Life of a Commoner in an anarchist society

[Genivaria]

I don't need luck, warlordism is already very much a thing in the world and you have yet to prove how your anarchist world wouldn't turn into a giant Somalia.

The fact that warfare is very expensive.

Somalia is a failed state.

And very profitable for the right people.

[Anarkhist Kyrylashka]

So you're determined to push anarchism on society?

Some in this thread are determined to not only push Anarchism on people who don't want it but kill those who oppose it.

Uhhh....Be careful with wording.

I said that because everyone thought he wanted a Great Purge 2: Electric Boogaloo.

[Camelza]

If our society was an anarchist one you would still be free to live by your own standards, without getting and giving help to from and to your fellow humans.

I'd like to live as a mercenary

As long as you don't pose a threat to the community, do as you see fit.

[Skeckoa]

Would you be willing to use violence to obtain a higher societal standing then Camelza?

Thankfully, this isn't an anarchy, so there are defined legal means for me to use.

If you would not use violence against peaceful people to attain something, than you have what it takes to be an anarchist.

Disclaimer: I'm not fully content with what Camelza said, nor do I agree.

[The New Sea Territory]

....and magically, those with a state aren't.

Not magically. Unless you honestly believe the U.S. Army is as terrible as Al-Qaida.

You can't "push" anarchism. It's the lack of pushing, since the system is set up only to push when pushed.

So anarchism will never actually be a worldwide or even national thing.

Considering the US Army has supported more brutal regimes and killed more people, yes. Ideologically, no, historically, yes. Shocker, I know.

I was simply carrying on with his use of the word "push". There are theories for the implementation and practice of anarchism. Such as syndicalism, agorism or, though I don't advocate it, violent revolution.

[Kincoboh]

Please answer; Will you take your precious net worth along with you in your grave?

Yes. That number won't magically be erased when I die.

[The New Sea Territory]

The fact that warfare is very expensive.

Somalia is a failed state.

And very profitable for the right people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anocracy

[Geilinor]

Thankfully, this isn't an anarchy, so there are defined legal means for me to use.

If you would not use violence against peaceful people to attain something, than you have what it takes to be an anarchist.

Disclaimer: I'm not fully content with what Camelza said, nor do I agree.

Most statists don't support violence against innocent people.

[MERIZoC]

I think you have anarchy confused with anocracy.

They are exactly the same.

Don't embarrass yourself further.

[Anarkhist Kyrylashka]

I think you have anarchy confused with anocracy.

They are exactly the same.

No they are fucking not. Read some anarchist theory, understand some anarchist arguments, make your claims against them, and then post them here. Seriously, learn to fucking learn.

[Skeckoa]

Anarchism can't be pushed on society. As New Sea said, it's the absence of pushing.

I don't really see how overthrowing a state is anything but "pushing".

The same way that fighting back your mugger is "pushing". State steals, you have aright to defend yourself.

[MERIZoC]

If you would not use violence against peaceful people to attain something, than you have what it takes to be an anarchist.

Disclaimer: I'm not fully content with what Camelza said, nor do I agree.

Most statists don't support violence against innocent people.

They support the threat of violence.

[The New Sea Territory]

If you would not use violence against peaceful people to attain something, than you have what it takes to be an anarchist.

Disclaimer: I'm not fully content with what Camelza said, nor do I agree.

Most statists don't support violence against innocent people.

Knowingly. Though, this might be scary for some American statists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_au ... ted_States

[Ripoll]

So no, rule by none is a horrible idea.

Anarchism isn't critical of rules, government or authority. It is critical of the state and of coercive hierarchies. You can't seem to understand that our government wouldn't require the initiation of force.

Aren't rules coercive by nature? What's the point of having all these damn rules if no one is going to enforce them?

And yet, we've been trained to squint into this legal microscope, hoping that we can judge any dispute against the standard of a perfect society, where everyone will agree what's fair, and where accidents will be extinct, risk will be no more. Of course, this is Utopia; it's a formula for paralysis, not freedom. It's not the basis of the rule of law, it's not the basis of a free society. So, now I have the first of four propositions I'm going to leave with you about how you simplify the law: You've got to judge law mainly by its effect on the broader society, not individual disputes. Absolutely vital.

[Skeckoa]

Most statists don't support violence against innocent people.

Most...

Out of curiosity, do you?

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

I'd like to live as a mercenary

As long as you don't pose a threat to the community, do as you see fit.

A mercenary gets paid to threaten or protect the community. In a society where the only things to pledge allegiance to are wealth and deadly force - a mercenary would be a good position to be in.

[Democratic Koyro]

I don't really see how overthrowing a state is anything but "pushing".

The same way that fighting back your mugger is "pushing". State steals, you have aright to defend yourself.

The State cannot steal. And no, criminals have no right to defend themselves against the State.

[Lockean Georgeville]

I think you have anarchy confused with anocracy.

They are exactly the same.

No, not inherently. Under an anarchist system, the functions of the State are replaced by voluntary associations. Security and law would still exist, but would be handled voluntarily, either by the community or by private organizations.

[Geilinor]

And very profitable for the right people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anocracy

Somalia and Russia do not have the same form of government.

[Ziegenhain]

Not magically. Unless you honestly believe the U.S. Army is as terrible as Al-Qaida.

So anarchism will never actually be a worldwide or even national thing.

Considering the US Army has supported more brutal regimes and killed more people, yes. Ideologically, no, historically, yes. Shocker, I know.

I was simply carrying on with his use of the word "push". There are theories for the implementation and practice of anarchism. Such as syndicalism, agorism or, though I don't advocate it, violent revolution.

The United States Army (and rest of the Armed Forces for that matter) isn't the exact same as the United States Government.

[The New Sea Territory]

Aren't rules coercive by nature? What's the point of having all these damn rules if no one is going to enforce them?

No, they aren't. Even still, the use of violence is justified in an anarchist society as a response to initiated force.

[Geilinor]

Most statists don't support violence against innocent people.

They support the threat of violence.

Many anarchists support violent revolution. A violent overthrow will involve threatening or killing people who oppose you.

[Solaray]

I don't really see how overthrowing a state is anything but "pushing".

The same way that fighting back your mugger is "pushing". State steals, you have aright to defend yourself.

No, its more like fighting back against your landlord when he comes to collect.

[Democratic Koyro]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anocracy

Somalia and Russia do not have the same form of government.

That's because this Anocracy thing is pure bullshit thought up by intellectuals with nothing better to do with their time. It thinks Anarchist Somalia and a Totalitarian Military Dictatorship like Myanmar are the same thing.

[Camelza]

As long as you don't pose a threat to the community, do as you see fit.

A mercenary gets paid to threaten or protect the community. In a society where the only things to pledge allegiance to are wealth and deadly force - a mercenary would be a good position to be in.

Yes, mercenaries are perfectly in line with statist capitalist societies, your point being?