Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So often we get lumped into either being Liberal or Conservative and for our friends to the south it's Republican or Democrat. And when a person doesn't fit perfectly into one of those molds they get labeled "Moderate".

So my question is, if you could design your own political party, what sort of ideologies and policies would it represent?

Would it fall into a certain place on the political spectrum?

Should we do away with the political spectrum model altogether?

Should we have more diverse parties like they do in Europe?

Discuss...

From what I can see, the only difference (And problem I guess) between American and European elections is that it is much more focused on the ONE main candidate there.

Over here, as shit as the politicians may be, it's a lot more focused on what PARTY you're electing.

-AC

Something along the lines of liberal anarchy.

Whoever believes in anarchy is an idiot, or has descended into idiocy.

No further discussion needed.

-AC

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
So often we get lumped into either being Liberal or Conservative and for our friends to the south it's Republican or Democrat. And when a person doesn't fit perfectly into one of those molds they get labeled "Moderate".

So my question is, if you could design your own political party, what sort of ideologies and policies would it represent?

Would it fall into a certain place on the political spectrum?

Should we do away with the political spectrum model altogether?

Should we have more diverse parties like they do in Europe?

Discuss...

Conservative vs Liberal is a very American thing...

In the UK Liberals tend to be more centre-wing.

Left-Socialist
Middle-Liberal
Right-Conservative

I don't really think the spectrum gives a good few. A Compass is better. A room maybe even more.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Whoever believes in anarchy is an idiot, or has descended into idiocy.

No further discussion needed.

-AC What an outrageously dumb statement.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Whoever believes in anarchy is an idiot, or has descended into idiocy.

No further discussion needed.

-AC

Nah

Well, yes.

Anarchy is a stupid idiot for stupid people who believe, "We should all do what we want, entirely unrestricted." could only be good.

It's the worst possible idea, and you're idiots for thinking so. It needn't be indulged further.

Bardock is still in the "I listen to Bill Hicks and still slightly misintepret his words." phase of "Let everyone do everything.", and XYZ is simple anyway.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well, yes.

Anarchy is a stupid idiot for stupid people who believe, "We should all do what we want, entirely unrestricted." could only be good.

It's the worst possible idea, and you're idiots for thinking so. It needn't be indulged further.

Bardock is still in the "I listen to Bill Hicks and still slightly misintepret his words." phase of "Let everyone do everything.", and XYZ is simple anyway.

-AC

You think you could tone down the childish, knee-jerking opinion, it's quite ridiculous? Don't be stupid, if you don't have actual arguments, just leave it be, I am sure you will find people that just shut up and you can bully them around.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Bardock is still in the "I listen to Bill Hicks and still slightly misintepret his words." phase of "Let everyone do everything.", and XYZ is simple anyway.

-AC

ooooh, do me next

wait, get permission first

I don't see an argument in your reply, Bardock.

I treat anarchist views like holocaust deniers, personally. Utterly stupid and do not deserve any kind of credit. You can hide behind the fact that anarchy will never happen as a means of safety, but that's precisely why you're wrong. It'll never happen because it has happened, at some point, and is shit.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't see an argument in your reply, Bardock.

I treat anarchist views like holocaust deniers, personally. Utterly stupid and do not deserve any kind of credit. You can hide behind the fact that anarchy will never happen as a means of safety, but that's precisely why you're wrong. It'll never happen because it has happened, at some point, and is shit.

-AC I will bring one if you have something worthy of it.

And, just because you are incapable of understanding anarchist views does not mean that they are unworkable. That you said ""We should all do what we want, entirely unrestricted." alone disqualifies your whole opinion on the subject. Obviously you lack the most rudimentary understanding of anarchist theory and better should just shut up before you embarass yourself further.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't see an argument in your reply, Bardock.

I treat anarchist views like holocaust deniers, personally. Utterly stupid and do not deserve any kind of credit. You can hide behind the fact that anarchy will never happen as a means of safety, but that's precisely why you're wrong. It'll never happen because it has happened, at some point, and is shit.

-AC Where has it happened, because I don't think it has.

Happned in Mad Max.

Didn't work out too well. Everyone wore silly football shoulder pads and drove buggies.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I treat anarchist views like holocaust deniers, personally.

and this makes you look like the more reasonable debater?

I'd personally take anyone's views seriously if they take the time to lay them out coherently. Then again, I'm just an idiot anarchist.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It'll never happen because it has happened, at some point, and is shit.


shit: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mhuey/TOC/KRN.frame.html

Originally posted by BackFire
Happned in Mad Max.

Didn't work out too well. Everyone wore silly football shoulder pads and drove buggies. Oh right, case closed, I was wrong.

We know.

Originally posted by BackFire
Happned in Mad Max.

Didn't work out too well. Everyone wore silly football shoulder pads and drove buggies. A film isn't evidence.

Originally posted by inimalist
and this makes you look like the more reasonable debater?

I'd personally take anyone's views seriously if they take the time to lay them out coherently. Then again, I'm just an idiot anarchist.


Oh, don't worry, he hasn't been on KMC for a while. He usually picks his debates better. Not with people that can keep up with him or aren't intimidated by his arrogance.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Where has it happened, because I don't think it has.

At various points in history, and today, there have been no systems of government in some places. Obviously it didn't work out, because the best solution and way forward was considered to be...systems of government. I'm sure if you went to Middle Eastern countries where anarchy is reigning, where they WANT systems of government, and asked them how things were, they'd probably say "Shit.".

It's simple logic and it'll help you.

All anarchists are wrong and silly.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
At various points in history, and today, there have been no systems of government. Obviously it didn't work out, because the best solution and way forward was considered to be...systems of government.

It's simple logic and it'll help you.

All anarchists are wrong and silly.

-AC And to you all systems of no government are the same, I take it?

It's entirely stupid to suggest it's better to not have a government, yes.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's entirely stupid to suggest it's better to not have a government, yes.

-AC Good that you believe that, but you don't actually have facts supporting that. You don't even understand what modern anarchists argue, you are just talking out of your ass.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Good that you believe that, but you don't actually have facts supporting that. You don't even understand what modern anarchists argue, you are just talking out of your ass.

What do modern anarchists argue?

Aside from big shoulder pads and buggies?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
At various points in history, and today, there have been no systems of government in some places. Obviously it didn't work out, because the best solution and way forward was considered to be...systems of government. I'm sure if you went to Middle Eastern countries where anarchy is reigning, where they WANT systems of government, and asked them how things were, they'd probably say "Shit.".

