609 Would Anarchy Create Governments?

[AtheistBelgium]

I wish i could express myself like you can stefbot :)

i do believe an anarchist society would be the best solution but i'm aware this will not be achieved in my lifetime. However i believe that one day it'll get there. The other ways don't look very appealing in my eyes

[DanMorin007]

Brilliant analysis.

[MarmaladeINFP]

Here is the fundamental problem. Anything can be idealized and explained in terms of idealized examples since pragmatic reality doesn't impinge upon what we can imagine. Yes, you can describe how a perfect anarcho-capitalism would operate, but that isn't the same thing as proving it would operate that way in reality. People have also described how perfect govts could operate. Theoretically, many imagined possibilities might be manifested, but that doesn't mean they are probable.

[MarmaladeINFP]

@MarmaladeINFP Anarcho-capitalism may be a noble ideal, but it's also an improbable possibility. There is nothing wrong with aspiring toward the improbable. My criticism isn't against idealism, rather against the ideal of anarcho-capitalism. I'm fond of anarchism in some ways. My specific criticism is that, if we're going to strive for improbable possibilities, I can think of ideals more noble than anarcho-capitalism, visions more ambitious than a DRO. So why sell ourselves short?

[Buenzas]

Quick question, not sure if this was addressed. If there was an anarchist society that needed a military for collective defense, some private organization could provide this. If this army was not in the process of defending the country, then these resources could be sitting unused and the person heading this organization could theoretically use them to establish a dictatorship/government. This is probably highly unlikely though as people would outnumber this force and could rebel. Thoughts?

[Buenzas]

@Buenzas Just read practical anarchy, it answered my question.

[AnArChRiStxseditio]

@Buenzas An anarchist society would rely upon a Civil Defence Force that would essentially be engineers for the society at the same time as being ready for military service if needed. Building schools,hospitals,roads,bridge­s,humanitarian/foreign aid/health and remote services. Preferably not a mercenary organization but a small dedicated unit much like modern special forces would probably be as much dedicated "Army" as we would need (no more than 10K ppl) with the CDF comprising 100K or more

[MrShittyFag]

It will be solved because people want a solution 9:00

That's your reason for DROs not gaining power? DROs will never work and the free market magic wand doesn't work like that.

[Leonar12345]

my favorite type of government is the early u.s. government which was a very weak central gov. and strong state govs. but i'd make state gov. even more powerful

[capitalist4life]

damn those cat-molesting ninjas!

[MagnesiumAlloy]

"stealthy accountant ninjas molesting your cat" lol

[godkingofthepunks]

Are you an Anarchist ? An Anarchist is a person that wants to be free and not be controlled, ruled or

under the authority of other people

[wind0wninja]

I've been screwed over on Ebay and I doubt the reputation of the other party was any concern of the other party. In end you still get screwed. Personally I'd rather do business with 'private members' who have pledged to live in honor of one another. Then failing to honor agreements actually means something. So long as the private membership means something. Now if you're ostracized no one will or can do business with you. You can just toil w/ other dishonorable masses willing to accept whatever.

[LiberalCast]

It is widely held in economics that firms (like eBay, or even a Mom & Pop Shop) will only do what they do if they are sure about certain basics like property, relative safety, and certain ground-rules in the markets (not really regulations, but more like making sure they can benefit from their work). In your arguments, you presuppose property & the existence of DRO's when property as we know it only occurred when States began defining/protecting it, and thus began the rise of the market economy

[reapfreak]

I always find it hilarious that people attempt to justify the state by the argument that a state will always arise. It's a wrong conclusion, but even if it were true it is no justification. I usually just reply "so DEATH is okay?"

[Thill029]

There is nothing wrong with a DRO having a monopoly if it's values and policies are the correct ones and that is on of the shortcomings of anarchist philosophy. If there were a DRO which protected individual rights, I would WANT it to acquire a monopoly on force (a State). And if it ever abused its power and deviated from it's moral policies, and the public realized that it was acting immorally, the public would support another party to overthrow them and re-establish individual rights.

