Life of a Commoner in an anarchist society

[Solaray]

By claiming it and holding it, I suppose.

Well, here. How does someone claim ownership? I say it is homesteading and trade (but that is for another thread).

The state claimed it, brought armies, and forced the people on that land into subjugation. Any argument saying that the state legit owns all the land will boil down to a "Might makes right" kind of argument.

We've already established taxes are not theft, Eminent Domain isn't theft because you get immediate compensation, conscription only occurs when vital to the security of a state which typically was only common practice in the world wars.

no, we have deffy not established that taxes are not theft.

Well what I meant was more that the state forms around the land. All citizens are part of the state, to some degree, all citizens own the land, to some degree. Members of the government have more ownership because they govern the state. Taxes are like rent, in the sense that if the government taxes without giving back it is theft. However, most governments compensate the taxed people with public services.

[Anarkhist Kyrylashka]

The State has an illegitimate monopoly on violence.

Whatever. Even if you think it's illegitimate as you said it has a monopoly on force. So you can't do anything about it. You're just gonna have to deal with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution

[Camelza]

The State has an illegitimate monopoly on violence.

No, the state, by definition, has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Unless that's not what you meant?

….

Ah well. I've got to go. Been good talking to you all.

Feeling's mutual Merizoc.

[Ripoll]

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

Yeah, so? There can't be citizenship under anarchism?

There can't be, but it sure as hell acts the same way. Which brings me to my final point, why the hell would you want to revert all the progress humanity has made to establish a similar but crappier system? Need I not remind you we are at the most peaceful point in World History since Humans have been a thing? The most economically prosperous? It's no coincidence our population is soaring when a few centuries ago it was stagnant for centuries at a time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbuUW9i-mHs

[Lockean Georgeville]

The State has an illegitimate monopoly on violence.

No, the state, by definition, has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Unless that's not what you meant?

….

Ah well. I've got to go. Been good talking to you all.

I should have specified. Yes, it claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, but it's claims are illegitimate.

[Democratic Koyro]

LOL!

The only way to have your anarchist hellhole is to beg one State to destroy another.

I don't support anarchy.

Oh good

Then for all intents and purposes replace your with their.

[Estva]

No, the state, by definition, has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Unless that's not what you meant?

….

Ah well. I've got to go. Been good talking to you all.

I should have specified. Yes, it claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, but it's claims are illegitimate.

Why?

[Anarkhist Kyrylashka]

Aren't you a communist of some sort? or anarchist? I mean, you are in the AAA.

The flag mocks communist ideals... what makes you think he is a communist, ffs?

I don't know, I interpreted as silly communist-joke. I then took note of it, and since communists want the same society as anarchists, thought it was ironic he said "Anarchism won't work." I don't know, I guess I viewed it wrong.

[Solaray]

What do you consider "oppression"?

Citizen of what exactly?

Hm?

[Ainin]

Nah. The Interstates would probably have long-fallen into a state of utter disrepair if it was anarchy.

I see that you have not driven through Alameda County, California then.

I'm fairly sure UC Berkeley doesn't run the Interstates

[Lockean Georgeville]

I should have specified. Yes, it claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, but it's claims are illegitimate.

Why?

Why is it illegitimate?

What does it derive it's authority from? Nothing. Now keep in mind, a government CAN have a legitimate, voluntary monopoly on violence. But the State cannot.

Whatever. Even if you think it's illegitimate as you said it has a monopoly on force. So you can't do anything about it. You're just gonna have to deal with it.

"You're just gonna have to deal with it"

Statism at it's finest.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

"Fuck human rights, I'm Henry Kissinger!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8
a reminder that the U.S. government is in-fact more destructive than so-called "terrorists"

A reminder that the war in Iraq resulted in the removal of Hussein, and the US's aim was not to incite terror. This is all beside the fact that this doesn't make Anarchism any more right. After all, the only reason anarchist nations haven't committed warcrimes is because they don't exist.

Also, give me another source on that please.

I should have specified. Yes, it claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, but it's claims are illegitimate.

Why?

Because there's no such thing as social contract.

[Genivaria]

Citizen of what exactly?

Hm?

Shit I quoted the wrong post.

[Estva]

Why is it illegitimate?

What does it derive it's authority from? Nothing. Now keep in mind, a government CAN have a legitimate, voluntary monopoly on violence. But the State cannot.

How can a state not? If it derives its authority from the approval of its citizens, how is it illegitimate? Is force not a legitimate reason as well?

[Estva]

Because there's no such thing as social contract.

Neither does the "state" since they are both social constructs.

[Ripoll]

By claiming it and holding it, I suppose.

Well, here. How does someone claim ownership? I say it is homesteading and trade (but that is for another thread).

The state claimed it, brought armies, and forced the people on that land into subjugation. Any argument saying that the state legit owns all the land will boil down to a "Might makes right" kind of argument.

We've already established taxes are not theft, Eminent Domain isn't theft because you get immediate compensation, conscription only occurs when vital to the security of a state which typically was only common practice in the world wars.

no, we have deffy not established that taxes are not theft.

"Taxation is theft"

Yes yes, you've thrown that melodramatic hyperbole around quite a lot.

It is not theft if you receive something in return, that is housing, public services, affordable healthcare, sanitary regulation, roads, education, and all this other exciting stuff!


