Yes, people really are anarchists, and it works!

Anarchism is the only logical and moral method of government: Self-Governance. If one does not have the ability to voluntarily act upon his or her own rational self-interest due to coercion from an outside factor, that outside factor (society, government, another individual) is inherently immoral. There is no greater tyranny than that which is done unto an individual under the guise of collective responsibility (State Socialism or State Capitalism), altruism (Organized Religion), or coercion (brute force, i.e. the highwayman).

Furthermore, Anarchism does not suppose one or all to be caring, kind, loving of thy neighbor, or even tolerant. Anarchism is simply the understanding that people acting responsible under their own watch is attainable within the fallibility of humans and human interaction.

The principle is simple: Non-aggression. When it comes to person vs. person, the scenario is obvious. Treat others as you'd like to be treated. The initiation of force is immoral due to the fact that the victim must act contradictory to their own self-interest, whilst reactionary force in an engagement is not only moral, but an obligation, a duty, a rebellion against unwarranted force.

These ideas extend to the state. The institutionalization, legalization of violence, theft, and genocide. The only difference between the highwayman and the state is the legality of their actions (Although, the highwayman steals your property without the broken promise of protection from future criminals). Government itself is Broken Window Fallacy. Government is the idea that in order to protect ourselves from elite or low level greed-ridden thugs seeking power is to grant our own elite minority power to make decisions for us. This is another contradiction.

First, it implies humans are able to elect leaders to make decisions for them, but not make the decisions themselves. Second, it implies majority rule is morally just for the sole reason of majority agreement (circular logic). Finally, it implies that coercion, the initiation of force, is required to resist the initiation of force, instead of reactionary (self-defense). These false securities have led to the downfall of every supposed free nation. For to be completely free, you must be without legalized violence.

This goes back to the point made in paragraph two of the explanation. Anarchist societies aren't meant to be utopic. That would be a contradiction. Individuals who regard themselves as anarchists or voluntaryists realize that not all humans will believe what we believe, and thus our beliefs reflect that and fittingly do not require them to. For it's the whole reason why we hold anarchist views in the first place. It is impossible to know what is best for another, as we are only ourselves, and cannot properly predict the future.

 

So go form a commune.

 

As if it's that easy. I would. Though the survival rate of those who simply want to be left alone isn't exactly high. I think of events like Waco. I'd be harassed and painted as xenophobic and a threat. Thus eliminated. So with secession not an option, I must fight the information war and best my enemies with reason and logic. Reactionary force, buddy.

 

I'm an anarchist in the sense that I have no desire for a state, but I don't really consider myself allied with that movement. My political philosophy is just a set of personal axioms that limit my available decisions on any given issue.

In this sense it's more in competition with the Golden Rule than with political models like fascism or communism.

I'm not so much proposing a political model as I am rejecting the others. It's your Atheism to your Christianity.

 

North Korea and China are still around. Iran for that matter, too. And the Jews. And dozens of communities in the U.S.

 

Where does it work? Give me an example of it working at any time in any place.

 

established anarchy is typically socialism, it's a call for the removal of private property, and an end to capitalism


read any anarchist philosopher to see what I am talking about, Mikhail Bakunin, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, ect


History reads that William McKinley was killed by an anarchist, the man Leon Czolgosz shot president McKinley in protest of the conditions that the industrial era had brought, in his words "I killed the President because he was the enemy of the good people, the good working people"

 

This is the result of the state working too well. Tons of spoiled people who have no clue what life is like without the protection and organization we have in the United States. Anarchists are just like spoiled children.

 

You have a quote in your signature about capitalism being great, and yet you are defending Anarchism here!! Capitalism is antithetical to anarchism. Anarchism is, at its most fundamental level, opposed to hierarchy. Capitalism creates massive hierarchies. Beyond that, capitalism ensures interventionist government. One cannot logically be both an anarchist and a supporter of capitalism, at least not if they understand anarchism and capitalism.

 

"Working" is a tricky term, because people tend to forget politics' normative nature. Politics cannot tell you what to value, it can only tell you the best way to get there. The rational world of claims can be divided into two categories: normative and descriptive. A normative ought might be "you should clean your clothes", while an associated descriptive fact might be "you can best clean your clothes by putting them in a washing machine".

We need to take care with your above post to avoid mixing up unassociated normative and descriptive claims. Always keep in mind "what are my ends, what are my means?". The non-aggression principle is categorically normative. It fits in, and competes with, claims like...

• We ought to value economic prosperity as our ends
• We ought to value public health as our ends
• We ought to value the majority's will as our ends

Consequently, the non-aggression principle doesn't directly achieve these ends - it's in competition with them. Just as it's unfair to criticize democracy for not leading to a maximization of public health, it's unfair to criticize the non-aggression principle for not providing things you want (universal healthcare, a strong national defense, etc) - since these aren't the things its concerned with.

Take the war pacifists as an example (I don't agree with them - I think retaliatory force is justified), these guys know full well that if you don't intervene in mass genocides that a lot of people are going to die. That's irrelevant, they would say - since saving lives isn't their ultimate end, non-violence is. That's what makes it axiomatic. It's a similar sort of thing for non-aggression.

Labels can have different concepts attached to them. Left and right anarchism have entirely different concepts of individual liberty behind them. I know this because I was once a left anarchist myself.