[Thill029]

@Thill029

Also, anarchism lacks a philosophical foundation for the use of force in the first place. What gives the DRO's the moral right to apply force? What sort of policies are moral and ethical for a DRO to practice? Why should someone have to worry about a hundred different DRO's which are out to kill them for being Atheist, Christian, Jewish, White, Black etc etc... that's not freedom.

[Thill029]

@Thill029

and before someone jumps on my statement and says "but there is just as much of a threat from terrorist gangs today as under anarchism!"

The difference is that under anarchism, the morality of terrorist gangs are justified by the fact that there is a demand for them.

[MaikUniversum]

@Thill029 actually there would be NO demand for terrorism in anarchist society. Who would they terorize? Free people? Terrorists loves states, the states has power to do almost everything for them, I mean, sending a billion dollars in cash or something. Because the state hasa monopoly on all peoples money (through taxes). In free society (free market whatever) there would be no monopolies at all.

I don't know what you mean by "morality of terrorist gangs are justified".

[wellenreiterin]

create anarchy! tiny. cc/iqz04

[natmanprime]

put it more bluntly:

power to the people!

(: {I

(: {P

[natmanprime]

solution to human corruption:

undermine any need for corruption.

bigger picture:

this population is wrecking it's planetary habitat. Distractions of fighting for basic survival (capitalism, money) will screw everything.

So, the more independent people are, the less that the concept of money will be necessary. Taken to it's conclusion, everyone will be able to do or make whatever they want.

That is anarchy.

accept no substitutes.

(no, not even anarcho-capitalism!)

thank you.

: P

[SlashySlash17]

This is not anarchy. The owners of the property would obviously own everything on it and have the power to steal the labor of the workers. Sure there wouldn't technically be a government but there is still hierarchy and still inequality. What about the people who dont own property? they would be forced to give into subordination. There wouldnt be any "free" areas b/c the people who ownd property would expand and then there would be a series of oligarchies across the land.

[masonkiller666]

Stef, how do you factor in lying?

[GronTheMighty]

To be entirely frank, it seems both you Bitbutter and FatGermanBastard have argued without adequately understanding eachother enough... If i may suggest so, i think you can both benefit more from sending private messages between you so you do not have to constrain your argumentations to these measly comments :)

cheers

[NerdHerdStudios]

@ FatGermanBasterd

> All you want then is an alternative (i.e. more democratic) form of government.

Incorrect. The form of government is irrelevant to me if it is involuntary. I would not oppose entirely voluntary governments that did not claim a monopoly on force, but no such thing presently exists.

> Why don't people get that anarchy is...the absence of ANY government.

If you define government as a monopoly on force, then yes. However, I do not oppose voluntary governance.

[FatGermanBastard]

But anarchy is the abscence of governments. Not the abscence of bad governments. Why are you using this funny definition ?

[NerdHerdStudios]

@FGB

> But anarchy is the [sic]abscence of governments. Not the [sic]abscence of bad governments.

I never used the word "bad", which is subjective and not very useful. I made a distinction between coercive monopolistic entities and entities that are voluntary. It is not my problem if you cannot grasp the nuances here.

> Why are you using this funny definition ?

Because I don't recognize you as the ultimate authority on what words mean.

[FatGermanBastard]

Ok...then make it "anarchy is the abscence of governments...not the abscence of involuntary governments".

I mean seriously...if you want an alternative form of government...a more voluntary one...then why on earth do you refer to that as anarchy ? You do not want anarchy !!! You just want another government. Show me one serious source that defines anarchy as the abscence of involuntary government. Why are you guys always trying to define your way out of philosophical problems ???

[anutarasamyat]

...so you're saying... let's still have lawyers ..(liars from day one, always have been always will be) and usuary? Not for me thanks.. keep the NEW status quo.

[NerdHerdStudios]

FatGermanBastard should cease speaking with authority until he at least understands Stef's positions. You cannot disprove something that you do not understand.

> The decision of free people against anarchy should be accepted.

Anarchy is freedom from institutionalized coercion. What you have just said is a contradiction. free people cannot choose to reject freedom, and still remain free.

How about this gem:

> Anarchy = Lack of authority.

