Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Who Are the Real Anarchists?

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by onthedownlow
 



Who moderates in an anarchy? The most level headed, least coercive of the society? Tribal law? I'm not sure if I am retarding humanity or if I am just the product thereof.

Since there would not be any pan-monopolistic authority it would fall to each voluntary group to decide.

In tribes it would be tribal law or the chief. In a church, it would be the religious leader. In a family it would be the agreed upon senior decision maker be it patriarchal or matriarchal.

Indeed, there is nothing stopping anyone from having micro-political enclaves as long as participation is voluntary and revokable.

I should point out at this stage again because it isn't clear from the content of this thread the purpose and ends to my reasoning. I am suggesting that by demanding anarcho-capitalism we have a much stronger position to negotiate from for an acceptable happy medium such as the restoration of our republic and its constitution.

To embrace and use the strategies and tactics heretofore exclusively associated with progressivism for promoting individual freedom.
edit on 14-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


Collectivists are not statists or globalists. They are a group of individuals with common goals. Collectivist anarchists still very much are anti-state/authority/government.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 



Start one if you like, lemme know. I'll reply to your last points there.

ETA: Actually I'll reply here. I'm not questioning the fact that violence is used, I simply expanded on what you were saying.

I'm 100% anti-authoritarian however for non-authoritarianism to work it means not treading on others. It doesn't mean getting to do whatever you feel like when and how you feel like. I don't need to be told to not smoke around others, it's a harmful choice that I make and I shouldn't impose my choice on others. In an anarchist society the offender would be ostracized, but we don't live in an anarchist society, unfortunately.



Collectivists are not statists or globalists. They are a group of individuals with common goals. Collectivist anarchists still very much are anti-state/authority/government.

Oh but it does, you just have to do it on top of a mountain when you run away from everyone who is very upset with you for acting unsympathetically to everyone around you. You can be an anarchy of one if you so choose.

I am certain that I will be able to smoke and park still as long as I remain as cognizant as I am now of the comfort level of those around me. I see no need for the use of state violence to coerce my or anyone else's behavior (private violence will do just fine).

Of course, collectivists in a commune aren't statists, right next door you could have another group with a totally different ideology with each living in perfect peace and harmony, we are not talking about chaos and that is my point. But, as a monopolistic government form, it is statist by definition.

It is my belief that, in fact, most people will be satisfied with the market or markets and the family as the highest voluntary organizations to belong to but, to each their own.
edit on 14-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   

greencmp
reply to post by Kali74
 



Start one if you like, lemme know. I'll reply to your last points there.

ETA: Actually I'll reply here. I'm not questioning the fact that violence is used, I simply expanded on what you were saying.

I'm 100% anti-authoritarian however for non-authoritarianism to work it means not treading on others. It doesn't mean getting to do whatever you feel like when and how you feel like. I don't need to be told to not smoke around others, it's a harmful choice that I make and I shouldn't impose my choice on others. In an anarchist society the offender would be ostracized, but we don't live in an anarchist society, unfortunately.



Collectivists are not statists or globalists. They are a group of individuals with common goals. Collectivist anarchists still very much are anti-state/authority/government.

Oh but it does, you just have to do it on top of a mountain when you run away from everyone who is very upset with you for acting unsympathetically to everyone around you. You can be an anarchy of one if you so choose.

I am certain that I will be able to smoke and park still as long as I remain as cognizant as I am now of the comfort level of those around me. I see no need for the use of state violence to coerce my or anyone else's behavior (private violence will do just fine).

Of course, collectivists in a commune aren't statists, right next door you could have another group with a totally different ideology with each living in perfect peace and harmony, we are not talking about chaos and that is my point. But, as a monopolistic government form, it is statist by definition.

It is my belief that, in fact, most people will be satisfied with the market or markets and the family as the highest voluntary organizations to belong to but, to each their own.
edit on 14-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)


When I say not treading on others and that you can't simply do whatever however you want, I'm saying that there are consequences, not that you can't physically do anything you want. In an anarchist society you would be ostracized, in current society you are fined or arrested.

