Capitalism.

[ktttn]

In that case, why not simply track relationships (family, friends, and business) and networks same as we do now? We are already slowly abandoning the idea of gender affecting our relationship and interaction with people, thanks to gender being mostly invisible online.

Why... not?
The sooner the akashic record is downloadable, the better.
Back to capitalism.
It is an error to dismiss the negative connotations of the word.
Capitalism is intrinsically linked to wage slavery and violently private posession of all public resources.

[1714934441]

1714934441

[1714934441]

1714934441

[1714934441]

1714934441

[1714934441]

1714934441

[Zarathustra]

In that sense, any society is "collectivist", as long as you don't move alone into the mountains and live there sulf-sufficiently.

Correct, any society is by definition collectivist. The opposite of society and collectivism is the self-sufficient community.
But the hominidae can not live 'alone'. An 'individualist' life is possible within a collectivist, materialist society only. To live a non-collectivist life, the homines sapientes need the organisation of the non-patriarchal, anarchal, consanguineal community, which was organised non-monogamous, matrilineal (female choice), wherever it existed in the whole history of mankind, and which have been destroyed, slowly starting about 10'000 years ago, by organised violence of a complicity of priests and militarists, which is terrorising the planet until today.

[ktttn]

In that sense, any society is "collectivist", as long as you don't move alone into the mountains and live there sulf-sufficiently.

Correct, any society is by definition collectivist. The opposite of society and collectivism is the self-sufficient community.
But the hominidae can not live 'alone'. An 'individualist' life is possible within a collectivist, materialist society only. To live a non-collectivist life, the homines sapientes need the organisation of the non-patriarchal, anarchal, consanguineal community, which was organised non-monogamous, matrilineal (female choice), wherever it existed in the whole history of mankind, and which have been destroyed, slowly starting about 10'000 years ago, by organised violence of a complicity of priests and militarists, which is terrorising the planet until today.

Damn well put.

An open letter to anyone who does not accept the above text as true:
Please get hit by a train.
Sincerely, Ktyhn.

[ktttn]

tracing one's lineage through mothers of any gender is the crucial part, as opposed to relying on state documents.

Question

... and please, keep in mind that this is coming from someone who is a royal count, with a very rich family history spanning centuries, from Italy, through Poland, Russia, and Ukraine, from someone who comes from a long history of very prominent and well known scientists, who's great*3-grandfather even has a giant portrait and permanent exhibit at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC ...

Why bother tracing one's lineage, whether through mothers or fathers, in the first place? What's so special about the dead people you came from?

Tracking the genetic and situational-familial predispositions that may tend towards skill in arbitration gives you an arbitrary way to distinguish arbitrators.
Kings made kings cause it was convenient.
Other than that super-marginal factor, nothing.

1) Making sure you don't inter-breed with your relatives and make mutant babies. That's one good reason for all those naming conventions.

2) Nurture, which as a concept blended-in with nepotism, was (and still is) a strong motivator to pass on knowledge and cultural things that might be useful for the next generation. In spite of the usual "history is written by the victor" claims, some history is passed on by nurture -- anything from trade secrets, through to life attitudes. People aren't primitive snakes or lizards that lay eggs and abandon the nest before they hatch.

Why single-out arbitration?

1) wut
ie names have never kept cousins from kissin'
2) wut?
Behaviorist here. Western history is mainly the history of war. There are only exceptions.
See BF Skinner's 'Beyond Freedom & Dignity'

Arbitration is the anarchical origin of authority.

[Zarathustra]

Capitalism, which is a form of collectivism

Sorry to use that way overused meme, but I do not think that word means what you think it means. Either of those. Just so we don't go around in circles, instead of assuming that the rest of us have any clue as to what you are talking about, can you actually explain what you mean, without using words like "capitalism," "collectivism," and "matrilineal"?

I mean that the one and only possible anarchist organisation of the homines sapientes is the pre-neolithic organisation, which was matrilineal.
As soon as you want to 'organise' a patrilineal organisation, you need organised violence. But to understand all that, you need to know the patriarchy, its development and why organised violence is needed to construct and maintain it. Mater semper certus est - pater semper incertus est. Therefore, because the pater is always incertus, you need to control the sexual life of the woman, and that is organised violence.

