[quote]molnes wrote:
If guns were free to own for everybody except the state guns would be used by the corporations. And they would be much more cruel than the government is now, because they are run without democratic control. [/quote]
And you forgot to add that they are inherently evil because they want to make a profit and in the process employ mass amounts of people which is a terrible thing.
to illustrate my point further:
The hegemonic relationship between you and your local, state, and federal governments could not be said to be anarchic; however, your familial and community business relationships are voluntary would be considered anarchic.
Your categorical error lies in the fact that you look for a particular institution which supports anarchy when in fact it comes about only when there are no such institutions.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Please stop using pish posh, orion. [/quote]
I really, really, tried.
But that post was crying out for it.
Its just a phase anyway.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I believe in gun control. In fact, I believe guns should taken from the hands of the the State and put in the hands of its people.[/quote]
And the church said amen…
There’s a lot of people here talking nonsense about ‘anarchy’. I know reading stuff and history and all that is boring but the political inevitabilities of ‘anarchy’ are virtual mathematical certainties that were recognised four centuries before Christ. They’ve been proven right ever since. Anarchists please read this, and note the term ‘oclocracy’ means ‘anarchy’ for all intents and purposes.
These are the FUNDAMENTAL principles of politics.
The outer world is a reflection of the inner world. We have a government because we need a government and we need a government because we believe we need a government.
There is no need for government in terms of the market (word to the wise, this is one big ass can-of-worms so if you want to bring it up, get ready for for what could be literally months of debating), this is seen in anarchic Ireland which lasted roughly a millennium (!!!).
However, it did eventually fail for the one reason that anarchism ultimately fails and that reason is its inability to produce a standing army to the scale of a state. Ireland was eventually conquered by England, granted it took literally hundreds of years and this is because guerilla armies are ridiculously good at defence (look up just how long the Iraqi state army held up against the U.S. vs. how long the guerilla army has and you’ll see just how big the gap is).
Internally, anarchism can and has functioned perfectly well and is more efficient than the state model (at least compared to dictatorships as seen in Somalia), but the best it can do relative to invading nations is guerilla warfare, which is a life no person accustomed to living in a developed nation would want. Having said this, mankind has been and currently is moving towards “anarchism” (as seen in Lloyd DeMaus’ “psycho-history” model) but we’re not ready. The next step will be meritocracy and it may stay that way for a very long time as it would take the gradual phasing out of every state to achieve sustainable statelessness.
Ireland >> ASUS ZenFone Smartphone Android Terbaik | Polycentricorder Car Reviews
Somalia >> Anarchy in Somalia | Mises Institute
>> The Rule of Law without the State | Mises Institute
Psychohistory >> http://www.psychohistory.com/
>> http://www.psychohistory.com/
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
…anarchic Ireland…However, it did eventually fail for the one reason that anarchism ultimately fails and that reason is its inability to produce a standing army to the scale of a state. Ireland was eventually conquered by England…
Internally, anarchism can and has functioned perfectly well…
[/quote]
No, it didn’t function well and the proof of that is built into your post above.
[/quote]
And where is it built?
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
There is no need for government in terms of the market (word to the wise, this is one big ass can-of-worms so if you want to bring it up, get ready for for what could be literally months of debating), this is seen in anarchic Ireland which lasted roughly a millennium (!!!).
However, it did eventually fail for the one reason that anarchism ultimately fails and that reason is its inability to produce a standing army to the scale of a state. Ireland was eventually conquered by England, granted it took literally hundreds of years and this is because guerilla armies are ridiculously good at defence
[/quote]
Not sure who’s been teaching you Irish history. Before the Norman invasions from Britain in the 12th century the clans of Ireland were ruled by Gaelic monarchs who were all supposed to be subject to the authority of the King of Tara(rotational appointment) but in practice weren’t. From the Gaelic feudal aristocracy a Norman-Gaelic aristocracy emerged over time.
In addition Ireland was never ‘eventually conquered’ by England. Ireland has NEVER and WILL NEVER be conquered by Britain. The Irish nationalist movement is the longest running guerrilla war in world history and the IRA is an undefeated army. Also, during the border campaign of the 1950’s the IRA was organised as a conventional army. Infantry columns were sent into the six northern provinces to capture and hold positions.
Please refrain from nonsense about ‘anarchic Ireland for a millenium’. I don’t have the time nor inclination to continue to refute such crap.
Ireland >> ASUS ZenFone Smartphone Android Terbaik | Polycentricorder Car Reviews
^^ And this is the biggest load of hogshit I’ve read in months.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
…anarchic Ireland…However, it did eventually fail for the one reason that anarchism ultimately fails and that reason is its inability to produce a standing army to the scale of a state. Ireland was eventually conquered by England…
Internally, anarchism can and has functioned perfectly well…
[/quote]
No, it didn’t function well and the proof of that is built into your post above.