I'm not sure what you mean by monopolistic government form. If you are talking about a form of anarchy that embraces limited government, then the Constitution works well with that. Otherwise anarchism entirely anti-government. I'm not sure how you leapt to statism.
edit on 14-9-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 



When I say not treading on others and that you can't simply do whatever however you want, I'm saying that there are consequences, not that you can't physically do anything you want. In an anarchist society you would be ostracized, in current society you are fined or arrested.

I'm not sure what you mean by monopolistic government form. If you are talking about a form of anarchy that embraces limited government, then the Constitution works well with that. Otherwise anarchism entirely anti-government. I'm not sure how you leapt to statism.

I think I addressed your first point in the post above satisfactorily.

Except for statelessness, all government forms are monopolistic of power and violence. I agree that our declaration of independence and the constitution and it's amendments are the desirable happy medium.

Since that has been taken away from us, I see only one way that has a reasonable chance at restoring them, demand anarcho-capitalism. Having made that demand we, the american people, can 'settle' for the restoration of our republic.

It is just an idea but, it is the most viable strategy I can think of to achieve what it seems is the mutual goal of both of us. That is, unless you are interested in state collectivism.

The major change of heart here is that even anarcho-syndicalists need not be prevented from assisting us in achieving that goal since that ideology will simply be proven wrong and thus will not be a threat to anarcho-capitalism or minarcho-constitutionalism.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


I've tried many times to rationalize how liberty and capitalism can co-exist. The closest I can come is heavily regulated Capitalism a tight noose around governments neck and very few laws for the people. This isn't what right wing libertarians or anarcho-capitalists like to hear. The truth is there can't be 100% liberty with capitalism as the economic model. Not everyone can be a boss or owner, and for capitalism to exist there needs to be labor, if labor isn't part of the free market, it will be exploited, if there's exploitation there is no liberty for all.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 



I've tried many times to rationalize how liberty and capitalism can co-exist. The closest I can come is heavily regulated Capitalism a tight noose around governments neck and very few laws for the people. This isn't what right wing libertarians or anarcho-capitalists like to hear. The truth is there can't be 100% liberty with capitalism as the economic model. Not everyone can be a boss or owner, and for capitalism to exist there needs to be labor, if labor isn't part of the free market, it will be exploited, if there's exploitation there is no liberty for all.

At the risk of sounding condescending, I think there are some truths that you have not been made aware of (boy, that sounds really patronizing).

I have been thinking of doing an expose on capitalism to put the term in context or rather, to take the term out of context since it really is to economics as anarchy is to organized government.

Essentially, capitalism is the way the free market system reaches exchange ratios and prices without direction. It isn't a system but it is the lack of a system. The praxeological theory is known as cattalactics. It was coined several centuries ago and cattalaxy is preferred over the term economy for the etymological reason that the root of economics implies a shared goal among all interested parties which is not true. Whereas the root of cattalactics is to exchange, bring into the community and to change from an enemy to a friend.

The negative connotations that you attribute to it more appropriately belong to the terms mercantilism or corporatism.
edit on 14-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


I started as an anarchist and ended up as a anarcho-communist. Individualism is great but beyond immediate small scale problem solving it does not scale, for instance in a anarchic world getting out of this planet would be near impossible, then there are other considerations like multi-generational plans that would be extremely hard to accomplish, the egocentricity of individualism would make the individual freer but would destroy the positive sides of having a society and promote the darker ones (most like we see today, most of the problems are due to individual greed).



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 




I've tried many times to rationalize how liberty and capitalism can co-exist.


You would end with the problem that if you put capital in the top of the social structure those neared to it will have more freedom than those away from it. Because capital is a limited resource, those that have access to it tend to hoard it and protect it, as that starts the freedoms of those that are away from capital start to be degraded and removed as those that hold to it keep restricting its accessibility. You will get the same result as expressed by the "animal farm" but with less utopic goals and no chance that the pigs will ever see the light...



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 



I started as an anarchist and ended up as a anarcho-communist. Individualism is great but beyond immediate small scale problem solving it does not scale, for instance in a anarchic world getting out of this planet would be near impossible, then there are other considerations like multi-generational plans that would be extremely hard to accomplish, the egocentricity of individualism would make the individual freer but would destroy the positive sides of having a society and promote the darker ones (most like we see today, most of the problems are due to individual greed).

