Ask an Anarchist!

You seem to have some false impressions about anarchism. For starters, the direct democracy is not really for the purpose of passing "laws" but for the purpose of managing the economy. Secondly, you seem to be under the impression that the whole world will just turn anarchist one day. It's going to be a (likely) long process of direct action. There's not going to be a revolution in an area where people are social authoritarians because that would be contradictory.

Fair enough. However, if that's the case, how do you propose to set it up? If one community decides to secede from the US, they will be crushed. Can you describe the process?

There are no set in stone rules, but the community will probably have to deal with disputes between it's members much like our court system does today.

I think at the very least right to not be punished for speech or without fair trial and habeus corpus would have to be set in stone.

They could live off the land by themselves if they wanted, I mean we wouldn't take away any food they decided to go grow but they wouldn't be able to enjoy a more comfortable life inside the community. If they keep stealing people's cars more authoritarian action will (sadly) have to be taken.

So if they only steal one car, and they grow food themselves, we do nothing as a society? Or eventually if they don't return it.

Justice /=/ revenge.

I am well aware, but shouldn't at least PART of the process of rehabilitation involve some form of punishment?

Depends on who you ask, I would say in self-defense only.

Fair enough.

It's highly unlikely that they would make up a majority in any area that had participated in overthrowing other hierarchies and if there are then they will be combated from within the system.

Probably true.

Take a moment to recall the process in which anti-racist laws were put in place. First they had to use direct action and raise public support, and then they had to hope that enough people were elected to make these laws and pass them. Direct democracy removes that tedious second step and clearly makes it easier.

True, it does make it easier to move forward, but it also makes it easier to retreat into the past.

Plus do you really thing people are just going to become racists in the absence of a state? The opposite would obviously be true. With more individualistic principles in play people will be less likely to conform to authoritarian social ideas and think for themselves.

I am not really sure it will be LESS likely, but I agree it probably wouldn't make more people racist.

That's simply untrue. Racism is the product of authoritarian governments trying to justify their exploitation of other humans.

It is true that it helps, but it is not always the case. For instance racism, though relatively mild, still exists in the US, but the government is not exploiting anyone because of their race.
I think that organized religion is antithetical to libertarian values

Why? Why does it matter to you if people use conservative values to govern their own personal moral system?
and I don't see something like the Catholic Church getting a great deal of respect.

Probably not, but would say, establishing a Catholic Church be legal as long as attendance were voluntary?

Teaching kids religion would be unheard of.

Because it just wouldn't happen or because it would be illegal?

However, no one is going to be killed because they believe in God, of course. You can have your own private beliefs for whatever reason, it's just that using those beliefs to try and instill fear in others would be looked down on and combated.

Can you please define "Instilling fear?" If I tell someone my personal opinions about hell and tell them how I believe they can be saved from it, will I be arrested? Or do you mean using it to instill fear in them THROUGH THE LAW would be combated? Or by "Combating" do you mean something other than by the law.

Most anarchists are atheists anyways.

That may be true, but what about those that aren't? Would you have a problem with them or attempt to make them convert? (And by "Making them convert" I don't mean the exact same thing as forcing them to convert, but I mean would their religious activities be restricted?)

No that would be ok. It's a lot different from a capitalistic relationship in that you aren't profiting off of the labor of the babysitter. It would be the same thing as receiving a service from, say, a syndicate of plumbers.

So would you have a group of people that choose to work service industries and are paid for it (For lack of a better word.)
 
Fair enough. However, if that's the case, how do you propose to set it up? If one community decides to secede from the US, they will be crushed. Can you describe the process?
I will tomorrow.

I think at the very least right to not be punished for speech or without fair trial and habeus corpus would have to be set in stone.
Oh there would certainly be things spread as universal human values, but no constitutions or anything. Flexibility is a good thing.

So if they only steal one car, and they grow food themselves, we do nothing as a society? Or eventually if they don't return it.
...well they would get the car back first.

I am well aware, but shouldn't at least PART of the process of rehabilitation involve some form of punishment?
Yes, namely in the form of community service.

Why? Why does it matter to you if people use conservative values to govern their own personal moral system?
That's not what I meant. Imposing those social values on your children from a young age would be wrong.

