I can haz Anarchies?

[Destroit]

The idea of "Anarchy" is fantastic. Although it is impossible, and for anyone to believe otherwise is really just naive/pathetic.

Yes, I throw anarchy, socialism, world peace and communism into the same "what-if" pile of things that will never be able to work so long as there are two or more individuals living together. The only true way to achieve anarchy as an individual would be to go it alone for the rest of your life. Human beings are hardwired psychologically to crave power, and although some people can control this drive more than others, it will always be there and it will always be worse in some rather than others. That's why anarchy would never work, a leader would arise and people would follow that leader...we are pack animals, that is what we do. The leader would then start to put down rules, codes, laws for the people following them and eventually the people would be controlled under a code once more.

So it's a nice idea, but never EVER will it be able to be implemented into ANY society without that society reverting back to laws and codes over time. Can't happen, our psychology will not allow for it due to our need for structure and our inherent biological pack-mentality instincts. There will always also be greedy people who are running along the same lines as the power-strive, you cannot have a society in which the desire for greed and power is completely eliminated.

I don't even believe it could work on a small-scale, even in African tribal villages there are strict codes for what people in the village can do and cannot do...imposed by their OWN people! Any deviation of these rules means death in many cases, trust me I'd rather be living in the US where you get 5-10 for stealing something rather than getting your hand lopped off. But even small tribes do not live in an anarchist state anywhere in the world, in my opinion. Many times they oppress the weaker also (rules for women/children but not as strict of rules for men). Why is this? Because power will begin to seep into the minds of those who crave it (often times males) and will firstly be applied to those who tend to be physically/mentally/emotionally more submissive (women/children). Then those laws will be begin to be applied to males that are more submissive and so-on-and-so-forth. Then manipulation sets in, a new government forms, is backed up by all the brawny people in the village, etc. Boom...form of government, leave any civilization alone long enough and it will happen. And not all of us fall into this, and not all of us don't, but many do. If you are enlightened enough to realize this is wrong, then that is wonderful, but now you have to instill this in EVERY single person in that community, born AND unborn, before it can work and it will NEVER happen.

Maybe in a world where we are all cats?

Yes, I throw anarchy, socialism, world peace and communism into the same "what-if" pile of things that will never be able to work so long as there are two or more individuals living together. The only true way to achieve anarchy as an individual would be to go it alone for the rest of your life. Human beings are hardwired psychologically to crave power, and although some people can control this drive more than others, it will always be there and it will always be worse in some rather than others. That's why anarchy would never work, a leader would arise and people would follow that leader...we are pack animals, that is what we do. The leader would then start to put down rules, codes, laws for the people following them and eventually the people would be controlled under a code once more.

So it's a nice idea, but never EVER will it be able to be implemented into ANY society without that society reverting back to laws and codes over time. Can't happen, our psychology will not allow for it due to our need for structure and our inherent biological pack-mentality instincts. There will always also be greedy people who are running along the same lines as the power-strive, you cannot have a society in which the desire for greed and power is completely eliminated.

I don't even believe it could work on a small-scale, even in African tribal villages there are strict codes for what people in the village can do and cannot do...imposed by their OWN people! Any deviation of these rules means death in many cases, trust me I'd rather be living in the US where you get 5-10 for stealing something rather than getting your hand lopped off. But even small tribes do not live in an anarchist state anywhere in the world, in my opinion. Many times they oppress the weaker also (rules for women/children but not as strict of rules for men). Why is this? Because power will begin to seep into the minds of those who crave it (often times males) and will firstly be applied to those who tend to be physically/mentally/emotionally more submissive (women/children). Then those laws will be begin to be applied to males that are more submissive and so-on-and-so-forth. Then manipulation sets in, a new government forms, is backed up by all the brawny people in the village, etc. Boom...form of government, leave any civilization alone long enough and it will happen. And not all of us fall into this, and not all of us don't, but many do. If you are enlightened enough to realize this is wrong, then that is wonderful, but now you have to instill this in EVERY single person in that community, born AND unborn, before it can work and it will NEVER happen.

Maybe in a world where we are all cats?

Edited September 7, 2010 by Chernobyl

[Destroit]

Really, that's close. Maybe not without Rules...but certainly without laws. I mean there is still common sense involved. You can't just rape and pillage, it wouldn't be tolerated.

A rule is a law, now I'm confused.

A rule is a law, now I'm confused.

