Anarchism

Could anyone give me a straight answer as to how a self ruling state or country would operate?  Sounds to me like its just Democracy without figureheads.  How would they create laws and decide on issues?

As well, could anyone explain the difference between anarchy and socialism?

No laws, you dumbfuck.

Issues?  Everyone does what they want.  Certain actions will cancel certain other people's actions out.  Whatever is left is the decision on the issue.

>>2
So for instance if I formed a gang and went around threatenning to shoot people unless they give me money, that would be fine in an anarchy?

What if I decided to join forces with other gangs and become a figurehead for their activities and take over non-compliant gangs? Would that be fine too? What if I conquer and expand and declare myself, "normal average person who happens to have control over everyone in a 50 miles radius". Would that be fine with anarchy?

Anarchy is not a state, it is lack of state

>>3 Total anarchy cannot last long, as people will inevitably search for power, we like having authority over others and being told what to do when we do not have that control. Also one problem with threatening to shoot someone for money in an anarchist society would be the simple matter of what money? If its an anarchy there is no government to back up the cash. Anarchy is a wounderfull idea but, like communism, it would never work in the real world because it is too easy to take advantage of.

While total anarchy is pretty much impossible, it is possible to have something close to anarchy.

>>6 Yes that is true, anarchy is a rather nice ideal, too bad it couldn't work in the real world.

>>6 Libertarianism.

>>6
Justice must be preserved in order for "anarchy" to work. This should be the sole function of the government.

>>8 Seconded.

>>8
That's what I was getting at, yes.

Anarchists and Libertarians get fucked in the ass, hard, by Statists.

Give it up guys, our methods are an inevitability.

>>12 Capitalist power built this world, and you statist pieces of shit would be NOTHING without us or the mechanics of the market.  Take a good look at all the statist shitholes of the world.  American business and free enterprise is practically rescuing China from its shitty economy and poverty that was caused by their shitty economic system.  If it wasn't for the USA and globalization, China would just be poor forever, and rot like the hellhole it is.

>>12
Your methods are not an inevitability. The way things are going the world will be free from tyranny in no time.

>>13

Just because China isnt poor doesnt meant their deplorable acts of restricting human freedom are getting better.  If the people were able to make some desicions, they wouldnt have a minimum wage of fifty cents and 18 hour work days and would have real history and news instead of the fake shit that the government throws at them.  Theyre getting rich off of human suffering, and we arent stopping that.

>>15
but we are, on the other hand, getting cheap tv's and sneakers, so  maybe we should just see through that bit of child labour and stuff, it's in china! they're all communists anyways!

also, to >>13, the mechanics of the market are there, because there is a market, they are there when there isn't  amarket, albeit in an oppressed and somehow different form, it's not something that's there because adam sith said so, it was something that was there and adam smith said "hay guyz, look at this lorlzorz".  also, if it wasn't for "globalization" as you call it, most places in the world would rot like the hellholes they are.
expansion of culture and trade, thus expansion of markets, have been an inevitable part of history since the beginning of time. In general, the more evolved trade has been the more evolved culture has been, which one is derived from the other is, however, disputable. if china hadn't opened up their markets to the rest of the world they would rot in hell, if europe hadn't had trade it wouldn't hae had the age of enlightement it had and  thus it would probably be a rotting shithole. the US has the benefit of being a largely self-sufficient nation. the US is able to produce almost everything they need in order to keep their nation from being crappy, and has generally been isolated from attacks and geographically based disputes since the end of the civil war. the self-sufficiency factor is one of the reasos america wouldn't rot in hell if it didn't trade, and thus why it can allow itself to be very demanding or cautious as to how and why it opens up trade, but that's another amtter

>>13
>>16
ORLY. The world wasn't a shithole before globalisation. Least of all China.

>>17

Are you implying that globalization caused China to become a shithole?

>>18
No I was not. I was saying that even without globalisation countries don't have to be shitholes.

Nevertheless your statement is partially true; the first wave of "globalisation" was late 19th century Western imperial expansion. Not the quite globalisation we have today, but the aims were similar: The flow of goods and capital from one side of the world to the other, and subsequent "societal development".

Defend this bit of history all you will. Say that it was inevitable or misguided. That is beside the point. Globalisation isn't always for the better.

>>19
 tru that, but things fluctuate as a countrys both internal and external factors change, and sometimes the contact with other countries has caused a country to fuck up.
You could also see the roman/greek/persian/mongol expansions as sort of globalization, of course they didn't cover the whole world, and it was in a different time etc. etc. etc. but globalization in the sense of an increased awareness of the rest of the world, and increased trade and communication has (almost) always been there, simply not in the same scale as we have today.
 And due to our technology level and the differences in different countries level of development, the moving around of production factors and such is much easier and more profitable than before, it's much more noticeable on our every day lives,  i guess that's why it's always easy to say "z0mg globalization" when thigns go bad XD

ANARCHY IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ANARCHY IS NOT AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No nation has ever "globalised" without first winning battles at home. Spain couldn't send voyages across the ocean when most of their resources were preventing the Almuhads from marching to Toledo. China couldn't colonise Australia with the Mongols trying to force it's cock into their asshole. Metaphorically speaking of course.