Life of a Commoner in an anarchist society

[Conserative Morality]

Hard to expel. Extermination would really be your only option.

Hard to expel? I dunno if you've noticed, but tying people up and driving them a few hundred miles west is actually really easy.

The tricky bit is, once you've killed every last one of them, there's still nobody to pay you taxes.

There are still plenty of people left. Only loyalists to the regime and people cowed by fear would be left. Even if we assume everyone opposed to the regime opposed it, loyalists in tyrannical regimes are quite often quite numerous.

[Norstal]

But it makes them very easy to expel or exterminate.

EDIT: Even in theoretical future anarchist land I don't advocate this, mind. But the history of the world shows this to be depressingly common even when people fight back en masse.

Hard to expel. Extermination would really be your only option.
The tricky bit is, once you've killed every last one of them, there's still nobody to pay you taxes.

Who cares about that? You already have their shit if you killed them. No need for taxes.

[Wolfmanne]

To Margno: how would an anarchist society control inflation and combat recession?

They wouldn't have centralized banks or even a currency so how's that relevant?

Now if you're talking about how they're going to solve scarcity without currency, that's a better question.

Uh, how would scarcity of resources be dealt with then?

EDIT: Actually, let's ask it thorugh a basic Economics question: there is a plague going round the country, killing thousands in their anarchist fortresses, but no fear, for a cure has been discovered! The problem is that demand outstrips supply substantially. There simply aren't enough to go around to all the people affected. How would distribution be handled in this case?

[Sanctissima]

To Margno: how would an anarchist society control inflation and combat recession?

They wouldn't have centralized banks or even a currency so how's that relevant?

Now if you're talking about how they're going to solve scarcity without currency, that's a better question.

Bartering system, more than likely. That's the usual proposed solution.

Problematically, it could only ever work on a small scale. People in developed countries living in cities (or even large town for that matter) would see a much more catastrophic breakdown of society.

[Margno]

Depends on the school. InAns want a militia that's called whenever there's a threat to exclude other coercion but do nothing else (except enforce their economic ideology of choice, in most cases.) Anpacs favor general civil disobedience, refusing to follow any law on principle, no matter what happens to you. That makes populations effectively impossible to rule.

Both of those don't make much sense to me to be honest. In the first case it sounds like said militia would be tempted to become the power and in the later case... well basically there is only so much people can resist before the threat of violence makes them obey.

I suppose my answer is that you'd be surprised exactly what humans will endure to be free.

[Conserative Morality]

It turned out good. Because they're able to ban people such as scalpers and rely on statist currency. It's not exactly free and not a good example of anarchist economy.

While donationware still relies on statist currency, I think it's a better example.

[Sanctissima]

Both of those don't make much sense to me to be honest. In the first case it sounds like said militia would be tempted to become the power and in the later case... well basically there is only so much people can resist before the threat of violence makes them obey.

I suppose my answer is that you'd be surprised exactly what humans will endure to be free.

I think you'd be even more surprised what humans can do to be safe.

[Norstal]

They wouldn't have centralized banks or even a currency so how's that relevant?

Now if you're talking about how they're going to solve scarcity without currency, that's a better question.

Uh, how would scarcity of resources be dealt with then?

I wouldn't know. I'm not an anarchist. The best theory is that everyone will have to share everything for free, but I wouldn't know how that works such as when a material being traded with is of higher value than necessities, such as uranium for food.

[Conserative Morality]

I suppose my answer is that you'd be surprised exactly what humans will endure to be free.

All throughout history people have not fought to be free. They don't tear down institutions and leave them smoldering. People fight in order to change the world, or at least their world. People don't desire freedom. They desire acceptable controls.

[Margno]

Hard to expel. Extermination would really be your only option.
The tricky bit is, once you've killed every last one of them, there's still nobody to pay you taxes.

Who cares about that? You already have their shit if you killed them. No need for taxes.

You don't want populations for the shit they had on them at the time, that's a joke compared to the shit they produce every month. You want production to continue so you can take a cut.

[Alexanda]

It would be terrible. Gangs would be fighting for power, towns would be full of crime due to a lack of law enforcement, people would be dying due to a lack of healthcare, violent thugs would attack the middle class or working class homes due to their lack of security... It would be a terrible, terrible life. Anarchy is a state of lawlessness and without government supervision; many would not respect property laws, and arson, theft and murder would be everyday life. I am thankful that I have the means to survive such a thing, but the hardworking, kind, respectable man and his family would just be a target for thugs, criminals and the dirt of society.

[Geilinor]

And exactly why should the train engineer and the cook work for free? Because they're slaves I guess?

Mostly because all their train engineers and cooks and house builders and engineers and auto manufacturers and farmers are also working for free for them.

How does a society where nobody trades anything work? They'd be driving trains and cooking and manufacturing for no reason.

[Norstal]

They wouldn't have centralized banks or even a currency so how's that relevant?

Now if you're talking about how they're going to solve scarcity without currency, that's a better question.

Bartering system, more than likely. That's the usual proposed solution.

Problematically, it could only ever work on a small scale. People in developed countries living in cities (or even large town for that matter) would see a much more catastrophic breakdown of society.

I don't see how it can work in a small scale either. The problem is that resources are localized and one city/village/commune/wtvr might have a more valuable resource than another. Without a metric to measure that value, it would be highly unfair and arbitrary.

[Margno]

Hard to expel. Extermination would really be your only option.

Hard to expel? I dunno if you've noticed, but tying people up and driving them a few hundred miles west is actually really easy.

The tricky bit is, once you've killed every last one of them, there's still nobody to pay you taxes.

