Anarchism

[Sociobiology]

So a modern nation, but with less cooperation.

I wouldn't call it a nation. Such federation may consists of communities from different nations who doesn't share a common cultural background like language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.

so the US?

[Sociobiology]

So an anarchistic confederation? How would it not have a state for such a large area and population? How would modern devices such as vehicles and computers be produced?

Yes, Anarchist Federations basically are a territory that is considered "anarchist". So, Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War was a federation of anarchists.

How would it not have a state? um...It just wouldn't. I don't know what you mean by this. How would a state be stopped from arising? Voluntary militias.

These devices are produced by people, not the system we call the state. Companies can exist (for ancapism) or workers would produce them in self-managed syndicates.

no those things are produced by massive numbers of specialists, which requires a truly massive number of people in the same community, which is the exact opposite of your small communes.
to answer her question you can't produce these things, because you do not have the resources.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Are you defining a state in the usual way: a monopoly on violence over a given territory?

Yes.

To stop a topic before it starts: Voluntary Anarchist Militias do not have monopolies of violence over territory, because they have no actual say in the governance of the territory. They are purely defensive. Modern militaries are attached to states, so they do have monopolies of violence over territory because they are the militant wing of the organization that governs.

So from what I understand, Anarchists believe a state is a body that holds what is referred to as a monopoly on violence, which is the right to initiate violence against certain parties. Anarchists wish for the abolition of the state, replacing it with a stateless government where everyone represents themselves and has an equal right to the initiation of violence. On target so far?

In your particular version of an Anarchy, there are dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of democratic communes consisting of like-minded individuals who have the freedom to do as they please, although they are held responsible for their actions by their peers. These communes coalesce together to form a confederation of communes in order to get shit done. Instead of a standing military, there is a voluntary militia that equips itself to defend against outside threats. Still on target?

[Sociobiology]

direct democracy is just a type of state, and a rather limited one, because you do not have specialists*, and limits your size based on logistics of decision making.

You mean type of government? Well yeah it is, and it can (and will) also be used in an anarchist society so a community's decision will be made by all its members. And 'specialists' aren't necessary in order to have such system.

never said they were, I said they were necessary if you want large numbers of people.

(having people completely unfamiliar with farming make decisions about farming never ends well, its what destroyed the soviet union after all.)

It's because a corrupt, bureaucratic state that made such decisions in the Soviet Union.

true but the fundamental problem was people who knew nothing about farming making decisions about farming which your direct democracy will also have. if you want high technology non-farmers will vastly outnumber farmers, thus farming policy decisions will be made largely by non-farmers.

After all, the people working as a farmer didn't even have a say in those matters,

and they will not have much of a say in your system.

not an anarchist community would do.

english please

[United States of Cascadia]

Quite the opposite, actually.

Most people think it sounds bad, but then they read about it and like the ideas. Whether they find them feasible or not is not part of this.

Again
Day one of Anarchy: Dissolved government use military force(good thing you got rid of war crimes) to destroy anarchy
Day two of Anarchy: Democracy resumes.

That's not how anarchy would work under most anarchist schools.

[Shaggai]

Anarchy is like being gluten-free. It sounds good but if you really think about it, it makes no sense.

Anarchy is like being gluten-free. For most people, it's pointless, but some people have to do it or suffer a severe adverse reaction.

(Okay, that made no sense, but neither did Ucropi's analogy.)

[The Serbian Empire]

Wow, what a brilliant post. Some much thought and effort put into it.

Statism is a mental disorder.

And you wonder if I avoid calling myself an Anarcho-Capitalist.

[Sociobiology]

they will be treated as random strangers siding with the other guy by people in conflict.
also do you know what specialist means? the small communities you advocate cannot support many, if any, specialists.

Not the Specialist in academic sense of course, but people who have the appropriate skills for certain jobs . And no, you will still have people specializing on different tasks, even in a small community.

not none specialized enough to have heart surgeons, MRI programmers, or physicists .
thus you severely limit you your technology.
you don't just need specialists you need tiered specialists you need people who do nothing but practice heart surgery because that is what it takes to be a decent heart surgeon, or people who do nothing but teach advanced math, because that is what it takes to have enough people educated in advanced math to build MRI machines much less invent them. And they need to invest years of basically non-productive time into those specialties.
The entirety of our technology is built on have the vast number of our activities require specialization ,because there is vastly more to learn than any one person could even come close to learning.

oh and they don't have a monopoly on violence if they do they are the state, if they can commit violence to stop perceived violence bot hothers cannot then they have a monopoly on violence, if everyone can do this than they do not have a monopoly on violence you have a culture of honor which breeds cycles of revenge AND high violence because most violence becomes "preventative" that is violence to establish a reputation that will dissuade actions against that person. This is also exactly how gang violence functions. there is no effective law because everyone simply relies on their own perception, this is exactly why i brought up the sleeping with someone's spouse example.

