People Behave Socially and 'Well' Even Without Rules

[reverendjeremiah]

You can't sell a different world paradigm if we don't have something to evaluate in the here and now, right?

I'd demand nothing less from anyone else -- if someone tries to sell me a welfare state idea, it helps to examine the Scandinavian countries for example.

What parameters will you allow? because I can show you some right now, but something tells me you will discount them for being "too small" or "That isnt a state or a country"

In reality size doesnt matter in this system, or any govt system for that matter. As far as a "state" goes, an anarcho-commune is stateless.

So if you want me to point out a state of statelessness, then you have already won.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw3_UOw0kV0

I expect you will agree with this video...LOL...

---

I'd say this is a good argument against unchecked capitalism. I hope we are nearing the tipping point where the number of people who accept that capitalism can only thrive when left unregulated and unaccountable are insufficient to maintain the spell. It is not and never was true. In my 20's I may have said amen to anarchy. Now I think it is an unnecessarily reckless way to compensate for what is rotten in the system we now have.

I will admit that it is a simplistic example, but I argue that this is basically the concept behind it. Anarchy is all kinds of people living together in harmony. Sure, some people go at each others throats, but NO govt model can stop that either. And i feel the opposite of what you said. In my youth I supported capitalism. I have even ran my own businesses. Then, as I grew older and learned how the system worked, I have lost all faith in it.

I'm afraid I'd need a clearer idea of what you are talking about before I would know if I have anything I want to argue.

For the time being I find myself just dumbfounded by its apparent absurdity. Like most utopian schemes, it seems to be contingent on an inadequate conception of human nature. That isn't an argument, just an observation. I wonder if infatuation with utopian schemes is a kind of residue of a formerly theistic mindset, a search for paradise lost.

Perhaps that is why you are dumbfounded. You keep suggesting that this is a utopian system. It is not utopian. Never said it was. If you are looking for perfection in anarchy then you do not understand anarchy.

Quite frankly I have no idea what a "true" utopian system is. Lets see what wikipedia has to say:

Utopia (/juːˈtoʊpiə/) is an ideal community or society possessing a perfect socio-politico-legal system. The word was imported from Greek by Sir Thomas More for his 1516 book Utopia, describing a fictional island in the Atlantic Ocean. The term has been used to describe both intentional communities that attempt to create an ideal society, and fictional societies portrayed in literature. It has spawned other concepts, most prominently dystopia.
The word comes from the Greek: οὐ ("not") and τόπος ("place") and means "no place". The English homophone eutopia, derived from the Greek εὖ ("good" or "well") and τόπος ("place"), means "good place". This, due to the identical pronunciation of "utopia" and "eutopia", gives rise to a double meaning.

Anarchy is not an "ideal" system in that fact that it is pretty much void of ideals. In an ideal theocracy, everyone would truly believe in whatever god that theocracy puts forward. Obviously not everyone in an anarchy will agree with everything. That is why it has as little rules as possible. An anarchy does not possess a "perfect socio-politico-legal system" as for one, it is not perfect, two it is very lacking in socio rules as it has the bare minimum rules to sustain a community, and three it does not have a legal system, or hardly has one to be exact.

The term "utopia" does not even come close to an anarchy. In fact, from the anarchist view point, every govt model is trying to be a utopia.