How long would it take for Anarchy to start working?

[crumbs]

...
What strikes me as weird about this stance is the refusal to acknowledge a blatant problem in this approach: if it is true and life is nasty, brutish and short and human nature is selfish, violent and treacherous, how is the creation of an institution with the legal monopoly of initiating force not going to make things any worse?
...

No one is arguing in favor of creating nation-states.
They already exist.
Everywhere.
Almost the entire habitable surface of this planet is divided among such nation-states.  Arguing in their favor would make as much sense as arguing in favor of death -- it already happens, and coming to a consensus that "death ain't no good" won't decrease its scope by a single soul.

[deisik]

Very simple really, just a few words. Because it becomes profitable. When you don't have a monopoly of power you have to compete with someone else for it, and so you are predetermined by your position (liable to failure) to strip everyone around you of everything they may happen to have. Almost the same happens when warfare begins (external competition for power), government begins plundering their own population in an effort to retain the power with any means available. When nothing threatens the monopoly of power, it becomes profitable in the long run to turn into "benevolent protectors"

I think no one here idealizes state...

Thanks for your reply. I think I see your point.

Quite a scary conclusion (bolded) you're reaching there. We are reduced to hoping, that the entities in power recognize this and indeed turn into benevolent protectors. Also there are other factors, besides external threats, which might turn them towards looting their citizens, like greed, corruption, lust for power & wealth etc.

If the entities in power don't recognize this (let's assume this) and turn to looting their citizens, they usually wind up as they ended in 1789 in France, as an example. So in the end the power is monopolized by those who are not only able to grab it in the first place, but also able to hold it long enough, which is impossible without becoming a "benevolent protector"

[deisik]

While I agree, that the monopolization of power is most profitable (for those in power), I would imagine that better cost-effectiveness (if that would be what we're really after) would be achieved through competition.

Real competition for power (or rather struggle) always leads to its monopolization while ineffectively and wastefully spending resources and human lives, with the winner usually extinguishing all substantial resistance afterwards. Do you really think anything has considerably changed since Ancient Rome?

[illdeletethis]

Do states explicitly prohibit ostracism or make people keep connections with bad guys?

school

[deisik]

Do states explicitly prohibit ostracism or make people keep connections with bad guys?

school

So the cause for today's anarchism popularity lies in the fact that modern anarchists were forced to hobnob with bad guys in school... And now they're trying to get rid of their youth complexes through sticking to anarchism and just can't help dreaming to bring ostracism upon their implacable "friends". Could I ever assume anything of the kind?

[ErisDiscordia]

I guess I have only one more question: is it worth debating this? Or have you already made your mind up?

[deisik]

I guess I have only one more question: is it worth debating this? Or have you already made your mind up?

Whom is this question aimed at?

If you ask me, then what should I have made up my mind to actually? Personally, I like the idea of the only true Anarchism where each man stands for himself and is worth what he's actually worth, no strings attached. I surely despise this glamor hippie version that so many admire so much here, with all their doublespeak and that crap about ostracism...

[Biomech]

Now you confirm in your own words that anarchy as you see it doesn't in fact differ very much from what state actually is all about. If we clear away the verbal husks of what you say here, we necessarily come to a system where majority would suppress minority in any possible way... How's that different from what state does?

An undisputed right of exit. No anarchist, whether in a commune or walking the earth, would claim you as his property. No government, ever, has failed to do so.

Right? Are you kidding?

I hoped you would read and understand what I had written about the doublespeak you are using again here. But, it seems, to no avail. Why should I ever search for an exit if I am in my own right? So, minority under your rule would just have to walk away somewhere. Is this what you mean by an undisputed right of exit? And you have the right to emigrate, so government doesn't claim you as its property, either publicly or implicitly (I'm not speaking about slave states here for evident reasons). Your point is void...

No.
You don't. They will tax you for TEN YEARS if you renounce your citizenship. Here in the US, that is. Yes, some other countries actually allow their subjects to permanently leave.

