Idea of a stateless society.

[TaxationIsTheft]

First and foremost, although I am an anarchist, I am not a Utopian. There is no social system which will utterly eliminate evil. Just like in a society with government; In a stateless society, there will still be rape, theft, murder and abuse. But to be fair, just and reasonable, we must compare a stateless society not to some standard of otherwordly perfection, but rather to the world as it already is. The moral argument for a stateless society includes the reality that it will eliminate a large amount of institutionalized violence and abuse, not that it will result in a perfectly peaceful world, which of course is impossible.

Anarchy can be viewed as a cure for cancer and heart disease, not a prescription for endlessly perfect health. It would be unreasonable to oppose a cure for cancer because such a cure did not eliminate all other possible diseases - in the same way, we cannot reasonably oppose a stateless society just because some people are bad, and a free society would not make them good.



"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one"~Robert LeFeyre

 

[Ikari]

Anarchy seems to be more analogous to going to Dr. Kevorkian for a head cold than it would be a "cure" for anything.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Anarchy seems to be more analogous to going to Dr. Kevorkian for a head cold than it would be a "cure" for anything.

Our system certainly has no solutions.

 

[Cigar]

First and foremost, although I am an anarchist, I am not a Utopian. There is no social system which will utterly eliminate evil. Just like in a society with government; In a stateless society, there will still be rape, theft, murder and abuse. But to be fair, just and reasonable, we must compare a stateless society not to some standard of otherwordly perfection, but rather to the world as it already is. The moral argument for a stateless society includes the reality that it will eliminate a large amount of institutionalized violence and abuse, not that it will result in a perfectly peaceful world, which of course is impossible.

Anarchy can be viewed as a cure for cancer and heart disease, not a prescription for endlessly perfect health. It would be unreasonable to oppose a cure for cancer because such a cure did not eliminate all other possible diseases - in the same way, we cannot reasonably oppose a stateless society just because some people are bad, and a free society would not make them good.



"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one"~Robert LeFeyre

Well you lost me at "If men are Good"

Because we all know better; who you trust a stranger to watch your house or kids?

When I take a Flight, I thank God for Government regulations or when I Eat Meat or Drink Water ... we can go on and on ... but you get the point.

 

[shrubnose]

Governments aren't going away.

Wait and see.

 

[TaxationIsTheft]

Well you lost me at "If men are Good"

Because we all know better; who you trust a stranger to watch your house or kids?

When I take a Flight, I thank God for Government regulations or when I Eat Meat or Drink Water ... we can go on and on ... but you get the point.

I know not all men are good. It was a hypothetical for IF they were, then we wouldn't need government because people wouldn't be assholes to each other. The second part of the quote was talking about how we as humans are flawed and not above corruption and so it would be foolish to elect a bunch of flawed people to dictate the lives of others because power always corrupts as history will show.

You also don't need government to have meat and water.. A free market could provide all of the services that government offers with better quality and efficiency and not everyone would be forced to pay for services they didn't want.

 

[Ikari]

Our system certainly has no solutions.

Our system has certainly been captured by the Republocrats and the Corporations which control it. But I wouldn't say that throwing out the baby with the bathwater is quite the "solution" for it.

 

[TaxationIsTheft]

Governments aren't going away.

Wait and see.

Sadly, I'd have to agree. Liberty is great and all but requires A LOT of responsibility and we all know how much people hate responsibility.

 

[soylentgreen]

Governments aren't going away.

Wait and see.

The problem with them just going away is it leaves anarchy in its place. Where as this thread should be about anarchism. Two completely different things.

 

[MrWonka]

First and foremost, although I am an anarchist, I am not a Utopian. There is no social system which will utterly eliminate evil. Just like in a society with government; In a stateless society, there will still be rape, theft, murder and abuse. But to be fair, just and reasonable, we must compare a stateless society not to some standard of otherwordly perfection, but rather to the world as it already is. The moral argument for a stateless society includes the reality that it will eliminate a large amount of institutionalized violence and abuse, not that it will result in a perfectly peaceful world, which of course is impossible.

Anarchy can be viewed as a cure for cancer and heart disease, not a prescription for endlessly perfect health. It would be unreasonable to oppose a cure for cancer because such a cure did not eliminate all other possible diseases - in the same way, we cannot reasonably oppose a stateless society just because some people are bad, and a free society would not make them good.

The mutual agreement to respect one another's property rights, and to aid in the defense of your neighbors property against outsiders is an idea that is absolutely in the best interest of a society. The problem however is that modern technology and overpopulation has made the excessive ownership of property by a few into a barrier to prosperity for others. The idea behind property rights was to insure that if someone made an investment, and put a ton of work into cultivating a piece of land he didn't have to worry about it being stolen from him by a hoard of marauders. That made people more willing to develop their land into something useful and take care of it.

