Anarchy

Can anyone give a coherent explanation as to why anarchy is apparently the solution to all the current systems?

I understand why anarchy might be attractive in that the individual is ultimately free of such thing as rule of law and therefore local as well as centralized government but there exists a major problem with anarchy: bandits. Bandits appear to be the downfall of anarchy in that they will fuck you in the ass until you get organized, delegate some duties to others in the organisation and form a... governing body of some kind with a branch that enforces good morals... and you see where the problem is.

And no, this thread is not an excuse to go on about why you think capitalism or socialism or communism has failed, I want to explore the possibility that there might actually be something I hadn't considered and anarchists aren't just in it because going smashy-smashy on private property is fun.

No, you pretty much got it. Anarchy is an impossible system because it creates too much disorder. Humans cannot function without order. Order requires a governing system to enforce it. You get the idea.

I know anarchists will argue this but i am curious as to how.

Anarchists posit a non-hierarchical society, not a disorganised or  chaotic one, and they have no objection to using force in self-defence. The natural response to banditry would be armed volunteer militias with democratically elected leaders. Plenty of emergency services operate in the same - lifeboat crews, firefighters, those mountain rescue dudes. The important thing is there wouldn't be a professional full-time military that needs to justify its existence with the odd invasion or two.

All anarchists are invited to try their ideas in Somalia.

>non-hierarchical society
>democratically elected leaders
Isn't this is a contradiction? If you've democratically elected a leader of a militia, haven't you established a basic hierarchy where you either have authority or you do not? And how would you even decide what voting system to use?

Also, how does an anarchic territory respond to an invasion? Hypothetically, if a foreign force invaded, how could anarchy effectively respond assuming that any militia has no dependable funding due to no mandatory taxation and very little training as no member would or could be full-time? Logistics alone would be a horrible nightmare.

Still genuinely interested in the answers to all these questions.

>>3

An armed group with a democratically elected leader sounds like the foundation of a democratic government whether thats what its intended to be or not.  Also, the militia/military would have to be full time and professional.  It has to be full-time because the group would have to have people on guard all the time and could not wait until already being attacked to get volunteers and elect a leader.  It has to be professional in order to survive in a world where another more aggressive group might form and use a professional force against it(I'm using the term "professional" to denote a full time force that dedicates its time to training to fight and fighting).

>>5
In any group endeavour you generally need to elect someone who knows what they're doing to keep shit organised. The major distinction in anarchist societies is that leaders are granted power from the bottom up, and they can be removed again if everyone decides they're not the right dude for the job. This is by contrast with traditional militaries/corporate hierarchies where you acquire greater authority by gaining the approval of the higher-ups.

What voting system you use depends on the community - most people are capable of talking issues like this out and finding a generally acceptable solution.

>Also, how does an anarchic territory respond to an invasion?
Well to be honest I can't see an anarchist society developing a military-industrial complex that could compete with, say, modern day America. And of course any country with nukes could wipe them off the map. I could see the anarchists being pretty effective at guerilla warfare - they did well enough in Spain - but realistically I imagine their best chance for survival would be to demonstrate and publicise their commitment to living in peace with their neighbours, so that to invade such an inoffensive society would be politically untenable for even the most militaristic nation.

>>6
>An armed group with a democratically elected leader sounds like the foundation of a democratic government whether thats what its intended to be or not.

Not really. The people you elect to lead a military unit aren't going to be the people distributing supplies or arbitrating disputes or anything. And again, in anarchism power is derived from consent. If the military stage a coup, then it's not anarchism any more. And that's not likely to happen when your 'military' is just every able-bodied citizen who has a gun - one more reason not to have a professional military class. Nobody needs to dedicate their lives to defence unless they're actually fighting a war right now.

>>7
>The major distinction in anarchist societies is that leaders are granted power from the bottom up, and they can be removed again if everyone decides they're not the right dude for the job.
Ideologically, how does this differ from the current system? You can argue the implementation and the existence of political corruption but a system where the public elect representatives to lead and govern can be found in most first world nations, if not all.

