Anarchy does not imply no law. That definition is philosophically false. Throw it away.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Anarchy does not imply no law. That definition is philosophically false. Throw it away.[/quote]
Sonny, I know about the history of anarchism as a political ideology and its different branches. Hence the third definition in my last comment.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^
Anarchy - noun:
- A state or society without government or law.
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.’
- No such ideology or practice in Ireland.[/quote]
an·ar·chy/Ë?anÉ?rkÄ?/Noun
- Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal
I can pull up definitions too =/.
(from that wiki article): “Early Irish law is, like the Old Irish language, remarkably standard across an Island with >no central authority<”
Emergent order is exactly how I use the word and that is exactly what was seen in Ireland.
Given my premise, my conclusion is correct. However, if you are going to define words differently than I do then we simply won’t see eye-to-eye on Ireland. That’s fine, that’s why I also cite Somalia, but don’t act like your personal use of certain words are more objectively correct than mine, that’s just arrogant.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Early Irish law is, like the Old Irish language, remarkably standard across an Island with >no central authority<"
[/quote]
Not quite right. The King of Tara was supposed to have central authority in many areas but as I said earlier didn’t in practice.
I’m acting like I want to refute revisionist crap written by some pseudo-academic about Ireland being an anarchistic society. 
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Anarchy does not imply no law. That definition is philosophically false. Throw it away.[/quote]
Sonny, I know about the history of anarchism as a political ideology and its different branches. Hence the third definition in my last comment.
[/quote]
You don’t seem to know anything but what you remembered from factually incorrect books.
Take some time to think about the things you read.
You will be better served, sonny!
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Anarchy does not imply no law. That definition is philosophically false. Throw it away.[/quote]
Sonny, I know about the history of anarchism as a political ideology and its different branches. Hence the third definition in my last comment.
[/quote]
You don’t seem to know anything but what you remembered from factually incorrect books.
Take some time to think about the things you read.
You will be better served, sonny![/quote]
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
In the current scenario I would say most of our military actually stands opposed to the current progressive expansion of the government and if it came down to it would move back to join their localized communities and help in coordinating.[/quote]
Kinda what I was getting at. As I said, the people I know similar to Lifty, envision themselves as the last man standing in a world of zombies or King Leonidas leading the 300. They tend not to realize that every other town between LA and Boston is going to have a King Leonidas or two and that Boston, NYC, Chicago, Houston, and LA are going to have hundreds of them.
All of them will be armed, more of a reason to be armed and ready yourself. I think lots and lots of people would die, more of a reason aim for destabilizing the gov’t without destabilizing society. I don’t think the US would fare as well in a power vacuum as Egypt has.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
As I said, the people I know similar to Lifty, envision themselves as the last man standing in a world of zombies or King Leonidas leading the 300[/quote]
You really don’t know what I envision at all.
Really, it’s not so different than what I we have now except more peaceful.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
In the current scenario I would say most of our military actually stands opposed to the current progressive expansion of the government and if it came down to it would move back to join their localized communities and help in coordinating.[/quote]
Kinda what I was getting at. As I said, the people I know similar to Lifty, envision themselves as the last man standing in a world of zombies or King Leonidas leading the 300. They tend not to realize that every other town between LA and Boston is going to have a King Leonidas or two and that Boston, NYC, Chicago, Houston, and LA are going to have hundreds of them.
All of them will be armed, more of a reason to be armed and ready yourself. I think lots and lots of people would die, more of a reason aim for destabilizing the gov’t without destabilizing society. I don’t think the US would fare as well in a power vacuum as Egypt has.[/quote]
Yeah we would probably see about a 30-40% decrease in our population within a year.
In order to fix our problems, we need to convince the general populous that even though it may hurt at first not having big brother hand you everything, freedom is better and we need to cut these programs. The problem is our society in it’s current state is very violent. Taking away the handout would lead to them trying to take it for themselves.
There is so much behind the scenes people don’t fully comprehend, look at the price of food, it is subsidized to more than half of what it would cost for you to buy directly, but people don’t see that everyday. How many people receive gov’t money in energy discounts or flat out free service, housing discounts, people live so far beyond their means depending so much on all of these different support systems. Most don’t stand a chance if it is taken away. But rather than push for people to regain their independence, the gov’t is trying to steal from the ones living responsibly. So they can further support this destructive system.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
In the current scenario I would say most of our military actually stands opposed to the current progressive expansion of the government and if it came down to it would move back to join their localized communities and help in coordinating.[/quote]
Kinda what I was getting at. As I said, the people I know similar to Lifty, envision themselves as the last man standing in a world of zombies or King Leonidas leading the 300. They tend not to realize that every other town between LA and Boston is going to have a King Leonidas or two and that Boston, NYC, Chicago, Houston, and LA are going to have hundreds of them.
All of them will be armed, more of a reason to be armed and ready yourself. I think lots and lots of people would die, more of a reason aim for destabilizing the gov’t without destabilizing society. I don’t think the US would fare as well in a power vacuum as Egypt has.[/quote]
Yeah we would probably see about a 30-40% decrease in our population within a year.
In order to fix our problems, we need to convince the general populous that even though it may hurt at first not having big brother hand you everything, freedom is better and we need to cut these programs. The problem is our society in it’s current state is very violent. Taking away the handout would lead to them trying to take it for themselves.
There is so much behind the scenes people don’t fully comprehend, look at the price of food, it is subsidized to more than half of what it would cost for you to buy directly, but people don’t see that everyday. How many people receive gov’t money in energy discounts or flat out free service, housing discounts, people live so far beyond their means depending so much on all of these different support systems. Most don’t stand a chance if it is taken away. But rather than push for people to regain their independence, the gov’t is trying to steal from the ones living responsibly. So they can further support this destructive system.
