How many anarchists?

[madmadmax]

The implementation will be a challenge, but not the most pressing one, imo.  If implementation was successful, problems and ideas fed by greed will become harder to detect and prevent before they are able to cause harm to the society in the form of criminal and predatory acts.

Are individuals in an anarchistic society also supposed to function as law enforcement?  If so, the results would be disastrous.  Therefore, an entity has to be created with the mandate to protect the populace.  How can they be trusted to protect and serve when there's no one to challenge their authority?

Does the mere fact that there would exist a group dedicated to peace and order mean that the system no longer qualifies as an anarchy?


The same way you pay a monthly fee for the very internet you used to post that message you could pay to a privately owned company that would take the role of "police" in guarding you and ensuring your well being. There would be dozens of companies offering "police" services and their success would be dependent upon their performance and contribution to humanity, given the free market media would become a lot more transparent so if people were to notice the company that they are subscribed to being brutal they would move onto another company.

Well-stated, I hadn't even considered that.  The only correction I have is that I don't pay for internet. I cracked my neighbor's WPA2 key via a WPS vulnerability quite a while ago so he's the only one paying monthly fees for the internetz.    

When I'm downloading a 3.3gb file at 2.2mb/s wirelessly, sometimes I wonder if he thinks the 56k-like speeds he experiences as a result during that time are a form of Comcast "maintenance".  The guy is a total asshole and a complete dumbass so I don't feel the least bit bad about it.  Fuck him.  

LOLOLOLOL

[xkeyscore89]

The implementation will be a challenge, but not the most pressing one, imo.  If implementation was successful, problems and ideas fed by greed will become harder to detect and prevent before they are able to cause harm to the society in the form of criminal and predatory acts.

Are individuals in an anarchistic society also supposed to function as law enforcement?  If so, the results would be disastrous.  Therefore, an entity has to be created with the mandate to protect the populace.  How can they be trusted to protect and serve when there's no one to challenge their authority?

Does the mere fact that there would exist a group dedicated to peace and order mean that the system no longer qualifies as an anarchy?


The same way you pay a monthly fee for the very internet you used to post that message you could pay to a privately owned company that would take the role of "police" in guarding you and ensuring your well being. There would be dozens of companies offering "police" services and their success would be dependent upon their performance and contribution to humanity, given the free market media would become a lot more transparent so if people were to notice the company that they are subscribed to being brutal they would move onto another company.

Well-stated, I hadn't even considered that.  The only correction I have is that I don't pay for internet. I cracked my neighbor's WPA2 key via a WPS vulnerability quite a while ago so he's the only one paying monthly fees for the internetz.    

When I'm downloading a 3.3gb file at 2.2mb/s wirelessly, sometimes I wonder if he thinks the 56k-like speeds he experiences as a result during that time are a form of Comcast "maintenance".  The guy is a total asshole and a complete dumbass so I don't feel the least bit bad about it.  Fuck him.  

LOLOLOLOL

I'm glad you liked my post.  

If anyone's interested, I could provide a tutorial so that you, too, can be a thorn in the side of monopolistic internet service providers and get free wireless internet from a neighbor with 0 risk of being caught for it.  All of this for a one-time nominal fee, of course.  WPA2 takes anywhere from 1-8 hours to crack.  WEP can be cracked in under 10 minutes.  If you're lucky enough to find a router still using it, you should consider it an early Christmas present and learn how to crack it.

[empoweoqwj]

The implementation will be a challenge, but not the most pressing one, imo.  If implementation was successful, problems and ideas fed by greed will become harder to detect and prevent before they are able to cause harm to the society in the form of criminal and predatory acts.

Are individuals in an anarchistic society also supposed to function as law enforcement?  If so, the results would be disastrous.  Therefore, an entity has to be created with the mandate to protect the populace.  How can they be trusted to protect and serve when there's no one to challenge their authority?

Does the mere fact that there would exist a group dedicated to peace and order mean that the system no longer qualifies as an anarchy?


The same way you pay a monthly fee for the very internet you used to post that message you could pay to a privately owned company that would take the role of "police" in guarding you and ensuring your well being. There would be dozens of companies offering "police" services and their success would be dependent upon their performance and contribution to humanity, given the free market media would become a lot more transparent so if people were to notice the company that they are subscribed to being brutal they would move onto another company.

Well-stated, I hadn't even considered that.  The only correction I have is that I don't pay for internet. I cracked my neighbor's WPA2 key via a WPS vulnerability quite a while ago so he's the only one paying monthly fees for the internetz.    

