Anarchism

[The Grand Nudger]

No, I just don't have any confidence that those things you mentioned (that are currently managed by the state) have any chance in hell of being managed effectively by a bunch of asshats hiding in their compounds from the next group of asshats. I don't think that this skepticism is unwarranted or unreasonable. Later eh? Like last time? Promises promises.....

If you were concerned for your own good or the good of those you cared about you will eventually have to acknowledge that without the protections put in place by governance and the state you would be much harder pressed to provide anything at all to either yourself or them. Is a compromise made? Yep. Is it all a bed of roses, nope.

[Something completely different]

The_Germans_are_coming: Later is when I have the time! It's not dictated by you.

No it is not desided by me, but posting your adds and no facts and then expecting others to accept that - is anoying!

I am not trying to gain your support or even make you understand every little detail behind my stance on this matter.

Oh I just love it when people, out of lack of argument, simply project the adjective of "not knowing" to people.
I am generaly a pragmatic, I have voted across political borders and given my vote to the more convincing argument on how to solve current issues.
this argument has to be logicaly and logisticaly comprehensible.
A mouthpiece who simply repeats how great he will make sociaty and when not being capable to deliever the logical and logistical facts required to convince a rational individual, simply states: "oh you dont need to understand every bit of it", is like a religious guy, who when confronted with attrocities in his religious book or doctrins simply replies: "god works in misterious ways."

in a political debate the argument of "I dont want to convince you" deserves no other answere then: well what the fuck are you doing here!?
You can eighter convince me with arguments on how to solve current issues or not. I`m not here to cuddle or read addverts for your utopia.

ou equate total freedom to "totalitarian",

obviously you didn`t get the point of the Popper quotation.
You propose a Utopia, a perfect sociaty. Believeing in a "perfect sociaty" \ Utopia, requires the rejection of the current state.
The current state, a democracy, is based on the principle of "change of goverment" which means no one can inforce the rules of his Utopia for a undetermened perios of time.

Ever heard of the "reign of terror" following the french revolution, were Robspiere "enforced freedom" for his goal of a "free sociaty" (Utopia) and those who refused to be "free" ended on the guilotene.
The framework called democracy you currently live in prevents this kind of inforcement of utopia.

yet the current way the state/government functions is not?

I have no anarchist standing at my front door with a gun demanding that I should accept his version of "freedom" at gunpoint and stateing that democracy no longer exists. So no I dont live in a totalitarian state.
And if paying taxes to receive healthcare is totalitarian to you - you should visit a stasi\gestapo\pinochet museum and read some books on democracy.

Seems about right when speaking with/to a statist.

what are you talking about?!

[JefferyHale]

@ The_Germans_are_coming
Statism (French: étatisme) is a term used by political scientists to describe the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy or both to some degree.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

You don't live in a totalitarian state, huh? What happens if you don't pay your taxes? An anarchist won't show up at your door with a gun to lock you in a cage, but men in suits will.

Also, my idea of a utopian society isn't one that's "perfect", but "free". You've still yet to explain as to what reason government has a right to enforce these rules upon me. You cannot, because they have no right to. Therefore, my point that a "free" society is the only "fair" society stands.

[Something completely different]

Nothing personaly, but over a period of time i have started to dislike people who use "quotes" to underline their points.
This mans quote, might be in terms with this man`s views.
But I am certain you are aware that people oftern missuse quotes.
Which is why, when the works of a individual, perfectly explain my point.
I quote the book and give a clear description on where to find that quote.
I`m not going to demand from you to end quoting your favorite philosophers daily conversations. But if you believe that you have read the works of an individual who perfectly underlines your views.
I politly ask you to quote that book, and if that is not possible (which i would understand) leave me title, author and publisher.
Yes I would actualy be ready to read into that if it would help me understand a point.
small quotes or quotations from small conversations, can be used in so many dishonest ways, that in time i have simply started to ignore them when they are used to represent a individual point of view.
You might not be one of those, in which case i ask you to provide titles of studies of your philosophy.

@ The_Germans_are_coming
Statism (French: étatisme) is a term used by political scientists to describe the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy or both to some degree.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

Statism might ideologicaly be the opposite of anarchy, but from a objective point of view, they are not that different.
The one tries to enforce all under collective , the other tries to force everyone out of collectives.
The "force" stays within the description, in both ideologies there`s no space for a pragmatist, nor for any change. You cant choose a middle way, one has to accept one of both extrems.
A democracy in which the current state of affairs can change and policies concerning influence of collective actions can be weakend or strenghtend with the change of the administration is missing.
And change of administration is a necessity within a functioning sociaty.