But I was referring to right of exit from the organizations. If I declare that I am no longer a subject of the United States of America, then I will be ignored for the most part, taxed as if I were, and then jailed if I refuse. On my own land. Even if I am self sufficient. If I object in more than words, I will be shot and killed by the "police" (thugs is a better word, but I don't want to be that insulting. To thugs.) If I want to have no part of some ridiculous, dangerous boondoggle that my rulers have decided upon, I have no choice. If I want to have weapons, I have to seek their permission. If I want to run a business, I need their license. If I want to drive, I need their license. If I want to BREATHE, I likely commit a crime in their "codified law".

There is no doublespeak here. I do not hold two contradictory beliefs without question. I question everything, and after many MANY years I have come to the inescapable conclusion that government in it's current and historical form is untenable if we are to have a long term future.

Anarchy specifically means "without a king". Society will always be organized. Anarchists are seeking to change it to a more bottom up societal model, rather than top down. WE never said their would be no rules, we said no RULERS. Your side is the one who keeps claiming that we need rulers.

I am saying you are wrong, and I say that all of society EXCEPT government and the few stray criminals they don't suborn disprove you. People do not run amok simply because there's no cop in sight. It's just like the other religious arguments. If you are gonna run amok because there isn't a cop, or no god, or no king, then you are going to run amok when there is too.

And as to MY argument being circular, bullshit. I never once tried to claim that government was any different than any other organized mafia except in their perceived legitimacy. They act by the same means for the same ends, and they always have. The only technical difference I see is that other organized criminals are amateurs by comparison. You don't get half the population defending the exploits of the Crips or the Bloods, but look at the Demopublicans and Republicrats!

[deisik]

Right? Are you kidding?

I hoped you would read and understand what I had written about the doublespeak you are using again here. But, it seems, to no avail. Why should I ever search for an exit if I am in my own right? So, minority under your rule would just have to walk away somewhere. Is this what you mean by an undisputed right of exit? And you have the right to emigrate, so government doesn't claim you as its property, either publicly or implicitly (I'm not speaking about slave states here for evident reasons). Your point is void...

No.
You don't. They will tax you for TEN YEARS if you renounce your citizenship. Here in the US, that is. Yes, some other countries actually allow their subjects to permanently leave.

I didn't say that you should renounce your citizenship. In my post I was talking about emigration as you can see. How can they actually tax you if you are beyond their reach? Or has the US government already forbidden its citizens to leave the territory of the USA? I heard quite the opposite, that many are trying to get into the USA, either legal or illegal...

[dank]

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.

I don't deem it purposeful to answer seriously to posts that are nothing more than sheer trolling. You missed the real culprit here

Your taxes are used in a myriad other ways (pensions, health service, utilities, roads, etc), it is strange that you forget to mention such things or just hope that I would miss them. It is suicidal for any government to tax more than 50% of your total income (actually the optimal number is far below this). You would lose incentive to work if they would require more under normal conditions...

Ha.  I was going to say stop feeding the troll, but hopefully people can see through deisik's deception.

You are advocating monopolized theft, murder and slavery.  If someone is going to do any of the three to me, I'd rather it be an individual I'm facing, not an army of a parasitic body.

And nobody needs to worry about defense if A) they have a gun or B) aren't scared of death.

And when the government arrested me for scraping the shake (crumbs) of weed off my car floor and testing it for cannabis, they were doing so to defend me?  Is that what you're saying?  From whom, myself?

[deisik]

But I was referring to right of exit from the organizations. If I declare that I am no longer a subject of the United States of America, then I will be ignored for the most part, taxed as if I were, and then jailed if I refuse. On my own land. Even if I am self sufficient. If I object in more than words, I will be shot and killed by the "police" (thugs is a better word, but I don't want to be that insulting. To thugs.) If I want to have no part of some ridiculous, dangerous boondoggle that my rulers have decided upon, I have no choice. If I want to have weapons, I have to seek their permission. If I want to run a business, I need their license. If I want to drive, I need their license. If I want to BREATHE, I likely commit a crime in their "codified law".

Oh, really?

At first you said that those who didn't conform in a given society would likely move as they would find it impossible to interact with those around them. After that you tried to refute my claim that in anarchy we would necessarily come to a system where majority would suppress minority, with a reference to an undisputed right of exit. As I got it, you were referring to those who would be in the minority as they would have a "privilege" of leaving, right?

[deisik]

There is no doublespeak here. I do not hold two contradictory beliefs without question. I question everything, and after many MANY years I have come to the inescapable conclusion that government in it's current and historical form is untenable if we are to have a long term future.