[LoTek]

a lot of great points, and i don't have time to respond to them all at the moment, but i will.

i feel that the apathy and negativity is winning out here. everyone is pointing out how every other system of government is pathetic, or 'can never work', but is Capitalism and Democracy working? Certianly not. the truth is, anarchy IS working. Millions of people conduct themselves every day according the their anarchist beliefs. i feel everyone is latching onto it as a replacement for government, instead of it being the basis for the way one conducts himself in this world.

Capitalism and Democracy are broken, way broken, and can never be fixed. Do you feel your vote actually matters? Do you feel elections are not bought and sold? Do you feel that giant Mega-Corporations are not influencing every law on the book? Do you honestly believe, that as a law abiding, tax paying, good little slave, that you are making a difference? That your opinion counts? That this is still a country by the people for the people? That as a country, we are not a dominating empire?

which system is really failing here?

[phee]

Does anarchy qualify as an actual "system"?

[LoTek]

Ok, time to break it down.

I'll start with Phee, because that sets up everything else.

Does anarchy qualify as an actual "system"?

NO. Anarchy is more of a philosophy than a system. It is a belief. 'Systems' are what got us in this mess in the first place. It is the absence of system. This isn't a utopian vision, or a program or ideal to serve; it's simply a way of proceeding, of approaching relationships, of dealing with problems now - surely we'll never be entirely through dealing with problems! being an anarchist doesn't mean believing that anarchy can fix everything - it just means acknowledging it's up to US to work things out, that no one and nothing else can do this for us: admitting that, like it or not, our lives are in our own hands - and in each others.

So it's pretty basic and simple, no authority over you or anyone else. This would be rather not a beautiful situation, but a brutal, ugly situation full of dispair. Lack of authority would unleash the monsters in most people. Riots, rapes, looting, killing. Have you ever seen a civilization without rule? It gets pretty damn savage. Some, if not most, would only be in it for themselves. Also, It wouldn't be long at all before immediate muscle makes its appearance with a hostile takeover. The only way to be truely free as you put it, Lotek, would to be a total hermit. For as long as you are with one or more persons, you all will eventually develop a ring leader to lead the crowd, rules will get put in place, and like every other society, will eventually if not already, grow corrupt and crumble. We cannot have an infallible system for we aren't even perfect. The idea and theory of anarchy fits right in there with communism in the principal that it works in idea only, not so well in reality.

People with only a very passing aquaintance with History often say anarchy can never work - without realizing that not only HAS it worked for much of the history of the human race, but it is in fact working right now. for the time being, let's set aside the Paris Commune, Republican Spain, Woodstock, open-source computer programming and all the other famed instances of successful anarchism. anarchy is simply cooperative self-determination - it is a part of everyday life, not something that will only happen 'after the revolution'. anarchy works today for circles of friends everywhere - anarchy is in action when people cooperate on a camping trip or to arrange free meals for hungry people. to say that people will degrade into killing machines is to say that you no longer have any faith in your common man. you are selling humanity short.

Disorder in it's most developed form, is captialism - the war of each against all, rule or be ruled, sell or be sold. We already live in a particularly violent and hierarchial time. people are killing, rioting, raping, looting and killing RIGHT NOW, in america. all because of hierarchy - not human nature. the maniacs who think they benefit from this hierarchy tell us that the violence would be worse without it, not comprehending that hierarchy itself, is the consequence and expression of violence. that is not to say that a 'revolution', for lack of a better term, would immediately end the waves of violence, but until we are all free to learn how to get along with each other for our OWN sake, rather than under the guns directed at us by the ones who benefit from our strife, there can be no peace between us.

Yes, I throw anarchy, socialism, world peace and communism into the same "what-if" pile of things that will never be able to work so long as there are two or more individuals living together. The only true way to achieve anarchy as an individual would be to go it alone for the rest of your life. Human beings are hardwired psychologically to crave power, and although some people can control this drive more than others, it will always be there and it will always be worse in some rather than others. That's why anarchy would never work, a leader would arise and people would follow that leader...we are pack animals, that is what we do. The leader would then start to put down rules, codes, laws for the people following them and eventually the people would be controlled under a code once more.

So it's a nice idea, but never EVER will it be able to be implemented into ANY society without that society reverting back to laws and codes over time. Can't happen, our psychology will not allow for it due to our need for structure and our inherent biological pack-mentality instincts. There will always also be greedy people who are running along the same lines as the power-strive, you cannot have a society in which the desire for greed and power is completely eliminated.

