Topic: How to actually start an anarchy? (Read 4120 times)

So, the members of the revolution specifically need to have a pact, where anyone who attempts to fill the power vacuum is immediately deported, with all necessary force, a plane, and a shove out with a parachute over the nearest tyranny, who will gladly accept another tyrant and not fire on your transponder. A variant of mutually assured destruction.

You don't start an anarchy.  They naturally arise after revolution.  However, the huge productivity of relatively free people quickly creates a "power vacuum" that draws in those who make a living controlling others.

People I cared about lived there. 

Is nothing to do with ducks.

Starvation and water shortage is the key. Remove essential things that could keep us alive and there you go. In countries that are highly developed that is the best option. Civil disobedience, riots, millions on the street, fall of government and so on.
Or some scenario from a Zombie movie, like Walking Dead.

Ah, that old "Somalia is hell on earth" (paraphrased) canard. It isn't.

Excuse me for saying so but...

Want to start an Anarchy.  Reasonable thing to say if you crazier than dancing goat, don't want to outlive your hamster.

Plenty Anarchy to go 'round.  Just move to Somalia.  Or some other godforsaken hellhole where nobody has both will and ability to rule.

No rulers.  Means idiots with guns can just kick you out of house, shoot dog, rape wife, take food, kill only bull for meat, then burn your house down and laugh.  You can stop them for the price of bullet to your neck.  But no police, no rulers, no court to find them guilty.  Means no crime has been committed.

No rulers.  Means idiot with pair of pliers will go to cut down power lines for trade scrap copper for booze.  And another idiot with pair of rubber gloves will step over burnt twitching corpse and take pliers up pole again.  Nobody can get power.  If power available, nobody can pay for.  Go where might pay bill, some idiot with gun will just stop you take your money because you have it and he wants it.  Try send anyone bill for power, not work.  Mail not go through.  Can hire boy to run courier, but boy look like he have something to do, someone who pays him, will get robbed and shot.  Not long before money means nothing at all, no point even generating power. 

No police, but one in five work as security guard, for food only.  No other pay.  Until money, connections, whatever, to get food for security guards run out.  After that, gets really nasty.   Then you got bigger crooks, build organizations, lead many men with guns.  Most just by lying to them, some by feeding, some by letting rape all women in towns - have to destroy towns afterward, kill all the men, just the price of doing business. Otherwise someone will try for vengeance.

Want to start an anarchy.

You Americans got no fucking idea what anarchy is.

I have beef with there existing rulers at all; the property taxes are just a (unrelated to this instance specifically) piece of that.  This does not negate what I said earlier:


Are you saying this doesn't occur?  Because I guarantee you it does; the last time any entity said "no" to a larger nation, that nation invaded and forced their hand; of course, I'm referring to Iraq.

hey mike if your beef is property taxes that can be worked out.
There was a vote in North Dakota on what to do with their oil profits.
They put ending property taxes up to vote. They voted no and decided to use the revenue for benefits, go figure.
Either way there are places such as parts of Tennessee where property taxes are so low that they're almost negligible.
And if you raise cattle in your land you would also not have to pay property taxes in any state, although I'm not sure.
You're just nit picking.

No matter where you are in the world, you are subject to the larger nation's laws.  If the larger nation says, "get off this island, we're claiming it", you can never have enough guns to defend yourself against them.

Yes, the definitions take two sides; one implies political disorder and chaos, the other doesn't.  This is because people use the term anarchy in both ways; the first is to indicate a lack of politics, the second refers to the ideology.  The people who make definitions aren't infinitely wise, so it's up to everyone else to figure out what the word means, and there's some discrepancy as to what would occur in an anarchy, so the definitions must reflect that.

Anyways, what I mean by North Korea is, they don't have rules, because the ruler of North Korea can kill you for fun.  That is what I call complete disorder; when your ruler is so powerful, you can die for being accused of a crime you didn't do, that's a point in which there are no rules, since it's all up to the guy in charge whether he'll simply revoke that rule he created to do as he pleases, or not; after all, he's in charge of creating the rules.  Though you are correct to say that there is a maximum amount of law here, just as well, because very few individuals have maximum power, the citizens have no idea if their ruler will have a mood swing that day; that's truly a point where there are no rules, which cannot possibly occur even without government, as there would never be an allocation of power so great without it.  But I agree, I hope never to join them.

There is no real way to start an anarchy, just as you cannot start a religion named atheism.  It is the lack of rulers which indicate anarchy, just as it is the lack of God which indicates Atheism; it wasn't something that was created, it's something that exists only in the absence of something else.

Edit:  Check out this book for an excellent intro and argument for anarchy.

I'm more than a little bit confused by your argument here.  North Korea, lack of rules?  No, North Korea is a totalitarian society, that means they have WAY, WAY too many rules.  I know I'm in the minority on these boards since I'm not a libertarian, but even I would prefer anarchy to that kind of society.  I don't live there though, thankfully.

In any case, I looked up anarchy and the definitions I found seem to back up my arguments.  But I do acknowledge that I was taking the argument to a bit of a logical extreme, I just think the cases I outlined there are the dangers of living in a place where anarchy is the system. 

