Anarchist Roll Call

[Varqanir]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Your anarchist states would work fine… until my anarchist state runs out of food and comes and kills you and everyone in your anarchist state so we can eat. [/quote]

That sounds very much like the oft-stated argument of the proponents of disarmament: if everyone had a gun, there would be gunfights on every corner of every street. People would shoot and kill one another over the most minor of imagined slights or offenses, and the highways would run red with blood from road-rage-induced gun battles. It would be the Old West all over again.

This is precisely what they said about Kennesaw, Georgia, shortly before legislation was passed requiring all heads of households to have at least one gun in the house. Contrary to “conventional wisdom,” crime plummeted in Kennesaw after the law was passed, and has remained low ever since.

In places with a preponderance of responsible and capable armed citizens (this would be practically any rural town away from the coasts, away from major cities, and mostly west of the Ohio River), you find very little gun-related violence, and very little violent crime at all. Ditto for rural towns in Austria and Switzerland, where privately-owned firearms are extremely common, and people shooting each other with them is extremely rare.

Strangely enough, what these places also seem to have in common is the least amount of government.

The implication that some people seem to be making on this thread is that our civil society is held together only by the thinnest of string; that only the existence of law enforcement agents, government bureaucrats, armed forces personnel, tax collectors, and politicians keeps us from reverting to our natural state of savagery and barbarity, slitting our neighbors’ throats for their food and women. I just don’t buy it.

Push, you asked for a working model of anarchy. I invite you to look around your neighborhood. Tell me, my friend, how much better your life would be if you didn’t have to deal with all of the policemen, bureaucrats, soldiers, IRS agents, BATFE agents, and politicians swarming all over your neck of the woods.

Actually, my guess is that you hardly ever see any of the aforementioned. And yet, I presume you are not suffering because you lack government assistance. I further presume that your neighbors have never invaded your property, carried off your wife and daughter, stolen your horses and burned your house down; and that they have refrained from doing these things (as likewise you have refrained from doing so to them), not because they fear prosecution by the law, or retribution by yourself, but because they’re decent people.

That, my friends, is all that anarchy is. Decent people, living as they please, not interfering with each other’s business, and without requiring any help or hindrance from the Authorities.

Possible? Of course. Desirable? Absolutely.

But not, as has been mentioned, for everyone.

[Mikeyali]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

I further presume that your neighbors have never invaded your property, carried off your wife and daughter, stolen your horses and burned your house down; and that they have refrained from doing these things (as likewise you have refrained from doing so to them), not because they fear prosecution by the law, or retribution by yourself, but because they’re decent people.

[/quote]

Honestly, I don’t think anyone’s concern is for the neighbor coming over and taking your wife and daughter; it’s the local warlord with more guys and bigger guns with you and your friends. The concern is the devolution of society we see in Somalia.

mike

[Varqanir]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Sounds great, buddy, but you can’t cite my neighborhood as a working model because my neighborhood operates within the confines of Lincoln County, the State of Montana, the United States of America, and the world. Decent people are a lot of places but not everywhere. [/quote]

I trust you have noticed the numerous times I have stated “anarchy is not for everyone.” Incapable, irresponsible, indecent people probably need government, and plenty of it.

I do see some differences between you and I philosophically. You believe in the inherent Good in Man and I believe in the inherent Evil.

Poppycock.

If I believed in the inherent Good in Man, I wouldn’t have taken such pains to arm myself against attack.

Let’s look at history and see if we can find a pattern that might lead us to a logical conclusion as to which guy, the one in the white hat or the one in the black one, has prevailed, shall we?

If history is anything, it is a litany of the guys in black hats getting beaten by the guys in white hats, who then put on the black hats themselves for a while, before getting trounced by new guys in white hats.

I believe that Man is neither inherently good nor evil. I believe that most men are decent, but that some are not, and that a great many are cowards, weaklings, and bullies (being one generally leads to becoming the other). It is this last group that needs government the most. And paradoxically, this is the group that governments need the most, to fill the ranks of their secret police.

Goethe tells us that the man who cannot master himself is unfit to rule. I say, conversely, that the man who can master himself needs no ruler. This kind of man is rare. Which is why I say, for hopefully the last time, that anarchy isn’t for everyone.

[Varqanir]

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Honestly, I don’t think anyone’s concern is for the neighbor coming over and taking your wife and daughter; it’s the local warlord with more guys and bigger guns with you and your friends. The concern is the devolution of society we see in Somalia.

mike[/quote]

In places where rival tribes vie for territory and increasingly scarce resources, as was the case in Somalia, this is indeed a danger.

Which is why devolution of society is more likely in a place like California or New York than in Idaho or Montana. Or Minnesota, I might add (of course, there are quite a lot of Somali immigrants in Minnesota, which has always struck me as odd. Of all the places for an African from a hot, arid country to emigrate to, MInnesota seems a rather unlikely choice.)

[Varqanir]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

OK, so since “hopefully for the last time anarchy isn’t for everyone” and “incapable, irresponsible, indecent people probably need government, and plenty of it,” what are you going to do with these folks? [/quote]

What am I going to do with them? I’m not going to do a thing with them, except hopefully not live by them.

And when one of your folks becomes irresponsible and/or indecent, what do you do with him? Do you have a non-existent government remove him, put him on a Con Air flight and fly him to the Land of the Governed? How does this work?

Depends on who he is, or what he’s done. If he’s just irresponsible, then I suppose we’d laugh at him. If he’s indecent, then it would depend on the degree of indecency. If he’s walking around with his dingaling hanging out of his pants, then I suppose we’d laugh at him and tell him to zip up his goddamn pants.