No, we oppose involuntary authority.

[FatGermanBastard]

Then you are not an anarchist goddamnit ! All you want then is an alternative (i.e. more democratic) form of government.

Why don't people get that anarchy is not defined as the abscence of a government you don't like - it's the abscence of ANY government.

[bitbutter]

'All you want then is an alternative (i.e. more democratic) form of government.'

Nothing NHS just said supports your conclusion here as far as i can see.

[FatGermanBastard]

100% proof against anarchy:

The basic idea of anarchy is that people recognize what is good for them and act accordingly and that anarchy is good for the people.

The fact that anarchy has not been established proves that people either don't recognize what is good for them and act accordingly or if they do recognize what is good for them since they have not recognized anarchy as good anarchy is not good.

[stefbot]

Right, so I assume that you believe the government should choose our marriage partners for us, and we should not rely on voluntarism...

[FatGermanBastard]

No actually I think it's number 2: The decision of free people against anarchy should be accepted. Everything else would not be logical.

The second problem I have with your philosophy is that you are talking about anarchy yet you are constantly describing a non anarchistic state. DROs are regulating organisations that impose authority on others. Anarchy = Lack of authority.

[FatGermanBastard]

@stefbot

I don't really understand your counter argument, Stef. If anarchy is good for the people and the people have the intelligence to recognize what is good for them and the power to enforce it (and these are the requirements for anarchy) then please explain to me why anarchy is not our political reality yet and hasn't been for over 2000 years.

[MaikUniversum]

@FatGermanBastard you are ignorant about anarchism, go read more.

[LiberalCast]

@stefbot it's not fair to say that anyone who doesn't agree with anarchism is totalitarian.  without the ability to have constructive debate with those who disagree with us, what good would radicals like us be doing?

[ThinkSkank]

@stefbot But it is people themselves that choose to form governments in the first place. It begins with communing over an issue, and evolves organizationally into a system of activities towards specific causes. Eventually, one group bumps into a group nearby and they fight. Then, people get worried and more organizing occurs, only strengthening the burgeoning government. People have to evolve ethically (remember Socrates?) before this concept of yours can take hold. From the ground up.

[rht808]

FatGermanBastard: I would say that (sadly) most people don't recognize what is good for them and act accordingly. The fact that you and the majority of people hear "anarchy" and assume that chaos follows explains the (not quite true) fact that anarchy has not been established.

Government has exactly as much power as people give it. Stop giving people who have no interest in your well-being your blind support.

[FatGermanBastard]

Part 1:

My problem is a semantic one. The Stefbot community defines "government" as "involuntary, undesirable authority". This makes governments bad by definition. Sure... if "government" refers to those organizations that are by definition bad then I agree that anarchy is (by definition) good. But no dictionary contains this definition (no dictionary defines governments as "bad by definition").

2+2 sure as hell makes 5 if "5" refers to the number 4. That doesn't change the facts though.

[FatGermanBastard]

Part 2:

So if you guys said that the current government sucks and we need a different one (i.e. a DRO based government) I'd be with you. But you just tweak around your definitions to a degree that it seems ridiculous to me.

[bitbutter]

'The basic idea of anarchy is that people recognize what is good for them and act accordingly and that anarchy is good for the people.'

That's a straw man FGB. Anarchism says that anarchy is good for the people, it doesn't say that people are necessarily aware of what's good for them.

So the 'proof' is a flop.

[FatGermanBastard]

Well I disagree Bitbutter. The whole point of anarchism is that people can pursue their interests themselves and don't need governments to tell them what's good for them. But if governments are bad for them and people can take care of themselves then why haven't they yet established anarchy ? For me this is a perfectly good argument. It's from RandyHelzerman originally.

[bitbutter]

No FGB. You (and randy) are conflating things that are in fact distinct, i'm surprised you don't both see that:

Anarchism says: It's possible for people to prosper without government. And that if we replaced coercion for volutarism (a change of attitude) things would be better.

Anarchism _does not_ say that people are currently aware of what the best way to organise society is.