It's simple logic and it'll help you.

All anarchists are wrong and silly.

-AC All those cases, a war was happening.

That's not an argument against anarchy, that's an argument against war.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
At various points in history, and today, there have been no systems of government in some places.

like medieval iceland

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Obviously it didn't work out, because the best solution and way forward was considered to be...systems of government.

re: peaceful communities can't compete militarily with authoritarian regiemes that steal from their citizens

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm sure if you went to Middle Eastern countries where anarchy is reigning, where they WANT systems of government, and asked them how things were, they'd probably say "Shit.".

OMG!!!! I didn't realize the middle east had regions of committed philosophical anarchist communities!

must be difficult with all the theocratic/authoritarian groups all over the place blowing things up...

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's simple logic and it'll help you.

All anarchists are wrong and silly.


all of them!

Originally posted by BackFire
What do modern anarchists argue?

Aside from big shoulder pads and buggies? Be quiet.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Be quiet.

Fine.

You can keep the shoulder pads.

Originally posted by BackFire
Fine.

You can keep the shoulder pads.

Now I can play American Football with the assurance my shoulders won't get damaged.

Originally posted by lord xyz


Now I can play American Football with the assurance my shoulders won't get damaged.

Can't wear a cup though.

It's the true anarchist way.

Originally posted by BackFire
Can't wear a cup though.

It's the true anarchist way. Don't need a cup.



Balls of steel.

Originally posted by BackFire
What do modern anarchists argue?

actually, a huge variety of things

some advocate for community organization almost identical to governments we would be familiar with, others for more liquid type leaders, sort of organize for what is necessary or even just social axiomatic "rules".

I personally believe something close to radical federalism, where more and more local communities are given the ability to run and make decisions at a local level about bigger issues. Eventually, giving the most power possible to the individual, and at the very least, those who are most directly affected by decisions are the most involved.

Real reason is you have a vagina.

Originally posted by BackFire
What do modern anarchists argue?

Aside from big shoulder pads and buggies?

They are arguing for a free market regulated system including policing, schooling, armed forces, fire fighters and the like. One of the basic elements would be insurance company like protection agencies that would take care of safety, similar to how police nowadays fails to.
They are supporting more charitable approaches to problem solution as well as better community work. And, they obviously don't argue that if the government immediately was abolished it would all be awesome. Like most reasonable people they can see the advantages a government offers...the way to anarchy is only through minarchy.

They also argue for pads and buggies.

Of course there are also crazy anarchists...but to dismiss all forms of anarchy cause one is a big baby that's not capable of independent thoughts is a bit irritating.

A wise man once said "Fascism is the only true anarchy".

Originally posted by Bardock42
They are arguing for a free market regulated system including policing, schooling, armed forces, fire fighters and the like. One of the basic elements would be insurance company like protection agencies that would take care of safety, similar to how police nowadays fails to.
They are supporting more charitable approaches to problem solution as well as better community work. And, they obviously don't argue that if the government immediately was abolished it would all be awesome. Like most reasonable people they can see the advantages a government offers...the way to anarchy is only through minarchy.

They also argue for pads and buggies.

Of course there are also crazy anarchists...but to dismiss all forms of anarchy cause one is a big baby that's not capable of independent thoughts is a bit irritating.

Fair enough, so then let me ask your opinion;

If that's so workable, why hasn't it happened?

Originally posted by BackFire
A wise man once said "Fascism is the only true anarchy".

A WISE man...see. Wise.

-AC

Originally posted by BackFire
A wise man once said "Fascism is the only true anarchy". Wisdom isn't what it used to be, is it?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Fair enough, so then let me ask your opinion;

If that's so workable, why hasn't it happened?
-AC Now that's a really stupid ****ing question.



People don't agree? dur

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, a huge variety of things

some advocate for community organization almost identical to governments we would be familiar with, others for more liquid type leaders, sort of organize for what is necessary or even just social axiomatic "rules".

I personally believe something close to radical federalism, where more and more local communities are given the ability to run and make decisions at a local level about bigger issues. Eventually, giving the most power possible to the individual, and at the very least, those who are most directly affected by decisions are the most involved. Radical federalism is very good methinks.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Fair enough, so then let me ask your opinion;

If that's so workable, why hasn't it happened?

-AC

I didn't say it is "so" workable.

But for one because governments have the extreme tendency to become bigger not smaller. Another would be because people need a lot of time to understand how living in an anarchist society works, like you for example, who can not conceive of it. Not sure what the question means though, obviously not every system that is workable has happened, nor is every system that happened workable.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't really think the spectrum gives a good few. A Compass is better. A room maybe even more.

a little bit back on topic

I agree with this

especially the way the political spectrum pigeon holes political parties to sort of have predictable beliefs about issues, and almost forces polarization on issues.

Like, to be a conservative, it isn't ok to just say, "The economy needs as much consideration as the environment when deciding what to do about climate change", one has to believe that global warming isn't happening (ok, so the example is a little dated, but I am illustrating a point).

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wisdom isn't what it used to be, is it?

Of course the character who said this just finished forcing a teenage girl to eat doodoo and drink pee.

Things you agree with. So you must agree with his assertion.

Originally posted by BackFire
Of course the character who said this just finished forcing a teenage girl to eat doodoo and drink pee.

Things you agree with. So you must agree with his assertion. True, then again I'm just a stupid anarchist that misinterprets and worships Bill Hicks.

You're just for anarchy so you can legally rape children.

I'm right there with you.

Originally posted by BackFire
You're just for anarchy so you can legally rape children.

I'm right there with you. Actually, raping children will be a lot less workable in an anarchist system...as you'd just be killed big time with no government protecting you. But it's always good to have new allies.

But then who'd stop people from killing the killers?

Originally posted by BackFire
But then who'd stop people from killing the killers? Community Voluntary Police Services as well as Protection Agencies.

admittedly, there are shortcomings...

You mean militia and the cops?

This sounds a lot like detroit.

Originally posted by BackFire
You mean militia and the cops?

This sounds a lot like detroit. Basically. If the cops were privately paid for instead of by taxes.

Originally posted by lord xyz
People don't agree?

Exactly my point.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But for one because governments have the extreme tendency to become bigger not smaller. Another would be because people need a lot of time to understand how living in an anarchist society works, like you for example, who can not conceive of it. Not sure what the question means though, obviously not every system that is workable has happened, nor is every system that happened workable.

