Anarchy Would Be Good

reply to post by ComeFindMe


I agree that the idea of Libertarian Socialism is an oxy-moron of sorts. The ideas clash. But it looks good to me. I havent read about Distributism much yet but someone mentioned it today. I am not hard set on anything but I am anti-capitalist. I think it makes us greedy. I dont see socialism as a threat to peoples lives. I see it as something with alot to offer.

But do you really think libertarian socialists are statists? I think they are for the individual. And if socialism can meet our basic needs,what more do we want? We could be free. I see a future where we all work because of choice not need. And nobody is forced to do something that they dont desire and enjoy. I dont want gulags. And I think we would still progress without profit. I think incentive should be more intrinsic. People will still want to contribute wont they? I dont think things would stop if you took away profit. Especially on basic needs.

Originally posted by theovermensch
The most common defense of capitalism is that nothing else works. Well guess what? Capitalism isnt working.

That's not true. The abomination we call capitalism today isn't working... for most of us.
The models of capitalism as advocated by the original Adam Smith or by Wilhelm Röpke absolutely work.

Originally posted by ComeFindMe

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Anarchy is a pure libertarian society. Self rule. The people call the shots.
If you want pure liberty you want anarchy.
If you want pure violence and fascism you want a very large oppressive state.
Anarchy = Non-violence, maximum freedom of self expression, and property,pure liberty
Statism = Pure Violence/tyranny.

You must be shooting a statists pretending to be a libertarian/anarchist.

Or, non-violent anarchists are just statists pretending to be anarchist.

Anyway, what happens if an anarchist's maximum freedom of self-expression means them wanting to inflict violence on others? How does that work? Surely "maximum freedom of expression" means they can do anything and violence is something that can be done. So if you stop them doing something violent, they don't have maximum freedom of self expression?

Interested to hear your thoughts.

They are probably deluded statists or just violent people that have no idea what anarchy(pure freedom) is truly about.
Violence is not anarchy. That's reality. Anarchy is not no law. Anarchy is not chaos.
Anarchy is our law. Self rule.

reply to post by theovermensch


Its a stopgap between where we are and where we need to be.

We are not going to get there instantly.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Anyway, what happens if an anarchist's maximum freedom of self-expression means them wanting to inflict violence on others? How does that work? Surely "maximum freedom of expression" means they can do anything and violence is something that can be done. So if you stop them doing something violent, they don't have maximum freedom of self expression?

Thanks for the reply. So could you just address the issue I raised, specifically the idea of how we can have a non-violent society or individual who also has the "maximum freedom of expression" (your words) - given that you, of course, cannot have both. Unless your statement of theory is incorrect.

Thanks.

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
reply to post by nightbringr

 

Exactly.

As far as I can see, the argument laid out makes no sense. If you have a completely libertarian society with no laws, how can you have a police department (Government or civilian endorsed) - there would be no laws to enforce or protect and therefore no role for them!

A complete libertarian society has laws.

Its just they protect YOU and and not a offshore multinational cartel.

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
reply to post by nightbringr

 

Exactly.

As far as I can see, the argument laid out makes no sense. If you have a completely libertarian society with no laws, how can you have a police department (Government or civilian endorsed) - there would be no laws to enforce or protect and therefore no role for them!

If him is me when do I say I even want a police department?

Also I am starting a conversation by giving an opinion.

What is with you jerks that want to insist you are right about everything instead of just offering an opinion. Are you debunkers or something? Are you guys smarter than Chomsky? You dont seem it. Why dont you just give an opinion? There is no proving any of this stuff anyway. Its like theoretical physics or something. All you guys have is opinion.

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

Anyway, what happens if an anarchist's maximum freedom of self-expression means them wanting to inflict violence on others? How does that work? Surely "maximum freedom of expression" means they can do anything and violence is something that can be done. So if you stop them doing something violent, they don't have maximum freedom of self expression?

