Pages:
Author

Topic: How to actually start an anarchy? - page 3. (Read 4120 times)

sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass
August 26, 2013, 08:59:43 AM
#9
"Anarchy" means "without rulers".

I agree.

For my personal use while talking to people I use the following analogy:

An atheist = a person who does not believe in an existence of the magical object called ''god''. Noone ever proved the existence of the so called god (a piece of paper called bible proves nothing). what are clergy then? - a gang of pedos, idiots, etc. that just use the uneducated masses.

An anarchist = a person who does not believe in an existence of the magical object called ''state''. Noone ever proved the existence of the so called state (a piece of paper called constitution proves nothing). What are governments then? - a gang of thieves, liars, etc that use the uneducated masses.
member
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
August 25, 2013, 10:12:44 PM
#8
not gonna happen
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1047
Your country may be your worst enemy
August 25, 2013, 05:17:44 PM
#7
Anarchy starts with anarchists. Stop paying taxes, burn your social security card, dump your TV, and take your money out of the banks. If most people were to do that, we would get something close to anarchy.
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
August 25, 2013, 12:33:24 PM
#6
There are no shortcuts, but I wish you the best of luck with your endeavour.
full member
Activity: 180
Merit: 100
After Economics: Learning is just the first step.
August 25, 2013, 12:16:34 PM
#5
"Anarchy" means "without rulers".

So you can create anarchy by simply refraining from any attempt to rule over other people. Interact with other people via negotiations and mutually beneficial exchanges and you've created anarchy in your personal sphere.

That's all there is to it; it's not hard at all. The problem for most people is they really have problems with consistency. There's some group of people out there they just can't accept not ruling over with threats and/or violence.

Point 1: That is one way to do anarchy, not the only way. The way you describe amounts to ignoring national/state law and everyone simply choosing to live a certain way. A cultural revolution type of thing. That fits in with #5 subversive anarchy in the article I mention above.

Point 2: Cultural anarchy is not a very resilient form of anarchy for reasons you mention. Certain people just don't want to engage in it. This usually breaks down the larger system very quickly. I'm interested in resilient, functional anarchy.

Point 3: There are ways to create an anarchy despite bad actors, but unfortunately they are not as simple as "simply refraining from any attempt to rule..." They involve networks of distributed legal and enforcement systems to check bad actors. A bit like traditional government, but decentralized. Like bitcoin is to money. In fact, the bitcoin protocol can be used to create competitive social contracts.

Point 4: "Anarchy" may semantically mean "without rulers," but what is a ruler? Under the DIYL mindset, my mindset, it doesn't matter what a ruler is in theory or by semantics, but in practice. Depending on what you are referring to as a ruler it might be desirable. Managers, judges, even people wielding physical force to enforce a contract can all be economically, socially and otherwise beneficial. They key behind the power of libertarianism and anarchism is, imho, decentralization of power, not absence of power. Opposition to monopolies on power, law, force...Not opposition to power, law, force...
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
August 25, 2013, 11:21:22 AM
#4
"Anarchy" means "without rulers".

So you can create anarchy by simply refraining from any attempt to rule over other people. Interact with other people via negotiations and mutually beneficial exchanges and you've created anarchy in your personal sphere.

That's all there is to it; it's not hard at all. The problem for most people is they really have problems with consistency. There's some group of people out there they just can't accept not ruling over with threats and/or violence.
full member
Activity: 180
Merit: 100
After Economics: Learning is just the first step.
August 25, 2013, 09:15:41 AM
#3
While it's true that a good definition of anarchy would be "no centralized government" that hardly means "no government."
Instead it means something like competitive, voluntary, distributed and/or decentralized governance.

Another definition of government of anarchy is a lack of monopoly on the use of force. Does that mean no one has any weapons? No. It means weapons are widespread, competitive, distributed, etc.
full member
Activity: 121
Merit: 100
August 25, 2013, 02:39:38 AM
#2
Interesting title, how do 'start' nothing? Ok its not exactly nothing but most definitions of anarchy deal primarily with the absence of X,Y and or Z. Starting the absence of things seems a bit contradictory.
full member
Activity: 180
Merit: 100
After Economics: Learning is just the first step.
August 24, 2013, 10:25:10 PM
#1
I got 5 ways...what did I miss?
http://caeconomics.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/5-routes-to-anarchy/

from the article:
1 seasteading
2 seasteading with docking
3 cryptoanarchy
4 space anarchy
5 subversive anarchy

and here's one not in the article, maybe the best choice yet: competitive and/or voluntary social contracting
Pages:
Jump to: