Where are you getting this from!?

We call it anarchism when there are no rulers; nothing more, nothing less.  There's nothing about anarchism which dictates that they must be contrarian about everything, nor are they barred from agreeing with the majority, since they would be the majority if they were anarchists at all.

Doesn't matter to me, so long as they're not committing involuntary acts, i.e. theft, rape, murder, violence, etc.  Once they decide they want to become involuntarists (possibly due to "sticking to their own groups"), then they're no longer voluntaryists and I see them as villains.  I suppose you could say it's a form of extremism to stick to the group which upholds morality, but only in the context of the majority being immoral or hypocritical about their morality.

Yes; anarchism leaves out too many factors to consider, so usually when anarchism is spoken of, it's in a bubble that seems disconnected with all of reality.  This is why I push for rationalism, opposed to anarchism; if a person is rational enough to successfully seek the truth, and if I've been successful in my own pursuits, we should always arrive to the same, or at least very similar, conclusions.  Once it's understood that anarchism can only remain among a rational society, many of the unknowns become irrelevant; you just can't pull the wool over the rational's eyes.

Anyhow I agree with a very simple philosophy: all societal interactions should be voluntary, i.e. voluntaryism.  This happens to include anarchism since the state is involuntary, and rationalism so people are highly resistant to ulterior influence; after all, why pay someone to do what you can easily do for yourself?

Atheists have this same problem; they can't even agree if they don't believe in God or if God flat out doesn't exist.  Communists can't figure out what's what, so there's 10+ different flavors of it; democrats and republicans just can't agree what the state should do or shouldn't do, though they agree it should exist.  These aren't definitive qualities; to be an anarchist can mean anything, just like being a capitalist, or a Christian, or American can mean anything, which is why it's not an accurate descriptor (aside from what it's ascribing) and no one anarchist seems to be like any other; the only defining quality of the anarchist is to want for the state to be non-existent, which is a conclusion you can approach from many angles.

Anyway, ostracism is just a form of punishment, just like imprisonment or the death penalty, which anarchists don't necessarily need to be for or against.  Law doesn't disappear; the only thing that changes is who creates law, which, as has been stated, involves decentralizing lawmakers ideally so every grown person can govern themselves.

Which anarchists have you asked?  I don't agree with their view.

I can make you a fresh knuckle sandwich

They're still piloted remotely, so their pilots can rebel

I think I'd lose it within a week

It's true; just look at modern banking.

Avoid this one; it's a pyramid scheme.

No intention of oversimplifying; I just understand things better if I can get them down to layman's terms

Don't laugh, but I've experienced something similar to this while playing the game Minecraft with friends; in it, you have personal property that you achieve through working the land, private property in a sense where it's generally agreed to be rude to intrude on another person's home uninvited, and you work together with your pals to "improve your living conditions" so to speak; if your friend was clear across the ocean and you wanted to see them more often, you'd just go out and make a bridge, or if you wanted to automate farming, you'd figure out a way to do it at the push of a button, so you could have more free time to do other things.

Whenever you needed something, such as cobblestone, you'd ask your pals if they had any, and usually they would, so you'd go and they'd give it to you and that was that; you continued to build things that would improve your experience there.  However, I've also seen forms of the market as well; sometimes a pal will ask for help that won't assist anyone but them, and they offer to pay in diamonds or gold for your time (that whole "What's in it for me?" thing); other times, they'll need something rare that you have and plan to use, and it would be faster to part with one's own rare items to trade for the desired item than to go out and try to find another one.  I can see how this can be resolved in reality: the first one can gradually be fixed with machine labor, the 2nd scenario can be solved with improvements in creating synthetic materials to remove the scarcity of any given thing; however, until that time, it seems the only alternative would be to use the market.

Anyhow: why is the RBE often set at-ends with the market system?  It seems they can both work fine in harmony; is there anything about the RBE which technically makes it incompatible with the market, or is this personal preference to avoid it?  Would the Zeitgeist advocate ostracize themselves from a person who participates in trade?

