The Anarchy Thread

@Taoist: And why the hell should we do it? Most nation states are working great now, dissolving would just create new problems. The only ones that don't work, in the Third World, would make it worse if there was no strong authority.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

(Except for Somalia, which seems to be a rare case of "it was doing even worse back when they had a government")

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

That's the whole point, it's an anarchist government (not a contradiction in terms.) The benefit compared to, for example, the typical representative democratic republic, is that the votors' displeasure ripples up the chain from much smaller concentrations.

For instance, say ten people are peeved under the current system, and wish to influence national policy. They can't have any effect on the executive in a presidential republic like the US, while effecting legislatures still requires very large minimum numbers to alter even a US house member or British MP. There's also another barrier, gerrymandering, which silences marginal differences in policy outside proportional systems like Israel or Finland. On top of all this, voters can't initiate much of anything except during each election cycle, and many smaller elections (congressional, state, county, civic, etc…) have extremely low turnout compared to the big ones that decide executives. The only real recourse these ten people have, outside bypassing the political system to turn their grievance into a movement big enough to impact elections, is writing to their far off representative, who simultaneously serves thousands or millions of such people.

Basically, there's sort of a pocket of dead air that prevents most political opinions from having any impact at all, insulating the status quo, and alienating voters.

Under anarcho-syndicalism, everyone would vote as a member of their local syndicate, which would consist of maybe 30-200 people, about like the average PTA (in fact, chances are it would be the PTA among other things.) Everybody would know each other, and if these ten people could mount a sufficiently persuasive argument in a meeting, right then and there the syndicate could vote to send orders to their delegate, (or even immediately recall them and elect somebody else.) This would mean an instant, meaningful change in politics, one which if their delegate was persuasive enough, would be directed all the way up the hierarchy.

One other effect it would have, if it extended to businesses, would be the unification of the government and the economy under the thumb of the people it influences.

Eric,

Sorta, but not quite.

Yes, unions, communities and cooperatives would roughly absorb the State's usual functions: Defense (the militia, which is the collective of armed and trained workers under directly democratic leadership) and the provision of social services.

No institution that has power to regulate people's private lives or intrude on their privacy/violate their rigts. Even if a whole bunch of the people were to be Moral Guardians, they'd still have no way to boss others around.

Executives coming and going at the whim of the collective of the workers means that they couldn't pull off all the shit they currently do: They couldn't cut pay and lay people off while they raised their own salaries, for example.

edited 30th Jun '11 2:18:05 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Eric: Thank you for getting me out from between the hard spot of arguing that one take on anarchism won't be anarchist enough and the rock of defending anarchism as practical. I consider myself more informed for having read your post.

Erock: Just dissolving governments and hoping the utopian anarchist structure arises magically afterwards is foolish. You start forming the co-ops and syndicalist movements first, THEN you push for people to abandon governments for the anarchist model, not the other way around. (This is part of the reason I don't back violent revolutionary anarchism, as using force to try creating a society that doesn't rely on coercion by force is a really stupid idea.)

EDIT: HERP DERP STUPID TYPO

edited 2nd Jul '11 8:36:02 PM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Militia... I really don't know about this. Before I say anything stupid, what's their historical track record?

edited 30th Jun '11 8:10:08 AM by GoodGuyGreg

The Quiet One. No OTT. No unfunny. No squick. No crusades. Harmless and clean.

@Taoist: But, still, why would you ditch something that works?

And if the nihilistic terorists are anything like the Germans from The Big Lebowski, I wouldn't worry.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

If Spain is anything to go by, the CNT militias were beating the holy Hell out of the fascists all over Aragon until the commies started hogging all available ammo for their own pet troops and disrupting the CNT's war command structure.

Went downhill from there. Makhno's anarchist Urkainian militia also beat the crap out of the White Russians. The commies broke them, too. The whole let's fight the reactionaries together commie party line was, essentially, getting the anarchists to fight (and generally crush) the reactionaries. Then, after both sides had been weakened, them commies would backstab the anarchist militias.

edited 30th Jun '11 11:50:32 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

@Erock: It works?

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

@Erock: Because it doesn't work.

