At last, I finally see. Baby Boomers are everything wrong with society.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If it is voluntary, I have a suggestion:

Do not pay any more taxes the rest of your life and come up with your own logical traffic rules of personal governance. Also, socialize all of your activities to your liking, meaning, take food when you are hungry, from anywhere, and offer it to those that are hungry around.

Etc.

Eventually, the organized state will disagree with you so much that you ability to be "volunteery" is removed.

What does this mean? One is forced and the other is voluntary.

You can choose not to voluntarily do some things, but the state will disagree and throw you in prison. In the anarachist society, it's not true. In fact, you may even be respected for disagreeing on some of the items in the "social contract".

That assumes, of course, an impossible to reach system of anarchy. It is a Utopia that I do not believe in and sometimes do not understand.

On an individual level, I already argued with inimalist about this. I cannot imagine any regulatory committee that lacks the ability to coerce in any way. At least, not without being regulatory in name only. I'm still waiting to hear how these boards could actually regulate things.

Basically, I can only see these options for "regulation", and I don't see any true "choice" between them.

Regulatory State with powerful capabilities: This is what we're trying to avoid.

Regulatory "committee" with powerful capabilities: I don't see how this is any different from the above.

Regulatory "committee" without powerful capabilities: I don't see how this could actually do anything tangible.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Maybe its not voluntary for single individuals, but, I was always talking about this from the point of view of collectives. If enough people refused to pay taxes, it would be simply impossible for the state to imprison all of them, and its ability to fund itself would be badly crippled.

So you're saying that the state would descend into a state of ...anarchy, in order to throw off the shackles of involuntary governance?

Makes sense.

That's what anarachists generally agree upon.

Originally posted by King Kandy
On an individual level, I already argued with inimalist about this. I cannot imagine any regulatory committee that lacks the ability to coerce in any way. At least, not without being regulatory in name only. I'm still waiting to hear how these boards could actually regulate things.

I provided an example of a social contract that seems to get things done: wiki pages. (They appear to be superior to encyclopedias, for the most part.)

And, they do it in the same way the village elders used do: people just obey the decrees of the village elders out of respect (and spirituality).

Similar to a soccer community: it's made up of volunteer moms and dads. The mons and dads pay for the organization, too.

The soccer organization my son belongs to has not president, chair, or permanent committee. It's completely voluntary. The "accounting" is done by a voluntary parent, each season. We have not had any eff-ups on required funding, either and the extra money goes to the children at the end of each season. (Snacks, trophies, etc.) It works out really well. I could call every parent before a soccer game and demand that they change they date, but the "social contract" prevents me from trying to force the community to my wants/needs. That's more or less the compliance being discussed.

But my opinion of these systems diverages or anything larger than such constructs. Any larger and it becomes less efficient and and more regular "folks" are usually required.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So you're saying that the state would descend into a state of ...anarchy, in order to throw off the shackles of involuntary governance?

Makes sense.

That's what anarachists generally agree upon.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I provided an example of a social contract that seems to get things done: wiki pages. (They appear to be superior to encyclopedias, for the most part.)

And, they do it in the same way the village elders used do: people just obey the decrees of the village elders out of respect (and spirituality).

Similar to a soccer community: it's made up of volunteer moms and dads. The mons and dads pay for the organization, too.

The soccer organization my son belongs to has not president, chair, or permanent committee. It's completely voluntary. The "accounting" is done by a voluntary parent, each season. We have not had any eff-ups on required funding, either and the extra money goes to the children at the end of each season. (Snacks, trophies, etc.) It works out really well. I could call every parent before a soccer game and demand that they change they date, but the "social contract" prevents me from trying to force the community to my wants/needs. That's more or less the compliance being discussed.

But my opinion of these systems diverages or anything larger than such constructs. Any larger and it becomes less efficient and and more regular "folks" are usually required.

Coercion does not have to be violence.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But what i'm saying is, having that option means that it isn't really involuntary. Nothing is involuntary if people empower themselves to stand against it.

That's really impossible unless the military is with the people in the revolt.

