(Just for the record, this is reposted from another forum because I'm lazy and didnt feel like retyping the whole thing.)

I tend to call myself an anarchist, but only because there isnt really a clearcut group for my political views. Anarchy itself is a very loosely defined term, and most people have some pretty large misconceptions about it. So I'd like to open a small challenge: if there are any other anarchists or semi-anarchists on the forum, describe how your ideal society would operate. Then everyone else will come through and explain to us why we're idiots, and it'll be fun. I'll start.

The basis of my position is that personal freedom should be maximized. It's no one else's business what people do as long as it doesnt hurt any innocents. The tricky part is economics. The traditional "left" and "right" positions both have some good points, but neither will work alone. In a completely "left" society, there would be no incentive to work because everyone would be looked after by the government. In a completely "right" society, there would no limit on crime and corruption, and everyone except a select few would live in extreme poverty. So the question is how to effectively mix these to positions to maximize personal freedom. I think the one thing everyone can agree on is that it can be a lot better than it is today.

Some amount of government is necessary, because without organization large scale projects are impossible. Now some people might say I'm not a "true" anarchist for this, but we need something to orchestrate large scale projects, and it seems to me we shouldnt force an unnatural solution just to avoid any mention of the word government. Instead of the current clunky social aid system, the government itself should offer jobs that do things inappropriate for the traditional free market, such as infrastructure construction and upkeep. These jobs should pay a wage good enough to support a family on, and should have reasonable hours. To pay for this, the government should have to taxes: a very small flat sales tax, and a income tax that only effects the upper economic level and rises rapidly. These two measures would get rid of the ridiculous economic inequality seen today, and would fix the many problems that come from inadequate infrastructure. The government would also provide universal health care, as I think America today demonstrates the problems with letting the free market handle medicine. Aside from this, the governments role would be very limited. The current law-making process would be entirely gone. Rather than trying to enforce the same laws on everybody, the government would encourage small, somewhat enclosed societies composed of people with similar views to form. These societies could then form their own laws and govern themselves. The government would only step when some kind of large violation occurred, such as one society attacking another, although even conflict would be allowed as long as everyone participating agreed to it and no children were involved. The legal age would be lowered, and children would be encouraged to be more independent of their parents and form their own beliefs.

Alright, I'd say that just about covers it, although it's (naturally) a bit lacking in detail. Thoughts on anything?

My view is simple ... IMO anarchy is a really bad idea. Not only are we, humans, not built for it (we're pack animals) but if anybody can do as they wish (and let's be honest here, that IS the true meaning of anarchy, no rules, no laws, no controls of any kind, absolute freedom) then no one is safe ... humans are animals, they are not built with (do not come with) a pre-defined set of moralities therefore, though I think we would be like to fall into some kind of hierarchical organisation as a group, some will always do what they want to the detriment of others.

Kyu

I don't like the word "anarchist" because of the connotations it has with actively bringing down the government. I prefer the term "Libertarian". I agree with you that neither the left nor right positions are actually doable. The personal freedoms of the left wing need to meet with the economic freedoms of the right wing.

The government should supply the people with the essential healthcare, and limit themselves to protecting people from coercion and violence. A free market is essential, which means the abolition of all forms of copyright law. That doesn't mean that people can just steal stuff, but that when they purchase a product, they can improve it and distribute it as they wish. Steven Colbert did a funny skit that outlined the problem here (Only for American eyes unfortunately).

Sorry, but I think geting rid of copyright laws is just silly. Artists works (and I include writers ect) could be copied and re-sold without there permission. Dickens hated America because of its lack of copyright laws as it meant he got no money from book sales and his work could be degraded through poor copys. Shakespere's plays were the same in Elizibethan England.

As a resident of the country that is currently tanking thanks to deregulation of the economic system I highly disagree with the idea deregulation. It's deregulation that decimated our banking system. Without regulation the bankers participated in high risk loans and look what happened. This is where my democratic views come into play (I'm an independant that leans democratic) and I think regulation is essential to a fair and balanced market. People are people, and without regulation they will do what they want and not always to the benefit of everyone concerned.

P.S. As an artist I <3 copyright laws and agree with Dagda. In fact, I think that if you don't have exclusive rights to your creations then capitalism fails.