[Zarathustra]

Capitalism, which is a form of collectivism

Sorry to use that way overused meme, but I do not think that word means what you think it means. Either of those. Just so we don't go around in circles, instead of assuming that the rest of us have any clue as to what you are talking about, can you actually explain what you mean, without using words like "capitalism," "collectivism," and "matrilineal"?

How do groups of people behave?
All sorts of ways, these are some names for them.
It's rather tricky to describe behaviors linked to capitalism without using words that describe how people behave.

...and I guess I have to make myself clearer.

lex mercatoria

I'm all against state and bureaucracy and stealing and enforced taxation, but I'm also tired of this typical US Libertarian rhetoric.

Socialism vs Market-radicalism is another of these false dichotomies.

(...)

*standing ovation*
Required reading.

+1

[wdmw]

...and I guess I have to make myself clearer.

lex mercatoria

If some rich ass owns an island on the other side of the world, it's just a piece of paper. And if he didn't even work hard for it, but inherited it like the friggin Queen of England, and people around that island have no space and starve, you can be sure they'll see it as their necessity and fair right to set a foot on this island.

How would the Queen of England exist without a state?

[crumbs]

[...]None of these examples invalidates the principles of voluntary agreement and non-violence, or even lex mercatoria for that matter.
You can keep saying I need a state to defend my property, but I am happy without that state doing it.  Maybe you aren't, because you keep trying to sell me on the idea of needing it, but I am not buying.

Nah.  You're buying, you have always bought, and you will continue to buy in the future.  You're living in and by the laws of the state, enjoying its benefits & enduring its hardships.  You pay your taxes.  You answer the door when the cops knock.  You probably have a driver's licence.  I doubt you're manning the barricades with your AR or AK.  Amirite?

I have a property far away, one I don't use much.  I have a friend that has done heroic things but is down on his luck.  I say to my friend, "friend go and stay at my place on the beach".  Take care of it and see what you can make of it.  There were some squatters.  They were not good custodians and were persuaded to leave without any authoritarianism or threat.  If instead they had been good custodians, they easily could have stayed and shared.

In other words, your down-on-his-luck buddy reasoned with the squatters, they've seen the error of their ways & chose to leave?  That choice didn't have anything to do with your buddy's shoulder holster or the likelihood that statist thugs (cops) will appear, similarly armed, if they didn't comply?  
  

I have never called the police for anything, and never asked for anything from them.  I supply my own security and am happy to remain doing so.

By security, i assume you mean "GTFO or find out how strongly i feel about non-violence," right?

The way you sound is that there are all these monsters roaming about looking to destroy and loot and steal so we need to run to our government constantly to protect stuff, but in the real world, if I have a problem with someone, I deal with it directly myself.

The lack of roaming monsters could be largely attributed to government thugs.  If by "the real world" you mean your fantasy land without governments, then please regale me with stories about prehistory, or at least Somalia.

Personal security is one of the costs of personal property.  If you can't afford that part of the cost, then you cant afford to own it in the first place and are better off putting the resources to some charitable purpose.  Because property rights do corrode.  Time is our ultimate judge, and you can't take it with you.

What he can & can't afford is irrelevant.  You are an American.  You have never lived in a stateless society.  Your imagined fairyland has as much in common with reality as Equestria.  Grow up.

[crumbs]

If some rich ass owns an island on the other side of the world, it's just a piece of paper.
...
Thus the concept of property only makes sense when there is a (military) force, mostly supplied by a state, behind it that can protect it.

Say you own a piece of land with a house far away. What you're gonna do against squatters? Today, you'd call the police, right? Also supplied by the state.

Please answer this question, as no one ever does: Who paid for that military force or that police, and why can't they pay for it directly if there was no government?

I'll answer that for you:
The army is a pretty big thing, i.e. more than a couple of guys.  Sometimes more than even a hundred  Paying for an army is not very similar to buying a pig, there's that whole scale issue.  Just how does an individual go about paying for an army?  That's right, a financial instrument is needed.  And an oversight committee to manage that financial instrument & the standing army.  

