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

[myrkul]

Fighting it? Why dont you go plant a garden, Batman?

If there's a point to your rambling, let me know.

[ktttn]

You, your source material, Rudy, and Ron don't, according to me, get to to exclusively decide how an agenda driven 'standard english' works.

Nor was I trying to. "freedom" has a meaning, agreed up on for many, many years:

free·dom 
/ˈfrēdəm/
Noun

• The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
• Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.

The white moneyed slaveowning wifebeating powdered wig imperialist bastards who agreed on that can kiss my ass.

These meanings do not sufficiently convey the depth of the subject matter they are intended to encapsulate and limit.

Then you're trying to cram too much meaning into the word. This is why new words are created, to hold the excess meaning, when the old word is insufficient to convey the concept. Or clarifying words can be added, for instance, your concept of "capitalism" is more properly "State capitalism" and edges into the "new" words "corporatism" or "fascism."

"Anarcho-capitalism" is much easier to write than "free market anarchy with strong individual property rights," but it conveys the same meaning, because capitalism is a free market system, with strong property rights, and adding "anarcho-" to that indicates that indicates that it is an anarchy, and thus all rights are held by the individual.

Anarchism covers what youre getting at.
The meaning Anarchocapitalist actually conveys is negative, implying an easy interface with today's ultraconservative, entrenched power structures and a willingness to compromise on the use of privatized violent coersion to control resources you deny to the appropriate commons.

Fighting it? Why dont you go plant a garden, Batman?

If there's a point to your rambling, let me know.

Sure thing Batman.
Your crusade of crimefighting might go better if you did something other than prop up capitalism, like planting food.
DO YOU EVEN PLANT?
Or do you hire immigrants to do it for you?
ZING.[/list]

[ktttn]

Anarchy is the non-patriarchal, non-monogamous, autark, selfsufficient, matrilineal community, which is not taxed and dominated by masters, rulers, strangers.

Only an agrarian, matrilinear society community could be free from oppression.

Do those two statements look the same to you?


Don't forget, what you actually said was:

So, only an agrarian, matrilinear society is truly free?

You're doing interpretive acrobatics, and then go round telling others about using dictionary definitions.


And all that for what? So you can avoid confronting the truth that there's no such thing as "true freedom"?
Hahahaha!

The only meaning of freedom I'm willing to accept is one that does not need to mention the forces that cancel it, a meaning that stands alone. A positive meaning that explains what it is as opposed to what it isn't.

[myrkul]

Your hippy is too thick for me to penetrate, you're on your own from here on out.

[Mike Christ]

snip

Hrmm, you may have a point.  Then again, you are a bearded guy wearing plastic cat ears in drag.

I dunno, they kind of cancel each other out.

[ktttn]

You, your source material, Rudy, and Ron don't, according to me, get to to exclusively decide how an agenda driven 'standard english' works.

Nor was I trying to. "freedom" has a meaning, agreed up on for many, many years:

free·dom 
/ˈfrēdəm/
Noun

• The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
• Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.

This can be "distilled" down to a very simple phrase: "absence of coercion."

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

cap·i·tal·ism 
/ˈkapətlˌizəm/
Noun
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

These meanings do not sufficiently convey the depth of the subject matter they are intended to encapsulate and limit.

Then you're trying to cram too much meaning into the word. This is why new words are created, to hold the excess meaning, when the old word is insufficient to convey the concept. Or clarifying words can be added, for instance, your concept of "capitalism" is more properly "State capitalism" and edges into the "new" words "corporatism" or "fascism."

"Anarcho-capitalism" is much easier to write than "free market anarchy with strong individual property rights," but it conveys the same meaning, because capitalism is a free market system, with strong property rights, and adding "anarcho-" to that indicates that indicates that it is an anarchy, and thus all rights are held by the individual..

I agree with this. For a while on YouTube I used the term market anarchist, but it doesn't convey the meaning nearly as well. Besides, I got tired of trying to please people rather than making my point.

But back to the title question, there have been several anarchic or nearly such societies in history. Three I can think of off the top of my head. Medieval Iceland and Ireland, and surprisingly, given my experience living here, Pennsylvania prior to the establishment of the Commonwealth.

