Anarchism

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

Hm. I'm in a dilemma as to whether I agree with you or not. On the one hand There are definitely existent hierarchies in the modern world, Inheritance accounts for that, so I would have to argue that what we have today goes against traditional anarchist definitions BUT I could definitely see how today could fit into the definitions of Anarcho capitalism. So... I think I'm going to have to conclude without some major caveats Anarcho Capitalism is not Anarchism. And thus I still don't agree with you about 1. If we are to consider the classical definition of Anarchism to hold true so : No hierarchies.

If we're going with the classical then i'm going with number 2, that all anarchies have systems, and thus there is no anarchy.

[Blasveck]

It was a legitimate question. (I'm not an anarchist btw)

Aren't you answering your question as well?
I'm pretty sure governments have enough power to do that.

I disagree. Governments require consent of the people to function, practically speaking.
In some areas of the world this is not true, but in many western countries it is.
Without the agreement of the population (Many of whom are government employees that have no desire to live under a tyranny they will see no benefit from) the government grinds to a halt.

They didnt have the consent of the people when they imprisoned Japanses Maericans during WW2.
They didnt had the consent of the people for the NSA spying shit.

[Genivaria]

Clarify.

I don't think you'll find many anarchists who complain about police defusing a hostage situation or about the fire department. They complain about brutality, police culture, unreasonable searches, racial profiling, and the dynamic of police as authority rather than protectors--and often the entire way the justice system itself works.

These all seem like things that demand protest and reform, not full blown abolition of the state.
If a hammer you use often has a large splinter that cuts you whenever you use it you don't throw away the hammer, you remove the splinter.

[Blasveck]

I have not. Enlighten me.

(As a side note, I've always been interested in anarchist philosophy. Though not an anarchist myself, I've always had wonderful conversations with anarchists.)

Fusionism is basically the idea combines traditional social conservatism with anarchism. Most Libertarians, who are socially progressive, are critical of Fusionism, as it could lead a civilization back into the medieval ages with public flogging (etc.), but to it's proponents it is the best bet for a moralistic anarchist society. It's quite the unique American brand of anarchism.

The philosophy of "fusionism" was developed at National Review magazine during the 1950s under the editorship of William F. Buckley, Jr. and is most identified with his associate editor Frank Meyer. As Buckley recounted the founding he "brokered" between "an extraordinary mix" of libertarians, traditional conservatives, anti-communists and even an anarchist to produce the ideas and writings that produced modern conservatism.[3] He identified Meyer's synthesis as the most likely best solution of defining conservatism.[4]

I would say that the Tea Party is basically fusionist in it's ideology, although some Tea Partiers tend to be socially progressive too. I've learned not to underestimate the Tea Party, they have some smart people under their hood.

Sounds horrid.

Social conservatism is the worst thing ever, period.

[Ostroeuropa]

I disagree. Governments require consent of the people to function, practically speaking.
In some areas of the world this is not true, but in many western countries it is.
Without the agreement of the population (Many of whom are government employees that have no desire to live under a tyranny they will see no benefit from) the government grinds to a halt.

They didnt have the consent of the people when they imprisoned Japanses Maericans during WW2.
They didnt had the consent of the people for the NSA spying shit.

But they did have the consent of the people for the first one.
And you're right. They didn't for the second. And what happened? ONE guy managed to completely fuck over their plans and leaked a bunch of documents, and drastically undercut their power and the utility of their multi-million dollar spying programme. (If everyone knows a medium is spied on, criminals simply won't use that medium.) To the point where they are now considering cutting the programme simply to avoid further incidents like snowden.

[Gernonai]

I disagree. Governments require consent of the people to function, practically speaking.
In some areas of the world this is not true, but in many western countries it is.
Without the agreement of the population (Many of whom are government employees that have no desire to live under a tyranny they will see no benefit from) the government grinds to a halt.

They didnt have the consent of the people when they imprisoned Japanses Maericans during WW2.
They didnt had the consent of the people for the NSA spying shit.

Consent of the people only goes so far as to the current government's policy. We have very limited power when it comes to what the State does because what the State wants, the State wants.

