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

[ktttn]

I don't know guys. I think anarchy is like communism. It sounds great on paper, but doesn't scale well beyond a commune.

Anarchy is everything you enjoy in life, and violence is the opposite.

Personally I might do well in an anarchy. But make no mistake I would organize an army and take what I want. I would charge you tribute or burn your village, take slaves, etc.
Join me and be with the strong! In exchange for your unwavering obedience and occasional military service I will allow you to live in peace.
Gota love anarchy!

your idea of anarchy is flawed. . . sounds more like a state.

It sounds like if the idea became reality then every country (if there were any) would be in constant turmoil.

>implying every country is not in constant turmoil plus riotcops
"Oh you know what I mean!"
DOYOUSEETHESEMOVES?! *beatboxing intensifies*

[1713520369]

1713520369

[1713520369]

1713520369

[cheesylard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkcY7SVBG-4

[crypto-finance]

You had me at "medieval"

[Chaoskampf]

We exterminated all the peoples who lived in anarchic societies and burned all their historical records. We are the product of millenia worth of war and conquest. In this sense we are at the end of history. That doesn't mean it never happened. It means that the people who wrote the history books weren't a part of those societies. This should be obvious seeing as any anarchic society would not be equipped or prepared to defend itself against those societies who's fundamentals were established through violence, paternalistic hierarchy, and complete disregard for human life.

[ktttn]

We exterminated all the peoples who lived in anarchic societies and burned all their historical records. We are the product of millenia worth of war and conquest. In this sense we are at the end of history. That doesn't mean it never happened. It means that the people who wrote the history books weren't a part of those societies. This should be obvious seeing as any anarchic society would not be equipped or prepared to defend itself against those societies who's fundamentals were established through violence, paternalistic hierarchy, and complete disregard for human life.

This.^

Library of Alexandria ect ect for the win mindblowingly tragic loss.

The structure of history has been a strict state pegagogy up until the internet.

[MoonShadow]

http://markstoval.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/9000-years-of-anarchy-in-ireland/

[tkbx]

There were records of it working, they just got burned with the rest of society when it collapsed 

"The problem with anarchy is anarchists" -Me

[AnonyMint]

Why Proof-of-stake is bad:

http://mises.org/daily/1121

The collapse did not occur until after almost three centuries of relatively peaceful living had gone by. Roderick T. Long states, "We should be cautious in labeling as a failure a political experiment that flourished longer than the United States has even existed."

When one truly looks at Iceland's history objectively, one can see what the real causes of Iceland's collapse was. The lack of competition and the monopolistic qualities that eventually came about when five families cornered the chieftaincy market was one reason. These five families bought the majority of chieftaincies. They controlled the court and legal system to a significant extent. This meant that there were not as many chieftains to choose from. This led to less competition, creating opportunities for increased exploitation over the free farmers, eventually leading to a revolt against the 5 families.

[NewLiberty]

Why Proof-of-stake is bad:

http://mises.org/daily/1121

The collapse did not occur until after almost three centuries of relatively peaceful living had gone by. Roderick T. Long states, "We should be cautious in labeling as a failure a political experiment that flourished longer than the United States has even existed."

When one truly looks at Iceland's history objectively, one can see what the real causes of Iceland's collapse was. The lack of competition and the monopolistic qualities that eventually came about when five families cornered the chieftaincy market was one reason. These five families bought the majority of chieftaincies. They controlled the court and legal system to a significant extent. This meant that there were not as many chieftains to choose from. This led to less competition, creating opportunities for increased exploitation over the free farmers, eventually leading to a revolt against the 5 families.

I like that you are looking at this issue.
Most any system is broken in isolation.  Can it be useful anyhow?
Can it be implemented with proper checks and balances?
For example, like separate houses of Parliaments with equal power but different style?
And then coded in, cryptographically secured, with a verifiable and predetermined protocol.
 

[Anon136]

Why Proof-of-stake is bad:

http://mises.org/daily/1121

The collapse did not occur until after almost three centuries of relatively peaceful living had gone by. Roderick T. Long states, "We should be cautious in labeling as a failure a political experiment that flourished longer than the United States has even existed."