Do you agree that it is involuntary up to the point of a revolt against the power?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Those do have coercive power; it comes in the form of social pressure to go with what others say. Social pressure can be hugely powerful; in fact, i'd say its actually one of the strongest forces pushing people to conformity.

Coercion does not have to be violence.

I agree.

ha, so this will seem like some huge cop out, but I am going to sort of just sum up a lot that was said into one reply.

volunteerism isn't really a critical part of my ideas. I suppose you could call it such, but social responsibility plays a major role in how I think society should work. well, ya, you could voluntarily "opt out" of those responsibilities, but then you would essentially be opting out of society. like, social rules wouldn't be any more voluntary than they are now, you couldn't choose to assault someone without repercussion, the same way I could voluntarily violate the law. my thinking is that a system where the community comes together to determine your fate, rather than a central system that is empowered through heavy handed sentencing, is much more justified in taking away your rights for the protection of society.

secondly, to the point about GE vs the American gvt. ok, so all of this is entirely speculative, but I really don't see the state as having an advantage in enforcement over them. sure, they could file anti-trust, but what do they do when GE doesn't even come to court? GE is more than just a company, it is buildings, thousands of employees, infrastructure, it owns a major news outlet on cable, satellite and the internet, etc. if they just up and decided not to cooperate, I think the gvt would have an extraordinarily difficult time making them. their shareholders, however, might be in a better position to do this, and they would want to, because such a battle would be disastrous to their bottom line. they comply because it makes things better for everyone that they do.

and so, finally, I want to give some perspective here. imagine it were 1750, and instead of anarchy, I was promoting democracy. many of these "how will x work?" questions could easily be leveled against me, much as they are now, and they would likely be as valid. the thing is, for democracy, we only came to understand practical answers to these questions after hundreds of years of implementation. there is no democratic state that exists as an exact reflection of enlightenment ideals, in the same way it would be foolish for me to claim, "oh, of course, this is how anarchy would work". we just don't know, but where it has been tried to limited degrees, there is some evidence that these types of social organization can work, namely from Barcelona during the Spanish civil war. so, no, I probably can't explain how a group of stakeholders could enforce regulation, but I can point to citizen activism as it exists today, and say, well, if this were the method of conflict resolution, it could be effective, because sit ins, boycotts, and even just consumer education works today. if a company doesn't comply, the citizens (other stakeholders) would physically prevent that company from doing business. because the police no longer are a strong arm for corporations, they cant be relied upon to protect businesses, and in fact, ideally, would protect those demonstrating against the company

Originally posted by King Kandy
These systems developed with the support of the general population every step of the way. Blame people for being stupid.

that isn't really true though... maybe with tacit compliance in the face of the threat of force and imprisonment, but there have always been those who challenge the state. anarchists have been around, in terms of people who actually identify with the concept explicitly, since, essentially the birth of the nationstate in france. prior to that, every religious tradition has a history of anarchism, and we can point to many thinkers from all througout history who, while living in a time where anarchy conceptually didn't exist, have challenged authority through the same perspectives.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's my philosophy as well. I don't think Anarchists are doing a good job at convincing people to take up the cause; when you call everyone else "sheep" it isn't a terribly appealing movement to join. You don't do that, but there are so many pretentious posers in the anarchist movement that it almost discredits itself, much like the Church of Satan or similar groups.

I can hardl say I am interested in recruitment, but I do get what you are saying. I've had huge success talkin with people when I can keep the conversaton to practical, small scale goals, and ya, not talking to people as if they are stupid because we don't agree on things.

my thoughts are that most people are not actually opposed to most anarchist solutions to things like education, social welfare, etc (maybe it's a Canadian thing?), so long as you dont open with "break the state".

YouTube video

Originally posted by Bardock42
YouTube video

I'm glad he doesn't identify as an anarchist, his view on knowledge is essentially fascist

I've always liked this one though:

YouTube video

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm glad he doesn't identify as an anarchist, his view on knowledge is essentially fascist

What do you mean?

Originally posted by Bardock42
What do you mean?

well, if you accept that the only way to truth, or the only way people should come to know things, is through "reason" (which, I'm sure this individual thinks includes the scientific method, but actually does not [the scientific method is opposed to the Aristitalian method]), then you have created a norm which all people must adhere to.

