Squatters leave house once occupied by soverign citizen; Owner of house afraid of repair costs
315 replies, posted
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342339]delegation could be used for large scale. you keep things from become coercive by using voluntary systems. if you don't like the decisions the union makes, you are free to quit the union without fear of being killed, imprisoned, or starved.[/QUOTE]How is that not coercive though? "Agree with us, or leave." So you and others like you leave, but the body you left still controls the resources. What do you do then if finding other resources isn't manageable? Return to the body that you left out of dependency and have to live in a system that doesn't respect your views? Or remain isolated and die?
And what if you stay, but refuse to follow the decisions made by the greater majority?
the biggest issue with anarchy and communism is that corruption won't simply stop simply because of the change in economy/government. So you have to factor in what a corrupt anarchy would be like assuming the amount of corruption doesn't really change.
Bad people will be bad people, no matter what. Battling it off it virtually impossible.
[QUOTE=J!NX;42342431]
Bad people will be bad people, no matter what. Nothing will change that. Sure, money corrupts, but so can MANY many other things.[/QUOTE]
and its not like we don't have to deal with organized crime, modern weapons and atomic weapons.
How exactly would an independent commune or town protect against that? Federated States don't really sound like Anarchism at all, just more decentralization.
[QUOTE=J!NX;42342431]the biggest issue with anarchy and communism is that corruption won't simply stop simply because of the change in economy/government. So you have to factor in what a corrupt anarchy would be like assuming the amount of corruption doesn't really change.
Bad people will be bad people, no matter what.[/QUOTE]
" Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others." - edward abbey
the point of this is that it's one thing if someone is corrupt or bad, but it's far worse when someone is corrupt in a position of power over others. if people aren't able to rule themselves then they certainly aren't able to rule others.
[QUOTE=J!NX;42342431]the biggest issue with anarchy and communism is that corruption won't simply stop simply because of the change in economy/government. So you have to factor in what a corrupt anarchy would be like assuming the amount of corruption doesn't really change.
Bad people will be bad people, no matter what. Battling it off it virtually impossible.[/QUOTE]
Anarchists and communists often rely on the argument that if social conditions change so that "to each according to their need" (and wants) exists, and people are mostly fullfilled and happier, then there's far less reason for them to be criminals, corrupt, or anti-community. Happy people aren't corrupt, they become corrupt in order to achiever what they want.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42342446']Anarchists and communists often rely on the argument that if social conditions change so that "to each according to their need" (and wants) exists, and people are mostly fullfilled and happier, then there's far less reason for them to be criminals, corrupt, or anti-community. Happy people aren't corrupt, they become corrupt in order to achiever what they want.[/QUOTE]
And what if what they want is power?
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42342443]and its not like we don't have to deal with organized crime, modern weapons and atomic weapons.
How exactly would an independent commune or town protect against that? Federated States don't really sound like Anarchism at all, just more decentralization.[/QUOTE]
well i would prefer a libertarian socialist federation of states rather than the capitalist/corporatist version we have today.
but either way communes wouldn't be independent. they would be loosely affiliated with each other through voluntary councils and syndicates that would seek to facilitate organization between groups of people. this can work with war. in fact, similar concepts like military alliances(promises made by states to protect each other in times of war) actually do work out in warfare.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42342443]and its not like we don't have to deal with organized crime, modern weapons and atomic weapons.
How exactly would an independent commune or town protect against that? Federated States don't really sound like Anarchism at all, just more decentralization.[/QUOTE]
Federated states aren't anarchist, but federation of groups of individuals can be. Keep in mind that federations don't mean that there's any sort of coercion or authority structure, merely methods of meeting and managing. Hence, it's not really a state by the left-wing definition because it's not coercing or controlling anyone, or if it is it's at the very least level possible.
I'm not sure how much I buy that it could be possible, and I don't claim it is, but historically and presently there are examples of us getting rather close with decentralized minarchist states.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42342467]And what if what they want is power?[/QUOTE]
it becomes incredibly hard to get power in a system that doesn't have existing structures for coercion and manipulation.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342472]it becomes incredibly hard to get power in a system that doesn't have existing structures for coercion and manipulation.[/QUOTE]
I find this incredibly hard to accept.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342472]it becomes incredibly hard to get power in a system that doesn't have existing structures for coercion and manipulation.[/QUOTE]
you dont need a government for positions of power and coercion/manipulation to exist
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42342476]I find this incredibly hard to accept.[/QUOTE]
if there's no hammer around how do you hammer in a nail? without the tools of coercion, people are forced to work harder to coerce others.
