Life of a Commoner in an anarchist society

[The Orson Empire]

It seems like an anarchist society would simply be controlled by whoever had the most power. Gangs of armed thugs, probably, taking what they wish from the people.

That's not an anarchist society.

That's the state.

This is why a truly anarchist society is impossible. Somebody is always going to take power, even if it is just a biker gang.

[The Nuclear Fist]

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.

[Benuty]

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

The republic died long before Ceaser. The man was assassinated by disillusioned traditionalists who were living in the past.

[MERIZoC]

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.

Primitivism (lifestyle, not ideology) didn't preclude anarchism, it was anarchism.

[MERIZoC]

That's not an anarchist society.

That's the state.

This is why a truly anarchist society is impossible. Somebody is always going to take power, even if it is just a biker gang.

Just like what happened with the Zapatistas. Oh wait.

[The Orson Empire]

This is why a truly anarchist society is impossible. Somebody is always going to take power, even if it is just a biker gang.

Just like what happened with the Zapatistas. Oh wait.

The what?

[MERIZoC]

Just like what happened with the Zapatistas. Oh wait.

The what?

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

[Benuty]

Just like what happened with the Zapatistas. Oh wait.

The what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_ ... Liberation

[Benuty]

The what?

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

Damn Ninja.

[The Orson Empire]

The what?

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

This isn't an anarchist society. They are a rebel group that is trying to overthrow the Mexican government.

[The New Sea Territory]

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.

Basically, a specific community, say a small neighborhood, elects in their general assembly to have Bob and Jill take care of arbitration. There's no system or link of courts across the region, just one for every community. They rule on different cases based on the idea that the aggressor is wrong, as the initiation of force is the only crime (of course, it can take many forms).

You might say "that's just like statism, not really anarchy". To which I reply, anarchism never claimed to want no law and absolute chaos.

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

The rest are bad ideas too.

Could you list the ideas and why they are wrong.

That's not an anarchist society.

That's the state.

This is why a truly anarchist society is impossible. Somebody is always going to take power, even if it is just a biker gang.

You act as if anarchism is nothing more than pacifism, waiting to be taken over by Mad Max and the Lone Wanderer from Fallout, when that's not even close to the case. Anarchism has government. Direct democracy.

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.

Yes, despite the fact that other societies that practiced anarchism have existed.

[The New Sea Territory]

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

This isn't an anarchist society. They are a rebel group that is trying to overthrow the Mexican government.

...with territory they control that is anarchistic....

[The Empire of Pretantia]

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)

* Initiation of force.
So enforcing the law against violent individuals?
*Tax is theft
It's basic government, man. A state requires a financial base to survive.
* States are bad.
Bad states are bad. An anarchist state is a bad state.
* Muh decentralization
Doesn't work.

[Sociobiology]

This isn't an anarchist society. They are a rebel group that is trying to overthrow the Mexican government.

...with territory they control that is anarchistic....

except it is structured as a state.

[New Unsociety]

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.

Primitivism (lifestyle, not ideology) didn't preclude anarchism, it was anarchism.

Well, perhaps if we go back to a population of 1 million...but how?
I wouldn't want to die in my 30s anyway.
Why is all tech bad?

[The New Sea Territory]

...with territory they control that is anarchistic....

except it is structures as a state.

According to your definition of a state that means any government at all ever period including anarchism.

[The New Sea Territory]

Primitivism (lifestyle, not ideology) didn't preclude anarchism, it was anarchism.

Well, perhaps if we go back to a population of 1 million...but how?
I wouldn't want to die in my 30s anyway.
Why is all tech bad?

It's a lifestyle choice, like pacifism for me.

[Ripoll]

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)

Hahhaa, well first of all taxes aren't theft but you can go circle jerk that opinion out with the Ron Paul supporters in the US, second of all providing the base of success for the private sector goes to the entire population, allowing them the means to create their own businesses and having public institutions in which they can go to so they can learn how to do so and enroll in classes so they can learn how to do so more effectively.

Competing currencies are generally awful when used within a nation, the whole point of credit and money is trust, and without a uniform currency within a state their is no trust. None of this libertarian crap any hoot, states create currencies, without a state there is no currency. There is a difference between money and currency btw. Except we enforce that trust with assets that can be seized, and well yes, force. It works, and it benefits us all.

As for riot police emotional argument, doesn't happen too much in New England I can tell ya that.

Except the US has a system of checks and balanced, composed up of congress, the executive branch, and the supreme court and it's worked out pretty damn well the past 200 years I can tell ya that much.

Hmm. decentralization not working, sounds just like the articles of confederation and post revolutionary America in general tbh, you've taken a history class before I presume, no need to glorify Alexander Hamilton more than he already is you can look up the post revolutionary economy on your own.

[New Unsociety]

Well, perhaps if we go back to a population of 1 million...but how?
I wouldn't want to die in my 30s anyway.
Why is all tech bad?

It's a lifestyle choice, like pacifism for me.

Well, primitivism as an ideology talks about destroying technology as a whole.
No-body stops anyone in an anarcho-communist society for example from going and living in a cave.

[Ripoll]

O, and I'm not a statist, but I'm sure you only view the world in two lights, anarchists and statists

no middle ground!

[The New Sea Territory]

So enforcing the law against violent individuals?

That would not be the initiation of force, but reaction to initiated force by the violent criminal.

*Tax is theft
It's basic government, man. A state requires a financial base to survive.

So, it needs to make it's money by coercing individuals.

* States are bad.
Bad states are bad. An anarchist state is a bad state.

Coercion is bad....and an anarchist "state" is an oxymoron.

* Muh decentralization
Doesn't work.

(Source)

[New Unsociety]

O, and I'm not a statist, but I'm sure you only view the world in two lights, anarchists and statists

no middle ground!

No, of course a republic is MUCH better than Best Korea.

[The New Sea Territory]

O, and I'm not a statist, but I'm sure you only view the world in two lights, anarchists and statists

no middle ground!

On this specific issue, yes. You either support the abolition of the state or you don't..........so........

[New Unsociety]

O, and I'm not a statist, but I'm sure you only view the world in two lights, anarchists and statists

no middle ground!

On this specific issue, yes. You either support the abolition of the state or you don't..........so........

Though i personally believe in more of an evolutionary revolutionary process, with the people making the situation more libertarian and socialist as they go, which will also give them the chance to slowly adapt to the new circumstances that they create.

This means that there are bound to be different "levels" of freedom.

[Ripoll]

O, and I'm not a statist, but I'm sure you only view the world in two lights, anarchists and statists

no middle ground!

On this specific issue, yes. You either support the abolition of the state or you don't..........so........

When you say statist it usually refers to a state controlled or operated economy, totalitarianism, or fascism all of which I directly oppose.