I don't need to understand how to live in an anarchist society because it will never happen, nor do I ever wish to live in one.

If the government was abolished and this revealed itself to work, then fine. It won't, and I do not see any logical reason as to why it would.

It's not like governments don't work.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

I don't need to understand how to live in an anarchist society because it will never happen, nor do I ever wish to live in one.

If the government was abolished and this revealed itself to work, then fine. It won't, and I do not see any logical reason as to why it would.

It's not like governments don't work.

-AC Nice back peddling. But anyways, I don't need to argue with you then.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Basically. If the cops were privately paid for instead of by taxes.

And they'd be more effective than the cops we have now?

Originally posted by BackFire
And they'd be more effective than the cops we have now? Probably as effective. Maybe a bit more, who knows.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not like governments don't work.

lol

I think most anarchists would agree there are some things governments are highly effective at

like, giving themselves more money and power?

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

I think most anarchists would agree there are some things governments are highly effective at

like, giving themselves more money and power? Word.

And who'd pay for it? Private citizens I know.

But what if you don't pay for it? Do you get no protection?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Exactly my point.
-AC Democracy haas proven that public opinion isn't the best choice.

Originally posted by BackFire
And who'd pay for it? Private citizens I know.

But what if you don't pay for it? Do you get no protection? If you just refuse to pay for it, probably. Depends on the agenda of the community services and protection agencies.

So it would go from how it is now, from "pay for it or else" to "pay for it or else"?

but then, why shouldn't people have the right to decide to defend themselves instead of placing that responsibility onto someone else?

People are allowed to defend themselves now.

Originally posted by BackFire
So it would go from how it is now, from "pay for it or else" to "pay for it or else"? No, it would go from "Pay for it or we come put you in jail" to "Pay for it or we don't help you, but hey, just help yourself, mate".

Originally posted by BackFire
People are allowed to defend themselves now.

indeed

but then, they still also have to pay to be protected by someone else

EDIT: the wording of that was a little off, I was trying to express closer to what Bardock said... cough....

Understood.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, it would go from "Pay for it or we come put you in jail" to "Pay for it or we don't help you, but hey, just help yourself, mate".

So modern utopian anarchy is like being owned by the mafia?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So modern utopian anarchy is like being owned by the mafia? Nah

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah

Yah?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So modern utopian anarchy is like being owned by the mafia? Yes, precisely.

Bioshock handled the "Protect yourself." argument.

"Does your neighbour like to throw his weight around with the Electro Bolt plasmid? Get Electro Bolt 2!".

-AC

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yes, precisely.

Which is why I personally advocate Totalitarianism. Less lying to people about things.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So modern utopian anarchy is like being owned by the mafia?

rather, it doesn't force you to pay for or participate in something against your will

and if there were any such social pressure to participate in community security initiatives, it is certainly not at gun point and punishable by a loss of personal freedom.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Bioshock handled the "Protect yourself." argument.

"Does your neighbour like to throw his weight around with the Electro Bolt plasmid? Get Electro Bolt 2!".

-AC

Oh, Bioshock said that? I got things to ponder.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which is why I personally advocate Totalitarianism. Less lying to people about things.

That may be an advantage, but there are some down sides to it.

Originally posted by inimalist
rather, it doesn't force you to pay for or participate in something against your will

and if there were any such social pressure to participate in community security initiatives, it is certainly not at gun point and punishable by a loss of personal freedom.

Just loss of personal life. Not much of a choice.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That may be an advantage, but there are some down sides to it.

None that we don't have already and none that wouldn't appear in most systems anyway.

It wasn't the source that counts, Bardock. Just the point they made.

-AC

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

None that we don't have already and none that wouldn't appear in most systems anyway.

I would very much disagree.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I would very much disagree.

Then the absolute dictator can have you disappear. Everybody wins.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It wasn't the source that counts, Bardock. Just the point they made.

-AC It's not a particularly good point though. Of course you can buy a bigger gun, but for your own sake there's no point in it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Just loss of personal life. Not much of a choice.

I don't think that follows. Even if we assume the most individualistic of anarchist definitions (I think I'm a little more socialist than Bardock, personally), there is no reason to think that the person's life is in any immediate danger. The idea is, people aren't naturally evil. Some are, and one might need to protect themselves from the criminal element occasionally, but anarchists sort of ideologically don't think that it is government or the police that keep people from robbing or stealing from each other.

besides, you are also assuming a tax like payment system. A pay per use system would be open to anyone on an optional basis. Call 9-11 and figure out a way to provide payment after, rather than be forced at gunpoint to provide a percent of your paycheck regardless.

come to think of it, which one of those sounds more like the mafia?

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not a particularly good point though. Of course you can buy a bigger gun, but for your own sake there's no point in it.

There is if you want to kill someone. Aren't you the one who always say that the person with the biggest gun has the power?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There is if you want to kill someone. Aren't you the one who always say that the person with the biggest gun has the power? Yeah, but I talk about a metaphorical gun, you apparently about the caliber.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There is if you want to kill someone. Aren't you the one who always say that the person with the biggest gun has the power?

might makes right?

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think that follows. Even if we assume the most individualistic of anarchist definitions (I think I'm a little more socialist than Bardock, personally), there is no reason to think that the person's life is in any immediate danger.

If everyone has to pay to be safe the moment someone finds out you can't pay or forgot to pay you're in immense danger. The population not only is less safe, they'll end up paying more money for protection they don't need.

Originally posted by inimalist
The idea is, people aren't naturally evil.

I disagree completely.

Originally posted by inimalist
besides, you are also assuming a tax like payment system. A pay per use system would be open to anyone on an optional basis. Call 9-11 and figure out a way to provide payment after, rather than be forced at gunpoint to provide a percent of your paycheck regardless.

So the system is designed only to benefit those who have money to pay for protection? That's completely sick, at least the one in place offers some protection to everyone.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but I talk about a metaphorical gun, you apparently about the caliber.

As in the ability to destroy someone or control through fear? Having a weapon that can level a city block seems capable of being a very much literal and metaphorical gun.

Originally posted by inimalist
might makes right?

Nothing else does is a totally free system.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If everyone has to pay to be safe the moment someone finds out you can't pay or forgot to pay you're in immense danger. The population not only is less safe, they'll end up paying more money for protection they don't need.

