A (probably asked a lot) question to anarchist

No, there are no such anarchists.

 

Your statement is a blatant untruth.

 

No, it is true. We're talking about political ideologies, political systems, emergent systems, civilization. You're talking about vandalism. There may be some individuals who happen to call themselves anarchists, and also happen to be vandals. But in the context of this thread, your comment is completely stupid.

 

Actually I'll tell you what's stupid, promoting a logical fallacy that attempts to define strictures on an ideology that intrinsically rejects all efforts at top-down control. There is nothing you can say absolutely about anarchists and anarchy. They insist.

 

I think you two are arguing about the nihilists who call themselves anarchists who seem to break into violence at any large left-wing demonstration. They dress in black and cover their faces and are complete idiots.

 

Do you believe in small government?

 

Okay, I can't figure out what the logical fallacy is.

 

What's he talking about? Am I defining strictures on anarchy?

 

He just likes to lecture sometimes. There's no stopping him when he's on a roll. Just smile and wave.

 

Yes there would. Anarchism is not lawlessness.

 

good ain't it?

He's already selling to nearly everyone, and demanding their complete obidience and 100% their asset. don't know if it's possible to broaden that.

might happen, or bob can hire guards early on. Or even just give it to a few, barricade himself for a month, then come out again when everyone else is dead. Anyways, bob being shot is in itself a flaw isn't it?

Probably not, but they might be. whatever can happens will happen.

One could hire people to enforce your intellectual rights, but maybe people'll resist that. And inventors doesn't necessarily brand something, it is possible for a second party to just steal it and market it as it's own.

 

Here, you are wrong. You should recognize that there are Anarchists that defend Propaganda of deed. And some do that. Remember that there are many kind of anarchists.

 

You are right, they reject as normal any top-down structure because that are dictatorial structures, but they defend down-top structures that are democractic.

 

Yeah, it's good.

The first objection was to say that the scenario wouldn't actually play out, because of... objection two. So I guess It was only two objections.

Yes, he could do that. The whole thing is logically possible. But it isn't actually possible. And, in that it's logically possible, it's also possible in a society with a state. Now we could come up with other hypothetical scenarios which show that stateless societies would end up creating a state. But, if the primary objection to anarchy is that it would lead to a state, and it often is, doesn't that concede that a stateless society is superior to a state?

As for people stealing your invention, again I can't think of a crime people could commit in a stateless society that they don't also commit under a state.

 

An idea I picked up from Ben Stone over at badquaker.com is that "the state" is the idea in people's minds that it is acceptable to achieve one's goals through the initiation of violence against others. An anarchist doesn't pretend that there are not people out there who would use violence against others. An anarchist simply refuses to regard such behavior as socially acceptable.

A state is only legitimate when recognized as legitimate by the populace. When they regard it as legitimate, people call is a state, and when the regard it as illegitimate, they call it organized crime. There is no functional difference between the two, other than the attitudes, opinions, and acceptance of the populace. Thus, as others in this thread have said, in a society in which the overwhelming majority of people eschew the use of aggression to achieve one's ends, and they apply that morality to state actors as well, then at that point the state will cease to exist. The very same people will be there, holding the same guns, but they will no longer be regarded as a legitimate government, but rather as criminals.

 

Since there won't be a government to provide it, where are they going to get the authority to "police?"

 

The essence of anarchy is that the initiation of aggression against the person or property of another is against the law. This ethic, held by the vast majority of people, is what would make a particular society an anarchist society, since government that initiate aggression against others would be regarded as illegitimate and criminal. This has nothing to do with the fact that people in this society have a legitimate right to protect their life and property, nor with the fact that a mediator in this society could find a person guilty of breaking the laws against aggression.

As Ethereal said, anarchism is not lawlessness. It is simply a society that refuses to accept the legitimacy of "archons", or rulers. Such a society could very easily figure out how to protect property and resolve disputes among its people.

 

I doubt it very much. What you are describing requires a consensus among the community. Everyone has to buy into it. There would have to be some sort of organizing principle of society, like a religion, to keep everyone in line.

 

Yes, what I am describing would require a consensus among the community. The majority have to share the same cultural values. That is what makes a cohesive society and culture.

Just as right now, the majority buys into the idea that it is acceptable for some people to initiate aggression against others, and hence government is seen, by the vast majority, to be legitimate. As you say, this can only continue as long as the majority buy into it. Once they stop doing so, coercive government will disappear.

Such is the way with all revolutions in societies. At one point the vast majority of people believed slavery to be acceptable, while only a few crackpots spoke out against it. Now cultural norms have changed, and slavery is considered beyond the pale. A consensus has formed and nobody would even entertain the idea of allowing slavery to exist.

What anarchist seek is a society in which the vast majority of people oppose the legitimacy of a social order based upon the initiation of violence, one in which state aggression is viewed as beyond the pale. Once people's attitudes change, the coercive state will cease to exist, just as monarchy and slavery before it.

 

And I don't think it matters one (*)(*)(*)(*) bit because those individuals would continue to exist in the anarchist utopia and therefore, the anarchist utopia wouldn't work.

 

Who is going to enforce the laws? The state that doesn't exist?

 

You're question is a strawman and you lit it on fire, congratulations.

I'm an anarchist because I strive for personal liberty. I believe the state impedes this by centralizing decision making and power into the hands of a few. Since I don't plan on enforcing my views on others I'd leave others to their own devices including the creation of groups such as states. If inclined I'll debate, and trade with them. If we come into conflict diplomacy, bargaining and if that fails organized violence can be initiated to resolve our troubles.

Anarchism has existed since humanity has and their have always been places where a state doesn't or cannot exert control. People still seemingly survive, the quality of life varies of course.

The point of anarchism is not to be a rigid institution like the state but free flowing and adaptable to the peoples will. Even the longest lasting empire or "state" was unsustainable.

 

If it were so easy, why doesn't our society already do that without the legal system. Answer, because that is a completely idiotic idea. The legal system allows two individuals who disagree to take their disagreement to the court to determine who is in the right.

 

So, where are these kids smashing windows and burning buildings? Why is it that they can do that under a democracy, but if they do it in a stateless society the society wouldn't work.

So you've never heard of a stateless society. Right now we have police, courts and a military because we pay for them. We don't need a state in order to pay for police, courts, and a military. The only reason we think a military is necessary is because we are afraid that some STATE might attack us. No, the police would not be able to protect you in a stateless society, just like they can't protect you now. What on earth gives you the idea that you need a state to have order? Haven't you ever heard of for-profit security firms? Haven't you ever heard of for profit arbitration agencies? Laws are grounded in reason. They are not grounded in government.

 

Fuu, you know that kind of "stateless" socity is much more fearful than a state society. You know that I am really afraid of the anarchocapitalism. I don't even consider that anarchism because you keep vertical structures and more if you start talking about profit corporations that are the problem