Anarchism

[Albul]

It can only work if there is no opposition to anarchy. If the anarchist community isn't invaded or infiltrated, then I would believe anarchy would work.

sure it can work just not with a thousand people.

I'm sure it can work with a thousand and more people if there weren't any opposition to anarchy. The only way to do that, though, would be a social change that makes anarchy popular. Perhaps an oppressive tyrant was ruling before-hand and anarchy seems like the better of two evils.

[Sociobiology]

sure it can work just not with a thousand people.

I'm sure it can work with a thousand and more people if there weren't any opposition to anarchy. The only way to do that, though, would be a social change that makes anarchy popular. Perhaps an oppressive tyrant was ruling before-hand and anarchy seems like the better of two evils.

not it doesn't work with a thousand people because the familiarity based social control used by band societies does not work with large numbers of people (~150-300), once you get to a thousand people you need laws and enforcement to maintain social order (as in basic civility), thus it is not anarchy.

anarchy's problems are fundamental and intrinsic, not a matter of popularity.

[Albul]

I'm sure it can work with a thousand and more people if there weren't any opposition to anarchy. The only way to do that, though, would be a social change that makes anarchy popular. Perhaps an oppressive tyrant was ruling before-hand and anarchy seems like the better of two evils.

not it doesn't work with a thousand people because the familiarity based social control used by band societies does not work with large numbers of people (~150-300), once you get to a thousand people you need laws and enforcement to maintain social order (as in basic civility), thus it is not anarchy.

anarchy's problems are fundamental and intrinsic, not a matter of popularity.

The people can make laws, which would really be social constructs or actual laws, depending on the community. Also, "anarchy" and "law" are not mutually exclusive. As for the order, it is simple; the people can maintain order.

[Sarthal]

Arachnism is stupid and inevitably leads to tyranny.

This, but without the typo.

[Albul]

Arachnism is stupid and inevitably leads to tyranny.

This, but without the typo.

Anarchy can work if it has no opposition.

[Magna Libero]

sure it can work just not with a thousand people.

I'm sure it can work with a thousand and more people if there weren't any opposition to anarchy. The only way to do that, though, would be a social change that makes anarchy popular. Perhaps an oppressive tyrant was ruling before-hand and anarchy seems like the better of two evils.

Also, different forms of anarchy should also be accepted in order for anarcho-anything to work.

Which raises the question how do people solve different disputes in anarchy? Eg Assume that a group of anarcho-capitalists put up a nuclear plant. Eco-anarchists want to destroy it and anarcho-communists oppose it also, because of corporate greed. Maybe a lil' stupid and overly simplified example.

[Albul]

I'm sure it can work with a thousand and more people if there weren't any opposition to anarchy. The only way to do that, though, would be a social change that makes anarchy popular. Perhaps an oppressive tyrant was ruling before-hand and anarchy seems like the better of two evils.

Also, different forms of anarchy should also be accepted in order for anarcho-anything to work.

Which raises the question how do people solve different disputes in anarchy? Eg Assume that a group of anarcho-capitalists put up a nuclear plant. Eco-anarchists want to destroy it and anarcho-communists oppose it also, because of corporate greed. Maybe a lil' stupid and overly simplified example.

You mean to say that anarchy would work if all forms of anarchy are accepted?
I doubt an-caps would work, though they would be happy with a state of anarchy. (We can make them believe they are in a capitalist society later )

As for the part about resolving disputes, the society as a whole can figure that out. They can leave it to a judge or they can use violence to resolve disputes.

[Magna Libero]

Also, different forms of anarchy should also be accepted in order for anarcho-anything to work.

Which raises the question how do people solve different disputes in anarchy? Eg Assume that a group of anarcho-capitalists put up a nuclear plant. Eco-anarchists want to destroy it and anarcho-communists oppose it also, because of corporate greed. Maybe a lil' stupid and overly simplified example.

You mean to say that anarchy would work if all forms of anarchy are accepted?
I doubt an-caps would work, though they would be happy with a state of anarchy. (We can make them believe they are in a capitalist society later )

As for the part about resolving disputes, the society as a whole can figure that out. They can leave it to a judge or they can use violence to resolve disputes.

Yeah, how else can else can you not have force if you can not accept that there will be disagreements? With the help of ruling mobs? or maybe disapproving gazes? Who makes sure that the decision or suggestion of the judge is implemented? By the people? So, basically mobs..(?)

I wonder how you can have two opposite anarcho-societies next to eachother. I mean they are so different. One supports free trade, the other fair trade. I don't think you can have anarcho-capitalism, without anarcho-communism. But then again, there are countries or societies with different views next to eachother.

And how about the currencies? How does that work in a let's say anarcho-communist society?