Doublespeak (as per Wikipedia) is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words and is used to trick or deceive people. You say about people who don't conform that "they would likely move as they would find it impossible to interact with those around them". In simple words that means that the life of those who disagree with the majority would be made as unbearable and intolerable so that they would have to move somewhere, thereby realizing their "undisputed right of exit". As you may guess, I don't see much difference between such "relocations" and forced evictions...

What is this if not doublespeak?

[Mike Christ]

As you may guess, I don't see much difference between such "relocations" and forced evictions...

vol·un·tar·y  [vol-uhn-ter-ee]
adjective
1.
done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice

in·vol·un·tar·y  [in-vol-uhn-ter-ee]
adjective
1.
not voluntary; independent of one's will; not by one's own choice

I'm running out of ideas on how to help you understand this fundamental difference.  If people hate you enough to not want to interact with you, you have no right to force yourself on them.  That's just how society works; you play by the rules or you get shut out.

[ErisDiscordia]

I guess I have only one more question: is it worth debating this? Or have you already made your mind up?

Whom is this question aimed at?

If you ask me, then what should I have made up my mind to actually? Personally, I like the idea of the only true Anarchism where each man stands for himself and is worth what he's actually worth, no strings attached. I surely despise this glamor hippie version that so many admire so much here, with all their doublespeak and that crap about ostracism...

Here we go again... 

I think that answers my question, though. Thanks for taking the time.

[deisik]

I'm running out of ideas on how to help you understand this fundamental difference.  If people hate you enough to not want to interact with you, you have no right to force yourself on them.  That's just how society works; you play by the rules or you get shut out.

I have already explained everything in one of my earlier posts. Also, you said it yourself that if my beliefs clash with other people's, either they or I must adjust, so there is still no room for voluntary change if that was your point. When you have to adjust to something against your will, this is coercion under any name...

[Mike Christ]

I have already explained everything in one of my earlier posts. Also you said it yourself that if my beliefs clash with other people's, either they or I must adjust, so there is still no room for voluntary change if that was your point...

Of course that's voluntary; you don't have to conform if you don't want to, you just gotta figure out how to survive without other people.  Nobody is forcing you to do that.  What do you believe is a voluntary interaction?  And don't tell me there are none; you're participating in one right now.

[deisik]

I have already explained everything in one of my earlier posts. Also you said it yourself that if my beliefs clash with other people's, either they or I must adjust, so there is still no room for voluntary change if that was your point...

Of course that's voluntary; you don't have to conform if you don't want to, you just gotta figure out how to survive without other people.  Nobody is forcing you to do that.  What do you believe is a voluntary interaction?  And don't tell me there are none; you're participating in one right now.

Look, you seem to be contradicting yourself here. At first you said that "either they or you must adjust". Maybe, now you are going to argue that anything you do against your will, you do voluntarily? I always thought it is called coercion when you have to do something without your own accord. Should I quote the definition of the word you posted earlier or you can take a look yourself?

[Mike Christ]

Now you seem to be contradicting yourself. At first you said that "either they or I must adjust". Maybe, now you are going to argue that anything you do against your will, you do voluntarily? I always thought it is called coercion. Should I quote the definition of the word you posted earlier or you take a look yourself?

No; if you want to participate in that society, you must adjust.  If you must understand programming to create a program, are the developers of programming languages coercing you into learning them?

[deisik]

Now you seem to be contradicting yourself. At first you said that "either they or I must adjust". Maybe, now you are going to argue that anything you do against your will, you do voluntarily? I always thought it is called coercion. Should I quote the definition of the word you posted earlier or you take a look yourself?

No; if you want to participate in that society, you must adjust.  If you must understand programming to create a program, are the developers of programming languages coercing you into learning them?

Why should I adjust, or rather, why minority should adjust in the first place? If we have to, then it is not much different from what state actually does. Are you still missing my point?

[Mike Christ]

Why should I adjust, or rather, why minority should adjust in the first place? If we have to, then it is not much different what state actually does. Are you still missing my point?

No, I understand your point: both anarchism and the state are forms of government.  I think we've established this point already.  Can you address the point about the state being involuntary and anarchism being voluntary, please?