[Blasveck]

They didnt have the consent of the people when they imprisoned Japanses Maericans during WW2.
They didnt had the consent of the people for the NSA spying shit.

But they did have the consent of the people for the first one.
And you're right. They didn't for the second. And what happened? ONE guy managed to completely fuck over their plans and leaked a bunch of documents, and drastically undercut their power and the utility of their multi-million dollar spying programme. (If everyone knows a medium is spied on, criminals simply won't use that medium.) To the point where they are now considering cutting the programme simply to avoid further incidents like snowden.

I just realized my horrible spelling of Japanese Americans. Shit.
Did they really have the consent for the first one?

Why should the majority have that kind of power over the minority?

[Olivaero]

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

It's the truth. An ancap system ultimately results in hierarchies and essential oligarchies.

Let's say Richy McBusinessman wants a cigarette. No problem, he's got the money.

Let's say Farma McCrops wants a cigarette. Unfortunately, he didn't have enough money to buy the tools to create his own roads, house and fields, because Richy was raising prices to sell to desperate employers exploiting starving Indians, so now he's bankrupt. While it's called a FREE market, Farmer Farma is restricted from purchasing that cigarette due to a lack of funds.

He is also restricted from obtaining the basic necessities he needs to live.

Authoritarian.

I don't think you understand what Authoritarianism is. It is true as I have just remarked actually that without some caveats added onto it Anarcho Capitalism is not Anarchism But it's not Authoritarian because it has hierarchies. Or if it is you have just made the word Authoritarian absolutely meaningless.

[Genivaria]

They didnt have the consent of the people when they imprisoned Japanses Maericans during WW2.
They didnt had the consent of the people for the NSA spying shit.

Consent of the people only goes so far as to the current government's policy. We have very limited power when it comes to what the State does because what the State wants, the State wants.

I believe you mean't to say 'what the State wants, the State gets'.

[Agorya]

Sounds horrid.

Social conservatism is the worst thing ever, period.

I knew you'd like it. \o/ I am socially somewhat center left, as the only thing I am critical of is "legalizing" guns in a minarchist/anarchist society, as I'd rather have some economic/ethical incentives to not produce any at all.

[Ostroeuropa]

But they did have the consent of the people for the first one.
And you're right. They didn't for the second. And what happened? ONE guy managed to completely fuck over their plans and leaked a bunch of documents, and drastically undercut their power and the utility of their multi-million dollar spying programme. (If everyone knows a medium is spied on, criminals simply won't use that medium.) To the point where they are now considering cutting the programme simply to avoid further incidents like snowden.

I just realized my horrible spelling of Japanese Americans. Shit.
Did they really have the consent for the first one?

Why should the majority have that kind of power over the minority?

Yeh they did have their consent. You didn't see anyone really caring or arguing on behalf of Japanese-Americans... at least, not significantly.

And they shouldn't. But fact is, they do have that power. The only thing that keeps them from excercising it is a broad agreement by society that since we're all a minority of one kind of another that it's a bad road to go down.
The majority will always hold the minorities fate in it's hands. Like it or not.

[Slafstopia]

It's the truth. An ancap system ultimately results in hierarchies and essential oligarchies.

Let's say Richy McBusinessman wants a cigarette. No problem, he's got the money.

Let's say Farma McCrops wants a cigarette. Unfortunately, he didn't have enough money to buy the tools to create his own roads, house and fields, because Richy was raising prices to sell to desperate employers exploiting starving Indians, so now he's bankrupt. While it's called a FREE market, Farmer Farma is restricted from purchasing that cigarette due to a lack of funds.

He is also restricted from obtaining the basic necessities he needs to live.

Authoritarian.

I don't think you understand what Authoritarianism is. It is true as I have just remarked actually that without some caveats added onto it Anarcho Capitalism is not Anarchism But it's not Authoritarian because it has hierarchies. Or if it is you have just made the word Authoritarian absolutely meaningless.

It's authoritarian because it has restrictions. Anarchism has no restrictions. The hierarchies are just one of the building blocks of the whole non-libertarian shebang.

