If Anarchy can work, how come there are no historical records of it working?

[wdmw]

Did you agree the idea of freedom from necessity can mean a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all?

I agree that freedom from necessity would mean a guarantee of a minimal standard of living to all.

I do not agree that freedom includes a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all.

The difference between those two statements is the difference in definition I was pointing out earlier in this thread.

Gotcha.  So you personally don't feel that freedom includes a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all.

Incorrect.  This isn't about my feelings.  This is about the definition of freedom, and how I am not expanding that definition onto an abstraction, then removing the reference to that abstraction and calling it the definition.  Is that more clear?

Here is an example:
Freedom from necessity would mean a guarantee of a minimal standard of living to all.
Freedom does not include a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all.

[1714794327]

1714794327

[1714794327]

1714794327

[1714794327]

1714794327

[Hawker]

..snip...

Incorrect.  This isn't about my feelings.  This is about the definition of freedom, and how I am not expanding that definition onto an abstraction, then removing the reference to that abstraction and calling it the definition.  Is that more clear?

Here is an example:
Freedom from necessity would mean a guarantee of a minimal standard of living to all.
Freedom does not include a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all.

You think the Danes are wrong then?  That your definition of freedom is better than theirs?

[MoonShadow]

The question was what causes societies to move towards being more voluntary.  You may think that eternal vigilence caused it but that doesn't change the fact that it seemed to emerge in the 1600s and that it wasn't there in the 1500s.I'm going to stick with "No-one knows."

That's not at all true.  Go back and read this thread, there are definable examples to at least 1291 (the foundation of the old Swiss Confederacy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy#Foundation) and some credible, yet undocumentable, examples of same that go back much farther.  Do you contest that the Swiss Confederacy was founded upon ideals that would be consistant with a modern sentiment of a "voluntary" society?  Bear in mind, that the foundation 'myth' (can't be supported with any historical documents) of the old Swiss Confederacy is the story of William Tell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apple_and_the_Arrow) leading an uprising against a tyranical & absolute monarch, and that the 'Founding Fathers' of the United States appealed to the Swiss for financial support during the Revolutionary War because they believed they would find ideological like minds.

They did, and some rather wealthy ones as well.

EDIT: That particular book is part of my kids' homeschooling curriculum, for kindergarten.

[myrkul]

Question was "What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?"
Context was a statement that societies invaded by Vikings were more likely to be liberal.
My answer, whether you agree with it or not, was "No-one knows." 

Now please stop being stupid and either give a better answer or move on.

"No one knows"? That's your best answer to how a society remains voluntary? And you back it up with a buch of bullshit about previous non-voluntary societies. And then, as the icing on your little shit-cake, you have the unmitigated audacity to call me stupid. I gave a much better answer than that nonsense in the first reply to that question:

The answer is simultaneously simple, and complex. It can be best summed up with the quote, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Now, would you like an in-depth explanation? Because I think I can dumb it down enough for you if the above quote doesn't explain it sufficiently.

Again, read the question.

I have, and I answered it. You didn't. Maybe you might want to re-read it.

The question was what causes societies to move towards being more voluntary.

No, it was what leads a society to remain voluntary.

"What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?"

[Hawker]

The question was what causes societies to move towards being more voluntary.  You may think that eternal vigilence caused it but that doesn't change the fact that it seemed to emerge in the 1600s and that it wasn't there in the 1500s.I'm going to stick with "No-one knows."

That's not at all true.  Go back and read this thread, there are definable examples to at least 1291 (the foundation of the old Swiss Confederacy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy#Foundation) and some credible, yet undocumentable, examples of same that go back much farther.  Do you contest that the Swiss Confederacy was founded upon ideals that would be consistant with a modern sentiment of a "voluntary" society?  Bear in mind, that the foundation 'myth' (can't be supported with any historical documents) of the old Swiss Confederacy is the story of William Tell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apple_and_the_Arrow) leading an uprising against a tyranical & absolute monarch, and that the 'Founding Fathers' of the United States appealed to the Swiss for financial support during the Revolutionary War because they believed they would find ideological like minds.

They did, and some rather wealthy ones as well.