[/quote]
Well said.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Early Irish law is, like the Old Irish language, remarkably standard across an Island with >no central authority<"
[/quote]
Not quite right. The King of Tara was supposed to have central authority in many areas but as I said earlier didn’t in practice.
I’m acting like I want to refute revisionist crap written by some pseudo-academic about Ireland being an anarchistic society. :)[/quote]
Revisionist? By your own words the monarchs weren’t in power in practice. This was all handled voluntarily and this is what I and most “anarchists” would look for when qualifying an anarchic society. You’re arguing against semantics and unnecessarily at that as I’ve also cited Somalia as an example of a functional stateless society…
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Revisionist? By your own words the monarchs weren’t in power in practice.
[/quote]
No, I said the king of Tara didn’t really hold power. The Tuatha were ‘Kingdoms’ ruled by ‘Kings’.
there was people with swords, and people without swords.
so “voluntarily” is pretty relative.
this anarchic ireland is a romantic myth. nothing more.
granted, there have been stateless societies : paleolithic societies.
this option vanished the day we discovered how to make metallic weapons.
and it will never be available again as long as someone on earth remember how to make them.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Revisionist? By your own words the monarchs weren’t in power in practice.
[/quote]
No, I said the king of Tara didn’t really hold power. The Tuatha were ‘Kingdoms’ ruled by ‘Kings’.[/quote]
The king is not a monarch?
Tuatha were voluntary, they did not run on taxation, had no fiat land claims and no coercive monopolies. Brehon law was poly-centric and emergent. These qualities rule out Ireland for the label of statism as far as I’m (and most “anarchists” are) concerned. If you’re going to continue asserting you are correct based on semantics then you really aren’t contributing anything to the conversation at all and I see no point in messaging you any further. The definition of “anarchism” you are using is not the definition most anarchists go by so you are arguing with ghosts.
I can define “Irish” as someone who lives on Mars if I really want to, it doesn’t magically make you wrong by defining an Irish man as a man with Irish citizenship simply because I’m defining the word differently and it does It take a certain level of arrogance to tell someone of a particular ideology that you have a more correct definition of their own position than they do. =/
[quote]kamui wrote:
there was people with swords, and people without swords.
so “voluntarily” is pretty relative.
this anarchic ireland is a romantic myth. nothing more.
granted, there have been stateless societies : paleolithic societies.
this option vanished the day we discovered how to make metallic weapons.
and it will never be available again as long as someone on earth remember how to make them.[/quote]
Yes they had swords, and they were violent people, but that’s due in large part to their psycho-class (linked in earlier post). Though, compared to most of Europe, Ancient Ireland was tremendously advanced in social terms.
By “voluntary” I’m talking about ones subscription to a tuath.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Revisionist? By your own words the monarchs weren’t in power in practice.
[/quote]
No, I said the king of Tara didn’t really hold power. The Tuatha were ‘Kingdoms’ ruled by ‘Kings’.[/quote]
I think you’re confused. I am. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
The Tuath can refer to the people or the King that ruled them. I have no idea what you’re talking about again. The Tuatha kings were the nobility. The clan chiefs, if you will. They fought brutal civil wars with each other for territory and there were brutal dynastic wars over the tuath crowns.
I am using ALL definitions of anarchism. I already said I’m referring to ALL branches of the political ideology of anarchism and the classical meaning(mob rule).
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Revisionist? By your own words the monarchs weren’t in power in practice.
[/quote]
No, I said the king of Tara didn’t really hold power. The Tuatha were ‘Kingdoms’ ruled by ‘Kings’.[/quote]
I think you’re confused. I am. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
The Tuath can refer to the people or the King that ruled them. I have no idea what you’re talking about again. The Tuatha kings were the nobility. The clan chiefs, if you will. They fought brutal civil wars with each other for territory and there were brutal dynastic wars over the tuath crowns.
I am using ALL definitions of anarchism. I already said I’m referring to ALL branches of the political ideology of anarchism and the classical meaning(mob rule).[/quote]
Oh, I see. You’re using ALL definitions of anarchism (simultaneously?), so long as they all mean “mob rule”…
You’re defining anarchism in a way that it’s failure is tautological. Just for clarification (if it wasn’t already obvious) by “anarchism” I’m talking about the lack of a state. This is not “mob rule”, I would call democracy “mob rule” to be honest.
I have never once heard or read anyone use the word tuath to refer to the “king” of a tuath…
but whatever.
“War” in ancient Ireland is largely irrelevant as you can have war without a state so long as that war has universally operational support.
As advanced as ancient Ireland was they were still violent, it’s just that without a tax base or a coercive monopoly on any market service these “wars” would be very small (hardly worth calling wars) and last much less time than the monolithic wars seen throughout the rest of Europe at that time and virtually everything I’ve seen written on the topic of warfare in ancient Ireland places foreign invasion in the spotlight, not warring tautha.
Ancient Ireland ran on a system nothing like the rest of Europe (I’ve already listed which qualities make it such) and this is a perfect example of what I’m talking about when I talk about anarchism. You can call the leaders “kings” and infer that war is inherently a statist quality forever, but ultimately these are just semantic dissentions.
If you really don’t want to look at Ireland as anarchic, then fine. I’ve said time and time again we can look at Somalia if you chose to define tuatha as states.
I found a video that may give you a better idea of what I’m talking about: http://www.livevideo.com/video/18A4F8568D124D9481728EA0BE2E4A44/a-history-of-freedom-ireland-.aspx
No, that video didn’t explain anything other than some ‘anarcho-capitalist’s’ revisionist pet theory. I am at a complete loss as to how this social system could possibly be described as any form of ‘anarchism’. Clan/tribal monarchies with oligarchic characteristics as I said before.