Here's one of the definitions of anarchy, according to dictionary.reference.com: "A general lawlessness and disorder, esp when thought to result from an absence or failure of government."  Here's another: "confusion and disorder"  Of course, there's also this one, which backs up your logic: "a state of society without government or law."

I don't know why you're stuck on the idea of governments owning all the land in the world.  There are islands that are owned by private individuals that aren't part of any nation state.  Such a concept does exist.  It's just that they aren't that common, so most of them are probably already owned by some rich individual who you'd have to persuade to sell it to you if you wanted to start said anarchy.

Exactly; halfawake, the largest flaw in your argument is that anarchism necessitates a lack of rules, but it's actually government which leads to a lack of rules (see: North Korea.)  Anarchism means no rulers, which means everyone has rules; because the rulers aren't subject to rules, as they invent the rules, the whole point of anarchy is to stop those people from being above the law.

The other flaw is the private island thing; the island is still owned by government, you only rent the island.

Anarchy ≠ no rules
Anarchy = no ruling power / no hierarchy / no law (in the sense of "state-imposed" law).

Starting an anarchy is easy, but unless you only have like 2 - 20 well behaved people and a way to get more people from ever joining, it's probably not a good idea.

Here's how to start an anarchy:

1) Save up enough money to buy a private island.
2) Buy said island.
3) Renounce your citizenship of where ever it is you live and go live on that island.

Sounds good, so far, right?  It gets harder.

4) If anyone decides they want to live on your private island, you have to let them live there.  It's an anarchy, that means no rules.
5) If someone steals from you, it's theirs now.  You can't put them in jail because there's no such thing as prisons in an anarchy.  Of course, you can always try and steal it back again.
6) If anyone gets decides to kill someone else, if they have the means, they get to do so without any consequences.  See second point above.  Anarchy means no rules, which means, eventually, might makes right takes over.

Still want to start an anarchy?  Even the societies in the United States before there was a United States had rules and "government", it's just that their government looked nothing like ours does.  They had clear well defined rules, and if I remember my history well enough, if people broke enough of the rules, they get banished from the Native American tribe they were in.  Given how necessary cooperation was to survival back then, banishment usually meant death, unless they could get another tribe to accept them.  I tend to think they had a better system than they do now, but my point is that it wasn't anarchy, they still had rules and government, they just looked nothing like modern day government.  

According to some people, Anarchy is all around us.

According to some other people, Anarchy is limited to small group of people with power/wealth.

According to me, the state is a gang enforcing it's will on us and allowing a privileged group to participate in the market while the rest of us are handicapped

All I ask is that you take the time to understand what you're arguing against before you begin arguing against it.

Good suggestions, but with one huge problem: with federal taxation taking a meaningful chunk of people's wages, that leaves very little left over for charity for most people. My wife and I donate a little - we'd donate a lot more if we didn't have to pay taxes. We take pride in the causes we support, and it'd be great to do that at a larger scale. But taxation crowds out private charity in our lives, and in society in general. People don't help their neighbor for a couple primary reasons: 1 - they don't have much extra money because it's been taxed away, 2 - they assume someone-else/gov will do it.

Chicken and the egg problem. Don't know how to solve it. It cannot be demonstrated (or even real attempts made to demonstrate) that private charity could ultimately take care of the less-able better than government without taxation dropping to near zero, and that can't happen until such private charity success is demonstrated (among many other reasons, obv).

Ah come on cheer up mike christ.
maybe I was a little harsh.
Nobody knows what will happen in the future, its all just speculation.
One thing I do know is that people are more open to ideas than they used to.
Having money that's out the reach of the government is a start though.
Also you know what they say, think globally act locally.
Maybe you can start a graphic design cooperative or something.
You wouldn't want a "top down solution" would you?

I think the best way to move toward anarchy, or put another way, more freedom, is to stop utilizing the current government and establishing parallel private services which fulfill the functions currently monopolized by the government.

Some examples of ways to get around government functions:

Welfare/charity: Everybody should help contribute to charities, and stop accepting financial assistance from the government. I earn about the median US income, but I am still eligible for some government financial assistance. This is just crazy. The government is making it so more and more people become dependent on them, the people who are dependent on the government will be less likely to let the government go away.

Contracts and wills: Why do I need to have the government get involved with my contract or will, when I can instead us gpg signed documents to do the same thing. Distribute the appropriate public keys to family and friends, make sure they know how to use them to verify the documents, and publish your gpg signed will to a couple different places.

Money: Obviously, we should utilize bitcoins as our base currency instead of the government inflated fiat currencies. Perhaps systems like Ripple can also be used among trusted parties. I like the idea of gold and silver as physical money, but I personally have never used any since they have high costs and demanding storage requirements.

Schools: For those who are up to the task, homeschooling can be a way to get around the government propaganda machine public school system.

like he who has never eaten greasy fast food cast the first bun.

I disagree; there's no single overhead ensuring all fast food chains are doing business well.  They all work just fine as their own separate entities.

And even then, non-chain restaurants do perfectly fine without any overhead at all.  Though they are all a part of the same food network, they don't necessarily have to be herded under one ruler.


What good would that do?