Topic: If Anarchy can work, how come there are no historical records of it working? - page 11. (Read 17188 times)

If I haven't already...

If I were to direct you to a non-fiction book that laid out, in great detail, an ongoing, unruly, untaxable & mostly free market society; would you bother to read it?

I'd point out that Dr. Paul agrees with my understanding of freedom. Mayor Giuliani seems to be more in your camp.

On the meaning of freedom:

Words matter. If we can't agree on the definition of words, communication becomes impossible.

Judging by a private message I just got from zarathrusta, he has a different perspective on democracy, since he's in one of the few places where it actually kind of works.

That being said, I don't really care for the WORD capitalism, as it has been defined to include the state for so damn long. I've been an anarchist and a free market advocate for many years, so that is the term I'll use: Free Market.

Socialism is the PUBLIC ownership of the means of production, and is necessarily statist.
Fascism is a form of socialism in which the means of production is mixed, i.e. certain privileged individuals hold title to the means of production, but what they can produce, how they do it, and to whom they may sell or distribute it is controlled by the state. It is also known as a "mixed economy" or, especially by marxists, Capitalism.

Adam Smith's definition of markets works better.

When LET TO BE (Laissez Faire) markets tend to be smoother, and work out their own knots. The anti capitalists like to point out free market failures, but in truth they almost always happen in the most regulated of markets if they happen big. Yes, a new business is likely to fail, but the MARKET does not. The individuals involved screw up somehow, and it gets corrected. The so called invisible hand.

Unfortunately, I am in the middle of moving across the freakin' country, so I don't have time to pursue this. I will say that I fall largely on the same side as Myrkul, from what I've seen so far. I will also state, for the record since I am new to this forum, that I was at one time a communist. I rejected it because as elegant as it seems on paper, it's adherents CANNOT explain how to get goods from a to c with any sort of regularity, other than just saying you don't "need" them. Free markets (including black markets) actually work regardless of belief. Realistic theories of polity have to accept that there is no such thing as an ideal world, and that what works BEST is better by orders of magnitude than what is simply pretty. The Communist Manifesto is pretty. Markets are not. Markets have WORKED since time immemorial. Communism has either accepted certain market elements or failed utterly.

There are certain elements of socialism that I think could be implemented within an anarchic society, but they would require SMALL VOLUNTARY communities, and those communities could not enforce their will on OTHER communities and individuals who chose to act and think differently. Even within that, all sides would have to respect the property of the others. This does not require a state, but it does require arms.

In a couple of weeks I'll be back online. I look forward to this discussion.

Myrkul and Zarathrusta, you both have valid points. Cool your jets and you'll get farther into each other's heads. This is good advice from a life long hothead.

I hereby decree a meta conversation.
For the record,
I agree wholeheartedly with Zarathustra's definitions.
I agree with Myrkul's partial rejection of the state, and maintain that capitalism and statism are symbiotic.
I agree with blablahblah's partial rejection of capitalism, but disagree about the implications of anarchism.
People don't always have the same meanings for words. Arguing about definitions is semantic bullshit.
EDIT:
That was a bad post and you should feel bad.

Glock elbow watermelon Chinese macaroni chicken?

You're mistaken. Coercion is the use of force, or the threat of force, to obtain compliance or material gain. The absence of that is freedom.

Yes, my language is not the perverted patriarchal language of the authority. It is an anarchal language. Have also a nice day!

Well, if you want to continue to define words however you feel like, I see no point in continuing a conversation with you. Have a nice day.

"Societies are communities". Here you can see, what kind of bullshit we 'learn' in the dictionaries of the authority. I agree with @blablahblah.

Oh my, it seems I have touched a nerve. If you want to educate me, it would be wise to not start with insults. Few people are receptive of wisdom from those who spout hatred at them first. I know exactly what freedom is: Absence of coercion. Government is organized coercion. Every government. Not just the one that calls itself mine. Just because you refuse to see the elephant in the room doesn't mean it's not there. And I did not vote in the last election, not because it's "all a complete sham," but because I have no desire to initiate coercion, even by proxy.

And if we're going to have a discussion, it's helpful to agree on what the words we're going to use mean, don't you think? I find the dictionary very helpful when I am unsure of what a word means.

Tsk... Again with the definitional issues. It's almost as though you are using an entirely different language that, confusingly, uses many of the same words as English, but with completely different meanings.

As I explained already: an anarchical community is not a society. A society is a collectivistic, state (mafia) based organisation (patriarchy). Most of history, the nonpatriarchal, matrilineal communities were not agrarian, but hunters and gatherers. The stockbreeding and animal husbandry was followed by human breeding and human husbandry: unnatural, perverted, monogamous pairing families and harem families, constructed for the purpose of submission and taxation by organised violence.

You seem to have some definitional issues. Let me fix that:

Anarcho-capitalism is indeed an oxymoron. There is (and has never been) no such thing as an anarchic, unruled, untaxed economy/market/capitalism. Capitalism is collectivism and always a state bastard. Anarchy is the self-sufficiency of a blood-community and therefore the absence of economic interaction with outsiders.

It's not my fault you don't understand what objections I have to the State. If you don't want to open your mind, it's your loss, not mine.

Let me rephrase:
I suppose it's only in my mind that if I grow a certain plant, people with DEA on the back of their jackets and pistols on their hips will come and throw me in a cage?

Indeed there is. And that's because that group's definition of "capitalism" requires a State. It's like saying "anti-State statism."

Capitalism, as properly defined, even using the terms Marx used, is simply private ownership of the means of production. A carpenter who owns his own tools is practicing capitalism, as is the owner of a chair factory. That doesn't need a State, merely the respect of the people for the right of the individual to own property.

But I'm not the only one. We do call that mess capitalism and with reason. Is your definition unlike a burning rats nest?
Also, there is a distinct 'we' that sees that anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.
Then again, this isn't a capitalism thread.