Check out the above post and then go back and skim the thread for an update.

I think the word you are looking for is narcissism, not individualism.

However, if you decided that communism is good, it may take a lot to make sense of all of this.

Suffice it to say that anarcho-communism is an oxymoron.
edit on 14-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Panic2k11

...for instance in a anarchic world getting out of this planet would be near impossible...

Yes it would. Which is a good thing. The last thing we should be thinking about doing is destroying other planets the way we're destroying ours.

That's a good way to get our asses kicked by cute, unassuming little green men. In an anarchic world, the planet wouldn't be seen as something to be raped and pillaged for the benefit of industrial-capitalists... unless you're an anarcho-capitalist which, in my completely un-humble opinion, is a contradiction in terms.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by NthOther
 



Yes it would. Which is a good thing. The last thing we should be thinking about doing is destroying other planets the way we're destroying ours.

That's a good way to get our asses kicked by cute, unassuming little green men. In an anarchic world, the planet wouldn't be seen as something to be raped and pillaged for the benefit of industrial-capitalists... unless you're an anarcho-capitalist which, in my completely un-humble opinion, is a contradiction in terms.

You will benefit greatly by reviewing the posts above.

Again, you undoubtedly meant to say mercantilists and corporatists.

I would love to have you join the discussion.

Welcome!
edit on 14-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


As I've said, I believe that mercantilism or corporatism are the end results of capitalism. Where we are now is not so different than what people ran away from the old world because of. Kings (CEO's), Lords (politicians), Merchants (executives) in control of everything... the money, the land, trade.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


Exactly, it's not really possible for the two to coexist.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   

greencmp
You will benefit greatly by reviewing the posts above.

Again, you undoubtedly meant to say mercantilists and corporatists.

I would love to have you join the discussion.

Your condescendence isn't necessary. I don't use the terms "mercantilism" or "corporatism" because they don't accurately reflect the ecologically damaging processes manifested by industrialism. The images associated with words are powerful.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 



As I've said, I believe that mercantilism or corporatism are the end results of capitalism. Where we are now is not so different than what people ran away from the old world because of. Kings (CEO's), Lords (politicians), Merchants (executives) in control of everything... the money, the land, trade.

I really have made an exhaustive effort to explain, perhaps a break is in order.

Do you believe that I disagree with your above statement (sans capitalism bashing but, that is a semantic misunderstanding that I can continue to dispel)?

Are you actually only interested in state collectivism and aren't being fully honest about your interest in discussing this?

I believe that your goals would be met by what I am proposing if either of the above statements is false.
edit on 14-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
The word anarchy is literally the antonym of hierarchy. The birth of the word came from a need to express being anti-hierarchical. Capitalism is nothing but hierarchy, so truly the concept of anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Sorry to be blunt but it needed to be said.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by NthOther
 


Just the contrary I'm an anarcho-communist, I have no problem with industrialization if removed from the goal of capital generation to the improvement of all man...



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   

greencmp
reply to post by Kali74
 



As I've said, I believe that mercantilism or corporatism are the end results of capitalism. Where we are now is not so different than what people ran away from the old world because of. Kings (CEO's), Lords (politicians), Merchants (executives) in control of everything... the money, the land, trade.

I really have made an exhaustive effort to explain, perhaps a break is in order.

Do you believe that I disagree with your above statement (sans capitalism bashing but, that is a semantic misunderstanding that I can continue to dispel)?

Are you actually only interested in state collectivism and aren't being fully honest about your interest in discussing this?

I believe that your goals would be met by what I am proposing if either of the above statements is false.
edit on 14-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)


I think the problem here is that you aren't discussing but rather trying to convince.

I don't think you disagree with me except on Capitalism which I haven't bashed but only stated my stance on.

I'm not the least bit interested in state collectivism and find the notion abhorrent, but it's interesting that because I disagree with you that I must be being dishonest somewhere.

My goals cannot be met with Capitalism.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


It is a deception if referred to as anarchism. Libertarianism is a sugary cover to capitalism when capital continues to be the primary goal.






top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join