Anarchism

[The New Sea Territory]

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?

This isn't really accurate considering the state has existed for far less a time than all the others you listed. States have not had the amount of time those societies had to kill people.

[Sociobiology]

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.

as long as you remember the important part, the gave them up because they were not collecting enough money voluntarily to pay for all the services everyone demanded.

[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.

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.

Freedom doesn't mean I can't tell you that you are wasting bandwidth by criticizing us for things we don't support.

Not all anarchists advocate for vandalism. You generalize that all anarchists are simply edgy teenagers with mohawks who break windows...

Clearly you lack understanding of ANY claims of anarchists beyond "let's get rid of the state".

[Sociobiology]

several dozen

(Image)

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?

This isn't really accurate considering the state has existed for far less a time than all the others you listed. States have not had the amount of time those societies had to kill people.

those numbers are not cumulative. they are rates for a given stretch of time. you can easily exclude anything but the currently existing societies, but that just makes states look even better, because the most violent states are gone. while the numbers for current and past non-state societies are comparable.

even if you just isolate states during war they still perform vastly better than even the average for non-states.

I admit the graphic without the description is not intuative, but I can't find an image of them together.

[Alaizia]

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

as long as you remember the important part, the gave them up because they were not collecting enough money voluntarily to pay for all the services everyone demanded.

Touche.

[Sociobiology]

as long as you remember the important part, the gave them up because they were not collecting enough money voluntarily to pay for all the services everyone demanded.

Touche.

I just made highschool history relevant for you didn't I.

[Alaizia]

Freedom doesn't mean I can't tell you that you are wasting bandwidth by criticizing us for things we don't support.

But it is valid when you "please" a person to leave. I see. At least you appear polite.

Not all anarchists advocate for vandalism. You generalize that all anarchists are simply edgy teenagers with mohawks who break windows...

Clearly you lack understanding of ANY claims of anarchists beyond "let's get rid of the state".

As the fellow NSers have already answered before, it doesn't really matter how you will name that...."thing" you are planning to establish after you prevail. (again )
It will still behave like a State-community. If you insist otherwise, please enlighten us. We would be happy to hear you clarify your thoughts.

[Alaizia]

Touche.

I just made highschool history relevant for you didn't I.

Yes, you basically reminded me of it.

[The New Sea Territory]

Freedom doesn't mean I can't tell you that you are wasting bandwidth by criticizing us for things we don't support.

But it is valid when you "please" a person to leave. I see. At least you appear polite.

Not all anarchists advocate for vandalism. You generalize that all anarchists are simply edgy teenagers with mohawks who break windows...

Clearly you lack understanding of ANY claims of anarchists beyond "let's get rid of the state".

As the fellow NSers have already answered before, it doesn't really matter how you will name that...."thing" you are planning to establish after you prevail. (again )
It will still behave like a State-community. If you insist otherwise, please enlighten us. We would be happy to hear you clarify your thoughts.

This is less productive than debating a fucking brick wall. I'm going back to Liberaxia and Sociobiology who actually provide real arguments rather than "OMG YOUR ALL VIOLENT AND FUCK YOU!"

[Sociobiology]

I just made highschool history relevant for you didn't I.

Yes, you basically reminded me of it.

And now people have a glimpse of why public education is essential for society. Informed decision making, every society can be improved by it.

[Alaizia]

But it is valid when you "please" a person to leave. I see. At least you appear polite.



As the fellow NSers have already answered before, it doesn't really matter how you will name that...."thing" you are planning to establish after you prevail. (again )
It will still behave like a State-community. If you insist otherwise, please enlighten us. We would be happy to hear you clarify your thoughts.

This is less productive than debating a fucking brick wall. I'm going back to Liberaxia and Sociobiology who actually provide real arguments rather than "OMG YOUR ALL VIOLENT AND FUCK YOU!"

You can. Too shame I personally won't have the chance to hear you clarify your interesting points.

