Anarchy =~ Communism

[myrkul]

I think the Federal Reserve may be an example of the government "breaking up" an oligopoly and replacing it with a monopoly.  The Federal Reserve Act was written by a bunch of bankers to give themselves a monopoly on the banking system and passed by the government.

Of course! I neglected government and pseudo-government agencies!

The FED replaced the system of independent banks.
The US Military replaced the individual (and occasionally private) militias.
I'm sure there are more, I just can't think of any off the top of my head.

[smellyBobby]

We rely on basic human greed to ensure that at least one will always undercut the others, and the NAP to ensure that the others don't beat him up for it. That's a distinct oversimplification, but, there it is.

But if that doesn't happen today, why would it happen in an AnCap society? Oligopolys are broken up regularly.
It seems that basic human greed is what creates an oligopoly, not breaks up one.

Well, he did make the example outrageously restricted. The more people in the equation, the more likely it is that someone will come along who is willing and able to charge less/pay more.

Sure, I did make the example restrictive.

Take 5 islands for example, all with the 5 people. I would say that it would be reasonable to think that the scenario I outlined would occur on one of the islands. However over an extended period of time, humans driven by their greed would result in at-least 4 of the 5 islands enslaving any new-comer.

But this example only needs to occur once, then we are back where we are today. Some people at the top who have control of essential resources enslaving everyone else. Colluding between themselves for the slaves.

[myrkul]

But this example only needs to occur once, then we are back where we are today.

No, then we have an empty island, ripe for re-colonization from the other islands. Survival of the fittest.

[smellyBobby]

Assuming that they do not engage in an age of colonization . Like the British, French, Spanish, etc.

Driven by greed and the need to increase profits, the 5 in-control train their slaves for war. They go on expeditions to conquer the other islands so they can have more slaves and get more coconuts.

Back where we are today, descendants of exploitation and slavery.

[The Script]

Assuming that they do not engage in an age of colonization . Like the British, French, Spanish, etc.

Driven by greed and the need to increase profits, the 5 in-control train their slaves for war. They go on expeditions to conquer the other islands so they can have more slaves and get more coconuts.

Back where we are today, descendants of exploitation and slavery.

But suppose that one of the five people on the free island is a former  special forces Marine who believes in anarchy.  He offers his protection and arbitration services to anyone who will pay for it.  The Others are afraid of him because he has a tatoo proving he's completed the 9th order of the Proving so they leave his clients alone. 


Basically, I don't think we are going to learn anything from this island model because we can make it as arbitrary as we choose. 

[myrkul]

Assuming that they do not engage in an age of colonization . Like the British, French, Spanish, etc.

Driven by greed and the need to increase profits, the 5 in-control train their slaves for war. They go on expeditions to conquer the other islands so they can have more slaves and get more coconuts.

Back where we are today, descendants of exploitation and slavery.

But suppose that one of the five people on the free island is a former  special forces Marine who believes in anarchy.  He offers his protection and arbitration services to anyone who will pay for it.  The Others are afraid of him because he has a tatoo proving he's completed the 9th order of the Proving so they leave his clients alone. 


Basically, I don't think we are going to learn anything from this island model because we can make it as arbitrary as we choose. 

Oooo... That book looks nice.

[The Script]

Assuming that they do not engage in an age of colonization . Like the British, French, Spanish, etc.

Driven by greed and the need to increase profits, the 5 in-control train their slaves for war. They go on expeditions to conquer the other islands so they can have more slaves and get more coconuts.

Back where we are today, descendants of exploitation and slavery.

But suppose that one of the five people on the free island is a former  special forces Marine who believes in anarchy.  He offers his protection and arbitration services to anyone who will pay for it.  The Others are afraid of him because he has a tatoo proving he's completed the 9th order of the Proving so they leave his clients alone. 


Basically, I don't think we are going to learn anything from this island model because we can make it as arbitrary as we choose. 

Oooo... That book looks nice.

I think you'll enjoy it.  It's the authors first professional publication so the writing is a little stiff at the beginning, but I thought it developed nicely.  Well worth the read, IMO.

[myrkul]

Basically, I don't think we are going to learn anything from this island model because we can make it as arbitrary as we choose. 

Also: Yes, Arbitrary model is arbitrary.

[smellyBobby]

Basically, I don't think we are going to learn anything from this island model because we can make it as arbitrary as we choose. 

I agree with the arbitrary part.

However misusing words is common in this forum. I don't think anyone can disagree with that. And we can not have fruitful discussions without an adherence to the definition of words.

The island model is a simple conceptualization of possible human interactions. Use the island model to reach a point of understanding over words and ideas. We can use the island model to clearly distinguish our differences over certain types of human behavior.

The island model can then be used to justify why one outcome is favorable over another in terms of human behavior.

Of course the island model will never be able to capture every aspect of human behavior, but what model can? At the moment half the content on this forum is disputes over what words mean. If we can't come to an agreement over words then what is the point in using words?

A few things on the island.

An island obviously represents an isolated community. It shows how one outcome in one community can dramatically effect the welfare of others.

The island model should be used to separate ideas into two different levels. The micro level of the individual and the surrounding the community and the small community interacting on the macro-level. By distinguishing between the levels it is simpler to build a statement and show the reasoning behind the statement. Disagreement can be shown in terms of levels. By distinguishing the two levels it can be shown the outcome of one level upon the other.

If statements are going to be expressed in an imperative mood then the island model should easily show correctness. Otherwise it is likely the statement is false.

