People Behave Socially and 'Well' Even Without Rules

[reverendjeremiah]

Ah, the much vaunted majority consensus. As I recall, prior to 1865, majorities in quite a few areas held that the color of your skin means you can be owned...

Because all societies were anarchy back in the slave days. No, wait, they were all republics or kingships of some sort.
My argument: If it can happen with or without a government, then the government is useless in this situation...in fact it becomes a burdon
Atheism, to put it very simple, is anti-authoritarianism. It isnt one sided. It isnt like the plutocratic bastards saying "I tell you what to do, but dont you dare tell me what to do". Anarchy is "You dont tell me what to do, I dont tell you what to do, and I really dispise the idea of you telling that other guy what he can do as well."

So, you tell me, will an anarchist own a slave, or allow a slave to be owned?



Not even the anarcho capitalists will allow slavery. How can you be anarchy in the midst of slavery? How can you be anarchy owning a slave?

Maybe, maybe not. Primitive societies can keep remarkably stable while practicing cultural practices and laws of dubious intent. It only follows that any society can maintain itself as long as the growth rate is greater than or equal to death rate.

Primitive huh? You forgot stupid... you could have fit stupid in there somewhere.

Besides, i am not an anarcho-primitive. I am a syndicalist. I WANT modern factories and organization. Syndicalism is specifically geared towards a technologically advanced society with no heirarchal structure. Thats why it is sometimes called "Techno anarchy".

And what if your group has many members of one family where they can use intimidation to prevent you from successfully protecting your property.

You mean like the Bush family in America? Yup, without a government huge groups or large families will take advantage of you. That could never ever happen in a non-primitive democracy.

My argument: If it can happen with or without a government, then the government is useless in this situation...in fact it becomes a burdon

But hey, you're not going to leave, right? It's been your home since forever, you have friends, etc, etc,.

I didnt leave when the Bush family helped rob everything that wasnt welded to the floor in America over the last 20 some odd years.

Did you?

Jesus, the double think you've got here is astounding -- what makes you think you can solve problems that have plagued every societal implementation from day one? Anarchism, syndicalism, etc,. They're just as fanciful as Ron Paul's ideal world.

Dont forget primitive and stupid.

Please show me where I said that anarchism will "solve problems that have plagued every societal implementation from day one? ". In fact i will quote some stuff from our discussion:

I argue that if people are treated as individuals, instead of a means to make profit, then theivery and violence would be lessened considerably. - Please keep in mind that in no way have I ever said it was a perfect system.

If you got that impression from me, then I apologize...but if these problems you speak of have existed, and still exist, then what does that say of the government system as well? Last I checked government has been OVERWHELMINGLY more dominant than non-gevernment, yet you point at ME and say "what makes you think you can solve problems that have plagued every societal implementation". Think about it.

In the end run, as with any group of primates, you'll get clan/family-based loyalties, and thus a concentration of power. With the power and ability to form alliances comes ruling over others, in some sense. And then we're right back in a form of archy, a rule.

Doesn't matter if it's kings, the family matriarch or some mythical dude named Jesus, you're not going to find anarchy anywhere because inevitably, someone successfully reasserts control and begins to exercise their strength.

hmmm...good point. I have always considered politics to be a revolving door. One type of politics may be popular for one generation, the next may change it. Sort of like how left wing politics was all the rage in the 60's where right wing politics are all the rage for the hippy children.

so basically you are saying there is no such thing as a perfect or permanent government model.... I agree....so lets have as much freedom as possible.

As far as "you are not going to find anarchy anywhere" is a pretty big step from "Somalia could be considered in anarchy".
allow me...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Anarchist+Communities

People who believe in violence and rule of the strong?

Please, tell me with a straight face those societies/groups never form...

Hitler, Mussolini, and here lately America. Exactly, and who the fuck enjoys living around them assholes? Do some people even have a choice living around them? Because you are basically describing fascism, which is the polar OPPOSITE of a syndicate.

So in other words, there is no standard for justice but the fickle beliefs of your community-mates?

What if they community decides it's a good time to lynch some negros?