That's a ridiculous assumption for...so many reasons it's mind blowing.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
As in the ability to destroy someone or control through fear? Having a weapon that can level a city block seems capable of being a very much literal and metaphorical gun.

It's self defeating. Most people aren't some kind of Vaderesque super villain.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's a ridiculous assumption for...so many reasons it's mind blowing.

Common sense blew your mind? Economics blew your mind? Human behavior blew your mind?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It wasn't the source that counts, Bardock. Just the point they made.

-AC "People who hate Anarchy rape babies."

-- me

It's not the source that counts.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's self defeating. Most people aren't some kind of Vaderesque super villain.

Most people that buy powerful weapons aren't nearly that rational.

Originally posted by lord xyz
"People who hate Anarchy rape babies."

-- me

It's not the source that counts.

Very good. The statement happens to be true, just not generalizable.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If everyone has to pay to be safe the moment someone finds out you can't pay or forgot to pay you're in immense danger. The population not only is less safe, they'll end up paying more money for protection they don't need.

I disagree completely.

fair enough

so, without knowing the police were around, you would take things that other people worked hard for?

I feel altruism is a biological trait. We are good because it benefits ourselves to be good. Killing and maiming my neighbour is not in my best interests, especially in a community based system.

What prevents someone from stockpiling guns and taking over? ok, fine, I give you that is a weakness of anarchist theory. Peacful communities cannot compete with militiristic ones. Top down systems will always be able to steal more resources from their people and arm its citizens, potentially against their will, to fight against people. Individuals will always be able to get guns and intimidate eachother. Why should we but into a system that is the consequence of this?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So the system is designed only to benefit those who have money to pay for protection? That's completely sick, at least the one in place offers some protection to everyone.

no, the system is designed in a way that it is able to fun itself. Nowhere does it say those who cannot pay cannot get help, there is nothing preventing charity funds for protection etc.

also, like I said, I'm probably a little more socialist on this one. I think some degree of social responsibility is inherent in anarchist societies, whereby protection and health, while likely being commodified, are still provided to the community.

finally, your argument is rendered moot if people in society are able to create enough personal wealth to afford proper protection. Anarchists, at least those who are capitalists also (which, many anarchists believe, strangely, is mutually exclusive from anarchy), feel the free market, and not modern corporate socialism, will create competition that drives down prices, and economic prosperity which drives up personal wealth.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Most people that buy powerful weapons aren't nearly that rational. The thing is you assume that what stops people in our society from buying very big guns is the government and it's control. I, on the other hand, view the government just as a way of acquiring one more, very powerful, weapon.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nothing else does is a totally free system.

ummm, freedom? personal liberty? free choice and expression?

look, you are right, murderers and those willing to do brutal and immoral things will probably always be able to subjugate those who just want to live together in peace, you can make a good psychological argument for people either way, though I largely think the former is the minority and the later the majority.

I think we should hold ourselves to higher standards... And certainly would want to base the philosophy behind a political system on such

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough

so, without knowing the police were around, you would take things that other people worked hard for?

Yes. If I felt there was little risk in theft or violence I would steal and I would hit people when they pissed me off, just like most people do when they see society fall apart around them. Spontaneous looting happens for a reason, IMO. The current systems is high risk, low return for violating someone else's morals unless you're very good at what you do.

Originally posted by inimalist
I feel altruism is a biological

At a certain level, I'm willing to agree. But I don't think that most people (or at least enough people) would inconvenience themselves to help someone else. I might pull a stranger out of a well but I wouldn't put together a fund to save everyone who was trapped somewhere.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, the system is designed in a way that it is able to fun itself. Nowhere does it say those who cannot pay cannot get help, there is nothing preventing charity funds for protection etc.

So the wealthy would pay money to protect the poor? I suppose they'll be paying to uplift the disenfranchised so that they have equal opportunity to advance in society, too?

Originally posted by inimalist
also, like I said, I'm probably a little more socialist on this one. I think some degree of social responsibility is inherent in anarchist societies, whereby protection and health, while likely being commodified, are still provided to the community.

I don't particularly like systems where you have to start by assuming people will be responsible all on their own.

Originally posted by inimalist
finally, your argument is rendered moot if people in society are able to create enough personal wealth to afford proper protection.

If.

Originally posted by inimalist
Anarchists, at least those who are capitalists also (which, many anarchists believe, strangely, is mutually exclusive from anarchy), feel the free market, and not modern corporate socialism, will create competition that drives down prices, and economic prosperity which drives up personal wealth.

Not on a large scale, at least not without an organization that can prevent monopolies. Anarchy and miniarchy don't allow for that much power to belong to any group.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The thing is you assume that what stops people in our society from buying very big guns is the government and it's control. I, on the other hand, view the government just as a way of acquiring one more, very powerful, weapon.

So why don't you have big guns?

Originally posted by inimalist
ummm, freedom? personal liberty? free choice and expression?

Those don't make you right. Not when I can splatter your brain across the wall because I don't like the way you mixed colors in that most recent painting.

Originally posted by inimalist
look, you are right, murderers and those willing to do brutal and immoral things will probably always be able to subjugate those who just want to live together in peace, you can make a good psychological argument for people either way, though I largely think the former is the minority and the later the majority.

Thus making anarchy a good system?

Numbers matter less and less as human ability to kill one another increases. Ten thousand good people don't feel a need for weapons, a handful of terrorists do. Unless those ten thousand people aren't assuming a goodness inherent to the human condition they those.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think we should hold ourselves to higher standards... And certainly would want to base the philosophy behind a political system on such

I agree, I just don't think that holding one's self to high standards should come at the price of waiting to be killed.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So why don't you have big guns?

Don't need them cause no one in my community really wants me harm

Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't need them cause no one in my community really wants me harm

Which is another way of saying you lack ambition.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Those don't make you right. Not when I can splatter your brain across the wall because I don't like the way you mixed colors in that most recent painting.

The same that stops you from doing it now would stop you in an anarchist system


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Numbers matter less and less as human ability to kill one another increases. Ten thousand good people don't feel a need for weapons, a handful of terrorists do. Unless those ten thousand people aren't assuming a goodness inherent to the human condition they those.

