Anarchism

[Gernonai]

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.

Which is where direct democracy helps. The people can decide who would be right or wrong and even though one party may not be happy with the outcome, the people have come to a conclusion and it is fair. Also, just pointing to your example, in Anarchism, rent would not exist, currency would have no need to exist as people would pool together resources for the good of the community.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

Which is where direct democracy helps. The people can decide who would be right or wrong and even though one party may not be happy with the outcome, the people have come to a conclusion and it is fair. Also, just pointing to your example, in Anarchism, rent would not exist, currency would have no need to exist as people would pool together resources for the good of the community.

And you expect the losing side to simply accept the defeat at all times?
Who counts the ballots?
How do we know they are counting them fairly?
What do we do if they aren't counting them fairly?

[Prizea]

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.

Anarchy based on consent of the people, with no checks and balances, would eventually form a dictatorship of the majority. Mob rule. To think otherwise is naive.

[Gernonai]

Which is where direct democracy helps. The people can decide who would be right or wrong and even though one party may not be happy with the outcome, the people have come to a conclusion and it is fair. Also, just pointing to your example, in Anarchism, rent would not exist, currency would have no need to exist as people would pool together resources for the good of the community.

And you expect the losing side to simply accept the defeat at all times?
Who counts the ballots?
How do we know they are counting them fairly?
What do we do if they aren't counting them fairly?

If they could not accept defeat then they are perfectly free to leave.
Both parties could easily agree on someone(s) to count the ballots.
Recounts exist for a reason.
That is another question for the people.

All of these are very specific problems however, I am trying to make this thread more of a broad discussion.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

Anarchy based on consent of the people, with no checks and balances, would eventually form a dictatorship of the majority. Mob rule. To think otherwise is naive.

I'm a fan of direct democracy and/or a jury system as the second house. (Cannot form bills, must agree to bills for them to pass.)
I think it provides a necessary check against the political class serving it's own interests.

[The Parkus Empire]

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?

They are authority figures because citizens are compelled to obey them. You can hold police accountable for abuse of power, but you cannot hold them accountable for failure to protect (for good reason).

[Olivaero]

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

Well the type of post scarcity I was imagining (everything being manufactured at a molecular level by nano bots coupled with fusion reactors) would essentially come parallel with us being post services as well. Actually I imagine services will be one of the first things to go in our economy... but that's off topic.

Regardless I acknowledge that we can't really debate about what happens beyond post scarcity anymore than we can debate about what happens beyond the singularity so I (somewhat ) concede the argument.

[Slafstopia]

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.

Whatever you say. Capitalism is still fundamentally too restrictive to be completely anarchic.

[Prizea]

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.



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.

What about nuclear weapons?

[Siaos]

On small scales, anarchism can and has worked very well. On a large scale, it just doesn't work. Some government-like organization will always appear. Whether it be biker gangs or Private military corporations.

[Prizea]

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?

By their very nature they are authority figures: you can't be able to arrest someone without first holding a position of authority.

[The Parkus Empire]

On small scales, anarchism can and has worked very well. On a large scale, it just doesn't work. Some government-like organization will always appear. Whether it be biker gangs or Private military corporations.

I don't know if I'd call biker gangs a government like organization, really.

[The Parkus Empire]

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

By their very nature they are authority figures: you can't be able to arrest someone without first holding a position of authority.

Wrong.

[Agorya]

Sounds horrid.

Social conservatism is the worst thing ever, period.

What about nuclear weapons?

I had never thought about that myself, but according to this post, it would be illegal to live within it's blast radius, although I am skeptical that would happen since the non-aggression principal would be applied...aggressively.

[Threlizdun]

Rule of law would still be rule, would it not?

It's rule of the people over themselves. It is not an organized hierarchy of select individuals over others.

"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.

Anarchy is a society free from hierarchy. Capitalism is a system that imposes hierarchies onto others and is entirely reliant upon them, notably the hierarchy of the state, in order to survive. It is an authoritarian system that is incompatible with the libertarian nature of anarchism in every possible way.

