How long would it take for Anarchy to start working?

[KeyserSozeMC]

Anarchy would never ever ever work.  Human nature is not anarchical but hierarchical.   

Human nature is self destructive.

[Biomech]

Oh noes! I can't possibly imagine living in a world with no government where certain bad people would no doubt try to steal from me and hurt me to help themselves! So therefore, it's necessary to submit to certain bad people who are the government who steal from me and hurt me to help themselves!

Statism = Logical failure

It's you who logically failed here. You pay some bad guys and they defend you from other bad guys out there. Because of the economy of scale, you actually end up paying much less than you would have to pay without a state behind you. So your imagination wasn't actually deceiving you...

Up to this point I thought you were serious.

Look at the tax rates. LOOK AT THEM. There is no way in hell it would ever cost me that much to defend myself, my family, and my property. If I blew off a thousand rounds a day in practice and installed prison level security, it wouldn't cost that much.

And that's merely monetary. In "the land of the f(r)ee" it is literally impossible to be alive without committing pseudo crimes that are considered felonies.

[Anon136]

Anarchy would never ever ever work.  Human nature is not anarchical but hierarchical.   

Human nature is self destructive.

when ever people make categorical claims about human nature, they are almost always talking about themselves.

[Mike Christ]

Anarchy would never ever ever work.  Human nature is not anarchical but hierarchical.   

Human nature is self destructive.

when ever people make categorical claims about human nature, they are almost always talking about themselves.

I agree, but I also believe it's difficult to escape this bias, as people rarely experience any life but their own; only ~18% of the population are both intuitive and highly empathetic, who can easily walk in the shoes of another human being.  It's better to just discard the argument of human nature, it rarely provides any insight except "Humans do this and therefore it's in their nature," which we were aware of even before the argument was presented.

[User_513]

Oh noes! I can't possibly imagine living in a world with no government where certain bad people would no doubt try to steal from me and hurt me to help themselves! So therefore, it's necessary to submit to certain bad people who are the government who steal from me and hurt me to help themselves!

Statism = Logical failure

It's you who logically failed here. You pay some bad guys and they defend you from other bad guys out there. Because of the economy of scale, you actually end up paying much less than you would have to pay without a state behind you. So your imagination wasn't actually deceiving you...

You clearly have no idea how much value is taken from you in the multitude of ways that the government takes value from you, and greatly overestimate the cost of defending yourself in a free society.

[u9y42]

Anarchy would never ever ever work.  Human nature is not anarchical but hierarchical.  

Hmm, haven't relatively large anarchic communities already existed? For example, those in the regions of Catalonia and Aragon in Spain, 1936.

[beetcoin]

Anarchy would never ever ever work.  Human nature is not anarchical but hierarchical.  

Hmm, haven't relatively large anarchic communities already existed? For example, those in the regions of Catalonia and Aragon in Spain, 1936.

and how long did they last? just a blip on the map. i don't know what the solution, but if you have an anarchistic society, you're probably not going to be as well-organized as government run states.. which means they will come for your ass and use you and your resources up. it's just an extremist, one-size-fits-all ideology that is just wishful thinking to me.,

[u9y42]

and how long did they last? just a blip on the map. i don't know what the solution, but if you have an anarchistic society, you're probably not going to be as well-organized as government run states.. which means they will come for your ass and use you and your resources up.

Oh, they were pretty well organized alright. In fact, in many ways much better than the government they had. Take a look at the 6 part BBC documentary "The Spanish Civil War". You have to understand, this wasn't chaos and "survival of the fittest" we're talking about, it really was a well organized society... it just so happened that it had no central government, and still worked.

[beetcoin]

and how long did they last? just a blip on the map. i don't know what the solution, but if you have an anarchistic society, you're probably not going to be as well-organized as government run states.. which means they will come for your ass and use you and your resources up.

Oh, they were pretty well organized alright. In fact, in many ways much better than the government they had. Take a look at the 6 part BBC documentary "The Spanish Civil War". You have to understand, this wasn't chaos and "survival of the fittest" we're talking about, it really was a well organized society... it just so happened that it had no central government, and still worked.

are you talking about the movement that lasted for 3 years? the movement that ultimately gave way to francisco franco? i'm not really well-versed with the history of anarchy in societies, but it seems like they usually don't last very long.

[u9y42]

are you talking about the movement that lasted for 3 years? the movement that ultimately gave way to francisco franco? i'm not really well-versed with the history of anarchy in societies, but it seems like they usually don't last very long.

Yes, the forces of Francisco Franco eventually won the Spanish civil war, leading to the dictatorship. But my point is, it didn't fail because of a lack of internal organization. It, as well as other similar movements throughout Europe (in Greece, Italy, etc.) in the period immediately after the Second World War, failed due to external attacks. In Spain mainly because of the Fascists and Communists, in other parts of Europe they were "liberated" (read "slaughtered") by the Allied forces.

[beetcoin]

are you talking about the movement that lasted for 3 years? the movement that ultimately gave way to francisco franco? i'm not really well-versed with the history of anarchy in societies, but it seems like they usually don't last very long.

Yes, the forces of Francisco Franco eventually won the Spanish civil war, leading to the dictatorship. But my point is, it didn't fail because of a lack of internal organization. It, as well as other similar movements throughout Europe (in Greece, Italy, etc.) in the period immediately after the Second World War, failed due to external attacks. In Spain mainly because of the Fascists and Communists, in other parts of Europe they were "liberated" (read "slaughtered") by the Allied forces.

i guess you agree with me then, because i think if 1 country were to go anarchistic (and they are surrounded by state-run governments), an external force (neighboring country) would come in and invade them.. which has happened in the past. i don't think just arming every man and woman with a gun is going to get the job done.

