Anarchism

[Sociobiology]

many if not most states are voluntary-accepted hierarchy. The thing you have to remember is there are 300 million other people in your commune, so your personal opinion on how the hierarchy should be structured means very little, literally 1/300,000,000th of the decision.

There are not 300 million people in a commune. Communes would function on a much more local level. What you're describing in modern American democracy.

Now, go actually read some anarchist theory or thought before criticizing things we don't support.

small scale societies lack the population to have the variety of specialists needed to support modern technology, so why would you want small communities?
you can have functional stateless societies, but that have to be so small you have to give up a lot of things, Personally I like MRI machines and heart surgeons.

[Liberaxia]

The libertarian/anarchist talk about "voluntary association" has always amused me. It's hard to see its place in matters when you consider that a small town—like a small one of over-the-top, FF- worshipping right-wingers—may have no bureaucratic apparatus but can still have a militia of people who join forces of their own accord. Sounds like government to me. Oh, and pre-state warfare is proportionally deadlier than war in a world made up of states.

Read anarchist theory before lumping us in with conservatives.

Militias used for defense are organized self-defense of the community, so long as they have the permission of the community.

More people died then because states have been around for a much less longer time than hunter-gatherer "anarchy".

I know anarchists aren't conservatives (though I'm sure some conservatives would think of themselves as anarchists). Also note that I used the word "proportionally".

[Genivaria]

So like the Greek City States?

Without the "-state", sure.

Exactly how is it not a state?

[Liberaxia]

Without the "-state", sure.

Exactly how is it not a state?

It's not. Government is as government does. Slapping some label on it like "voluntary community" or "free market police force" is just word games. Though to be fair to the anarchist, they just don't realize it.

[Alaizia]

Exactly how is it not a state?

It's not. Government is as government does. Slapping some label on it like "voluntary community" or "free market police force" is just word games.

But words have meanings. Just saying.

[Genivaria]

Exactly how is it not a state?

It's not. Government is as government does. Slapping some label on it like "voluntary community" or "free market police force" is just word games. Though to be fair to the anarchist, they just don't realize it.

It has all the aspects of a state but it's not a state because reasons, or something.

[Genivaria]

It's not. Government is as government does. Slapping some label on it like "voluntary community" or "free market police force" is just word games.

But words have meanings. Just saying.

Not in this case.

[Sociobiology]

actually modern warfare results in far lower rates of death, only someone who knows nothing about tribal/band warfare would claim it is better. States minimize violence by nearly ten to one over stateless societies.
nearby communities will do nothing because even an early state has better combat capabilities. And not everyone shares your thoughts about aggression, some people only consider actual aggression aggression. And that ,in and of itself, is the problem, your system cannot handle even mild pluralism.
Also you may want to consider cycles of revenge which your system will only encourage, each community/tribe will create its own definitions of right and wrong and react to perceived violations of it. Leading inevitably to endless cyclic warfare, just as we see in non-isolated band societies today.

I don't advocate for band or tribal warfare. I don't advocate for any warfare outside of defending the federation of communities from imminent threat, and such a threat would be obvious (a rising state, rogue army or invasion). And what stateless society example are you pulling out of your ass for this point?

several dozen



http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/11/the-decline-of-violence
note this includes the most violent state in known history.
do you have a source for your claim?

Aggression is pretty fucking objective in an anarchist view.

and you assume most humans on the planet will share your view?

Creating a state is aggression,

to you
others will see it as the only way to protect their community from bandits, theft, and preemptive aggression from your communes.

That's all the aggression a voluntary militia would combat.

some would consider forming a voluntary milia aggression.

Communities aren't tribes. Stop calling them tribes. We are not tribals, we do not advocate for tribalism, and we are against tribalism, since it is more or less despotism (Chieftain rules).

thats not tribalism that is chiefdoms, which are different.
your communes will be either bands or tribes in structure, tribes are the least violent of the two so I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Again, the objective view of what aggression is,

not objective, and certainly not universal

Lastly, endless cyclic warfare is what state warfare is. States engage in war all the time to dominate other states, as tribes do, as street gangs do and as you claim voluntary armies would do.

yes but states do it less often and with lower rates of death and violence.
I never claimed states are perfect, just vastly better than what is being proposed.

[Alaizia]

But words have meanings. Just saying.

Not in this case.

I understand what you mean. But you got to admit that whether like it or not, humans just love putting names to conditions.

[Sociobiology]

Not in this case.