[Gernonai]

Consent of the people only goes so far as to the current government's policy. We have very limited power when it comes to what the State does because what the State wants, the State wants.

I believe you mean't to say 'what the State wants, the State gets'.

Yes, please excuse my typo.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't think you understand what Authoritarianism is. It is true as I have just remarked actually that without some caveats added onto it Anarcho Capitalism is not Anarchism But it's not Authoritarian because it has hierarchies. Or if it is you have just made the word Authoritarian absolutely meaningless.

It's authoritarian because it has restrictions. Anarchism has no restrictions. The hierarchies are just one of the building blocks of the whole non-libertarian shebang.

Explain to me the functional difference between your proposed anarchist system, and the current system.
Do this assuming that the "government" is now simply a gang. They perform all the same functions.
How does anarchism prevent this gangs rise?

[Olivaero]

Hm. I'm in a dilemma as to whether I agree with you or not. On the one hand There are definitely existent hierarchies in the modern world, Inheritance accounts for that, so I would have to argue that what we have today goes against traditional anarchist definitions BUT I could definitely see how today could fit into the definitions of Anarcho capitalism. So... I think I'm going to have to conclude without some major caveats Anarcho Capitalism is not Anarchism. And thus I still don't agree with you about 1. If we are to consider the classical definition of Anarchism to hold true so : No hierarchies.

If we're going with the classical then i'm going with number 2, that all anarchies have systems, and thus there is no anarchy.

Anarcho Communsims Could ostensibly achieve a world free from hierarchies if decisions were only made when unanimous consent was agreed perhaps with people leaving if they did not agree. I agree it's pretty damn unlikely that such a system could ever occur and then function beyond about a week, but I wouldn't say there can never be an Anarchy, It's just extremely unlikely it would ever occur hence why I don't support it.

[The Parkus Empire]

I don't think you'll find many anarchists who complain about police defusing a hostage situation or about the fire department. They complain about brutality, police culture, unreasonable searches, racial profiling, and the dynamic of police as authority rather than protectors--and often the entire way the justice system itself works.

These all seem like things that demand protest and reform, not full blown abolition of the state.
If a hammer you use often has a large splinter that cuts you whenever you use it you don't throw away the hammer, you remove the splinter.

The police cannot exist as protectors, only as authority figures. Protection must be incidental for their continued existence.

[Gernonai]

It's authoritarian because it has restrictions. Anarchism has no restrictions. The hierarchies are just one of the building blocks of the whole non-libertarian shebang.

Explain to me the functional difference between your proposed anarchist system, and the current system.
Do this assuming that the "government" is now simply a gang. They perform all the same functions.
How does anarchism prevent this gangs rise?

Anarchism would have the consent of the people living under it to remain equal and to cooperate rather than compete and attempt to gain power over one another.

[Ostroeuropa]

If we're going with the classical then i'm going with number 2, that all anarchies have systems, and thus there is no anarchy.

Anarcho Communsims Could ostensibly achieve a world free from hierarchies if decisions were only made when unanimous consent was agreed perhaps with people leaving if they did not agree. I agree it's pretty damn unlikely that such a system could ever occur and then function beyond about a week, but I wouldn't say there can never be an Anarchy, It's just extremely unlikely it would ever occur hence why I don't support it.

I'm still not entirely convinced. An anarcho-communist system would inevitably need some kind of guard for stockpiles. At that point, you have functionally created a state.
Unless we're talking post-scarcity, then absolutely all bets are off for every ideology. Only the supremely arrogant would claim their ideology is best for a post-scarcity world, it's an entirely different set of rules.

[Olivaero]

I don't think you understand what Authoritarianism is. It is true as I have just remarked actually that without some caveats added onto it Anarcho Capitalism is not Anarchism But it's not Authoritarian because it has hierarchies. Or if it is you have just made the word Authoritarian absolutely meaningless.

It's authoritarian because it has restrictions. Anarchism has no restrictions. The hierarchies are just one of the building blocks of the whole non-libertarian shebang.

Well there you have it, Apparently Nature is authoritarian because it places restrictions on us like no infinite oil. Anarchism certainly has restrictions. And please stop using Authoritarian in that way, Your giving Anarchists a bad name and making yourself look uneducated.

