How long would it take for Anarchy to start working?

[deisik]

I think those of you, guys, who deem themselves as anarchists are terribly misusing the term...
Considering what you say here (small isolated settlements, ostracism, communal efforts and all that nonsense) I would rather call you hippies...

Or maybe an anarchist is just an age-worn hippie?

You're attempts at discrediting anarchism are futile.

I have already given my understanding of what true anarchism is ("each for himself") and been agreed with here...
And that's what I really like about it!

[Mike Christ]

I have already given my understanding of what true anarchism is ("each for himself") and been agreed with here...
And that's what I really like about it!

I don't know how you've misconstrued "no rulers" as "each for himself", but I'm happy to point you toward a job in politics if that's the kind of lifestyle you're after

[Hawker]

I have already given my understanding of what true anarchism is ("each for himself") and been agreed with here...
And that's what I really like about it!

I don't know how you've misconstrued "no rulers" as "each for himself", but I'm happy to point you toward a job in politics if that's the kind of lifestyle you're after

When we discussed female genital mutilation, your reply was "As long as its not my daughter its fine."  How is that not "each for himself?"

[hawkeye]

That's what I'm talking about. You can take any successful businessman and after some harsh scraping you will get a slaveholder in disguise...

The Google guys are extremely successful.  Are they slaveholders?

[deisik]

I don't know how you've misconstrued "no rulers" as "each for himself", but I'm happy to point you toward a job in politics if that's the kind of lifestyle you're after

When we discussed female genital mutilation, your reply was "As long as its not my daughter its fine."  How is that not "each for himself?"

There is no substance behind what all those guys say here, save maybe for one of them who did actually admit that anarchy can be considered as a condition where every man should stand for himself. Whenever they come across somebody who is not liable to their eyewash and cheap propaganda and who is able to show how perverted their logic really is, they always end up contradicting themselves or even resort to value judgments about their opponents...

[deisik]

That's what I'm talking about. You can take any successful businessman and after some harsh scraping you will get a slaveholder in disguise...

The Google guys are extremely successful.  Are they slaveholders?

If they work directly with personnel (which I doubt) then yes, for sure. If you want someone in person, you can take Microsoft and Steve Ballmer or Apple and Steve Jobs where it will be more evident. It may be very well hidden under the tinsel of equality and all that nonsense, but nevertheless it is still there

Though this shouldn't even be a point of doubt for you if you are pro-anarchy. From your stance any corporation is evil by definition...

[Biomech]

I think those of you, guys, who deem themselves as anarchists are terribly misusing the term...
Considering what you say here (small isolated settlements, ostracism, communal efforts and all that nonsense) I would rather call you hippies...

Or maybe an anarchist is just an age-worn hippie?

Not all anarchists are hippies, but I'm not so sure the reverse is true.

For the most part, anarchist support decentralization to it's logical extreme within a social context.

[deisik]

I think those of you, guys, who deem themselves as anarchists are terribly misusing the term...
Considering what you say here (small isolated settlements, ostracism, communal efforts and all that nonsense) I would rather call you hippies...

Or maybe an anarchist is just an age-worn hippie?

Not all anarchists are hippies, but I'm not so sure the reverse is true.

For the most part, anarchist support decentralization to it's logical extreme within a social context.

What about laws or you just happen to think there will be no need for them and ostracism would do better instead? It seems that those who identify themselves as anarchists can not even come to a unified opinion on anything between themselves...

Is this a true nature of Anarchism?

[Mike Christ]

What about laws or you just happen to think there will be no need for them and ostracism would do better instead? It seems that those who identify themselves as anarchists can not even come to a unified opinion on anything between themselves. Is is a true nature of Anarchism?

Atheists have this same problem; they can't even agree if they don't believe in God or if God flat out doesn't exist.  Communists can't figure out what's what, so there's 10+ different flavors of it; democrats and republicans just can't agree what the state should do or shouldn't do, though they agree it should exist.  These aren't definitive qualities; to be an anarchist can mean anything, just like being a capitalist, or a Christian, or American can mean anything, which is why it's not an accurate descriptor (aside from what it's ascribing) and no one anarchist seems to be like any other; the only defining quality of the anarchist is to want for the state to be non-existent, which is a conclusion you can approach from many angles.