I don't even believe it could work on a small-scale, even in African tribal villages there are strict codes for what people in the village can do and cannot do...imposed by their OWN people! Any deviation of these rules means death in many cases, trust me I'd rather be living in the US where you get 5-10 for stealing something rather than getting your hand lopped off. But even small tribes do not live in an anarchist state anywhere in the world, in my opinion. Many times they oppress the weaker also (rules for women/children but not as strict of rules for men). Why is this? Because power will begin to seep into the minds of those who crave it (often times males) and will firstly be applied to those who tend to be physically/mentally/emotionally more submissive (women/children). Then those laws will be begin to be applied to males that are more submissive and so-on-and-so-forth. Then manipulation sets in, a new government forms, is backed up by all the brawny people in the village, etc. Boom...form of government, leave any civilization alone long enough and it will happen. And not all of us fall into this, and not all of us don't, but many do. If you are enlightened enough to realize this is wrong, then that is wonderful, but now you have to instill this in EVERY single person in that community, born AND unborn, before it can work and it will NEVER happen.

Maybe in a world where we are all cats?

See above.

A rule is a law, now I'm confused.

Good call, poor wording on my part. anarchists use democracy - but we don't let democracy use us. for us, the first and last matter is ALWAYS the needs and feelings of the individuals involved - any system to address them is temporary and unstable at best. we don't try to force ourselves into the confines of any established procedures - we apply procedures to the extent that they serve human needs, and discard them past that point. seriously, what should come first - our systems, or US?

We cooperate or coexist with others, whenever its possible, but we don't prize consensus, let alone Rule Of Law, above our own values and dreams - when we can't come to an agreement, we go our own ways, rather than limiting each other. In extreme cases, when others refuse to ackowledge our needs or persist in doing uncoscionable, harmful things, we intercede by whatever means are necessary - NOT on behalf of justice or revenge, but simple to represent our own interests.

The man who insists that justice can only be maintained by the rule of law is the same one who sits on the witness stand at the war crime tribunal swearing he was only following orders.

There is no justice - it's just us.

[candyman]

The "successful" Anarchism that you mentioned is really no way to gauge anything. First of all most of these instances didn't last nearly long enough to say that they worked. Second, when they did work for a while there were still just as many trouble spots as in other societies. And third, anyone can say a system works by pointing to isolated events or a few elements of the society...but that isn't everything and how can you say that it would work when, well, you just don't have a damn clue if it would really work or not?

No crap "anarchy" or whatever everyone can't agree on will work in some elements of certain societies. Everything we have here today is a mixture of shit we dealt with in the past. No government is truly what people say it is...and neither are all the economic systems and basically everything that goes on is a damn mix like I said before.

If you want to call anarchy great go ahead. However, most of the people that chanted it before are either cheering for a certain party in the government or are still in the tight pants, studded leather jacket, and spiked up hair wondering what the fuck you are doing...

[LoTek]

The "successful" Anarchism that you mentioned is really no way to gauge anything. First of all most of these instances didn't last nearly long enough to say that they worked. Second, when they did work for a while there were still just as many trouble spots as in other societies. And third, anyone can say a system works by pointing to isolated events or a few elements of the society...but that isn't everything and how can you say that it would work when, well, you just don't have a damn clue if it would really work or not?

what, you mean the entire span of human history up until about 5,000 years ago? So basically we lived more or less 'free' (free for the sake of argument refering to lack of organized governemnt)for 2.4 million years, and with the advent of modern society, and more recently (a little over 5,000 years) developed 'government', of which our system has been employed for the last 200 years. 200 years of 'progress' proves that what we had for 2million years is 'impossible'.

it seems impossible because that is all you know, and all you have ever known. but that is a rather narrow and limited viewpoint isn't it?

If you want to call anarchy great go ahead. However, most of the people that chanted it before are either cheering for a certain party in the government or are still in the tight pants, studded leather jacket, and spiked up hair wondering what the fuck you are doing...

i don't understand your point or your argument here. so simply because other people latched onto a misconcieved idea of what anarchy is (chaos and the sex pistols?) than i am to give up what i believe in because it didn't work for them?

on the converse, i know plenty of former republicans that are now anarchists...and i'm sure they wonder what the fuck YOU are doing.

if you would like to change my mind on the subject, then please engage me, instead of just pointing fingers and saying 'this will never work'. what we have now is not working, so that point seems to miss the mark.

i feel as if you are all on a quickly sinking ship, pointing at my life raft and telling me i will never cross the ocean in it.

[LoTek]

Ok, maybe it's time to lighten the mood.

