Anarchy =~ Communism

[billyjoeallen]

On such an island, there would always be a high demand for labor.

Include a point to support your own perspective, therefore missing the whole point of the hypothetical. Did you go to school at all?

Are you disputing the point? Is it an unreasonable assumption? The whole point of the hypothetical was apparently to argue that huts, fishing equipment, firewood and clothing just magically appear, that coconuts gather themselves, fish jump into frying pans, and Unicorns poop skittles, thereby obviating the need to work. Such a hypothetical is useful for rationalizing a flawed ideology, but not for much else. It is entertaining, though.

[billyjoeallen]

billyjoeallen, thank you for raising my IQ by a point or so.

Bitcoins accepted at the address in my sig.

[btcLeger]

Never heard of these voluntary societies, sounds like communism.

App. half of the work that needs to be done for a society to 'survive' is voluntary in the modern western world.

[smellyBobby]

On such an island, there would always be a high demand for labor.

Include a point to support your own perspective, therefore missing the whole point of the hypothetical. Did you go to school at all?

Are you disputing the point? Is it an unreasonable assumption? The whole point of the hypothetical was apparently to argue that huts, fishing equipment, firewood and clothing just magically appear, that coconuts gather themselves, fish jump into frying pans, and Unicorns poop skittles, thereby obviating the need to work. Such a hypothetical is useful for rationalizing a flawed ideology, but not for much else. It is entertaining, though.

Okay I could have made it clearer. All essential resources have been split-up. The 5 people harvest the produce and trade between themselves. They are all shrewd dealers and will not give something for nothing. How is the 6th person has nothing to offer, how are they suppose to get non-essential resources?

[billyjoeallen]

On such an island, there would always be a high demand for labor.

Include a point to support your own perspective, therefore missing the whole point of the hypothetical. Did you go to school at all?

Are you disputing the point? Is it an unreasonable assumption? The whole point of the hypothetical was apparently to argue that huts, fishing equipment, firewood and clothing just magically appear, that coconuts gather themselves, fish jump into frying pans, and Unicorns poop skittles, thereby obviating the need to work. Such a hypothetical is useful for rationalizing a flawed ideology, but not for much else. It is entertaining, though.

Okay I could have made it clearer. All essential resources have been split-up. The 5 people harvest the produce and trade between themselves. They are all shrewd dealers and will not give something for nothing. How is the 6th person has nothing to offer, how are they suppose to get non-essential resources?

If the person truly has nothing to offer, then he will need charity. I don't think it's reasonable to assume he has nothing to offer, but what the hell-it's your hypothetical scenario.
So let's assume nothing to offer.  You apparently want the charity to be provided by those who want to give it and those who don't rather than just those who are willing.  For this to work, you would have to also assume that the energy required to force wealth redistribution from the uncharitable is less than the energy extracted.   

[smellyBobby]

If the person truly has nothing to offer, then he will need charity. I don't think it's reasonable to assume he has nothing to offer, but what the hell-it's your hypothetical scenario.
So let's assume nothing to offer.  You apparently want the charity to be provided by those who want to give it and those who don't rather than just those who are willing.  For this to work, you would have to also assume that the energy required to force wealth redistribution from the uncharitable is less than the energy extracted.   

Yea exactly, my question is to anarchists, is this possible?

I can take it further, will it be a fair trade? Those 5 are the ones with power. They dictate the terms of the contract.

Communism can deal with this situation, but to my understanding anarchy can't.

[btcLeger]

Communism can deal with this situation, but to my understanding anarchy can't.

How can communism deal with this situation?

[billyjoeallen]

If the person truly has nothing to offer, then he will need charity. I don't think it's reasonable to assume he has nothing to offer, but what the hell-it's your hypothetical scenario.
So let's assume nothing to offer.  You apparently want the charity to be provided by those who want to give it and those who don't rather than just those who are willing.  For this to work, you would have to also assume that the energy required to force wealth redistribution from the uncharitable is less than the energy extracted.   

Yea exactly, my question is to anarchists, is this possible?

I can take it further, will it be a fair trade? Those 5 are the ones with power. They dictate the terms of the contract.

Communism can deal with this situation, but to my understanding anarchy can't.

There's nothing in anarchy that prevents voluntary charity.

Is not the issue the welfare of the newcomer? If there exists enough good will from tha majority to force the stingy to share resources, then there should also be enough good will to provide for the newcomer without using force. The issue isn't the newcomer at all, is it? You don't think you should have to share unless everybody else does also. The problem with that is that we all have different ideas of what is "fair".  The richest person claims we should all donate 10 clams each, the guy in the middle thinks we should each give the same percentage of clams and the poor guy thinks it should be on a graduated scale. 