Moral Guardians get to tell people what they can or can't do. Corrupt Corporate Executives buy elections outright. The working class loses on comparative purchasing power year after year. Unemployment and poverty raise. The working and middle classes get services cut so the rich can get tax cuts.

Censorship. Warmongering. Anti-vice legislation. Mass surveillance. Searches, seizures and asset forfeiture. Prohibitions on pretty much everything, 'cause there's money in looting the people via fines, and there's money in slave labor when you convict people. Nosiness. Busybodyism.

Widespread corruption.

The Average Joe gets screwed by thugs in blue, by government bureaucrats, by suits and crooks of every variety, all in the name of law and order.

And you've got the gall to say the State model works at all?

edited 30th Jun '11 12:10:08 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Just to be clear, it would have no effect on social (including vice) legislation, positive or negative. If most people found some practice sufficiently loathsome or harmful to society, then as now, legal efforts would likely be undertaken to stamp it out.

Eric,

@Heathen: We're talking the US, right?

1. Moral Guardians only get what they want if the they're the popular group (democracy!) or if they're the paying customers, like say the parents of a child or two.
2. You can't buy elections out right, especially not the major ones. Studies have been done on this, you can pay for advertisement but at the end of the day, you can't pay someone to vote for you and throwing enough money at PR doesn't change people's opinions of you.
3. Working class is actually growing larger and more wealthy by the year. If you want to talk about the increasing gap between middle class and the poor, then yes, you'd have a point there but that's due to poorly implemented welfare and a poor job market.
4. Poverty in the US is actually pretty stable. It was growing for a while after Katrina but has since stayed where it has been at. The major problem is that the economy has not had an upward swing in a while to make the group shrink down. Also, unemployment is up because more people want jobs. Interestingly enough, job offerings are up in the areas of trained jobs. If I were to take a random potshot, I'd say education needs help more than anything.
5. Also, public services throughout the US are on the rise while taxes were being cut.
6. Censorship only applies to the stations that air the material. If they don't want something on their channel, then they censor it. Completely legal and understandable.
7. War Mongering? Like Obama telling Libya to sort its own shit and that the US is staying out?
8. Anti-vice legislation works because it's popular. Welcome to a democracy where the majority rules, which people seem to be largely okay with it, even if it does result in camps and everyone outside being an enemy. However, if we're sick of someone smoking, then why not?
9. Searches, seizures, yadda, can only be done in relation to a criminal case and often then only with the permission of a judge. If fail to find anything, the person is entitled to getting proper payment for it and always must be told in a timely manner. Also the fact that this shit never happens outside of CSI shows since you need a lot of permissions to do such a thing, like more than just the judge.
10. Prohibitions on substances and items the majority of the public feels is harmful to, well, the public. Democracy!
11. Prisoners are entitled to tons and tons of nice stuff, including it long since being illegal to put them to work. Yes, even prisoners have rights to avoid abuse in prisons.
12. Nosiness? Like how? Vaguenss. Also busybodyism? What is this?
13. And not as much corruption as you'd like to chalk it up to being.

Why do you have the gall to say the state system isn't working when you grossly misrepresent it?

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

Fuck democracy. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting what to have for dinner.

Even when the prudes outnumber the rest, they shouldn't be able to dictate the norms that apply to everyone else.

edited 2nd Jul '11 3:00:44 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Or it's 10 Lambs telling the Wolf to learn to eat grass.

Why does nobody ever use that way of expressing it?

Because democracy is no substitute for everybody minding their damn business and leaving other people to their own devices.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Because you minding your own business is detrimental to me in several cases and we can all benefit to some extent by working together due to the pooling of resources. Hoorah for those ten sheep.

Also, anarchy is when all of the sheep get eaten by a minority group of wolves anyway.

edited 2nd Jul '11 4:52:38 PM by Usht

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

I would say the system works, mainly because we can screw over people who show themselves to have vices which would debilitate or endanger other civilians. While some moral guardianship is ridiculous, some is necessary to prevent people from sliding into criminal activity. Its been proven again and again that people on drugs are more likely to commit crimes.