[peelingchrome]

Seems I'm a bit late to the party... here I go anyways! (and at god-awful-o'clock, too)

I'm having a bit of trouble organizing my thoughts, so I'll start with some definitions:

- Ideal Anarchy = absolutely no government, laws, etc.; just a bunch of temporary agreements between more than one group of one or more people

- Ideal Democracy = direct vote, everyone has an equal say in how things are run; 50.1% of the population telling the other 49.9% what is right and what is wrong

- Ideal Capitalism = privately owned and directed companies that keep their own profits and do what they wish with those profits

First off, I'd like to say that I don't think any of these ideas will ever work. You're always going to have that a**hole that effs things up for the rest. It's just human nature to have a wide variety of viewpoints, and some of those viewpoints don't play well with others.

With all of that out of the way, I don't think that capitalism and anarchy are mutually exclusive. I would like to add that both of these must be in functional forms, not the idealized forms I listed above. As far as I can tell, we have laws/rules/etc. to keep those a**holes from effing things up too much. I think it's possible to have a functional system that incorporates varying degrees of all three of the ideals I listed. In fact, I think that's the -only- way to get things to work. I, too, would be as happy as a lark if things were to "regress" to an ideally anarchic situation, but I know that most people couldn't function in such a society.

My functionally ideal system would be contrary to LoTek's idea: a deeply hierarchical system. One in which issues are handled on the lowest possible level of organization. For example: a neighborhood wants curbs put in along their streets so they organize it, pay for it, and contract it out or do the work themselves. If however, the road goes through more than one neighborhood or even more than one county, then -those- people get together and solve that issue. And so on. I've discussed this idea with a handful of close friends, and the only objection from them seems to be that there would be too little uniformity of rules/regulations/laws/whatever and traveling between neighborhoods/towns/counties/districts/states could be a lot of hassle. Also, a system like this would fail utterly if the community wasn't active in its own organization, which is one reason I feel things are as bad as they are now. Who out there can honestly tell me they are able to pay attention to all of the governmental activity of every level of government that affects them and still have a productive life?

On a similar topic, but a bit of a different tangent, I'd like to propose a simple thought experiment. Lets say there's no gun laws and everyone was a basically good person (far-fetched, I know). How polite would everyone be if they knew they might have to back up their words with their life?

It all comes back to the same point: if everyone is basically a good person and not out to take advantage of anyone else (excluding mutually beneficial agreements like those often found in ideal capitalist concepts) then any form of organization would work pretty well in its ideal state. Socialism, communism, anarchy, democracy... these are all great if there aren't any a**holes to eff things up. I personally prefer less government to more. Perhaps it's time for the country to fracture a bit into different districts or some such so that people who prefer more government can live in the areas that provide that, while those that prefer less government can live in areas that cater to that preference. And maybe, just maybe, we can have an extremely limited federal government that basically just maintains a military and interfaces with the rest of the world. I'm pretty sure things would end up back where we are now if that happened because those a**holes are still going to be out there effing things up for the rest of us, but it would be nice if we were given the chance.

I think there's a good chance that this post will read like idealism tempered with realism (whether or not you agree with my ideal is your business) and may even seem a bit pessimistic with regard to my faith in humanity. Let me be clear: I have absolute faith in humanity to be human. That means that most people are pretty ok most of the time, but (whether situational or a personality trait) there's going to be -that person- effing things up for the rest of us. I wish there was a way out of that, but until we find that way out, we'll have to have laws/rules/regulations to keep those bad apples in line.

There's my piece of mind on the subject for now.

P.S. For all of you anarchy idealists out there, I have some suggested reading. I still haven't decided if I think it's a bunch of crazy or not, but it's an interesting read and it kinda fits in theme with some of the ideas thrown around in this thread.

-edit because it's super late and I forgot an "is" somewhere in there

Edited September 13, 2010 by peelingchrome

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Two things to say...

1. "cooperative self-determination" Can you explain to me how thats Anarchy and not Government?

2. You should never use the Amish as an example of anything if you don't actually know anything about them. The Amish have a system of government within thier community (it very much resembles Communism with a bit of Patriarchy mixed in) and fully recognize all external authority.

[Destroit]

Seems I'm a bit late to the party... here I go anyways! (and at god-awful-o'clock, too)

I'm having a bit of trouble organizing my thoughts, so I'll start with some definitions:

- Ideal Anarchy = absolutely no government, laws, etc.; just a bunch of temporary agreements between more than one group of one or more people

- Ideal Democracy = direct vote, everyone has an equal say in how things are run; 50.1% of the population telling the other 49.9% what is right and what is wrong

- Ideal Capitalism = privately owned and directed companies that keep their own profits and do what they wish with those profits

First off, I'd like to say that I don't think any of these ideas will ever work. You're always going to have that a**hole that effs things up for the rest. It's just human nature to have a wide variety of viewpoints, and some of those viewpoints don't play well with others.

