Topic: If Anarchy can work, how come there are no historical records of it working? - page 12. (Read 17176 times)

Printing and framing this quote.
I wish I could have gotten Myrkul to say something acknowledging that the burning rats nest I call capitalism is a complex misnomer.
Folks with a good grip on how to identify sociopolitical -isms are about one in a billion.

Well, it's a made-up term, coined by an enemy of the system it represents. One who didn't fully understand that system. It's bound to be wrapped up in all kinds of confusion.

Here's an exercise for you:

Myrkul isn't a capitalist in any real sense.  Most people don't even know what it means.  I'd wager that you don't really do either.

...said the capitalist.

That was not Anarchy. That was Patriarchy. Matrilineal Communities 'are the only historical records of it working'.

So, only an agrarian, matrilinear society is truly free?

You have a very limited world-view.

OK, it was a bad metaphor (and unfair on mums/moms everywhere). Point is: doting over what was basically a collection of human tragedies and labelling them a successful city is evidence of an overflow of emotions clouding rational judgement. (But of course, according to some people round here I'm a psychopath without empathy, so it's clearly a case of "pot calling the kettle black").
If the state was ultimately in charge then how could it have been anarchy?
Fair point that it's not so 'basic' -- the infrastructure has been evolving for 1000s of years.
However, I'm not sure what's worse:
-a 'state' where at least you have voting rights, some transparency in the hierarchy (if it's not true then you've gotta fight for it!) in charge of water, so you know who to blame when you're dying of thirst.
-private industry, a monopoly, Mafia -- anyone but the state -- in charge of water (because the 'state' doesn't exist) and even less recourse if you're dying of thirst.
It seems obvious to me that for such a precious resource as water, someone is going to want to control it. In a power vacuum such as Anarchy, even if many different groups try to control water supply (too many cooks..??), some will be more successful at it than others. If a market-based system is adopted (e.g.: An-Cap because of pro-Capitalist ideology), people who can't pay will be deprived of water. And the problem with 'charity' is that it's basically "inefficient socialism" in disguise. Guilt-tripping is hard to market.

Anarchy is the non-patriarchal, non-monogamous, autark, selfsufficient, matrilineal community, which is not taxed and dominated by masters, rulers, strangers.

I'd be interested in what you would actually consider anarchy, then... Because the Icelandic commonwealth is one of the best historical examples, as is the Somali Xeer law system.

That was not Anarchy.

http://mises.org/daily/1121

There are.  Here is one that lasted for longer than the United States has been an independent country, before they had their first civil war.

It's not voluntary if you're forcing people to not harm each other with your tyrannical non-aggression principle!  What about the murderers, thieves, bullies, and rapists, huh?  What makes you better than them, huh?

Also, Tyrant!!

I like how you call me a tyrant for only wanting to pay for the services I want and use.

Try all you want, you can't make voluntaryism into a bad thing.

Taxation is: making tyrants such as yourself pay your dues, even though everyone knows you'll be kicking and screaming against being "brutally forced" against your will.

You sound like a mother doting over her mutant child. From the photos it was clearly a disgusting slum yet you're totally like "it was WORKING!"

WTF dude? Snap out of it. No running water or other basic amenities by the sounds of it. Combine that with all the other horrible shit that can be guessed at a glance:
-overcrowded buildings + not enough sunlight = endemic mould and lung problems
-heat escapes at night due to non-existent building standards = many deaths from hypothermia, fire outbreaks and/or CO poisoning...
-no space to bury the dead.

Taxation is: making tyrants such as yourself pay your dues, even though everyone knows you'll be kicking and screaming against being "brutally forced" against your will.

But what about the punk movement....... Oh...... erm never mind

Andy B

One generation's revolutionary is the next generation's bureaucrat.  That was a great part of the problem; Mao lived in an information bubble of his own making.  He didn't trust the "intellectuals" but those whom he did trust were no more worthy of such faith, and tended to be less informed upon the subjects for which they were expected to advise than the intellectuals who proceeded them.  Like anyone else, they were just trying to maintain the little fiefdoms that they had built up during the revolutionary period, even if that required deceiving the monarch in order to maintain political favor.

Well, even then those idesa din't just spring up suddenly, they were largely deveopled over generations alongside common law, which itself developed due to a general lack of  interest or interference from the monarch or the noble class.

It's not the bureaucrats' feat, but that of the revolutionaries. Bureaucrats wanted to maintain the status quo, revolutionaries wanted to change(read: impose their ideals of Utopia upon common folks) something, thus the tragedy.

Really?

I mean, I know bureaucrats are out of touch with reality, but this strains credulity.

  To some degree, it matters how entertaining you are.

What?  At least I'm an honest mod.