Anarchism

[Agorya]

This is simple: There wouldn't be any need for hierarchies since the free market would make demand for it very low. Most codes would be moral and ethical ones, and the actual legal codes would be enforced by private competitors for the Law industry.

I hear this a lot from An-Caps, that Ancapism is the most moral system.
Morality is inherently subjective.

Also, what makes the state illegitimate?

The illegitimatability of the state differs in some circles, most right libertarians content that since the state cannot seem to only uphold private property and individual liberty, it therefore abuses its power illegitimately. I am kind of on the fence with that though, I might support a minarchist state *ONLY* if what the leftists say is true and the State cannot exist without property.

[Gernonai]

Only if you *ask* for it, and it cannot be forced upon you without consent.

It can, if you have enough manpower.

Might makes the ability to make something right or wrong.

Right and wrong are not determined by force. By your standards, Hitler was right because he had power and MADE the killing of millions of people "right".

[New Bierstaat]

Anarchy: Hell no, we need government to protect the natural rights of its citizens.

As for direct democracy, no. It gives too much power to uneducated individuals. Also, too many people with too many different ideologies have equal power, making it very difficult to get anything done. See the NSG Senate for an example of this.

[Olivaero]

Anarchism has many answers to the Economic question, a An-Cap would say the employer would have the responsibility to vet it's employee's if they wanted to keep up a reputation in this case for excellent medical care

"Anarcho-capitalists" are irrelevent to this conversation because one cannot be both an anarchist and a capitalist.

Please give your precise reasoning behind this so I can respond.

The ways of making sure things don't break down into complete chaos depend really on what type of anarchy we are talking, I personally don't believe they are tenable without complete agreement with those living in but that's not to say if everyone in the society accepted the premise it couldn't work.

Ultimately any economic system that does not incorporate the use of hierarchies is compatible with anarchism, though I have yet to see a system that better represents this opposition to hierarchy better than communism.

A An cap would say something along the lines of giving the group make decisions is untenable without the existence of a hierarchy of the majority over the minority and that Economic pressure does not qualify as a true hierarchy.

[The Parkus Empire]

Only if you *ask* for it, and it cannot be forced upon you without consent.

And what happens when a group of people who do use force stumble upon your little utopia? Ask them nicely to go away?

Guerrilla warfare presumably.

[Blasveck]

I hear this a lot from An-Caps, that Ancapism is the most moral system.
Morality is inherently subjective.

Also, what makes the state illegitimate?

The illegitimatability of the state differs in some circles, most right libertarians content that since the state cannot seem to only uphold private property and individual liberty, it therefore abuses its power illegitimately. I am kind of on the fence with that though, I might support a minarchist state *ONLY* if what the leftists say is true and the State cannot exist without property.

1. Again, morality is inherently subjective. What one might view as illegitimate, one might view as not.
2. What is going to protect the system of property rights, and capitalism itself, in an anarchic system?

[Genivaria]

And what happens when a group of people who do use force stumble upon your little utopia? Ask them nicely to go away?

From an anarchist viewpoint, doesn't the state do that anyway?

Of course it does, I never claimed the state didn't use force.
Nor do I see anything wrong with that.

[Slafstopia]

Direct Democracy ON THE LOCAL LEVEL appeals to me, but Representatives are required at some point.

Y'know, it's possible to have representatives in a direct democracy.

Representatives of the people and their opinions though, as a step up on the council tree. Not representatives for parties.

[Ostroeuropa]

From an anarchist viewpoint, doesn't the state do that anyway?

Of course it does, I never claimed the state didn't use force.
Nor do I see anything wrong with that.

Not only that, but:

I hold two mutually exclusive views of anarchism depending on my mood, that are functionally the same view on anarchism.

1. All systems are anarchism, there is only anarchism.
2. All anarchisms have a system, there is no anarchism.

I'm prepared to defend either of these claims.
Functionally speaking, there is absolutely no difference between our current system and an anarchy where one gang has gotten particularly powerful. So we might be an anarchy.
OR, that might mean that anarchy simply isn't possible, and necessarily degrades into a form of government.

[Genivaria]

And what happens when a group of people who do use force stumble upon your little utopia? Ask them nicely to go away?

Guerrilla warfare presumably.

What? You mean violence? Killing?
But that is initiating force and you can't do that.

[The Serbian Empire]

Assuming Agorya isn't a few lines of basic code, yes.

I suspect it. Seriously, ive never met an Ancap, Randian or Nozick-esque minarchist outside of online

That is because most of them know better than to say it publicly that they are in favor of such policies.

[Ostroeuropa]

Guerrilla warfare presumably.

What? You mean violence? Killing?
But that is initiating force and you can't do that.

Says who? The government is abolished.

[Blasveck]

It can, if you have enough manpower.

Might makes the ability to make something right or wrong.

Right and wrong are not determined by force. By your standards, Hitler was right because he had power and MADE the killing of millions of people "right".

"Ability"

Whether or not something is truly "right" is up for debate.

But with enough manpower, you can do anything you want.

[Olivaero]

I hold two mutually exclusive views of anarchism depending on my mood, that are functionally the same view on anarchism.