You know what that oversight committee is called?  Yup.  The government.  
Enjoy.

Edit:  If you wish, you don't have to call this financial instrument "The Government."  Call it what you wish, but, once in place, this financial instrument will be as easy to annul as today's government.

[NewLiberty]

Arbitration is the anarchical origin of authority.

It is also the modern form of "lex mercatoria".  Known today as mediation and binding arbitration.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Binding+arbitration
Folks in dispute first agree on who will settle it, then present their cases to them for decision.

If you are in an autark community of matrilineal consanguineous folks, in the US (or any other place that uses non-violent non government dispute resolution), you can contractually agree on using the wise woman in big hat for resolving issues, and the government courts have to butt out.
Further if some capitalist walks into your paradise and wants to trade, this stipulation can be a part of any dealings they make in your community.  Three choices: they can agree, disagree and have the dispute resolved by hat woman, or leave.

Further, so long as they aren't engaging in capitalist behavior, (things like trading, exchanging, hiring, etc) there's not much use for contracting and no need to appeal to any authority.

We have Amish communities, why not these autark matrilineal consanguines?  Why wait?

[NewLiberty]

 Amirite?

Not yet you aren't.  But I imagine you will keep at it.
I have lots of things I don't need.
One of these is a state to protect my property.  
It is a poor trade in terms of cost/benefit for that purpose.  
Maybe one of its other uses is a good deal, but not this one.  At risk of repeating myself, what else have you got?

Having something is not the same as wanting it.  Like that stuff left over after everyone else has had their fill that you scrape into the dog's bowl.  What do they call it again?  Crumbs?

[crumbs]

 Amirite?

Not yet you aren't.  But I imagine you will keep at it.
I have lots of things I don't need.
One of these is a state to protect my property.  
It is a poor trade in terms of cost/benefit for that purpose.  
Maybe one of its other uses is a good deal, but not this one.  At risk of repeating myself, what else have you got?

Lulz!   I give you a list of things, you pick out one word, and ask me "what else have you got"?  Hope you're quicker with your badass gun then you are with your wit.

Having something is not the same as wanting it.  Like that stuff left over after everyone else has had their fill that you scrape into the dog's bowl.  What do they call it again?  Crumbs?

Jeez, you feed crumbs to your dog?  Just how broke are you?

[Rassah]

Back to capitalism.
It is an error to dismiss the negative connotations of the word.

It's an error to dismiss the many negative connotations of transgenderism, sexual ambiguity, and homosexuality, yet...

Capitalism is intrinsically linked to wage slavery and violently private posession of all public resources.

It's not really wage "slavery," since if you don't like the wage, just go find another job. You won't have a posse tracking you down, hogtying you, and bringing you back to your old position. There's slavery, and there's the personal choice to work or not.
By the way, how do you have private possession of public resources? Who decided they are public or private, and why are they conflicting with each other?

[Rassah]

I mean that the one and only possible anarchist organisation of the homines sapientes is the pre-neolithic organisation, which was matrilineal.
As soon as you want to 'organise' a patrilineal organisation, you need organised violence. But to understand all that, you need to know the patriarchy, its development and why organised violence is needed to construct and maintain it.

I guess I just never thought of it that way, or realized that was the case. In the world I grew up and lived in, it was always a familial organization, not patri- or matri-lineal one. So there wasn't any violence. At least not in "normal" society. Women did what they want, even if it includes falling in love with a single man and forming a monogamous relationship with him.

[NewLiberty]

By the way, how do you have private possession of public resources? Who decided they are public or private, and why are they conflicting with each other?

Thank you for asking directly the problem posed by my allegorical autark encounter.
The assumption I'd used being the local folks make this determination.  "house rules"  "local custom"

That's where ye olde lex mercatoria comes in to play, to resolve the differences in house rules between the different houses.
When you contemplate the meeting of two communities and how they might interact, it raises these interesting questions.

But... this looks a bit more like minarchy than anarchy.  Even for the autarks.

Another question is why ought we assume that what was before (priests and warriors) is what will be after?  Why is it the one and only possible outcome that we become pre-neolithic?  Lots of things have changed since then.