It's the same as my position on naming my religious beliefs. Some call me an Atheist, some call me an Agnostic. Label me whatever you like, it's the concepts behind the labels that matter, not the labels themselves.

 

pretty much this

 

The state works too well? I can be convinced that the state is a necessary evil. Anything beyond that is the blathering of a person who has too easily internalized years of state promoted propaganda.

 

government is a necessary evil... I like that for some reason

 

You can try to convince yourself that the state isn't necessary for the success and security of a nation but history is not on your side. The one thing we know is countries without strong governments do not succeed.

 

Which history are you referencing exactly? What world do you live in where an example of a stateless society, with communal economic arrangements, ever existed? You can argue it is unrealistic and unfeasible. You cannot argue that it is historically disproven. Failed states and weak states don't count. They do not exist in a bubble. The state still interacts with people as do all the other states in the international realm of nation states and global capitalism. Yemen may have a very weak state, but they are still contending with the power of the most powerful state on the planet. You are making a poor argument against anarchism. One you think makes sense, but it doesn't.

 

Except the label was coopted and bastardized by capitalists. That is a problem. Anarchism was always anti-capitalist. That only changed in the 70s (when capitalists coopted and bastardized the term libertarian as well). The reality is capitalism and the state are inexorably linked. In order to undermine the power of the state, one would need to undermine the power of capital as well. If one failed to do that, even if some reduction in the state occurred, capital would ensure that the reduction was temporary. Capitalists rely on an interventionist state to protect their capital and promote their further accumulation of capital. Without the state, the thing we have experienced and called capitalism, would completely cease to exist. Or capitalists would simply recreate a state and start the whole process of state expansion all over again.

 

Just like any other ideology, if it doesn't exist, it doesn't work. Just spoiled people with too much time to think.

 

Left and right anarchists disagree on the fundamental allocation of resources.

• Left: resources held in common - if any one individual tries to take resources for himself above the rest of humanity, they are committing force. Consequently, humanity in common can be said to have a property right over resources.
• Right: resources held by whoever applies their labor to the resource - if anyone other than this individual tries to take resources for himself, they are committing force. The individual who has applied his labor to the resource thus has a property right.

Consequently, whether or not either supports a state is dependent on which view you hold, since force is pretty much the central component of the state. To say that either cannot use the term "anarchism" presupposes that the other is false. I've always been a fan of using words in a strictly utilitarian sense, because that's all language does - it communicates ideas to the subject. If I'm talking to a left anarchist I'll call their perspective anarchism. If I'm talking to a right libertarian I'll call it "left libertarianism".

This isn't a political practice, I do this for all language.

 

Anarchist Creed: There are no rules unless I say so, in which case, the rule is absolute, because it is in my best interest for the rule, if I decide I need the rule. And no other person has the right to limit my decision to apply my rules, if I so decide, because... I AM AN ANARCHIST, and what is best for me, is the only thing which matters.

Which is why Anarchists tend to have very short life span.

 

Anarchism relies too heavily into assumptions like for example the nature of man , i find it impossible to have a world full of Eloy without even a few Morlocks .
Anacaps are ridiculous , just try to imagine getting into a dispute against a big corporation and having to deal with private held justice .
Anarcho-communists are cool until you start sleeping with their wives .

Can anarchism work? sure , few centuries after the establishment of communism or any other directly democratic regime societies can be mature enough to abandon coercion .

 

I don't think the thread title is correct. Wheter it's more moral is another thing enterly from wheter it works. I can agree to the moral part -although, in my view it cannot be very moral to seek a system which one knows will have horrible outcomes for some- but on the practical side I'm not convinced.

 

I have deep respect for anarchist thought but I think it would lead to good results in an ideal world, not in a real world. Individual people are often stupid, malicious, irresponsible, ignorant or powerless. This means that sometimes they cannot be left to their own judgement/devices or left alone to do as they please, sad but true. The world is not black and white and so no simple rule such as non-agression principle can encompass all of its facets, no matter how moral or well meaning it is.

That said, there is a plethora of good ideas in anarchism that absolutely can and should be implemented in a real world.

 

I hear all these wannabe collectivist make complete contradictions about anarchism.

So please clear a few of them up for me.

You claim you want to abolished the state because the whole coercion factor, then you turn around an say private property and what not will be abolished as well. So by stopping people from having private property and taking part in capitalistic ventures, aren't you using force, imposing your views on others, and pretty much acting as the state you supposedly abolished?

 

Actually the property issue is pretty simple

Anarcho-capitalists : abolish the state for people to freely associate without limitations , everything is private & property rights are holy
Anarcho-communists : abolish the state and all the evils of capitalism will go away , including property rights .

what is the difference between communists and anarcho-communists :
Communists : abolish capitalism and the state will go away , personal property is respected but private is not .

i hope i helped .

 

I agree completely with what seem to be your your attitudes toward total emancipation, individual sovereignty, spontaneous order, and self-government, but would only add they do not seem to differ in any way from the age-old idea of The Golden Rule- the ethics of reciprocity, and since most everyone has at least heard of the Golden Rule (as you probably know, conservatives booed Ron Paul when he mentioned it in a speech on foreign policy), it might possibly help sell the hifalutin-sounding Non-aggression Principle.