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.

How could economic pressures not count as hierarchy? Social and economic hierarchies are interchangable. No, an anarchist must accept the need for government and the rule of law to promote sentient wellbeing and prevent others from depriving them of their freedoms.

[Threlizdun]

On small scales, anarchism can and has worked very well. On a large scale, it just doesn't work. Some government-like organization will always appear. Whether it be biker gangs or Private military corporations.

Of course governments will appear. Governments naturally appear when several people interact with one another. These governments do not necessarily have to be hierarchal however, which is what anarchism aims for.

[Agorya]

I do not believe on a large scale that anarchism could work with no hierarchy, as hierarchy is needed to maintain order between consenting individuals, thus making anarcho-capitalism perhaps the only form of anarchism that could work on a macro level.

[Threlizdun]

I do not believe on a large scale that anarchism could work with no hierarchy, as hierarchy is needed to maintain order between consenting individuals, thus making anarcho-capitalism perhaps the only form of anarchism that could work on a macro level.

Then you don't believe in anarchy

[The Parkus Empire]

I do not believe on a large scale that anarchism could work with no hierarchy, as hierarchy is needed to maintain order between consenting individuals, thus making anarcho-capitalism perhaps the only form of anarchism that could work on a macro level.

Anarcho-capitalism works off the assumption that hierarchy is voluntary. Quite cheesy.

[Ostroeuropa]

I do not believe on a large scale that anarchism could work with no hierarchy, as hierarchy is needed to maintain order between consenting individuals, thus making anarcho-capitalism perhaps the only form of anarchism that could work on a macro level.

Anarcho-capitalism works off the assumption that hierarchy is voluntary. Quite cheesy.

On that logic, how isn't a democracy an anarcho-democracy?

[Agorya]

I do not believe on a large scale that anarchism could work with no hierarchy, as hierarchy is needed to maintain order between consenting individuals, thus making anarcho-capitalism perhaps the only form of anarchism that could work on a macro level.

Then you don't believe in anarchy

Anarchy doesn't mean without hierarchy, it means without governance, and is applied to the individual and not the collective.

Anarcho-capitalism works off the assumption that hierarchy is voluntary. Quite cheesy.

And communism works off the assumption that men can pick government, but cannot pick where to shop or work. It's absurd.

On that logic, how isn't a democracy an anarcho-democracy?

This.

[Vareiln]

Anarcho-capitalism works off the assumption that hierarchy is voluntary. Quite cheesy.

On that logic, how isn't a democracy an anarcho-democracy?

Democracy and anarchism aren't mutually exclusive, and indeed, most forms of anarchy feature democratic governance. However, the vast majority of democratic societies existing today have social hierarchies, and thus they cannot be classified as anarchic in any way.

[Ostroeuropa]

On that logic, how isn't a democracy an anarcho-democracy?

Democracy and anarchism aren't mutually exclusive, and indeed, most forms of anarchy feature democratic governance. However, the vast majority of democratic societies existing today have social hierarchies, and thus they cannot be classified as anarchic in any way.

But the hierarchies are voluntary.
The same as an anarcho-capitalist system.

[The Parkus Empire]

Anarcho-capitalism works off the assumption that hierarchy is voluntary. Quite cheesy.

On that logic, how isn't a democracy an anarcho-democracy?

Because neither of them are voluntary and neither of them are anarchy.

[Ikania]

For Anarchism to work, you need to have a genuinely healthy and content society.
I've always said to myself that Anarchism could work if people could be trusted to govern themselves. But the truth is, they can't be trusted. There are wackos out there that need containment. If you have no police force to stop murders or asylums to keep these people, everyone is in danger. People need to be regulated, because if you don't tell them they can't do something, they'll do it.
"Oh, well there isn't a law against it, so it must be legal." That's the problem. Sure, there would be some people who'd be fine- even better off- with Anarchism. But if you include the psychopaths and murderers and rapists, you get complete chaos.
So no, I don't think Anarchy is good.