Probably not, but would say, establishing a Catholic Church be legal as long as attendance were voluntary?
I guess..? But I just don't see it happening.

Because it just wouldn't happen or because it would be illegal?
Because it would be looked down on.

Can you please define "Instilling fear?" If I tell someone my personal opinions about hell and tell them how I believe they can be saved from it, will I be arrested? Or do you mean using it to instill fear in them THROUGH THE LAW would be combated? Or by "Combating" do you mean something other than by the law.
Telling your child that if he doesn't love an invisible man and try his hardest to follow all of the invisible man's rules is instilling fear. When I believed in God I didn't love him, I was scared that I would be tortured forever otherwise. These are unhealthy thoughts and are endorsed by organized religion.

That may be true, but what about those that aren't? Would you have a problem with them or attempt to make them convert? (And by "Making them convert" I don't mean the exact same thing as forcing them to convert, but I mean would their religious activities be restricted?)
No I would probably just leave them alone and hope their atheist friends discouraged them from forcing the religion on their children.

So would you have a group of people that choose to work service industries and are paid for it (For lack of a better word.)
Yes. Although it doesn't have to be a group. A babysitter's syndicate of 12 year olds is just...lol.
 
I will tomorrow.

Thanks.

Oh there would certainly be things spread as universal human values, but no constitutions or anything. Flexibility is a good thing.

So speech can be made unfree by majority vote? For the moment let's ignore hate speech, because you might believe the majority can ban that, and let's go to everyday speech, like can the collective vote to forbid me from criticizing a decision they made or a certain community policy? Or would forbidding that be forbidden.

...well they would get the car back first.

What if they refused to return it?

Yes, namely in the form of community service.

I would think, even trying to look from your point of view, that they would have to do a darn lot of service for the murder, and for the victims family.

That's not what I meant. Imposing those social values on your children from a young age would be wrong.

Maybe in your opinion. But would it be illegal is my question.

I guess..? But I just don't see it happening.

So you expect everyone to go atheist?

Because it would be looked down on.

But would it be legal as long as you did not force them to or shut them out?

Telling your child that if he doesn't love an invisible man and try his hardest to follow all of the invisible man's rules is instilling fear. When I believed in God I didn't love him, I was scared that I would be tortured forever otherwise. These are unhealthy thoughts and are endorsed by organized religion.

Ignoring the inaccuracy of your statement, so if you "Instill fear" as you say, you would be punished? Isn't that an infringement of freedom of religion? (You do believe in religious freedom right?)

No I would probably just leave them alone and hope their atheist friends discouraged them from forcing the religion on their children.

I think forcing should be defined here. If "Forcing" here meant making them go to church five times a week and stuff, I could see that being illegal. I probably wouldn't make a law, at least at a young age (If the child is 16 it is arguable they now have the freedom not to go if they don't want to) but simply teaching them what you believe is not forcing.

Yes. Although it doesn't have to be a group. A babysitter's syndicate of 12 year olds is just...lol.

Yeah I'm aware;)
 
you follow the premise in your very process of trying to disregard it. the very concept of a hypothetical follows the teleological foundation of human behaviour - preference. and action that is a product of it.
So you're now going to claim all hypotheticals are facts?
 
If I am being exploited for my labor, I am exploiting them in return for their need of my labor. It is a mutually exploitative relationship.

No that would be ok. It's a lot different from a capitalistic relationship in that you aren't profiting off of the labor of the babysitter.
But you do profit from the babysitter's labor! You are exchanging some money for something you believe to be more valuable than that money.
 
It's highly unlikely that they would make up a majority in any area that had participated in overthrowing other hierarchies and if there are then they will be combated from within the system.

Going by what you're saying in the statement, I'm assuming this won't be some sort of commune started voluntarily by a bunch of like-minded people, but a violent overthrow of authority/hierarchy in a certain area. The thing is, most of the time in these revolutions, the populace tends to just get thrown around between the governments and the revolutionaries, what are you going to do with the people who don't agree to a anarchistic society?

Take a moment to recall the process in which anti-racist laws were put in place. First they had to use direct action and raise public support, and then they had to hope that enough people were elected to make these laws and pass them. Direct democracy removes that tedious second step and clearly makes it easier.