[editline]29th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Loriborn;42342480]you dont need a government for positions of power and coercion/manipulation to exist[/QUOTE]
you need statist relationships that would be found in governments or capitalist enterprises.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342486]if there's no hammer around how do you hammer in a nail? without the tools of coercion, people are forced to work harder to coerce others.[/QUOTE]
you make the hammer
you manipulate people with traditional concepts of authority
physical strength, intelligence, alliances, etc
[editline]29th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342486]you need statist relationships that would be found in governments or capitalist enterprises.[/QUOTE]
you just need someone who is better than those he wants to take advantage of
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42342467]And what if what they want is power?[/QUOTE]
Then they have it- the same as everybody else. Have you ever been to a real town hall meeting? People who are participatory in the democratic process tend to be drawn into it and become passionate. Everybody there feels as though they're really in power, that they're making the decisions. It's really a liberating thing, to feel that you are deciding policy and decisions for everyone. When everyone is involved in making the decisions, then everybody is in power.
If you mean power as in coercion or instruction over others, i would hold that that's simply a constructed want out of the existing economic and social system, and is not a legitimate want. There are always other avenues to achieve notoriety and influence, and often that's what those who want power want. That individualist goal, though, could really only happen in a system where it's acceptable or even encouraged to want to control others.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342472]it becomes incredibly hard to get power in a system that doesn't have existing structures for coercion and manipulation.[/QUOTE]
Well a bunch of thugs with guns and tanks could probably take over a small commune.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;42342489]you make the hammer
you manipulate people with traditional concepts of authority
physical strength, intelligence, alliances, etc[/QUOTE]
exactly, which is much more difficult to do without an existing infrastructure to facilitate it. that allows the already present anarchist structures to have a very powerful advantage in confronting the would-be dictator.
[editline]29th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42342493]Well a bunch of thugs with guns and tanks could probably take over a small commune.[/QUOTE]
how do those thugs get guns and what is preventing the commune from having guns?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342494]exactly, which is much more difficult to do without an existing infrastructure to facilitate it. that allows the already present anarchist structures to have a very powerful advantage in confronting the would-be dictator.[/QUOTE]
in an existing structure you need to gain support of the populace and allies to gain entry into the government
in anarchy, you simply need a few strong guys and you take over the town without anyone standing in your way or having to worry about getting into power through democracy/bureaucracy
i mean people think that communism implies some sort of pacifism or idleness. the whole point of anarchism is that the population becomes mobilized and willing to participate in the system. it means that a community will have more incentive and drive to defend itself from coercive entities.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42342493]Well a bunch of thugs with guns and tanks could probably take over a small commune.[/QUOTE]
This historically how most of the anarchist/libertarian/communist experiments have ended, with the thugs played by other nations or armies. Paris Commune, Catalonia, Free Territory, etc. This is not the fault of the systems themselves but rather the unfortunate fact of being isolated in a world of enemies. This is outside the system of libertarianism.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342511]i mean people think that communism implies some sort of pacifism or idleness. the whole point of anarchism is that the population becomes mobilized and willing to participate in the system. it means that a community will have more incentive and drive to defend itself from coercive entities.[/QUOTE]
how do you make people willing to participate in the system
[QUOTE=Loriborn;42342522]how do you make people willing to participate in the system[/QUOTE]
there are a million different theories. generally the idea is that you give people in communities tangible benefits from community bottom-up organization and use that as a means of showing people that the system can be beaten.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342530]there are a million different theories. generally the idea is that you give people in communities tangible benefits from community bottom-up organization and use that as a means of showing people that the system can be beaten.[/QUOTE]And what if they prefer the statist system?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342511]i mean people think that communism implies some sort of pacifism or idleness. the whole point of anarchism is that the population becomes mobilized and willing to participate in the system. it means that a community will have more incentive and drive to defend itself from coercive entities.[/QUOTE]
Yea, this. I mean, if you look at the history of anarchist movements, they've all been invaded by outside forces and have often been paired with organisations of military strength. The Free Territory in Ukraine came about because of the Revolutionary Insurrection Army. The Paris Commune came out of an armed revolt and died in combat against the invading French forces. The EZLN, the name given to the territory controlled by the organisation of the same name, means Zapatista National Liberation Army. Revolutionary Spain and Catalonia came about under the guidance of the CNT-FAI, who besides being trade unions were militias, fighting in a civil war.