Anyway, ostracism is just a form of punishment, just like imprisonment or the death penalty, which anarchists don't necessarily need to be for or against.  Law doesn't disappear; the only thing that changes is who creates law, which, as has been stated, involves decentralizing lawmakers ideally so every grown person can govern themselves.

[deisik]

Atheists have this same problem; they can't even agree if they don't believe in God or if God flat out doesn't exist.  Communists can't figure out what's what, so there's 10+ different flavors of it; democrats and republicans just can't agree what the state should do or shouldn't do, though they agree it should exist.  These aren't definitive qualities; to be an anarchist can mean anything, just like being a capitalist, or a Christian, or American can mean anything, which is why it's not an accurate descriptor (aside from what it's ascribing) and no one anarchist seems to be like any other; the only defining quality of the anarchist is to want for the state to be non-existent, which is a conclusion you can approach from many angles.

This was sarcasm actually... But it has a point. The very nature of anarchism dictates that true anarchists should be the first among those who can't agree on anything in any constructive way... Otherwise, could we call it anarchism if those pretending to be anarchists would bind themselves by the rules of majority (if we first agree that every human is unique)?

[Mike Christ]

This was sarcasm actually... But it has a point. The very nature of anarchism dictates that true anarchists should be the first among those who can't agree on anything in any constructive way... Otherwise, could we call it anarchism if those pretending to be anarchists would bind themselves by the rules of majority (if we first agree that every human is unique)?

Where are you getting this from!?

We call it anarchism when there are no rulers; nothing more, nothing less.  There's nothing about anarchism which dictates that they must be contrarian about everything, nor are they barred from agreeing with the majority, since they would be the majority if they were anarchists at all.

[deisik]

Anyway, ostracism is just a form of punishment, just like imprisonment or the death penalty, which anarchists don't necessarily need to be for or against.  Law doesn't disappear; the only thing that changes is who creates law, which, as has been stated, involves decentralizing lawmakers ideally so every grown person can govern themselves.

Ok, if the law is still compulsory for everyone, does it make any difference who specifically creates it? Actually, I don't see how this could potentially change matters in any substantial way beside what we have now. It would still be a six of one and half a dozen of the other...

[Mike Christ]

Ok, if the law is still compulsory for everyone, does it make any difference who specifically creates it? Actually, I don't see how this could potentially change matters in any substantial way beside what we have now. It would still be a six of one and half a dozen of the other..

There is no "the law"; you have laws which you agree with, and other people have laws they agree with, and if those laws are broken, you handle the aggressor in whichever way you've agreed on.

The difference is in, "Killing is immoral; therefore, I will not kill," and, "You're joining the military or you're going to jail."  Clearly your government doesn't have you best interests in mind, otherwise it would not have to be compulsory; you'd already agree with everything they do.

[deisik]

This was sarcasm actually... But it has a point. The very nature of anarchism dictates that true anarchists should be the first among those who can't agree on anything in any constructive way... Otherwise, could we call it anarchism if those pretending to be anarchists would bind themselves by the rules of majority (if we first agree that every human is unique)?

Where are you getting this from!?

We call it anarchism when there are no rulers; nothing more, nothing less.  There's nothing about anarchism which dictates that they must be contrarian about everything, nor are they barred from agreeing with the majority, since they would be the majority if they were anarchists at all.

Look, you just substitute law for the rulers, right? If so, what difference does it actually make then? You either have to obey by the laws set by a ruler or obey likely the same laws set by someone else. Still don't get whether it ultimately changes anything...

[Mike Christ]

Look, you just substitute law for the rulers, right? If so, what difference does it actually make then? You either have to obey by the laws set by a ruler or obey likely the same laws set by someone else. Still don't get whether it ultimately changes anything...