You are completely missing the point in the emphasized parts. The community as a WHOLE, maintains the security of their group. Whether you are a former police, a former teacher, or anyone, you still have the same right to contribute in community security. They agreed upon a common set of rules, and that includes laws on criminal activities.

which is either direct democracy (which is still a state AND size limited) or tribalism, which is not a state but is also size limited.

As for the rest of the quotes, I don't know what the hell are you ranting about.

which parts?

thats not the dissolution of the state that is the creation of many smaller states free, independent, and stateless communities, Europe as opposed to America

.
Fix'd, as for that italicized text, I assume it's not relevant at all.

you assume wrong. actually that would be the problem with your entire system, so why should you not repeat it.

but a society with modern technology DOES

Then consider an anarchist federation, which is basically a society with huge populations living in different communes, can do just that.

one, a confederation with sufficient control to act as a singe society IS a state.
two, no they can't because those small population must be independent if you wish them to get by without formal rules of social interaction and no monopoly on violence, which means none of them will be able to support many specialists. either you have a state and the communities are interdependent just like modern countries or they are independent and what you have is tribalism, in which case you have few to no specialists.

except that is not how people behave all the time, when people believe they are in the right they are often unwilling to compromise with strangers, that is the inherent problem. you either have to have formal law and enforcement which means a monopoly on violence, or not have strangers which severely limits your size.

In those communities, friendly neighbors and strangers alike agree on the same set of rules of the community.

and unfriendly neighbors?

And the fact that these 'strangers' is also a member of your community, sooner or later you will get to know their presence, and by that, you will interact with them on that set of rules.

so you know everyone that lives in your country personally?
because by your answer you must since you live in the same society.

but small sized communities cannot sustain modern technology.

That's why those small-sized communities will make a cooperation pact with other communities, to make up for their size.

and those pacts create a state. They also force rules on people who do not agree to them. because all the communities will not have identical rules. thus they must either compromise and accept rules they did not vote for or restrict travel thus not operating as a single society.

yes those federations are states, in every meaningful way they are identical to states. just very ineffective ones. So most of the downsides of states without most of the benefits.
hence the discussion of recreating the state and somehow claiming it is not a state.

Except that these 'federation' is more like a pact of cooperation and partnership,

so are many states.

with no central governing bodies or anything related to a small group of people governing a bigger group of people.

which has been tried before and failed every single time, one a million people will not all have equal power, second a million people cannot make decisions in a timely fashion needed to respond to the communities needs.
oh and without centralization, many services become very inefficient, thus increasing scarcity and thus decreasing cooperation.

[Casita]

Science and Anarchism ( for the science types) http://www.academia.edu/209835/Science_and_Anarchism

MODERN SCIENCE AND ANARCHISM by Kropotkin: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Ar ... e/toc.html

Believe it or not, there are anarchists out there that take science very seriously. The articles above are dated, nevertheless, science has been a big part of anarchism science its "beginnings" for the lack of a better word, at the moment.

[The New Sea Territory]

Yes.

To stop a topic before it starts: Voluntary Anarchist Militias do not have monopolies of violence over territory, because they have no actual say in the governance of the territory. They are purely defensive. Modern militaries are attached to states, so they do have monopolies of violence over territory because they are the militant wing of the organization that governs.

So there would be no laws enforced within this territory? Only self-defense?

If there are laws, somebody has to assign them. Whether they're elected democratically or whether they're chosen by individuals, if there are laws and people enforcing them, there is a monopoly on violence. And yes, non-aggression laws are still laws, and enforcing non-aggression principles on people who might not accept them is implementing a monopoly on violence (provided the people who enforced the laws aren't the people directly wronged by them). That's minarchy, not anarchy.

The non-aggression laws are established by the community as the state is being dissolved. And they are only enacted when someone violates another's NAP rights. So, they are purely in defense.

Even if it IS minarchy, then I still support the system.

[The New Sea Territory]

Again
Day one of Anarchy: Dissolved government use military force(good thing you got rid of war crimes) to destroy anarchy
Day two of Anarchy: Democracy resumes.

That's not how anarchy would work under most anarchist schools.

Contrary to Ucropi's Ignorance, no once but political nihilists advocate for such a system. The reason such a stereotype exists is because more radical anarchists assassinated William McKinley, then the US enacted anti-anarchist propaganda and demonized ALL of them as godless terrorists.

Typical American Response.

[The New Sea Territory]

Yes.