As I recall, the majority of people, say, in the South during the civil rights movement didn't support civil rights. What happens then? With the United States, we had a large, overarching authority, and could enforce civil rights laws in places where the majority of people didn't support them. In your system though, that doesn't seem possible.

Plus do you really thing people are just going to become racists in the absence of a state? The opposite would obviously be true. With more individualistic principles in play people will be less likely to conform to authoritarian social ideas and think for themselves.

Racism isn't caused by the state. Some people just don't like other people, regardless if it's a dictatorship, a democracy, or anarchy. I'm not saying people are going to become racist because of the absence of a state, but rather, that you're giving power to the people who were already racist.

That's simply untrue. Racism is the product of authoritarian governments trying to justify their exploitation of other humans.

[citation needed]

This pseudo-sociology is not very convincing.

I'm thinking racism isn't the right word for what I'm thinking of. When I mention racism, you probably go straight to the 19th/20th century frame of reference, i.e., whites are superior, black/Asians/etc. are lower forms of people, which some states during that period did support. What I'm talking about is something different, not the whole "superior" thing, but something more along the lines of people sticking with their clan. And as a result disliking people who aren't apart of that clan. I don't know what to call it, discrimination? Maybe not... dunno, Wikipedia isn't being very helpful at all.

What I'm trying to say is, that there is a trait within humans that tends to make us bind together with people similar to us. That explains why we formed tribes, why we formed communities, why we form clubs, groups, political parties, etc. And when we do join a group, we become loyal to that group, it's just natural to do so. And in doing so, we tend to dislike people who aren't apart of that group. Which explains things such as, I don't know, sports rivalry's. Just look soccer, there have been riots over matches in soccer, people have been killed just because they supported the other team. And you're going to tell me that that's the fault of the team's coach?

And bringing this full swing back to anarchism, just because the state is absent, doesn't mean these traits will be. People will still form groups with each-other, whether it be because of the color of their skin, their religion, etc. And because of that, if they manage to get a majority of the populace within that group, whats to stop them from discriminating against people they don't like?
 
Would you sell yourself in slavery?
No, and I consider the notion of me selling my services to an employer to be a ridiculous comparison
 
Depends on what is necessary, I suppose. Could be a polite request to stop, could be a bit of Freestyle Neck Dangling, or anywhere in between. Same as contemporary statism, really, but with the general good in mind, rather than that of the ruling class.

Yet another person who is prepared to violate individual rights for the "general good".

Haven't we heard this from the Nazis, Islamists and communists already? [Which incidentally is what you are, I don't know why you pretend to be some kind of an anarchist Traitorfish].

Anyway, real anarchists would not hang people for the "general good". There is something called individual freedom that real anarchists [ie not you and civver] believe in. But as for you communists, I would expect contradictory beliefs and oppression without end.
 
I think this was already asked, but I can't find it in the thread now. How do you give a voice to people/things who are unable to protect themselves? (e.g. minors, mentally handicapped, animals, the environment)

A comment to the argument over racists in power: in anarchy a racist would deserve an equal say in how things are run, just as anyone else would. Wouldn't it be anti-anarchistic to put laws in place to quash his right to opinion or his ability to suggest racist laws (as long as his actions weren't directly infringing the rights of others)?
 
It's pretty easy to think of an anarchistic area as one "nation", just organized differently, and able to exchange goods with other nations.

I think you didn't catch my question. I'm glad that it's pretty easy, for you, to think of an anarchistic nation, but since there is no such thing in reality, how do you cope being an anarchist in a non anarchist world? Or are you an anarchist just ideologically but not de facto? I ask because I have met with real anarchists, that do not have a job, that do not own anything, do not pay taxes etc... and they would never talk of Anarchy as an organized thing as you dream it to be. I must say it's not a life I would ever want to do for this ideal...

Associations between workplaces, prices of different goods, etc. It would vary widely.

that doesn't seem to work. Who would check that these decisions would be put in practice? Whom, in anarchy, would enforce a given shopkeeper or a consortium of them to adopt certain prices? You are describing a state with another name, but in essence it is a state.

