How long would it take for Anarchy to start working?

[deisik]

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?

I don't quite understand what you mean here by the state being involuntary and anarchism being voluntary. If you point is that the minority would walk away somewhere if they disagree with the majority, I don't think this relocation will be by their free will and on their accord. Actually, they will be coerced to do so by the majority. It happens daily in life even without state and its laws. But exactly the introduction of state in the form of the law allows to break this otherwise circular argument...

[Anon136]

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?

I don't quite understand what you mean here by the state being involuntary and anarchism being voluntary. If you point is that the minority would walk away somewhere if they disagree with the majority, I don't think this relocation will be by their free will and accord. Actually, they will be coerced to do so by the majority. It happens daily in life even without state and its laws. But exactly the introduction of state in the form of the law allows to break this otherwise circular argument...

You are describing panarchism not anarchism. Also most anarchists are pro law, we imagine a society that has plenty of laws. We just imagine that those laws are provided in a competitive marketplace so that they can improve with time for the same reason that microprocessors get faster every year and cars get better gas mileage every year. So if you dont like the laws that you are presently governed by than you dont have to move away, you just change service providers.

[Mike Christ]

I don't quite understand what you mean here by the state being involuntary and anarchism being voluntary. If you point is that the minority would walk away somewhere if they disagree with the majority, I don't think this relocation will be by their free will and accord. Actually, they will be coerced to do so by the majority. It happens daily in life even without state and its laws. But exactly the introduction of state in the form of the law allows to break this otherwise circular argument...

Coercion
Threat of kidnapping, extortion, force or violence to be performed immediately or in the future

Lets say you're at a friend's party, and you don't like the party but you also don't want to leave.  Are the party-goers now coercing you to leave?

[deisik]

I don't quite understand what you mean here by the state being involuntary and anarchism being voluntary. If you point is that the minority would walk away somewhere if they disagree with the majority, I don't think this relocation will be by their free will and accord. Actually, they will be coerced to do so by the majority. It happens daily in life even without state and its laws. But exactly the introduction of state in the form of the law allows to break this otherwise circular argument...

You are describing panarchism not anarchism. Also most anarchists are pro law, we imagine a society that has plenty of laws. We just imagine that those laws are provided in a competitive marketplace so that they can improve with time for the same reason that microprocessors get faster every year and cars get better gas mileage every year. So if you dont like the laws that you are presently governed by than you dont have to move away, you just change service providers.

I just paraphrase what others are saying here. But what you say has also been described somewhere earlier in the thread. What if I just don't want to pick up any of the "law providers"? If I don't choose any, would I be outlawed? If not, then it simply doesn't make any sense to choose any "law provider"...

[deisik]

I don't quite understand what you mean here by the state being involuntary and anarchism being voluntary. If you point is that the minority would walk away somewhere if they disagree with the majority, I don't think this relocation will be by their free will and accord. Actually, they will be coerced to do so by the majority. It happens daily in life even without state and its laws. But exactly the introduction of state in the form of the law allows to break this otherwise circular argument...

Coercion
Threat of kidnapping, extortion, force or violence to be performed immediately or in the future

Lets say you're at a friend's party, and you don't like the party but you also don't want to leave.  Are the party-goers now coercing you to leave?

At a friend's party I won't be in my own right by definition, so this example is not worth considering at all in the first place. Whatever answer I may give, I will be either logically wrong (correct answer with false reasoning) or factually wrong (correct logic based on false premises). Choose a better example...

Could I expect you throwing some light on what you meant by the state being involuntary and anarchism being voluntary?

[Mike Christ]

Could I expect you throwing some light on what you meant by the state being involuntary and anarchism being voluntary?

Sure, it goes like this:

The State: "Pay your taxes or we will fine you.  If you refuse to pay your fine we will jail you.  If you refuse to go to jail we will use force against you.  If you continue to resist, we will kill you.

The State-less: "Chip in if you want to."

The State: "Go to your assigned school or we will fine your parents, jail them if they refuse to pay, and kill them if they refuse to go to jail."

The State-less: "School's good, I think I'll go."

The State: "We're going to war with a neighboring country.  If you refuse, we will draft you.  If you refuse to be drafted, you will be jailed.  If you resist arrest, you will be killed."

The State-less: "We're being invaded; we should defend ourselves."

The State: "Homosexual marriage is illegal; if you disobey, you will be fined yadda ya."

The State-less: "I couldn't care less."

The State: "We're going to medicate the public water system.  If the cities resist..."

The State-less: "Only you should decide what goes in your body."

