What would your polictical party be? Should we abolish the political spectrum?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I haven't been following this thread for a bit, so I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned...

But out of curiosity, how exactly would an anarchist society cope with the string of financial collapses that have recently occurred - which are themselves in some corners thought to be a result of fervent deregulation. Where would the hundreds of billions of dollars in liquidity come from to rescue these institutions; or would their failure - and the ensuing inevitable economic fallout - simply be allowed to occur?

I'd argue that the problem is not with fervent deregulation, but not enforced regulations.

Many of the practices that mortgage companies were using were already illegal. Not to mention that the pseudo federal Fanny May and Freddy Mac were also involved, allowing the companies to essentially borrow federal funds to make more money on illegal loaning practices.

Clearly we can draw a distinction between "non-governmental policy" and "failed governmental policy".

In many ways (big surprise) I see this as too much government. Companies have known for decades that they can socialize the economic losses of poor investment policy. The insurance companies and banks that have been bailed out, largely, made extremely high risk investments knowing the risk of those investments was no longer theirs to bare.

In a truly free market, the idea would be that incentives for that type of practice would be reduced, as companies would fail and go under. Possibly some mechanism to enforce some transparency in financial endeavors (government policy doesn't work in this regard either), but if a company knows they have to make good on their debts, and can't pass it off to some government agency, they will be forced to have better practices, or they will fail.

And no, I see no problem with letting major companies fail if they are unable to succeed.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Heh, thought I'd scared you off 😛

You wish.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, it actually more like:

"Holy shit he's got a knife and might kill me!" BANG

Rather than:

"Give me the money and I won't hurt you."

I agree, I think people shouldn't draw knifes on people with guns.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
By directly making yourself a threat to it, yes you do. I didn't say we should ban all firearms, I said people shouldn't be given the unrestricted right to simply walk around with them concealed and that the argument they're being carried for defense insults the intelligence of any rational person.

It's really just a fact. I don't see why you don't understand that weapons of any kind can protect you against an attacker. It's so basic...it's just fact.

And I am infringing if I make myself a threat. If I just carry a weapon, I do not.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If someone wants to carry around a weapon they should have to prove a certain level of competence with it as well as a good degree of responsibility. Letting John Q Public go buy a gun because he's scared or because he wants to go kill someone isn't a good idea by any stretch.

Sounds fair enough to me.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's not a defense, it's a way of making yourself feel safe while actually becoming a threat to those around you. A defense would actually protect you from harm. A defense would be body armor.

Again. Just no. A weapon can be defense as well.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Oh, can't quote the last part but you have a somewhat valid point there.

Thanks

I haven't paid 100% attention to this knife thing, so don't get angry if I'm way off topic

but, like, I carry a knife with me pretty much 24/7. I take it to school, anything. Ok, so I'm being a little facetious, I carry an exacto-knife, but my friends carry short blade pocket knives for the same reason. Not for protection, but because a knife is a useful tool. I can only say, carry one, and you will realize how nice it is to be able to cut stuff open easily or whatever, it is amazing how often you will use it.

Banning the carrying of knives seems to be getting to the point where any type of safety concern is taking precedence of personal freedom. The utility of carrying a knife (and I guess there is some protection to it, I have been in a couple of situations [that were more of misunderstandings than anything] where being able to put my hand on my knife really made me feel a little safer) should far outweigh the fact that some people might use them for harm. Like, when is it going to be illegal to carry more than a certain weight in change, because it could be used as a club?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Difference of scale, IMO. Groups can and will work together independently on a small scale (up to say a large town). I don't think it would work with much larger groups because the needed amount of communication scales up more quickly than is possible.

Constructing a factory can be done somewhat spontaneously. Constructing a network of them requires long term thinking centralized organization to make sure that things are roughly where they need to be. Relying on individuals might get you the right buildings but it won't get them in the right place.

Government doesn't have to be "big" to be extensive. I realize factories are typically organized by private groups, it's just a metaphor.

Peace would also generally maintain itself within a small society. But without organization it is not easy to maintain peace between societies. Even just on the scale of cities you get rival territories developing.

So, as I am a super cool punk mother****er, I was wearing one of my Anarchist A t-shirts yesterday, and one of the people we were hanging out with decided he needed to debate my political philosophy with me.

And he was essentially saying the same thing here, if less eloquent, lol. basically, "It wont work on a large scale".

My answer is that large scale centers of power no longer would exist. "large scale" I feel is a little bit of a misnomer. I don't think the adequately describes what you said above, but let me try...