1. All systems are anarchism, there is only anarchism.
2. All anarchisms have a system, there is no anarchism.

I'm prepared to defend either of these claims.
Functionally speaking, there is absolutely no difference between our current system and an anarchy where one gang has gotten particularly powerful. So we might be an anarchy.
OR, that might mean that anarchy simply isn't possible, and necessarily degrades into a form of government.

Considering the definitions Anarchists traditionally use I don't understand how what we have right now could be considered an Anarchy, So I question the veracity of 1. I can see the logic behind 2. though.

[The Parkus Empire]

Guerrilla warfare presumably.

What? You mean violence? Killing?
But that is initiating force and you can't do that.

It's not initiating, really, it's meeting.

[Slafstopia]

"Anarcho-capitalists" are irrelevent to this conversation because one cannot be both an anarchist and a capitalist.

Please give your precise reasoning behind this so I can respond.

Capitalism is very authoritarian. Anarchism is very libertarian.

[Genivaria]

Direct Democracy ON THE LOCAL LEVEL appeals to me, but Representatives are required at some point.

Y'know, it's possible to have representatives in a direct democracy.

Representatives of the people and their opinions though, as a step up on the council tree. Not representatives for parties.

Like minded people are always going to get together to achieve better results in politics.
Even in China where there's only one party allowed there are still unofficial factions within the party.

[Genivaria]

What? You mean violence? Killing?
But that is initiating force and you can't do that.

Says who? The government is abolished.

For the sake of argument I'm trying to follow the 'force=bad' notion.
I don't actually believe it myself.

[Ironcastle]

I despise the idea of a society without laws. It would lead to a complete breakdown in order, the disruption of all services and a ruined economy. While it may work in a village or small town scale, it has never worked in the large scale. I mean, just look at Somalia! After having no government for such a long time, the vast majority of people there love in complete poverty, under the warlords who have taken control. The only way anarchism could work is if human nature itself was changed, and we all weren't as selfish and greedy.

Somalia is only anarchy by the dictionary definition, "chaos". In actuality it is a number of warlords vying for power and seizing the resources of the nation by force.

Exactly, this is what would happen in anarchy. A bunch of warring factions vying for the control of resources, including humans (as slaves, for example) and raw materials.

[Olivaero]

Please give your precise reasoning behind this so I can respond.

Capitalism is very authoritarian. Anarchism is very libertarian.

Never have I been more disappointed in a response to a post in my life.

[Ostroeuropa]

I hold two mutually exclusive views of anarchism depending on my mood, that are functionally the same view on anarchism.

1. All systems are anarchism, there is only anarchism.
2. All anarchisms have a system, there is no anarchism.

I'm prepared to defend either of these claims.
Functionally speaking, there is absolutely no difference between our current system and an anarchy where one gang has gotten particularly powerful. So we might be an anarchy.
OR, that might mean that anarchy simply isn't possible, and necessarily degrades into a form of government.

Considering the definitions Anarchists traditionally use I don't understand how what we have right now could be considered an Anarchy, So I question the veracity of 1. I can see the logic behind 2. though.

Claim one is essentially that governments are not special entities, rather, they are a collection of individuals in an anarchy. They are just a gang.
Just as in a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society if one individual claims to be a government, then the system is still anarchist (or anarchy certainly is absolutely impossible ) in our system, a mass of individuals in a gang extorting money from people in exchange for protection is just anarchy.
There is no government. Only a gang that calls itself government, government does not exist.

[Blasveck]

From an anarchist viewpoint, doesn't the state do that anyway?

Of course it does, I never claimed the state didn't use force.
Nor do I see anything wrong with that.

Why not?

[Genivaria]

What? You mean violence? Killing?
But that is initiating force and you can't do that.

It's not initiating, really, it's meeting.

Ah so using force is ok in order to protect people from harm?
Like when the police arrests someone who is dangerous?

[Petrovsegratsk]

A horrible ideology that is just a step or two above fascism. That's my opinion on anarchism. At least on a large scale. On a small scale I think anarchism, like communism, can work. Nothing larger than your average-sized medieval village, though.

What the honest fuck? Sorry to pop your Polandball, but Anarchism is no way related to Fascism, as Fascism if Far-Right and Anarchism is Far-Left. And Communism is basically Anarchism, only painted red and some shit about 'revolution' and 'workers' and 'the people' and what not.

[Agorya]

The illegitimatability of the state differs in some circles, most right libertarians content that since the state cannot seem to only uphold private property and individual liberty, it therefore abuses its power illegitimately. I am kind of on the fence with that though, I might support a minarchist state *ONLY* if what the leftists say is true and the State cannot exist without property.

1. Again, morality is inherently subjective. What one might view as illegitimate, one might view as not.
2. What is going to protect the system of property rights, and capitalism itself, in an anarchic system?

Most anarchists have a basic view of morality that involves individual sovereignty. In an AnCap society at least, private competitors trying to outdo each other will force people to think in own interests. This includes law, education, etc. It does have a degree of conservative "moralistic" philosophy, imo. Have you heard of Fusionism?