When has there ever been a libertarian anarchist country?, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

reply posted on 18-7-2011 @ 03:57 AM by ANOK

Originally posted by Maslo
Lelt-wing socialist anarchy is a contradicition is terms. Without the state, private property is default and natural, there cant be collectivism on a larger scale with no external forcing, its human nature (which cannot be changed). Again if it works, its only temporary, and using wealth taken from previous private property establishment. Wealth is born in private hands.

How do you come to the conclusion that without a state private property is default? There is no logic in that claim. Before capitalism most people were not 'private owners'. American Natives had no state and no private ownership of the means of production.

Wealth does not have to be 'born in private hands', again there is no logic for that claim. How can you say that when you have never experienced anything different? It's nothing but opinion based on other peoples agendas to coerce you to support something that is not in your best interest.

Instead of fantasies about anarchic utopias, we will do better to focus on gradual improvement of the most successfull and longterm working system to date - social capitalism - which has the best of both worlds

No system is a utopia, but to not strive for utopia is to not even bother, you may as well just let the capitalists run all over us, oh wait you already do...

'Social capitalism'? Capitalism is the 'private ownership of the means of production', adding social to it doesn't change what it is. Capitalism is an economic system not a political one, socialism is an economic system, Anarchism is a political system.

Capitalism has worked very well for a minority of people. Not so well for a large part of the world, especially the third world that was, and still is, raped by capitalists for personal gains that no one benefited from but themselves.

Look at China, do you think they're getting wealthy from all this manufacturing we're sending them? No, and neither are we, the ones expected to buy those products. The only people benefiting from this arrangement are the capitalists, while US workers go unemployed, and Chinese workers make a dollar a day. All this profit going into fewer and fewer hands, when there is an alternative that would make all of us more wealthy.

Capitalism is not natural, not even close mate. It is a system that exploits the majority in order to benefit a minority elite class. We are naturally cooperative, but we are taught to be competitive.

I think you're just scared of change, maybe you earn your money from exploiting others, but for the sake of humanity we need a change, because we are not going to get anywhere if we continue to allow a minority class of 'owners' to dictate and manipulate world events to their benefit. We will just continue to cycle through wars and economic upheavals and never really advance as a species other than making garbage that sells well.

reply posted on 18-7-2011 @ 04:17 AM by Mizzijr

I don't understand why people feel anarchy is the BEST choice. Especially in a country like America where race is still a foregoing issue. How do you expect the people to work together? We'd just a become a nation divided into whites, blacks, mexicans, asians, and whatever else. We're already like that to be honest.

Although I'm sure there has been libertarian countries in the past, how long did they last? We can't become anarchist forever. When people have something they love, then they want to protect it, therefore laws and security is put into place. It's plenty of room and lack of law and security for things to go wrong in an anarchists environment.

I believe voluntarism is the best choice for a country.

reply posted on 18-7-2011 @ 04:31 AM by Maslo

reply to post by ANOK

Before capitalism most people were not 'private owners'.

You mean in the middle ages? Of course they were. Everyone was either a serf (was a property), or had property.

American Natives had no state and no private ownership of the means of production.

Tribal society. Unapplicable to levels beyond Dunbars number. See this post.

Wealth does not have to be 'born in private hands', again there is no logic for that claim.

Then show me where and when a large collection of equal workers started a sucessfull companies from scratch (created wealth). Noone prohibits them to do so in capitalism. Its always the idea and enterpreneurship of one, or a few persons at best, which is beyond the success of most companies.

'Social capitalism'? Capitalism is the 'private ownership of the means of production', adding social to it doesn't change what it is.

Whats wrong with capitalism, or private ownership of everything (even the means of production, which is an arbitrary and loosely derived distinction - wealth (capital) is capital), when the only reason why its bad (sometimes it results in some people not having access to basic necessities) is taken out by welfare and free healthcare/education? Nothing IMHO.

Capitalism has worked very well for a minority of people.

Capitalism has worked very well for majority of people. It has worked bad for minority of people. Welfare from the profits of the majority will take care of them.

Not so well for a large part of the world, especially the third world that was, and still is, raped by capitalists for personal gains that no one benefited from but themselves.

