Anarchy vs Governance - Merged Topics

[Conserative Morality]

???

I don't even...

Follow?

[Conserative Morality]

What do you mean by social power?

As human interaction will clearly tell you, some people hold more influence within a group than others. Not binding influence, but influence nevertheless.

[Indeos]

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.

It wouldn't work on a worldwide level. The small scale works because nobody is trying to install themselves as leader, but if everything was leaderless somebody would.

[Distruzio]

Follow?

I gotcha. Lol.

[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.

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.

I'm sorry Terra Agora, but no. There are several types of anarchism. I will call all of them that fit into the anarchist tradition anarchism.

The problem is that very recently anti government capitalists have started calling themselves anarchists. This was very troubling to everyone who regarded him or herself as an anarchist at the time.

It would be like if suddenly communists started calling themselves freemarketarians. Would you think that was a bit dishonest?

And when questioned the communist would say: But everything is free! We deserve to use the free market term to describe our ideal economy too!
Who are you to call us non free marketers?
Why do you get to define what free market is (of course ignoring that free market, like anarchism is an established term with specific meanings)

[Natapoc]

What do you mean by social power?

As human interaction will clearly tell you, some people hold more influence within a group than others. Not binding influence, but influence nevertheless.

I see. Then please read the rest of the quote that you broke off.

[Natapoc]

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.

It wouldn't work on a worldwide level. The small scale works because nobody is trying to install themselves as leader, but if everything was leaderless somebody would.

Which is a fancy way of saying: It would not work because I don't think it will work.

The same argument would be equally valid for every possible arrangement or organization of humans except for extinction or pop=1.

[Indeos]

It wouldn't work on a worldwide level. The small scale works because nobody is trying to install themselves as leader, but if everything was leaderless somebody would.

Which is a fancy way of saying: It would not work because I don't think it will work.

The same argument would be equally valid for every possible arrangement or organization of humans except for extinction or pop=1.

It wouldn't work because some people want nothing more than too hold influence over others. Because some people will simply do all they can to make it not work.

[Natapoc]

Which is a fancy way of saying: It would not work because I don't think it will work.

The same argument would be equally valid for every possible arrangement or organization of humans except for extinction or pop=1.

It wouldn't work because some people want nothing more than too hold influence over others. Because some people will simply do all they can to make it not work.

And what makes you believe that such individuals will automatically be successful?

After all, an anarchist society is designed specifically to reduce the possibility of that happening. Every model that exists takes great care to remove that as a possibility.

Still it's of course possible that people in an anarchist society will choose to stop being anarchist by deciding they need to be led by an individual.

Okay. So? Such a possibility does not effect the legitimacy of any anarchist argument or idea.

It's also possible that I today could go out on the streets and form a cult under my leadership and take over america installing myself as dictator under emergency regulations.

Is it likely... well... um... Just watch the news tomorrow at 11... Mwahahaha!

[Conserative Morality]

I see. Then please read the rest of the quote that you broke off.

Pardon?

[Indeos]

It wouldn't work because some people want nothing more than too hold influence over others. Because some people will simply do all they can to make it not work.

And what makes you believe that such individuals will automatically be successful?

After all, an anarchist society is designed specifically to reduce the possibility of that happening. Every model that exists takes great care to remove that as a possibility.

Still it's of course possible that people in an anarchist society will choose to stop being anarchist by deciding they need to be led by an individual.

Okay. So? Such a possibility does not effect the legitimacy of any anarchist argument or idea.

It's also possible that I today could go out on the streets and form a cult under my leadership and take over america installing myself as dictator under emergency regulations.

Is it likely... well... um... Just watch the news tomorrow at 11... Mwahahaha!

I'm not saying they'll automatically be successful, but it's likely that people who are good at convincing people could. Politicians get votes by doing so, what would make them less successful in an anarchist society?

Some people are just very good at manipulating people, and I don't see anything in anarchy that would make them less effective.