>realistically I imagine their best chance for survival would be to demonstrate and publicise their commitment to living in peace with their neighbours, so that to invade such an inoffensive society would be politically untenable for even the most militaristic nation.
Well, realistically, any conflict would probably stem from border conflicts. Another down-side to not having a full-time army is that you have no effective way of stopping the neighbouring country from moving their border as far as they like into your territory. It wouldn't have to be a sudden rush, they could take their time and would up eventually as just another border conflict of the like that occurs globally.

>Nobody needs to dedicate their lives to defence unless they're actually fighting a war right now.
Yes but like the other person said, you can't effectively prepare for a conflict the day it happens. You cannot train someone to fight in a unit and expect them to live after war has been declared, you need months to training to get someone to minimum standard.

>>8
>a system where the public elect representatives to lead and govern can be found in most first world nations, if not all.
In modern democracies people elect a government who then have free reign to appoint public officials. You don't get to vote directly on the issues that impact you or that you might know much about, you're just given a choice between two or three groups of barely-distinguishable politicians, and you have to abdicate all authority to one or another of them. Also in a capitalist society most power resides in the private sector, which is completely hierarchical and not at all democratic. Management are beholden to shareholders, power is conferred from the top down on employees who are deemed worthy.

In an anarchist society EVERYTHING is governed by voluntary free association. The workplace, the home, the community, everything. A group of people who, say, work on a farm together, might appoint some kind of overseer but major decisions would still require a quick vote. They might delegate someone to represent them on some broader organisation of agricultural workers, but that authority can be revoked at any time. It's a radically different way of structuring society.

>Another down-side to not having a full-time army is that you have no effective way of stopping the neighbouring country from moving their border as far as they like into your territory.
Territory for its own sake is not a major concern of anarchists, who hold that nobody has any claim to more land than they actually personally make use of. It would only be perceived as aggression if people are being run out of their homes or deprived of resources they need, in which case it wouldn't be very difficult to motivate an armed resistance.

>You cannot train someone to fight in a unit and expect them to live after war has been declared, you need months to training to get someone to minimum standard.
Cool. So you train people, and let them now who to get in touch with if there's a war on. And then if their isn't a war on, you let them get on with their lives and encourage them to do something actually useful. Maybe once a month everyone can meet up to touch base and do some drills or something. Citizen volunteer forces are not a new concept, they demonstrably work.

Those who play devils advocate on anarchy should look at our current system before they spout ignorant nonsense.
There will be bandits in Anarchy
Implying there arent bandits now.

Anarchy just works, and here's why:

Raging motorcycles, tattoos, spiked hair, a shotgun in every hand, bloody death, genocide, and Mel Gibson will die a martyr exactly the way he wants to: by way of a shitstorm of bullets.  Then everyone will build a shrine in his violent honor and praise him as the new God. 

Then more genocide.

You're going to be paying a private organization to provide the services your government provides right now, anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)

Time to learn, kids. Even in a situation in which anarchy occurs, governments will form.

Let's say all of the citizens of the US voted to dissolve the government at once and descend into anarchy... I'd give it 36 hours before another major world power starts enforcing their law on us, using their military and legitimacy

Anarchy is unsustainable, as hierarchies naturally form in human society.

You kill the Tsar, a communist dictator comes to power. You remove him, another corrupt oligarchy comes to power.

It's just the way it goes.

>>9
>You don't get to vote directly on the issues that impact you or that you might know much about
No, you elect representatives whether they be a member of congress or parliament and because you're intelligent and responsible, you find out which one best fits your set of values before voting for them.

>you're just given a choice between two or three groups of barely-distinguishable politicians
I get the feeling that you're talking specifically about the current American two party system which should be changed and isn't really inherent in politically democratic economically capitalist societies.

>Also in a capitalist society most power resides in the private sector, which is completely hierarchical and not at all democratic.
I don't see why this is important or how anarchy would fix this. Power should reside in the public sector and democratic government shouldn't be influenced through such things as lobbying which is a problem that can be addresses and again, isn't really inherent in politically democratic economically capitalist societies.