True.  But I did precede by saying I was talking about the political culture of the UK, Ireland and the US, all of whom are greatly influenced by the Bill of Rights which followed the civil war.  

[MoonShadow]

..snip...

Incorrect.  This isn't about my feelings.  This is about the definition of freedom, and how I am not expanding that definition onto an abstraction, then removing the reference to that abstraction and calling it the definition.  Is that more clear?

Here is an example:
Freedom from necessity would mean a guarantee of a minimal standard of living to all.
Freedom does not include a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all.

You think the Danes are wrong then?  That your definition of freedom is better than theirs?

Be careful here.  Mild trolling is tolerated here, if the content has redeeming value.  But if you're just trying to stoke a semantic argument (one greater than the one that, largely because of you, has already be burning in this thread) I may decide to intervene.  To some degree, it matters how entertaining you are.

What?  At least I'm an honest mod.

[Hawker]

Question was "What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?"
Context was a statement that societies invaded by Vikings were more likely to be liberal.
My answer, whether you agree with it or not, was "No-one knows." 

Now please stop being stupid and either give a better answer or move on.

"No one knows"? That's your best answer to how a society remains voluntary? And you back it up with a buch of bullshit about previous non-voluntary societies. And then, as the icing on your little shit-cake, you have the unmitigated audacity to call me stupid. I gave a much better answer than that nonsense in the first reply to that question:

The answer is simultaneously simple, and complex. It can be best summed up with the quote, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Now, would you like an in-depth explanation? Because I think I can dumb it down enough for you if the above quote doesn't explain it sufficiently.

Again, read the question.

I have, and I answered it. You didn't. Maybe you might want to re-read it.

The question was what causes societies to move towards being more voluntary.

No, it was what leads a society to remain voluntary.

"What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?"

That distant rumbling sound you hear is me banging my head on a desk.  Sorry  

[Hawker]

..snip...

Incorrect.  This isn't about my feelings.  This is about the definition of freedom, and how I am not expanding that definition onto an abstraction, then removing the reference to that abstraction and calling it the definition.  Is that more clear?

Here is an example:
Freedom from necessity would mean a guarantee of a minimal standard of living to all.
Freedom does not include a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all.

You think the Danes are wrong then?  That your definition of freedom is better than theirs?

Be careful here.  Mild trolling is tolerated here, if the content has redeeming value.  But if you're just trying to stoke a semantic argument (one greater than the one that, largely because of you, has already be burning in this thread) I may decide to intervene.  To some degree, it matters how entertaining you are.

What?  At least I'm an honest mod.

Fair point - and it turns out I was the one misread the quote so a lot of heat but little light generated.  I'll leave your thread in peace - if there is a way to delete the bits between me and myrkul without excessive work on your part go for it.

[MoonShadow]

The question was what causes societies to move towards being more voluntary.  You may think that eternal vigilence caused it but that doesn't change the fact that it seemed to emerge in the 1600s and that it wasn't there in the 1500s.I'm going to stick with "No-one knows."

That's not at all true.  Go back and read this thread, there are definable examples to at least 1291 (the foundation of the old Swiss Confederacy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy#Foundation) and some credible, yet undocumentable, examples of same that go back much farther.  Do you contest that the Swiss Confederacy was founded upon ideals that would be consistant with a modern sentiment of a "voluntary" society?  Bear in mind, that the foundation 'myth' (can't be supported with any historical documents) of the old Swiss Confederacy is the story of William Tell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apple_and_the_Arrow) leading an uprising against a tyranical & absolute monarch, and that the 'Founding Fathers' of the United States appealed to the Swiss for financial support during the Revolutionary War because they believed they would find ideological like minds.

They did, and some rather wealthy ones as well.

True.  But I did precede by saying I was talking about the political culture of the UK, Ireland and the US, all of whom are greatly influenced by the Bill of Rights which followed the civil war.  

Which, in turn, was greatly influenced by the old Swiss Confederacy, as well as the Five Tribes Confederation. (http://www.iroquoisdemocracy.pdx.edu/)  I'm sure that you are used to being the smartest guy in the room, but you would be wise to not present your viewpoints with such confidence lacking support.  There is much that certain members of this strange forum in this little backwater of the Internet will teach you if prompted.  How they are prompted will determine if those lessons come soft or hard.