[/quote]
And where is it built?[/quote]
Here:
[quote]
TigerTime wrote: …anarchism ultimately fails…[/quote]
I read the article you cited and “failure” is rife in Ireland during the millennium the author mentioned as relative bliss.
Why do I say that? Because it was obvious the Irish “anarchy” was incapable of defending its people from Norman, Viking and English invaders during the entire period and of course at the end by Cromwell.
Did it capitulate as a state in the traditional sense? No.
Were the people and property invaded, enslaved, looted, raped and pillaged repeatedly? Yes.
When invasion, slavery, looting, raping, and pillaging can occur over and over again to a populace then no sane man can say failure of an established political system (or lack thereof in this case) has not occurred.[/quote]
… You do realize that the entire point of my comment was to outline foreign invasion as anarchisms failure, right?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
There is no need for government in terms of the market (word to the wise, this is one big ass can-of-worms so if you want to bring it up, get ready for for what could be literally months of debating), this is seen in anarchic Ireland which lasted roughly a millennium (!!!).
However, it did eventually fail for the one reason that anarchism ultimately fails and that reason is its inability to produce a standing army to the scale of a state. Ireland was eventually conquered by England, granted it took literally hundreds of years and this is because guerilla armies are ridiculously good at defence
[/quote]
Not sure who’s been teaching you Irish history. Before the Norman invasions from Britain in the 12th century the clans of Ireland were ruled by Gaelic monarchs who were all supposed to be subject to the authority of the King of Tara(rotational appointment) but in practice weren’t. From the Gaelic feudal aristocracy a Norman-Gaelic aristocracy emerged over time.
In addition Ireland was never ‘eventually conquered’ by England. Ireland has NEVER and WILL NEVER be conquered by Britain. The Irish nationalist movement is the longest running guerrilla war in world history and the IRA is an undefeated army. Also, during the border campaign of the 1950’s the IRA was organised as a conventional army. Infantry columns were sent into the six northern provinces to capture and hold positions.
Please refrain from nonsense about ‘anarchic Ireland for a millenium’. I don’t have the time nor inclination to continue to refute such crap.[/quote]
My, my, you must be Irish. First off, Irish monarchs had virtually no influence, most of the Irish organized themselves into tuatha and decided things within the tuath. You can call a tuath a petty kingdom or a mini-state if that’s how you view it, but for all intents and purposes it was a completely voluntary group and is what most “anarchists” would consider statelessness.
I didn’t mean “conquered” as in “assimilated” (though, I suppose one could look at northern Ireland in that way…) I’m saying it conquered anarchic Ireland to the extent that it forced it to adopt a more conventional style of government to remain independent. England ended anarchic Ireland, not Ireland period.
If you personally consider ~650 CE to ~1650 CE in Ireland to be statist because of tuatha then fine, but I don’t consider tuatha to be states so I don’t call it statism.
I suppose this boils down to: what do you personally consider to be the definition of a state?
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
My, my, you must be Irish. First off, Irish monarchs had virtually no influence, most of the Irish organized themselves into tuatha and decided things within the tuath. You can call a tuath a petty kingdom or a mini-state if that’s how you view it, but for all intents and purposes it was a completely voluntary group and is what most “anarchists” would consider statelessness.
I didn’t mean “conquered” as in “assimilated” (though, I suppose one could look at northern Ireland in that way…) I’m saying it conquered anarchic Ireland to the extent that it forced it to adopt a more conventional style of government to remain independent. England ended anarchic Ireland, not Ireland period.
If you personally consider ~650 CE to ~1650 CE in Ireland to be statist because of tuatha then fine, but I don’t consider tuatha to be states so I don’t call it statism.
I suppose this boils down to: what do you personally consider to be the definition of a state?[/quote]
The Gaelic monarchs did have varying degrees of power but were in constant civil war with each other. RE the tuath:
‘Due to the complex and ever-changing political nature of ancient Ireland, tÃ?ºatha ranged from being sovereign, locally autonomous kingdoms to states comprising a much larger sovereign kingdom, such as Connacht or Ulaid, and thus describing their place in the socio-political structure of Ireland is varied depending on the power and influence of the individual dynasties. Also much varies depending on what era one is referring to.’
The tuatha were the clan nobility. Many monarchs in history were restrained by their nobility. In fact it was largely the norm. That’s why I describe his article and the assertion that Ireland was an ‘anarchic’ society as hogshit.
Also, the author of that article doesn’t know what ‘anarchism’ is. Anarchy is unrestrained mob rule. It VERY quickly degenerates into dictatorship/monarchy i.e. rule of the one. It has nothing in common with Ireland during the period he mentions nor any other recorded period in Irish history.
[quote]
If someone walks in on you in your sleep you are dead and no copper will save you; however, if you have a private security firm monitoring your property you might be better defended.[/quote]
then, if there is no other state around, your private security firm IS the state…
and there will always have some kind of gun controls.