Yeah..those terrorists....they live in countries with governments, right? Just checkin'

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which is another way of saying you lack ambition. Nah.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes. If I felt there was little risk in theft or violence I would steal and I would hit people when they pissed me off, just like most people do when they see society fall apart around them. Spontaneous looting happens for a reason, IMO. The current systems is high risk, low return for violating someone else's morals unless you're very good at what you do.
No, there would be as great retribution for such things as there is now.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The same that stops you from doing it now would stop you in an anarchist system'

Reprisal by the evil oppressive agents of the law? Seems fairly non-anarchist to me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah..those terrorists....they live in countries with governments, right? Just checkin'

This happen to be a hypothetical where everyone but said terrorists is a utopian anarchist. But to answer the question you seem to be trying to ask, yes terrorists can form in nations with governments.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
No, there would be as great retribution for such things as there is now.

By?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Reprisal by the evil oppressive agents of the law? Seems fairly non-anarchist to me.

No, just reprisal. Who does it is of no matter.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This happen to be a hypothetical where everyone but said terrorists is a utopian anarchist. But to answer the question you seem to be trying to ask, yes terrorists can form in nations with governments.

Ah, I see. Well, not really a good argument against anarchy then. But terrorists are bad, I agree.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
By?
I don't know about Bardock and Inimalist, but I'm an Archo-Capitalist. The retribution would be from the PDAs that represent people.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
By?

Voluntary Community Police Forces and Protection Agencies.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes. If I felt there was little risk in theft or violence I would steal and I would hit people when they pissed me off, just like most people do when they see society fall apart around them. Spontaneous looting happens for a reason, IMO. The current systems is high risk, low return for violating someone else's morals unless you're very good at what you do.

why do you assume there would be no consequence to hurting someone else in an anarchist society.

Largely, I feel it might motivate people to not **** with each other too much, considering they can't go to the police for protection if a store owner wants to bash your face in, and the rest of the community thinks its a fair deal.

anarchy in the way I describe it does not involve a lack of social accountability

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
At a certain level, I'm willing to agree. But I don't think that most people (or at least enough people) would inconvenience themselves to help someone else. I might pull a stranger out of a well but I wouldn't put together a fund to save everyone who was trapped somewhere.

my system wouldn't want you setting up a fund for people if you don't want to, it might have you participate in a fund that directly affects you, like community security and hospitals, I agree, I don't see why you should be interested in people over there. Also, given that I argue for sort of radical federalism, funding systems that have been shown to work without government would already be in place before government was removed, with ways to modify them if necessary. I may be a utopian, but I certainly am a pragmatist.

the altruism argument essentially is why I don't think you would murder people.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So the wealthy would pay money to protect the poor? I suppose they'll be paying to uplift the disenfranchised so that they have equal opportunity to advance in society, too?

the hope is that the poor are not so terribly afflicted that they can't afford to protect themselves. Or, that systems not reliant on government are able to provide services to those least able to afford them.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't particularly like systems where you have to start by assuming people will be responsible all on their own.

strange, my thoughts are that personal responsibility is the most crucial part of a political system

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If.

hence why it is an ideology and not the science of anarchist society

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not on a large scale, at least not without an organization that can prevent monopolies. Anarchy and miniarchy don't allow for that much power to belong to any group.

if you replaced monopolies with market consolidation I would agree. Monopolies do not necessarily have to be negative in a free market. If competition has access to the market, it means the monopolizing company is providing the best product at the needed demand for the lowest price.

Look, obviously nothing is perfect. I also don't believe in a system where ideology replaces pragmatism. Anarchy may be an unreachable ideal, but certainly the idea that the state might act to give as much power to make decision to those most affected by them is certainly one, I think, deserves a try. Maybe in the end, the balance of power requires a state funded militia to keep the peace, or some government regulatory board to enforce contracts or have safety regulations, we are almost assuredly not to find out the way things are going however.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, just reprisal. Who does it is of no matter.

I see. Who is organizing this reprisal?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ah, I see. Well, not really a good argument against anarchy then. But terrorists are bad, I agree.

Very bad.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I don't know about Bardock and Inimalist, but I'm an Archo-Capitalist. The retribution would be from the PDAs that represent people.

Having representatives sounds like having a government to me.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I see. Who is organizing this reprisal?

The community forces and the privately paid protection agencies.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Having representatives sounds like having a government to me.

That's your shortcoming though.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Those don't make you right. Not when I can splatter your brain across the wall because I don't like the way you mixed colors in that most recent painting.

are you arguing that morally correct behaviour comes from displaying the most violence?

I'm not saying being morally correct is the most violently powerful way, I am saying it is more, well, morally correct.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Thus making anarchy a good system?

Numbers matter less and less as human ability to kill one another increases. Ten thousand good people don't feel a need for weapons, a handful of terrorists do. Unless those ten thousand people aren't assuming a goodness inherent to the human condition they those.

I can, yet again, admit that you are right

I have yet to think of a way that pascifist societies could stand against those willing to do violence.

Luckily in the system I believe in, the military would never be dissolved until there were no need for it to be state run. Meaning the army will be there if needed and that, should the day where a state run army is not needed ever come, there is something providing an equivalent function that has been shown to work.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I agree, I just don't think that holding one's self to high standards should come at the price of waiting to be killed.

I don't remember making that argument...

Originally posted by inimalist
Luckily in the system I believe in, the military would never be dissolved until there were no need for it to be state run. Meaning the army will be there if needed and that, should the day where a state run army is not needed ever come, there is something providing an equivalent function that has been shown to work.

Your system? I assume you mean a system that you've made up, that works best for you.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Your system? I assume you mean a system that you've made up, that works best for you.

-AC I think he means "the system he believes in". Kinda like he said.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Your system? I assume you mean a system that you've made up, that works best for you.

-AC

I wouldn't presume to call it my system, but yes, it is largely based on ideas I've come up with based on my personal experiences and stuff I've come across in general

why do you ask?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Having representatives sounds like having a government to me.
No. PDAs are optional. Governments are not. PDAs are controlled by the market, meaning their decisions are directly tied to their profit. Governments do not have the same restraint. Etc.

Originally posted by inimalist
why do you assume there would be no consequence to hurting someone else in an anarchist society.

Mainly fear. Without long standing organization it's fairly hard to motivate people to put themselves directly in harms way. An inspiring speech might do it once or twice but the average person is not going to throw himself in the line of fire.

Originally posted by inimalist
Largely, I feel it might motivate people to not **** with each other too much, considering they can't go to the police for protection if a store owner wants to bash your face in, and the rest of the community thinks its a fair deal.

anarchy in the way I describe it does not involve a lack of social accountability

Is the store owner somehow not ****ing with me?