There is a standard of justice in this universe? What did the American republic do to stop communities from lynching negroes? Oh yeah, it legislated it and gave it a stamp of approval. When has morality NOT been decided by the fickle beliefs of the individual and the community? A syndicate is an egalitarian society. In fact it is egalitarianism in practice in its fullest form: Equal reward, equal rights, equal freedom, equality across the board. If an anarcho-syndicate decides to lynch people based on the color of their skin, then they are NOT Anarchist or a Syndicate.

That makes no sense -- everyone has work? What if no further work can be done due to material limitations (until a totally unrelated discipline figures a way out)? Then no one, or much fewer, has work.

What if 'work' is defined by mining coal? What if all the coal is mined? What then? No more work.

Then people take time off from work and enjoy life. or they travel to another coal mine if that is what they enjoy. Why is this so hard for you to understand? So the huge apartment complex is finished, and no plans floating around for any new house work, kick your heels up. Go out in the feilds and help grow some food. Feilds are fine? Go to the kitchen and try inventing a new recipe. Write a new song on your guitar. the local car plant sends someone out asking for 3 able bodies to to move a welding robot so the electricians can replace it with a new one. Are you interested? If not then John around the corner has a sign asking for help in his music shop for the summer. An electrician just got done wiring up a bakery and decides hes bored with electrical work for now, plans on taking a few days off and then sign up to help run the crop machines in the field just to do something different for a while. there is always something people can be doing, and since every one is chipping in here and there, you can take some time off here and there as well. Some industrial workers may have to stick to a constant shift, like those in charge of an electrical power plant. not just anyone can walk in and do that job. It requires education and skill.

So instead you defer either to the masses to decide what is valuable (really? Really?) or a select group of individuals, of where tyranny can reign.

That's what capitalism got right -- it reduces down opinion to a common denominator -- demand/supply.

Show me something that sidesteps the "tyranny (or ignorance) of the masses" problem?

People...not profits. Remove the money, the oppression, the rich, the poor, the enforced racism..in other words all the crap the government enforces, and suddenly its about people, and not greedy profit. Its about shared survival, not lording over another.

two words: Equal education. Not this rich school poor school crap. Damnit man, cant you see how this current system is set up to keep most families in their current economic state indefinitely? How can I have an equal chance to help my son become a doctor when it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and I only make pocket change? That isnt equality man. That isnt a fair chance. Equal education is free education for all. I am stuck being an electrician, most especially now in this current government controlled economic mess. I would love to go to college to become an electrical engineer. I should be able to just walk in and start my education. But no. I have to have lots of cash that i dont have. In a syndicate there will be plenty of teachers, and they will be doing it because they WANT to do it, not because they have to. Everyone shares in the rewards. Everyone has food and shelter. people do things because they WANT to and because they can, or for whatever reason they choose.

So it is not equal work for equal pay?

It depends on the syndicate that is set up. Vast majority of syndicates I have read about, and syndicalists I have spoken to, reject money and capitalism. Everyone makes the same. It also depends on if it is an anarcho-capitalist society. In that case you have the rich and the poor and some form of money deffinitely is used.

BECAUSE YOU ONLY LIVE IN YOUR HEAD AND WANT TO SURVIVE, you thick headed dunce!

Wow...careful man. Dont let your anger get your warning level rated up.

Famines are the biggest time for robbery, because the stakes are "live" or "die"!

Wow!

So anarcho-syndicalists should never be put into practice because famines can produce robberies and murder?
Am I allowed to use your same argument for every other form of government?

And what if the community simply does not have enough food, spread out, to support everyone? It might even be that combining yours+someone else's food keeps you alive for another day.

Then the community sure didnt plan well enough did it? If the community does not have enough food, then trade with other communities for food. Another community may be aggriculture heavy and in need for more framing machines. Lets rally the hungry community and get some tractors made. Lets help the other community with some of our tractors and people. they may need a few extra cars, or their power plant may be on the fritz and our community has well trained electricians and elctrical engineers. Does our community need shoes and another community need sugar? How about a trade? Barter is always available to the free market of a syndicate at its labor exchange.

But hey, it can't happen, right? It won't happen, right?

And people will use critical thinking and not their emotions during a time of incredible stress, right?

I dont know, and neither do you. Since we are making up scenereos, what happens when Americas republic gets hit with a single atomic bomb? Will the government be able to stop the mass killings, theft and rape? If you cant answer it, does that mean the government is useless? Stupid? Primitive?

Nope, haven't found anything.