>In an anarchist society EVERYTHING is governed by voluntary free association. [...] It's a radically different way of structuring society.
It is but with any system you must ask yourself how can some asshole break it? What do you do when someone forcefully seizes power or rigs a vote somehow? Things that would be considered illegal under rule of law. You can say that it wouldn't anarchy any more if someone seized power but the system isn't viable until it can protect itself.

>Territory for its own sake is not a major concern of anarchists
Of course but territory, if not sea, is usually land with resources on it. It certainly reduces that chances of you being self-sufficient and should be a concern.

>Citizen volunteer forces are not a new concept, they demonstrably work.
Certainly they are not new but weekend soldiers alone are not an effective fighting force. They work along side with full-time professional soldiers.

>>10
>Implying there arent bandits now.
But there aren't bandits now. There are not armed groups of people who survive by raiding private property and enjoy raping your women and killing your men. No matter how you look at it they just don't exist in economically developed countries.

>>10
The rates of banditry would be worse under anarchy. Under the corporate system banksters will defraud you of your pension and life savings but they won't murder you violently so they can rape your daughter.

Anarchy is an irresponsible course of action to solving problems in the real world, get a job and you might learn this.

>>15
anarchist with  2 jobs and working since age 13 here...stfu

>>16
Clearly then you are not a true anarchist

The idea that there are no leaders in an anarchistic society is false. There are leaders, they're chosen by the individual and only the individuals that choose to be lead by them are lead by them. This is in contrast to the current situation, where leaders impose their leadership on all via the threat of lethal force.

>>18
Ignoring the silly rhetoric at the end, what you're saying is that only people who vote for a leader are lead by them. How exactly does this work in a community, say in a city? I mean, does the entire city some together to vote on an unlimited number of potential leaders? And once the leaders are decided, how is it decided who has authority over which resources and such? I'm assuming that the answer is that they just somehow, peacefully work it out between themselves and pray no one disagrees enough to stall the entire process.

Wow an intelligent conversation on Anarchy.

It is true though - groups will form inside and there will be a governing power again. Order ALWAYS comes from chaos.

>>19
It's not silly rhetoric. Governments maintain power through violence, no one goes to jail because they feel that it's the government's right to jail them.

Regardless, I'm not an anarchist, so I'm really not equipped to answer that.

>>21
It is silly rhetoric because you're so clearly spinning it, as if government spends its time with a gun in your face demanding that you obey or be killed. And some people do go to jail because they realize that they did wrong, usually those who plead guilty to charges brought against them.

I told myself i wasn't going to go down this rabbit hole again but here i go.

>>13
No, Statism is Unsustainable, the only thing that sustains it is ideology when people wake the fuck up they will realize it for what it is and abandon it, many people dont see the "other" side of this state society and see the negative effects across the world that's why people still support it, the state is just another justification to provide nothing for something.

>>14
*headache*
No, you elect representatives whether they be a member of congress or parliament and because you're intelligent and responsible, you find out which one best fits your set of values before voting for them.

Yeah but most people arent interested in many state government policies which creates a problem when people vote for the PACKAGE DEAL CANDIDATE and others dont get to truly vote their true preference.

I get the feeling that you're talking specifically about the current American two party system which should be changed and isn't really inherent in politically democratic economically capitalist societies.

That wont happen and actually would be worse because then if you had say 4 parties that divided the vote 4 ways then theoretically you would only need a 26% majority to win which can be a problem for the rest of the divided 74%.

Also in a capitalist society most power resides in the private sector, which is completely hierarchical and not at all democratic.
Democracy
Not Hierarchical
Like i said before Democracy still has 2 classes the MAJORITY and the MINORITY, i thought any simpleton could get the concept of the tyranny of the majority. Now i know some majorities are a fact of reality like how about 99% of people oppose murder but thats not  democracy, democracy can win with only 51% which is a fatal flaw.(Something that's like 80% and above opposed has been called to be the inter-subjective consensus).

