Life of a Commoner in an anarchist society

[The New Sea Territory]

Rome was a republic in every way except when it actually came to being a Republic.

Those were the latter years, and it did by definition function as a republic up until Caeser

Yes, where the argument "oh, right, on small scale? It wouldn't work on large scale" was made by conservative monarchists to Enlightened liberals, which is similarly made now by statists to anarchists.

[New Unsociety]

Soviet Army in WW2 was during the Stalinist era.

He's just stating that he's thankful for them stopping Hitler's nazi regime since they were the reason the war in Europe against the Nazis was a victory.

He claimed that anyone attempting to stop dictators is using coercion and so is a dictator himself.
I used the Allies in WW2 as a counterexample. The Soviets happened to support another dictatorship. The rest of the Allies did not. He just focused on the soviets as a distraction.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Basically, the same was as now. Reacting to violence with violence is completely acceptable, arbitration can be handled via third party arbitration companies or courts of some sort. Living standards would be a bit more difficult, admittedly, but manageable through the federation, which is the union of all the various collectives, communes and communities in a region.

Really, the only difference is that the initiation of force is no longer acceptable.

Private arbitration companies? As in, for-profit companies?

Doesn't that seem like a bad idea?

[Democratic Koyro]

Soviet Army in WW2 was during the Stalinist era.

He's just stating that he's thankful for them stopping Hitler's nazi regime since they were the reason the war in Europe against the Nazis was a victory.

He claimed that anyone attempting to stop dictators is using coercion and so is a dictator himself.
I used the Allies in WW2 as a counterexample. The Soviets happened to support another dictatorship. The rest of the Allies did not. He just focused on the soviets as a distraction.

I focus on the Soviets because they won the war in Europe. The War was lost for Germany in 1941. Of course this is a different debate, and there is no meaningful or serious debate in this thread.

[Ripoll]

States are created to maximize efficiency and create publicly funded institutions used to enable to the private sector's sucess and establish currency and stability. Lack of centralization leads to economic problems all of sorts, there needs to be a central authority with reasonable checks and balances to prevent corruption, while at the same time allowing people to govern by rolling up their sleeves and getting things done.

There have to be safety nets, established central banks, a strong military, a reasonable local police force, infrastructure, public works, etc.

Anarchists can't do this due to decentralization which has time and time again proven to be an awful economic system.

The economic importance of a state is nonnegotiable

[The New Sea Territory]

Basically, the same was as now. Reacting to violence with violence is completely acceptable, arbitration can be handled via third party arbitration companies or courts of some sort. Living standards would be a bit more difficult, admittedly, but manageable through the federation, which is the union of all the various collectives, communes and communities in a region.

Really, the only difference is that the initiation of force is no longer acceptable.

Private arbitration companies? As in, for-profit companies?

Doesn't that seem like a bad idea?

That's not the only theory, simply the capitalist theory. Courts could be handled in a decentralized, communal way.

[New Unsociety]

He claimed that anyone attempting to stop dictators is using coercion and so is a dictator himself.
I used the Allies in WW2 as a counterexample. The Soviets happened to support another dictatorship. The rest of the Allies did not. He just focused on the soviets as a distraction.

I focus on the Soviets because they won the war in Europe. The War was lost for Germany in 1941. Of course this is a different debate, and there is no meaningful or serious debate in this thread.

If the Allies did not give that extra push, USSR would bog down long enough for the nazis to develop a nuke. After that...BOOOM.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Basically, the same was as now. Reacting to violence with violence is completely acceptable, arbitration can be handled via third party arbitration companies or courts of some sort. Living standards would be a bit more difficult, admittedly, but manageable through the federation, which is the union of all the various collectives, communes and communities in a region.

Really, the only difference is that the initiation of force is no longer acceptable.

Private arbitration companies? As in, for-profit companies?

Doesn't that seem like a bad idea?

It seems like a bad idea.

[The New Sea Territory]

Private arbitration companies? As in, for-profit companies?

Doesn't that seem like a bad idea?

It seems like a bad idea.

.............or you could read my most recent post and see that refers to one specific theory of anarchism.

[Democratic Koyro]

Private arbitration companies? As in, for-profit companies?

Doesn't that seem like a bad idea?

It seems like a bad idea.

it is a bad idea.

[Ripoll]

Those were the latter years, and it did by definition function as a republic up until Caeser

Yes, where the argument "oh, right, on small scale? It wouldn't work on large scale" was made by conservative monarchists to Enlightened liberals, which is similarly made now by statists to anarchists.