[FatGermanBastard]

Well anarchy does not explicitly say that...it's not part of the definition of anarchy. But it follows implicitly from:

"It's possible for people to prosper without government"

I do not see how that would be possible without people knowing what's good for them and being able to achieve it. And therefore I reason that the belief in anarchy includes this belief or in other words that one can not reasonably believe one without the other.

[bitbutter]

a: It's possible for people in general to prosper without the state (eg. when the commitment to the principle of non violence is widespread).

b. People in general currently know what the best way to organise society is.

A does not logically entail B. And anarchism does not claim or imply B. That's why your argument fails.

[FatGermanBastard]

"And anarchism does not claim or imply B"

Well but B is the requirement for anarchy to work the way an anarchist wants it to work, right ?

[bitbutter]

I don't know if it's a requirement for successful anarchy, i think the non aggression principle is much more important, the moral argument. But I think that anarchists do often aim to achieve B.

[FatGermanBastard]

I don't know I think the fact that we started out with no governments and ended up with the world as it is now and the fact that the world remains to be the way it is now (with governments present) proves that anarchy has a tendency to eliminate itself. I think this is also what Randy's argument boils down to. The fact that we do not have anarchy already proves that anarchy does not sustain itself.

[bitbutter]

At one point people could make a similar argument about slavery: the world started without slavery, and now the world has slavery (and considers it legitimate), so surely 'non-slavery' would always revert to slavery. That turned out to be false.

The conditions under which states, and statism, got started are in some senses very different to the conditions in certain parts of the world now. In light of these changes in attitude, i don't think it's inevitable that anarchy would lead to states.

[FatGermanBastard]

Slavery...well yeah one could argue this way. If you think slavery has been abolished...dream on !

Apart from that it seems self evident for me that whatever can be exploited will be exploited. Whenever there is room for just a litte exploit you'll see someone taking advantage of it. Isn't it that way ?

[bitbutter]

Slavery was once universally accepted as legitimate (same as racism), and conducted on a massive scale. In the west at least, that's no longer the case. So even if slavery persists now, it doesn't seem justified to claim that non-slavery always reverts to slavery. The lesson is that even attitudes and practices that seem entrenched can be changed.

Yes, people try to gain power and exploit each other, which is why we should never be comfortable granting a ruling elite a monopoly on force.

[GronTheMighty]

Indeed Bitbutter - if we are to prosper as a species in a maintainable manner in regards to not destroying the ecosystems we live in and such, we really must seek primarily two things;

Peace, as in peace between governments, nations, people, military peace.

Restfulness, as in the ability for our populations to get along without unrest and disturbances, without oppression or deceit.

[GronTheMighty]

Well, logically speaking yes ; when there is someone taking advantage of something or someone it benefits themself or they would not do it, and by benefitting it makes it more likely that someone else will learn the same behaviour by themselves, through the first beneficer, or through family heredity... Kings and princes and so on.

The only way to 'break' the chain though is through force of two ways; exterminating those taking advantage, or removing the opportunity itself.

[andrewh817]

But it's not a good argument because the ones who control the state have all the capital and human resources, not to mention the firearms, and will protect their tax revenue at all costs.

But a chance for people to establish anarchy may be coming soon as the government loses its capital (through hyperinflation) and the majority of people desire control over their own lives. Right now people formerly not even interested in government policies are starting to wake up.....

[FatGermanBastard]

Oh come on ! The people don't have the resources to overthrow the government ?? A 2000 Dollar truck bomb blows away a whole police station with 150 cops in it. No friend...they enjoy the comfort the government gives them. I bet if you ask 100 people if the government should be overthrown 90 will say "no" and the other 10 will be too lazy to get their asses up. People start revolutions when they are hungry. Give them food and comfort and you own them. They just don't want anarchy. Deal with it !

[codarkstarxx13]

@FatGermanBastard Just because a political system is recognized and initiated somewhere in the world, does not mean it is good. You are then proposing that dictatorships, oligarchy and mafia-run cities are morally intact. Anarchy actually has existed in the 'modern' world. I refer to Catalonia, Spain and even brief periods in Somalia. These did not work, obviously, but then again they didn't have the Anarchist organization that there is today. Anarchism is tangible if you would just listen.