Originally posted by inimalist
my system wouldn't want you setting up a fund for people if you don't want to, it might have you participate in a fund that directly affects you, like community security and hospitals, I agree, I don't see why you should be interested in people over there. Also, given that I argue for sort of radical federalism, funding systems that have been shown to work without government would already be in place before government was removed, with ways to modify them if necessary.

That makes sense. However, it rapidly turns toward forming a government and still places power in those with money even more than our current system.

Originally posted by inimalist
I may be a utopian, but I certainly am a pragmatist.

Always thought those were opposites

Originally posted by inimalist
the altruism argument essentially is why I don't think you would murder people.

Then why isn't it stopping people now?

Originally posted by inimalist
the hope is that the poor are not so terribly afflicted that they can't afford to protect themselves. Or, that systems not reliant on government are able to provide services to those least able to afford them.

I don't follow and because I can't think of a very good way to express it I'll write my rebuttal in algebra.

Government + Non-Government = Insuffcient
Non-Government = Insuffcient - Government

Originally posted by inimalist
strange, my thoughts are that personal responsibility is the most crucial part of a political system

Personal responsibility is needed in just about everything. It's not reliable enough to use as the base for an entire system, though.

Originally posted by inimalist
hence why it is an ideology and not the science of anarchist society

Oh. Not a fan of presenting idealism as a goal. As an idea sure, but goals should be reachable things that move towards an ideal.

Originally posted by inimalist
if you replaced monopolies with market consolidation I would agree. Monopolies do not necessarily have to be negative in a free market. If competition has access to the market, it means the monopolizing company is providing the best product at the needed demand for the lowest price.

When has a monopoly ever done that? If it's happened I would admit that aspect of the system is probably workable.

Originally posted by inimalist
Look, obviously nothing is perfect. I also don't believe in a system where ideology replaces pragmatism. Anarchy may be an unreachable ideal, but certainly the idea that the state might act to give as much power to make decision to those most affected by them is certainly one, I think, deserves a try. Maybe in the end, the balance of power requires a state funded militia to keep the peace, or some government regulatory board to enforce contracts or have safety regulations, we are almost assuredly not to find out the way things are going however.

I think we can reach an accord in that much. Government deserves to be (perhaps needs to be) modified to benefit the people as much as possible but tearing it down isn't necessarily the best way to do that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The community forces and the privately paid protection agencies.

My apologies. You seem to have posted that a number of times. Why are you willing to invest power and safety in those groups? Why assume that they will form?

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
No. PDAs are optional. Governments are not. PDAs are controlled by the market, meaning their decisions are directly tied to their profit. Governments do not have the same restraint. Etc.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think he means "the system he believes in". Kinda like he said.

Or like he just clarified; his system. That's basically what it amounts to.

Originally posted by inimalist
I wouldn't presume to call it my system, but yes, it is largely based on ideas I've come up with based on my personal experiences and stuff I've come across in general

why do you ask?

Just curious, just curious.

Supposing someone with their own system and say, weapons, decides to take over something. How would that be dealt with in your society? Assuming there are people who are not paying for protection.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Or like he just clarified; his system. That's basically what it amounts to.

-AC

Not really. It's not uncommon in anarchist circles. And even if, does it matter whether just one person believes it is a good system?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Just curious, just curious.

Supposing someone with their own system and say, weapons, decides to take over something. How would that be dealt with in your society? Assuming there are people who are not paying for protection.

-AC There will be enough people with guns of their own hindering that person from upsetting the balance.

Originally posted by inimalist
are you arguing that morally correct behaviour comes from displaying the most violence?

I'm not saying being morally correct is the most violently powerful way, I am saying it is more, well, morally correct.

No, not at all. I'm arguing that power comes from the ability to control others. Morality comes from many different places, typically society.

Originally posted by inimalist
I can, yet again, admit that you are right

I have yet to think of a way that pascifist societies could stand against those willing to do violence.

There's the sci-fi standby of "we're defenseless but you can't hurt us" which is workable in the real world if a utopia can advance well beyond those who want to hurt it. It's possible, but terribly unlikely and would probably lead to a sort of ivory tower mentality.

There's also a good old fashioned First U.S. Army Group.

Originally posted by inimalist
Luckily in the system I believe in, the military would never be dissolved until there were no need for it to be state run. Meaning the army will be there if needed and that, should the day where a state run army is not needed ever come, there is something providing an equivalent function that has been shown to work.

That's a good system, I'll admit, but the existence on the army doesn't seem anarchistic as long as there is anyone controlling it (and thus in a position to oppress others).

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't remember making that argument...

Reading too much into you statements about social responsibility.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Just curious, just curious.

Supposing someone with their own system and say, weapons, decides to take over something. How would that be dealt with in your society? Assuming there are people who are not paying for protection.

-AC

An individual?

likely, given a few arguable assumptions about how I feel people would behave, they would be killed. I'm just assuming that people would be willing enough to defend their homes against a single instigator like that, and in this case, numbers favor the community.

The extension from that is, well, what if he gets a bunch of friends. This does pose some possibility, but I think you underestimate what anarchists believe. Most of us feel that this person would be shunned and likely kicked out (at best) of most communities. Maybe bandits form and become a problem?

I think your point is better made in the example of 2 states, one anarchist, one not. Even if the state with a government is a non-militaristic modern democracy, the fact it has a government that can, at the expense of other programs, direct funds into directed wartime efforts, and have a unified top-down military, sort of gives them irreconcilable advantages over an anarchist society. Even if we assume the anarchists have a market and industry capable of building tanks (states can stop trade to nations, so anarchists would loose the ability to import arms) and other necessary weapons, and even if we give them financial support from major corporate interests in the anarchist state, I don't feel they would have the same level and coordination, not to mention (due to lack of government propoganda) public support, of a western military, and certainly not the mobility or deployment capacities.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Or like he just clarified; his system. That's basically what it amounts to.


to further clarify, I do not claim any ownership of that system. It is simply my belief structure, and I do not think I'm the first to come up with those ideas. They are simply what make sense to me

Originally posted by lord xyz
There will be enough people with guns of their own hindering that person from upsetting the balance.

Supposing a group decided to do it then?

You cannot guarantee against an uprising, or any kind of dictatorship arising out of anarchy.

-AC

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos


That's a good system, I'll admit, but the existence on the army doesn't seem anarchistic as long as there is anyone controlling it (and thus in a position to oppress others).