Thanks for the reply. So could you just address the issue I raised, specifically the idea of how we can have a non-violent society or individual who also has the "maximum freedom of expression" (your words) - given that you, of course, cannot have both. Unless your statement of theory is incorrect.

Thanks.

Maximum freedom of expression is not damaging or stealing your personal property.

If some vandals who claim they are non-violent(anarchist/libertarian)yet break your stuff call the police on them.

reply to post by ComeFindMe


We cannot have true individual freedom for everyone, as everyone's thought/ideology of freedom is different. So no matter how involved the compromise, somebody's 'freedom' will be infringed upon.

The best situation I can think of is segregation of similar ideals. Different community's of similar minded individuals. There can never be an absent of violence. Its just not possible.

Originally posted by theovermensch

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
reply to post by nightbringr

 

Exactly.

As far as I can see, the argument laid out makes no sense. If you have a completely libertarian society with no laws, how can you have a police department (Government or civilian endorsed) - there would be no laws to enforce or protect and therefore no role for them!

If him is me when do I say I even want a police department?

Also I am starting a conversation by giving an opinion.

What is with you jerks that want to insist you are right about everything instead of just offering an opinion. Are you debunkers or something? Are you guys smarter than Chomsky? You dont seem it. Why dont you just give an opinion? There is no proving any of this stuff anyway. Its like theoretical physics or something. All you guys have is opinion.

I say the same thing like 19 times.

Anarchy does not mean no laws.

Its just the laws are aimed at protecting US and not a small group of elites.

reply to post by theovermensch


As far as i'm aware, the post was regarding someone else. My comment certainly wasn't anything to do with you.

Dude, take it easy. We all have opinions - some outrageous, some mild - just debate it out!

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
Ran by the local people in people in size capped local cooperatives.Every thing is fragmented into worker groups. That vote in a direct democracy and own an even percent of the business,service,etc they are involved in.They can vote in/out a corporate president that works for them.

So why call this anarchy? Why not call it what it is, local government. Sounds a lot like what Pol Pot was trying to do with Cambodia. *cringe*

Do you realize why small local governments like this dont work and why people tend to band into larger and larger groupings with a large central body of government? Protection.

You might have the best of intentions, other groups see how prosperous your group is and want a piece of your pie. I cannot believe our world is ready for this. The small bands will be used by the larger, or better yet, the groups organized into countries that can marshall sophisticated armed forces.

This type of system will never work in our world, not with mankinds mindset.

Originally posted by ThatGuy45
reply to post by ComeFindMe

 

We cannot have true individual freedom for everyone, as everyone's thought/ideology of freedom is different. So no matter how involved the compromise, somebody's 'freedom' will be infringed upon.

The best situation I can think of is segregation of similar ideals. Different community's of similar minded individuals. There can never be an absent of violence. Its just not possible.

I like this idea. A sized capped community with no mayor or other leaders. Just the people,npo, equally owned local corporations and the worker cooperatives.

If someone is breaking a commune's law. They just deport them.

Originally posted by theovermensch


I think that is a silly thing to say.

I have plenty to lose.

Back when I was in my 20s and even 30s I would of had everything to gain from a "reset" and nothing to lose. I was still growing in knowledge and skill, I lived month to month with my paycheck, no real savings, I rented, but life was still good and fun, so what the hell a "reset" would have done nothing to me at all.

Many today see all this like some kind of XBox game where they can just reset the game and start over with everyone else starting over too. Well life isn't like that nor is it a movie.

When/if any of you that agree to a "reset" get to the point where you actually have made longterm plans and have met many of those goals that will determind the rest of your life, and not just a month to month thought process, as I once did, you would see this as a very bad idea.

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
reply to post by theovermensch

 

As far as i'm aware, the post was regarding someone else. My comment certainly wasn't anything to do with you.

Dude, take it easy. We all have opinions - some outrageous, some mild - just debate it out!

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Err...if there are exceptions to something that is "maximum", then its not maximum.