There are still plenty of people left. Only loyalists to the regime and people cowed by fear would be left. Even if we assume everyone opposed to the regime opposed it, loyalists in tyrannical regimes are quite often quite numerous.

The thing is, even halfway through an anarchist movement it's not in the rulers' interests to just kill all the anarchists, because they're working for free and giving the results of the work as much to your own people through aid projects as to themselves. You still have some access to half the production, you're just related to it on different terms. If you kill them all, all that production is completely lost.

[Arkolon]

They wouldn't have centralized banks or even a currency so how's that relevant?

Now if you're talking about how they're going to solve scarcity without currency, that's a better question.

Bartering system, more than likely. That's the usual proposed solution.

Problematically, it could only ever work on a small scale. People in developed countries living in cities (or even large town for that matter) would see a much more catastrophic breakdown of society.

Barter economies can experience inflation. For instance, if the quantity of bread, say, was much greater than the aggregate demand for bread (for trading other products), then bread would experience inflation, and perhaps even hyperinflation. A barter economy is basically a strange mix between resource-backed currencies and free banking, and it's a pretty ugly and confusing cocktail.

[Ziegenhain]

You'd probably die from a disease or some loony criminal who's out raping and killing people because there's no laws or anything to stop them I'd suppose

I like my "evil statist society"

[Sanctissima]

Bartering system, more than likely. That's the usual proposed solution.

Problematically, it could only ever work on a small scale. People in developed countries living in cities (or even large town for that matter) would see a much more catastrophic breakdown of society.

I don't see how it can work in a small scale either. The problem is that resources are localized and one city/village/commune/wtvr might have a more valuable resource than another. Without a metric to measure that value, it would be highly unfair and arbitrary.

Oh yes, extremely so.

Keep in mind though that anarchy is not quite the same thing as communism, so everything being fair isn't necessarily part of the ideology (although most proponents tend to lean toward that anyway).

More than likely, an anarchist society would eventually become a feudal one.

[Apparatchikstan]

No worries, because in some evolutionary cycle, your circumstances remain the same. Anarchy is a ideological illusion, and has never actually existed in the human condition. When you boil life down to it's simplest expression, you start at "Hungry, must hunt/forage.". So axe any ideas of humans volunteering labor that doesn't lead to something being put in it's belly. People ultimately work for food either by honest labor or they steal it. PDQ after absorbing that gem, it is realized fuller bellies with tastier varieties of foodstuffs can be achieved with cooperative effort. Well, now managing relationships becomes a thing, and pdq it's realized non-hostile relations are best within a group. So rules and guidelines are quickly formulated beginning with an informal understanding that I'll treat you as well as you treat me. After agriculture establishes the ability for a community to eat without every member having to participate, other endeavors can be entertained that will lead to your university, train, car, resteraunt, cigarette you don't have to grow and roll yourself, etc. Oh, and because of the whole relationship management thing, also affectionately known as law and order, politicians are still a thing. Sorry. Though self-governance is possible without a political class, the trend of human grouping to expand into ever larger and more complicated systems almost guarantees it's emergence at some time.

[Conserative Morality]

The thing is, even halfway through an anarchist movement it's not in the rulers' interests to just kill all the anarchists, because they're working for free and giving the results of the work as much to your own people through aid projects as to themselves. You still have some access to half the production, you're just related to it on different terms. If you kill them all, all that production is completely lost.

I don't think you understand the mindset of non-capitalist/not strictly capitalist statists.

[Ripoll]

The people would create a Government, the people would Govern. They would create laws and enforce them, and develop abundance so they can focus on things other than just their day to day survival. Otherwise there is no society at all.

[Margno]

To Margno: how would an anarchist society control inflation and combat recession?

Well inflation doesn't happen in the absense of currency, which amarchism doesn't use. The cycles of recession and rapid growth (boom and bust) are an artifact of the investment market. The whole reason industries grow above what's sustainable in the first place is that they're motivated by the reward system, rather than the actual success or failure of the endeavor. In anarchism, the only reason you work is because you want the thing done.

[Sibirsky]

You'd probably die from a disease or some loony criminal who's out raping and killing people because there's no laws or anything to stop them I'd suppose

I like my "evil statist society"

Obviously it is the laws that prevent murder and disease. That's why in nations like the United States, there are no murders or sick people.

[Norstal]

Who cares about that? You already have their shit if you killed them. No need for taxes.

You don't want populations for the shit they had on them at the time, that's a joke compared to the shit they produce every month. You want production to continue so you can take a cut.

Assuming there's no automation or your own people can't take up the jobs of the people you just killed. The Spanish colonists had no problem with the loss of the people they invaded. In fact, trying to interact with the native population would probably be more costly as they have to learn the language or try to share resources.

[Conserative Morality]

Well inflation doesn't happen in the absense of currency, which amarchism doesn't use. The cycles of recession and rapid growth (boom and bust) are an artifact of the investment market. The whole reason industries grow above what's sustainable in the first place is that they're motivated by the reward system, rather than the actual success or failure of the endeavor. In anarchism, the only reason you work is because you want the thing done.

I've played enough economic wargames with friends to know how this shit works.

500 wood for 500 stone is just fine and dandy in the early game, but in the late game when trees become more scarce? Shit, we're talking 2500 stone for 500 wood.

[Geilinor]

You'd probably die from a disease or some loony criminal who's out raping and killing people because there's no laws or anything to stop them I'd suppose

I like my "evil statist society"

Obviously it is the laws that prevent murder and disease. That's why in nations like the United States, there are no murders or sick people.

There's an organized way to deal with murderers, at least.