Anarchists, question for you...

[Neil Desmond]

The answer to your question is this: What would you do if an individual came up to you, said I am going to hit you to the point of unconsciousness and take you to be thier slave? You would do as they wanted anytime, in every way for the remainder of your life. What would you do?

Would you violently defend yourself? Join with others to do the same? See, you are already an anarchist by your very nature. Otherwise you would let the next person who wants to hurt, steal or kidnap you to do so with out any claim to defense. State Police not withstanding.

If 5000 or 500 million want to live in a non state territory, then they have the right as individuals and as a group to violently throw out or throw off any violent aggressors from their properties.

The American revolution was one such example of just war. That action revealed a scientific discovery: The freer a society, the more wealthy and progressive it becomes. Peaceful human civilization and limitless wondrous experiences bound forward.

This is not supportive to an argument that anarchism is feasible; in fact it does the opposite. The ability of one person to take another and enslave them is an illustration of why anarchism is not feasible.

 

[Neil Desmond]

If 15% of "the People" KNOW the truth that the "goons" do not have authority, those 15% will continue to resist. It is my contention that that is all it will take to cause all attempts at "control" fail. Maybe it will take 20%. Wherever the tipping point is, once it's reached I don't think we will ever have to deal with a "ruling class" again because too many of the people will no longer stand by and allow themselves to be manipulated.

Ok, well of those 15%, some will be killed, some will be taken prisoner, some will eventually run out of ammo, etc. The war will water that 15% down. Then what?

 

[The Gold Standard]

This is not supportive to an argument that anarchism is feasible; in fact it does the opposite. The ability of one person to take another and enslave them is an illustration of why anarchism is not feasible.

How? How does the government prevent such a thing from happening?

 

[The Gold Standard]

Ok, well of those 15%, some will be killed, some will be taken prisoner, some will eventually run out of ammo, etc. The war will water that 15% down. Then what?

Why would they run out of ammo? Only the government is capable of making it?

 

[Neil Desmond]

People also make the assumption that Anarchism in the capitalist sense would be a world with out violence. It would be far from it, the violence would be directed at aggressors to life and property only. Any politician claiming the right of "taxation" would be a potential thief to be dealt with by individual or agency.

That's probably how anarchists see polititians now, yet they still exist.

 

[Neil Desmond]

How? How does the government prevent such a thing from happening?

With laws that ban involuntary servitude and enforcement.

 

[Neil Desmond]

Why would they run out of ammo? Only the government is capable of making it?

Not necessarily; the government doesn't make anything. The people who support it do. The 15% fighting can't do everything, especially if they're getting picked off or being thrown in prison. Making or getting ammo requires resources, time, transportation, manufacturing, etc. Look at the ammo shortage that we actually have right now; why is that if it were ostensibly as abundant as leaves on trees?

 

[awake]

This is not supportive to an argument that anarchism is feasible; in fact it does the opposite. The ability of one person to take another and enslave them is an illustration of why anarchism is not feasible.

I'm telling you that anarchism is already working at all levels. It is the state that dissuades us from acting naturally with the "we are your justice and protectors" brainwashing.

All current states are in an anarchistic relationship with all others.You have no world government of all states. Every individual lives in a more or less an anarchist relationship with all other anarchists. Its the ones who claim the right to violence and taxation that believe that capitalist anarchism does not work - of course! it doesn't work for them.

If you defend your life and property without the assistance of the state then you are basically living anarchist. When you call in the state for something then you are not. There are people who go their whole lives mostly anarchistic.

You do realize that nearly all of every tax dollar stolen by government goes to promote the idea that they actually protect you and give you justice when they do no such thing.

 

[The Gold Standard]

With laws that ban involuntary servitude and enforcement.

How do they enforce these laws?

 

[The Gold Standard]

Not necessarily; the government doesn't make anything. The people who support it do. The 15% fighting can't do everything, especially if they're getting picked off or being thrown in prison. Making or getting ammo requires resources, time, transportation, manufacturing, etc. Look at the ammo shortage that we actually have right now; why is that if it were ostensibly as abundant as leaves on trees?

What's happening now isn't relevant because the two sides aren't fighting. If they were I'm sure free people would be able to step in and meet the demand for ammo. Maybe you think a central planner would be better for that sort of thing?

 

[PreDeadMan]

This is not supportive to an argument that anarchism is feasible; in fact it does the opposite. The ability of one person to take another and enslave them is an illustration of why anarchism is not feasible.

Would you rather a scenario where one person might be able to take over another person or one person taking over millions of people using the powers of the state?

 

[Neil Desmond]

I'm telling you that anarchism is already working at all levels.

Then the anarchist advocate's job is done.

It is the state that dissuades us from acting naturally

Wait...what? What "state" are you talking about? You just said right in the previous sentence that anarchism is already working at all levels.

with the "we are your justice and protectors" brainwashing.

Maybe it's the person advocating anarchism who's doing some brainwashing too. In fact you know what, I'll advocate anarchism too; the difference is that I'll be "honest" about why & let the cat out of the bag: if I can turn society in to an anarchist one, then I'll be able to enslave everyone. There, now your secret is out, advocates of anarchism; how are you going to achieve your empire now?

All current states are in an anarchistic relationship with all others.

Right, in a sense they are; how's that working for stability at that level?

You have no world government of all states.

We do have treaties, the UN, nations that team up with each other, nations that stab each other in the back, superpowers, all kinds of issues and problems.

Every individual lives in a more or less an anarchist relationship with all other anarchists.

No, every individual lives in one state or another, with other individuals who are in one state or another.

Its the ones who claim the right to violence and taxation that believe that capitalist anarchism does not work - of course! it doesn't work for them.