Further, if there are violent elements inevitably within an anarchic society, then its not a non-violent society. Sorry to be pernickety, but you cant sell something as non-violent if the prospect of violence is actual or real. On that basis, I could say that capitalist society is non violent (the majority of people are non-violent) and the violent individuals don't count be cause they (or I) determine them to be non-capitalist.

Also, what constitutes violence - who determines it, in an anarchic society? You need to start having guidelines to have a fair society, don't you...guidelines similar to laws, right? What if someone chooses not to form part of the co-operative that funds / supports the 'people's police'? Presumably they are exempt from their protection, but also their rules?

Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
Ran by the local people in people in size capped local cooperatives.Every thing is fragmented into worker groups. That vote in a direct democracy and own an even percent of the business,service,etc they are involved in.They can vote in/out a corporate president that works for them.

So why call this anarchy? Why not call it what it is, local government. Sounds a lot like what Pol Pot was trying to do with Cambodia. *cringe*

pol pot was a mass murderer and a marxist statist. So yeah he was not a libertarian or a anarchist. Most of the dictators and mass murderers were statists not libertarians or anarchists.

Do you realize why small local governments like this dont work and why people tend to band into larger and larger groupings with a large central body of government? Protection.

en.wikipedia.org... Freetown says hi!

You might have the best of intentions, other groups see how prosperous your group is and want a piece of your pie. I cannot believe our world is ready for this. The small bands will be used by the larger, or better yet, the groups organized into countries that can marshall sophisticated armed forces.

This type of system will never work in our world, not with mankinds mindset.

This is your opinion

Its libertarian socialist.

Its the closest to real anarchy that we can travel to right now.

No, I don't think anarchy would be great fro most people. I can see what would happen when an army of 10,000 thugs head out of the city ....

meds would be lost
most people are so wired in they would not know how to cope and adjust to the tyranny of total anarchy

I would know how to survive and probably prosper

I believe one of the least thought about things during a collapse is understanding mechanical engineering enough to build water pumps/ram jets; low voltage refigeration and other things that could operate on low power or driven by mechanical means......

if you make it throught the first 90 days you will have a chance and it depends when the SHTF, in spring there would be time to grow food for the winter; in winter there are many other challenges that one would have to deal with ... cold/ not able to grow food ...

so .... it all depends when the shtf ....

I feel the use of 'anarchy' in this thread is more of a means to beget change - not so much as a life style. Allow anarchy or more better 'change' to occur to make way for a new system. I really do not think the intent is to live in a chaotic state.

Smaller, more localized 'governments' or as I like to see communities would help to more accurately secure individual freedoms better than a mass, try to make everybody happy, which we are in now. The community takes care of itsself. Everyone contributes or is kicked out. Logic and reason must prevail. Dare I say...Common sense?

no that died years ago....

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

Err...if there are exceptions to something that is "maximum", then its not maximum.


Further, if there are violent elements inevitably within an anarchic society, then its not a non-violent society. Sorry to be pernickety, but you cant sell something as non-violent if the prospect of violence is actual or real. On that basis, I could say that capitalist society is non violent (the majority of people are non-violent) and the violent individuals don't count be cause they (or I) determine them to be non-capitalist.

I heard the bankers that stole 7.7 trillion in 8 years call themselves non-violent too. They are violent.

Also, what constitutes violence - who determines it, in an anarchic society? You need to start having guidelines to have a fair society, don't you...guidelines similar to laws, right? What if someone chooses not to form part of the co-operative that funds / supports the 'people's police'? Presumably they are exempt from their protection, but also their rules?

Anarchy does not mean no rules just no rulers.
The guidelines are enforced by the local cooperative. What they say is legal is legal. What they say is illegal is illegal. All business is owned by the local community.
There are taxes to have courts,police,fire fighters etc. Its just owned and ran by YOU and the community and not to the federal government. You agree to these taxes or you can just leave and go to another community.

Please read my posts.