With all of that out of the way, I don't think that capitalism and anarchy are mutually exclusive. I would like to add that both of these must be in functional forms, not the idealized forms I listed above. As far as I can tell, we have laws/rules/etc. to keep those a**holes from effing things up too much. I think it's possible to have a functional system that incorporates varying degrees of all three of the ideals I listed. In fact, I think that's the -only- way to get things to work. I, too, would be as happy as a lark if things were to "regress" to an ideally anarchic situation, but I know that most people couldn't function in such a society.

My functionally ideal system would be contrary to LoTek's idea: a deeply hierarchical system. One in which issues are handled on the lowest possible level of organization. For example: a neighborhood wants curbs put in along their streets so they organize it, pay for it, and contract it out or do the work themselves. If however, the road goes through more than one neighborhood or even more than one county, then -those- people get together and solve that issue. And so on. I've discussed this idea with a handful of close friends, and the only objection from them seems to be that there would be too little uniformity of rules/regulations/laws/whatever and traveling between neighborhoods/towns/counties/districts/states could be a lot of hassle. Also, a system like this would fail utterly if the community wasn't active in its own organization, which is one reason I feel things are as bad as they are now. Who out there can honestly tell me they are able to pay attention to all of the governmental activity of every level of government that affects them and still have a productive life?

On a similar topic, but a bit of a different tangent, I'd like to propose a simple thought experiment. Lets say there's no gun laws and everyone was a basically good person (far-fetched, I know). How polite would everyone be if they knew they might have to back up their words with their life?

It all comes back to the same point: if everyone is basically a good person and not out to take advantage of anyone else (excluding mutually beneficial agreements like those often found in ideal capitalist concepts) then any form of organization would work pretty well in its ideal state. Socialism, communism, anarchy, democracy... these are all great if there aren't any a**holes to eff things up. I personally prefer less government to more. Perhaps it's time for the country to fracture a bit into different districts or some such so that people who prefer more government can live in the areas that provide that, while those that prefer less government can live in areas that cater to that preference. And maybe, just maybe, we can have an extremely limited federal government that basically just maintains a military and interfaces with the rest of the world. I'm pretty sure things would end up back where we are now if that happened because those a**holes are still going to be out there effing things up for the rest of us, but it would be nice if we were given the chance.

I think there's a good chance that this post will read like idealism tempered with realism (whether or not you agree with my ideal is your business) and may even seem a bit pessimistic with regard to my faith in humanity. Let me be clear: I have absolute faith in humanity to be human. That means that most people are pretty ok most of the time, but (whether situational or a personality trait) there's going to be -that person- effing things up for the rest of us. I wish there was a way out of that, but until we find that way out, we'll have to have laws/rules/regulations to keep those bad apples in line.

There's my piece of mind on the subject for now.

P.S. For all of you anarchy idealists out there, I have some suggested reading. I still haven't decided if I think it's a bunch of crazy or not, but it's an interesting read and it kinda fits in theme with some of the ideas thrown around in this thread.

-edit because it's super late and I forgot an "is" somewhere in there

Perfect, imo (Or as close as we can ever really get to it in this reality)

Perfect, imo (Or as close as we can ever really get to it in this reality)

[peelingchrome]

Two things to say...

1. "cooperative self-determination" Can you explain to me how thats Anarchy and not Government?

A quick guess on my part, or maybe it's just my take on it... In the idea put forth there's no government -mandating- what is done or rules are followed, just a bunch of people working those things out for themselves on a case-by-case basis. Technically, without the ruling body that would be anarchy... I think if an argument is started from this, it'll be based on differing definitions or ideal versions vs. functional versions.

Perfect, imo (Or as close as we can ever really get to it in this reality)

Thank you! I'm pretty confident that in a "fractured" state like I described at the end of my post, more people would get their needs met and more people would be able to keep tabs on what little government was left, making everything more functional. Most of my thoughts on this subject turn to what it would take as a country to get to that point, and I'm pretty hesitant to discuss those ideas online now that I understand how our massive surveillance/overwatch system really works. Suffice to say, at the very least, it would take a MASSIVE perspective shift; it's the getting there that gives me pause to discuss it online. Anyone want to meet for coffee/beers to get really deep? If so, then bring your thick skin because it seems that not everyone has the same definitions or connotations regarding most of these concepts, and emotions tend to run pretty high in those situations. Anyone can PM me if they think they can handle an adult conversation like that. I think it would be awesome to sit down with a bunch of people and really give this subject a good reexamination.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

A quick guess on my part, or maybe it's just my take on it... In the idea put forth there's no government -mandating- what is done or rules are followed, just a bunch of people working those things out for themselves on a case-by-case basis. Technically, without the ruling body that would be anarchy... I think if an argument is started from this, it'll be based on differing definitions or ideal versions vs. functional versions.