However, lack of full historical precedent is a pretty weak argument as to whether or not it should be tried. I am on a mobile device @ the moment, but when I have a proper keyboard I am going to start a thread on that very subject.

I have never understood why folks need modifiers for their anarchism. These schisms only serve to confuse, imo.

[ktttn]

snip

Hrmm, you may have a point.  Then again, you are a bearded guy wearing plastic cat ears in drag.

I dunno, they kind of cancel each other out.

Thanks. I also eat trash, squat dumpsters, hail satan, disregard grammatical constraints when it suits me, listen to gabbernoise muzak, refuse to ever touch money, and am actually a radical queer furfag beardedladychick in like four layers of meta drag who plans on being a cyborg. I enjoy long walks in the rain, not paying rent, and character assassination.
Meow.
Tits or gtfo I suspect is the next post, hm?

[ktttn]

I've ignored and reported myrkul. Apparently my post about how anarchy works for me in my lifestyle as well as the lifestyles of several easily marginalized anarchist countercultures has rustled some serious capitalist trolljimmies.
Was report to mod inappropriate here? You tell me.
********
EDIT: Unignored to doublecheck for uncontributing troll to find only an implication that my flags aren't black and pink and solid black.
2 confirmations for shitposting troll.
********

[myrkul]

Was report to mod inappropriate here? You tell me.

Well, you're the anarchist who refuses even voluntary hierarchies, you tell me if asking the boss-man to delete a post that offends you is Kosher.

I will admit I was out of line. Personal attacks are not necessary here, your ideology speaks for itself.

[Biomech]

You, your source material, Rudy, and Ron don't, according to me, get to to exclusively decide how an agenda driven 'standard english' works.

Nor was I trying to. "freedom" has a meaning, agreed up on for many, many years:

free·dom 
/ˈfrēdəm/
Noun

• The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
• Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.

The white moneyed slaveowning wifebeating powdered wig imperialist bastards who agreed on that can kiss my ass.

These meanings do not sufficiently convey the depth of the subject matter they are intended to encapsulate and limit.

Then you're trying to cram too much meaning into the word. This is why new words are created, to hold the excess meaning, when the old word is insufficient to convey the concept. Or clarifying words can be added, for instance, your concept of "capitalism" is more properly "State capitalism" and edges into the "new" words "corporatism" or "fascism."

"Anarcho-capitalism" is much easier to write than "free market anarchy with strong individual property rights," but it conveys the same meaning, because capitalism is a free market system, with strong property rights, and adding "anarcho-" to that indicates that indicates that it is an anarchy, and thus all rights are held by the individual.

Anarchism covers what youre getting at.
The meaning Anarchocapitalist actually conveys is negative, implying an easy interface with today's ultraconservative, entrenched power structures and a willingness to compromise on the use of privatized violent coersion to control resources you deny to the appropriate commons.

Fighting it? Why dont you go plant a garden, Batman?

If there's a point to your rambling, let me know.

Sure thing Batman.
Your crusade of crimefighting might go better if you did something other than prop up capitalism, like planting food.
DO YOU EVEN PLANT?
Or do you hire immigrants to do it for you?
ZING.[/list]

Read Rothbard and Konklin. your understanding  of anarchocapitalism as stated here is completely fallacious. I have found no other stated anarchist philosophy with LESS willingness to use coercion, except possibly mutualism.

[ktttn]

Anarchism covers what youre getting at.
The meaning Anarchocapitalist actually conveys is negative, implying an easy interface with today's ultraconservative, entrenched power structures and a willingness to compromise on the use of privatized violent coersion to control resources you deny to the appropriate commons.

Read Rothbard and Konklin. your understanding  of anarchocapitalism as stated here is completely fallacious. I have found no other stated anarchist philosophy with LESS willingness to use coercion, except possibly mutualism.

Will read.
The notion of capital relies on the assertion that "this capital is mine and nobody else's.
Appropriation by a workforce, for example, interferes with that assertion.
Can any sort of noncoersive strategy (private police, chains, higher limit on wages) be used by the capitalist to maintain control?
Using robots makes the question moot. In the meantime, we still have the employee/wage slave archetype toiling away, wasting life, in the real world.
I'd like for you to explain the shortcomings of Anarchism without modifiers compared to an anarchism that utilizes a heirarchy of ownership in a way that justifies the extra ten letters.