A state could recognize an anarchistic area as a country, just organized differently.

Could yeah, but would not (they don't even with alike state organizations). That area would be fair game for any country.
 
Basically the idea is that unlike the Leninists, there is not going to be a vanguard who overthrows the existing state and imposing a new way of life on the people in a very anti-libertarian fashion, the people are expected to empower themselves through various forms of direct action. The most notable of these are stuff like strikes, occupations, walk-outs, protests, etc.

The groups that do these things are organized in a very directly democratic fashion, and the idea is that through doing this the people will learn to govern themselves and see the value of self-ownership. And, much like an anarcho-communist/-collectivist/mutualist/individualist society, membership in these is completely voluntary. A revolution is not going to be forced upon anyone. This way there is as little resentment as possible during the process(and I should stress that it is a process, while there might be single events that characterize it, and there might be a single revolt that over throws the state and capitalism, there is still much work to be done).

In order to gain supporters, there has to be people who spread information about this, usually to the more agitated communities first(you can see a lot of support for anarchism in latin american countries and of course spain). But the main method for doing this, I think, is through libertarian child rearing. It's where you raise children in an extremely libertarian fashion, and when this is done it almost always creates more libertarian individuals. The methods typically advocated by anarchists is to not punish(nor reward) your children and generally allowing them to develop on their own, only intervening so that they don't hurt themselves or someone else(they still need to learn to respect rights of others of course if they are to truly believe in freedom). They would also attend libertarian alternatives to schools which are self-managed by the teachers and students. There is no set curriculum, the student explores it's interests and the teacher is merely there to supplement those interests. For more info: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secJ5.html#secj513

So speech can be made unfree by majority vote? For the moment let's ignore hate speech, because you might believe the majority can ban that, and let's go to everyday speech, like can the collective vote to forbid me from criticizing a decision they made or a certain community policy? Or would forbidding that be forbidden.
Doing so would be against the anarchist principles the people who created the community. Plus it's hardly ever when someone decides to ban their own freedom of speech, it's usually the guys at the top.

What if they refused to return it?
Compel them to by force. Using authoritarians means to stop authoritarian actions is not authoritarian.

I would think, even trying to look from your point of view, that they would have to do a darn lot of service for the murder, and for the victims family.
Murderers would probably go to mental hospitals first before they were allowed to do community service. And yeah, they would do a lot.

Maybe in your opinion. But would it be illegal is my question.
Illegal is a tough word. It would be looked down on, but nothing would be done to the parent.

So you expect everyone to go atheist?
Yes because atheism is a natural extension of anarchist principles.

But would it be legal as long as you did not force them to or shut them out?
Yes, social pressure would be the best way to fight this sort of thing.

Ignoring the inaccuracy of your statement, so if you "Instill fear" as you say, you would be punished? Isn't that an infringement of freedom of religion? (You do believe in religious freedom right?)
No, you would just not get on well with your neighbors.

I think forcing should be defined here. If "Forcing" here meant making them go to church five times a week and stuff, I could see that being illegal. I probably wouldn't make a law, at least at a young age (If the child is 16 it is arguable they now have the freedom not to go if they don't want to) but simply teaching them what you believe is not forcing.
A young child can not really comprehend that the stuff his parent is teaching him is untrue.

If I am being exploited for my labor, I am exploiting them in return for their need of my labor. It is a mutually exploitative relationship.
Are you seriously going to argue that you and a potential employer have equal leverage?

But you do profit from the babysitter's labor! You are exchanging some money for something you believe to be more valuable than that money.
You aren't profiting off of the surplus-value of their labor.

Going by what you're saying in the statement, I'm assuming this won't be some sort of commune started voluntarily by a bunch of like-minded people, but a violent overthrow of authority/hierarchy in a certain area. The thing is, most of the time in these revolutions, the populace tends to just get thrown around between the governments and the revolutionaries, what are you going to do with the people who don't agree to a anarchistic society?
I've already explained this above.

As I recall, the majority of people, say, in the South during the civil rights movement didn't support civil rights. What happens then? With the United States, we had a large, overarching authority, and could enforce civil rights laws in places where the majority of people didn't support them. In your system though, that doesn't seem possible.
Yes but that was after a majority of the people supported the measures.