[u9y42]

i guess you agree with me then, because i think if 1 country were to go anarchistic (and they are surrounded by state-run governments), an external force (neighboring country) would come in and invade them.. which has happened in the past. i don't think just arming every man and woman with a gun is going to get the job done.

Well, I suppose it depends on the situation. Sorry in advance for the following scenario, I know it will be offensive, but sadly it seems to me to be how things work:

If we're talking about a third world country most people never heard about and have nearly no contact with, that were to try this, I suppose external forces would have an easy time directing the propaganda to paint them as a target, for whatever reason. And unfortunately, some people would probably protest against it, but to no avail.

Now imagine a relatively rich country were to try this, say Iceland. I have a hard time imagining propaganda would work so well in this case, particularly if the transition to anarchy was a relatively peaceful one to begin with. Then again, this may be a little overly optimistic. 

[beetcoin]

i guess you agree with me then, because i think if 1 country were to go anarchistic (and they are surrounded by state-run governments), an external force (neighboring country) would come in and invade them.. which has happened in the past. i don't think just arming every man and woman with a gun is going to get the job done.

Well, I suppose it depends on the situation. Sorry in advance for the following scenario, I know it will be offensive, but sadly it seems to me to be how things work:

If we're talking about a third world country most people never heard about and have nearly no contact with, that were to try this, I suppose external forces would have an easy time directing the propaganda to paint them as a target, for whatever reason. And unfortunately, some people would probably protest against it, but to no avail.

Now imagine a relatively rich country were to try this, say Iceland. I have a hard time imagining propaganda would work so well in this case, particularly if the transition to anarchy was a relatively peaceful one to begin with. Then again, this may be a little overly optimistic.  

that's a valid point. but if your end goal is to have all nations (especially the western/developed ones), then that really shuffles the cards. i really do think that smaller groups vying for power would form, and the rules we know today (whether they are good or bad) probably won't exist... even if you are a well developed country. if iceland were the only ones to turn to anarchy, i think they would be fine. i think it would actually be a pretty cool idea.. an experiment, if you will. a lot of libertarians, i'd assume, would move there to live.

[Mike Christ]

i guess you agree with me then, because i think if 1 country were to go anarchistic (and they are surrounded by state-run governments), an external force (neighboring country) would come in and invade them.. which has happened in the past. i don't think just arming every man and woman with a gun is going to get the job done.

Secular rationalism; it's easy to conquer an isolated anarchist community, it's very hard to conquer oneself.

[beetcoin]

as far as public infrastructure, i think private companies will create roads.. but then you'd have toll roads everywhere. and since men are not created equal, one guy might climb to the top of the ladder and own all the roads. what happens then, when he charges you exorbitant fees?

[Mike Christ]

as far as public infrastructure, i think private companies will create roads.. but then you'd have toll roads everywhere. and since men are not created equal, one guy might climb to the top of the ladder and own all the roads. what happens then, when he charges you exorbitant fees?

That's a terrible business model   Nobody would drive if you charged to drive on them, and then how would businesses get consumers?  The point of roads is to lead to business, not to charge for the privilege.

[u9y42]

as far as public infrastructure, i think private companies will create roads.. but then you'd have toll roads everywhere. and since men are not created equal, one guy might climb to the top of the ladder and own all the roads. what happens then, when he charges you exorbitant fees?

I'm not suggesting an American libertarian, or anarcho-capitalist system here. The examples I gave were of real anarchic movements, that is, without hierarchy. Infrastructure was still created and maintained, without the need of anyone in particular owning it.

[Mike Christ]

I'm not suggesting an American libertarian, or anarcho-capitalist system here. The examples I gave were of real anarchic movements, that is, without hierarchy. Infrastructure was still created and maintained, without the need of anyone in particular owning it.

Yes; I believe the Spanish anarchists followed a communist model.

[u9y42]

Yes; I believe the Spanish anarchists followed a communist model.

Shh, don't mention the C* word... that will scare people away.

But yes, I believe they were anarcho-communists and/or anarcho-syndicalists, though having nearly nothing to do with the Russian form of communism, which I guess was little more than an excuse for a totalitarian state.

[beetcoin]

as far as public infrastructure, i think private companies will create roads.. but then you'd have toll roads everywhere. and since men are not created equal, one guy might climb to the top of the ladder and own all the roads. what happens then, when he charges you exorbitant fees?

That's a terrible business model  Nobody would drive if you charged to drive on them, and then how would businesses get consumers?  The point of roads is to lead to business, not to charge for the privilege.

well how else would the people who create the roads make money?

as far as public infrastructure, i think private companies will create roads.. but then you'd have toll roads everywhere. and since men are not created equal, one guy might climb to the top of the ladder and own all the roads. what happens then, when he charges you exorbitant fees?

I'm not suggesting an American libertarian, or anarcho-capitalist system here. The examples I gave were of real anarchic movements, that is, without hierarchy. Infrastructure was still created and maintained, without the need of anyone in particular owning it.

im curious as to how that would work? how would roads be created then, if no one owned them? who'd put the money out to get them built? if businesses pooled their money together to build roads, they would start complaining if someone who did not use any of their services or goods used the roads.. because that'd be freeloading.