[Alaizia]

Yes, you basically reminded me of it.

And now people have a glimpse of why public education is essential for society. Informed decision making, every society can be improved by it.

Public education is indeed essential for each society if only it's not being manipulated and targeted by each respective's society government. It's a very serious and delicant matter, won't you agree?

[Genivaria]

But it is valid when you "please" a person to leave. I see. At least you appear polite.



As the fellow NSers have already answered before, it doesn't really matter how you will name that...."thing" you are planning to establish after you prevail. (again )
It will still behave like a State-community. If you insist otherwise, please enlighten us. We would be happy to hear you clarify your thoughts.

This is less productive than debating a fucking brick wall. I'm going back to Liberaxia and Sociobiology who actually provide real arguments rather than "OMG YOUR ALL VIOLENT AND FUCK YOU!"

How bout you tell me then exactly what the difference is? I've been asking for awhile now.

[Sociobiology]

And now people have a glimpse of why public education is essential for society. Informed decision making, every society can be improved by it.

Public education is indeed essential for each society if only it's not being manipulated and targeted by each respective's society government. It's a very serious and delicant matter, won't you agree?

even then that risk is rather minor compared to the massive benefit education produces.
my biggest concern with anarchists is every now and then I hear one claim the risk of government manipulation makes education to risky.
At which point I desperate wish for a way to let the person experience their life if they had not enjoyed the benefit of an education or an educated society.
It astounds me how little people appreciate how unbelievably rare and unique it is to live in a time and place when most children live to adulthood.

[The New Sea Territory]

This is less productive than debating a fucking brick wall. I'm going back to Liberaxia and Sociobiology who actually provide real arguments rather than "OMG YOUR ALL VIOLENT AND FUCK YOU!"

How bout you tell me then exactly what the difference is? I've been asking for awhile now.

The difference between the state and organizations? Here's a few:

The state is forced onto everyone and they have to accept it. Anarchist organizations allow for people to freely opt out without being forced to move to another nation.

An anarchist voluntary army is purely for defense against invasion/rising states. Statist armies are not necessarily purely for defense, but rather whatever the state decides to do with it (though I won't say all are not purely defensive).

An anarchist court? You have the capitalist theory of private arbitration, very different from statist judicial systems.

An anarchist prison? I don't really see that. If you're a murderer/rapist/whatever you'd just get kicked out of the community.

[Alaizia]

even then that risk is rather minor compared to the massive benefit education produces.

However, if a person is filled with half-valid knowledge, what good would that make to this person? The risk might be, as you say, relatively low but the potential outcome could be catastrophic for that person's world view. That is why I insist so much on a proper, objective and impartial education.

my biggest concern with anarchists is every now and then I hear one claim the risk of government manipulation makes education to risky.
At which point I desperate wish for a way to let the person experience their life if they had not enjoyed the benefit of an education or an educated society.

One does not appreciate what is offered to him/her unless the time he/she comes to need it.

[The New Sea Territory]

my biggest concern with anarchists is every now and then I hear one claim the risk of government manipulation makes education to risky.
At which point I desperate wish for a way to let the person experience their life if they had not enjoyed the benefit of an education or an educated society.
It astounds me how little people appreciate how unbelievably rare and unique it is to live in a time and place when most children live to adulthood.

I see what you mean, and it is good to be educated (obviously).

But the government, if it has to exist, should be very, very restricted on what it teaches in public schools. History classes are full of shit sometimes, or they gloss over certain parts of history (my time in a public school, we spent majority of the year on civil rights and went over WW2 in one day).

[Alaizia]

The difference between the state and organizations? Here's a few:

The state is forced onto everyone and they have to accept it. Anarchist organizations allow for people to freely opt out without being forced to move to another nation.

An anarchist voluntary army is purely for defense against invasion/rising states. Statist armies are not necessarily purely for defense, but rather whatever the state decides to do with it (though I won't say all are not purely defensive).