The State: "You don't like your tax money wasted so you can be spied on?  Too bad."

The State-less: "Privacy is a good thing; let's agree to a right of privacy, and certainly agree to never fund agencies to spy on us."

The State: "We can't profit from these plants; illegal, fine, jail, etc"

The State-less: "Weed stinks, please don't smoke it around me."

The State: Ideas so good, you'll be killed if you don't comply.

The State-less: These ideas are good, therefore I'll go along with them.

And lastly:

There is no academic consensus on the most appropriate definition of the state...

The most commonly used definition is Max Weber's, which describes the state as a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory.

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions, but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.

[deisik]

Could I expect you throwing some light on what you meant by the state being involuntary and anarchism being voluntary?

There is no academic consensus on the most appropriate definition of the state...

The most commonly used definition is Max Weber's, which describes the state as a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory.

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions, but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.

I never said that state would not be engaging in compulsion and coercion. These "features" are inherent to it, that's what makes such an institution a state. My point, actually, boils down to two things which I expand on in detail below

Firstly, state is just a somewhat embellished form of exploitation and expropriation that one small group of people promotes towards the rest of population. Why that group of people would ultimately have to restrain themselves from looting the population, I had explained in my posts before

Secondly, states evolved naturally from the initial condition very close to what you call here anarchy. Because of the universal character of this phenomenon throughout the world, I find it very dubious that anything like anarchy has even a remote chance of materialization or persistence in reality

[ErisDiscordia]

Secondly, states evolved naturally from the initial condition very close to what you call here anarchy. Because of the universal character of this phenomenon throughout the world, I find it very dubious that anything like anarchy has even a remote chance of materialization or persistence in reality

You have a point here, but you do realize that there is such a thing as "progress" exhibited by human history? The argument that something can not be, because it hasn't been before is a weak one. I think bitcoiners are more liable than most to understand

[Mike Christ]

I never said that state would not be engaging in compulsion and coercion. These "features" are inherent to it, that's what makes such an institution a state. My point, actually, boils down to two things which I expand on in detail below

Firstly, state is just a somewhat embellished form of exploitation and expropriation that one small group of people promotes towards the rest of population. Why that group of people would ultimately have to restrain themselves from looting the population, I had explained in my posts before

Secondly, states evolved naturally from the initial condition very close to what you call here anarchy. Because of the universal character of this phenomenon throughout the world, I find it very dubious that anything like anarchy has even a remote chance of materialization or persistence in reality

Your first point is ludicrous: you're asking an entity with the power of God to constrain themselves.  Chances are, as they always have, they will say, "No, now pay your taxes and stop complaining."

Your second point lacks insight; the state can only exist if the general population is blind enough to believe in it.  Never before in history has information been so readily and easily available, with people having so much more free time; likewise, the number of liberty-minded people is ever increasing and libertarianism is gaining a lot of traction.  The state can only exist so long as it is deemed necessary; as many of man's inventions have become discarded, so will the perceived need for ulterior governance.  Simply because rape has occurred all throughout history doesn't mean it should be an accepted norm.

[deisik]

Secondly, states evolved naturally from the initial condition very close to what you call here anarchy. Because of the universal character of this phenomenon throughout the world, I find it very dubious that anything like anarchy has even a remote chance of materialization or persistence in reality

You have a point here, but you do realize that there is such a thing as "progress" exhibited by human history? The argument that something can not be, because it hasn't been before is a weak one. I think bitcoiners are more liable than most to understand

If you are referring here to human nature, I don't think it can be changed or will change any time soon. Neither do I think that it's worth trying to change it because what we already have by now (in regard to our nature) isn't that bad really. I'd rather go for a step-by-step change of the existing system and evolving it into something else than total demolition or dismatling. And this most likely wouldn't be anarchy as it is drawn here..

[deisik]

I never said that state would not be engaging in compulsion and coercion. These "features" are inherent to it, that's what makes such an institution a state. My point, actually, boils down to two things which I expand on in detail below

Firstly, state is just a somewhat embellished form of exploitation and expropriation that one small group of people promotes towards the rest of population. Why that group of people would ultimately have to restrain themselves from looting the population, I had explained in my posts before

Secondly, states evolved naturally from the initial condition very close to what you call here anarchy. Because of the universal character of this phenomenon throughout the world, I find it very dubious that anything like anarchy has even a remote chance of materialization or persistence in reality

Your first point is ludicrous: you're asking an entity with the power of God to constrain themselves.  Chances are, as they always have, they will say, "No, now pay your taxes and stop complaining."