[NghtRppr]

In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

This is despite on all scales and across all times of the universe there is hierarchy. From the structure of the atom, to the evolution of life, the way networks process traffic, the existence of solar systems, the fractal structure of weather systems and galaxy super-clusters there is a hierarchy where something is apart of the whole. Your telling me that somehow we humans, us mere little people are so special that we are above this rule.

That there is something so magnificent, so amazing about us that the system you propose will somehow just completely disregard this fundamental law of the universe. Your telling me that despite the recent human hierarchies, the hierarchies of our primate cousins and all other lifeforms that we are so so so special, that we are god-like and do not belong in this category.

We are gods and that we are above the rest of the universe and we are capable of creating a system that does not obey the universe. So when you say that this new Society is great, because we will be all “fundamentally equal, there will not be a hierarchy”, remember to wipe your mouth with toilet paper once you’ve finished speaking. Because what you just said is the abstract logical equivalent of what I hear at church. That your system is above the mechanics of the universe and that's why it will work. 

This why I don't bother reading about such fantasies.

Justice Dragons will always exist, get use to it and learn how to ride them.

You've confused anarchism with egalitarianism.

[Anonymous]

Hippy Anarchy tends to be very egalitarian.

[myrkul]

If the person truly has nothing to offer, then he will need charity. I don't think it's reasonable to assume he has nothing to offer, but what the hell-it's your hypothetical scenario.
So let's assume nothing to offer.  You apparently want the charity to be provided by those who want to give it and those who don't rather than just those who are willing.  For this to work, you would have to also assume that the energy required to force wealth redistribution from the uncharitable is less than the energy extracted.   

Yea exactly, my question is to anarchists, is this possible?

Flatly, No. It is not possible that someone has nothing to offer, unless that person is a quadriplegic simpleton. Labor is always in demand, and one can always trade a little sweat of the brow for a chunk of the pie.

[LokeRundt]

whoops, my bad

[smellyBobby]

If the person truly has nothing to offer, then he will need charity. I don't think it's reasonable to assume he has nothing to offer, but what the hell-it's your hypothetical scenario.
So let's assume nothing to offer.  You apparently want the charity to be provided by those who want to give it and those who don't rather than just those who are willing.  For this to work, you would have to also assume that the energy required to force wealth redistribution from the uncharitable is less than the energy extracted.   

Yea exactly, my question is to anarchists, is this possible?

Flatly, No. It is not possible that someone has nothing to offer, unless that person is a quadriplegic simpleton. Labor is always in demand, and one can always trade a little sweat of the brow for a chunk of the pie.

So what is stopping the five in control of essential resources from dictating the terms of employment? It seems little different from America's current situation.

[myrkul]

Pure and simple greed. each one wants his labor, and the desire for it will drive the price down until it's accepted.

[smellyBobby]

What if they collude and all agree not to bid below a certain price. Lets say someone is "compassionate" and they bid below this threshold. Then the remaining four stop trading their essential resources with the "compassionate one". The four will then resort to using force over the fifth, to gain the fifth's essential resources. Then what?

[myrkul]

What if they collude and all agree not to bid below a certain price. Lets say someone is "compassionate" and they bid below this threshold. Then the remaining four stop trading their essential resources with the "compassionate one". The four will then resort to using force over the fifth, to gain the fifth's essential resources. Then what?

Ever read lord of the flies?

[smellyBobby]

Nope, but please show how it is relevant.

[myrkul]

Read it, and you'll know why it's relevant.

[qbg]

In my mind, there is no difference between Anarchy and Communism, both are based on lawlessness, mutual benefit and a non-existent human hierarchy.

This is despite on all scales and across all times of the universe there is hierarchy. From the structure of the atom, to the evolution of life, the way networks process traffic, the existence of solar systems, the fractal structure of weather systems and galaxy super-clusters there is a hierarchy where something is apart of the whole. Your telling me that somehow we humans, us mere little people are so special that we are above this rule.

That there is something so magnificent, so amazing about us that the system you propose will somehow just completely disregard this fundamental law of the universe. Your telling me that despite the recent human hierarchies, the hierarchies of our primate cousins and all other lifeforms that we are so so so special, that we are god-like and do not belong in this category.

We are gods and that we are above the rest of the universe and we are capable of creating a system that does not obey the universe. So when you say that this new Society is great, because we will be all “fundamentally equal, there will not be a hierarchy”, remember to wipe your mouth with toilet paper once you’ve finished speaking. Because what you just said is the abstract logical equivalent of what I hear at church. That your system is above the mechanics of the universe and that's why it will work. 

This why I don't bother reading about such fantasies.

Justice Dragons will always exist, get use to it and learn how to ride them.

(Socialist) anarchists do not oppose hierarchical structure, but rather coercive power relationships.

[smellyBobby]

Ever read lord of the flies?

I respectfully decline.

Maybe there is someone else who can articulate why this fiction novel will solve this scenario?