[chmod755]

The world would probably be a better place, if more people tried to learn from the positive and negative aspects of economic and sociopolitical ideas rather than wasting their time complaining about them.

[crumbs]

Please answer this question, as no one ever does: Who paid for that military force or that police, and why can't they pay for it directly if there was no government?

I'll answer that for you:
The army is a pretty big thing, i.e. more than a couple of guys.  Sometimes more than even a hundred  Paying for an army is not very similar to buying a pig, there's that whole scale issue.  Just how does an individual go about paying for an army?  That's right, a financial instrument is needed.  And an oversight committee to manage that financial instrument & the standing army.  

You know what that oversight committee is called?  Yup.  The government.  
Enjoy.

Edit:  If you wish, you don't have to call this financial instrument "The Government."  Call it what you wish, but, once in place, this financial instrument will be as easy to annul as today's government.

So, "The Government" created a "Financial Instrument," said "This financial instrument has value, so you soldiers better take it and use it, or else we'll make yourselves enforce yourselves to use it by making you hold your own guns to your heads," and that's that? Yeah, makes complete sense.

Ohboy.  You're sharper than a blanket.  No.  The government didn't create anything.  The people needed a financial instrument, and its overseers, thus creating The Government.  When things don't make sense to you, just remember that God still loves you even though your head's filled with lint & mouse droppings.  Chin up!

[NewLiberty]

Please answer this question, as no one ever does: Who paid for that military force or that police, and why can't they pay for it directly if there was no government?

I'll answer that for you:
The army is a pretty big thing, i.e. more than a couple of guys.  Sometimes more than even a hundred  Paying for an army is not very similar to buying a pig, there's that whole scale issue.  Just how does an individual go about paying for an army?  That's right, a financial instrument is needed.  And an oversight committee to manage that financial instrument & the standing army.  

You know what that oversight committee is called?  Yup.  The government.  
Enjoy.

Edit:  If you wish, you don't have to call this financial instrument "The Government."  Call it what you wish, but, once in place, this financial instrument will be as easy to annul as today's government.

So, "The Government" created a "Financial Instrument," said "This financial instrument has value, so you soldiers better take it and use it, or else we'll make yourselves enforce yourselves to use it by making you hold your own guns to your heads," and that's that? Yeah, makes complete sense.

Ohboy.  You're sharper than a blanket.  No.  The government didn't create anything.  The people needed a financial instrument, and its overseers, thus creating The Government.  When things don't make sense to you, just remember that God still loves you even though your head's filled with lint & mouse droppings.  Chin up!

You have this backwards if you were referencing the USA.  Government came before financial instrument, and tried to avoid creating it.  Even went so far as to make anything except gold and silver illegal constitutionally for states to issue.

The Fed was born only 100 years ago.  During some of the highest growth period of the US, folks used physical gold and silver as money, and bank notes and warehouse receipts for gold and silver.
But you are right in that unbacked paper money usually comes into existence in response to threat of war.
The Fed is the not the first central bank in the US, (the third depending on which you count) the others just didn't last so long.
Through its early years, there were gold and silver notes (payable in specie) in circulation alongside fed notes (payable only in other fed notes).  That they looked so similar was not accidental.  It was a multigenerational bait-and-switch.

[crumbs]

So, "The Government" created a "Financial Instrument," said "This financial instrument has value, so you soldiers better take it and use it, or else we'll make yourselves enforce yourselves to use it by making you hold your own guns to your heads," and that's that? Yeah, makes complete sense.

Ohboy.  You're sharper than a blanket.  No.  The government didn't create anything.  The people needed a financial instrument, and its overseers, thus creating The Government.  When things don't make sense to you, just remember that God still loves you even though your head's filled with lint & mouse droppings.  Chin up!

Aside from the fact that government isn't a "financial instrument" by ANY definition, at any time in history, anywhere on the planet (banks ate the closest you can come to claiming that; governments are only administrative instruments)
Here's the part you missed:

I know your intelligence is so low as to be indistinguishable from trolling, so let me rephrase this question, just for you:
That security, which is made up of people, who wish to be paid, wearing police, army, and security costumes, has to be paid with some sort of value, regardless of whether they are paid through a government or paid directly. Where does that value come from in the first place? And why does there have to be a government to collect and give that value to the army, which then distributes that value to the people in costumes, instead of people just giving that value to the army directly?