(March 2, 2009 at 6:01 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: My view is simple ... IMO anarchy is a really bad idea. Not only are we, humans, not built for it (we're pack animals) but if anybody can do as they wish (and let's be honest here, that IS the true meaning of anarchy, no rules, no laws, no controls of any kind, absolute freedom) then no one is safe ... humans are animals, they are not built with (do not come with) a pre-defined set of moralities therefore, though I think we would be like to fall into some kind of hierarchical organisation as a group, some will always do what they want to the detriment of others.

Kyu

Not exactly. Anarchy means no government, or at least a government that doesnt interfere with people's lives. People would be free to form their own communities with their own laws, police forces, and judicial systems. That means that if someone wants to live in a mini theocracy, they're perfectly free to do that. That's what freedom means.

People would still have ownership rights, and there would still be laws in place to make sure you cannot simply copy stuff for free. The point is that people would be able to take your creation, improve it, and resell it. It encourages competition, which is needed for capitalism as well. The GNU public license already works in this way, with people able to take a creation and improve on it, then distribute that creation, as long as it is also distributed under GNU. The same principle is at the heart of the Open Source software movement, and that has been growing for years. The GNU/Linux operating system has spawned numerous distributions due to the license, each doing different things for different people.

I think people seem to misunderstand the difference between copyright and "stealing". For example, if a person released a music cd with a price of £10 and somebody stole that music (online or from a store), they are breaking the law defined as "stealing". In a copyright-free country, that would still be illegal. The difference is that if someone buys the cd, they can do whatever they want to the content (edit it, delete it, add to it) and then sell that music on as their own work. They are building on top of creations, and because the market is completely open, everyone is going to be improving each other's work.

As the creator of GNU Richard Stallman said "It's free as in freedom, not free as in beer".

(March 2, 2009 at 6:29 am)Tiberius Wrote: I don't like the word "anarchist" because of the connotations it has with actively bringing down the government. I prefer the term "Libertarian". I agree with you that neither the left nor right positions are actually doable. The personal freedoms of the left wing need to meet with the economic freedoms of the right wing.

The government should supply the people with the essential healthcare, and limit themselves to protecting people from coercion and violence. A free market is essential, which means the abolition of all forms of copyright law. That doesn't mean that people can just steal stuff, but that when they purchase a product, they can improve it and distribute it as they wish. Steven Colbert did a funny skit that outlined the problem here (Only for American eyes unfortunately).

I dont like the term libertarian, because it's associated with the far right wing. When economics are completely deregulated, monopolies are going to form that will just take the place of oppressive government. I do agree with you on copyright to some extent, though. The problem with copyright laws now is that things like art and music can just be reduced to ones and zeroes, which is essentially impossible to control. Also, especially with music, the way copyright laws are set up are hugely unfair. The average CD costs 16 dollars, and artists are lucky if they see a dollar of it. There needs to be some kind of system in place, but the current one doesnt work anymore.

(March 2, 2009 at 3:07 pm)atrasicarius Wrote: Not exactly. Anarchy means no government, or at least a government that doesnt interfere with people's lives. People would be free to form their own communities with their own laws, police forces, and judicial systems. That means that if someone wants to live in a mini theocracy, they're perfectly free to do that. That's what freedom means.

That just shifts "the law" elsewhere and just being a smaller community doesn't make your laws better, indeed many huge strides in "rights" have been achieved because of communities (large communities and nations" working together. Just think what would have happened in the States were all communities allowed to set their own laws, hundreds or thousands of children being taught creationism as science.

No government, no set of rules or laws "doesn't interfere" with people ... people's freedoms ALWAYS get affected by what others want to do, by rules they make.

Better a democracy for all IMO.

Kyu

(March 2, 2009 at 5:32 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(March 2, 2009 at 3:07 pm)atrasicarius Wrote: Not exactly. Anarchy means no government, or at least a government that doesnt interfere with people's lives. People would be free to form their own communities with their own laws, police forces, and judicial systems. That means that if someone wants to live in a mini theocracy, they're perfectly free to do that. That's what freedom means.

That just shifts "the law" elsewhere and just being a smaller community doesn't make your laws better, indeed many huge strides in "rights" have been achieved because of communities (large communities and nations" working together. Just think what would have happened in the States were all communities allowed to set their own laws, hundreds or thousands of children being taught creationism as science.

No government, no set of rules or laws "doesn't interfere" with people ... people's freedoms ALWAYS get affected by what others want to do, by rules they make.

Better a democracy for all IMO.

Kyu

The point is that if you dont like the laws where you are, you can go somewhere else, or start your own community. Sure the laws will be kind of crappy in some communities by our definition, but "people get the government they deserve." If they want to be idiots, that's their right.