[Natapoc]

I see. Then please read the rest of the quote that you broke off.

Pardon?

You edited the quote to not include your answer. Here is the full text of what I said which includes an exception specifically for "social 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.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm not saying they'll automatically be successful, but it's likely that people who are good at convincing people could. Politicians get votes by doing so, what would make them less successful in an anarchist society?

Some people are just very good at manipulating people, and I don't see anything in anarchy that would make them less effective.

The KINDNESS and FREEDOM of the human condition etc etc.

[Conserative Morality]

You edited the quote to not include your answer. Here is the full text of what I said which includes an exception specifically for "social 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.

That's not social power Natapoc. That's a statement of relative qualification and achievement within a field. Which, while it can be related, is not necessarily social power.

[Xsyne]

Where did I say that they wouldn't? The people that would abuse political power are exactly the same ones that would destroy an anarchy in short order.

And you're giving them more power. In an anarchy, they'd have to contend with basically all of society. Not in a statist system.

I don't have to contend with basically all society. I've already got them on my side after I gave them photographic evidence that all my enemies are pedophiles. Also, I promised them all senior government positions and cake every day.

[Terra Agora]

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.

I'm sorry Terra Agora, but no. There are several types of anarchism. I will call all of them that fit into the anarchist tradition anarchism.

The problem is that very recently anti government capitalists have started calling themselves anarchists. This was very troubling to everyone who regarded him or herself as an anarchist at the time.

It would be like if suddenly communists started calling themselves freemarketarians. Would you think that was a bit dishonest?

And when questioned the communist would say: But everything is free! We deserve to use the free market term to describe our ideal economy too!
Who are you to call us non free marketers?
Why do you get to define what free market is (of course ignoring that free market, like anarchism is an established term with specific meanings)

Market anarchism came in the 18th century.
AnCap came closer to our time but have still has much in common with Market Anarchism.
AnCap besides having similarities with Market Anarchism sprang out of the Individualist Anarchism that was prominent in America.
It has even been widely claimed that AnCap is not capitalism because capitalism has historically meant what we call now "state capitalism".
Brad Spangler (im not sure if you familiar with him) has even claimed that "Market anarchism is stigmergic socialism" though im not sure if he is talking about AnCap or Market Anarchism.

EDIT: I found a quote

"It is my contention," writes Spangler, "that Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism is misnamed because it is actually a variety of socialism, in that it offers an alternative understanding of existing capitalism (or any other variety of statism) as systematic theft from the lower classes and envisions a more just society without that oppression. Rather than depending upon the labor theory of value to understand this systematic theft, Rothbardian market anarchism utilizes natural law theory and Lockean principles of property and self-ownership taken to their logical extreme as an alternative framework for understanding and combating oppression."

[Natapoc]

And what makes you believe that such individuals will automatically be successful?

After all, an anarchist society is designed specifically to reduce the possibility of that happening. Every model that exists takes great care to remove that as a possibility.

Still it's of course possible that people in an anarchist society will choose to stop being anarchist by deciding they need to be led by an individual.

Okay. So? Such a possibility does not effect the legitimacy of any anarchist argument or idea.

It's also possible that I today could go out on the streets and form a cult under my leadership and take over america installing myself as dictator under emergency regulations.

Is it likely... well... um... Just watch the news tomorrow at 11... Mwahahaha!

I'm not saying they'll automatically be successful, but it's likely that people who are good at convincing people could. Politicians get votes by doing so, what would make them less successful in an anarchist society?

Some people are just very good at manipulating people, and I don't see anything in anarchy that would make them less effective.

Okay. There are several reasons why they would be less effective in an anarchist sociaty.

First of all, in modern society leadership and being a leader is highly rewarded and encouraged. We have designated "leader" roles which are held as "very important" and kids grow up wanting to be able to fill one of these leader roles.

Leaders are highly revered simply by becoming: leader.