As I stated much earlier there are very, very few anarcho capitlists who believe the government can be abolished over night, most accept that for now the government is necessary and should just be reduced to a point where anarchy can come intu fruition. Which is why many anarchists are working with the more typical minarchist libertarians.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

My apologies. You seem to have posted that a number of times. Why are you willing to invest power and safety in those groups? Why assume that they will form?


Because I would still value safety as would most people that's why they'd form. In an anarchist society I would be part of a neighborhood watch. In an anarchist society I'd pay part of my paycheck (voluntarily) to a defense agency to protect me and my loved ones. And you can bet your ass that if there was no protection agency anywhere close to me I'd so ****ing open one, cause it will be an excellent way to make money. It's the free market, and, whatever you want to say about the free market, ineffective it is not.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because I would still value safety as would most people that's why they'd form. In an anarchist society I would be part of a neighborhood watch. In an anarchist society I'd pay part of my paycheck (voluntarily) to a defense agency to protect me and my loved ones. And you can bet your ass that if there was no protection agency anywhere close to me I'd so ****ing open one, cause it will be an excellent way to make money. It's the free market, and, whatever you want to say about the free market, ineffective it is not.

. . . damn . . . good comeback

Nonetheless, it's not ineffective but it can easily become oppressive. Once you establish this protection agency will you maintain nothing but fair prices and moral business practices?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Supposing a group decided to do it then?

You cannot guarantee against an uprising, or any kind of dictatorship arising out of anarchy.

-AC So you agree that opression and dictatorship is bad?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
. . . damn . . . good comeback

Nonetheless, it's not ineffective but it can easily become oppressive. Once you establish this protection agency will you maintain nothing but fair prices and moral business practices?
Let's say he doesn't. What will stop his customers from leaving and forming a new one or joining another? It's a free market. There are no limitations as to who can setup what business where.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos


Simply put, trade is the greatest deterrent from human tendency to commit harm against others.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
. . . damn . . . good comeback

Nonetheless, it's not ineffective but it can easily become oppressive. Once you establish this protection agency will you maintain nothing but fair prices and moral business practices? No, totally not.


I'll be forced to though, by the free market.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Let's say he doesn't. What will stop his customers from leaving and forming a new one or joining another?

Considering he has an well armed, organized group of people under his command? Can't imagine.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Simply put, trade is the greatest deterrent from human tendency to commit harm against others.

*wonders where the slave trade came from*

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Considering he has an well armed, organized group of people under his command? Can't imagine.



*wonders where the slave trade came from* I think what he says just applied to people that trade with each other not people that are traded.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think what he says just applied to people that trade with each other not people that are traded.

The slave trade was the trade of other people to other people. Hence slave trade. It supported wars that hurt many many people.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The slave trade was the trade of other people to other people. Hence slave trade. It supported wars that hurt many many people. Yeah. So?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Considering he has an well armed, organized group of people under his command? Can't imagine.
A war would undoubtedly start, which would hurt his business. By starting said war, he would lose customers and eventually weaken his business. It would be stupidity to try and act against the customers leaving, because more would follow.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
*wonders where the slave trade came from*
It came from a lack of respect for human life.

Just for my own curiosity, where do huge projects for the advancement of human knowledge, health and society fit into modern anarchist views?

How do human genome projects and space races come about?

Even at a more basic level, who funds the billions in costs for higher education?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Mainly fear. Without long standing organization it's fairly hard to motivate people to put themselves directly in harms way. An inspiring speech might do it once or twice but the average person is not going to throw himself in the line of fire.

fair enough. I don't see soccer moms chasing down gangsters either.

obviously communities are going to have to come to decisions about how to respond to crime and threats. Potentially they come to the decision that community member who are able pool funds and give some people the right/responsibility to be a police officer.

I am not against communities being Top-Down, or having structures that resemble local government, as obviously there are things that require organization. It is the permanence and scope of these organizations that I feel would differentiate them from a government.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Is the store owner somehow not ****ing with me?

I mean if you get caught stealing, lol, that example was funny.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That makes sense. However, it rapidly turns toward forming a government and still places power in those with money even more than our current system.

I don't follow and because I can't think of a very good way to express it I'll write my rebuttal in algebra.

Government + Non-Government = Insuffcient
Non-Government = Insuffcient - Government

I'll admit it, I'm no economist. So really, the nitty gritty is something I haven't worked out in any detail. I don't know how to stop those with money from having power. I'll be sure to let you guys know when I do

As far as people being worse off, I don't really agree with that. If laws didn't exist to force corporations to make decisions that maximize immediate profit margins, corporations would be more interested in long term investment into communities and society, and in treating their workers better. Also, government protection against union rights and workers rights would make corporations more accountable to the communities.

And, as I'm a little bit of a socialist, I think there should be some kind of social compulsion for companies to invest into their communities. I have no idea what this would look like though, as I don't have a bunch of communities where I can run economic experiments.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then why isn't it stopping people now?

the cause of murder is not related to the government. You might argue that murder for hire would go up in anarchist societies.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Personal responsibility is needed in just about everything. It's not reliable enough to use as the base for an entire system, though.

I disagree, but obviously have no real evidence, aside from self selected communities, that people are so responsible.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Oh. Not a fan of presenting idealism as a goal. As an idea sure, but goals should be reachable things that move towards an ideal.

umm, I think the dissolution of government is a reachable goal, if not in my lifetime. Whether or not, as the evidence comes in, it proves to be would be the ultimate test, but I'm certainly not an anarchist in superficialities only

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
When has a monopoly ever done that? If it's happened I would admit that aspect of the system is probably workable.

Rand talks about one, in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". I believe it was in the steel industry, and the government came in, busted the monopoly, there were steel shortages and the price skyrocketed.

don't get me wrong, there are obviously extenuating circumstances, just, not all monopolies are bad things. Had the steel company also owned, say, the only company that made mining equipment, then it would have been terrible.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think we can reach an accord in that much. Government deserves to be (perhaps needs to be) modified to benefit the people as much as possible but tearing it down isn't necessarily the best way to do that.

I agree. Its something I'd like to see tried.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Just for my own curiosity, where do huge projects for the advancement of human knowledge, health and society fit into modern anarchist views?

How do human genome projects and space races come about?

Even at a more basic level, who funds the billions in costs for higher education? Probably private businesses that think they can make money from it.

And education would be self funded. Though I assume much cheaper than now.

Of course neither takes into account possible charities that would form, but that's really just a bonus.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Just for my own curiosity, where do huge projects for the advancement of human knowledge, health and society fit into modern anarchist views?

