That's sort of the problem though. A totally free society, a society of practically no regulatory mechanism, results in great freedom for some, at the grave expense of others. The state must exist in order for the majority to enjoy some measure of liberty. But, the state must exist on a razor's edge, and the state must be a servant of the people, not something which grows to have it's own agenda, something which views itself as omnipotent.
There are many schools of anarchism. OWS is closer to communism and collectivism of the type that Kilgram espouses.
And none of them work on any great scale. Maybe at a tribal or commune level but even those have gone by the wayside once big enough.
Sharing one fact, doesn't mean anything. Using that logic, I could say that liberalism and Conservatism are the same thing, as both have origins in Enlightenment. Every single idegoly, ignores something about behavior. If that weren't the case, then we would have perfect systems. Not a single country in the world, has full fleged Laissez Faire. Just as much as no country in the world has a Communist form of government.
Isn't that the state of Nature from which we are all derived? A sign of a free man is his or her willingness to defend themselves, their ideas, their families, and their things. If they are not "free", if they don't want freedom...they won't. I agree in a HIGHLY limited state. We have hit the point of no return, I fear. Our laws--that most people are blissfully unaware of--give our government Nazi and Soviet like authority. Because they have not rolled them out en masse people are not running like chickens with a fox in the yard. It is slow conditioning but we will get there soon enough.
Someone may fully want to be free, to live as they wish, etc... but what's to stop aggressive authoritarian types from using their rights to stifle someone else? A totally free society, or a society absent of regulation will only give birth to what we have now, as people inevitably band together and start making laws. Let me reiterate that the state must walk a razor's edge. All is not lost though. If our government should ever cross the line in the ultimate sense, we'll tear the wall down, it's inevitable. Rinse and repeat.
Eventually, but there would be period of this being sorted, much like now. It took a long time for our very "free" Republic to fall to centralized government planning. Maybe we will...the people who cannot see how far we've come make me disbelieve there is hope outside of a super-volcano or asteroid.
A state is not necessary for law to exist. All those evil people coexist with a state. They can also become the state, they have. They can use the monopoly on legal use of force that the state enjoys, and they do. In a stateless society you would have to protect your property, yes. The same is true with a state. With or without a state you can pay someone else to protect your property. Now we pay police to respond in the event of a dispute. We pay security agencies to monitor and/or guard our homes and places of business. We pay judges to settle our disputes. We pay defense agencies to protect us from invasion. We don't need a state to get that stuff. Look at where the violent crime conglomerates right now. Other than domestic disputes, it exists mostly in markets that are prohibited by the state. It can't be because those markets are outside of state control. They are not. They are well within established borders of a quadruple tiered government. Crime in the drug market, for example, is rampant because those who participate in it cannot rely on the existing system for protection. They must provide their own security and justice system, which turns out to be violent and brutal, not because that's just how people want to behave, but because government monopolizes security and justice and locks them out of it. Historical examples:
You're giving a critique of this brand of anarchism advocated in the videos. And as that, I agree with you. But you don't need a state to have near universally recognized authority. There are examples everywhere.
If you could imagine a state that can't grow, I would like to assign it its duties and implement it immediately.
I don't mean to be rude, but I don't really feel like picking your post apart. All I'd suggest, is that if ever given the chance, you should go about giving your stateless society a test drive. It would not be long before your peaceful congregation of individuals began splintering off into sub groups. It'd not be long before different groups find particular things about other groups intolerable. Some would seek to imppose their will on others. Some would be willing to trample all over the imaginary 'inalienable rights' of others, by any means necessary, since it's 'their right' to do so. At some point, once people became sick of the chaos and instability, people would start reaching across the aisle and agreeing upon common laws. Voila, a pseudo state is born... and there is nothing wrong with that. Think of this for a second. Imagine there were no laws concerning discrimination in this country, but instead the liberty to discriminate was held as a higher principal. Being a Libertarian, how do you feel about LGBT rights? Consider for a second the size and power of this nation's religious right. Which of those two groups should have greater access to rights, to liberty? How far should the religious right be able to go in impossing their will? In a stateless society, the meek and mild are ultimately screwed... until of course the chaos of disorganization takes it's toll and people wake up. The absence of a state will only result in the formation of a state, because that's the only way we can maintain at this state of being, this point of human evolution. A pure libertarian or anarchist society is the ideal state of existence, but it's simply not possible at this point. Humans, as a collective entity, are simply not able to peacefully exist amongst each other, in this manner, at this time. That's why we have a government or state, it's a necessary evil.
That's why I gave you the historical examples. Communities would certainly form. Some of which would be very exclusive, others not so much. Wherever you could go, where there are likely to be people, you would be on someones property, and you would have to abide by their rules, or face consequences. I gave you two case studies which show how law is recognized and enforced without a state. A free market in law is not some fantastical incoherent theory like the one you heard of in the video. It has existed.