[FatGermanBastard]

@codarkstarxx13

I don't think I said that our political system is good because it is established. At least I do not recall saying anything like this and I do not believe in it either so I don't think I said it anywhere. What I said (and you may be confusing) is that anarchy so far has always eliminated itself and that's inductive evidence for the belief that anarchy can not sustain itself for a long amount of time.

[codarkstarxx13]

@FatGermanBastard I could be misinterpreting it, but I thought you were saying that the fact that Anarchy has never been established proves that it cannot work. If this is what you were implying, I refer back to what I said about Catalonia. Alleged 'Anarchists' were considered in charge. But the fact that they were in charge at all proved that Catalonia was not Anarchist in the sense of what Anarchists today propose. An Anarchist nation like those that we propose has never been attempted.

[FatGermanBastard]

No...what I am saying is this:

Anarchy works only if two conditions are true:

1. People know what is good for them.

2. People are able to get what is good for them.

If either 1 or 2 is not true then an anarchy is not going to work...obviously.

So if you are an anarchist you must believe that 1 and 2 are true. But in this case please explain to me why people have not recognized that anarchy is good for them and why they have not created anarchy after 2000 years still.

[Sivels]

@FatGermanBastard good is largely subjective...

[gwr2000]

@FatGermanBastard

People have trouble deciding what is best for themselves, there are risks for every action so it is impossible to know what is best.

[tridentmovies]

So what you're saying is that invading and bombing countries is a good thing, just as calling for the death of someone who reveals the truth about leaders, since the people vote for leaders who do this sort of thing? Thus mass murder is 100% proven to be good?

And maybe you can explain how the people voted for Obama yet his approval ratings are in the toilet. I thought the people knew what is good for them? How is any of this "100% proof against anarchy"?

[alternativeangle]

@FatGermanBastard "anarchy has not been established" WHAT? its in 99% of all of our lives. does the gov tell you who to date? does the gov tell you what to do as a hobby? does the gov tell you what to wear? does the gov tell you what to eat? no. this is all anarchy.

[AnarchysSoldier]

@FatGermanBastard Human beings live for power, we all know it. Once we have that power, and someone trys to take that away, the person who has the power gets pissed off. Simple as that. Dictators send armys against those who oppose them and school yard bullies punch kids to stay at the top. If everyone realised that in this society of "Democracy" that we ar not free, Anarchy would have been around for thousands of years. Your proof is flawed my freind.

[rht808]

If all the people who think like this formed a country, the rest of the world would fucking fall apart. Let's fucking do it!

[Boxmanboxman]

You are not the only one to think this. However I think the only problem with this is that many of are afraid to take the first step.

And worst yet what if we took the first step and completely messed up because of stupid mistakes, next thing you now everyone is saying "ANARCHY COULD NEVER WORK JUST LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED IN _______ "

Its a huge risk to take, and if we fail we doom anarchy for another century.

[SaviorOfLogic]

What about the (potential) monopoly of energy supply in Britain. They all (suspiciously) raise prices at the same time, all charge the (about) same rate, yet no-one changes company, because they are too weak. After all, if fears of 'OmegaCorp' taking over meant people went to my new company, 'OmegaCorp' would destroy me by using tanks, planes, etc. Also, your thing on incentives is insane; after all, British Gas doesn't say 'If we're a monopoly we'll pay you'. cont...

[SaviorOfLogic]

Also, the companies would not look at one another and shout wolf, as it would be suspicious in itself. Plus, if this were true, no massive near monopoly would ever exist, yet things like coke and peps have near monopolies, and most people still buy them even if they are MORE expensive than other brands. Plus, in Rome, after political turmoil, a few large protection schemes took place in a semi-anarchic situation. cont

[SaviorOfLogic]

These gangs exploited people and would leave each other alone, but yet when the dictator Pompey offered to remove the gangs (ie. returning to the normal government rather than the anarchy they had), people jumped at the offer, and (until Caesar stole his thunder) he was hailed as a hero. Government is like insurance (which you have), not as good as change, but better than bad change.