An anarchist court? You have the capitalist theory of private arbitration, very different from statist judicial systems.

An anarchist prison? I don't really see that. If you're a murderer/rapist/whatever you'd just get kicked out of the community.

Finally you have accepted to clarify your thoughts.

The State is needed by everyone as a form of an organised collective community.

Also, an army should be assembled purely for defence. I agree with that. But that doesn't mean that it's only attainable in the anarchists' views.

The arbitrary system exists for the common reason that someone can't possibly know every single law in his/hers state. Thus, this job is entrusted to certain individuals who are paid to learn and use them in such cases. But you haven't clarified us yet what happens in an anarchist's court.

Yes, that's a foolish decision. Because if a person has attempted a felony, punishment must be dealt. It's a simple word called justice.
Needless to say that, by that way, you basically let this person free. That's a big no-no in the case of a criminal.

[Sociobiology]

How bout you tell me then exactly what the difference is? I've been asking for awhile now.

The difference between the state and organizations? Here's a few:

The state is forced onto everyone and they have to accept it. Anarchist organizations allow for people to freely opt out without being forced to move to another nation.

so they can freely mooch of the system, at least for any regional service, like defense or water sanitation.
see the flaw

An anarchist voluntary army is purely for defense against invasion/rising states.

who decides what constitutes invasion/rising states, and what if people have conflicting points of view.
Also who stops them from doing other things with it?
lots of people would happily enforce religions belief on their neighbors on their own.

An anarchist court? You have the capitalist theory of private arbitration, very different from statist judicial systems.

which does not work without a state judicial system to fall back on, the question is how you deal with people who do not believe they are in the wrong, or refuse to comply with decisions of arbitration.

An anarchist prison? I don't really see that. If you're a murderer/rapist/whatever you'd just get kicked out of the community.

you just said you did NOT do this.
so which is it, if you disagree with community can you stay and gain the benefit of regional services for free (thus incentivising) or do you get kicked out, you can't have it both ways.

[Sociobiology]

my biggest concern with anarchists is every now and then I hear one claim the risk of government manipulation makes education to risky.
At which point I desperate wish for a way to let the person experience their life if they had not enjoyed the benefit of an education or an educated society.
It astounds me how little people appreciate how unbelievably rare and unique it is to live in a time and place when most children live to adulthood.

I see what you mean, and it is good to be educated (obviously).

But the government, if it has to exist, should be very, very restricted on what it teaches in public schools. History classes are full of shit sometimes, or they gloss over certain parts of history (my time in a public school, we spent majority of the year on civil rights and went over WW2 in one day).

well that is because there is just so much history, and the only way to create a set history to teach would to have an official scripted history handed down from above, which nobody thinks is a good idea. Which is why guidelines are such a hot item right now, the trick is picking guidelines based on science and relevance and not what a particular sponsor thinks is important.
Now in my states history teachers are actually required to have a degree in history with a certain set of required material they must have studied, many states are not so demanding and suffer lower quality teachers and thus lower grade curricula as a result.

[Borgovia]

And now people have a glimpse of why public education is essential for society. Informed decision making, every society can be improved by it.

Public education is indeed essential for each society if only it's not being manipulated and targeted by each respective's society government. It's a very serious and delicant matter, won't you agree?

If you have the power, won't you want to do anything and everything in your arsenal to keep yourselves in power?

Still, Anarchism won't last long. The most respected member of the community will eventually want to expand his power using his following as disposable tools.

[Casita]

This never stopped geneticists from studing small populations, such as the people of Papua new Guinea, Amish communities, Pingelap etc. While small populations can't be applied to the world as whole, as an over arching generalization; nevertheless, the research has been fruitful and can predict things like founder effect etc, if any given societies were to be within similar conditions. So, yes there are a lot of things the islands mentioned cannot tell us, and at the same time there are a lot of things we can learn from them.

