Life of a Commoner in an anarchist society

[Ripoll]

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.

That doesn't answer anything, how are you supposed to enforce the rules?

[MERIZoC]

They support the threat of violence.

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

Now, as someone who doesn't support violent revolution, I'll say this: Fighting back against a state that's oppressing you is no different than fighting back against a mugger. You didn't initiate violence.

[Skeckoa]

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.

If the state was the legitimate owner of the land in question than it would be fair for them to ask you to leave (this is why it is okay-ish for them to ask you to leave the White House if you are being a nuisance). Do you think that the state has ownership of all the land inside its borders?

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

rules & laws aren't rules & laws if there's no entity to enforce them, they're guidelines

[Democratic Koyro]

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

Now, as someone who doesn't support violent revolution, I'll say this: Fighting back against a state that's oppressing you is no different than fighting back against a mugger. You didn't initiate violence.

You have no right to commit an act of terrorism against the State.

[The Slavians]

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.

What is your source? Anarchism must be pushed through the means of an insurrection, most of which are short-lived.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune (a bit)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_ ... Liberation

[MERIZoC]

Now, as someone who doesn't support violent revolution, I'll say this: Fighting back against a state that's oppressing you is no different than fighting back against a mugger. You didn't initiate violence.

You have no right to commit an act of terrorism against the State.

Terrorism is a buzzword with no real meaning.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

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

Now, as someone who doesn't support violent revolution, I'll say this: Fighting back against a state that's oppressing you is no different than fighting back against a mugger. You didn't initiate violence.

It's a good thing I elected my mugger to represent me

[The Slavians]

Now, as someone who doesn't support violent revolution, I'll say this: Fighting back against a state that's oppressing you is no different than fighting back against a mugger. You didn't initiate violence.

You have no right to commit an act of terrorism against the State.

But the State has no right to commit acts of terrorism against you.

[Geilinor]

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

Now, as someone who doesn't support violent revolution, I'll say this: Fighting back against a state that's oppressing you is no different than fighting back against a mugger. You didn't initiate violence.

If the revolutionaries turn against nonviolent statists, would they have the right to defend themselves? Or are there no civilians?

[Camelza]

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

That doesn't answer anything, how are you supposed to enforce the rules?

Like in real life anarchist societies, if someone disagrees, he/she just leaves, or is forced to leave since he/she poses a thrat to the continuation of the community. It's a love-it-or-leave-it case.

[Skeckoa]

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.

Eminent Domain? Highway pirating? Corruption? Taxation? Conscription?

[Democratic Koyro]

You have no right to commit an act of terrorism against the State.

But the State has no right to commit acts of terrorism against you.

The State cannot commit an act of Terrorism.

Though based on certain States, like Gaddafi's Libya, it can certainly sponsor them.

[Lockean Georgeville]

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

That doesn't answer anything, how are you supposed to enforce the rules?

Community-run or privately-run security organizations, which would be given the right to enforce laws by the community or the individual, depending on the branch of Anarchism.

[Solaray]

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

If the state was the legitimate owner of the land in question than it would be fair for them to ask you to leave (this is why it is okay-ish for them to ask you to leave the White House if you are being a nuisance). Do you think that the state has ownership of all the land inside its borders?

I do think the state ultimately has ownership of the land, yes. Lucky for us, many states grant property rights to the citizens.

[Ripoll]

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

Ever heard of a power vacuum?

...that's what the US,a alongside every other civilized nation, is trying to prevent.

Also there is a difference between support for the regime, and decent diplomatic relations for economic reasons. We're helping their citizens if anything. Unless you propose embargoes against every damn nation that violates the rights of their citizens thus turning our backs on those citizens. Then anarchists and libertarians turn around back on the US for humanitarian intervention well it's one or the other your pick.

[Democratic Koyro]

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

Eminent Domain? Highway pirating? Corruption? Taxation? Conscription?

Eminent Domain, Highway pirating, Taxation and Conscription are not crimes. Corruption is not a crime of the State but one of individuals within the State. The State cannot commit crimes, but people can use the State and it's apparatus in order to commit crimes.

[The Slavians]

You have no right to commit an act of terrorism against the State.

Terrorism is a buzzword with no real meaning.

What? Would you prefer the term Freedom Fighter?

You know Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation for political purposes. All of this terrorism stuff is political violence meant to cause terror.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

That doesn't answer anything, how are you supposed to enforce the rules?

Like in real life anarchist societies, if someone disagrees, he/she just leaves, or is forced to leave since he/she poses a thrat to the continuation of the community. It's a love-it-or-leave-it case.

Potentially this is why there has never been a long-lived anarchy

[Lockean Georgeville]

But the State has no right to commit acts of terrorism against you.

The State cannot commit an act of Terrorism.

Why not? Because it has given itself a monopoly on violence?

[Ripoll]

That doesn't answer anything, how are you supposed to enforce the rules?

Like in real life anarchist societies, if someone disagrees, he/she just leaves, or is forced to leave since he/she poses a thrat to the continuation of the community. It's a love-it-or-leave-it case.

Huh...sounds like citizenship.....

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Terrorism is a buzzword with no real meaning.

What? Would you prefer the term Freedom Fighter?

You know Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation for political purposes. All of this terrorism stuff is political violence meant to cause terror.

I'd have to agree with him that 'terrorism' is bullshit

[Geilinor]

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

Statism doesn't mean that you support every state.

[Skeckoa]

I do think the state ultimately has ownership of the land, yes. Lucky for us, many states grant property rights to the citizens.

How do you believe the state came to be the rightful owner of all the land?

[Camelza]

Like in real life anarchist societies, if someone disagrees, he/she just leaves, or is forced to leave since he/she poses a thrat to the continuation of the community. It's a love-it-or-leave-it case.

Potentially this is why there has never been a long-lived anarchy

Of course, anarchist societies demand a high level of political maturity by the populace in order to exist.