Still, those anarchists really got the right idea? So we should see more of this in Spain, right?

"right idea" is nothing more than an opinion. I have ever only pointed out that this is merely my opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeLak3_Fv...lf=mh_lolz
Start the video at 0:42 to understand the peoples kitchens that i was talking about.
As far as Spain goes, it took the combined forces of Franco and the Nazi's, along with embagros from the French to shut it down. Franco came back in and suppressed the people. The Anarchists are still there in Spain today, but do not have near enough numbers to start another revolution. then again, Spain isnt anywhere NEAR as bad now as it was back then.

Damn this is hard!

Its not THAT hard. You just arent doing your homework.

You're a fucking idiot if you think the Code of Hammarubi and modern day English Law/Napoleonic Law are comparable. For one thing, the Code was simply an assignment of act to punishment-style text.

Easy there buddy. Last time I made a post so full of insults such as this one you posted they rated my warning level up to 25%.

And that is the most generalist, brain dead approximation I can think of!

But, hurr-durr, we might as well call a bird a gecko for all I care.

LOL, you're funny when you are mad.

Permit me to illustrate the depth of my regard.

Sure..where is the illustration?

[Whateverist]

Permit me to illustrate the depth of my regard.

Ad hominem attcks are stupid. Other than that I agree with Moros here. The reverend has made many posts which made loads of sense to me. This wasn't one of those.

Rev, perhaps it is your line of work (are really a reverend?), but you have much more faith in your fellow man than I do. People have the capacity to be industrious, fair and peaceable. However it isn't the societal structure that brings out the opposites of these fine traits. The capacity to be lazy, greedy and aggressive are just as natural. They aren't symptoms of a bad social arrangement. They, like our good traits, are simply who we are.

To each his own but I would not welcome social anarchy.

[The Magic Pudding]

Don't be fooled by the wily ways of the atheist.
Hasn't it always been known that Satan presents a beautiful face to attract his victims?
Atheists are taught by Satan how the righteous should behave and how to fit. But there is a flaw in Satan's plan. The true believers battle to stay on the path, though Satan makes it so difficult, he makes them marry the wrong person several times and step daughters are cruel temptresses.

If you see a person happy in a long term relationship, they are probably working for Satan, otherwise he would have corrupted them.

[reverendjeremiah]

Ad hominem attcks are stupid.

I disagree. Ad homs are fun and exciting. They make me laugh most of the time.

Other than that I agree with Moros here. The reverend has made many posts which made loads of sense to me. This wasn't one of those.

Someone agrees with me? YIKES! I must be doing something wrong..LOL.
As far as Anarchy, Im not near as good arguing that topic as I am on the subject of UFO's and electricity. Noam Chomsky and Goldman are much better at arguing syndicalism than I. I really need to brush up on my reading on it more indepth.

Rev, perhaps it is your line of work (are really a reverend?),

Yes, I am a state certified Reverend... of sexy badass beer-bonging beautitude! LOL, Im an atheist dude.

but you have much more faith in your fellow man than I do.

Faith in my fellow man? Fuck no. Im a pessimist believe it or not. I just flat out feel that capitalism supports many negative aspects of humanity, and those aspects would be far lessened without the concept of profit....thats all I am saying.

People have the capacity to be industrious, fair and peaceable. However it isn't the societal structure that brings out the opposites of these fine traits. The capacity to be lazy, greedy and aggressive are just as natural. They aren't symptoms of a bad social arrangement. They, like our good traits, are simply who we are.

Which I agree with. I never once suggested otherwise. I did, however, suggest by living in decentralised communities without capitalism would lessen many of those negatives on your list.

Also, if these exist with or without a government, like you say (and I agree), then what is the purpose of a government again? Oh yeah, to give a small group of people control over the masses.

To each his own but I would not welcome social anarchy.

Most people do not even understand what anarchy is.

This ISNT what anarchy is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9MiS9tn_r4

[Whateverist]

I don't think a 'state of anarchy' means everyone running around naked, slugging it out while screaming inarticulately. I agree that chaos and anarchy are not the same.

I'm with you about capitalism too. Health care for profit? Crazy. I don't trust market forces to fix anything except prices, keeping them high and the income gap wide. Our current system turns justice and influence into just one more commodity.

However I don't want to leave justice to mob rule either.

