NationStates

Ironcastle wrote:

Gernonai wrote:
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.

If people learned to cooperate instead of compete the world would be a very different place.

Don't get me wrong, humans have to change in order for Anarchism to function smoothly, but if we are able to achieve that then Anarchism would work almost without a doubt.

New Bierstaat wrote: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.

Did you just use a fictional RP that hadn't involved people voting in their senators as evidence for how something is bad in real life?
OT: Again it wouldn't be possible on the large scale unless the groups hypocritically used force. and even then the people support would have to grow a lot.
Probably might have more smaller scale communes though.

I find myself intrigued by the idea of crypto anarchism.

Blasveck wrote:

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

Why not?

There is nothing inherently wrong with force, only the reasons for why it is used.
I do not care about the police finding and arresting a wanted murderer, in fact I approve of it.
But someone breaking into someone's home or the police arresting someone for saying something unpopular? Now I take issue.

Agorya wrote:

Blasveck wrote:
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?

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.)

Genivaria wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote: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?

That's hardly all they do.

Gernonai wrote:

Ironcastle wrote: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.

If people learned to cooperate instead of compete the world would be a very different place.

Don't get me wrong, humans have to change in order for Anarchism to function smoothly, but if we are able to achieve that then Anarchism would work almost without a doubt.

Exactly. If people could actually work together, the world would be much better. However, that is a very utopian idea, and I honestly can't see humans cooperating much in the near future.

Genivaria wrote:

Blasveck wrote:
Why not?

There is nothing inherently wrong with force, only the reasons for why it is used.
I do not care about the police finding and arresting a wanted murderer, in fact I approve of it.
But someone breaking into someone's home or the police arresting someone for saying something unpopular? Now I take issue.

It's easier to say that the application of force is always wrong, but that when necessary it can be used as a lesser evil.
This means we don't render force a morally neutral act, but also don't run into situations like the police using force and beating someone up who has already surrendered. In that situation, the force is not necessary. There is no greater evil that the force is combatting.

Genivaria wrote:

Blasveck wrote:
Why not?

There is nothing inherently wrong with force, only the reasons for why it is used.
I do not care about the police finding and arresting a wanted murderer, in fact I approve of it.
But someone breaking into someone's home or the police arresting someone for saying something unpopular? Now I take issue.

Completely agreed.

However, your first statement is the problem here, "the reasons for why it is used."

Force is rarely justified, and it certainly would be if people were trying to subjugate a community.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

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

That's hardly all they do.

Clarify.

Genivaria wrote:

Blasveck wrote:
Why not?

There is nothing inherently wrong with force, only the reasons for why it is used.
I do not care about the police finding and arresting a wanted murderer, in fact I approve of it.
But someone breaking into someone's home or the police arresting someone for saying something unpopular? Now I take issue.

And what is going to prevent people with the power to do that (IE The State) from doing just that?

Olivaero wrote:

Slafstopia wrote: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.

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.

Blasveck wrote:

Genivaria wrote:There is nothing inherently wrong with force, only the reasons for why it is used.
I do not care about the police finding and arresting a wanted murderer, in fact I approve of it.
But someone breaking into someone's home or the police arresting someone for saying something unpopular? Now I take issue.

And what is going to prevent people with the power to do that (IE The State) from doing just that?

You answered your own question.
If they have the power to do it and get away with it, then obviously, nothing is going to stop them. Otherwise, they don't have the power.
Not even ostensible anarchy.
Now your question is flawed however, since the real question is:
DO governments have the power to do that?

Nice try to red herring though.

Gernonai wrote:

Genivaria wrote:There is nothing inherently wrong with force, only the reasons for why it is used.
I do not care about the police finding and arresting a wanted murderer, in fact I approve of it.
But someone breaking into someone's home or the police arresting someone for saying something unpopular? Now I take issue.

Completely agreed.

However, your first statement is the problem here, "the reasons for why it is used."

Force is rarely justified, and it certainly would be if people were trying to subjugate a community.

So then force is not inherently immoral.
That's the point I was trying to make because the anarchist position (or at least some part of it) is based on the claim that force is inherently immoral and therefore the state itself is force and the state is also immoral.
If however force is NOT inherently immoral then there is no reason to abolish the state, merely to reform it.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Blasveck wrote:
And what is going to prevent people with the power to do that (IE The State) from doing just that?

You answered your own question.
If they have the power to do it and get away with it, then obviously, nothing is going to stop them. Otherwise, they don't have the power.
Not even ostensible anarchy.
Now your question is flawed however, since the real question is:
DO governments have the power to do that?

Nice try to red herring though.

Unfortunately, governments DO have the power to do that. However, only to an extent. Eventually, people would rise up and fight against unjustified force.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Blasveck wrote:
And what is going to prevent people with the power to do that (IE The State) from doing just that?

You answered your own question.
If they have the power to do it and get away with it, then obviously, nothing is going to stop them. Otherwise, they don't have the power.
Not even ostensible anarchy.
Now your question is flawed however, since the real question is:
DO governments have the power to do that?

Nice try to red herring though.

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.

Genivaria wrote:

Gernonai wrote:
Completely agreed.

However, your first statement is the problem here, "the reasons for why it is used."

Force is rarely justified, and it certainly would be if people were trying to subjugate a community.

So then force is not inherently immoral.
That's the point I was trying to make because the anarchist position (or at least some part of it) is based on the claim that force is inherently immoral and therefore the state itself is force and the state is also immoral.
If however force is NOT inherently immoral then there is no reason to abolish the state, merely to reform it.

I believe force is inherently immoral, it's merely justified in some situations as a lesser evil.

was eating a banana just now and decided to come up with the new political ideology of bananarchism so that should summarize my thoughts on the subject of anarchy somehow

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Genivaria wrote:So then force is not inherently immoral.
That's the point I was trying to make because the anarchist position (or at least some part of it) is based on the claim that force is inherently immoral and therefore the state itself is force and the state is also immoral.
If however force is NOT inherently immoral then there is no reason to abolish the state, merely to reform it.

I believe force is inherently immoral, it's merely justified in some situations as a lesser evil.

Morality is inherently subjective.

Uiiop wrote:

New Bierstaat wrote: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.

Did you just use a fictional RP that hadn't involved people voting in their senators as evidence for how something is bad in real life?
OT: Again it wouldn't be possible on the large scale unless the groups hypocritically used force. and even then the people support would have to grow a lot.
Probably might have more smaller scale communes though.

It does have some parallels. I know it's not perfect, but having everyone be unelected is a lot like having a direct democracy, and like the Senate, a direct democracy would incorporate Stalinists and Objectivists and everyone in between because, being unelected, they can have whatever ideology they want, even if it has no other followers. In a democratic republic, other people have to agree with your ideology and vote you in, which removes the Eugene Debs followers and an-caps of this world from the discussion.

Blasveck wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
You answered your own question.
If they have the power to do it and get away with it, then obviously, nothing is going to stop them. Otherwise, they don't have the power.
Not even ostensible anarchy.
Now your question is flawed however, since the real question is:
DO governments have the power to do that?

Nice try to red herring though.

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.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Genivaria wrote:So then force is not inherently immoral.
That's the point I was trying to make because the anarchist position (or at least some part of it) is based on the claim that force is inherently immoral and therefore the state itself is force and the state is also immoral.
If however force is NOT inherently immoral then there is no reason to abolish the state, merely to reform it.

I believe force is inherently immoral, it's merely justified in some situations as a lesser evil.

This.

I couldn't say it better.

Blasveck wrote:

Agorya wrote:
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?

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.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Olivaero wrote: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.

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.

Genivaria wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:That's hardly all they do.

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.