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

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

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?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

😬

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?

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*

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.

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

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
*wonders where the slave trade came from*

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?

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.

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.

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

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?