Topic: My doubts about anarchy (Read 18191 times)

That's why education is the key.  A society composed of individuals who mostly understand rights and human nature will tend to be much freer and secure than that "theoretical" society that would be willing to be molested for a promise of safety.

People can only be manipulated to the extent that they allow others to manipulate them.

I've to say that whether I don't like Anarchy nor it would be a fairy tales World, I do agree to the excess of regulation.
But also society tends to misunderstand and steer up laws and rules, easily sells itself to pure fascism out of the void fascist promise; «give me your freedom, I'll give you security»... yeah right! As Benjamin Franklin wrote «Those willing to trade their freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both».

This is absolutely the case.  In fact, I'd wager that a truly anarchic society would probably have a greater respect for law and rights by far than most (or any) current 'democratic' state.  If you think about it, our current society has much more disorder and chaos than any society for which any Anarchist is arguing.  We have laws against murder, theft, and kidnapping; but if you're amongst an arbitrary 'elite,' you can break one or more of those laws without punishment.  In fact we have so many laws that the average person commits three felonies a day, and anytime a state (in the generic sense) prosecutor wants to see you in jail, he can do so.

Too many rules is the same as no rules at all.

I'd also like to note that number and scope of rules/laws is one thing that has not been subjected to the free market yet.

Anarchy, translated from the Greek, means "without rulers".  There is nothing contradictory about having no rulers but still having rules.  If you and I agree that we should NOT steal from each other, that is an agreed upon rule, but there is no ruler.  We would probably both self enforce this rule because we both have an incentive to not be stolen from.

Bitcoin is basically an example of an anarchic system working.  Bitcoin has no rulers but MANY rules which are agreed upon by the people who run the software.  There are many examples of anarchy working throughout world.  In fact most of everything you do is probably anarchic in nature.  "Anarchists" that I know mostly just want to see anarchy expanded into the realm government usually monopolizes such as arbitration/courts and defense.  Especially in US courts these days, rules are mostly made up by the ruling class who set them.  The rules are then enforced primarily by the ruling class.  The rules many times are not be agreed upon by all parties but rules would necessarily be agreed upon in an anarchic system.

What's aggression and what's self defense just depends on which side of the barricade you're.

Posted in the wrong thread, try again over at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/defending-capitalism-5643

I know, just hoping to hear what the fashionable explanation is these days.

Cognitive dissonance.

Why are so many people pro-peaceful interaction and voluntaryism when someone wishes to get married or find friends to hang out with, yet so quick to whip out the implicit violence whenever money enters the picture?

That goes without saying, unless the two of you share an apartment, and you used his toothbrush.

Was it something I said?

You have a higher tolerance than I.

You are delusional. You and BCEmporium are lost causes so I won't be engaging in conversation with either of you again. Sorry but I have better things to do, like bashing my head against a wall.

Even a cursory review of that FAQ would reveal to you that a number of anarchists wrote it. They also cited many other anarchists' works and disclaimed against representing all anarchists except for where all anarchists agree: anarchism is a revolt against capitalism and government.

Another example is during the Hurricane Katrina crisis, some guy brought down a truckload of bottled water and was selling it for something like $25 a gallon. There was a line of people buying it and someone in line called the cops. When the cops showed up and forced him to stop selling water, all the people in the line started clapping. That was a real "WTF" moment for humanity. It shows that most people are just plain stupid. If you want the water and are willing to stand in line and pay high prices for it why are you happy to see the supply being cut off?! Didn't you really want that water? If not, why were you paying so much for it? It boggles the mind.

What most people don't understand is that price gouging serves two purposes, one is rationing and the other is increasing the supply. If there is a disaster and you go to the grocery store and the prices are the typical prices for milk, orange juice, flashlight batteries, etc, the first guy in line is going to load up his cart and buy the place out because he knows he might need it. If the price for a gallon of milk is $25 though, he's probably going to buy just one or two and leave some for the rest of the people in line. Also, since the prices go up, all the suppliers start bringing in more supplies to make a profit which helps to satisfy the increased demand. It's like a cry for help that says, "Hey we need milk over here so bad that we are paying $25 a gallon! Send more milk!" If you artificially force the prices to remain low it's limiting how loud you can cry for help.

I didn't say anything about pacifists. I think that's suicide. However, there is a difference between aggression and self-defense.

Two different concepts; you're talking of Anarchy on the citizen level, whereas the existent one is on global level. Countries co-exist in Anarchy to each others (to some degree... there's submission either), but citizens doesn't.
This is a matter of practice, actually, Anarchy can exist in very small groups - there're just 200 something countries -, but can't on societies with millions of individuals.


Wrong! They're both violent and coercive, they just want to impose different views. That baloney of "pacific people that's pushed to war" makes no sense at all!


Nope, but that being Anarchy you are just you, not able to speak for anyone else of the same "party".

Yes, there will always be peaceful people that are attacked by others that are violent and coercive. That applies to any system. You are right about anarchy already existing at a global level otherwise there would be one world government. I'm not sure what your point is since all that does is show that anarchy can and does exist.


So, you want to pretend that I'm the only peaceful anarchist?

Fallacy! Voluntarism implies "do if you want". If you don't... well... too bad.


At the very same time allows none... What you say is that within the erratic anarchist society some groups will organize according to Capitalism, others according to Socialism, other according to something else... And yes, there will be groups, humans ARE NOT lone wolves, we're a sort of monkey and act according to our nature! At some point thus the interests of those groups will collide and they will enter at war. Hey! Go figure! Your vision of anarchy is what the world is already if you wide a bit your sight to the global spectrum.


Again, that's YOU... but YOU in Anarchy are just one member, not a fair representative of anything, due to the kind of (lack of) rule, but yourown.


Deny reality doesn't change it. Sorry...


For what concerns me and as long as you don't cross my space be at will to do whatever you want. However, in this World of Anarchy, I can't say my vision resembles everyone's vision.

If anarchy was some kind of fundamentalist individualist philosophy then we'd be opposed to voluntary socialism and even team sports, clubs, etc. I've got no problem with voluntary things like that. In fact, I don't even demand that you embrace capitalism. Anarchy is the only ideology that can accommodate capitalism, socialism, communism, syndicalism, etc, all at once. If you want to go live in a hippie commune, have at it. I'm against aggression, not collectivism. You're welcome to think of yourself as some kind of worker bee or ant. I won't be joining you though. Either you accept my wishes peacefully or you're going to use coercion to bend me to your will. That's all it comes down to, peace or war. It's your choice.