If you defend your life and property without the assistance of the state then you are basically living anarchist. When you call in the state for something then you are not. There are people who go their whole lives mostly anarchistic.

I'm talking about "absolute" anarchy, where there is never a state/government, when you do want or need one - not your semantics game version here.

You do realize that nearly all of every tax dollar stolen by government goes to promote the idea that they actually protect you and give you justice when they do no such thing.

Sure they do; they protect me and others from people stealing my property (which exists and is recognized by the existence of the state), murdering, raping, pillaging, raping, molesting, fraud, vandalism, etc. by chasing after them, rounding them up, and warehousing them in prisons. Yes, our present-day legal system and government has issues that need to be addressed. Doesn't mean anarchism (absolute anarchism) is feasible.

 

[Neil Desmond]

How do they enforce these laws?

Are you here to discuss the thread topic, or something else?

 

[Neil Desmond]

What's happening now isn't relevant because the two sides aren't fighting.

Well if we're having this problem while there's no fighting going on, what do you think will be the problem if there would be fighting?

If they were I'm sure free people would be able to step in and meet the demand for ammo.

My point is that the failure to meet ammo demand is happening at this very moment. Seems insane to anticipate that somehow things will somehow be improved after fighting breaks out, because the necessary facilities and means of transportation will might be damaged or destroyed.

Maybe you think a central planner would be better for that sort of thing?

I think history has shown that the free market is more efficient than central planning; but who knows? Maybe a central planning system with feedback might prove differently (I would still doubt that, though).

 

[Neil Desmond]

Would you rather a scenario where one person might be able to take over another person or one person taking over millions of people using the powers of the state?

Neither. Why would I be in favor of either one of those situations?

 

[The Gold Standard]

Are you here to discuss the thread topic, or something else?

If you answered the question, it would be obvious to you what I'm doing here. The government enforces these anti-slavery laws by sending armed mercenaries out to get the guy who tried to enslave you by force. If there were no government, these same armed mercenaries would be available for hire to get you out of the same predicament, and you wouldn't even have to worry about them shooting your dog or burning down your house. There is no magic that makes government solutions better than private ones, but you seem to believe there is.

 

[erowe1]

No, they're 2 different questions.

Could you explain how?

 

[erowe1]

Well, I do & I showed why in the 1st response.

What post was that? I didn't see any post where you did that.

 

[Neil Desmond]

If you answered the question, it would be obvious to you what I'm doing here. The government enforces these anti-slavery laws by sending armed mercenaries out to get the guy who tried to enslave you by force.

I asked because it shoots off a into a tangent rather than sticking to the thread topic. You can just make your argument without the Q&A games.

If there were no government, these same armed mercenaries would be available for hire to get you out of the same predicament, and you wouldn't even have to worry about them shooting your dog or burning down your house.

Sorry, but I don't buy that - but that's (also) a topic for a different thread.

There is no magic that makes government solutions better than private ones, but you seem to believe there is.

It doesn't matter if I do or don't, unless it can somehow show that anarchism is feasible.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

It's feasible in the same sense that it wasn't feasible to end slavery when most people thought it was necessary, but that's no longer where we are today. The institutional mass coercion of blacks into chattel slavery is no longer feasible within the geographical US. People have come to a general consensus that it sucks and will not condone it. There is no real fundamental difference between abolition of slavery and abolition of the state, ultimately both come down to ideas and what is perceived as of just/legitimate by a critical mass of individuals.

And with advances such as the internet with it's information propagation capabilities and natural tendency to promote decentralization, we've got plenty to be optimistic about. The internet is decentralizing power in ways never before possible, and this trend is not likely to stop or slow down. They're more likely to speed up.

"The collective" is a subjective concept that only exists within your mind. It is simply your mind's attempt to classify the complex matrix of relationships of an impossible to comprehend number of individuals into a single easy to understand object. When you think of "the collective of americans" and I think of "the collective of americans" we are not thinking of the same thing, but only our own versions of this idea in our own heads. Groups do not exist as acting entities in the world outside your brain, they are human classifications in order to attempt to comprehend the complex world we inhabit.

Scarcity will always exist in this universe. Your physical body cannot occupy the same space that my body occupies. Scarcity is a fundamental aspect of the material world. The purpose of property is to delineate use rights of scarce material, material which has been legitimately obtained by an individuals through employing their labor, trade, or gift. Law is the legitimate use of force in defense of the [property] rights of the individual, stronger individuals/groups can lawfully use force in order to preserve the rights of individuals who are unable to defend themselves. These rights need not be defended by an authoritarian monopoly, which paradoxically must fundamentally violate these rights in order to exist and in fact use their position of "authority" to pervert these laws in their own benefit and for their own control.

In fact it's entirely not only plausible but much more likely that these rights can better be preserved by a more decentralized market (polycentric decentralized governing institutions) than an authoritarian socialist monopoly (the state), but the only caveat to this is that you have to have a critical mass of people who actually demand that or it's not going to be supplied. The overwhelming majority of people today believe that it is necessary to give up your rights to an apparatus of centralized power in order to be secure from those who would infringe upon them, and vote for power brokers to manage this central apparatus of control which systemically infringes upon their rights under their legitimized "authority" in the minds of those who willfully subject themselves to it's perverted laws perceiving it to be "just" as it benefits a class of plunderers and slavers who simply are now veiled by an apparatus of legitimate "authority" and systemically warping the institution of law from one of justified defense into violent infringement while selling it as just defense.

TL;DR - If people demand a free, stateless society, that's what will be supplied. Technological advancement will continue to empower the individual and decentralize power. Ultimately it all comes down to ideas and what a critical mass of individuals believes to be just.