We are saying, a priori, that knowledge from "reason" is inherently better than all other types, and that anything learned from these other types cannot inform reason. He is basically saying, "to be allied with me, you must think like me, otherwise we are not the same and I don't support you", which, at least in my interpretation, is the exact opposite of anarchy

Originally posted by inimalist
well, if you accept that the only way to truth, or the only way people should come to know things, is through "reason" (which, I'm sure this individual thinks includes the scientific method, but actually does not [the scientific method is opposed to the Aristitalian method]), then you have created a norm which all people must adhere to.

We are saying, a priori, that knowledge from "reason" is inherently better than all other types, and that anything learned from these other types cannot inform reason. He is basically saying, "to be allied with me, you must think like me, otherwise we are not the same and I don't support you", which, at least in my interpretation, is the exact opposite of anarchy

That's not quite how interpret it. I believe he is an anarchist coming from the objectivist direction. As such he must believe there are certain fundamental truths in the world (and perhaps that he knows them). If that's the case then reason (that is forming conclusions logically from axioms, the axioms being the essential truths) is one of the most fundamental things that people need. So essentially what he is saying is that he is an anarchist because the axioms he believes to be true make him come to the conclusion that anarchy is the "best" system. What he is saying in the video though is, at least how I understand it, that he doesn't care for the label rather that the reasons and derivations is what's important. I see your problem though, it is framed in a backwards manner, but I mainly posted it for the point about the label not being what is important, but the agreement to certain fundamental believes about freedom and equality.

Though perhaps he is just talking about people behaving in logical ways, regardless of the axioms, which is a bit silly...though at least people behaving rationally can be convinced by accepting different axioms.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not quite how interpret it. I believe he is an anarchist coming from the objectivist direction. As such he must believe there are certain fundamental truths in the world (and perhaps that he knows them). If that's the case then reason (that is forming conclusions logically from axioms, the axioms being the essential truths) is one of the most fundamental things that people need. So essentially what he is saying is that he is an anarchist because the axioms he believes to be true make him come to the conclusion that anarchy is the "best" system. What he is saying in the video though is, at least how I understand it, that he doesn't care for the label rather that the reasons and derivations is what's important. I see your problem though, it is framed in a backwards manner, but I mainly posted it for the point about the label not being what is important, but the agreement to certain fundamental believes about freedom and equality.

Though perhaps he is just talking about people behaving in logical ways, regardless of the axioms, which is a bit silly...though at least people behaving rationally can be convinced by accepting different axioms.

ya, don't get me wrong, I'm with him on the label thing, though I don't shy away from being an anarchist as much as I do atheist, I just think it is problematic to say "I only allign myself with people who think the way I do"

I sort of take that as inferring that there would only be one type of thinking in his ideal society...

Originally posted by inimalist
I sort of take that as inferring that there would only be one type of thinking in his ideal society...

How is that different from a society where there is no disagreement, though?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How is that different from a society where there is no disagreement, though?

I don't know that it would be...

I can't think of something that would be more disasterous for society than 100% agreement

I don't think that was his thought though anyways, he dos seem to not mind disagreement on certain issues. He seems to have some magical concept of reason though, admittedly.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't know that it would be...

I can't think of something that would be more disasterous for society than 100% agreement

Seems to contradict this:

Originally posted by inimalist
if all the people who have a stake in the descision are involved in the process of regulation, who would need to be coerced?

The only reason no one would need to be coerced would be if no one was opposed to the results. The only way to get that is for everyone to agree.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think that was his thought though anyways, he dos seem to not mind disagreement on certain issues. He seems to have some magical concept of reason though, admittedly.

that is the only video of his that I have seen, and really, I was just reacting to the part where he emphasized that people who agree with him for different reasons than his are not his allies. Even if I am misinterpreting that, his point seemed clear... I'll concede it though

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The only reason no one would need to be coerced would be if no one was opposed to the results. The only way to get that is for everyone to agree.

the same way all parties need to agree in non-governmental conflict mediation?

I'm an anarchist