You don't live in a totalitarian state huh? What happens if you don't pay your taxes? An anarchist won't show up at your door with a gun to lock you in a cage, but men in suits will.

But i can choose to demand that i am no longer willing to pay taxes within the framework a democracy offers. If i am convincing enought to get votes, i can then abolish taxes, if this results in success, it will be seen as such by the public and other elected goverments will not change that "progress".
If this policie is a failure, the upcoming election will depose me and the "failed" policies will be undone.
This is the great benefit of a democracy which no other totalitarian aproach to create an utopia can offer, the concept of change in case of failure, which keeps ideologies from inforcing their utopia.

Also, my idea of a utopian society isn't one that's "perfect", but "free". You've still yet to explain as to what reason government has a right to enforce these rules upon me. You cannot, because they have no right to. Therefore, my point that a "free" society is the only "fair" society stands.

ohhh come on. your just playing with words again, like an addvertising agent. changeing perfect into free. This doesn`t make any difference since your idea of a perfect sociaty is a "free" sociaty.
I am not saying it has the right to inforce those rules. What i am saying is that within a democracy you have the right, to through popular support, change the goverment and thereby change what the goverment can inforce.
But if you ignore the framework that democracy has and simply outright demand your views without popular support, stating that your "free" sociaty is the best and is not in need of democracy, you aren`t any different that any other totalitarian utopianist.

[Mister Agenda]

I'm a libertarian (okay, 'liberaltarian'). I'm not rich, I'm not against government. The difference between libertarianism and anarchism is that libertarians think we have too much government and anarchists think any government is too much government. Anarchists tend to hang out with us because they think we're going in the right direction though we're short-sighted fools who don't realize the solution is to get rid of government altogether. Libertarians range from 'minarchists' who desire the minimum government consistent with protecting our rights and freedoms to Constitutionalists who think government should be limited to a role consistent with a very literal reading of our Constitution to classic liberals like myself who think our debt and spending are out of hand and that maybe we should hold the budget where it is for awhile and insist new spending come from cuts in other areas.

Most libertarians agree on the government being neutral regarding social issues (which means not forbidding us from marrying the consenting adult of our choice, for one thing) , but here I was just focusing on the differences between anarchists and libertarians (and other libertarians).

[JefferyHale]

Nothing personaly, but over a period of time i have started to dislike people who use "quotes" to underline their points.
This mans quote, might be in terms with this man`s views.
But I am certain you are aware that people oftern missuse quotes.
Which is why, when the works of a individual, perfectly explain my point.
I quote the book and give a clear description on where to find that quote.
I`m not going to demand from you to end quoting your favorite philosophers daily conversations. But if you believe that you have read the works of an individual who perfectly underlines your views.
I politly ask you to quote that book, and if that is not possible (which i would understand) leave me title, author and publisher.
Yes I would actualy be ready to read into that if it would help me understand a point.
small quotes or quotations from small conversations, can be used in so many dishonest ways, that in time i have simply started to ignore them when they are used to represent a individual point of view.
You might not be one of those, in which case i ask you to provide titles of studies of your philosophy.

@ The_Germans_are_coming
Statism (French: étatisme) is a term used by political scientists to describe the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy or both to some degree.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

Statism might ideologicaly be the opposite of anarchy, but from a objective point of view, they are not that different.
The one tries to enforce all under collective , the other tries to force everyone out of collectives.
The "force" stays within the description, in both ideologies there`s no space for a pragmatist, nor for any change. You cant choose a middle way, one has to accept one of both extrems.
A democracy in which the current state of affairs can change and policies concerning influence of collective actions can be weakend or strenghtend with the change of the administration is missing.
And change of administration is a necessity within a functioning sociaty.

You don't live in a totalitarian state huh? What happens if you don't pay your taxes? An anarchist won't show up at your door with a gun to lock you in a cage, but men in suits will.

But i can choose to demand that i am no longer willing to pay taxes within the framework a democracy offers. If i am convincing enought to get votes, i can then abolish taxes, if this results in success, it will be seen as such by the public and other elected goverments will not change that "progress".
If this policie is a failure, the upcoming election will depose me and the "failed" policies will be undone.
This is the great benefit of a democracy which no other totalitarian aproach to create an utopia can offer, the concept of change in case of failure, which keeps ideologies from inforcing their utopia.