[ktttn]

And all that for what? So you can avoid confronting the truth that there's no such thing as "true freedom"?
Hahahaha!

The only meaning of freedom I'm willing to accept is one that does not need to mention the forces that cancel it, a meaning that stands alone. A positive meaning that explains what it is as opposed to what it isn't.

Wow, that's going to be a tough one. I guess that might be touching upon the realm of metaphysics where the subjective experience of freedom would be a quale. Even though you might feel/sense/taste it, you could never really explain it to anyone -- successful explanations would just be an illusion, like successfully explaining what 'red' is to an alien. Even if the alien says "ah, yes, now I understand what red is", it's still just guesswork that your 'red' doesn't look green/blue/purple to them.

What I was getting at earlier was that all this 'freedom' talk is like comparing the floor area or "niceness" of a prison built within a prison. Even if the prisoners break the walls down, they're still all stuck in a bigger prison! (Whether it's Pitcairn Island, or planet Earth...) It seems that some people really, really want to avoid facing this fact and insist on some holy grail of true freedom. If you can take a step back and laugh at the absurdity of it all, then I guess that would make you a lot freer than some people.

+1 Ideas like true will and eudamodia are vastly more helpful than ideas like the NYPD.

[NewLiberty]

And all that for what? So you can avoid confronting the truth that there's no such thing as "true freedom"?
Hahahaha!

The only meaning of freedom I'm willing to accept is one that does not need to mention the forces that cancel it, a meaning that stands alone. A positive meaning that explains what it is as opposed to what it isn't.

Wow, that's going to be a tough one. I guess that might be touching upon the realm of metaphysics where the subjective experience of freedom would be a quale. Even though you might feel/sense/taste it, you could never really explain it to anyone -- successful explanations would just be an illusion, like successfully explaining what 'red' is to an alien. Even if the alien says "ah, yes, now I understand what red is", it's still just guesswork that your 'red' doesn't look green/blue/purple to them.

What I was getting at earlier was that all this 'freedom' talk is like comparing the floor area or "niceness" of a prison built within a prison. Even if the prisoners break the walls down, they're still all stuck in a bigger prison! (Whether it's Pitcairn Island, or planet Earth...) It seems that some people really, really want to avoid facing this fact and insist on some holy grail of true freedom. If you can take a step back and laugh at the absurdity of it all, then I guess that would make you a lot freer than some people.

+1

I've read this topic with interest, it has been a wide ranging discussion and at times a bit cantankerous.
The original question, posed in this forum, has always struck me at a bit of a gadfly.  Out of place, but worthy as a question nonetheless, even though the answer might be plain and simple.

One might as well inquire why there are no bitcoins in history to question that bitcoins can not succeed.
If we only look to history for our plans for innovation, we will have precious little of it.
Social systems arise through will, through agreement, and through force. 
We have new mechanisms for attaining agreement that didn't exist even one generation ago.
None of our parents met on the internet dating sites.
We are changing in ways, as a society, rapidly.  Be ready or be left behind.

[Biomech]

Anarchism covers what youre getting at.
The meaning Anarchocapitalist actually conveys is negative, implying an easy interface with today's ultraconservative, entrenched power structures and a willingness to compromise on the use of privatized violent coersion to control resources you deny to the appropriate commons.

Read Rothbard and Konklin. your understanding  of anarchocapitalism as stated here is completely fallacious. I have found no other stated anarchist philosophy with LESS willingness to use coercion, except possibly mutualism.

Will read.
The notion of capital relies on the assertion that "this capital is mine and nobody else's.
Appropriation by a workforce, for example, interferes with that assertion.
Can any sort of noncoersive strategy (private police, chains, higher limit on wages) be used by the capitalist to maintain control?
Using robots makes the question moot. In the meantime, we still have the employee/wage slave archetype toiling away, wasting life, in the real world.
I'd like for you to explain the shortcomings of Anarchism without modifiers compared to an anarchism that utilizes a heirarchy of ownership in a way that justifies the extra ten letters.