If those capitalists were not there, the wealth and raw materials that benefited whole humanity would still lie in the ground unnoticed and people there would still live like 1000 years ago, + we will be poorer (yes, we all in the west benefited from capitalist "exploitation of the third world, and in the end, even they benefited, since they did not have know how and industrial base to exploit the richness of their countries either way).
The whole notion of blaming the comparative failure of third world on us, when we give them immense amounts of foreign help and modern technology is absurd. Contrary to general misconceptions, the standard of living of average african (in absolute terms) has increased immensely in the past 50 years, all because of our help. All while population explosion (again - made possible by our medicine and food) multiplied their numbers many times. I will let the statistics speak for themselves:
hungerreport.org...

Look at China, do you think they're getting wealthy from all this manufacturing we're sending them?

Considering that they went from almost nothing 30 years ago to the emerging superpower they are now, which may even surpass the USA, I think they benefited immensely. And again, the standard of living of average Chinese is considerably increasing in the last 10 years, and will continue to do so. There is an emerging middle class forming. This would not be possible without our manufacturing export and foreign trade.

The only people benefiting from this arrangement are the capitalists, while US workers go unemployed, and Chinese workers make a dollar a day. All this profit going into fewer and fewer hands, when there is an alternative that would make all of us more wealthy.

Tax the rich exactly as the middle class, no more tax breaks and loopholes. Problem solved. No need for crazy unreal experiments like anarchic socialism and abolishment of worldwide private property to solve the problems. Simple adjustment of tax system would be enough.

Capitalism is not natural, not even close mate. It is a system that exploits the majority in order to benefit a minority elite class. We are naturally cooperative, but we are taught to be competitive.

Cosidering that all societies in history except maybe some of the tribal ones (inapplicable to number beyond cca 300) had private ownership of the means of production and some form of currency, claiming that "capitalism is not natural" is simply ridiculous.

edit on 18/7/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 18-7-2011 @ 03:28 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by Mizzijr
I don't understand why people feel anarchy is the BEST choice. Especially in a country like America where race is still a foregoing issue. How do you expect the people to work together? We'd just a become a nation divided into whites, blacks, mexicans, asians, and whatever else. We're already like that to be honest.

Although I'm sure there has been libertarian countries in the past, how long did they last? We can't become anarchist forever. When people have something they love, then they want to protect it, therefore laws and security is put into place. It's plenty of room and lack of law and security for things to go wrong in an anarchists environment.

I believe voluntarism is the best choice for a country.

Well Anarchism does not mean lawlessness and disorganization. The present criminal system is not there to protect the people, only to protect privilege. Poverty is the largest cause of crime, next to alienation, lack of hope etc. Some anti-social behavior will not stop, regardless of the criminal system. The present system does not stop crime, only punishes after the fact. We need to address the causes of crime, not create more ways of punishing people.

The capital of the capitalist system, mostly stolen during the 18th and 19th centuries, was built on piracy, thousands of tons of gold, silver etc., plundered and used to finance the banking system.

Every worker is robbed everyday when they are paid less than they could earn if it wasn't for capitalist owners.
In an Anarchist society crime would be reduced. Some crime will still need punishing. A small police force is even possible under Anarchism, but they would be answerable to the community, and not have the power they do now.

But Anarchists generally don't like to create a blueprint of how things should be, because it will up to each community to decide for themselves what is best for themselves. It's all about the breakdown of centralized power, and the power put in the hands of the community to decide what is best for them. It is true freedom. Most people are scared of true freedom because of the responsibility that comes with it.

Anarchism IS volunteerism, it is anti-coercion. Every contract entered into will be completely voluntary.

reply posted on 18-7-2011 @ 05:12 PM by LordBaskettIV

One's own life is not under some guarantee, I'm not sure how anyone's mind can then make the leap that "healthcare" is somehow a personal right. Nor is food. You only have an equal right to look for it, or grow it, or harvest it.

Relying on others for the sustainment of your own health is like going to a 5 year old for medical advice. Wishing and hoping that people care about you enough to not let you die is pretty dumb. Also don't forget, somebody has to have bad luck for others to do well.

reply posted on 18-7-2011 @ 05:37 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
One's own life is not under some guarantee, I'm not sure how anyone's mind can then make the leap that "healthcare" is somehow a personal right. Nor is food. You only have an equal right to look for it, or grow it, or harvest it...

And if we all had access to the tools needed to grow and harvest, then we wouldn't have to 'work' for a 'private owner' so they can make money from our labour. We could directly benefit from our labour, instead of firstly making a minority group of people extremely wealthy, just because they are the lucky owners of property needed for production.