Also, my idea of a utopian society isn't one that's "perfect", but "free". You've still yet to explain as to what reason government has a right to enforce these rules upon me. You cannot, because they have no right to. Therefore, my point that a "free" society is the only "fair" society stands.

ohhh come on. your just playing with words again, like an addvertising agent. changeing perfect into free. This doesn`t make any difference since your idea of a perfect sociaty is a "free" sociaty.
I am not saying it has the right to inforce those rules. What i am saying is that within a democracy you have the right, to through popular support, change the goverment and thereby change what the goverment can inforce.
But if you ignore the framework that democracy has and simply outright demand your views without popular support, stating that your "free" sociaty is the best and is not in need of democracy, you aren`t any different that any other totalitarian utopianist.

I only use quotes that represent my stance & back things I too have already said. You read my "wall-of-text" earlier. Nevertheless, if a quote or philosopher best represents my point(s), then I'm going to use it where I see fit. I see no problem with this. Now, if I didn't have any ideas of my own to offer up & used only quotes from other individuals, then I too would agree with you. None of the quotes I've used thus far were taken out of context.

As for you response to "statism", you're incorrect. In a stateless society, there would be NO force. Therefore negating what it is you responded with. A democracy advocates "mob rules" & that the majority have a say over the minority. The reason people vote in a leader, is so that particular leader puts into motion that in which they feel is moral & just, even if others do not wish to follow said rules/laws. This goes against my principals.

You can abolish taxes by voting? Which ballot supported this? Sounds as if you're cherry-picking to justify your stance on the matter.

And you're not playing words? So, because they don't have a right to enforce their rules/laws onto me, I should then take the approach THEY too see fit in order to change something that is merely a pipe-dream in a government-based society? Do you see the irony here? Why have government in the first place? This is my point. Without government I wouldn't have to vote to change things that just won't happen.

What is this hard-on with the state/government? I take it you're a product of public schools? You see anarchism as chaos & that is merely an illusion. If you'd like to know some facts as to how things would resolve themselves, I'd suggest watching videos from the channel provided below. They're not for someone wanting to jump on the bandwagon of anarchism due to aesthetics & the name, but for individuals interested in the ideology.

http://www.youtube.com/user/AnCapChase/featured

Also, here's another excellent video (that's not nearly as long as most).
[youtube]CkUAehWjtlg[/youtube]

Also, I'd recommend, if you haven't already, looking into the different forms of anarchy. I stand by anarcho-capitalism & find the others deplorable & that is why I align myself with this particular sub-sect of anarchism. There's a huge different between something like anarcho-capitalism & anarcho-communism.

[festive1]

As for you response to "statism", you're incorrect. In a stateless society, there would be NO force. Therefore negating what it is you responded with. A democracy advocates "mob rules" & that the majority have a say over the minority. The reason people vote in a leader, is so that particular leader puts into motion that in which they feel is moral & just, even if others do not wish to follow said rules/laws. This goes against my principals.

Not true. There would be force and lots of it. When my husband last visited Mogadishu about 9 years ago, he got an armed guard of 6 guys with AK-47's with his hotel room. When there is no legitimate law enforcement, people take up weapons and defend themselves, often to disastrous effect.

You can abolish taxes by voting? Which ballot supported this? Sounds as if you're cherry-picking to justify your stance on the matter.

Well the thing about democracy is that majority is supposed to rule. Since the majority of voters don't wish to abolish taxes, it hasn't been put on the ballot lately. If there were a sizable group of like-minded people who had a representative supporting their cause, it could be put on the ballot. But there isn't a sizable group that supports this measure, hence why it hasn't been put up to a vote.

And you're not playing words? So, because they don't have a right to enforce their rules/laws onto me, I should then take the approach THEY too see fit in order to change something that is merely a pipe-dream in a government-based society? Do you see the irony here? Why have government in the first place? This is my point. Without government I wouldn't have to vote to change things that just won't happen.

I'll use Obama's "You didn't build that," line here. You've used public roads, you've used public water lines, I'm guessing you attended public schools, you didn't and couldn't build that on your own. People figured out millennia ago that our chances of survival go up if we work together. Why regress? That's why we developed a whole slew of institutions, religions, governments, etc. Not that these institutions shouldn't be questioned and in some cases left aside, but basic rule of law is one really good reason for a central government.

Would you ever consider visiting to Somalia to experience anarchy yourself? Why or why not.

[Minimalist]

The difference between libertarianism and anarchism is that.....

the anarchists are honest.