I don't see why this is important or how anarchy would fix this. Power should reside in the public sector and democratic government shouldn't be influenced through such things as lobbying which is a problem that can be addresses and again, isn't really inherent in politically democratic economically capitalist societies.

But by allowing power to be in the public sector you give an incentive for businesses to put up barriers to entry. You cant fix lobbying there will always be corruptible people posing as good people this is why we cant have an institution like the state that SWELLS that power, at least when they(the regulators) show some kind of dishonesty in the free market they will actually be responsible for their actions and their "regulating" firm will fall.

It is but with any system you must ask yourself how can some asshole break it? What do you do when someone forcefully seizes power or rigs a vote somehow? Things that would be considered illegal under rule of law. You can say that it wouldn't anarchy any more if someone seized power but the system isn't viable until it can protect itself.
There's no doubt about it that there will still be issues in a stateless society but i must ask you again WHY would you want an institution that SWELLS THEIR POWER? You can NEVER know a persons true intentions and because of this we cannot put our trust on those who are supposed to work for the "common good".

Of course but territory, if not sea, is usually land with resources on it. It certainly reduces that chances of you being self-sufficient and should be a concern.

Land ownership is a minefield for anti-statism but one thing that is for sure is that all states DO NOT legitimately "own" any land by any means of the word.

Certainly they are not new but weekend soldiers alone are not an effective fighting force. They work along side with full-time professional soldiers.

War is NOT profitable and if you dont have a "flag" to capture then it becomes much harder to consolidate the captured land and ultimately is unsustainable. Also the chances of a state conquering a stateless society are slim and even if they do the population will just move to another unoccupied area until the state gives up or collapses. 

But there aren't bandits now. There are not armed groups of people who survive by raiding private property and enjoy raping your women and killing your men. No matter how you look at it they just don't exist in economically developed countries.
Yes there is, they are named the "US FEDERAL/STATE GOVERNMENT" and they will put you in prison if you do not fulfill their demands, just because they're organized doesn't mean they arent bandits unless you have a strict fucking definition of what a bandit is.

>>15
I have a job and you know what? how is the money that you earn that is DEVALUED by the second due to inflation and deficit spending not stealing? the time and work that you did for 15 dollars only to have it devalued to 10 because Ben Burnanke left the printing presses on. The fact that you cant opt out of using the US currency is bad enough and is actually a crime hahaha. I dont know where this real world is? Is it the utopia where you think a group of guys in power can solve most if not all of societies problems and NOT BE CORRUPTIBLE XD? (sorry i cant help it)

>>19
Now i see how a system similar to the US "COULD" work in a small community but i think its important to look at the scope and if its actually possible to leave to another society or make your own.

I dont have much against governments per se since governments and states are 2 different things but its safe to say that most if not all governments around the world are "state" governments and its this ideology of pre-supposed authority that allows them to still exist today, eventually people will wake up, when? i dont know but hopefully it will be when the US falls in a few decades...

>>22
While they don't sit there with a gun in my face, the threat of force is omnipresent. It's their final claim to power, and the hardest to argue against. So tell me, what happens when I choose to disobey the state and decide that I'm not going to let a bunch of strange armed men abduct me?

>>24
You have status within the state, you are a voting citizen in a system developed over 100s of years.

>>24 So tell me, what happens when I choose to disobey the state and decide that I'm not going to let a bunch of strange armed men abduct me?
Disobey how? By shooting someone in the face? By parking in a disabled spot? You couldn't be more vague right now.

I also would like to see a statist defend the fact that currently since i am avoiding jury duty eventually violence will be used against me to obtain the product of MY LABOR and if i resist i get put in jail or killed. I can see why a statist would be consistent although not legitimate in claiming taxes from someone because they provide some services that benefit them even if its not directly but its not legitimate in the sense that they did not consent, but where the fuck is in this so called SOCIAL CONTRACT the part where im mandated to attend jury duty?
This is why i cant take statism and statist advocates seriously, their answer to EVERYTHING is force and in the end how much has it worked out? Sure we always have the short term gains but people NEVER look at the long term losses(Kinda like Keynesian economists).