To stop a topic before it starts: Voluntary Anarchist Militias do not have monopolies of violence over territory,

can they or can they not commit approved violence without repercussion.

The commit violent actions in organized self-defense of all the individuals who are fighting.

because they have no actual say in the governance of the territory.

neither do most modern militaries.

Sure, but they are part of the state. Therefore, they indirectly are responsible for state control of territory.

They are purely defensive.

as are most modern militaries

Absolute Horse Shit. Maybe on paper.

Modern militaries are attached to states, so they do have monopolies of violence over territory because they are the militant wing of the organization that governs.

as would the militia you described.

Wrong. There is no organization that governs, which is the state. There is no state. These militias are independent of any state.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Wrong. There is no organization that governs, which is the state. There is no state. These militias are independent of any state.

I thought the commune governed itself. Doesn't that make it a state?

[The New Sea Territory]

Yes.

To stop a topic before it starts: Voluntary Anarchist Militias do not have monopolies of violence over territory, because they have no actual say in the governance of the territory. They are purely defensive. Modern militaries are attached to states, so they do have monopolies of violence over territory because they are the militant wing of the organization that governs.

So from what I understand, Anarchists believe a state is a body that holds what is referred to as a monopoly on violence, which is the right to initiate violence against certain parties. Anarchists wish for the abolition of the state, replacing it with a stateless government where everyone represents themselves and has an equal right to the initiation of violence. On target so far?

In your particular version of an Anarchy, there are dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of democratic communes consisting of like-minded individuals who have the freedom to do as they please, although they are held responsible for their actions by their peers. These communes coalesce together to form a confederation of communes in order to get shit done. Instead of a standing military, there is a voluntary militia that equips itself to defend against outside threats. Still on target?

No, the initiation of violence is held as wrong. Committing such a initiation of violence is not accepted. Militias and security are used to defend against aggression, internal or external.

More or less. Personally, I believe people should be allowed to freely associate based on their socioeconomic preference (voluntaryism), meaning their would be capitalist communities, communes, syndicalist towns and mutualist cities, etc. Democracy is only practiced where the people associating intend to use it. Capitalists would likely have no democracy, same with mutualists. Syndicalists would have workplace democracy. Communists would practice democracy, but it's different from the modern democracy. They all collectively own that land and are deciding what to do with it through vote, which is not statist democracy, because the state does not own all the land.

The confederation is a loose term that is used to refer to the territory. They work together to exchange resources and defend the territory from invaders.

[The New Sea Territory]

Wrong. There is no organization that governs, which is the state. There is no state. These militias are independent of any state.

I thought the commune governed itself. Doesn't that make it a state?

No. The Commune is a collective of individuals who own a piece of land together and live on it. It's like a family deciding how to work inside their house. It only applies to their house. It's not a state, it's a group of people managing their property.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

So from what I understand, Anarchists believe a state is a body that holds what is referred to as a monopoly on violence, which is the right to initiate violence against certain parties. Anarchists wish for the abolition of the state, replacing it with a stateless government where everyone represents themselves and has an equal right to the initiation of violence. On target so far?

In your particular version of an Anarchy, there are dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of democratic communes consisting of like-minded individuals who have the freedom to do as they please, although they are held responsible for their actions by their peers. These communes coalesce together to form a confederation of communes in order to get shit done. Instead of a standing military, there is a voluntary militia that equips itself to defend against outside threats. Still on target?

No, the initiation of violence is held as wrong. Committing such a initiation of violence is not accepted. Militias and security are used to defend against aggression, internal or external.

More or less. Personally, I believe people should be allowed to freely associate based on their socioeconomic preference (voluntaryism), meaning their would be capitalist communities, communes, syndicalist towns and mutualist cities, etc. Democracy is only practiced where the people associating intend to use it. Capitalists would likely have no democracy, same with mutualists. Syndicalists would have workplace democracy. Communists would practice democracy, but it's different from the modern democracy. They all collectively own that land and are deciding what to do with it through vote, which is not statist democracy, because the state does not own all the land.

The confederation is a loose term that is used to refer to the territory. They work together to exchange resources and defend the territory from invaders.

How many people could be in a commune, and how close would they be geographically?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I thought the commune governed itself. Doesn't that make it a state?

No. The Commune is a collective of individuals who own a piece of land together and live on it. It's like a family deciding how to work inside their house. It only applies to their house. It's not a state, it's a group of people managing their property.

A group of people managing their property defines every nation in history.

[The New Sea Territory]

No, the initiation of violence is held as wrong. Committing such a initiation of violence is not accepted. Militias and security are used to defend against aggression, internal or external.