Fact of the matter is that anarchism and libertarianism does not mean one has to lay down your arms. It is perfectly permissible to use violence and coercion in self defense to free oneself from forces of coercion.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;42342535]And what if they prefer the statist system?[/QUOTE]
idk then they prefer the statist system good for them.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342530]there are a million different theories. generally the idea is that you give people in communities tangible benefits from community bottom-up organization and use that as a means of showing people that the system can be beaten.[/QUOTE]
not what i meant
say you have a commune of 100 people living in anarchy (much more than this would simply fall apart)
what would make these people succeed in staving off an attack from a country the size of the US
[QUOTE=Loriborn;42342547]not what i meant
say you have a commune of 100 people living in anarchy (much more than this would simply fall apart)
what would make these people succeed in staving off an attack from a country the size of the US[/QUOTE]
nothing. absolutely nothing. that's why so many anarchist experiments have failed throughout history, both big and small.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342556]nothing. absolutely nothing. that's why so many anarchist experiments have failed throughout history, both big and small.[/QUOTE]
anarchy would be nice if people could behave and everyone did it (yeah all 8 billion of us have to behave and not do bad things and have the exact same views and be content with subsistence lifestyle)
but that wont happen so its pointless to discuss it
[QUOTE=Loriborn;42342562]anarchy would be nice if people could behave and everyone did it (yeah all 8 billion of us have to behave and not do bad things and have the exact same views and be content with subsistence lifestyle)
but that wont happen so its pointless to discuss it[/QUOTE]
capitalism would be nice if everyone could behave.
but that won't happen so we should destroy it.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342572]capitalism would be nice if everyone could behave.
but that won't happen so we should destroy it.[/QUOTE]
capitalism forces people to behave (moreso than any alternative) and works far more realistically than anarchy would in the same scale; and thinking you can divide a nation into thousands of small communes is incredibly idealistic, barbaric, and frankly, idiotic
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;42342535]And what if they prefer the statist system?[/QUOTE]
We have many unanswered question with these ideas because they are not well-founded, because of their limited use historically.
But at least for this question, we can look at the CNT-FAI in Spain during their civil war. As they and the POUM liberated the countryside village by village, they brought together the populace in the town halls or meeting places, and the entire village voted democratically as to whether the village should be collectivized. Those that did not wish to be, were not. Those that did, were. Simple enough.
The main thing comes when the statist system coerces or threatens the existence of the liberated community. Then things get fuzzy. Makhno invaded, expropriated the expropriators, and instituted a system of military rationing. But we don't have much precedent for this, so it's kinda hard to say what the right thing is. Anarchistically, if you wanted to live in a statist system then you can. If you are truly absolutely liberated, and you choose to give away your freedom to live in a statist system, then that's fine. The glory of freedom is that you can vote to give it away, but because of the nature of liberty people often prefer to have it than not when it's really tangible.
But often, from our perspective, people do not choose to act in statist systems because they are free, but because they are coerced, familiar with it, or themselves coercive.
[editline]29th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Loriborn;42342582]capitalism forces people to behave (moreso than any alternative) and works far more realistically than anarchy would in the same scale; and thinking you can divide a nation into thousands of small communes is incredibly idealistic, barbaric, and frankly, idiotic[/QUOTE]
Behave in capitalism? This is the same ideology that has lead to the death of millions as a necessity of industrialization and requires consistence expansion by coercion in order to provide for new markets and labor. Maybe it's ok for us in our developed nations, but next time you're in the receiving end of a raid on a Nigerian village by state military paid by Dutch Shell, then let me know how that capitalism is working out for you.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.