[Aetanovum]

The problem with true anarchy (not direct democracy, and no state exists), is that it gives no protection to the people, except from the prior state of course. Not everyone can just fend for themselves anymore. I also dislike how people say that equality is acheived in anarchy. Not everyone is equal physically, some people have guns, others do not. Anarchism reverts us back to are natural state. Is Anarchism natural? yes, does Anarchism promote equality? no. Equality, Order (Government), and Justice are synthetic. They are Man-made, people in an anarchy have no safety from one another. People(most) want safety, which is why government was formed. To make a group of people safe. Some form of government will always arise within the groups of a land in anarchy.

[Albul]

The problem with true anarchy (not direct democracy, and no state exists), is that it gives no protection to the people, except from the prior state of course. Not everyone can just fend for themselves anymore. I also dislike how people say that equality is acheived in anarchy. Not everyone is equal physically, some people have guns, others do not. Anarchism reverts us back to are natural state. Is Anarchism natural? yes, does Anarchism promote equality? no. Equality, Order (Government), and Justice are synthetic. They are Man-made, people in an anarchy have no safety from one another. People(most) want safety, which is why government was formed. To make a group of people safe. Some form of government will always arise within the groups of a land in anarchy.

Unfortunately, government doesn't always give us safety. That is when anarchy is favorable.

[Magna Libero]

The problem with true anarchy (not direct democracy, and no state exists), is that it gives no protection to the people, except from the prior state of course. Not everyone can just fend for themselves anymore. I also dislike how people say that equality is acheived in anarchy. Not everyone is equal physically, some people have guns, others do not. Anarchism reverts us back to are natural state. Is Anarchism natural? yes, does Anarchism promote equality? no. Equality, Order (Government), and Justice are synthetic. They are Man-made, people in an anarchy have no safety from one another. People(most) want safety, which is why government was formed. To make a group of people safe. Some form of government will always arise within the groups of a land in anarchy.

Unfortunately, government doesn't always give us safety. That is when anarchy is favorable.

Sometimes they give too much.

[Surfistan]

I admire anarchism and agree with it on certain points, I even think an anarchist society is possible (not per se preferable), just not now with poverty, death, destruction, theocracy.

Oh and I mean the lefty anarchists.

[Threlizdun]

The problem with true anarchy (not direct democracy, and no state exists), is that it gives no protection to the people, except from the prior state of course. Not everyone can just fend for themselves anymore. I also dislike how people say that equality is acheived in anarchy. Not everyone is equal physically, some people have guns, others do not. Anarchism reverts us back to are natural state. Is Anarchism natural? yes, does Anarchism promote equality? no. Equality, Order (Government), and Justice are synthetic. They are Man-made, people in an anarchy have no safety from one another. People(most) want safety, which is why government was formed. To make a group of people safe. Some form of government will always arise within the groups of a land in anarchy.

That would be an issue if anarchism advocated the complete removal of government and laws, the abandoning of others, and equality in absolutely every aspect as opposed to just social equality. Fortunately, it advocates none of those things.

[Diopolis]

Direct democracy is still a form of chaos, but it isn't anarchy.

[Forster Keys]

Arachnism is stupid and inevitably leads to tyranny.

Nonsense. Rule by spiders and scorpions is a perfectly viable governmental system.

[Slafstopia]

Arachnism is stupid and inevitably leads to tyranny.

Nonsense. Rule by spiders and scorpions is a perfectly viable governmental system.

I prefer a herpetocracy.

[Merconitonitopia]

I like the idea of anarchy, heck, my nation on this game is even anarchist, but it's too risky in my opinion.

[Hushabagain]

I have had multiple conversations with multiple people on the subject of Anarchism and I have found that almost everyone has a misconstrued idea of what Anarchism truly is.

Anarchy comes from the Greek word anarchia meaning literally "without rulers".

Most people would say, "Yes, without rulers = chaos." However, many Anarchists support the idea of direct democracy. The most pure form of rule by the people. An Anarchist world would be one in which people cooperate and work together towards the common good without having to be told what to do by a ruler. This society would be centered around the community and not necessarily the individual. People would be trusted to govern themselves and not need a form of rule to govern for them.

I personally am an Anarchist in favour of this idea. I am NOT the type of Anarchist that people would think of when they hear the world. I do not want to see chaos for the sake of chaos. I want the world to be able to cooperate with itself and not just looting and destruction.

What I'd like to know is what does the NS community think about Anarchism? What are your thoughts? Critiques? Problems? Anything really.

It's a progressive idea, to say the least, but I think that people are generally too short-sighted to see the benefits of certain types of cooperation essential for a functional society. In short, there's a very good reason why we have professional politicians.

[Sociobiology]

I have had multiple conversations with multiple people on the subject of Anarchism and I have found that almost everyone has a misconstrued idea of what Anarchism truly is.

Anarchy comes from the Greek word anarchia meaning literally "without rulers".

Most people would say, "Yes, without rulers = chaos." However, many Anarchists support the idea of direct democracy. The most pure form of rule by the people. An Anarchist world would be one in which people cooperate and work together towards the common good without having to be told what to do by a ruler. This society would be centered around the community and not necessarily the individual. People would be trusted to govern themselves and not need a form of rule to govern for them.