[reverendjeremiah]

I don't think a 'state of anarchy' means everyone running around naked, slugging it out while screaming inarticulately. I agree that chaos and anarchy are not the same.

I'm with you about capitalism too. Health care for profit? Crazy. I don't trust market forces to fix anything except prices, keeping them high and the income gap wide. Our current system turns justice and influence into just one more commodity.

However I don't want to leave justice to mob rule either.

I think my problem is that I have been speaking of anarchy in general. One minute it is just plain old anarchy, the next I am speaking of Anarcho-capitalism, syndicalism, etc.. Im also jumping around on time frames..pre revolution. Early stages, and sometimes further into the system.

As I sadi before, I am not perfect with this topic. Im much better at others, but I appreciate people challenging me and allowing me to discuss it.

As far as crime and justice, of course there will be very few laws in a social setting. Most of the rules would be schematics and standards for industry. if you screw them up the procedures agreed upon by whatever trade union you belong to will be applied...removed from the job, remedial education, etc... heinous social crimes such as rape, murder, etc... Before I have given basic examples of very basic anarchist ideas across the board. In my concept of a syndicate some of these offenders would be sent to a sanitorium. There will be psych professionals and jobs for those who are willing to do orderly jobs. Instead of treating these people like socially unwanted slime, they will be given physical and mental care. Studies will be made and help will be administered to those who have anger issues, sexual issues, etc. Communal work would be encouraged in the facility and since everything is egalitarian to the core there will be a greatly lessened chance of abusing the system. As long as profit exists in a community, you will have abuse of the system. Forensic sciences would still exist. correctional systems would be replaced by mental and physical health professionals. If the patients have a problem that is incurable then they will be cared for so that they will not hurt themselves or others.

I hope that helps clear things up.

I think I should stop jumping all around on the system and stick specifically with a full blown syndicate system in action for now on...to help avoid confusion.

[Angrboda]

Its usually very simple rules. A thief who is caught will be quickly escorted out of the community. Anyone who beats the shit out of the thief will also be kicked out of the community. The community enforces the rules, not some jack booted thugs working for corrupt politicians.

...heinous social crimes such as rape, murder, etc... Before I have given basic examples of very basic anarchist ideas across the board. In my concept of a syndicate some of these offenders would be sent to a sanitorium. There will be psych professionals and jobs for those who are willing to do orderly jobs. Instead of treating these people like socially unwanted slime, they will be given physical and mental care. Studies will be made and help will be administered to those who have anger issues, sexual issues, etc. Communal work would be encouraged in the facility and since everything is egalitarian to the core there will be a greatly lessened chance of abusing the system. As long as profit exists in a community, you will have abuse of the system. Forensic sciences would still exist.

In Britain ( Crime rate soars as criminals walk free):

An analysis of Home Office figures reveals that only 9.7 per cent of all 'serious woundings', including stabbings, that are reported to the police result in a conviction. For robberies the figure falls to 8.9 percent and for rape, it is 5.5 per cent.

In India (Comparison of the conviction rates of a few countries of the world):

The reality is that our conviction rate for certain crimes is as low as 14.9% (terrorist and disruptive activities), assault/murder cases 6.2%, molestation cases 4.8%. And these are the 2001 figures....

I don't have a citation for the U.S. handy, though if memory serves, I recall a figure quoted that 88% of violent crimes in the U.S. do not result in a conviction. In some ways the U.S. is an example of bad things happening, as our jails are filled with people convicted of so-called "victimless crimes" and less violent offenses; the minor evils are viciously punished while the vicious evils are not. It's well considered that the U.S. sends far too many people to prison. (See also the India article which discusses Japan and Russia, where conviction rates are very high, but likely due to injustice instead of efficiency, the effect of convicting innocent people in large numbers.)

If the ability of the massive police states and legalistic machinery in large, modern governments does so poorly at protecting its people, delivering justice and stopping evil-doers, what makes you think an anarchist state will even do as well? Yes, the community might ride you out of town on a rail if they catch you, but that's only a 1 in 10 chance of happening. Maybe crime really does pay. And the mob, in it's wisdom can only redress the inherit injustice occurring when its members are victimized by lashing out, stripping people of civil liberties, and then lynchings and vigilante justice take the place of law, and 9 in 10 people punished are as likely innocent as guilty. (There's a reason it's called "the tyranny of the majority", with the emphasis on tyranny.)