We could produce for our needs instead of under-producing in order to maintain profits for the private owners. Money is really meaningless when we have enough resources, there is no poor when people are fed and clothed and housed and are healthy. Money is an illusion used to control.

reply posted on 18-7-2011 @ 05:58 PM by thisguyrighthere

Seems a lot of people are assuming this libertarianism or anarchism or whatever would maintain the current system of massive nation-states.

You probably can't run a huge country of hundreds of millions of people without some violence to threaten those people into compliance.

But why is it that this current state has to remain?

Who cares if a country is powerful or wealthy or hoarding nukes? Who cares if a country exists at all? Are artificial labels and man-made boundaries really so important? These things have no value.

Or, you can have your nations. Build your arsenals and kill each other to your hearts content. But why fight so hard to keep a group or several groups of low manageable populations in line with the status quo? Why expend millions of dollars using armed troops and military vehicles to keep some hick family in line? Let them go. Let them opt out. Surely even if one million people opted out the great nation state wouldn't collapse.

I just can understand the appeal of collectivism and the intoxicating effects of the bull# known as patriotism but I cannot for the life of me understand assaulting, killing and imprisoning some hippies in the middle of nowhere who don't want anything from that nation that keeps pushing it's garbage onto them at gun point.

Anarchy probably won't work for America. But it works just fine for a commune off the beaten path and does so without hurting America one bit. So why does America come in guns blazing to "collect" what it arbitrarily decided you owe to it or to beat and lock up people for not pasteurizing their goat milk?

It doesn't make any sense.

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 03:16 PM by SirMike

Originally posted by NthOther
The Black Bloc people are not anarchists. They're a bunch of thugs running around in stupid costumes trying to burn things. They're idiotic comic book villains.

That being said, if you find joy in one of them being assaulted, who's really the tyrant? Are you seriously going to claim anarchists are tyrants while those of your ilk take satisfaction in brutalizing them for their beliefs?

Anarchists claim absolute freedom, and acknowledge the same for everyone else. Political idealogues who have no problem with people being beaten in the head, and in fact "makes them smile" when it happens, are the tyrants.

I'm an anarchist. I don't want you to be hurt by anybody. You seem to have no problem with the prospect of me getting hurt. Again, I ask: who's the tyrant?

Whether or not the Black Blocers meet you puritanical standard for what is and what isn’t an anarchist is irrelevant. You (the generic you) come to my town, my neighborhood and start a riot … then I hope the cops beat the living bejeesus out of you.

While you claim that anarchists embrace absolute freedom and acknowledge it for others, that certianly didnt play itself out in Spain during thier civil war.

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 03:44 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by SirMike

While you claim that anarchists embrace absolute freedom and acknowledge it for others, that certianly didnt play itself out in Spain during thier civil war.

The second poster to make claims about Anarchists in the civil war.

Where is the source for these claims?

They were being bombed daily by the Luftwaffe, but no mention of that atrocity?

What about Francos Nationalist 'white terror' that claimed 200,000 lives?
en.wikipedia.org...

In comparison the 'red terror' only killed 38,000.

But remember the left were the ones under attack from the Nationalists, with help from Germany and other countries. The real atrocities were from the right, not the left. The left were just protecting themselves, the right were protecting the system of exploitation the left was trying to change.

The right exposing the Casas Viejas massacre was simply a self serving attempt to embarrass the Azaña government by groups that despised the working class.

In reality during the uprising in Casas Viejas in 1933 the Anarchists killed two police officers, and were forced to hide in a house by the guardia, they set fire to the house and shot anyone trying to escape. Obviously this history was re-written by the victors. This is what fueled the eventual country wide uprising in 1936.

They were uprising against fascism and the hated fascist dictatorship. Don't you think people have a right to do that? You're concerned about a few deaths at the hands of the left, but you have no problem with the wars that have been raged across the world for the last hundred years, that have killed millions in order to maintain capitalist exploitation?

edit on 7/19/2011 by ANOK because: typo

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 04:04 PM by SirMike

reply to post by ANOK

“Only 38,000” (I noticed you ignored the higher estimates), why that’s remarkably restrained. This isn’t a game of “who killed more during the Spanish Civil War” it’s a illustration of the brutality and organized democide committed by the Spanish republicans, and the anarchists in particular, once they gained a hold of the reigns of authority.