I understand what you mean. But you got to admit that whether like it or not, humans just love putting names to conditions.

its built in, it is how our brain deals with insane number of possibilities in the universe, it is also why we are stuck with stereotyping, all we can do is change what variables we use to create categories.

[Alaizia]

I understand what you mean. But you got to admit that whether like it or not, humans just love putting names to conditions.

it built in, it is how our brain deals with insane number of possibilities in the universe, it is also why we are stuck with stereotyping, all we can do is change what variables we use to create categories.

Very true. It's how the human mind works. We use names to clarify and objectify things.

[Liberaxia]

It's not. Government is as government does. Slapping some label on it like "voluntary community" or "free market police force" is just word games. Though to be fair to the anarchist, they just don't realize it.

It has all the aspects of a state but it's not a state because reasons, or something.

"Yeah, we have a police force, prisons, laws, courts, and militias, but they totally don't count as a state since there are no taxes."

If we take this view, then countries like Enver Hoxha's Albania, Cuba, North Korea, and the Soviet Union are/were "stateless".

[Sociobiology]

It has all the aspects of a state but it's not a state because reasons, or something.

"Yeah, we have a police force, prisons, laws, courts, and militias, but they totally don't count as a state since there are no taxes."

If we take this view, then countries like Enver Hoxha's Albania, Cuba, North Korea, and the Soviet Union are/were "stateless".

by that logic the US under the articles of confederation was not a state.

[Alaizia]

[Liberaxia]

"Yeah, we have a police force, prisons, laws, courts, and militias, but they totally don't count as a state since there are no taxes."

If we take this view, then countries like Enver Hoxha's Albania, Cuba, North Korea, and the Soviet Union are/were "stateless".

by that logic the US under the articles of confederation was not a state.

Damn it! Now I'm going to view the Articles of Confederation in a different light.

[Liberaxia]

(Image)

That is perfect.

[Scomagia]

(Image)

That is perfect.

Also not entirely accurate.

[Alaizia]

That is perfect.

Also not entirely accurate.

Yeah, like 96.54% accurate.

[Scomagia]

Also not entirely accurate.

Yeah, like 96.54% accurate.

Considering that those people in the image could very easily, NOT be anarchists, I'd consider it to be much less accurate.

[The New Sea Territory]

(Image)

Not all anarchists advocate for violence.

This is to provide legitimate debate about anarchist philosophy, not bash it for no good reason with images. Please leave.

(Image)

That is perfect.

No it's fucking not. Not all anarchists advocate for violence. I can't say that enough.

[Scomagia]

(Image)

Not all anarchists advocate for violence.

This is to provide legitimate debate about anarchist philosophy, not bash it for no good reason with images. Please leave.

That is perfect.

No it's fucking not. Not all anarchists advocate for violence. I can't say that enough.

Clearly they believe that Anarchy=Chaos.

[The New Sea Territory]

Also not entirely accurate.

Yeah, like 96.54% accurate.

Ok. To turn this on you, statism: advocating against anarchism by proving all anarchist claims about the illegitimacy of the state.

It has all the aspects of a state but it's not a state because reasons, or something.

"Yeah, we have a police force, prisons, laws, courts, and militias, but they totally don't count as a state since there are no taxes."

If we take this view, then countries like Enver Hoxha's Albania, Cuba, North Korea, and the Soviet Union are/were "stateless".

You're arguing against more of anarcho-capitalism...

And the militias don't permanently exist...

[The New Sea Territory]

Not all anarchists advocate for violence.

This is to provide legitimate debate about anarchist philosophy, not bash it for no good reason with images. Please leave.



No it's fucking not. Not all anarchists advocate for violence. I can't say that enough.

Clearly they believe that Anarchy=Chaos.

Only Political Nihilists or some insane primitivists advocate for such a chaotic lack of system.

[Scomagia]

Clearly they believe that Anarchy=Chaos.

Only Political Nihilists or some insane primitivists advocate for such a chaotic lack of system.

I am quite aware, yes.

[Alaizia]

Not all anarchists advocate for violence.

This is to provide legitimate debate about anarchist philosophy, not bash it for no good reason with images. Please leave.

Or maybe I will stay. You know...cause I want to, my "freedom-loving" Annie.

No it's fucking not. Not all anarchists advocate for violence. I can't say that enough.

Violence has several faces. For instance, a graffiti of the familliar to all of us "A" on a clear wall of someone else's property is considered an act of violence for most people, except for Annies. I'm just saying.