Yes, people really are anarchists, and it works!

An entire post of ad hominem with no substance at all. They are misleading, because you chose arbitrary dates which don't fit with a period of free markets. You chose arbitrary dates for the reason that they fit your agenda. It is also misleading because data on GDP wasn't kept for almost the entirety of the period you are referencing, so to cite a statistic like 4.36% is ridiculous. The numbers are made up. They don't represent any actual data.

They are also misleading because smaller economies SHOULD grow faster. If you look at the data on China since 1980, you are looking at a growth rate approaching 10% a year. This is based on actual data as well. Is this evidence we should have state capitalism and state owned industry? No, the fact that the growth rate was only marginally higher in a period when the economy was much smaller, is actually evidence of the failure of the ideology, not its superiority (and that is accepting the invented statistics are valid).

 

Right, the British Royal Army, German Storm Troopers, Imperial Storm Troopers, US Marine Corps, and probably any and all statist institutions, both on the right and on the left, seek conformity and uniformity, and oppose individualism. The fact that all these institutions are composed of individuals is totally beside the point.

 

I can't counter argue the "any and all statist" institutions aspect of your agruement, as its a little vague, but your gratuitous armed forces examples are easily countered. While some individual achievements are rewarded in them, they do seek conformity and to a lesser extent uniformity for 1 simple reason: necessity. Without these attributes armies lose wars/power/freedom. You can't have the ability to decide whether or not your going to listen to your commanding officer. You can't run off all lone wolf and "Rambo" the opposing army. You must obey orders and act collectively of your own accord, or others will bring this upon you once you are conquered.

- - - Updated - - -

You've never actually established your stance on Anarchy. I think you may just be playing Devil's Advocate here for good debate, but I am curious, are you an anarchist? If so, of what variety?

 

When you consider that the billions of dollars that the NSA spends on spying on US citizens and other people around the world, the hundreds of billions of dollars the that US spends in detroying and rebuilding countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, the billions of dollars the US spends in propping up the dictatorships in Egypt and other countries is counted as positive GDP,

AN D

you consider the fact that the US has amassed a debt more like $205 Trillion than $17 trillion, and that it's crony captialism (socialism for the elite) for the Military-Industrial-Educational-Congressional Complex and massive regulation of entrepreneurial small business, has created monstrous debt and economic stagnation, then how does your chart look, and which is a failed system, individualism or statism?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/robert-wenzel/the-conspiracy-to-hide-the-truth/

 

If your point is that Individualism cannot accomplish anything whether it be good or bad I agree. If your point is that Collectivism (Governments) can accomplish much both good or bad. I also agree.

 

If you choose to align yourself more with statism than individualism that's fine and dandy. You can be happily subservient to the powers-that-be, and I'll try to pretend that I'm emancipated. Live and let live.

 

lol I like this response, very clever.

I wouldn't say i align myself more with statism, on the contrary I believe I would be on the opposite side of this argument on just about any other thread that wasn't promoting Anarchy.

 

When you consider that anarchy can be linked with communism (see Anarcho-communism) and also linked with capitalism (see Anarcho-communism); and that it means a society of peace and freedom to some, and is associated with people who throw stones through store windows at Group of Eight meetings by others, it should be obvious that the word is useless for purposes of communication, especially if one is trying to connote something positive, since it is probably one of the skehweeist words in the English language to most people.

On the other hand, the word "individualism," while perhaps hated by statist authoritarians on both the left and right wings- communists and fascists, still probably has a somewhat positive connotation for many people. So, imho, people who are very solidly pro-individual liberty and anti-authoritarian might do better labelling themselves "individualists" than "anarchists."

 

15 pages of drivel, and the best the Anarchists can come up with in defense of their beliefs is:

1.) Although it's never happened before, it may be plausible now.

2.) Someone made a wikipedia page up talking about the ideals behind anarchy

and 3.)Capitalism has its own huge pitfalls, so it must be better than that.

I'm surprised there was not some more logical discussion on how such a society might even form, or how it would sustain itself, but I've been disappointed. When confronted with questions, the Anarchists scatter like roaches under lights leaving this thread to die, no wonder such a society never gains much traction.

Seriously, Anarchists, this was the best you could do?

 

I don't think any of the people you referenced are actually anarchists. There are libertarians and me a left-winger. My post was in no way advocating for anarchy. It was simply pointing out the fallacious nature of the argument I was responding to. Sort of like the fallacious nature of your current post.

If you have an argument to make, make it. Don't throw out straw men about "anarchists" who aren't actually even anarchists, and stop there.

 

With a title like: Yes, people really are anarchists, and it works!", I find it odd that more of the people who have chosen not to argue against Anarchy, are not themselves Anarchists, ESPECIALLY the OP.

I'd love to debate your logic on how exactly the entire history of human civilization, while not completely ruling out Anarchy, doesn't at least cause you to be a skeptic. As far as the fallacious nature of my current post, how so?

Again the title of the thread is "Yes, people really are anarchists, and it works!", so I don't see how you think I'm trying to build a straw man argument.

Would you feel better if I changed the label from "Anarchists" to "Those that when given the opportunity to refute Anarchism, instead choose not to"?

As far as building my own arguments, look over the thread, my arguments have been countered with extremely weak logic. I've pointed this out with stronger logic, and the posters failed to respond with anything better than a link to a wikipedia page, and then nothing at all.

I was only trying to see if the people who believe in this thread title have any fight left in them.

It seems odd that I would be more passionate about Anarchy than those who propose how well it works.

 

Wikipedia says that "Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
Thus, it seems pretty reasonable that it's difficult for those of us here who advocate individual liberty to support such a nebulous word in a coherent way. Extreme individualism and total human emancipation are diametrically opposite Statism, of which Absolute Monarchy is probably the most absurd form, embodied by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, below.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...cs+of+george+bush+and+king+abdullah&FORM=IGRE

 

The same could be said of any political stance.

Then someone should pick a branch of Anarchy to defend. If one doesn't agree with the title "Yes, people are anarchists, and it works" I have no issue with them. The one unifying theme for Anarchists of any variety should be the etymology of the word "without rulers". It is my contention that either Anarchy would not work due to being conquered, or it would have "rulers" and thus not be an Anarchy. Human beings cannot accomplish much without hierarchy of some sort, and this hierarchy is not Anarchy. Once someone changes the word to "Individualism" as you suggested, it drops the need for it to be "without rulers", thus making the stance more moderate and defensible. But then the title would need to be "Yes, people are individualists, and it works" which would make much more sense.

I don't mind if different sorts of Anarchists point out their own thoughts on how anarchy works, but that hasn't been the case.

Just because a person isn't an Anarchist doesn't make them a statist, they are both radical views. Even an Absolute Monarchy is not Absolute Statism. I'm merely wondering why someone would include the word Anarchy in their viewpoint (as you have already alluded to in a previous post of which I am in agreement with) since by its own nature it would either be unattainable or incongruent with what others thought of Anarchy.

 

I think it's probably because the OP is younger than us, and thinks individualist anarchy is the only prevalent form, just as I did a few years back. Maybe he'll chime in here and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what he is promoting would be less-confusingly described as extreme individualism, voluntaryism, or radical libertarianism.

 

Voluntaryism, yes. One book that really helped me cement where I stand was The Market For Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehill. If you can't find the book the whole thing is on youtube.