Please explain to me why you believe your anarchist system might do as well or better a job of delivering justice than the systems we have now? If it can't, then your "community" which polices itself is an argument without teeth. A pie-in-the-sky dream with no basis in reality.

[Violet]

If people form social circles so well without rules, then why do I and the other mods have to be constantly weeding out bad members?

Because such powers are out of the hands of non-mods?
Because the forum structure holds that a member with a single post has that post equally as visible as the posts of the 10K member?
Because we have standards, and some members simply aren't up to them?
Because we have a very open forum, nearly anyone can join, and even spambots can get in at times?
Because this is a society with rules already, which provide a somewhat clear benchmark of when they are broken, and thus the examples are not completely equatable?

Why assume that because the statuesque is constantly 'weeding' translates to it must being so?
And why assume that 'no rules' means 'we let assholes walk all over us'? I don't care that I don't have any set-in-stone rules... but if you physically attack me you should expect a swift punch to the face by my girlfriend

I find this study deficient in that it doesn't study a real world group of greater numbers than a small tribe.

I don't need any study to prove that people are generally good... because people are generally good. Hell, just today at a gas station a hispanic man returned us a quarter when we only needed 23 cents, smiling and joking about it as he did so. Just yesterday some guy who recognized me from a trans group cut (politely) through a crowd just to tell me that I passed... a week ago.

There are assholes, it's true. But unless they occupy a position of power it doesn't matter much. A couple bad apples spoil the bunch? I don't think so.

Games are easy to derive bullshit from. I know, I develop on them. And I can tell you that a LOT of it is contrived and mostly without innate value (as in, you don't have much to lose from it).

I agree. The study is probably totally bogus. I notice many studies are. But does it matter, really? You already have your historical example of it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederaci...el_Trabajo . Does it need to be proven again?

Add in the capability for actually robbing people and having them lose REAL money, then we'll see how "peaceful" and self sustaining these communities really are.

Crime, which you have probably noticed, is committed by a minority. I'd say mostly peaceful and self-sustaining. There will always be an urge to steal so long as there is anything worth stealing for. Is that so much that you would consider them non-"peaceful"?

Lifetime of such a social circle matters as well -- what good is a group if it lasts only a fraction of a lifetime, when we have long established institutions (universities et al) that easily outlast the typical lifetime. Knowledge and resource acquisition takes time, and the ethereal short lived nature of the game they studied does not take that into account.

Surely you are not suggesting that established institutions last forever? Because that would be ridiculous.

Color me an extremely critical skeptic of this anarchist stuff.

More like an extremely distrustful skeptic looking for corners in a circular room

You can crow about the nice stuff. What I really care about is the long term stability, social dynamics in a real world, with life, death, resources and theft.

I could crow about the nice stuff, but why should I when revvie's probably responded 16 times already? What I would do, however...

Is question what this 'long term stability' entails... how long term? What does 'stability' in this sense mean? How could stability, as I understand it, be possible in the face of the rapid change that is entropy?

What kind of social dynamics? Do I need laws to go out and make friends, to find a lover, to raise children, to help someone in need out? No, I do not... so what is it that you think social dynamics has to do with laws... or are we using this differently as well? Yes, there's life in the real world, death too, there are resources to be managed, and there may even be 'bad apples'... but so fucking what? I do not see how anything is remotely different in people just because it's all too 'real'. I find that a sense of urgency, or prevalence, or actually needing to do something... is more of a motivator for doing 'good' than anything except appreciation for work already done.

Mind you, Somalia could be considered in anarchy for the above definition 1a (Absence of government) -- I'll ignore the rest of the definition as it incurs an emotional context that is not required in discussing an-archy (without government).

They're not forming spontaneous social circles that stabilize the region. I wonder why.

Perhaps the real world is much more difficult to model than some crap game?

Somalia is not in anarchy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puntland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somaliland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shabaab

Quite separate from anarchy... 'Somalia' is a fractured state. I would not be surprised if there were to be 2 states where 'Somalia' is currently understood to be by some of the international community.

Bits of Somalia might be anarchistic (particularly in the south), but let's have some perspective please: THERE IS A FUCKING JIHAD GOING ON.