When I'm downloading a 3.3gb file at 2.2mb/s wirelessly, sometimes I wonder if he thinks the 56k-like speeds he experiences as a result during that time are a form of Comcast "maintenance".  The guy is a total asshole and a complete dumbass so I don't feel the least bit bad about it.  Fuck him.  

I don't think qualifies you as an "anarchist" but a nice tale nonetheless.

[xkeyscore89]

The implementation will be a challenge, but not the most pressing one, imo.  If implementation was successful, problems and ideas fed by greed will become harder to detect and prevent before they are able to cause harm to the society in the form of criminal and predatory acts.

Are individuals in an anarchistic society also supposed to function as law enforcement?  If so, the results would be disastrous.  Therefore, an entity has to be created with the mandate to protect the populace.  How can they be trusted to protect and serve when there's no one to challenge their authority?

Does the mere fact that there would exist a group dedicated to peace and order mean that the system no longer qualifies as an anarchy?


The same way you pay a monthly fee for the very internet you used to post that message you could pay to a privately owned company that would take the role of "police" in guarding you and ensuring your well being. There would be dozens of companies offering "police" services and their success would be dependent upon their performance and contribution to humanity, given the free market media would become a lot more transparent so if people were to notice the company that they are subscribed to being brutal they would move onto another company.

Well-stated, I hadn't even considered that.  The only correction I have is that I don't pay for internet. I cracked my neighbor's WPA2 key via a WPS vulnerability quite a while ago so he's the only one paying monthly fees for the internetz.    

When I'm downloading a 3.3gb file at 2.2mb/s wirelessly, sometimes I wonder if he thinks the 56k-like speeds he experiences as a result during that time are a form of Comcast "maintenance".  The guy is a total asshole and a complete dumbass so I don't feel the least bit bad about it.  Fuck him.  

I don't think qualifies you as an "anarchist" but a nice tale nonetheless.

You're right, it doesn't. If you read the posts I made earlier in this thread you'd know I don't consider myself an anarchist at all.  I'm just a pirate.

[beetcoin]

there are a lot of anarchists here.. what's the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian anyways? they seem to go hand in hand.

[Mike Christ]

there are a lot of anarchists here.. what's the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian anyways? they seem to go hand in hand.

You have libertarianism, which is a collection of political ideologies where individual freedom is the ultimate goal, and then you have "The Libertarians", which often refers to the right-winged political party which is centered around having a minimal state whose purpose is, variably, limited to protecting property rights, sometimes extending to public works and roads, military, etc.; in other words, minarchism.

The major difference is the anarchist views the state as involuntary, and therefore not in favor of freedom; the minarchist views the state as necessary, and without it, your freedoms would be intruded on.  Libertarianism can refer to both; anyway, they're both against giving central government too much power, which separates them from the modern day American liberal (I've seen liberal used in the place of libertarian outside of the states), and of course Republicans and Democrats, who believe a growing state is a boon to society.

[dank]

Anarchy is equality.
Equality is freedom.
Equality is peace.

Global anarchy would quickly lead to world peace.  World peace would lead to the biggest advancement of mankind, ever.

It will happen, it's part of evolution, there's not a single thing anyone can do to stop the maturing of man's mind.

It is nature correcting itself.

[EvilPanda]

Ok here's where I stand.
Economic Left/Right: -4.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-4.12&soc=-5.59

[xkeyscore89]

I took the test and here are my results:

Economic Left/Right: -0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08

[Mike Christ]

I took the test and here are my results:

Economic Left/Right: -0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08

You're the closest I've ever seen someone go into the authoritarian side   I still want to find the guy who is the next Hitler.

[madmadmax]

You're the closest I've ever seen someone go into the authoritarian side   I still want to find the guy who is the next Hitler.

When someone posts it as image it gets screwed up, here is his real position: http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-0.75&soc=-3.08&fnr

[Lethn]

You're the closest I've ever seen someone go into the authoritarian side Tongue  I still want to find the guy who is the next Hitler.

Just look at any of the government loyalists either here or in the actual U.S government and you'll have your answer regarding that and gauge their reactions to things most of us consider to be quite normal human reactions to injustice in the world.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&Mitt+Romney=7.0%2C6.5&Barack+Obama=6.0%2C6.0&Virgil+Goode=9.0%2C9.0&Gary+Johnson=9.5%2C0.0&Rocky+Anderson=4.5%2C-2.0&Jill+Stein=-3.0%2C-3.0&Stewart+Alexander=-5.0%2C-2.0&You=2.62,-7.49

Here's mine, it's pretty damn accurate actually since I am pretty much a mixture of Anarchism/Libertarianism but I tend to veer towards Anarchism because I'm just not a very diplomatic person when it comes to morality and I don't see why people should compromise on that sort of thing if the other person is advocating violence.