"WE ARE LEGITIMATE BECAUSE WE HAVE THE GUNS AND WILL USE THEM AGAINST YOU IF YOU RESIST!!!""
Nice argument, with that kind of logic Rapists and Thieves are justified in doing what they do just because they can do what they do. Why do statists draw the line at the state government? Why is it when citizens break laws they get shafted but when its government officials and workers it suddenly becomes a whole new ballpark?

At least Monarchy was consistent in the sense that the king was divine but democracy claims it needs a state government because humans would be "mad max" and that state government is made out of those same people? that's not consistent at all.

>So tell me, what happens when I choose to disobey the state and decide that I'm not going to let a bunch of strange armed men abduct me?

Generally, you leave the nation and move to a place that isn't run by communists or die in a ditch.

>>28
Ill leave when they can come up with a better justification for the ownership of the land i paid for other than the usual threat.

Seriously what is the fucking point of owning anything if the state can just take it away?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIvfWcMOS_0
This pretty much sums up how i feel about the state.

>>27
Generally the statist argument is that the state provides various services, stability, and the rule of law to its people. In return, you're expected to provide your labor (as represented by money) and accept some curtailment of liberties.

As far as I'm concerned, this argument falls flat on the simple basis that the social contract between state and citizen is utter bullshit. Every person is forced to enter it upon birth, it will NEVER favor the individual, and it's ultimately up to each individual to decide when the state has violated their end, making the entire thing a moot fucking concern. There's no actual difference between how states operate and how mafias operate aside from one being considered inherently legitimate by cowards who are unwilling to take responsibility for their own existences and want a deity/parent substitute to protect them from themselves.

>>29
Again, more statements perpetuating existence a vague threat of THE MAN who will kill you and take all your stuff in response to some unstated action or no action at all. Under what circumstances exactly do you believe that "the state" is going to rob you of everything and how do you propose to prevent actual bandits in a stateless society who require no pretext?

THE SOLUTION TO ALL SYSTEMS

LOL M[sup]A^THEMATICS

M^{ATHEMATICS=ANARCHY}[sub][sub][sub]and this correct [u]B[/u][/sub][/sub]B_code proves it[/sub]

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU[b][b]b[]b

>>32
In the sense that its extortion?
I dont know, i bet people were asked how would agriculture work without slaves? when arguing against slavery back in the 1800s. Only thing i know is "state" solutions never work.

>>36
>In the sense that its extortion?
Sorry, what's extortion?

>Only thing i know is "state" solutions never work.
But what are you comparing it? What workable alternative do you propose? Have you considered that the "evils" of a state is the greatest lesser evil?

>>34
You tried to hard, the BBcode god may well be displeased with your arrogance. Next time use only that which is necessary.

>>37
Sorry, what's extortion?
Google

But what are you comparing it? What workable alternative do you propose? Have you considered that the "evils" of a state is the greatest lesser evil?

Its maybe the greatest lesser evil to you but to me its not. What is evil? Evil may mean something to you and something different to me. That's why i advocate for different stateless societies so people with similar interpretations or beliefs can get together and form societies from the ground up, compared from the top down as the 13 Colonies and other modern societies did. Now the specific type of system i would subscribe to would be a society with a true free market because i believe its the best way to bring wealth and prosperity to a society. Other people might think markets are "exploitative" and would want more of a communal type of society and that's fine too. Now there are many ideas on how this may develop after statism truly dies but i think that people of different "property beliefs" will live FAR away from each other to avoid potential conflict.(People who believe in Private property/ People who believe in communal property or no property at all.)

Now you can still have something similar to the U.S. in a stateless society the only difference is that it would be smaller in scale and scope and you wouldn't have to worry that much about "politics" anymore.

>>39
>Google
What?

>Its maybe the greatest lesser evil to you but to me its not.
But what are you comparing it? What workable alternative do you propose?

You can dream of Galt’s Gulch as much as you want but if you have no method of reaching it then your words meaningless.