Perhaps the 'real world' is a little too far away for you to see it for what it is.

---

Holy cow people, and now I feel obligated to respond TT__TT

Well fuck that. I might respond, I might not. But right now I'm going to play some LoL.

[reverendjeremiah]

I don't have a citation for the U.S. handy, though if memory serves, I recall a figure quoted that 88% of violent crimes in the U.S. do not result in a conviction. In some ways the U.S. is an example of bad things happening, as our jails are filled with people convicted of so-called "victimless crimes" and less violent offenses; the minor evils are viciously punished while the vicious evils are not. It's well considered that the U.S. sends far too many people to prison. (See also the India article which discusses Japan and Russia, where conviction rates are very high, but likely due to injustice instead of efficiency, the effect of convicting innocent people in large numbers.)

And what does this tell you? It tells me that we have, in america, used up all of our money on "easy busts". Why should a cop go out and risk his life busting a gang of highly armed crack dealers when he can make a high profile pot bust? Pot dealer probably doesnt own a gun, crack dealer probably has a collection of auto-weapons. Pot dealer probably deals so he can smoke for free and supplement his income. Crack dealer rakes in cash hand over fist, doesnt partake of his product, and generally doesnt give a fuck about anything but profit. What is the one thing in common between the crack dealer, pot dealer, and the DEA officers?

Profit

Pot isnt a violent drug. In fact it makes its users non-violent for the most part. So, if I were the head of the DEA, I would focus my dept on easy profit and easy busts. the easy money is in busting pot heads, not crack dealers. I want to make mad easy money and go home to my wife and kid. Busting pot dealers is usually a final act. Busting crack dealers put me in danger of being murdered by hit men, because they have WAY more money, and more than likely have bribed officers with their profits.

Profit

It keeps coming up again and again. PROFIT is the big problem. Profit can take a small, insignificant problem, and multiply it into an out of control situation.

If the ability of the massive police states and legalistic machinery in large, modern governments does so poorly at protecting its people, delivering justice and stopping evil-doers, what makes you think an anarchist state will even do as well? Yes, the community might ride you out of town on a rail if they catch you, but that's only a 1 in 10 chance of happening. Maybe crime really does pay. And the mob, in it's wisdom can only redress the inherit injustice occurring when its members are victimized by lashing out, stripping people of civil liberties, and then lynchings and vigilante justice take the place of law, and 9 in 10 people punished are as likely innocent as guilty. (There's a reason it's called "the tyranny of the majority", with the emphasis on tyranny.)

Then what good is a police state? Well, profits for the few. And the masses accept it. No, they dont just accept it, they glorify the police state. but here is the kicker...

...even though you pointed out how twisted, corrupt and failed the police state is, you still supported it by claiming that an anarchy could do no better.

First you make the incorrect assumption that anarchy is a state. Anarchists oppose the concept of a state.

So, If crime really does pay, like you say, then how do we fix the problem? Simple. We make the concept of "pay" fade away. If the concept of profit is removed from the equation, then NOTHING pays. By creating a truly egalitarian (social and economic) civilization, many of these problem will be lessened. Sure, people will still make meth, but with no profit motive what would they make it for? Extra food? In a system where everyone is well fed? Why? Would they make it for sex? That is a possability. But in a truly egalitarian society education is free and superior. Women and men have equal opportunities for possibilities. Education is lies or lessened. Drugs would be legal and a "matter of fact" approach to education about them would be obvious. Would they make meth for money? In a civilization without money that will not happen. Will he make meth for gold and jewelry? Sure, thats a possibility, but the dealer is already guarenteed a home and food and water and health and a job and free education for life. Jewelry is a status symbol. Would good is a status symbol in an egalitarian ("classless") society? Sure, the problem will still exist, but it will be lessened. Of course meth would still be made, but how far would it go without the profit model and good education? There is going to be addiction and addictive personalities anyways. In the system we have now, meth addicts hide it and do not seek out help out of fear of losing their job, their family, their property, their money, their freedom. In a society where home and livelyhood are guarenteed why would he fear seeking help? In a society where money doesnt exist and jobs are available always why would he not seek help? In a society where health care is free and people approach drugs and addiction with a REALITY based view (as opposed to the propaganda machine we have now) why would he hide it and HOWwould he hide it from others for long?