More or less. Personally, I believe people should be allowed to freely associate based on their socioeconomic preference (voluntaryism), meaning their would be capitalist communities, communes, syndicalist towns and mutualist cities, etc. Democracy is only practiced where the people associating intend to use it. Capitalists would likely have no democracy, same with mutualists. Syndicalists would have workplace democracy. Communists would practice democracy, but it's different from the modern democracy. They all collectively own that land and are deciding what to do with it through vote, which is not statist democracy, because the state does not own all the land.

The confederation is a loose term that is used to refer to the territory. They work together to exchange resources and defend the territory from invaders.

How many people could be in a commune, and how close would they be geographically?

Eh, that depends on specific areas. Personally, I think communes should not exceed a hundred thousand. I know you would think it should be smaller, but direct democracy is achievable in the modern day due to technology. During the 1900s, they couldn't exceed a few thousand.

[The New Sea Territory]

No. The Commune is a collective of individuals who own a piece of land together and live on it. It's like a family deciding how to work inside their house. It only applies to their house. It's not a state, it's a group of people managing their property.

A group of people managing their property defines every nation in history.

No, the state does not own your property. The difference is the people of the commune actually do own their land, collectively.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

A group of people managing their property defines every nation in history.

No, the state does not own your property. The difference is the people of the commune actually do own their land, collectively.

You are the state in this case; that is, the people who collectively own the property are the state. No matter how you slice it, it is a state.

Volunteers among them form a militia to defend the commune against outside threats, I understand, but what funds this militia? I mean, who provides the resources for the militia; who gets the arms, the equipment, the supplies, etc.?

How many people could be in a commune, and how close would they be geographically?

Eh, that depends on specific areas. Personally, I think communes should not exceed a hundred thousand. I know you would think it should be smaller, but direct democracy is achievable in the modern day due to technology. During the 1900s, they couldn't exceed a few thousand.

So hundreds of these communes join together into a confederation to better provide resources for communes lacking in certain ones. What if these communes don't get along? What if this confederation was too fractured to defend against invaders, or respond to raiders?

[The Norgan Alliance]

I thought the commune governed itself. Doesn't that make it a state?

No. The Commune is a collective of individuals who own a piece of land together and live on it. It's like a family deciding how to work inside their house. It only applies to their house. It's not a state, it's a group of people managing their property.

Do you mind if I barge in?

So what describes a state as opposed to a commune? I've read through the last few pages of this thread and I know that a state is a structure that has a monopoly on violence and creates the laws for everyone to follow, so a commune let's everyone initiate violence (though the initiation of violence is kept in check by a fellow's peers) and laws are created through a direct vote as opposed to representation or anything like that?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

No. The Commune is a collective of individuals who own a piece of land together and live on it. It's like a family deciding how to work inside their house. It only applies to their house. It's not a state, it's a group of people managing their property.

Do you mind if I barge in?

So what describes a state as opposed to a commune? I've read through the last few pages of this thread and I know that a state is a structure that has a monopoly on violence and creates the laws for everyone to follow, so a commune let's everyone initiate violence (though the initiation of violence is kept in check by a fellow's peers) and laws are created through a direct vote as opposed to representation or anything like that?

A state, contrary to what Anarchists would tell me, is simply a governing body; "An organized community living under one government", as Wikipedia puts it. The commune NST describes is merely a state without what Anarchists refer to as "a monopoly on violence", which I think is a rubbish concept.

[The Scientific States]

Anarchism is bollocks.

Wow, what a brilliant post. Some much thought and effort put into it.

Statism is a mental disorder.

How ironic. You say Grenartia's post isn't well thought out, and then you spout bullshit like "statism is a mental disorder", with nothing to back it up.

[The Norgan Alliance]

Do you mind if I barge in?

So what describes a state as opposed to a commune? I've read through the last few pages of this thread and I know that a state is a structure that has a monopoly on violence and creates the laws for everyone to follow, so a commune let's everyone initiate violence (though the initiation of violence is kept in check by a fellow's peers) and laws are created through a direct vote as opposed to representation or anything like that?

A state, contrary to what Anarchists would tell me, is simply a governing body; "An organized community living under one government", as Wikipedia puts it. The commune NST describes is merely a state without what Anarchists refer to as "a monopoly on violence", which I think is a rubbish concept.

From what I understand, Anarchism (regardless of the adjective) increases Civil and Political privilidges, along with personal security, at the expense of security and stability for the nation (from both internal and external sources) along with the level of technology for the nation.

I don't know what to think of the system.

[Sibirsky]

Wow, what a brilliant post. Some much thought and effort put into it.

Statism is a mental disorder.

If you think those are anarchists, you're an imbecile.