[empbac]

Food production and corruption of powerful people are not the same thing. In order for this to work, the people all have to be unified in purpose. An anarchist society MUST contain well-educated individuals that are willing to take care of themselves. Else we will go the way of Animal Farm. I think this is the ONLY real security against a government rising up and taking control. I don't think we're ready for this kind of system, but under the right conditions it would be the best system.

[stefbot]

Thanks, you might want to check out my free book Practical Anarchy, available on my website... :)

[b3rtne]

@stefbot

I know it's been quite some time since you posted this comment but, you wouldn't happen to still have any copies of your book laying around would you?

[HumanityZzAr]

Precisely.

[Skyler827]

@empbac No, they don't need to be educated at all. That's like saying people need to study Insurance Companies to know that they can save 15% or more by switching to Geico. Nobody studies that stuff. Ads tell them all they need to know.

If a DRO is getting ready to form a government, other insurance companies will be head over heels advertising about it. It will be big news. And noone will be able to control it. It would destroy the DRO, and all of its top leaders.

[Katakato]

At approx 9:17 on this video you stated "If you were the only human being in the world who cared about the power of the state..." This is exactly why we will never have a true and free society. There are simply not enough of us who are worried about the power of the state & corporations.

I would speculate that the majority of people are sheep...and they want their shepherds. Until we get to a point in the future where people will awaken...we Anarchists will always be FIGHTING for our freedom.

[NiceYourself]

Accountant ninjas?  Ninja accountants? Sweet

[Elhan2005]

Yep, collectivist tyranny is the best way to freedom! Makes a whole lot of sense. Please...

Good vid Stef.

[beavisisgood87]

anarcho-collectivism with direct democracy is the most realistic and just form of anarcism

[lbcdemon]

please stop passing your bullshit off as anarchism. This is capitalism and there is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism. It is an oxymoron and heavy on the moronic.

[isjoeythere]

Why is capitalism bad? Because of monopolistic corporations (propped up by government)? Environmental problems (caused by a lack of property rights because of government)? I'm interested in why you recoil at the idea of capitalism so much. I realize there is a lot of left/right dichotomy propoganda, but carefully examine something before you attack it on an emotional level.

[lbcdemon]

No not because of monopolistic problems or environmental problems. The problem is in living. Capitalism requires private property. That means that natural resources are withheld from others so that the owner can exploit the have nots and get either their labor or the products of their labor. This perpetuates a state of living as a wage slave.

[lbcdemon]

We have such a limited time on earth and to spend most of it shackled to a job selling your labor just to live is a shame. Humans as a mass should be looking towards creating a form of society where life can be experienced to it's fullest.

[lbcdemon]

A Capitalists main objective is to accumulate as much capital as possible. This means paying workers far less than the value of a product. This means that the workers have to waste more and more hours on a job to get things that they need to live. This creates a hierarchy of power and if you don't comply with the capitalists rules then you can't have food or water or shelter or medecine. This leaves people with less time to do what they want with their life.

[modelmark]

To get any other outcome than a voluntary contract between A and B, you require force. In your example you force an employer to another solution than the best he can get from a worker. Who is going to apply that force in your ideal society ?

[lbcdemon]

Stopping wage slavery is not forceful to a capitalist it is liberating to the worker. Now in a capitalist situation there is no voluntary contract because the necessities of life are being withheld from the worker involuntarily. So the force is put onto the worker to be exploited so they do not die of hunger. In my ideal society there is no application of force.

[modelmark]

Why are the necessities of life withheld from the worker ? Who is morally obligated to give these to him, but withholds them ?

[lbcdemon]

The necessities of life are withheld from the mass of people so that they can be exploited into being slaves to get these things back. No one is morally obligated to give anything to anyone but if something is taken away from someone I believe it is just for them to get it back. As natural resources are not a product of labor they should not be privatized this is agreed upon from everyone be it socialist, anarchist or even fathers of capitalism like Locke.

[modelmark]

without private property, you don't own your body nor your labor, so you are a complete slave. If no one exploits natural resources, there is no way to benefit from them.