I will try, as I have asked the same question. Right now, I can't type well due to an injured hand. But the gist of the reason for the modifiers is that anarchy itself is so often interpreted to mean chaos. Thus you kinda have to let even other anarchists know where you stand. Unfortunately, there are a few major and a million minor variations of anarchic theory. Less than there are of statist theories, but still problematic.

As for agorism, and it's cousin anarchocapitalism, the REAL point of contention between social anarchists and agorists is the definition of property, not the division of labor. Agorists in particular envision the world as about six billion potential independent businesses.

My finger is killing me. I'll get back to you later.

[myrkul]

Agorists in particular envision the world as about six billion potential independent businesses.

And about six billion independent governments.

[ktttn]

Anarchism covers what youre getting at.
The meaning Anarchocapitalist actually conveys is negative, implying an easy interface with today's ultraconservative, entrenched power structures and a willingness to compromise on the use of privatized violent coersion to control resources you deny to the appropriate commons.

Read Rothbard and Konklin. your understanding  of anarchocapitalism as stated here is completely fallacious. I have found no other stated anarchist philosophy with LESS willingness to use coercion, except possibly mutualism.

Will read.
The notion of capital relies on the assertion that "this capital is mine and nobody else's.
Appropriation by a workforce, for example, interferes with that assertion.
Can any sort of noncoersive strategy (private police, chains, higher limit on wages) be used by the capitalist to maintain control?
Using robots makes the question moot. In the meantime, we still have the employee/wage slave archetype toiling away, wasting life, in the real world.
I'd like for you to explain the shortcomings of Anarchism without modifiers compared to an anarchism that utilizes a heirarchy of ownership in a way that justifies the extra ten letters.

I will try, as I have asked the same question. Right now, I can't type well due to an injured hand. But the gist of the reason for the modifiers is that anarchy itself is so often interpreted to mean chaos. Thus you kinda have to let even other anarchists know where you stand. Unfortunately, there are a few major and a million minor variations of anarchic theory. Less than there are of statist theories, but still problematic.

As for agorism, and it's cousin anarchocapitalism, the REAL point of contention between social anarchists and agorists is the definition of property, not the division of labor. Agorists in particular envision the world as about six billion potential independent businesses.

My finger is killing me. I'll get back to you later.

Get well soon. I might suggest a voice to text program in the meantime if you feel up to it.
I find that the name anarchocapitalist will turn nearly all other anarchists and some capitalists off.
Perhaps it would be better all around to drop the modifier and the prejudice it brings as a possible misnomer and let such subideology stand on its own, and add to.the sum of anarchist thought without polluting it with the trappings of capitalist ideas.
While we cant just grow 50ft tall and alter the ideological structures ourselves, we can use our own language to identify ourselves and our solidarity in more fitting ways.

[myrkul]

I find that the name anarchocapitalist will turn nearly all other anarchists and some capitalists off.

The anarcho-communists say: ""You mean I can't steal my employer's stuff?" The pro-state capitalists say: "Without the state, who will I pay to remove my competition?"

I have some bad news for you. Most anarchists are now of the Voluntaryist/AnCap stripe. Black and Gold is winning over Black and Red. You're a relic of bad economics.

[Biomech]

Anarchism covers what youre getting at.
The meaning Anarchocapitalist actually conveys is negative, implying an easy interface with today's ultraconservative, entrenched power structures and a willingness to compromise on the use of privatized violent coersion to control resources you deny to the appropriate commons.

Read Rothbard and Konklin. your understanding  of anarchocapitalism as stated here is completely fallacious. I have found no other stated anarchist philosophy with LESS willingness to use coercion, except possibly mutualism.

Will read.
The notion of capital relies on the assertion that "this capital is mine and nobody else's.
Appropriation by a workforce, for example, interferes with that assertion.
Can any sort of noncoersive strategy (private police, chains, higher limit on wages) be used by the capitalist to maintain control?
Using robots makes the question moot. In the meantime, we still have the employee/wage slave archetype toiling away, wasting life, in the real world.
I'd like for you to explain the shortcomings of Anarchism without modifiers compared to an anarchism that utilizes a heirarchy of ownership in a way that justifies the extra ten letters.