A yes, the coercion argument, because I didn't ever agree even if I get all this in return it is theft, despite that not being what the definition of theft is I'll address this anyway, that's called citizenship

Being a citizen comes with certain rights and responsibilities. You have a right to protection and all Government services but also a responsibility to pay for these services, and support the structure every day people make up through taxation. You have a right to vote but a responsibility to accept the result even if your party does not win. Sure I never consented to being a citizen of Ireland, but then again I never consented to capitalism either. I never agreed to live in a society with either democracy or private property. I never agreed to elections being held every five years or the current distribution of property. Do we have to have a social revolution every time someone disagrees with the way things are? The fact is that there are lots of things we never agreed to, but have to live with. We have to live under some sort of political and economic system that will be to some extent arbitrary, but it simply isn't feasible to have everyone make up their own rules.

No matter what happens a similar system has to be implemented anyway, and again I still question what the point in any of this anarchism business is anyone as I stated before on this page

Which brings me to my final point, why the hell would you want to revert all the progress humanity has made to establish a similar but crappier system? Need I not remind you we are at the most peaceful point in World History since Humans have been a thing? The most economically prosperous? It's no coincidence our population is soaring when a few centuries ago it was stagnant for centuries at a time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbuUW9i-mHs

[Meryuma]

Because the car mechanic and the teacher also work for free.

What about people who's job involve things that nobody wants to do. Like pulling used shit covered tampons out of pipes.

The position would rotate among those who are the most dedicated to helping out, the least easily grossed out and the most qualified.

Your kind will also be very few in an anarchist society, few enough to be dealt with, by lethal force if needed.

Don't feed his complex.

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.

Please point me to the major events of the Somali anarchist revolution, the anarchist groups in Somalia and the anarchist thinkers presenting Somalia as a utopia.

[Estva]

The position would rotate among those who are the most dedicated to helping out, the least easily grossed out and the most qualified.

The people that need to do this will get awfully tired pulling everyone's weight without compensation.

[Lockean Georgeville]

What does it derive it's authority from? Nothing. Now keep in mind, a government CAN have a legitimate, voluntary monopoly on violence. But the State cannot.

How can a state not? If it derives its authority from the approval of its citizens, how is it illegitimate? Is force not a legitimate reason as well?

It would have to derive it's authority from the approval of ALL citizens, which could potentially be achieved at a decentralized, directly-democratic level. But under our current system, the State cannot gain the approval of the entire populace. It just wont happen.

Force is not a legitimate reason. In the same way robbery is not a legitimate exchange.

[Democratic Koyro]

What about people who's job involve things that nobody wants to do. Like pulling used shit covered tampons out of pipes.

The position would rotate among those who are the most dedicated to helping out, the least easily grossed out and the most qualified.

Your kind will also be very few in an anarchist society, few enough to be dealt with, by lethal force if needed.

Don't feed his complex.

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.

Please point me to the major events of the Somali anarchist revolution, the anarchist groups in Somalia and the anarchist thinkers presenting Somalia as a utopia.

Self-proclaimed Anarchist thinkers are pretty much irrelevant to the reality of Anarchism.

[Skeckoa]

Well what I meant was more that the state forms around the land. All citizens are part of the state, to some degree, all citizens own the land, to some degree. Members of the government have more ownership because they govern the state. Taxes are like rent, in the sense that if the government taxes without giving back it is theft. However, most governments compensate the taxed people with public services.

No, because with rent, the tenant has an explicitly agreed to contract with the landlord. Such agreement does not exist with the state.

If government has the right to tax people living on the land, than that would mean that they have ownership (since being an owner allows you to make the rules). I asked you "how did they acquire ownership?". You have not answered that homey.

PS: It doesn't matter what the thief/state does with the money, what is important is the means by which they acquired your money.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8
a reminder that the U.S. government is in-fact more destructive than so-called "terrorists"

A reminder that the war in Iraq resulted in the removal of Hussein, and the US's aim was not to incite terror. This is all beside the fact that this doesn't make Anarchism any more right. After all, the only reason anarchist nations haven't committed warcrimes is because they don't exist.

Also, give me another source on that please.

Why?

Because there's no such thing as social contract.

Doesn't matter what the U.S. aimed to do, the death of 500,000 children is pretty terrifying if you're on the receiving end
https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/pol ... price.html

[Ripoll]

How can a state not? If it derives its authority from the approval of its citizens, how is it illegitimate? Is force not a legitimate reason as well?

It would have to derive it's authority from the approval of ALL citizens, which could potentially be achieved at a decentralized, directly-democratic level. But under our current system, the State cannot gain the approval of the entire populace. It just wont happen.

Force is not a legitimate reason. In the same way robbery is not a legitimate exchange.

yea, try getting approval from 326 million people about anything

Hell, I'm sure if you put "is murder and genocide bad" as a polling option you would still only get 96% say yes

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Well what I meant was more that the state forms around the land. All citizens are part of the state, to some degree, all citizens own the land, to some degree. Members of the government have more ownership because they govern the state. Taxes are like rent, in the sense that if the government taxes without giving back it is theft. However, most governments compensate the taxed people with public services.

No, because with rent, the tenant has an explicitly agreed to contract with the landlord. Such agreement does not exist with the state.

If government has the right to tax people living on the land, than that would mean that they have ownership (since being an owner allows you to make the rules). I asked you "how did they acquire ownership?". You have not answered that homey.

PS: It doesn't matter what the thief/state does with the money, what is important is the means by which they acquired your money.

it exists in democratic states, no action in America is taken without representation of the people

[Estva]

It would have to derive it's authority from the approval of ALL citizens, which could potentially be achieved at a decentralized, directly-democratic level. But under our current system, the State cannot gain the approval of the entire populace. It just wont happen.

And why does the legitimacy matter? Does practicality not allow legitimacy? Can some citizens not be excluded?

Force is not a legitimate reason. In the same way robbery is not a legitimate exchange.

Then what makes a legitimate society? Social coercion and violence is going to be omnipresent, anarchist or no.