The roman republic was very large, even up to when it was considered an empire, it was still effectively a republic for a period of time. In turns out having emperors in charge of your military is an awful idea, but actually Romes fall was because Caesar had the republic jailed him for several crimes and re-think this whole Rome thing, get their finances in order, cut some land loose, etc. Maybe Rome would live on just a bit longer.

And again, it isn't statists vs anarchists, I simply detest how black and white you idealistic extremists paint the world. It's complicated ok?

[The Nuclear Fist]

Private arbitration companies? As in, for-profit companies?

Doesn't that seem like a bad idea?

That's not the only theory, simply the capitalist theory. Courts could be handled in a decentralized, communal way.

Could you give me an example? I'm not really able to picture what a decentralized, communal court would be.

[Ripoll]

That's not the only theory, simply the capitalist theory. Courts could be handled in a decentralized, communal way.

Could you give me an example? I'm not really able to picture what a decentralized, communal court would be.

It will never exist so why bother?

[Democratic Koyro]

That's not the only theory, simply the capitalist theory. Courts could be handled in a decentralized, communal way.

Could you give me an example? I'm not really able to picture what a decentralized, communal court would be.

A Maoist struggle session.

[Ripoll]

anarcho-capitalism is perhaps the only somewhat realistically attainable form of anarchism, and I think we can all agree how shitty it would be to live in an ancap society.

[Sociobiology]

Private arbitration companies? As in, for-profit companies?

Doesn't that seem like a bad idea?

It seems like a bad idea.

it is a bad idea, two of these companies will invariably come into conflict, and will have no way to solve the problem without violence. which is why heretical court monopolies are the only stable form of courts known. you need a final arbiter.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Could you give me an example? I'm not really able to picture what a decentralized, communal court would be.

It will never exist so why bother?

Because I'm not an anti-intellectual troglodyte, so when people come long and theorize and talk about political ideologies and societal organization schemes completely alien to my own and what I am used to, I like to listen and learn as a way to expand my horizons. You know, learning.

Super simple stuff.

[Sociobiology]

anarcho-capitalism is perhaps the only somewhat realistically attainable form of anarchism, and I think we can all agree how shitty it would be to live in an ancap society.

anarcho-primitivism is completely acheivable, it is just not desirable in the slightest

[Ripoll]

It will never exist so why bother?

Because I'm not an anti-intellectual troglodyte, so when people come long and theorize and talk about political ideologies and societal organization schemes completely alien to my own and what I am used to, I like to listen and learn as a way to expand my horizons. You know, learning.

Super simple stuff.

That was more of a statement than a question, I admire the response nonetheless

[Benuty]

Anarchy is hell

Define hell?

[MERIZoC]

Anarchy is hell

Define hell?

Wegmans on a Friday night.

[The New Sea Territory]

States are created to maximize efficiency

Via the initiation of force.

and create publicly funded institutions

Funded by theft.

used to enable to the private sector's sucess

Corporatocracy in practice. Socialism for the Rich, basically.

and establish currency

We could have cryptocurrencies, private competitive currencies or just not have one at all.

and stability.

Until riot police crack down on peaceful protesters, or a war starts.

Lack of centralization leads to economic problems all of sorts,

Assuming anarchist socialism and how it functions is similar in anyway to statist capitalism.

there needs to be a central authority with reasonable checks and balances

So, we give all the guns and power to a select group of people and tell them to police their own actions? It's so evident that works, because Eric Garner got justice....oh wait, he didn't!

to prevent corruption,

Corruption exists in any system, including anarchism. However, the more authoritarian and centralized a system is, the more effect corruption has.

while at the same time allowing people to govern by rolling up their sleeves and getting things done.

"Getting things done" does not require the initiation of force.

There have to be safety nets, established central banks, a strong military, a reasonable local police force, infrastructure, public works, etc.

Not even all statists agree with you.

Anarchists can't do this due to decentralization which has time and time again proven to be an awful economic system.

[insert source here]

The economic importance of a state is nonnegotiable

(If evidence existed, this is where it would go)

[Ripoll]

When all your ideas and theories are based off of a Utopian world outlook it's hard to ever actually implement them.

[New Unsociety]

anarcho-capitalism is perhaps the only somewhat realistically attainable form of anarchism, and I think we can all agree how shitty it would be to live in an ancap society.

anarcho-primitivism is completely acheivable, it is just not desirable in the slightest

No it's not.
Primitivism precludes anarchism, as without modern tech there will be such a scarcity of resources that people will be bound to be forced to fight between each other to survive, with the strongest dominating.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It seems like a bad idea.

.............or you could read my most recent post and see that refers to one specific theory of anarchism.

The rest are bad ideas too.