You could take a homeless man off the street, clean him up a bit and dress him like a "leader", place him as Governor or president or CEO or king and suddenly everyone would want to be near him.

In order to make being a leader even more appealing we choose to pay those in leadership roles more then the people they lead. This creates a strong incentive to become a leader.

BUT despite this love of leaders and leadership if you try to become a leader in an unaccepted or abnormal way you will be mocked relentlessly.

In anarchist society there is no normal and accepted way of becoming a leader. Each person is a leader equally. Society becomes structured on the basis of equals.

When each person becomes used to having a say in everything that effects them personally I don't see them suddenly happily surrendering that to someone who decides that he or she should carve out some new leadership role in a society that is specifically built not to have leaders.

Imagine in a modern representative republic if suddenly someone decided that they wanted to be the God King of the US and rule by edict. Do you think even the person who is best at persuading others would be successful in doing that? Why not?

[Indeos]

I'm not saying they'll automatically be successful, but it's likely that people who are good at convincing people could. Politicians get votes by doing so, what would make them less successful in an anarchist society?

Some people are just very good at manipulating people, and I don't see anything in anarchy that would make them less effective.

Okay. There are several reasons why they would be less effective in an anarchist sociaty.

First of all, in modern society leadership and being a leader is highly rewarded and encouraged. We have designated "leader" roles which are held as "very important" and kids grow up wanting to be able to fill one of these leader roles.

Leaders are highly revered simply by becoming: leader.

You could take a homeless man off the street, clean him up a bit and dress him like a "leader", place him as Governor or president or CEO or king and suddenly everyone would want to be near him.

In order to make being a leader even more appealing we choose to pay those in leadership roles more then the people they lead. This creates a strong incentive to become a leader.

BUT despite this love of leaders and leadership if you try to become a leader in an unaccepted or abnormal way you will be mocked relentlessly.

In anarchist society there is no normal and accepted way of becoming a leader. Each person is a leader equally. Society becomes structured on the basis of equals.

When each person becomes used to having a say in everything that effects them personally I don't see them suddenly happily surrendering that to someone who decides that he or she should carve out some new leadership role in a society that is specifically built not to have leaders.

Imagine in a modern representative republic if suddenly someone decided that they wanted to be the God King of the US and rule by edict. Do you think even the person who is best at persuading others would be successful in doing that? Why not?

See, the problem is exactly what you've described. We're conditioned to want to become leaders, and that conditioning isn't going to magically disappear. It would take years to get rid of it, and it's unlikely that it would stay an anarchy for long enough.

[Uncorrupted and Free]

It dosen't work because there is no infrestructure to hold the country together. No true millitary, just small millitias running around fighting each other in a lawless wasteland...

[Terra Agora]

It dosen't work because there is no infrestructure to hold the country together. No true millitary, just small millitias running around fighting each other in a lawless wasteland...

This is highly untrue. If that was what anarchism is why would people support it? Common people common sense!

[Beersteins]

No, humans will naturally organize in a state of anarchy to obtain an advantage resulting in a ruling body/bodies of some sort and organization corrupt or otherwise, likely corrupt.

[Xsyne]

It dosen't work because there is no infrestructure to hold the country together. No true millitary, just small millitias running around fighting each other in a lawless wasteland...

This is highly untrue. If that was what anarchism is why would people support it? Common people common sense!

Why do people support communism?

[Conserative Morality]

This is highly untrue. If that was what anarchism is why would people support it? Common people common sense!

People have very little common sense. A century of Democracy has taught us as much.

[Indeos]

This is highly untrue. If that was what anarchism is why would people support it? Common people common sense!

Why do people support communism?

Because the core beliefs behind communism are good. Unrealistic, but good.

[Uncorrupted and Free]

This is highly untrue. If that was what anarchism is why would people support it? Common people common sense!

Why do people support communism?

Because Communism is a lie that lores people in. The greedy control the gulible...