You don’t protect yourself by kidnapping people in the middle of the night, driving them to the woods and shooting them. You don’t protect yourself by burning a convent or monetary to the ground with all its inhabitants still in it.

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 08:27 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by ANOK

“Only 38,000” (I noticed you ignored the higher estimates), why that’s remarkably restrained. This isn’t a game of “who killed more during the Spanish Civil War” it’s a illustration of the brutality and organized democide committed by the Spanish republicans, and the anarchists in particular, once they gained a hold of the reigns of authority.

You don’t protect yourself by kidnapping people in the middle of the night, driving them to the woods and shooting them. You don’t protect yourself by burning a convent or monetary to the ground with all its inhabitants still in it.

What other estimates? Those 38,000 were not all killed by Anarchists btw, in fact it was mostly the communists who ultimately sabotaged the revolution and threw the anarchists under the tram (they didn't have buses).

Can you prove anarchists killed anyone for no reason?

I don't understand why you're so down on the Anarchists, when the state killed, and kills, more people everyday than Anarchists have ever killed.

Who took people to the woods and killed them? If they did was there a reason? Do you even understand the politics of the time, how the working class were exploited? How many workers were killed by the state? How many by unsafe work places?

Is it OK to you that people were being bombed simply for wanting their freedom from a fascist dictator?

People who usually stand by the authorities in these situation are those who have something to lose because they earn from exploiting others, or they are afraid of the consequences of true freedom. Otherwise you are supporting something that is not in your best interest.

To me it's very hypocritical to condemn one group of people, and support their adversary, for something they have both done. You condemn the Anarchist because you think they killed people, but don't condemn the state that kills many more (still does), and is the reason Anarchists would have killed anyone in the first place. It's faulty logic mate.

edit on 7/19/2011 by ANOK because: typo

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 08:47 PM by SirMike

reply to post by ANOK

Sorry but all I read is alot of blah blah blah.

Hugh Pearson puts the Red Terror at 80K. If you dont beleive it, TS, he's a pretty good scholar and the day you get published I'll be sure to take your opinions more seriously.

I am "down on the Anarchists" because they are tools who have shown themselves to be no more enlightened that they aimed to replace once they got a taste of some real power. Blood in Spain has plenty of examples.

I am also not going to go round and round with you constantly telling me to "prove it". If you give me a few months, I'll have that time machine finished and I will go back with my video camera to capture all the evedence you need. And as long as I am willing to go through these exrtordinary lengths, I will bring back an attorney who can take affidavit from all the witnesses.

You cram too many logical fallacies into a post then I know what to do with .... this post is about anarchism, not fascism. Just because I dont sat bad things about the Spanish nationalists doesnt mean I agree with them, I am just trying to stay on topic here.

reply posted on 23-7-2011 @ 01:43 PM by 27jd

Originally posted by ANOK
American Natives had no state and no private ownership of the means of production.

Things didn't work out so swell for them, in the end. Not to mention, they were constantly warring with each other, and committing horrible attrocities against the losing tribes, long before the white man came. As Maslo says, it's not possible for masses to work together without some set rules. Our current form of government would be a pretty good one, if the people were a little less gullible, more involved, and less apathetic to the crooks running the show now.

reply posted on 23-7-2011 @ 04:17 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by ANOK
American Natives had no state and no private ownership of the means of production.

Things didn't work out so swell for them, in the end. Not to mention, they were constantly warring with each other, and committing horrible attrocities against the losing tribes, long before the white man came. As Maslo says, it's not possible for masses to work together without some set rules. Our current form of government would be a pretty good one, if the people were a little less gullible, more involved, and less apathetic to the crooks running the show now.

Well that wasn't my point. I was simply pointing out that they had no private ownership and thus no state system.
That they fought each other is irrelevant to my point.

My point was the state system came with capitalism. You can't have capitalism without a state system.

I wasn't taking about government either but capitalism, there is no such thing as a capitalist government. Governments now have became completely corrupted by capitalism, as the only people who can afford to became high ranking politicians are capitalists. Can't you see the connection between Bush and that crowd, and the war in the ME? They are all capitalists, and capitalists have no morals when it come to economy, everything they do is for their own benefit, not the peoples.

Private ownership of the means of production is why the world is in a mess for us, but is a boom for capitalists.