[JefferyHale]

As for you response to "statism", you're incorrect. In a stateless society, there would be NO force. Therefore negating what it is you responded with. A democracy advocates "mob rules" & that the majority have a say over the minority. The reason people vote in a leader, is so that particular leader puts into motion that in which they feel is moral & just, even if others do not wish to follow said rules/laws. This goes against my principals.

Not true. There would be force and lots of it. When my husband last visited Mogadishu about 9 years ago, he got an armed guard of 6 guys with AK-47's with his hotel room. When there is no legitimate law enforcement, people take up weapons and defend themselves, often to disastrous effect.

You can abolish taxes by voting? Which ballot supported this? Sounds as if you're cherry-picking to justify your stance on the matter.

Well the thing about democracy is that majority is supposed to rule. Since the majority of voters don't wish to abolish taxes, it hasn't been put on the ballot lately. If there were a sizable group of like-minded people who had a representative supporting their cause, it could be put on the ballot. But there isn't a sizable group that supports this measure, hence why it hasn't been put up to a vote.

And you're not playing words? So, because they don't have a right to enforce their rules/laws onto me, I should then take the approach THEY too see fit in order to change something that is merely a pipe-dream in a government-based society? Do you see the irony here? Why have government in the first place? This is my point. Without government I wouldn't have to vote to change things that just won't happen.

I'll use Obama's "You didn't build that," line here. You've used public roads, you've used public water lines, I'm guessing you attended public schools, you didn't and couldn't build that on your own. People figured out millennia ago that our chances of survival go up if we work together. Why regress? That's why we developed a whole slew of institutions, religions, governments, etc. Not that these institutions shouldn't be questioned and in some cases left aside, but basic rule of law is one really good reason for a central government.

Would you ever consider visiting to Somalia to experience anarchy yourself? Why or why not.

Public roads, water lines & the like would absolutely still exist! So, because government is gone, somehow roads wouldn't exist? I'm surprised this wasn't brought up sooner, since this seems to the the first thing people gravitate towards. I'm headed out for a drink, but will elaborate on this point a little later. Yes, I did attend public school, against my will. I had no say in the matter, therefore it's invalid. I am vehemently against public schools though!

Contrary to popular belief, Somalia does in fact have a government. They have a parliament & a president. It is a democracy, just like the U.S., but different at the same time. I would have no interest in visiting because their culture differs from that in which I'm fond of & their climate isn't partial to redheaded individuals. The reason shit is so chaotic there, has nothing to do with government or lackthereof. Their civil unrest is due to their culture & most likely, religion(s).

Again, people view anarchy as "total chaos" & in certain sub-sects I would agree. However, anarcho-capitalism is structured to work, in my opinion. That which is set into place (I've done extensive research) makes sense to me & is the only fair way of running things. Which is: Non-aggression principle, self-ownership, voluntary association, and natural order.

---

The difference between libertarianism and anarchism is that.....

the anarchists are honest.

Nice! I would compare most libertarians to agnostics. They're apologists. Where, I would compare most anarchists to atheists. They're bold.

[festive1]

Contrary to popular belief, Somalia does in fact have a government. They have a parliament & a president. It is a democracy, just like the U.S., but different at the same time. I would have no interest in visiting because their culture differs from that in which I'm fond of & their climate isn't partial to redheaded individuals. The reason shit is so chaotic there, has nothing to do with government or lackthereof. Their civil unrest is due to their culture & most likely, religion(s).

Yes, Somalia has a government, that controls a few square miles of the country... That's it. Minus Somaliland (if Somalia looks like a number 7 on the map, Somaliland is the horizontal part), but no other country recognizes Somaliland as an independent state. However, Somaliland does have a functioning, central government. It's capital is Hergeisa.
Somalians have a clan-based culture. Each clan vying for control. Replace corporation for clan, and we get your ideal world. Though I do agree with you about the climate not suiting us pasty white folk (I got a nasty sunburn in Kenya after about 30 minutes in the sun).
As for roads, well I guess it's a good thing that America has them in time for the anarchy to begin. But roads have to be repaired regularly. Without a central government how would something this simple get accomplished?
I'd be happy with an admission/clarification of this being your ideal, fantasy, "if I were king of the world" world, not an actual world in which anyone would have to function. I can respect that, even if I don't agree with it. Because, pragmatically speaking, your plan sucks, especially if you aren't rich... or white (I can't overlook the racial undertones of social darwinism, sorry)