History has shown it multiple times that this power is not as almighty as it pretends to be. You either don't history to such a degree that go down to making such dumb assumptions, or think I don't know history to such an extent that would take what you say here seriously...

Though it can very well be that you're just intentionally trying to obfuscate and confuse matters as you did before...

[deisik]

Your second point lacks insight; the state can only exist if the general population is blind enough to believe in it.  Never before in history has information been so readily and easily available, with people having so much more free time; likewise, the number of liberty-minded people is ever increasing and libertarianism is gaining a lot of traction.  The state can only exist so long as it is deemed necessary; as many of man's inventions have become discarded, so will the perceived need for ulterior governance.  Simply because rape has occurred all throughout history doesn't mean it should be an accepted norm.

While it may look appealing, what you say here is actually nothing more than pure blah-blah-blah... "Show me the code"
I don't believe neither state nor in the state. It is evil by its nature and its origins. But between the two evils I involuntarily choose state, the other being back to caves and all that shit...

[ErisDiscordia]

If you are referring here to human nature, I don't think it can be changed or will change any time soon. Neither do I think that it's worth trying to change it because what we already have by now (in regard to our nature) isn't that bad really. I'd rather go for a step-by-step change of the existing system and evolving it into something else than total demolition or dismatling. And this most likely wouldn't be anarchy as it is drawn here..

I'm not stating anything about "human nature". Just observing historical facts.

I'm actually also in favor of step-by-step change of the existing system but I suppose in a different way and in a different direction. My vision would be one of alternatives springing up and step-by-step making the old institutions more and more irrelevant until they finally fade into well-deserved historical obscurity

Agree with Mike that expecting people who have been given (close to) absolute power with (little to) no control mechanisms or personal responsibility for damage & failure...expecting people in that position to voluntary constrain themselves and become "benevolent protectors" seems very naive to me. And they say that anarchists are a bunch of idealists. How about believing in the Utopia of creating a government, populated with benevolent protectors, which not only try but also achieve the greatest good for the greatest number..? Wow, some crazy shit, right there!

You know, choosing between the evils of the state and "going back to the caves" - are you aware this is your imagination presenting the situation as a false dichotomy? Truth is, neither you, nor me, nor anyone else, no matter how much they might claim they do...we DO NOT know what exactly would happen in the absence of government. Believing it's going to be "back to the caves" says much more about your mind, than about reality or "human nature" or any such thing. But I think we have established quite firmly, that you do believe to know these things, so I don't expect you to concede this point

[deisik]

Agree with Mike that expecting people who have been given (close to) absolute power with (little to) no control mechanisms or personal responsibility for damage & failure...expecting people in that position to voluntary constrain themselves and become "benevolent protectors" seems very naive to me. And they say that anarchists are a bunch of idealists. How about believing in the Utopia of creating a government, populated with benevolent protectors, which not only try but also achieve the greatest good for the greatest number..? Wow, some crazy shit, right there!

Where are you living really? I don't even need to appeal to actual history and times long gone, though the most evident proofs are there (1649 in England, 1789 in France, 1917 in Russia and again in 1991). Just look around yourself, look at Egypt where the absolute power was overthrown in a matter of few months...

[deisik]

You know, choosing between the evils of the state and "going back to the caves" - are you aware this is your imagination presenting the situation as a false dichotomy? Truth is, neither you, nor me, nor anyone else, no matter how much they might claim they do...we DO NOT know what exactly would happen in the absence of government. Believing it's going to be "back to the caves" says much more about your mind, than about reality or "human nature" or any such thing. But I think we have established quite firmly, that you do believe to know these things, so I don't expect you to concede this point

Please stop making value judgments about anyone here

These are extreme cases. I don't know what is beyond state, I can only give you a scale where at one end we have the caves and at the other the state. Anything in between is just a transition from one to the other. I thought it was pretty evident...

[ErisDiscordia]

Agree with Mike that expecting people who have been given (close to) absolute power with (little to) no control mechanisms or personal responsibility for damage & failure...expecting people in that position to voluntary constrain themselves and become "benevolent protectors" seems very naive to me. And they say that anarchists are a bunch of idealists. How about believing in the Utopia of creating a government, populated with benevolent protectors, which not only try but also achieve the greatest good for the greatest number..? Wow, some crazy shit, right there!

Where are you living really? I don't even need to appeal to actual history and times long gone, though the most evident proves are there (1649 in England, 1789 in France, 1917 in Russia and again in 1991). Just look around yourself, look at Egypt where the absolute power was overthrown in a matter of few months...