[Ostroeuropa]

Explain to me the functional difference between your proposed anarchist system, and the current system.
Do this assuming that the "government" is now simply a gang. They perform all the same functions.
How does anarchism prevent this gangs rise?

Anarchism would have the consent of the people living under it to remain equal and to cooperate rather than compete and attempt to gain power over one another.

So Anarchism only exists so long as every single individual agrees to it?
I reiterate my statement that Anarchy is not possible.

[Genivaria]

These all seem like things that demand protest and reform, not full blown abolition of the state.
If a hammer you use often has a large splinter that cuts you whenever you use it you don't throw away the hammer, you remove the splinter.

The police cannot exist as protectors, only as authority figures. Protection must be incidental for their continued existence.

So because the police provide a needed service they are authority figures? Or did I read that wrong?

[Gernonai]

Anarchism would have the consent of the people living under it to remain equal and to cooperate rather than compete and attempt to gain power over one another.

So Anarchism only exists so long as every single individual agrees to it?
I reiterate my statement that Anarchy is not possible.

Why would a community (even if it was small) not be able to agree to live equally? People are not inherently bad, society corrupts them. If a society can look after those in it, then those people will not be "bad".

[Ostroeuropa]

So Anarchism only exists so long as every single individual agrees to it?
I reiterate my statement that Anarchy is not possible.

Why would a community (even if it was small) not be able to agree to live equally? People are not inherently bad, society corrupts them. If a society can look after those in it, then those people will not be "bad".

Disputes will naturally arise over one thing or another.
Have you ever lived with someone?
You are your roommate may pay the bills equally and live in an effective communist state.
You're still going to get into arguments and shit.
Now imagine that, but with hundreds of people. thousands.
One of them is going to throw a punch.
At that point, you either have a descent into barbarism with the strong ending up as rulers, or the creation of a police force to protect the weak.
Once someone realizes that they are the strongest individual and can settle any dispute in their favor without any consequences, they will do so. We're only human, and these people think they are "right."

[Olivaero]

Anarcho Communsims Could ostensibly achieve a world free from hierarchies if decisions were only made when unanimous consent was agreed perhaps with people leaving if they did not agree. I agree it's pretty damn unlikely that such a system could ever occur and then function beyond about a week, but I wouldn't say there can never be an Anarchy, It's just extremely unlikely it would ever occur hence why I don't support it.

I'm still not entirely convinced. An anarcho-communist system would inevitably need some kind of guard for stockpiles. At that point, you have functionally created a state.
Unless we're talking post-scarcity, then absolutely all bets are off for every ideology. Only the supremely arrogant would claim their ideology is best for a post-scarcity world, it's an entirely different set of rules.

Hm I see your point. But as to your latter thought I disagree, I think Anarcho-communism is pretty much demanded in a post scarcity world seeing as capitalism operates off the assumption of scarcity.When economics gets invalidated there's only the social sphere left for humans to actually care about so that really just leaves communism.

I'm actually reminded of the Time Machine by HG Wells he imagined the society that I just basically described.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm still not entirely convinced. An anarcho-communist system would inevitably need some kind of guard for stockpiles. At that point, you have functionally created a state.
Unless we're talking post-scarcity, then absolutely all bets are off for every ideology. Only the supremely arrogant would claim their ideology is best for a post-scarcity world, it's an entirely different set of rules.

Hm I see your point. But as to your latter thought I disagree, I think Anarcho-communism is pretty much demanded in a post scarcity world seeing as capitalism operates off the assumption of scarcity.When economics gets invalidated there's only the social sphere left for humans to actually care about so that really just leaves communism.

I'm not convinced, if only because post-scarcity is sort of vague, and I always took it to mean post-physical-scarcity. There may be infinite goods, but services are still finite. A form of barter/trade will continue until we achieve total post-scarcity.
At that point, i'm betting we're going to be using a system beyond our current comprehension. It's entirely possible that we may be a species that actively searches out and thrives in scarcity. It'd be nice to imagine that in a post-goods post-services society, that we end up with an intellect bartering system, trading facts