What I'm trying to say is, that there is a trait within humans that tends to make us bind together with people similar to us. That explains why we formed tribes, why we formed communities, why we form clubs, groups, political parties, etc. And when we do join a group, we become loyal to that group, it's just natural to do so. And in doing so, we tend to dislike people who aren't apart of that group. Which explains things such as, I don't know, sports rivalry's. Just look soccer, there have been riots over matches in soccer, people have been killed just because they supported the other team. And you're going to tell me that that's the fault of the team's coach?
I need a source for this. I think we formed tribes because people wanted to survive, ditto for communities. As for clubs, groups, and political parties, yeah people like to be with people have similar interests and viewpoints, but that's not really racism.

And bringing this full swing back to anarchism, just because the state is absent, doesn't mean these traits will be. People will still form groups with each-other, whether it be because of the color of their skin, their religion, etc. And because of that, if they manage to get a majority of the populace within that group, whats to stop them from discriminating against people they don't like?
I don't find this very likely but direct action by the minority would do. Society is already moving in a socially progressive direction, and it isn't being pushed by the state.

No, and I consider the notion of me selling my services to an employer to be a ridiculous comparison
Well they're exploiting your need to eat in order to steal from you.

Yet another person who is prepared to violate individual rights for the "general good".

Haven't we heard this from the Nazis, Islamists and communists already? [Which incidentally is what you are, I don't know why you pretend to be some kind of an anarchist Traitorfish].

Anyway, real anarchists would not hang people for the "general good". There is something called individual freedom that real anarchists [ie not you and civver] believe in. But as for you communists, I would expect contradictory beliefs and oppression without end.
You're like a professional at this. :lol:

I think this was already asked, but I can't find it in the thread now. How do you give a voice to people/things who are unable to protect themselves? (e.g. minors, mentally handicapped, animals, the environment)
For minors they can speak for themselves. The arbitrary 18 year mark would be gone.

For the others, they would have to rely on others to speak up on their behalf, much like they do today. I just don't see any other way.

A comment to the argument over racists in power: in anarchy a racist would deserve an equal say in how things are run, just as anyone else would. Wouldn't it be anti-anarchistic to put laws in place to quash his right to opinion or his ability to suggest racist laws (as long as his actions weren't directly infringing the rights of others)?
Yes of course they could say whatever they want.

I think you didn't catch my question. I'm glad that it's pretty easy, for you, to think of an anarchistic nation, but since there is no such thing in reality, how do you cope being an anarchist in a non anarchist world? Or are you an anarchist just ideologically but not de facto? I ask because I have met with real anarchists, that do not have a job, that do not own anything, do not pay taxes etc... and they would never talk of Anarchy as an organized thing as you dream it to be. I must say it's not a life I would ever want to do for this ideal...
Those aren't really real anarchists. I get my information from the major anarchist thinkers of the last two centuries.

And I'm not going to deny that a new anarchist society would have to defend itself. But there's no reason why they can't claim themselves a de jure state and even appoint a representative to the United Nations, but organize themselves in an anarchistic fashion.

that doesn't seem to work. Who would check that these decisions would be put in practice? Whom, in anarchy, would enforce a given shopkeeper or a consortium of them to adopt certain prices? You are describing a state with another name, but in essence it is a state.
Well it does work, there are many examples of successful worker's co-operatives today.

And the "shopkeeper"(probably shopkeepers) do not have to comply with the decision. Joining the confederation is entirely voluntary and if they want to operate on their own then power to them!
 
They could live off the land by themselves if they wanted, I mean we wouldn't take away any food they decided to go grow but they wouldn't be able to enjoy a more comfortable life inside the community. If they keep stealing people's cars more authoritarian action will (sadly) have to be taken

And then when the more authoritarian actions fail to stop bad behavior? Do you get even more authoritarian? A 'tough on crime' anarchist? Well, maybe anarchy isn't so different from the status quo after all....

Anarcho-capitalism and real anarchism would not co-exist.