I will try, as I have asked the same question. Right now, I can't type well due to an injured hand. But the gist of the reason for the modifiers is that anarchy itself is so often interpreted to mean chaos. Thus you kinda have to let even other anarchists know where you stand. Unfortunately, there are a few major and a million minor variations of anarchic theory. Less than there are of statist theories, but still problematic.

As for agorism, and it's cousin anarchocapitalism, the REAL point of contention between social anarchists and agorists is the definition of property, not the division of labor. Agorists in particular envision the world as about six billion potential independent businesses.

My finger is killing me. I'll get back to you later.

Get well soon. I might suggest a voice to text program in the meantime if you feel up to it.
I find that the name anarchocapitalist will turn nearly all other anarchists and some capitalists off.
Perhaps it would be better all around to drop the modifier and the prejudice it brings as a possible misnomer and let such subideology stand on its own, and add to.the sum of anarchist thought without polluting it with the trappings of capitalist ideas.
While we cant just grow 50ft tall and alter the ideological structures ourselves, we can use our own language to identify ourselves and our solidarity in more fitting ways.

I may try text to speech. But then again this shouldn't take long to heal.

I actually prefer the term agorist or voluntaryist. The economic side of the socialist anarchist theories simply doesn't work. I want to start a thread regarding several of these points. I've been working on a book for several years. So of course when I'm basically ready to go I screw up my hand

I came to my conclusions regarding governance pretty independently, then found that others had arrived at similar conclusions and had labled them. You kinda have to go with what is to work towards what might be.

[ktttn]

Anarchism covers what youre getting at.
The meaning Anarchocapitalist actually conveys is negative, implying an easy interface with today's ultraconservative, entrenched power structures and a willingness to compromise on the use of privatized violent coersion to control resources you deny to the appropriate commons.

Read Rothbard and Konklin. your understanding  of anarchocapitalism as stated here is completely fallacious. I have found no other stated anarchist philosophy with LESS willingness to use coercion, except possibly mutualism.

Will read.
The notion of capital relies on the assertion that "this capital is mine and nobody else's.
Appropriation by a workforce, for example, interferes with that assertion.
Can any sort of noncoersive strategy (private police, chains, higher limit on wages) be used by the capitalist to maintain control?
Using robots makes the question moot. In the meantime, we still have the employee/wage slave archetype toiling away, wasting life, in the real world.
I'd like for you to explain the shortcomings of Anarchism without modifiers compared to an anarchism that utilizes a heirarchy of ownership in a way that justifies the extra ten letters.

I will try, as I have asked the same question. Right now, I can't type well due to an injured hand. But the gist of the reason for the modifiers is that anarchy itself is so often interpreted to mean chaos. Thus you kinda have to let even other anarchists know where you stand. Unfortunately, there are a few major and a million minor variations of anarchic theory. Less than there are of statist theories, but still problematic.

As for agorism, and it's cousin anarchocapitalism, the REAL point of contention between social anarchists and agorists is the definition of property, not the division of labor. Agorists in particular envision the world as about six billion potential independent businesses.

My finger is killing me. I'll get back to you later.

Get well soon. I might suggest a voice to text program in the meantime if you feel up to it.
I find that the name anarchocapitalist will turn nearly all other anarchists and some capitalists off.
Perhaps it would be better all around to drop the modifier and the prejudice it brings as a possible misnomer and let such subideology stand on its own, and add to.the sum of anarchist thought without polluting it with the trappings of capitalist ideas.
While we cant just grow 50ft tall and alter the ideological structures ourselves, we can use our own language to identify ourselves and our solidarity in more fitting ways.

I may try text to speech. But then again this shouldn't take long to heal.

I actually prefer the term agorist or voluntaryist. The economic side of the socialist anarchist theories simply doesn't work. I want to start a thread regarding several of these points. I've been working on a book for several years. So of course when I'm basically ready to go I screw up my hand

I came to my conclusions regarding governance pretty independently, then found that others had arrived at similar conclusions and had labled them. You kinda have to go with what is to work towards what might be.

Looking forward to it.

[myrkul]

2 confirmations for shitposting troll.

Oh, you confirmed that in my mind long ago. 'Round about your third glossolalia verbal diarrhea post.