THAT is why I say my system would lessen the problem.

I don't need any study to prove that people are generally good... because people are generally good. Hell, just today at a gas station a hispanic man returned us a quarter when we only needed 23 cents, smiling and joking about it as he did so. Just yesterday some guy who recognized me from a trans group cut (politely) through a crowd just to tell me that I passed... a week ago.- What kind of social dynamics? Do I need laws to go out and make friends, to find a lover, to raise children, to help someone in need out? No, I do not... so what is it that you think social dynamics has to do with laws... or are we using this differently as well? Yes, there's life in the real world, death too, there are resources to be managed, and there may even be 'bad apples'... but so fucking what? I do not see how anything is remotely different in people just because it's all too 'real'. I find that a sense of urgency, or prevalence, or actually needing to do something... is more of a motivator for doing 'good' than anything except appreciation for work already done.

Great point Lilly. When i go out and mingle with society, i dont think of laws or regulations to keep me in line. I dont think to myself "I have to not punch this dude in the face" because it is illegal. I think that way because I would not want people punching me in the face. Why do i drive safe? Not because of the fucking cops. Because I know there are other people on the road. I dont stand on my front door and shoot my gun wildly into the neighborhood because I dont want to hurt pepole, and I dont want them to do the same to me. People will come together and make a community happen because we have evolved to do such a thing. We are a social animal. We arent like praying mantis' who eat the heads of their mate during intercourse. We have evolved to come together for the sake of survival WITHOUT a president, king, congress, etc...etc... and we did it for MILLIONS of years just fine.

There are assholes, it's true. But unless they occupy a position of power it doesn't matter much. A couple bad apples spoil the bunch? I don't think so.

BINGO! a government makes it easy for a small group to enslave the masses. Nothing more, nothing less.

I could crow about the nice stuff, but why should I when revvie's probably responded 16 times already?

I have...I get tired of typing what I feel is they same old shit in every post...although I admit i am not the best debater for anarchy... I am getting better.

[Angrboda]

So, If crime really does pay, like you say, then how do we fix the problem? Simple. We make the concept of "pay" fade away. If the concept of profit is removed from the equation, then NOTHING pays. By creating a truly egalitarian (social and economic) civilization, many of these problem will be lessened. Sure, people will still make meth, but with no profit motive what would they make it for? Extra food? In a system where everyone is well fed? Why? Would they make it for sex? That is a possability. But in a truly egalitarian society education is free and superior. Women and men have equal opportunities for possibilities. Education is lies or lessened. Drugs would be legal and a "matter of fact" approach to education about them would be obvious. Would they make meth for money? In a civilization without money that will not happen. Will he make meth for gold and jewelry? Sure, thats a possibility, but the dealer is already guarenteed a home and food and water and health and a job and free education for life. Jewelry is a status symbol. Would good is a status symbol in an egalitarian ("classless") society? Sure, the problem will still exist, but it will be lessened. Of course meth would still be made, but how far would it go without the profit model and good education? There is going to be addiction and addictive personalities anyways. In the system we have now, meth addicts hide it and do not seek out help out of fear of losing their job, their family, their property, their money, their freedom. In a society where home and livelyhood are guarenteed why would he fear seeking help? In a society where money doesnt exist and jobs are available always why would he not seek help? In a society where health care is free and people approach drugs and addiction with a REALITY based view (as opposed to the propaganda machine we have now) why would he hide it and HOWwould he hide it from others for long?

I can't help but be struck by the similarity between your rhetoric and that of Marxists in the early 20th century. They too believed that the profit motive, which perpetuated class warfare, was at issue. They too believed that if you eliminated the profit motive, a utopian society would result. I'm not going to bore you with references to the abject failures of communism, because I'm not trying to imply anarchism will result in the same set of dangers; I don't necessarily believe that. What I would draw attention to is twofold. First, as evidenced by your talk about drug addiction, there appears to be a large disconnect between what you imagine human behavior to be like, and what it appears to be (have you yourself experienced drug addiction? Your example of it seems strangely unreal). Second, your argument seems to combine rather idealistic assumptions about human nature with wishful thinking that once X is achieved, Y will magically result. I appreciate grand theorizers, and must confess that I am an idiot when it comes to political and economic theory, however, I think your model is entirely too speculative to bear the weight of argument in its favor.