A bit of advice: try to compare A to B (within the context of A), then B to A (within the context of B), then A to B together, then find relevance of A and B, together, outside the confines of their own contextual limits (if any), test and repeat, add more variables, test and repeat etc

The method above can also be used in a less rigorous way, to enrich quick RMB discussions as well; by simply report test findings, instead of actually testing these things yourself. It would, then be merely an opinion, but an informed one nonetheless.

Dunbars number has nothing to do with bottlenecking or genetic variance. It is the number of people a single person can keep track of. Populations below about 300 individuals can rely entirely on instinctual social behavior modification and control, so these populations are useless for studying potential forms of society in which the number of people is too large to rely on natural instinctual controls, and thus must create some form of artificial control. because ALL but the most broken forms of artificial control will still function well on a small scale. It is the same reason we do not test water craft shapes on extremely the small scales because at those scales surface tension overwhelms measurable variation in buoyancy.

Never said Dunbar # had anything to do with genetics, did I? I merely made a point that useful 'things' can be learned from studying small populations within not so 'perfect' conditions. Similarly (Not Same) can be said with small political experiments, no?

[Zottistan]

First off, you've said yourself that it would be hierarchical. Military structures have to be to be effective.

Secondly, it's an army. Its purpose is to put down rising state-like entities within the communes. That's a pretty textbook example of a monopoly on violence. It might not be coercive: force might never be initiated. But it's a state, in all but name. The only time such a militia wouldn't have a monopoly on violence over the communes is if it was too weak to put down a rising state.

Uhh, where was the part that I said that it needs to be hierarchical?

In your talk about an elected chain of command. That's a hierarchy, no? Or is there some different understanding of the word?

And these military organization is not an army in the traditional sense, more like a voluntary militia or stuff like that. In the commune, everyone has the same duty and right to contribute in the defense of their community, and these military organization is merely just the people who happen to be specialized in it. The authority to conduct defensive measures doesn't fall into their hands, but the the commune as a whole. So no, they won't conduct monopoly on violence, and it's not a state-like entity, because they are pretty much standing on an equal position with everybody else.

They would exist to put down state-like entities rising in the communes, thus they would have to have a monopoly on violence. The police can't police if the gangs are more powerful.

Shifting authority to the communes as a whole doesn't make the monopoly go away, it just divides it out among more people. There'd have to be some central elected body, too, deciding which militias are legitimate defense tools and which represent rising states (the whole reason this mechanism exists in the first instance). So there'd have to be some group, elected or not, with a monopoly on violence. Otherwise the communes would descend into tribal war.

[Zottistan]

But seriously, who organizes all of this? There has to be some central body commanding the army, right? Or organizing the regional militias to work together? Doesn't that body have a pretty fucking huge monopoly on violence?

Different anarchists will tell you different things, to start. My idea of it is that the communities are formed by people just getting together and starting them, however they want. The militias are only called up if a threat comes to the federation of communities (invading army, state rising, pirates, etc.) Organization is on an individual level. The individual decides what community he wants to live in and in what socioeconomic system to work within, and people freely associate based on that idea, creating various communities by like-minded individuals clustering together.

No, no: who organizes the militia? Who decides which militias are valid and which represent rising state-like entities? Would there be several separate militias or would the all be under some elected central control?

And more importantly, if the militias have a monopoly on violence in that they must be able to put down rising state-like bodies, how are they not states? That's not anarchy, it's some sort of voluntaryist minarchy.

[Kuzestan]

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?

You do know that these 'stateless' society existed in an era where there were no advanced medical treatments, lack of ethical code in warfare, primitive method on warfare, and etc. Right? If an anarchist society did emerge from this era and beyond, it will inherit all those achievements that the modern society has, thereby preventing such high casualty.

I'll be surprised though if those figures came from anarchist communes in the Spanish Civil War, or the Free Territory of Ukraine, which is not the case here.