The claim that was made was that "armies cost too much, and securing private property is too expensive." I made the naive mistake of thinking people would be smart enough to think through my question of "who is paying for it now?" to come to a conclusion other than "Government." I guess I was wrong, and should have just flat-out said:

Armies are currently being paid for with money collected from businesses, corporations, and wealthy individuals. All of them have a vested interest in protecting their own property, and all of them would be able to pay the exact same amount they are paying now to get AT LEAST the exact same amount of private security to secure their property.

I am sorry I overestimated the lot of you.

I'm sorry, sweetie, but i've missed nothing.  I'm glad you edited your post, my playful kitten!  Mewmix!
Let's see what you've rattled off there...  
You want the people to "pay the army directly"?  Just what, exactly would be the mechanics of that?  Let's say i live in your Equestria, where the standing army is paid by individual citizen pone.  Rainbow Dash and Pinkie Pie decided to chip in & buy themselves some protection from the evil Clompers.  They frightened Applejack, who in turn also decided to go in on the deal.  Twilight Sparkle and Fluttershy, went all "whoa, nelly!" and didn't offer up. Spike said brb, i'm broke, and Rarity... well, you know how Rarity is.
Wat do? (BonusPoint:  Who the best pone?)

[crumbs]

Please answer this question, as no one ever does: Who paid for that military force or that police, and why can't they pay for it directly if there was no government?

I'll answer that for you:
The army is a pretty big thing, i.e. more than a couple of guys.  Sometimes more than even a hundred  Paying for an army is not very similar to buying a pig, there's that whole scale issue.  Just how does an individual go about paying for an army?  That's right, a financial instrument is needed.  And an oversight committee to manage that financial instrument & the standing army.  

You know what that oversight committee is called?  Yup.  The government.  
Enjoy.

Edit:  If you wish, you don't have to call this financial instrument "The Government."  Call it what you wish, but, once in place, this financial instrument will be as easy to annul as today's government.

So, "The Government" created a "Financial Instrument," said "This financial instrument has value, so you soldiers better take it and use it, or else we'll make yourselves enforce yourselves to use it by making you hold your own guns to your heads," and that's that? Yeah, makes complete sense.

Ohboy.  You're sharper than a blanket.  No.  The government didn't create anything.  The people needed a financial instrument, and its overseers, thus creating The Government.  When things don't make sense to you, just remember that God still loves you even though your head's filled with lint & mouse droppings.  Chin up!

You have this backwards if you were referencing the USA.  Government came before financial instrument, and tried to avoid creating it.  Even went so far as to make anything except gold and silver illegal constitutionally for states to issue.

Wut?  Next you'll be telling me that government came befor people.    Or did (US) people also try to avoid creating the government?  Or  Where'd the darn thing come from?  

The Fed was born only 100 years ago.  During some of the highest growth period of the US, folks used physical gold and silver as money, and bank notes and warehouse receipts for gold and silver.
But you are right in that unbacked paper money usually comes into existence in response to threat of war.
The Fed is the not the first central bank in the US, (the third depending on which you count) the others just didn't last so long.
Through its early years, there were gold and silver notes (payable in specie) in circulation alongside fed notes (payable only in other fed notes).  That they looked so similar was not accidental.  It was a multigenerational bait-and-switch.

Thanks for the lesson, not sure what you were aiming for.  I'm defending neither fiat currencies nor governments.  I'm starting with those two as given, and pointing out that both are with us right now, to the exclusion of everything else.  Is that clear?  As a tangent, i'm also saying that the law system which governs us now has evolved in the same unpleasant but inevitable way.  My stance is coherent & empirically consistent.  It is commonly accepted, and contemporary society is a functional example of it in action.  Your stance is vague, defined from the negative (what it is not, what you do not want, etc.), and no verifiable examples of it functioning currently exist.  you keep lapsing into stories about rainbow trout, bad-luck-buddies & your mad handgun skilz -- debatably entertaining though not cogent.