The island removes the idea of government and reduces coercive force to minimums. I have shown how authority arises from an innocent situation. We disagree on is the likely-hood of such a situation and its relevance. What we are really disagreeing on is a fundamental aspect of human nature, how a small component of the individual shapes the entire community. And this is good IMO. This shows where we disagree, and can walk away. Also historical literature can be used to justify one outcome over another.

The island is an important abstraction until there is better agreement over word definitions. Consequently I think it should be refined and used more.

[myrkul]

I think you are two different people.

There's no way you can be this rational one moment and as irrational and troll-like the next.

Edit: Or maybe.... You're actually Satoshi, testing us?

[em3rgentOrdr]

I think you are two different people.

There's no way you can be this rational one moment and as irrational and troll-like the next.

Edit: Or maybe.... You're actually Satoshi, testing us?

Or maybe both you, myrkul, and smellyBobby are satoshi...

[myrkul]

I think you are two different people.

There's no way you can be this rational one moment and as irrational and troll-like the next.

Edit: Or maybe.... You're actually Satoshi, testing us?

Or maybe both you, myrkul, and smellyBobby are satoshi...

To Paraphrase Valentine M. Smith, Thou art Satoshi.

[smellyBobby]

We're bound to evolve as a species. There are no set laws.

Wrong. Evolution is bound by the inherent organizing nature of the universe.

     Btw, communism is a very hierarchical system, is political darwinism.

Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production.

   Its very simple to understand the difference between what someone claims and what they really offer.

Correct! It is simple to see the difference. For example when you want a lawless society, you really want no mechanisms of accountability. When you say that your society will be fair, it in fact will be unfair and power is held by the capitalists. When you say that your "new" Society will work, it actually won't.

It's simple to see the difference between what is meant, and what will happen.

Canarchy(Anarcho-Capitalist) just like Communism will deviate from the ideal definition. Communism presents an utopian state, just like Canarchy does. So if the utopian state presented by Communism is impossible, then so is the utopian state presented by Canarchy. Don't dismiss the ideal definitions of other ideologies and expect that your definitions are flawless. That the utopian rules that your present are somehow above the utopian rules presented by another ideology.

Sanarchy(Anarcho-Socialist) has presented a mechanism with explicitly dealing with human hierarchy. Canarchy still has no explicit method of dealing with human hierarchy.

[myrkul]

Canarchy(Anarcho-Capitalist) just like Communism will deviate from the ideal definition. Communism presents an utopian state, just like Canarchy does. So if the utopian state presented by Communism is impossible, then so is the utopian state presented by Canarchy. Don't dismiss the ideal definitions of other ideologies and expect that your definitions are flawless. That the utopian rules that your present are somehow above the utopian rules presented by another ideology.

Sanarchy(Anarcho-Socialist) has presented a mechanism with explicitly dealing with human hierarchy. Canarchy still has no explicit method of dealing with human hierarchy.

1. The accepted abbreviation is AnCap.
2. Nobody said that AnCap will produce a Utopia. I know I didn't. We're simply saying that a Monopoly is not the best way to produce goods or services, and that includes the goods and services Government currently provides.

[smellyBobby]

So it will not produce utopia? Okay, so what will be the non-utopian elements of Canarchy?

And how does Canarchy explicitly deal with human-hierarchy?

[myrkul]

So it will not produce utopia? Okay, so what will be the non-utopian elements of Canarchy?

And how does Canarchy explicitly deal with human-hierarchy?

AnCap.

AnCap.

AN...CAP. Thank you.

The non-utopian elements will obviously be the human ones. ie: people will still be people, and some will try to hurt others.

Any voluntary hierarchy is A-OK, but let me stress that: Voluntary.

[smellyBobby]

Wait a sec your imposing your definition upon me? That is not very canarchist.

Is not the "Standard of Subject Values" a pillar of Canarchy?

THANKYOU in advance for respecting my liberties.


And how does Canarchy explicitly deal with human hierarchy?

[myrkul]

Wait a sec your imposing your definition upon me? That is not very canarchist.

Is not the "Standard of Subject Values" a pillar of Canarchy?

THANKYOU in advance for respecting my liberties.


And how does Canarchy explicitly deal with human hierarchy?

What's this Canarchy? I already told you how anarcho-capitalism will deal with hierarchy.

[The Script]

Wait a sec your imposing your definition upon me? That is not very canarchist.

Is not the "Standard of Subject Values" a pillar of Canarchy?

THANKYOU in advance for respecting my liberties.


And how does Canarchy explicitly deal with human hierarchy?

No one is forcing anything on you.  The moderators aren't going to kick you off the forum for not using "an-cap", but neither do we have to dialogue with you.  If we so choose we can ignore your posts where you use "canarchy" and socially ostracize you by refusing to dialogue.  That is not coercion.  That is voluntary disassociation.

Also, there is nothing wrong with trying to persuade you to use the commonly accepted abbreviations for words in order to maintain semantic consistency and clarity.  Aren't you the one who was claiming libertarians always distort commonly accepted definitions?  

[joepie91]

I didn't read the entire thread, but I disagree with the OP.

Anonymous for example can be considered an anarchist organization in the sense that there is no central leadership or hierarchy. However, this does not prevent the forming of cells and networks that have their own internal hierarchy. I see anarchy as the freedom to join a system that you feel works best, without being forced into a system - rather than being forced to have no system at all.

While this may be stretching the definition of anarchism a bit, I feel that a society that works with 'cells', where every cell has its own structure (be it communist, socialist, or anything else), and the only rule was to not actively interfere with other cells and their structures... would still fit the definition of anarchism, and would definitely have a chance of working.

It would be considerable different from communism, where everyone is forced to adhere to a centralized communist system.

And before people ask - yes, 'humanity/mankind' as a whole could probably be considered anarchist.