[lbcdemon]

Who do you deduce this? How does private property, which means stopping another from using natural resources, stop someone from owning their body or labor? Your body, your labor and your possessions(vehicles, homes etc..) would all be yours in an anarchist society. What wouldn't be yours to exploit others with is the natural resources of an area since they are not products of anyone's labor.

[lbcdemon]

Meant to say "how do you deduce this?" up there /\ /\ /\

True if no one uses the natural resources than you cannot benefit from them. That does not mean that someone needs to horde everything for themselves for society to benefit from the resources.

[modelmark]

If resources are unowned they will be ravaged, because what you get out is possession, what stays in is unowned, so you have to plunder it as fast as possible. Exactly what you see with public places everywhere. The stuff in my society that is owned by the government looks like a waste dump.

[modelmark]

I take my body and do some work with it to create a fishing reel. I would say I own that fishing reel. You will say it is a fish production device and hence owned by everyone. Everyone can now take the fishing reel and thus take my labor.

[lbcdemon]

What? You are speaking crazy talk. Stop telling me what i would say. In that case I would say it is your fishing rod and you could use it to fish in the lake. What you shouldn't be able to do is privatize the lake so that no one else can use THEIR fishing poles to acquire lunch.

[modelmark]

So if I build a small factory, does it remain my possession or is unowned and ravaged by all. If a lake is owned by everyone, it is important that I get all the fish out before the other get it out. Plundering natural resources is very important under your system. As i get out the fish it is mine, I will get out all the fish and sell them.

[lbcdemon]

It would be necessary to get fish out to sell them if I was talking about capitalism. In an anarchistic society that would not be needed as there would be no need to sell anything and there would be no currency. At least in certain types of anarchism.

[lbcdemon]

As for the factory that is hard to say as you could never really build a factory by yourself. You would need someone to give you the lumber needed. You could go and cut your own trees but you would need someone to make you the tools to do that. You could go and make your own tools but you would need someone to mine the metal.

[lbcdemon]

It is not likely that you would do all of these things just to make your factory. Since you would have been given these supplies and tools by society would it not make sense that members of society that put into your factory should be able to use it too?

[lbcdemon]

It being a small factory maybe you could have it to yourself. If people are lending and giving you things wouldn't it be just for you to let people use it as long as they follow rules about safety and cleanliness? Anarchism is about living together with other people and progressing as humans as opposed to fighting each other every step of the way over jobs, land, money, weapons, food and so on.

[lukeev]

He's one of those guys that thinks Macdonald's forces people at gunpoint to buy their burgers! Those wily capitalists!

[SuperAtheistBrothers]

Fail fail fail. Its called AnarchoCapitalism for a reason

[lukeev]

Lol.

[fiftycaliberfistfuck]

if mediation doesn't work, you shoot it out, just like the hatfields and the mccoy's! wait, just like the real world that already exists. einstein ~ anarchy dash tv dot com

[msinummoc]

Sounds like capitalism in a lesser form. One way to freedom and that is communism throug socialism.

[modelmark]

I think you have to explain the bad track record of these attempts in the past.

[freesk8]

What happens if a large number of people actually WANT a monopoly DRO? Then there is insufficient resistance to the development of a monopoly DRO. This calls to mind Russia. They seem to WANT strong leaders, so they get them, and lose their freedom. It is arguable that they don't WANT liberty. If enough people are like this, then anarchy is fundamentally unstable, which might explain why we don't see more of it.

[Ratteristruth]

Simply brilliant.

[stefbot]

Thanks, I appreciate that! ;)

[didles123]

You covered only one type of horizontal expansion- competition. How about mergers and trusts? If the top DRO(s) decide to merge, and offer smaller DROs the chance to have a piece of the pie, they'll agree to merge. What does an anarchist society do about this?

[stefbot]

Consumers could easily have clauses in their contracts forbidding DROs to grow beyond a certain size, with independent auditors.

[PatriotikTraitor]

Awesome video man! This is the first one of your series which I've watched in full and I think you're an excellent and (and quite funny) speaker and you make a lot of good points, although personally I disagree with market anarchism, but nevertheless, I think the concept DROs can be applied to a lot of other situations besides business contracts.