Edit: There we go, that link seems to work but not a link to the picture, how weird.

[hilariousandco]

there are a lot of anarchists here.. what's the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian anyways? they seem to go hand in hand.

Oh Beetcoin, you have a lot to learn. I mentioned some of the differences in one of the other Socialist threads.

[bryant.coleman]

I am more of a Libertarian than an anarchist. But I have to admit that I do support anarchists on certain occasions.

[beetcoin]

I am more of a Libertarian than an anarchist. But I have to admit that I do support anarchists on certain occasions.

this is where i sit as well. i like to piss and moan about unnecessary government involvement in our daily lives; i just think that adopting an anarchistic society just opens up a whole new can of worms that does not solve many issues.. instead it would just shift the issues.

[madmadmax]

I am more of a Libertarian than an anarchist. But I have to admit that I do support anarchists on certain occasions.

this is where i sit as well. i like to piss and moan about unnecessary government involvement in our daily lives; i just think that adopting an anarchistic society just opens up a whole new can of worms that does not solve many issues.. instead it would just shift the issues.

What about minarchism then? Since when you pay taxes you actually pay the government in exchange for a service most would find it logical to let every person decide for himself what laws would he like to subscribe to, if you aren't subscribed to the law then you don't enjoy it's benefits.

So say you have a gov website with many categories and every category has a subcategory and so on, so for example if you don't support your country waging wars abroad (or defending your country abroad, depends on your POV) you can unsubscribe from that service and pay less taxes.

Then the natural harmony would be partially restored, fools will be taxed for their foolishness, the 51% wouldn't rob the 49% of their liberty and I would barely pay taxes. Plus it's a cheap implementation.

[madmadmax]

I don't see the point of all these stereotypes.
Why do people like politic so much ?

Have any politic discussion ever lead to anything ? I mean seriously.

Lead to the creation of BTC probably, you first need to create something in your head before you transfer it to the physical world.

[beetcoin]

I am more of a Libertarian than an anarchist. But I have to admit that I do support anarchists on certain occasions.

this is where i sit as well. i like to piss and moan about unnecessary government involvement in our daily lives; i just think that adopting an anarchistic society just opens up a whole new can of worms that does not solve many issues.. instead it would just shift the issues.

What about minarchism then? Since when you pay taxes you actually pay the government in exchange for a service most would find it logical to let every person decide for himself what laws would he like to subscribe to, if you aren't subscribed to the law then you don't enjoy it's benefits.

So say you have a gov website with many categories and every category has a subcategory and so on, so for example if you don't support your country waging wars abroad (or defending your country abroad, depends on your POV) you can unsubscribe from that service and pay less taxes.

Then the natural harmony would be partially restored, fools will be taxed for their foolishness, the 51% wouldn't rob the 49% of their liberty and I would barely pay taxes. Plus it's a cheap implementation.

yeah, well that's not going to happen. the state will ensure that it forces you to pay into the pot that wages wars. they do it through coercion.

[madmadmax]

yeah, well that's not going to happen. the state will ensure that it forces you to pay into the pot that wages wars. they do it through coercion.

Well that's a whole different issue, the state has no choice but to allow it once enough people work together. The question is whether it will be effective, what are the downsides etc. I can imagine some military men planning false flag terrorist attacks to increase their budget etc.

[bryant.coleman]

What about minarchism then? Since when you pay taxes you actually pay the government in exchange for a service most would find it logical to let every person decide for himself what laws would he like to subscribe to, if you aren't subscribed to the law then you don't enjoy it's benefits.

So say you have a gov website with many categories and every category has a subcategory and so on, so for example if you don't support your country waging wars abroad (or defending your country abroad, depends on your POV) you can unsubscribe from that service and pay less taxes.

Then the natural harmony would be partially restored, fools will be taxed for their foolishness, the 51% wouldn't rob the 49% of their liberty and I would barely pay taxes. Plus it's a cheap implementation.

That is an excellent idea. I have no problem in paying tax for our basic amenities such as drinking water, roads.etc. But for unnecessary expenses, such as buying new aircraft carriers, I don't want to contribute my hard earned money.