I soppose... but really to me.. "cooperative self-determination" is new speak for Government and as it is one of the terms used to describe Marxism... I'm pretty sure it's just another form of government.

[phee]

I soppose... but really to me.. "cooperative self-determination" is new speak for Government and as it is one of the terms used to describe Marxism... I'm pretty sure it's just another form of government.

I have to agree with Gaf here....

[LoTek]

First off, great post PeelingChrome. It's refreshing to have a counter to the discussion, as opposed to blind negativity. You offered alternative solutions, as opposed to hostility and stubborness, and for this i commend you.

My functionally ideal system would be contrary to LoTek's idea: a deeply hierarchical system. One in which issues are handled on the lowest possible level of organization. For example: a neighborhood wants curbs put in along their streets so they organize it, pay for it, and contract it out or do the work themselves. If however, the road goes through more than one neighborhood or even more than one county, then -those- people get together and solve that issue.

i don't really see that as being 'contrary' to what i believe at all. in fact you summed up the idea of a community living cooperatively without rule. i'm not sure where you get the 'deeply hierarchial' part though, as i see no clearly defined hierarchy in your statement. hierarchy automatically suggests a master/slave relationship, which is clearly opposed to your workable model of the future. maybe i completely misunderstood your post, but the way i'm looking at it you are describing a workable anarchist society. please correct me if i am wrong.

i'm not on board with your ideas that there can be a workable model of capitalism within an anarchist framework. again, capitalism is defined by the bottom line, by the shareholder's wishes, more times than not in direct opposition to the will of the workers. that may be a little dramatic, i admit, but that is how it functions in our society. i would be thrilled to be proven wrong on this point. i also think your definition of 'ideal capitalism' is a little off the point. i think what you are describing sounds great, but it no longer functions as capitalism.

all in all, i like what you are saying, although it sounds dreadfully like anarcho-socialism. in fact, i have a very dear friend that wrote an amazing paper on anarcho-socialism and how it would function within society. i would be happy to pass that on to you if you like. although i find humor in the fact that it really isn't anarchist at all to replace one system of government with another, albiet truly engaging and lovely, system of government.

once again i will re-iterate that i focus primarily on individual anarchism, personal anarchism, and not so much on anarchism as a global standard. i identify with mutualists in the sense that i want to create relationships that are mutually beneficial, and non-exploitative. that being said i am always open to discuss global ideas, and any thoughts you may have on the subject.

Two things to say...

1. "cooperative self-determination" Can you explain to me how thats Anarchy and not Government?

2. You should never use the Amish as an example of anything if you don't actually know anything about them. The Amish have a system of government within thier community (it very much resembles Communism with a bit of Patriarchy mixed in) and fully recognize all external authority.

1. i think Peeling Chrome answered your question fairly accurately. Government is coercive force. 'do what i tell you or else.' copperative self-determination is the idea that we can don't need ultimatums to do the right thing. the idea that we have it within us to know how to conduct ourselves and how to treat each other, without the threat of a billy club or imprisonment to deter us.

2. i lived in northwestern indiana for a little over a decade. indiana has the highest population of amish outside of Pennsylvania, and i'm not sure, but indiana may have surpassed pennsylvania in amish citizenry. i worked with amish, dined with amish, talked with amish, befriended amish and even discussed anarchy with the amish. i never claimed they had no government, but what little they do have is based solely on religion, and not OUR government. they function oustide of our realm of laws and our moral code.

i tried to go back and find what i had said about the amish, but there was so much to comb through, that i will paraphrase the argument i generally use in regard to the amish. the amish work together as a community, if someones house burns down they work together to rebuild it. if someone in their community falls ill, they all help out at that persons farm. they do not rely on our government for help, they live off the grid, they are entirely sustainable and self sufficient. where they fuck it up is religion. (i'm fairly certain i stated that before.) and to elaborate, religion dictates their laws, their patriarchy, their customs. i used the amish as an example of how a cooperative community could exist outside of the realm of government. i am in no way championing the amish code. only pointing to their existance as proof that one can live outside of the framwork of beurocratic governance.