I personally am an Anarchist in favour of this idea. I am NOT the type of Anarchist that people would think of when they hear the world. I do not want to see chaos for the sake of chaos. I want the world to be able to cooperate with itself and not just looting and destruction.

What I'd like to know is what does the NS community think about Anarchism? What are your thoughts? Critiques? Problems? Anything really.

It's a progressive idea, to say the least, but I think that people are generally too short-sighted to see the benefits of certain types of cooperation essential for a functional society. In short, there's a very good reason why we have professional politicians.

one of the bigger reasons is direct democracy doesn't work on a large scale due to the limit in the number of hours in the day, and of course the need for specialized enforcement and courts, which means you get specialists either way.

[Sociobiology]

The problem with true anarchy (not direct democracy, and no state exists), is that it gives no protection to the people, except from the prior state of course. Not everyone can just fend for themselves anymore. I also dislike how people say that equality is acheived in anarchy. Not everyone is equal physically, some people have guns, others do not. Anarchism reverts us back to are natural state. Is Anarchism natural? yes, does Anarchism promote equality? no. Equality, Order (Government), and Justice are synthetic. They are Man-made, people in an anarchy have no safety from one another. People(most) want safety, which is why government was formed. To make a group of people safe. Some form of government will always arise within the groups of a land in anarchy.

Unfortunately, government doesn't always give us safety. That is when anarchy is favorable.

because no saftey or more correctly gang/tribal safety is ...better?

[Slafstopia]

It's a progressive idea, to say the least, but I think that people are generally too short-sighted to see the benefits of certain types of cooperation essential for a functional society. In short, there's a very good reason why we have professional politicians.

one of the bigger reasons is direct democracy doesn't work on a large scale due to the limit in the number of hours in the day, and of course the need for specialized enforcement and courts, which means you get specialists either way.

Have any of you anti-direct folks ever considered the possibility of a confederation? Or that a long string of councils is more likely than just one? Or a virtual council?

[The Teccorri Republic]

I have had multiple conversations with multiple people on the subject of Anarchism and I have found that almost everyone has a misconstrued idea of what Anarchism truly is.

Anarchy comes from the Greek word anarchia meaning literally "without rulers".

Most people would say, "Yes, without rulers = chaos." However, many Anarchists support the idea of direct democracy. The most pure form of rule by the people. An Anarchist world would be one in which people cooperate and work together towards the common good without having to be told what to do by a ruler. This society would be centered around the community and not necessarily the individual. People would be trusted to govern themselves and not need a form of rule to govern for them.

I personally am an Anarchist in favour of this idea. I am NOT the type of Anarchist that people would think of when they hear the world. I do not want to see chaos for the sake of chaos. I want the world to be able to cooperate with itself and not just looting and destruction.

What I'd like to know is what does the NS community think about Anarchism? What are your thoughts? Critiques? Problems? Anything really.

Communism and Anarchy are in the same boat. They work very well for very small groups. As soon as the group gets too large to effectively self-police, therein the problems begin.

[Slafstopia]

I have had multiple conversations with multiple people on the subject of Anarchism and I have found that almost everyone has a misconstrued idea of what Anarchism truly is.

Anarchy comes from the Greek word anarchia meaning literally "without rulers".

Most people would say, "Yes, without rulers = chaos." However, many Anarchists support the idea of direct democracy. The most pure form of rule by the people. An Anarchist world would be one in which people cooperate and work together towards the common good without having to be told what to do by a ruler. This society would be centered around the community and not necessarily the individual. People would be trusted to govern themselves and not need a form of rule to govern for them.

I personally am an Anarchist in favour of this idea. I am NOT the type of Anarchist that people would think of when they hear the world. I do not want to see chaos for the sake of chaos. I want the world to be able to cooperate with itself and not just looting and destruction.

What I'd like to know is what does the NS community think about Anarchism? What are your thoughts? Critiques? Problems? Anything really.

Communism and Anarchy are in the same boat. They work very well for very small groups. As soon as the group gets too large to effectively self-police, therein the problems begin.

CONFEDERATION, CONFEDERATION, one thousand times confederation.

[The Teccorri Republic]

Communism and Anarchy are in the same boat. They work very well for very small groups. As soon as the group gets too large to effectively self-police, therein the problems begin.

CONFEDERATION, CONFEDERATION, one thousand times confederation.

Yes, Confederation is also my favorite variant of representative democracy.

What does that have to do with Anarchy?

[Slafstopia]

CONFEDERATION, CONFEDERATION, one thousand times confederation.

Yes, Confederation is also my favorite variant of representative democracy.

What does that have to do with Anarchy?

A confederation doesn't have to be representative. Well, a pseudo-confederation.

If there are a series of autonomous communes which are all self-policing, that problem is solved.