Happy days are back! During the summer months, corporations logged their biggest profits since the government started counting way back in the age of Elvis, and the economy expanded at a slightly faster pace than previously thought.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Where are those profits that we make to help going? Labour that Americans used to do is going to China, who is benefiting from that, the Chinese? No. The American worker? No. American private owners of the means of production are the only ones benefiting from this deal. American workers lose jobs, and the Chinese make a dollar a day.

Not to mention the only people paying taxes are the workers, and the corporations get government handouts. Take the welfare from the people and give it to the capitalists.

Chinese workers are exploited by American companies...

U.S. Corporations Work to Prevent Chinese Workers' Rights
Corporations like Wal-Mart and Nike aren't just lobbying Washington against worker's rights, they're lobbying Beijing too.

www.alternet.org...

All the rights workers have struggled for since the industrial revolution are being stripped. If the Chinese are not allowed rights then eventually American workers will have to start giving up their right simply to get employment.
The population has been dumbed down, and convinced to support a system that is not in their best interest, in order to accept the stripping of their rights without a whimper. 100 years ago the workers would have revolted by now.

edit on 7/23/2011 by ANOK because: typo

reply posted on 23-7-2011 @ 05:02 PM by 27jd

reply to post by ANOK

I agree with pretty much everything you posted, I guess I got the discussion about anarchy melded together with your comment. My point is some rules, and aggressive enforcement of those rules is needed in large populations or else there will be widespread mayhem and bloodshed. Human beings as a whole have proven time and again it's not possible to peacefully exist when there are no rules. We have a pretty hard time even when there are.

reply posted on 23-7-2011 @ 05:50 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by ANOK

I agree with pretty much everything you posted, I guess I got the discussion about anarchy melded together with your comment. My point is some rules, and aggressive enforcement of those rules is needed in large populations or else there will be widespread mayhem and bloodshed. Human beings as a whole have proven time and again it's not possible to peacefully exist when there are no rules. We have a pretty hard time even when there are.

Thanx.

Yes, even in an Anarchist society there are going to be rules. A lot of people assume Anarchism means no rules and everything goes, that's not true. That would be stupid, I mean we have to have a rule that people drive on a certain side of the road for example.

What Anarchism can do is break down centralized authority, that is not questionable to the people they are supposed to represent. We need to get rid of the idea of career politicians, people who only do what benefits their career. 'Leadership' should be on the most local level as possible, temporary, and following that leadership completely voluntary. Temporary committees could be set up to deal with issues as they arise.

But the main thing is if the means of production is available for all then we become dependent on no one but ourselves. In the capitalists system we are dependent on the private owner to give us 'jobs'. We want to work but we don't want 'jobs'. We are forced to compete with our neighbors for jobs, for money. We are conditioned into this cycle of competition because it feeds the money machine. Money is the controller. Money is the tool used to create the illusion of difference, the class system and its hierarchy. Simply having money, and/or property, somehow makes you better than someone else. It creates this desire in society, against societies best interest, to compete to be 'better' than everyone else. People are scrambling over the dead bodies of starving children to get there, and they don't even see them.

The system exploits the Human ego.

Give people the means to grow food and they no longer have to compete for a 'job' in order to make money to exchange, at an inflated rate, for the food, so someone else can get rich from the convoluted transaction.

The capitalist success of today is because of the exploitation of people and their lands back in the 17th and 18th centuries. Wealth created from stealing resources from so called 3rd world nations, enslaving the people, and leaving them in poverty. Wealth used to create the industrial revolution, that put first world people in factories, and made them dependent on the state system. Whereas they had been free farmers, tradesmen etc.

Poverty is not a lack of money, it's a lack of ability, hope, creativity, and is a result of the pillaging of resources. The people of the 3rd world have lost their connection with their past, and thus their ability to cope with their problems. Like all of us, the skills for survival outside of the 'system' have been stripped away by years of exploitation, and coercion from outside sources.

edit on 7/23/2011 by ANOK because: typo

reply posted on 23-7-2011 @ 05:59 PM by 27jd

reply to post by ANOK

I think many people, including alot of anarchists are under the impression it's an anything goes philosophy, but what you described seems closer to libertarianism or something along those lines. I'm definitely in support of such a system, and would love to see the resources of this planet wrenched from the hands of the elite few, and controlled by all of us.

reply posted on 24-7-2011 @ 08:20 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by ANOK

I think many people, including alot of anarchists are under the impression it's an anything goes philosophy, but what you described seems closer to libertarianism or something along those lines. I'm definitely in support of such a system, and would love to see the resources of this planet wrenched from the hands of the elite few, and controlled by all of us.