Most of my thoughts on this subject turn to what it would take as a country to get to that point, and I'm pretty hesitant to discuss those ideas online now that I understand how our massive surveillance/overwatch system really works. Suffice to say, at the very least, it would take a MASSIVE perspective shift; it's the getting there that gives me pause to discuss it online. Anyone want to meet for coffee/beers to get really deep? If so, then bring your thick skin because it seems that not everyone has the same definitions or connotations regarding most of these concepts, and emotions tend to run pretty high in those situations. Anyone can PM me if they think they can handle an adult conversation like that. I think it would be awesome to sit down with a bunch of people and really give this subject a good reexamination.

fantastic idea! i would love to hear more about your proposed 'utopian society' (i use the term in jest ) I will PM you momentarily. i would even go so far as to propose an open meeting for anyone who would like to discuss these subjects more. i have missed back and forth, bantering discussion, as it is the only way to truly define your own positions, while expanding on them at the same time. We had a fairly regular meeting of somewhat like-minded (and a few boistrously opposed) in indiana, and i have missed that dearly since moving here.

[peelingchrome]

I soppose... but really to me.. "cooperative self-determination" is new speak for Government and as it is one of the terms used to describe Marxism... I'm pretty sure it's just another form of government.

1. ... Government is coercive force. 'do what i tell you or else.' copperative self-determination is the idea that we can don't need ultimatums to do the right thing. the idea that we have it within us to know how to conduct ourselves and how to treat each other, without the threat of a billy club or imprisonment to deter us.

I see where you both are coming from and it seems to me that there's a difference in connotation for each person. By a strict definition LoTek is correct in the section I quoted above, whereas Gaf can also correct. Damn that newspeak! First thing to go when I become Emperor of the World! (lolz)

i don't really see that as being 'contrary' to what i believe at all. in fact you summed up the idea of a community living cooperatively without rule. i'm not sure where you get the 'deeply hierarchial' part though, as i see no clearly defined hierarchy in your statement. hierarchy automatically suggests a master/slave relationship, which is clearly opposed to your workable model of the future. maybe i completely misunderstood your post, but the way i'm looking at it you are describing a workable anarchist society. please correct me if i am wrong.

Maybe I wasn't very clear; it was pretty late/early when I made my original post. My concept involves a hierarchy where each step or level holds sway over an increasingly large geographical area. In my concept, each region has control of its own rules/laws/regulations (hereafter RLRs cause that's a lot to type over and over)and can only make RLRs that specifically affect their region, and/or the RLRs at the lowest level of the hierarchy take precedence over the RLRs of the higher levels. For example:

Let's say Michigan has rebuilt its RLRs from the ground up. For the sake of this example, let's say that MI allows logging if you either reforest or pay taxes/fees or some combination thereof. However, Washtenaw county decides that they want to limit the logging done in their county to pine and elm to limit the impact on the scenery. Furthermore, let's say that the city of Dexter does not allow any logging as they feel it is vital to the ambiance of their city. Even deeper into the hierarchy, lets say that the neighborhood of Cedar Hills says that you can remove any non-coniferous trees you like for any purpose you like. I feel that this is acceptable as long as these decisions are made by a method that all in those respective regions can agree on. However, because of the a**holes that eff things up, they must have the RLRs in place and penalties that go along with them if they are violated. AS LONG AS THESE DECISIONS ARE MADE BY A METHOD THAT ALL IN THOSE RESPECTIVE REGIONS AGREE ON. In this example, each level of the hierarchy decides what can be done with the trees in their area because of their own opinions regarding their region and how those rules affect their life.

A further conclusion of this example is: if you don't like the rules in the area change them or move to a place that has rules you like better. I personally would live in a place that had very few rules mandating what can and cannot be done by individuals, but some people aren't comfortable with that much freedom. My whole idea is based on this concept: do what you want (governed by your own morals), let others do the same, and eventually everyone will end up in communities with others who have similar mindsets where everyone can get along that much easier. I know it's very idealistic and currently unrealistic, but -DAMN- that's a nice dream!

i'm not on board with your ideas that there can be a workable model of capitalism within an anarchist framework. again, capitalism is defined by the bottom line, by the shareholder's wishes, more times than not in direct opposition to the will of the workers. that may be a little dramatic, i admit, but that is how it functions in our society. i would be thrilled to be proven wrong on this point. i also think your definition of 'ideal capitalism' is a little off the point. i think what you are describing sounds great, but it no longer functions as capitalism.