How do human genome projects and space races come about?

Even at a more basic level, who funds the billions in costs for higher education?

honestly, I have no answer for that, and see it as potentially one of the most damning criticisms of anarchist theories.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Probably private businesses that think they can make money from it.

potentially, but huge quantities of research would be gone

the stuff done in my lab has almost no direct application at the moment, and I really can't see how it would be profitable in this decade. There is no way it would be done without government funding

Originally posted by inimalist
honestly, I have no answer for that, and see it as potentially one of the most damning criticisms of anarchist theories. Good thing I have them

People have been convinced/manipulated into doing things all the time, I'm sure they'll be convinced/manipulated to fund education etc.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Probably private businesses that think they can make money from it.

And education would be self funded. Though I assume much cheaper than now.

Of course neither takes into account possible charities that would form, but that's really just a bonus. If you're referring to the huge projects regarding private business it's conceivable but as inimalist has also mentioned a huge preponderance of research funds would evaporate. Science being an incremental process, most basic research has no direct commercial application; although the eventual eurekah drug or treatment that does have such application and could reap a profit will still have relied on the research that preceded, or it never would have come about.

With education, it's just that currently as far as I'm aware higher education institutions are heavily subsidized in costs by government funds, and even then require hefty contributions from private citizens who want to attend.

At least in my country, a medical degree amounts to something like 60K in tuition fees, not counting other costs involved, and this is after most of the costs are already covered by the government. My own undergraduate degree has me indebted around 20K, my postgraduate research being funded by a university and ergo government stipend.

I can't conceive anyone but the ludicrously wealthy being able to fully self fund education.

Originally posted by inimalist
honestly, I have no answer for that, and see it as potentially one of the most damning criticisms of anarchist theories.



potentially, but huge quantities of research would be gone

the stuff done in my lab has almost no direct application at the moment, and I really can't see how it would be profitable in this decade. There is no way it would be done without government funding I assume big corporations would have an interest in long term investments. And not all research is good research. But yeah, there might be less research.

Since we have 3 anarchists here, what's your opinion on copyright and intellectual property?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot


At least in my country, a medical degree amounts to something like 60K in tuition fees, not counting other costs involved, and this is after most of the costs are already covered by the government. My own undergraduate degree has me indebted around 20K, my postgraduate research being funded by a university and ergo government stipend.

I can't conceive anyone but the ludicrously wealthy being able to fully self fund education.

Well, I can't perfectly project what would happen, but a few factors that would change in some way or another do exist (I'll name a few). Higher Education wouldn't be as important. Schools would have to compete with each other on a free market. People would have 100% of their income. Things would be cheaper due to lack of government control. And, at least imo, it would be much cheaper to get particular intellectual property, for example, a school book costing you 50 Bucks now, would be free on the Internet or published relatively cheap. Does anyone else hate that school books are so ridiculously expensive? I mean, what the hell is up with that?

I'm not entirely sure what you meant by "higher education wouldn't be as important."

I'm still not seeing how the books would balance though. Even if costs somehow miraculously dropped, I still can't see them falling to the extent that such an education would be available to anyone who wanted it and qualified for it. And I'm not sure that haven't several dozen additional "higher education institutions" wouldn't just result in subpar education.

Also I'm curious about the ramifications there would be on intellectual property and copyright as well. It seems to me you're saying these things would no longer apply. Which further reduces the incentive for research.

The problem there is, if you make education something only the rich can afford then you will end up with shortages in many higher end careers and to many people in the blue collar job market which could strangle it and then have a hefty drag on social assistance programs.

It is in the governments best interest to fund education and make it as affordable as possible.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm not entirely sure what you meant by "higher education wouldn't be as important."

I'm still not seeing how the books would balance though.

Also I'm curious about the ramifications there would be on intellectual property and copyright as well. It seems to me you're saying these things would no longer apply. Which further reduces the incentive for research.

Well, autodidacts would have more chance. You could basically go to anyone, a higher education would not be a requirement.

The Books wouldn't balance it out if you'd have to pay 60 K, true.

I'm not exactly sure as to the ramifications, but obviously there wouldn't really be such a thing as intellectual property. There may be ways to protect your thoughts, but I am not sure what they would be

Also, I feel you are disregarding my best point.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
The problem there is, if you make education something only the rich can afford then you will end up with shortages in many higher end careers and to many people in the blue collar job market which could strangle it and then have a hefty drag on social assistance programs.

It is in the governments best interest to fund education and make it as affordable as possible.

Actually I think governmetn funded education has more troubles than solutions.

I'm not sure I want someone who has undergone their medical training via self-directed learning to operate on me should I need cardiac surgery. Or taught themselves civil engineering and architecture to design my buildings.

Sorry, reiterate your best point, as I may not have gotten it the first time.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually I think government funded education has more troubles than solutions.

Why? It allows people more equal opportunity access to education. Which in turn means we have more things like Doctors for example.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm not sure I want someone who has undergone their medical training via self-directed learning to operate on me should I need cardiac surgery. Or taught themselves civil engineering and architecture to design my buildings.

Sorry, reiterate your best point, as I may not have gotten it the first time. Well, but doctors already need to have excellent funding to start with, so where would be the problem.

And the point that schools would have to compete with each other on a free market.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, but doctors already need to have excellent funding to start with, so where would be the problem.

And the point that schools would have to compete with each other on a free market.

The free market isn't the monster allot of people make it out to be true, but when it comes to something like education, it's not the solution you think it is. My city has privately funded colleges and they charge just as much as the government run colleges do.

And in a more government funded education system, the financial burden on doctors would be at least somewhat eased.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, but doctors already need to have excellent funding to start with, so where would be the problem.

And the point that schools would have to compete with each other on a free market. Oh I partially addressed that in an edit after you quoted me.

I'm not certain having a larger number of institutions wouldn't simply lower the standard of education.

Having several dozen additional higher education institutions would presumably result in competition to attract students, and ergo lower tuition fees.

The problem being several dozen additional higher education institutions would also have to compete for educators, ergo higher salaries.

It doesn't balance up. This is excluding trying to figure out where all the other costs of running courses would derive.

I'm not sure what your doctor comment meant, if you could elaborate that would be good.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Since we have 3 anarchists here, what's your opinion on copyright and intellectual property?
Reasonable suits arbitrated by a mutually chosen mediator to resolve the conflicts wold be what I would support.