I honestly don't care about historical examples in this case. First of all, neither you or I can know the validity of these examples, and secondly, these examples aren't necessarily relevant to the world we live in today. Anarchism and pure Libertarian societies are good in theory, but are simply unworkable in the world we live in... due to human nature. But whatever gets you through the day.
Kilagram is like a broken record. He keep on trying convince that collectivism doesn't take force to implement. Then he goes on about ABOLISHING private ownership, ok how are you going to abolish private ownership without FORCE? How are you going keep people from owning private property without FORCE? Then he claims to champion INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, WTF? His whole ideology is a contradiction in terms.
What behaviour? I don't need any authority to act. I don't need any master to know have to act, and the same with many people. We need to change some education, we are educated in a really individual way where only the self is the important thing. The rest of people are just tools to arrive to the top. That is how we are educated. So we create violent individuals, but it is within this society. If we change the society at all, and we teach solidarity, and what is important is the solidarity we will have different values. As it is said in the video, the human is mainly collaborative, not competitive. The species that are more collaborative are the ones that more survive. Anarchism is the absolute freedom, everybody self-manages and there is an organization, normally in what we could call in municipalities.
Didn't you notice that you create a state? I am going to bold you the most important points. You have a state with that conditions and also an authority.
First, to have private ownership you must use the force. That is the fact. Private ownership is impossible without the use of the force and the coercion. Cannot you see that? It is so obvious.
So basically what you call anarchism is in reality, atavism on steroids combined with a truncated understanding of tribal societies and the internecine warfare in which they engaged one so called confederation against another. What a collection of clueless idiots.
Ummm not really, but how is your ideology any different, than you describe of private ownership ? Oh wait, it isn't. You live in imagination land where private ownership isn't between two willing parties.
No, I don't live in imagination, as in the video is explained, that is possible as it was possible in Ucraine with the Free Territory as in Spain. Land is something that cannot be owned. It is not mine neither yours. That is the fact. Live in a society where the property is abolished can be normal. We've been living in that way during centuries in many groups. And always people tries to go to that kind of organization, but the governors always try to avoid using the force. The defenders of the private property are the ones that constantly use the force. Not the ones that want to abolish it. That is the difference. And in my ideology for what I should use the force? I don't need to use the force in any way. The system is much less violent than the private property system. More than the 90% of the crimes are related to the private property Think about it.
Well, I've dealt with your objections as specifically as I can, insofar as I know what they are. You haven't read the examples, so you don't know what I mean by anarchy. I have no idea what you mean by pure libertarian society. You're not supporting anything you say with any kind of argumentation, you're just making one assertion after another. You see what you're doing here? You're not engaging me.
No I haven't created a state. By that reasoning every home is a state, every business is a state, and every body is a state. But if that's what you want to call it, fine.
No you don't. If no one comes to take your property, you don't have to use any force. The same is true of your body. If no one comes to take it, you don't have to use force to protect your body. Robbery, kidnapping, murder, those things necessarily entail the use of force, ownership does not.
Humans must work to survive. We can't just walk around naked and pluck fruit when we're hungry. Without work we die. This sucks. The greater the buffer between us and death, the more comfortable we are. That buffer is built by the accumulation of surplus goods. Thus the natural inclination of the human is to acquire, not just enough, but always more. It's not just some strange new desire brought on by the "rat race" of modern civilization, as supposed by the young "anarchists". Greed is as natural as my brilliant blue eyes. We learn, early on in our quest to accumulate as many surplus goods as possible, that we can accumulate more goods in aggregate if we each focus on one thing and then trade most of the surplus of that one thing for whatever else we want. I could have more fish and clothing if I focus all my time on catching fish, and then trade my excess fish for clothing. Before long it becomes obvious that you cant always find someone who wants what you have and has what you want and is willing to trade. To solve this problem you begin to accumulate surplus amounts of something that you know everyone will want, and money is born. When a person starts off in the world with no property and perhaps an unrefined skill or two, he is very poor. The only thing he has to trade is his labor. So he does, and employment is born. Now we have all the ingredients for capitalism without the need to posit the existence of any state, technology, education or religion. This could just as easily be the stone age as the digital age. Capitalism is the natural state of affairs for humans. With the use of a great deal of force, it can be suppressed, but it can never be abolished. The level of technology we have now, which allows us to work very little and still accumulate surplus goods is not the natural state of affairs. Our tendency to work toward this point is natural, but actually getting here is just a bonus. Obliteration of technically and economically sophisticated societies is a very real possibility, with historical precedent. Any political philosophy that presupposes modern technology is predicated on false assumptions, and is therefore not viable and prone to failure. Any political philosophy which opposes any natural state of affairs is impossible to implement successfully. Any political philosophy which would oppose any natural state of affairs without the use of force is internally incoherent, and so, warrants no further consideration.