Who do you believe is making the laws?  God?  Law is not a magical list in the sky that people are bound to follow; when you follow a law, you either do so willingly, because you agree with the laws, or you do so out of fear, even while disagreeing with the laws.

[deisik]

Ok, if the law is still compulsory for everyone, does it make any difference who specifically creates it? Actually, I don't see how this could potentially change matters in any substantial way beside what we have now. It would still be a six of one and half a dozen of the other..

There is no "the law"; you have laws which you agree with, and other people have laws they agree with, and if those laws are broken, you handle the aggressor in whichever way you've agreed on.

So what you say actually boils down to what I deemed as the only true Anarchy (and with what I entirely agree)... That is, each man is a law for himself and in himself. But this means in effect that there will be as many "laws" as there are people out there, since every man is unique and thereby is different from other people...

[deisik]

Look, you just substitute law for the rulers, right? If so, what difference does it actually make then? You either have to obey by the laws set by a ruler or obey likely the same laws set by someone else. Still don't get whether it ultimately changes anything...

Who do you believe is making the laws?  God?  Law is not a magical list in the sky that people are bound to follow; when you follow a law, you either do so willingly, because you agree with the laws, or you do so out of fear, even while disagreeing with the laws.

This is exactly what I'm telling you. My point is that it doesn't actually matter who sets the law, be it a petty tyrant, parliament or government (or any other group of people who are responsible for making the laws). What matters most here is that you have to obey the accepted law! So you either stick to my definition of anarchy (i.e. true Anarchy) or have to agree there is no place for it...

[Mike Christ]

Ok, if the law is still compulsory for everyone, does it make any difference who specifically creates it? Actually, I don't see how this could potentially change matters in any substantial way beside what we have now. It would still be a six of one and half a dozen of the other..

There is no "the law"; you have laws which you agree with, and other people have laws they agree with, and if those laws are broken, you handle the aggressor in whichever way you've agreed on.

So what you say actually boils down to what I deemed as the only true Anarchy (and with what I entirely agree)... That is, each man is a law for himself and in himself. But this means in effect that there will be as many "laws" as there are people out there, since every man is unique and thereby is different from other people...

The most common laws rise to the top, with lesser laws, i.e. "Don't chew gum around me", tend to disappear as the person finds they're more inconvenienced by the law than if they'd just deal with it.  We generally agree on the same things: don't use aggression against me.  If we can consider our persons as our property, then we ask that no one bring harm to our property.  But if a person really wanted to enforce their no-chewing-gum law, then they'd have to do so in a way that did not conflict with laws against aggression, i.e. ostracize themselves, if nobody else found it an issue.  I think I prefer the company of people, myself.

And if you ever find a man who believes killing is moral and should be legal, let me know; I want to stay far, far away from him.

What matters here is that you have to obey the accepted law!

This is what you're missing: there's a difference between obeying a law willingly, and obeying a law unwillingly.  The anarchist society does not require you to observe any law unwillingly; the state, however, does.  This can only occur if you're not in control of law whatsoever.  When you say have to obey the accepted law, you're referring to the state; otherwise, if you agreed on that law, you wouldn't have to follow it; instead, you should obey the accepted law, which infers to anarchism.

[deisik]

This is what you're missing: there's a difference between obeying a law willingly, and obeying a law unwillingly.  The anarchist society does not require you to observe any law unwillingly; the state, however, does.  This can only occur if you're not in control of law whatsoever.  When you say have to obey the accepted law, you're referring to the state; otherwise, if you agreed on that law, you wouldn't have to follow it; instead, you should obey the accepted law, which infers to anarchism.

Now I have to ask you the same question that I asked here and which was left unanswered. That is, what are we going to do with those people who did not agree on the laws in the first place? Should they give in to the majority or we'd better send them to concentration camps for subsequent extermination?

[hashman]

I thought about this question when it comes to Anarchy.

How long would it take for majority to adapt to anarchy, that is start to follow rational non-aggresive principles. And majority of the destructive forces to be forced out of market by consumer choise?

That is if we were to start now?

We started over 3 billion years ago and we are still working on it.