I think we have to realize that technology wouldn't be absent in (at least my) anarchist society. Communication wise, the world is already flat and integrated. The internet is highly pervasive, and I feel the full implementation of it to people is required for anarchy to work. A lot of what I think you are calling communication problems I would see as deference of refusal of responsibility problems. We require top heavy organization of communications because that is what people have come to depend on. There is really no alternative. However, there is no specific reason why people who understand what their responsibilities to society are can't organize themselves (even with voluntary leadership) through the abundance of communication channels open in a modern technological state.

To continue this, and answer your last point about rivalry, I think you provided the best metaphor possible. If a factory needs to be built because of demand, and there is available labor, and resources are abundant, the private sector weighs the available options and makes a factory. That is the most natural and beneficial type of organization. It brings work to cities, creates local wealth, creates local infrastructure (especially when the companies that need the roads for trucking are also the ones building them, a win/win for society). This also prevents against all out hostility between cities. If the major financial interests in a region want to continue to make money, they need profitable trade conditions. Its the theory of why 2 nations with McDonald's have never gone to war. Or looking at Russia, it wasn't until they began major anti-capitalistic moves in their oil industry that the west began to see them as "the enemy" again, and China has become a leading trading partner by opening up some of their markets.

Originally posted by inimalist
So, as I am a super cool punk mother****er, I was wearing one of my Anarchist A t-shirts yesterday, and one of the people we were hanging out with decided he needed to debate my political philosophy with me.

And he was essentially saying the same thing here, if less eloquent, lol. basically, "It wont work on a large scale".

My answer is that large scale centers of power no longer would exist. "large scale" I feel is a little bit of a misnomer. I don't think the adequately describes what you said above, but let me try...

I think we have to realize that technology wouldn't be absent in (at least my) anarchist society. Communication wise, the world is already flat and integrated. The internet is highly pervasive, and I feel the full implementation of it to people is required for anarchy to work. A lot of what I think you are calling communication problems I would see as deference of refusal of responsibility problems. We require top heavy organization of communications because that is what people have come to depend on. There is really no alternative. However, there is no specific reason why people who understand what their responsibilities to society are can't organize themselves (even with voluntary leadership) through the abundance of communication channels open in a modern technological state.

To continue this, and answer your last point about rivalry, I think you provided the best metaphor possible. If a factory needs to be built because of demand, and there is available labor, and resources are abundant, the private sector weighs the available options and makes a factory. That is the most natural and beneficial type of organization. It brings work to cities, creates local wealth, creates local infrastructure (especially when the companies that need the roads for trucking are also the ones building them, a win/win for society). This also prevents against all out hostility between cities. If the major financial interests in a region want to continue to make money, they need profitable trade conditions. Its the theory of why 2 nations with McDonald's have never gone to war. Or looking at Russia, it wasn't until they began major anti-capitalistic moves in their oil industry that the west began to see them as "the enemy" again, and China has become a leading trading partner by opening up some of their markets.

A bit of emergence and a sort of pseudo-military-style organization (ie, people with the right skills are organized by a spread out hierarchy that, in this case, has no real "top"😉. I like it actually and I can't come up with any good reasons it wouldn't work except a lack of trust in ability. It's fundamentally a very good idea.

Large scale? Where'd they get that from?

Are we supposed to answer this question idealistically or realistically?

I would imagine idealistically since otherwise the options are rather limited to what can realistically happen (my preferred choice).

Assuming we are looking at things from an idealistic perspective then Anarcho Capitalisim and other related ideas can work out fine.

My idealistic party/system would be more centrist than anything else, I'm generally moderate in my political thinking (well in some things at least), but I don't think we should necessarily abolish the political spectrum.

Originally posted by Autokrat
I would imagine idealistically since otherwise the options are rather limited to what can realistically happen (my preferred choice).

Assuming we are looking at things from an idealistic perspective then Anarcho Capitalisim and other related ideas can work out fine.

awwww, look how smug and smart you are

isn't that cute

assuming we are..., oh, sweetheart. And so smart too! Your prefered choice? How spectacular!

Originally posted by Autokrat
My idealistic party/system would be more centrist than anything else, I'm generally moderate in my political thinking (well in some things at least), but I don't think we should necessarily abolish the political spectrum.

LOL

the political version of agnosticism

Originally posted by inimalist
awwww, look how smug and smart you are

isn't that cute

assuming we are..., oh, sweetheart. And so smart too! Your prefered choice? How spectacular!

Eh? Did I insult you somehow?

Originally posted by Autokrat
Eh? Did I insult you somehow?

LOL

🙄

I was more addressing your... illustrative?... choice of words.

that and you decided to dismiss 36 pages worth of debate to denounce something, which I believe in, off hand.