This had few negative effects because it was land was open as far as the eye could see, and any individual could find their own land and stake a claim to it essentially free of charge. Today most land in the country and the world worth owning is privately owned, and in order to obtain your own piece you have to be able to get someone to sell it to you an an enormous price that can take you most of your life to pay for. I think a better solution before turning to complete anarchy would simply be to put limits on the amount of wealth an individual can acquire or heavy taxation to prevent excessive surplus ownership. More home owners and fewer renters would in and of itself solve countless problems in this country.

 

[soylentgreen]

I know not all men are good. It was a hypothetical for IF they were, then we wouldn't need government because people wouldn't be assholes to each other. The second part of the quote was talking about how we as humans are flawed and not above corruption and so it would be foolish to elect a bunch of flawed people to dictate the lives of others because power always corrupts as history will show.

You also don't need government to have meat and water.. A free market could provide all of the services that government offers with better quality and efficiency and not everyone would be forced to pay for services they didn't want.

This is a bull**** cover up thread then. You're not about anarchism ( obvious from the fact that you started this thread talkiing about anarchy and not anarchism. Do you know the difference?) You're about Laissez-faire capitalism which is nothing more than a bad joke.

 

[TaxationIsTheft]

The mutual agreement to respect one another's property rights, and to aid in the defense of your neighbors property against outsiders is an idea that is absolutely in the best interest of a society. The problem however is that modern technology and overpopulation has made the excessive ownership of property by a few into a barrier to prosperity for others. The idea behind property rights was to insure that if someone made an investment, and put a ton of work into cultivating a piece of land he didn't have to worry about it being stolen from him by a hoard of marauders. That made people more willing to develop their land into something useful and take care of it.

This had few negative effects because it was land was open as far as the eye could see, and any individual could find their own land and stake a claim to it essentially free of charge. Today most land in the country and the world worth owning is privately owned, and in order to obtain your own piece you have to be able to get someone to sell it to you an an enormous price that can take you most of your life to pay for. I think a better solution before turning to complete anarchy would simply be to put limits on the amount of wealth an individual can acquire or heavy taxation to prevent excessive surplus ownership. More home owners and fewer renters would in and of itself solve countless problems in this country.

Okay so you're right that most large expanses of land worth homesteading are currently owned by another party, but you'll find that that party most likely isn't the average person like your neighbor or something but its most likely Government or some corporation with a huge monopoly that was aided by Government and wouldn't have otherwise existed if there was no Government.

Also if we had a free market, it would be a lot easier to use other means of trade for property outside of the U.S. dollar so it might not be as expensive as you think to trade for property in that scenario.

There's already plenty of land out there for people but even if you did find an unowned plot of land now and tried to homestead there, the Government will probably find some bs reason to force you off of it. Just ask this poor schmuck. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xL5i3iJpKk

 

[MrPeanut]

This is a bull**** cover up thread then. You're not about anarchism ( obvious from the fact that you started this thread talkiing about anarchy and not anarchism. Do you know the difference?) You're about Laissez-faire capitalism which is nothing more than a bad joke.

My thoughts exactly. He sounds like an extreme Libertarian more than anything.

 

[TaxationIsTheft]

This is a bull**** cover up thread then. You're not about anarchism ( obvious from the fact that you started this thread talkiing about anarchy and not anarchism. Do you know the difference?) You're about Laissez-faire capitalism which is nothing more than a bad joke.

Um capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Anarchy means no rulers, so if there were no government, by default, we'd have a free market.

 

[Quag]

I know not all men are good. It was a hypothetical for IF they were, then we wouldn't need government because people wouldn't be assholes to each other. The second part of the quote was talking about how we as humans are flawed and not above corruption and so it would be foolish to elect a bunch of flawed people to dictate the lives of others because power always corrupts as history will show.

You also don't need government to have meat and water.. A free market could provide all of the services that government offers with better quality and efficiency and not everyone would be forced to pay for services they didn't want.

No, even good people have misunderstandings and things can go wrong. Govt provides regulations that would not could not exist in a stateless society. If someone continually drives 100mph down your residential roads by a school the police will nab them, without govt there is nothing to complain about or even reason to profess unhappiness about the situation, unless someone is hurt by the car. Course without govt there is nothing to do about it even afterwards either.
Anarchy is quite simply a non viable way to run society on anything larger than a small village.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

I used to be an Anarchist myself, until I realized there is no such thing as a "stateless society". One day, the nations of the world will unite as a single planet, or consolidate into two roughly-planetary international entities. And then, some time later, other planets will be colonized. And they, too, will become nation-states unto themselves. Then we will have an Earthling government, a Martian government, and so on and so forth.