Yep that is so true. Just like people think capitalism is freedom, and socialism is free healthcare. A lot of people think 'freedom' means you can do anything you want. But people fail to realise that as soon as you do something that effects others you have denied them of their freedom. That's why we end up with petty laws we don't really want. Before your personal freedom should come consideration for others, otherwise you don't deserve your freedom.

Unfortunately those misconceptions are perpetuated, both purposely, and by those too lazy to know better. Those misconceptions benefit the system. It's so easy for a misconception to be accepted by the population as fact. It can be done from one press release when the population is sufficiently conditioned to blindly accept the state authority.

The one thing that has been conditioned into the western mind, especially in the U.S., is the conservative fallacy of individualism, and the effects of that are destroying communities. It's another example of how the system is exploiting the ego in order to create a population that is easy to control. The capitalists (TPTB) have to keep us from becoming organized in any way. They know the power of organization because that is how they operate, through their 'secret societies' etc. We can only be a threat to them if we organize, this is why unions have been demonized. To get anything done on any large scale, such as real social and economical change, we have to cooperate and organize, not compete and take.

It is like libertarianism because it is libertarianism. The first use of the term 'libertrian' was used by the French 'Anarcho-Communist' Joseph Déjacque. The term has since been used as another term for Anarchism. Libertarian Socialism is another term for Anarchism. Libertarianism as in freedom from the chains of hierarchy, and socialism the freedom from the chains of property ownership.

The main point of Anarchism, and socialism, was a solution to the problem of private property, and it's use to exploit those who only had their labour to sell. This is the problem with American libertarianism, it still supports the very system that exploits them. One thing Americans all seem to support is private property, even the 'left' it seems. I think this is a just fear that stems from a misunderstanding of what is meant by 'private property'. What is does not mean is peoples personal property for there own use. It is simply anything that is used to exploit workers, land, places of employment, housing etc. You can argue that a person has the freedom to do what they want with their land, that's fine, but people also should have the freedom to not have to be exploited in order to eat. Everyone should have access to the means of survival. Our ability to survive outside of the capitalist system was taken away, so they owe us at least a living. When we domesticated animals and made them into pets, effectively taking away their ability to survive in the wild, we took on the obligation of feeding them.

It wouldn't take force, only education. No one needs to force the owner to not exploit workers if the workers had an alternative. The real socialism is in the work place, not in the welfare line.
Workers should organize and open cooperative work places, but they don't even realise they can do this because we are taught to get a 'job'. We are taught that socialism is handouts from a government, and exploitation of people is freedom.

That old saying 'freedom isn't free' is right, and that is the problem.

reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 09:32 AM by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Mizzijr
I don't understand why people feel anarchy is the BEST choice. Especially in a country like America where race is still a foregoing issue. How do you expect the people to work together? We'd just a become a nation divided into whites, blacks, mexicans, asians, and whatever else. We're already like that to be honest.

Although I'm sure there has been libertarian countries in the past, how long did they last? We can't become anarchist forever. When people have something they love, then they want to protect it, therefore laws and security is put into place. It's plenty of room and lack of law and security for things to go wrong in an anarchists environment.

I believe voluntarism is the best choice for a country.

Well Anarchism does not mean lawlessness and disorganization. The present criminal system is not there to protect the people, only to protect privilege. Poverty is the largest cause of crime, next to alienation, lack of hope etc. Some anti-social behavior will not stop, regardless of the criminal system. The present system does not stop crime, only punishes after the fact. We need to address the causes of crime, not create more ways of punishing people.

The capital of the capitalist system, mostly stolen during the 18th and 19th centuries, was built on piracy, thousands of tons of gold, silver etc., plundered and used to finance the banking system.

Every worker is robbed everyday when they are paid less than they could earn if it wasn't for capitalist owners.
In an Anarchist society crime would be reduced. Some crime will still need punishing. A small police force is even possible under Anarchism, but they would be answerable to the community, and not have the power they do now.

But Anarchists generally don't like to create a blueprint of how things should be, because it will up to each community to decide for themselves what is best for themselves. It's all about the breakdown of centralized power, and the power put in the hands of the community to decide what is best for them. It is true freedom. Most people are scared of true freedom because of the responsibility that comes with it.

Anarchism IS volunteerism, it is anti-coercion. Every contract entered into will be completely voluntary.