there is nothing that would stop this from happening?

Thank you for telling me oh great wise one...

No, there honestly isn't. Unless, of course, you can think of something that would.

[Terra Agora]

So there is nothing that would stop this from happening?

Thank you for telling me oh great wise one...

No, there honestly isn't. Unless, of course, you can think of something that would.

If you cant think of anything yourself what is the point of this debate?

[Indeos]

No, there honestly isn't. Unless, of course, you can think of something that would.

If you cant think of anything yourself what is the point of this debate?

I'm not defending anarchism, it isn't my job to think of something that would prevent people from using coercion. You were the one claiming that something could stop it.

[Natapoc]

Then he would no longer be a leader. Just as if a dog turned into a cat it is no longer a dog.

Leaders lead. The difference was created by anarchists so there would be one.

Anarchy wouldn't work because people would still use coercion to gain power.

In real anarchism no one would have more power then anyone else. I have no idea what this leader stuff is about but unless by leader you mean: She's a leading researcher on particle physics!

The difference was not created anarchists. The difference was created by people who like to call themselves anarchists but who reject several fundamental aspects of anarchism.

[Terra Agora]

If you cant think of anything yourself what is the point of this debate?

I'm not defending anarchism, it isn't my job to think of something that would prevent people from using coercion. You were the one claiming that something could stop it.

Yes but its quite easy to figure out what would stop it.

[Indeos]

Leaders lead. The difference was created by anarchists so there would be one.

Anarchy wouldn't work because people would still use coercion to gain power.

In real anarchism no one would have more power then anyone else. I have no idea what this leader stuff is about but unless by leader you mean: She's a leading researcher on particle physics!

The difference was not created anarchists. The difference was created by people who like to call themselves anarchists but who reject several fundamental aspects of anarchism.

Real anarchism can't exist. People will always find a way to get more power, unless you're going to somehow make everyone have exactly the same beliefs.

[Indeos]

I'm not defending anarchism, it isn't my job to think of something that would prevent people from using coercion. You were the one claiming that something could stop it.

Yes but its quite easy to figure out what would stop it.

That doesn't change the fact that it isn't my job to do so. If you aren't going to contribute to the debate, you can kindly GTFO.

[Conserative Morality]

In real anarchism no one would have more power then anyone else.

Including social power then?

[Distruzio]

That is what I want more or less. Though I don't know if Terra Agora thinks the same.

I would like to see a world where the state followed you and your property and no others. Private law societies, civil protection, what every you choose to call it, the point is that the state be individualized and voluntary. Once that is agreed upon what their members decide to do with their own property and persons is for the most part their decision, so long as they continue to uphold those principles.

That of course is another problem, which is why I feel such a system necessitates a mutually agreed upon constitution among the various private entities limiting the power of these commonwealths (as I like to cal them) from over-arching their responsibilities and becoming true monopolistic states.

More or less but im done arguing with him being he is quite incompetent.

But yes that is quite basically my ideal.

Pretty much dead on. Multiple layers of governing and voluntary associating organizations each with claims to sovereignty that make centralization nigh impossible? Yup, sounds like heaven to me. Of course, once it becomes accepted that smaller is better, then the intelligent folks will begin to realize that smaller States and State-like entities should give way to even smaller entities. Free cities, smaller republics, and a radically interconnected web of communal no-States-land would break the monopoly of the State.

Sounds great to me.

[Terra Agora]

Leaders lead. The difference was created by anarchists so there would be one.

Anarchy wouldn't work because people would still use coercion to gain power.

In real anarchism no one would have more power then anyone else. I have no idea what this leader stuff is about but unless by leader you mean: She's a leading researcher on particle physics!

The difference was not created anarchists. The difference was created by people who like to call themselves anarchists but who reject several fundamental aspects of anarchism.

Yes because only those who fit your definition are real anarchists. '

You aren't a real anarchist because you dont follow my set of beliefs.

[Distruzio]

Given anarchy is basically the State of nature? No, it wouldn’t. A big backwards step if anything.

Hobbes was wrong.

[Conserative Morality]

Hobbes was wrong.

Tiger Philosophers are incapable of being wrong.

[Distruzio]

Hobbes was wrong.

Tiger Philosophers are incapable of being wrong.

???

I don't even...

[Natapoc]

In real anarchism no one would have more power then anyone else. I have no idea what this leader stuff is about but unless by leader you mean: She's a leading researcher on particle physics!

The difference was not created anarchists. The difference was created by people who like to call themselves anarchists but who reject several fundamental aspects of anarchism.

Real anarchism can't exist. People will always find a way to get more power, unless you're going to somehow make everyone have exactly the same beliefs.

Not exactly the same beliefs. It simply requires that any sizable percent of people choose to not live under the rule of anyone and instead seek mutual freedom and support.

Leaderless organizations do exist. There are anarchist companies that manage to compete with modern capitalist companies. The companies have no leaders.

There are many communes run according to the leaderless model.

It does exist and it has existed.

[Natapoc]

In real anarchism no one would have more power then anyone else.

Including social power then?

What do you mean by social power?