And you say all those things like anti-vice, mass surveillance and such like its a bad thing. I disagree. Security should never be sacrificed for some freedom.

And one more thing: Just how do you, Savage Heathen, plan on bringing about this anarchist utopia you constantly speak of.

Democracy is generally what keeps dictators from attacking social liberties. Its the single biggest safeguard against tyranny there is. Ok, it maybe works better on a small to medium scale, but democracy in itself is just that; a voice to the people (at least, if the people are smart enough to actually think before they sign the bloody ballot.)

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

"you minding your own business is detrimental to me in several cases"

Do tell.

Enjoy the Inferno...

Third option: Idiots who are cynical about their current government, but idealistic about a system that's never worked in a society larger than Freetown Christiania. Also most likely nihilistic, but in a fun way.

edited 5th Jul '11 8:35:20 AM by DomaDoma

Hail Martin Septim!

@ Usht:

the ones I have issue with as a citizen and they ones that are just plan wrong

1. They really aren't they just like to shout the most and have very large wallets.

2. You pretty much, can you can buy ads, create propaganda, use fear, greed, tactics anything to get your way. You can but votes outright, or with favors, propaganda or lies.

3. It's the gap between the middle class and the rich that the problem the gap between the poor and middle class is getting smaller.

4. What a joke, the US is doing worse and worse and it's evident every where My city has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the state and jobs are still imposable to find, with my father of two masters not even being able to find one in his "trained" sector.

10. Problem here is in most states where their the majority believes it should be legalized, the main people campaigning against it now are the dealers themselves because once i8t's legal they go out of business.

13. We're pretty damn corrupt, lobbying, political fun raiser, cronyism, party lines, and thats just the tip of the iceberg.

Also when did this change from anarchy to US policy?

Also this is a bit of Thread Hop, I just read this and was like some of these are really off.

edited 5th Jul '11 11:34:55 AM by Vyctorian

Rarely active, try DA/Tumblr Avatar by pippanaffie.deviantart.com

I honestly can't think of a functioning or theoretical society where individual rights trumped all to the extent Heathen's thinking of, with the possible exception of a frontier, where poor transportation meant the individual members of society were essentially isolated from each other.

Just out of curiosity, assuming the inalienable right to crack, whores, and other peoples' intellectual products was regarded as sacred or whatever, are there any obligations to or from society you feel are vital, Heathen?

Eric,

Only those that are voluntarily agreed among consenting parties. Nobody is entitled to your stuff or your services. Still, it's fair to assume that people would acquire certain obligations in their dealings with others:

Let's assume I'm looking for job in a co-op, as a techie/maintenance dude. I get the job. To join the co-op, odds are I'd need to buy my share. During my first 2-3 paychecks, there'd probably be a deduction to pay for it. After that, I'd have to put cash into the benefits scheme (disability/retirement and health care) the co-op had.

If I thought their benefits package sucked or that being a worker-owner wasn't worth the effort, I can always choose to seek employment elsewhere.

Let's say I want to live in a particular community. Alas, it's members-only. As a condition of membership I've gotta join the local militia, 'cause it's a Mutual Defense community. If I don't want to be part of the militia, I can choose to live elsewhere.

In short? You don't owe anybody a damn, nobody owes you a damn either, but odds are you'll exchange stuff and services when you've got agreements to do so.

edited 6th Jul '11 6:53:30 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Question: What happens when someone eventually forms a well armed gang and decides to attack all of the people that aren't in an organized community that can defend itself?

And Savage, you'll find Antarctica a nice place to live seeing as no country has laid official claim to any of it. Little cold but that's the closest you'll get to undisturbed anarchy.

The emotions of others can seem like such well guarded mysteries, people 8egin to 8elieve that's how their own emotions should 8e treated.

Answer: Probably the nearby militias wipe the gang out before it grows into a bigger threat. Someone starting a campaign of mass aggression is a threat to everybody. Few gangs would be able to withstand the assault of several militias at once. The bigger the gang, the more nearby communities that'd feel threatened enough to stop it.

As for Antartica... It might be a possibility, but it'd get invaded.

edited 6th Jul '11 7:10:53 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.