[myrkul]

That distant rumbling sound you hear is me banging my head on a desk.  Sorry  

Apology accepted.

[Hawker]

The question was what causes societies to move towards being more voluntary.  You may think that eternal vigilence caused it but that doesn't change the fact that it seemed to emerge in the 1600s and that it wasn't there in the 1500s.I'm going to stick with "No-one knows."

That's not at all true.  Go back and read this thread, there are definable examples to at least 1291 (the foundation of the old Swiss Confederacy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy#Foundation) and some credible, yet undocumentable, examples of same that go back much farther.  Do you contest that the Swiss Confederacy was founded upon ideals that would be consistant with a modern sentiment of a "voluntary" society?  Bear in mind, that the foundation 'myth' (can't be supported with any historical documents) of the old Swiss Confederacy is the story of William Tell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apple_and_the_Arrow) leading an uprising against a tyranical & absolute monarch, and that the 'Founding Fathers' of the United States appealed to the Swiss for financial support during the Revolutionary War because they believed they would find ideological like minds.

They did, and some rather wealthy ones as well.

True.  But I did precede by saying I was talking about the political culture of the UK, Ireland and the US, all of whom are greatly influenced by the Bill of Rights which followed the civil war.  

Which, in turn, was greatly influenced by the old Swiss Confederacy, as well as the Five Tribes Confederation. (http://www.iroquoisdemocracy.pdx.edu/)  I'm sure that you are used to being the smartest guy in the room, but you would be wise to not present your viewpoints with such confidence lacking support.  There is much that certain members of this strange forum in this little backwater of the Internet will teach you if prompted.  How they are prompted will determine if those lessons come soft or hard.

Are we talking about the same bill of rights?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

Either way its off topic to historical examples of anarchism so I'm out of the thread.

[MoonShadow]

The question was what causes societies to move towards being more voluntary.  You may think that eternal vigilence caused it but that doesn't change the fact that it seemed to emerge in the 1600s and that it wasn't there in the 1500s.I'm going to stick with "No-one knows."

That's not at all true.  Go back and read this thread, there are definable examples to at least 1291 (the foundation of the old Swiss Confederacy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy#Foundation) and some credible, yet undocumentable, examples of same that go back much farther.  Do you contest that the Swiss Confederacy was founded upon ideals that would be consistant with a modern sentiment of a "voluntary" society?  Bear in mind, that the foundation 'myth' (can't be supported with any historical documents) of the old Swiss Confederacy is the story of William Tell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apple_and_the_Arrow) leading an uprising against a tyranical & absolute monarch, and that the 'Founding Fathers' of the United States appealed to the Swiss for financial support during the Revolutionary War because they believed they would find ideological like minds.

They did, and some rather wealthy ones as well.

True.  But I did precede by saying I was talking about the political culture of the UK, Ireland and the US, all of whom are greatly influenced by the Bill of Rights which followed the civil war.  

Which, in turn, was greatly influenced by the old Swiss Confederacy, as well as the Five Tribes Confederation. (http://www.iroquoisdemocracy.pdx.edu/)  I'm sure that you are used to being the smartest guy in the room, but you would be wise to not present your viewpoints with such confidence lacking support.  There is much that certain members of this strange forum in this little backwater of the Internet will teach you if prompted.  How they are prompted will determine if those lessons come soft or hard.

Are we talking about the same bill of rights?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

Opps!  I just got caught with my own pants down.  You were referring to the English bill of rights!

Well, even then those idesa din't just spring up suddenly, they were largely deveopled over generations alongside common law, which itself developed due to a general lack of  interest or interference from the monarch or the noble class.

[FinShaggy]

This month marks the 20th anniversary of its demolition.

Sounds to me like it did not work.

It did work, read the diagram. Just because they decided to do something else with it doesn't mean it didn't "work" it was a completely functioning city of anarchy.

But it did not last, which I would consider to be a pretty vital aspect of 'it working'. It didn't last, therefore it didn't really work.