Big guns control small guns.
nowadays the guy with the nuclear bombs rules.
C’est la vie. Deal with it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
…anarchic Ireland…However, it did eventually fail for the one reason that anarchism ultimately fails and that reason is its inability to produce a standing army to the scale of a state. Ireland was eventually conquered by England…
Internally, anarchism can and has functioned perfectly well…
[/quote]
No, it didn’t function well and the proof of that is built into your post above.
[/quote]
And where is it built?[/quote]
Here:
[quote]
TigerTime wrote: …anarchism ultimately fails…[/quote]
I read the article you cited and “failure” is rife in Ireland during the millennium the author mentioned as relative bliss.
Why do I say that? Because it was obvious the Irish “anarchy” was incapable of defending its people from Norman, Viking and English invaders during the entire period and of course at the end by Cromwell.
Did it capitulate as a state in the traditional sense? No.
Were the people and property invaded, enslaved, looted, raped and pillaged repeatedly? Yes.
When invasion, slavery, looting, raping, and pillaging can occur over and over again to a populace then no sane man can say failure of an established political system (or lack thereof in this case) has not occurred.[/quote]
… You do realize that the entire point of my comment was to outline foreign invasion as anarchisms failure, right? [/quote]
And you do realize that the entire point of mine is that because foreign invasion outlines anarchism’s failure that therefore IT DOESN’T “FUNCTION WELL”, right?[/quote]
… Do you know what the word internally means?
When I say it funcions internally but fails on foreign invasion how am I suddenly wrong just because you jump in and say “yeah but it fails on foreign invasion, SO THERE!!!”?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
My, my, you must be Irish. First off, Irish monarchs had virtually no influence, most of the Irish organized themselves into tuatha and decided things within the tuath. You can call a tuath a petty kingdom or a mini-state if that’s how you view it, but for all intents and purposes it was a completely voluntary group and is what most “anarchists” would consider statelessness.
I didn’t mean “conquered” as in “assimilated” (though, I suppose one could look at northern Ireland in that way…) I’m saying it conquered anarchic Ireland to the extent that it forced it to adopt a more conventional style of government to remain independent. England ended anarchic Ireland, not Ireland period.
If you personally consider ~650 CE to ~1650 CE in Ireland to be statist because of tuatha then fine, but I don’t consider tuatha to be states so I don’t call it statism.
I suppose this boils down to: what do you personally consider to be the definition of a state?[/quote]
The Gaelic monarchs did have varying degrees of power but were in constant civil war with each other. RE the tuath:
‘Due to the complex and ever-changing political nature of ancient Ireland, tÃ??Ã?ºatha ranged from being sovereign, locally autonomous kingdoms to states comprising a much larger sovereign kingdom, such as Connacht or Ulaid, and thus describing their place in the socio-political structure of Ireland is varied depending on the power and influence of the individual dynasties. Also much varies depending on what era one is referring to.’
The tuatha were the clan nobility. Many monarchs in history were restrained by their nobility. In fact it was largely the norm. That’s why I describe his article and the assertion that Ireland was an ‘anarchic’ society as hogshit.
Also, the author of that article doesn’t know what ‘anarchism’ is. Anarchy is unrestrained mob rule. It VERY quickly degenerates into dictatorship/monarchy i.e. rule of the one. It has nothing in common with Ireland during the period he mentions nor any other recorded period in Irish history.[/quote]
I’ve talked about this topic a lot, much more than I care to mention and this is ultimately what it comes down to; semantics. You define “anarchism” outside of how I do and in fact I found this to be the case so often that I would usually start putting the word in quotations and ease into using “statelessness” instead, kinda like I’ve been doing here.
If you count tuatha as states then obviously there was no thousand year “anarchy”. But this is where Ireland becomes greatly a wash, there is very little that can be proven either way about such an ancient society (even the wikipedia article you mention is incredibly vague and short) and it comes down to how you look at it. I see a voluntary group not surviving on taxation nor a fiat land claim and is therefore anarchic as far as I use the word, you see a petty kingdom. Another example would be brehon law. On the one hand, no single theory as to the origin of early Irish law is universally accepted, on the other hand most consider brehon law to be a bottom-up emergent order and therefore proof that there is order within a stateless society. Because of this I also mention Somalia to illustrate my point when I come across someone who simply doesn’t view Ireland this way.
Somalia had a state (the Barre regime) which collapsed and left the country functionally stateless. As a result most measures of quality of life rose and the most troubles Somalia has had has been from invading nations trying to set up a state, like the UN for instance.
Internally speaking, statelessness is functional, I would go as far to say preferable, however it can’t compete with a standing army, at least not unless it wants endless guerilla warfare, and so I say “anarchism” fails.
^^
Anarchy - noun:
Ancient Irish law: ‘Brehon’:
Pre-Norman ancient Irish government: Feudal aristocracy/monarchy with oligarchic characteristics - clan/tribal based.
‘a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.’