If he’s touching little girls on their private parts, then I suppose we’d horse-whip him and run him out of town.

And if he’s raping women and killing people, then I suppose I or someone else would shoot the sumbitch.

Why? What would you do?

[pittbulll]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Anarchists of the world, unite!!

Just so long as we don’t form a club and elect officers . . . .I’ll be pissed if this starts getting organized - LMAO!!!

Where is it written that anarchists are unorganized? Anarchists are unruled. There is a difference. We can organize without a power structure in place.

I know you are pulling my leg again, but how can you organize with out structure?

The key word is “power”. Anarchy only exists outside a coercive authority.

Anarchist society would be no more structured than where you work. Your boss is not your “leader” but he is understood to be above you in a chain of “command”. You are free to leave whenever you want. That is how voluntary society works. You are beholden to none but your own best interests.[/quote]

I know there is no such thing as synonymous, but structure and organized are 2 words pretty closely related you can not have structure and organization with out rules. You may have a group of people that honor the golden rule, which would do away with all others, but you would have to have minimal rules at least.

[pittbulll]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Has anarchy successfully demonstrated itself anywhere? Do we have a working model? Or do we just have the Utopian hopes and dreams of the LIFITCs, Crowleys, et al?[/quote]

I think Somalia is pretty close to Anarchy

[pittbulll]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:

Sounds great, buddy, but you can’t cite my neighborhood as a working model because my neighborhood operates within the confines of Lincoln County, the State of Montana, the United States of America, and the world. Decent people are a lot of places but not everywhere.

I trust you have noticed the numerous times I have stated “anarchy is not for everyone.” Incapable, irresponsible, indecent people probably need government, and plenty of it.

I do see some differences between you and I philosophically. You believe in the inherent Good in Man and I believe in the inherent Evil.

Poppycock.

If I believed in the inherent Good in Man, I wouldn’t have taken such pains to arm myself against attack.

Let’s look at history and see if we can find a pattern that might lead us to a logical conclusion as to which guy, the one in the white hat or the one in the black one, has prevailed, shall we?

If history is anything, it is a litany of the guys in black hats getting beaten by the guys in white hats, who then put on the black hats themselves for a while, before getting trounced by new guys in white hats.

I believe that Man is neither inherently good nor evil. I believe that most men are decent, but that some are not, and that a great many are cowards, weaklings, and bullies (being one generally leads to becoming the other). It is this last group that needs government the most. And paradoxically, this is the group that governments need the most, to fill the ranks of their secret police.

Goethe tells us that the man who cannot master himself is unfit to rule. I say, conversely, that the man who can master himself needs no ruler. This kind of man is rare. Which is why I say, for hopefully the last time, that anarchy isn’t for everyone.[/quote]

How would you implement this plan that is not for everyone, what would you do with the ones that did not fit in?

[pittbulll]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:

OK, so since “hopefully for the last time anarchy isn’t for everyone” and “incapable, irresponsible, indecent people probably need government, and plenty of it,” what are you going to do with these folks?

What am I going to do with them? I’m not going to do a thing with them, except hopefully not live by them.

And when one of your folks becomes irresponsible and/or indecent, what do you do with him? Do you have a non-existent government remove him, put him on a Con Air flight and fly him to the Land of the Governed? How does this work?

Depends on who he is, or what he’s done. If he’s just irresponsible, then I suppose we’d laugh at him. If he’s indecent, then it would depend on the degree of indecency. If he’s walking around with his dingaling hanging out of his pants, then I suppose we’d laugh at him and tell him to zip up his goddamn pants.

If he’s touching little girls on their private parts, then I suppose we’d horse-whip him and run him out of town.

And if he’s raping women and killing people, then I suppose I or someone else would shoot the sumbitch.

Why? What would you do?[/quote]

What would you do with property disputes or contract disputes or entities such as steel mills that pollute water or air? And letâ??s say your community will put up because they get the benefit, with it but mine wonâ??t, will we have war?

[AlisaV]

Look, you guys must know that the traditional anarchist solution to violence is private, competing security services, Blackwater-style. Now of course these security services would probably fight each other – I can imagine gang wars with military-level weaponry – but that’s precisely the state of affairs that prevails between nations right now. Groups of people make war on each other. In an anarchist society the groups making war wouldn’t be called states. My intuition is that it would be a very dangerous place to live, but it’s not dangerous because of crime; it’s dangerous because of turf wars between private security services (aka warlords, or gangs, or families.)

[Headhunter]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Anarchists of the world, unite!!

Just so long as we don’t form a club and elect officers . . . .I’ll be pissed if this starts getting organized - LMAO!!!

Where is it written that anarchists are unorganized? Anarchists are unruled. There is a difference. We can organize without a power structure in place.[/quote]

Unorganised organisation? Interesting.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

Nature organizes itself. The state is not necessary to do this.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Look, you guys must know that the traditional anarchist solution to violence is private, competing security services, Blackwater-style. Now of course these security services would probably fight each other – I can imagine gang wars with military-level weaponry – but that’s precisely the state of affairs that prevails between nations right now. Groups of people make war on each other. In an anarchist society the groups making war wouldn’t be called states. My intuition is that it would be a very dangerous place to live, but it’s not dangerous because of crime; it’s dangerous because of turf wars between private security services (aka warlords, or gangs, or families.)[/quote]

Not necessarily. How does a private army fund a war? Professional warriors do not murder for free.