 

[Quag]

Um capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Anarchy means no rulers, so if there were no government, by default, we'd have a free market.

Without govt there is no money nor any means of proving ownership of capitol and thus no capitalism.

 

[soylentgreen]

Um capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Anarchy means no rulers, so if there were no government, by default, we'd have a free market.

What a limited view you have. Capitalism is the very opposite of anarchism. Capitalism is about personal ownership. Anarchy does not mean no rulers that is so simplistic as to be useless as a defenition. Anarchy means a state lawlessness. Anarchism on the other hand is a philosophy of minimalest governence.

With every post you sink deeper into the mire of ignorance on this subject, Really you should just admit that you do not know anything about anarchism and are simply pushing an idiot version of capitalism.

 

[TaxationIsTheft]

No, even good people have misunderstandings and things can go wrong. Govt provides regulations that would not could not exist in a stateless society. If someone continually drives 100mph down your residential roads by a school the police will nab them, without govt there is nothing to complain about or even reason to profess unhappiness about the situation, unless someone is hurt by the car. Course without govt there is nothing to do about it even afterwards either.
Anarchy is quite simply a non viable way to run society on anything larger than a small village.

As for the speeding scenario there was actually a study done in Montana in 1995 where they removed all non-urban speed limits in their state. A few years later, some engineers working with the state decided to crunch some numbers. What they found was that on the roads where they removed the speed limits, fatalities didn't go up at all. Most people used common sense and the crazy ones who don't would ignore the speed limits anyway.

But I'm sure speeding isn't the only thing you'd be concerned about. I often hear the argument that without government, people would just act like savages and hurt each other and no one would be held accountable, etc. Well a famous American psychologist named Lawrence Kohlberg did extensive studies on the moral development of people in society and ultimately came to the conclusion that most people don't behave that way because they fear retaliation and don't want to be harmed, etc and its in our nature and best interest as human beings to want to survive but if everyone behaved that way, society would deteriorate and we wouldn't survive as a species. You can read more about his studies here. He breaks down the stages of moral development very well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development


As for how a stateless society would look, a good example to reference would be medieval Iceland. They didn't really have a centralized power and managed to thrive about 300 years until the Catholic church kinda screwed them up. You can read about it here. https://mises.org/library/medieval-iceland-and-absence-government

 

[Ikari]

Um capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Anarchy means no rulers, so if there were no government, by default, we'd have a free market.

No, you're in a captured Oligarchy.

 

[joG]

Governments aren't going away.

Wait and see.

Can't wait that long.

 

[TaxationIsTheft]

What a limited view you have. Capitalism is the very opposite of anarchism. Capitalism is about personal ownership. Anarchy does not mean no rulers that is so simplistic as to be useless as a defenition. Anarchy means a state lawlessness. Anarchism on the other hand is a philosophy of minimalest governence.

With every post you sink deeper into the mire of ignorance on this subject, Really you should just admit that you do not know anything about anarchism and are simply pushing an idiot version of capitalism.

Man I don't know where you're getting all this misinformation from, but you are waaaay off. Anarchy, Anarchism, basically the same thing and I came up with basically the same definitions for both.. Do you even fact check this stuff before you hit post? Jesus

an·ar·chism
ˈanərˌkizəm/
noun
belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

an·ar·chy
ˈanərkē/
noun
absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

And capitalism is just a free market which would be the default if there were no government..

 

[TaxationIsTheft]

No, you're in a captured Oligarchy.

How so?

 

[MrWonka]

its most likely Government or some corporation with a huge monopoly that was aided by Government and wouldn't have otherwise existed if there was no Government.

And in many if not most cases this is for the protection of that land from the destruction of some private ownership.

Also if we had a free market, it would be a lot easier to use other means of trade for property outside of the U.S. dollar so it might not be as expensive as you think to trade for property in that scenario.

Garbage nonsense. Anything of value can be traded for dollars, and intern traded for land. There is no viable reason or benefit from eliminating that middle man.

 

[celticwar17]

I used to be an Anarchist myself, until I realized there is no such thing as a "stateless society". One day, the nations of the world will unite as a single planet, or consolidate into two roughly-planetary international entities. And then, some time later, other planets will be colonized. And they, too, will become nation-states unto themselves. Then we will have an Earthling government, a Martian government, and so on and so forth.

Sounds like great science fiction... but humans will never get along that well... look at the E.U.... it's falling apart.