A definition of capitalism I am comfortable with can be found here in the first section of the article. I think we differ, once again, on the connotation of the term rather than the definition. I agree with you that there's a bunch of a**holes effing it up for the rest of us, but I think that it's possible to have functional capitalism in an anarchic or nearly-anarchic society. While I'm not completely on board with -all- of the ideas behind the idea, I find myself drawn to many of the concepts behind anarcho-capitalism. Specifically:

Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based on the voluntary trade of private property and services (including money, consumer goods, land, and capital goods) in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity. However, they also recognize charity and communal arrangements as part of the same voluntary ethic.[10] Though anarcho-capitalists are known for asserting a right to private (individualized or joint non-public) property, some propose that non-state public/community property can also exist in an anarcho-capitalist society.[11] For them, what is important is that it is acquired and transferred without help or hindrance from the compulsory state. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that the only just, and/or most economically-beneficial, way to acquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud.

From what I've read of your postings, it sounds like these ideas are pretty prevalent, as long as we stick purely to definitions and not connotations or present (corrupt) forms.

all in all, i like what you are saying, although it sounds dreadfully like anarcho-socialism.

While I'm not very familiar with anarch-socialism, the sub-60-second bit of definition search I did sounds like the opposite of what I believe. I feel I am much more of a moderate-libertarian-anarcho-capitalist, in the sense that I think that people can run their own lives with minimal oversight from a government (the libertarian-anarcho-capitalist part) while realizing that we are not far enough evolved as a people to exist without it (the moderate part). However, I prefer a limited and loose form of government to one that is full of mandatory this and that and byzantine regulation systems.

(gasp gasp) I think I've responded to all of the points brought up since my last post, excepting duplicates and posts made while I was typing this epically long post. Hope that helps to clarify my position! If not, please point out where I can clarify better.

P.S. I'd like to say that I'm happy that this discussion is engaging, but still pretty chill. Too often are these kinds of topics hotbeds of animosity. YAY for adult conversation!

[LoTek]

i would love to reply in length to this post, but time does not allow, so i will do so tomorrow. however you made some great points and i would like to address one in particular.

it seems to me like the hierarchy you describe is a bottom-up hierarchy, instead of the top-down hierarchy that we experience. to elaborate, currently we have the federal government at the top. state government next. local government after that. then you at the bottom. the way it seems to me in what you are describing is the exact inverse of that. or if not the exact inverse, something closely resembling. the local communities, if i am understanding you properly, have the final say in what happens in that particular community. so they are at the top of your hierarchal pyrimid, as opposed to the local communities having the least amount of power in the system that we employ now. and THAT, sir, i can get on board with.

great addition to the post!

[LoTek]

some short but interesting clips on anarchism by people i adore.

alan moore, for those of you living under a rock, is a graphic novel GOD. responisble for V for Vendetta, Watchmen, Swamp Thing and a plethora of other intellectual goodies.

Sean Herman is a fantastic Tattoo Artist and devout Anarchist. Coincidentally, he is the one who helped shape my current belief system. He travels the country, attending tattoo conventions to not only tattoo, but to hand out anarchist literature. the man is a hero.

[candyman]

I don't know if I would use V for Vendetta as an example when talking about anarchy. Unless it is the version of anarchy originating from Spain seeking to take down a Protestant led England and install a Catholic regime in its place. Most of the examples in history that we see as anarchy are really just people trying to push the agenda that they believe to be the right one...almost trying to force it on people.

[Epic_Fail_Guy]

The way you worded it can also classify as a "terrorism" too.....

[LoTek]

I wasn't aware that i used V as a reference point for anarchism, i just pointed out that Alan Moore created V for Vendetta...

and furthermore, what you are talking about is Guy Fawkes, not V. V had his own revenge fantasy going on, he just wore a fawkes mask.

And things also change if you are referencing the graphic novel or the film adaptation. The wachowski brothers wrote V as more of a deranged freedom fighter, whereas in the graphic novel Moore wrote him as a clear cut anarchist, a point which moore took personally and used as a reason to distance himself from the film.

Moore also never states whether V is doing the right thing or not, if he is acting on pure anarchistic inspiration...or if he is a mad man. he left that up to the reader to decide.

so to sum up, i do and do not agree with your statement. to use Fawkes as a reference point for an anarchist argument would to be to completely misinterpret Fawkes, but the same could be said to using V in the same situation. i guess it depends on context. Although V was an unapologetic anarchist, his actions did not necessarily reflect that, there is a liberal amount of madness in there.

post script - i do like V a whole lot. but it IS a comic book, and i don't think he represents my viewpoints.

blowing shit up is kind of neat though.