I claim no allegiance to any nation-state

Well what you are talking about are revolutions, you know the forceful removal of the current entities in power and their replacement with new ones. With new rhetoric. And sometimes even the mechanics of how you're being ruled over. This has never changed the fundamental underlying fact that there is a centralized structure, with monopoly on legal initiation of force and you have to pay taxes to it or face punishment. The way to remove THAT, seems to be by gradual evolution. Sort of how collectivism and totalitarian tendencies slowly creep into governments bit by bit, just the other way round But that requires cultural change, because I posit that government is a consequence of the collective cultural operating system. And let me tell you, we probably won't get much change there if we remain convinced of ideas like "human nature is fixed and can't be changed". Unless people actually choose to be more free as their goal, all of this talk doesn't make any sort of difference.

These are extreme cases. I don't know what is beyond state, I can only give you a scale where at one end we have the caves and at the other the state. Anything in between is just a transition from one to the other. I thought it was pretty evident...

And here I am trying to tell you the whole time, that MAYBE it's not that conveniently simple and evident.

[deisik]

Where are you living really? I don't even need to appeal to actual history and times long gone, though the most evident proves are there (1649 in England, 1789 in France, 1917 in Russia and again in 1991). Just look around yourself, look at Egypt where the absolute power was overthrown in a matter of few months...

I claim no allegiance to any nation-state

It was no more than sarcasm...

Well what you are talking about are revolutions, you know the forceful removal of the current entities in power and their replacement with new ones. With new rhetoric. And sometimes even the mechanics of how you're being ruled over. This has never changed the fundamental underlying fact that there is a centralized structure, with monopoly on legal initiation of force and you have to pay taxes to it or face punishment. The way to remove THAT, seems to be by gradual evolution. Sort of how collectivism and totalitarian tendencies slowly creep into governments bit by bit, just the other way round But that requires cultural change, because I posit that government is a consequence of the collective cultural operating system. And let me tell you, we probably won't get much change there if we remain convinced of ideas like "human nature is fixed and can't be changed". Unless people actually choose to be more free as their goal, all of this talk doesn't make any sort of difference.

Oh, now you seem to be backing off... Whatever, but this does prove that you were outright wrong about "people who have been given (close to) absolute power with (little to) no control mechanisms or personal responsibility for damage & failure". In fact, Gaddafi ended very badly...

[deisik]

These are extreme cases. I don't know what is beyond state, I can only give you a scale where at one end we have the caves and at the other the state. Anything in between is just a transition from one to the other. I thought it was pretty evident...

And here I am trying to tell you the whole time, that MAYBE it's not that conveniently simple and evident.

Unless you provide some substantial evidence, something which is beyond that wanton and non-obliging maybe, I have to stick to the facts which stand as I have described them in my post you answered...

[hawkeye]

Your second point lacks insight; the state can only exist if the general population is blind enough to believe in it.  Never before in history has information been so readily and easily available, with people having so much more free time; likewise, the number of liberty-minded people is ever increasing and libertarianism is gaining a lot of traction.  The state can only exist so long as it is deemed necessary; as many of man's inventions have become discarded, so will the perceived need for ulterior governance.  Simply because rape has occurred all throughout history doesn't mean it should be an accepted norm.

While it may look appealing, what you say here is actually nothing more than pure blah-blah-blah... "Show me the code"
I don't believe neither state nor in the state. It is evil by its nature and its origins. But between the two evils I involuntarily choose state, the other being back to caves and all that shit...

Well, at least you agree with us on the nature of the state.   

Since the state is evil should not alternatives at least be explored?  Are we truly stuck with evil?  Or does the evil wish us to believe that we are stuck with it?

[deisik]

While it may look appealing, what you say here is actually nothing more than pure blah-blah-blah... "Show me the code"
I don't believe neither state nor in the state. It is evil by its nature and its origins. But between the two evils I involuntarily choose state, the other being back to caves and all that shit...

Well, at least you agree with us on the nature of the state.   

Since the state is evil should not alternatives at least be explored?  Are we truly stuck with evil?  Or does the evil wish us to believe that we are stuck with it?

As I see it, the feasible alternative is very simple and clear, but it is not what you, anarchists and those sympathizing you, would probably love to hear. Nowadays, it is much easier and less troublesome to emigrate than it was even 50 years ago. The more national economics will be intertwined in the future as it is happening today, the more transparent national borders will become. So my point consists in making states peacefully compete for their human resources by means of providing better conditions of life for their population...

In fact, this process is already unfolding right now