Why not? What if the next community down votes in some anarcho-capitalism? What then?

civver_764 said:
It's highly unlikely that they would make up a majority in any area that had participated in overthrowing other hierarchies and if there are then they will be combated from within the system.
But what about 100 years down the line? The descendants of revolutionaries could turn out to be racist, what if they start voting for racial purity? What about enclaves of dedicated racists who form small, isolated, racially pure communities? Just let them be and hope no minorities you know happen to get a flat tire driving through there?

Racism is the product of authoritarian governments trying to justify their exploitation of other humans.
[citation needed]

Everything would be voluntary, of course.

it is unlikely that a racist or a sexist or a homophobe would even be attracted to the idea of anarchism in the first place.

It's highly unlikely that they would make up a majority in any area that had participated in overthrowing other hierarchies

I think that organized religion is antithetical to libertarian values and I don't see something like the Catholic Church getting a great deal of respect. Teaching kids religion would be unheard of.

Quote:
So you expect everyone to go atheist?
Yes because atheism is a natural extension of anarchist principles.

There is no competition in social anarchism.

OHhhhhhhh..... OK, so we ARE talking about a utopia then? Or just some small-scale, short-term experiment? Otherwise, all your "well those kind of folks..." answers are invalid; since civilization, by definition, involves ALL types of folks.
 
Yet another person who is prepared to violate individual rights for the "general good".

Haven't we heard this from the Nazis, Islamists and communists already? [Which incidentally is what you are, I don't know why you pretend to be some kind of an anarchist Traitorfish].

Anyway, real anarchists would not hang people for the "general good". There is something called individual freedom that real anarchists [ie not you and civver] believe in. But as for you communists, I would expect contradictory beliefs and oppression without end.

Well, Civver claims to be Communist and Anarchist. Anarcho-Communist. I don't agree with his beliefs, but I don't recall to him saying anything that I would interpret as taking away individual social freedoms.

As for Traitorfish- I don't think he meant to hang people. I'd let him explain it before judging him.

Basically the idea is that unlike the Leninists, there is not going to be a vanguard who overthrows the existing state and imposing a new way of life on the people in a very anti-libertarian fashion, the people are expected to empower themselves through various forms of direct action. The most notable of these are stuff like strikes, occupations, walk-outs, protests, etc.

Fair enough. And definitely a better way of doing it.

The groups that do these things are organized in a very directly democratic fashion, and the idea is that through doing this the people will learn to govern themselves and see the value of self-ownership. And, much like an anarcho-communist/-collectivist/mutualist/individualist society, membership in these is completely voluntary. A revolution is not going to be forced upon anyone. This way there is as little resentment as possible during the process(and I should stress that it is a process, while there might be single events that characterize it, and there might be a single revolt that over throws the state and capitalism, there is still much work to be done).

A good thing to. The "One time process" made Stalinism.
In order to gain supporters, there has to be people who spread information about this, usually to the more agitated communities first(you can see a lot of support for anarchism in latin american countries and of course spain).

Sensible.

But the main method for doing this, I think, is through libertarian child rearing. It's where you raise children in an extremely libertarian fashion, and when this is done it almost always creates more libertarian individuals. The methods typically advocated by anarchists is to not punish(nor reward) your children and generally allowing them to develop on their own, only intervening so that they don't hurt themselves or someone else(they still need to learn to respect rights of others of course if they are to truly believe in freedom). They would also attend libertarian alternatives to schools which are self-managed by the teachers and students. There is no set curriculum, the student explores it's interests and the teacher is merely there to supplement those interests. For more info: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secJ5.html#secj513

I can definitely see a strong case for parents being less strict, but there has to be punishments for at least some things.

I will have to look into that other stuff. I think it could create a lot of problems if the child had no interest in academics.

Doing so would be against the anarchist principles the people who created the community.

Sure, but when did that matter in direct democracy?
Plus it's hardly ever when someone decides to ban their own freedom of speech, it's usually the guys at the top.

True, but the majority of people are centrists and moderates, it would be easy for them to vote on laws restricting vocalizing extreme views.

Compel them to by force. Using authoritarians means to stop authoritarian actions is not authoritarian.

Agree. I just didn't necessarily expect you too.

Murderers would probably go to mental hospitals first before they were allowed to do community service. And yeah, they would do a lot.

For curiosity, what if they were unwilling or unable to stop? Would you lock them up for societies safety?