[shipple]

Thanks for the amazing video.  You've really answered alot of my questions better than anyone ever has

[shipple]

What happens when be both agree to do something, say to build a house, I pay you and you refuse to build the house (you were about to retire anyway and your lost reputation doesn't matter to you)? Won't we have to use force to get the money back (which would be government)?

[PatriotikTraitor]

Well theoretically you would never pay someone 100% beforehand. Instead you'd pay them more like 40% before they build your house and 60% after. Or even better, you divided the project up into sections and pay the dude a small amount of cost everytime he completes one section of the project. That way, if he runs off with the money at least it won't be that much, and if you refuse to pay him then all he has to do is to stop working on the project and you'll just be left with an unfinished house.

[MetaMorphy]

I could see privatizing law courts for the purpose of settling disputes about contracts; but what are you going to do about murderers and the possiblity of foreign invasion?

[stefbot]

Have a listen to my podcasts on this topic... :)

[MetaMorphy]

Your argument is, essentially, insurance. However, even will intentioned people will disagree with one another---is the DRO going to be the interpreter of the agreement? According to what rules and standards? Imagine the confusion that would result from essentially having muliple contract laws. Why can't a properly constituted court system not serve this function better?

[SOCRATES012]

the only way to an existance that truly embelishes equality and fairness for all humans is for us humans to grasp and take action to stop collaborating to compete and collaborate to NOT compete in economical and political terms. p.s. i'm a big fan of your way of thinking. One Love

[xx1212]

You didn't say how the DRO-run country would deal with foreign governments.

There are over 100 governments who would feel threatened by this.

[BrightAnarchist]

If you were a foreign government, would you fear more a massive monopolistic government like the United States or more thousands a tiny little competiting DROs that work to reduce one another's power?

[BrightAnarchist]

Oops -- I typed too fast... again:

If you were a foreign government, which would you fear more? (A) a massive monopolistic government like the United States or (B) thousands of tiny little competiting DROs that constantly work to reduce one another's power?

[bitbutter]

@BrightAnarchist: the threat of an anarchistic society, from a gov's point of view isn't a military threat, but an ideological one. The example of a successful anarchy may be reason enough for neighbouring states to want to close it down.

[tejayce]

well .. theres at least 2 glitches from my point of view:

-most people are not concerned about the government now .. and theres no guarantee that they wont be ignorant to DROs gaining more power, as most people are passive and trusting towards "experts".

-also marketing/propaganda is not considered, where people are made to want something and think its good for them. for example DROs convincing people big DROs are more efficiant.

[BrightAnarchist]

Would a really big and powerful DRO convince you to give them your money?

[tejayce]

thats what stefan also always argues, but the question is directed at the wrong people. when for each one of us .. there are 1 million people gladly giving their money .. it doesnt help much if i answer "no", doesnt it.

[BrightAnarchist]

The world today is statist because there is mass idealogical support for the state. Similarly, when free market anarchism reigned (medieval iceland), there we also a long history of private arbitration and therefore mass idealogical support.

So you are correct that, in general, people must exhibit some level of support -- in this case, they must choose not to create a government.

[tejayce]

yep .. and thats why goverments design the information they give us in a way to gain our support. most people follow blindly in my opinion, thats why i am wondering .. if its really possible to stop someone from gaining power. in the end money equals power, and lots of people simply support their money source.

[tejayce]

well .. theres at least 2 glitches from my point of view:

-most people are not concerned about the government now .. and theres no guarantee that they wont be ignoran

[BrightAnarchist]

This is the first time that I've ever felt hope for the future in a long time. Thanks.

[stefbot]

My pleasure - if you know of anyone who would like to debate, let me know!

[NineDimensional]

I would be VERY interested in watching you debate your side against an equally prepared opposition. Come to think of it I'd be very interested in watching you debate anything and everything. You're an engaging speaker. Any chance of something like that ever being posted?

[BrightAnarchist]

Cool. The metastability issues with Market Anarchism has always been a big problem for me. Thanks for answering this so well!