When one truly looks at Iceland's history objectively, one can see what the real causes of Iceland's collapse was. The lack of competition and the monopolistic qualities that eventually came about when five families cornered the chieftaincy market was one reason. These five families bought the majority of chieftaincies. They controlled the court and legal system to a significant extent. This meant that there were not as many chieftains to choose from. This led to less competition, creating opportunities for increased exploitation over the free farmers, eventually leading to a revolt against the 5 families.

I like that you are looking at this issue.
Most any system is broken in isolation.  Can it be useful anyhow?
Can it be implemented with proper checks and balances?
For example, like separate houses of Parliaments with equal power but different style?
And then coded in, cryptographically secured, with a verifiable and predetermined protocol.
 

if anarchy for some reason couldn't work than a reasonable contingency plan could be panarchy. Basically the radical decentralization of sovereignty if not down to the individual level. the planet could be checkered with tens of thousands of states that would be territorial monopolies over the land they owned but each owned bits of land here and there scattered across the globe, sort of like how governments own embassies and that land is technically considered the sovereign territory of the government they represent and not the country they are located in. this would increase competition between governments which would force them to act much more like free market companies attempting to offer value to their customers.

[Mike Christ]

There were records of it working, they just got burned with the rest of society when it collapsed 

"The problem with anarchy is anarchists" -Me

Same problem happens with states; but such is the curse of the top-down thought methodology.

[Anon136]

http://markstoval.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/9000-years-of-anarchy-in-ireland/

Impressive stuff, thanks. So, there's the answer and unsurprisingly its an obvious one, law by mutual agreement. It shouldn't be too hard to implement with online identities (in development within Bitcoin) and a p2p voting platform.

Yea thats right but i think a more useful way to think about it is as law through bargaining. Everyone cant have everything they want so they just bargain it out, one party gives up something he wants in one aspect in return for getting his way on something else that the other person does not want. They could always resort to violence if they REALLY wanted to but violence is expensive not only in the act of the physical confrontation its self but to your reputation also. You see this sort of bargaining a lot in politics because politicians do not have a higher authority to appeal to inorder to solve their problems for them. (before you go ew what a terrible example i should point out that the reason it tends to lead to such bad results in that case is because they are bargaining with other peoples lives and property instead of their own so i think it still serves as a useful example and we can imagine it would be much different if they were infact bargaining with their own lives and property)

*edit* it should be noted that it would be impractical for everyone to bargain with everyone so if you want to be super specific what we are talking about is collective bargaining.

[MoonShadow]

http://markstoval.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/9000-years-of-anarchy-in-ireland/

Impressive stuff, thanks. So, there's the answer and unsurprisingly its an obvious one, law by mutual agreement. It shouldn't be too hard to implement with online identities (in development within Bitcoin) and a p2p voting platform.

Yea thats right but i think a more useful way to think about it is as law through bargaining. Everyone cant have everything they want so they just bargain it out, one party gives up something he wants in one aspect in return for getting his way on something else that the other person does not want. They could always resort to violence if they REALLY wanted to but violence is expensive not only in the act of the physical confrontation its self but to your reputation also. You see this sort of bargaining a lot in politics because politicians do not have a higher authority to appeal to inorder to solve their problems for them. (before you go ew what a terrible example i should point out that the reason it tends to lead to such bad results in that case is because they are bargaining with other peoples lives and property instead of their own so i think it still serves as a useful example and we can imagine it would be much different if they were infact bargaining with their own lives and property)

*edit* it should be noted that it would be impractical for everyone to bargain with everyone so if you want to be super specific what we are talking about is collective bargaining.

This method of organizing societies is called a "phyle" and was well described in a science fiction book I read years ago called "The Diamond Age".

[Monkeyseemonkeydo]

I think that it can work for some period of time but it can't last long so Anarchy won't actually work as the power must belong to one man or a small group of people otherwise it looses power losses it's attraction

[MoonShadow]

I think that it can work for some period of time but it can't last long so Anarchy won't actually work as the power must belong to one man or a small group of people otherwise it looses power losses it's attraction

You didn't bother to read the links, did you?

[Anon136]

I think that it can work for some period of time but it can't last long so Anarchy won't actually work as the power must belong to one man or a small group of people otherwise it looses power losses it's attraction

You should make an argument for your position imo.