Illegal is a tough word. It would be looked down on, but nothing would be done to the parent.

So you do expect people who have strong beliefs to continue to hold and teach them? And you are willing to accept it?

Yes because atheism is a natural extension of anarchist principles.

But do you honestly expect everyone to become atheist? Or are you willing to accept religion? If people want to believe in a religion, would you be willing to accept that?

Also, how do you know there is not a God?





A young child can not really comprehend that the stuff his parent is teaching him is untrue.
True but they can decide they believe its false when they get older.
 
And then when the more authoritarian actions fail to stop bad behavior? Do you get even more authoritarian? A 'tough on crime' anarchist? Well, maybe anarchy isn't so different from the status quo after all....
No.

Why not? What if the next community down votes in some anarcho-capitalism? What then?
Why would they do that?

But what about 100 years down the line? The descendants of revolutionaries could turn out to be racist, what if they start voting for racial purity? What about enclaves of dedicated racists who form small, isolated, racially pure communities? Just let them be and hope no minorities you know happen to get a flat tire driving through there?
Now you're just being absurd.

OHhhhhhhh..... OK, so we ARE talking about a utopia then? Or just some small-scale, short-term experiment? Otherwise, all your "well those kind of folks..." answers are invalid; since civilization, by definition, involves ALL types of folks.
Annnndddd you've gone off the cliff.

Sure, but when did that matter in direct democracy?
It's the people who made make up the society that matter.

And again, all this posturing is irrelevant because we already live in a fairly socially progressive society. It's certainly not going to regress.

True, but the majority of people are centrists and moderates, it would be easy for them to vote on laws restricting vocalizing extreme views.
I don't see why this kind of issue would come to a vote anyways.

For curiosity, what if they were unwilling or unable to stop? Would you lock them up for societies safety?
Yeah probably.

Most anarchists believe that capitalism causes about 90% of crime, just saying.

So you do expect people who have strong beliefs to continue to hold and teach them? And you are willing to accept it?
I'm willing to have an honest discussion with them.

But do you honestly expect everyone to become atheist? Or are you willing to accept religion? If people want to believe in a religion, would you be willing to accept that?
Of course, when did I say otherwise?

Everyone already is becoming atheist anyways. It's just the direction of society.

Also, how do you know there is not a God?
I don't. I know there is no Christian God or other religious Gods.

True but they can decide they believe its false when they get older.
Well that doesn't always happen and it's hardly the point. Telling a kid that he's going to go to hell if he doesn't love God is messed up.
 
Could the Black Army in the Ukraine have established a viable Anarchist society during the Russian Revolution?
 
It's the people who made make up the society that matter.

And again, all this posturing is irrelevant because we already live in a fairly socially progressive society. It's certainly not going to regress.

To set a more realistic example, supposedly 80% of people support the new TSA scanners. That gives them no right, in my opinion, to deprive the other 20% of their freedoms.

Would you agree? If so, how would you deal with it?

I don't see why this kind of issue would come to a vote anyways.

Can you explain how something is brought to a vote? Would there be some kind of filibuster system for non-economic issues so certain people could block it from coming to vote?

Yeah probably.

I would hope so.

Most anarchists believe that capitalism causes about 90% of crime, just saying.

Probably causes a lot of theft, but other than that I highly doubt much is caused by capitalism.

I'm willing to have an honest discussion with them.

Well that's a good thing.

Of course, when did I say otherwise?

You didn't. You didn't say either way, though I assumed you would accept it.

Everyone already is becoming atheist anyways. It's just the direction of society.

No, a lot of people are becoming atheist, its the thing of this age like polytheism was 2,000 years ago, but never will everyone agree on that.

I don't. I know there is no Christian God or other religious Gods.

And how do you know that?

Well that doesn't always happen and it's hardly the point. Telling a kid that he's going to go to hell if he doesn't love God is messed up.

Has anyone ever said that? The Christian view is that mankind is inherently sinful and since they have SINNED, not because they don't believe, is why we need a savior. Good people do absolutely go to heaven, but that would require perfection. Once you have sinned, you are condemned and must be saved through Christ, the perfect sacrifice.
 
Back
Top Bottom