I'm sure if you look into it you can find remnants of that same society somewhere in the world. Where did they all go?

[MoonShadow]

This month marks the 20th anniversary of its demolition.

Sounds to me like it did not work.

It did work, read the diagram. Just because they decided to do something else with it doesn't mean it didn't "work" it was a completely functioning city of anarchy.

But it did not last, which I would consider to be a pretty vital aspect of 'it working'. It didn't last, therefore it didn't really work.

I'm sure if you look into it you can find remnants of that same society somewhere in the world. Where did they all go?

Actually, most of those who grew up in the Walled City stayed in Hong Kong, and the ethos infected the remainder of the middle and lower classes across the city.  That is one of the contributing factors that makes Hong Kong the capitalist light that has largely led (nominally communist) China out of the darkness.  China would not be the industrial powerhouse without the established culture of Hong Kong to draw upon, and Hong Kong would not have been the same without the Walled City within; and I mean that in both a good and bad way.  Bear in mind that once upon a time, the communist leadership in China believed that they could teach rice farmers to refine iron and make alloy steel in grass fired clay kilns across the countryside; and that was how they were going to be able to keep those evil capitalist American navies out of their business.

[myrkul]

Bear in mind that once upon a time, the communist leadership in China believed that they could teach rice farmers to refine iron and make alloy steel in grass fired clay kilns across the countryside; and that was how they were going to be able to keep those evil capitalist American navies out of their business.

Really?

I mean, I know bureaucrats are out of touch with reality, but this strains credulity.

[MoonShadow]

Bear in mind that once upon a time, the communist leadership in China believed that they could teach rice farmers to refine iron and make alloy steel in grass fired clay kilns across the countryside; and that was how they were going to be able to keep those evil capitalist American navies out of their business.

Really?

I mean, I know bureaucrats are out of touch with reality, but this strains credulity.

Yup.  It was a key part of Mao's ironicly named "Great Leap Forward" campaign...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#Backyard_furnaces

God, I love Wikipedia.

[NewLiberty]

  To some degree, it matters how entertaining you are.

What?  At least I'm an honest mod.

I for one have been both entertained and enlightened by the erudite (if occasionally irritating) and authoritative responses along with the liberal sprinkling of references, so thank you all for your engagement in responding to my honest question regarding the particulars of what elements engender societal voluntarism.

[oakpacific]

Bear in mind that once upon a time, the communist leadership in China believed that they could teach rice farmers to refine iron and make alloy steel in grass fired clay kilns across the countryside; and that was how they were going to be able to keep those evil capitalist American navies out of their business.

Really?

I mean, I know bureaucrats are out of touch with reality, but this strains credulity.

It's not the bureaucrats' feat, but that of the revolutionaries. Bureaucrats wanted to maintain the status quo, revolutionaries wanted to change(read: impose their ideals of Utopia upon common folks) something, thus the tragedy.

[MoonShadow]

Bear in mind that once upon a time, the communist leadership in China believed that they could teach rice farmers to refine iron and make alloy steel in grass fired clay kilns across the countryside; and that was how they were going to be able to keep those evil capitalist American navies out of their business.

Really?

I mean, I know bureaucrats are out of touch with reality, but this strains credulity.

It's not the bureaucrats' feat, but that of the revolutionaries. Bureaucrats wanted to maintain the status quo, revolutionaries wanted to change(read: impose their ideals of Utopia upon common folks) something, thus the tragedy.

One generation's revolutionary is the next generation's bureaucrat.  That was a great part of the problem; Mao lived in an information bubble of his own making.  He didn't trust the "intellectuals" but those whom he did trust were no more worthy of such faith, and tended to be less informed upon the subjects for which they were expected to advise than the intellectuals who proceeded them.  Like anyone else, they were just trying to maintain the little fiefdoms that they had built up during the revolutionary period, even if that required deceiving the monarch in order to maintain political favor.

[MoonShadow]

Well, even then those idesa din't just spring up suddenly, they were largely deveopled over generations alongside common law, which itself developed due to a general lack of  interest or interference from the monarch or the noble class.

When I get tired, my mild dyslexia creeps in through strange places.  I swear that was all correct when I typed it.