What's a "dox"?

Okay I think I've finally grasped it:

Though Joseph never actually says it (or perhaps I've missed it), what's really paying for all these technological advancements and constructions are people's input of energy and time, with the intent of a desired output, such as the tower farms and whatnot; this same behavior can be found if, for example, a person decided to plant a farm, i.e. energy expenditure, and then ate the food they'd grown, i.e. the desired output, with the major difference being, group projects instead of solo projects.  Is this correct, LightRider?

Precisely; that's how we got the society we have now, by killing and enslaving, which we're still going through if you haven't noticed.  That's what the anarchist aims to reverse, permanently: when you have a rational society which can solve its problems without resorting to violence, then we can co-exist in peace.

It will be chimp-like, yes, if your society is full of chimps; but if that's true, why would the state, which would also be run by chimps, either by a chimp-king, or a democratically elected minority of chimps, or a majority collection of chimps, be any better?  If there's any quality I like the most about anarchism: it fails to lie about the true state of the world.  If you believe anarchism, considering the same people you're currently living with, would devolve into might-is-right shit-sling-fest of chimps, then why would this change by putting a crown on one, some, or many of these chimps and calling them divine?

This is only true if you're disallowing individuals to make individual decisions; by allowing others the right to freedom, you don't have to worry about majority rule or minority rule.

Why do you believe they can do nothing?  Understand that you must change the core function of bitcoin to make this system work; the minority can still use this version of bitcoin, and the majority can still use theirs.  You simply don't write in a holy book, "Using the old bitcoin is illegal so don't do it"; this is just fiction, it doesn't mean anything.  To actually make a difference, democracy or no, you would still need a way to control the minority, if that's the intention; otherwise there's no point in worrying about a democracy since the majority will do their thing and the minority will do theirs.

I'm not saying a revolution cannot happen; I'm asking you to specifically state what it will take to make the minority do as the majority says.

I agree; if they felt that was better, they'd do that.  However:


You've also pointed out that they will decide what's best for everyone else; how do enforce this scenario on the, for example, 35% minority who decides they do not what this scenario to come to fruition?

How do you enforce the will of the majority without breaking your justice system?

This is the interesting bit; we would refer to another subjective concept, i.e. morality, as objective if a supreme, all-knowing being could define what is correctly moral and what is incorrectly moral; however, many of us now agree that this is impossible and so even a concept of "objective morality" is still subjective, just decided from an opinion that is God or God-like, such as by an emperor, or by a democratic process; ultimately, in this fashion, it fails to represent an individual's morals, leading to such claims that those who go against what is commonly accepted as moral not as immoral, but simply without morality at all.  Morality can become misshapen in this way, and though it can never truly represent the public, it can still be forced upon others; at any point in time that morality can be defined as objective, we can define a society's moral foundation, i.e. law and justice, as tyrannical.

So in the context of "objective valuation", no matter what kind of advancements we make in our abilities to decide just how valuable something is, it inevitably comes down to an opinion; this, however, can become muddled, just as Jesus preached objective morality and it stuck with people even to this day.  Comparing this idea to the left-right parable, if objective morality is the right's response to controlling societal behavior (with liberties reserved for business), then the idea of objective valuation can be seen as the left's response to controlling business (with liberties reserved for social exchanges.)  The idea that an economy can be controlled--i.e. the other way to form a powerful central state--by dictating something as subjective as value appears to be the unintentional consequence of a system that does not allow for value to be decided by individual actors.  The point of objective valuation, it would seem, is to oppress the individuals who disagree with the chosen issuers of value.

In other words, it would seem the ideal government and economy never attempts to dictate what is moral and what is valuable in an objective fashion (technically impossible but in other words, limiting their subjective nature to a chosen group); once these two concepts are removed from individual control and left to any form of collective to manage, it seems people drop like flies, either through killing others via war or killing themselves via famine.  I'd sooner want a meal to cost less than pennies than for a meal to be free of charge; at least I'd know how much that meal is actually worth.