Doomsday currency

[Abegweit]

I'm not asking whether one is better or not, I'm asking what would stop a dictator from imposing his will on an anarchist society! I don't think I'm asking for very much. What would stop someone from imposing their will in an anarchist society? Would there be like a law saying you can't have people work for you? Would it be taught to you as a sort of religion or a deeply held code?

Umm... Maybe, without guns at their throats, people would resist it? Just possibly.

 

[emzie]

I'm not asking whether one is better or not, I'm asking what would stop a dictator from imposing his will on an anarchist society! I don't think I'm asking for very much. What would stop someone from imposing their will in an anarchist society? Would there be like a law saying you can't have people work for you? Would it be taught to you as a sort of religion or a deeply held code?

If a dictator imposes his will on an anarchistic society, it ceases to exist. Anarchists use the same out communists do: their system only fails when something in it changes, or systems that have failed were never "true" versions in the first place.

Of course, the whole issue of political sustainability is sidestepped.

 

[amadeus]

A nice idea. Although I think I see a flaw in the theory. What would stop a charismatic leader rising up, forming an army under the promise of living higher on the hog and enslaving anyone who doesn't swear allegiance if they're lucky to qualify?

What's to stop big countries from doing that to small countries?

 

[Leonel]

Umm... Maybe, without guns at their throats, people would resist it? Just possibly.

Well one would imagine there would be some form of violent coercion when a sort of dictator tries to conquer an anarchist society and there are guns at the throats of people who want to practice free trade and voluntary contract. What precise counter measures would there be to stop this anarchist society from becoming a newly minted dictator territory?

 

[Abegweit]

Well one would imagine there would be some form of violent coercion when a sort of dictator tries to conquer an anarchist society and there are guns at the throats of people who want to practice free trade and voluntary contract. What precise counter measures would there be to stop this anarchist society from becoming a newly minted dictator territory?

I'm getting bored by this hair-splitting. We live under a dictatorship which turns poor people into minions of the police state. So tell me, why exactly do you think that a free society would be worse than what we have right now?

 

[Leonel]

What's to stop big countries from doing that to small countries?

I would imagine international prestige and appearances. Plus there is a precedent now that if a country tries to conquer a smaller country, an alliance of countries to come together and come against the conquering nation.

 

[Ajidica]

We live under a dictatorship

If by 'dictatorship' you mean 'a body of democraticaly elected representatives working with an elected executive to pass laws', then you are right, but I then question why you use a word so misleading as 'dictatorship'.

 

[useless]

North Koreans live under a dictatorship.
The Burmese live under a dictatorship.
The Syrians live under a dictatorship.

You however do not.

 

[Leonel]

I'm getting bored by this hair-splitting. We live under a dictatorship which turns poor people into minions of the police state. So tell me, why exactly do you think that a free society would be worse than what we have right now?

I'm not saying a free society would be worse, everyone wants to live in a free society! I'm simply asking what would stop one individual, with an army of loyal foot soldiers equipped with guns, from forcing a group of free anarchists to do their bidding under penalty of death? I honestly do believe this is a very simple question. Would the anarchists unite together in defense of their way of life?

 

[Abegweit]

If by 'dictatorship' you mean 'a body of democraticaly elected representatives working with an elected executive to pass laws', then you are right

Yes. That's precisely what I mean.

but I then question why you use a word so misleading as 'dictatorship'.

What's misleading about it?

 

[Ajidica]

What's misleading about it?

Dictators aren't elected. That kind of is the whole point of a, you know, dictator.

 

[emzie]

Yes. That's precisely what I mean.
What's misleading about it?

If a dictatorship is anything other than a society of complete equals, then for millions of years humans (and ancestors) have not once lived under anything but a dictatorship. Dictatorship then loses any and all meaning since it describes not a subset of reality, but something innate to reality.

 

[Abegweit]

Dictators aren't elected. That kind of is the whole point of a, you know, dictator.

Really? Mussolini, Hitler and and others seem to have gotten around this detail.

 

[Abegweit]

If a dictatorship is anything other than a society of complete equals, then for millions of years humans (and ancestors) have not once lived under anything but a dictatorship. Dictatorship then loses any and all meaning since it describes not a subset of reality, but something innate to reality.

Do you really believe this is anything other than gibberish? Honestly?

 

[Joecoolyo]

Bottlecaps

I only came into this thread to post this

Really? Mussolini, Hitler and and others seem to have gotten around this detail.

Were they dictators when elected?

 

[emzie]

Do you really believe this is anything other than gibberish? Honestly?

Yes. I believe what you're saying amounts to saying life is a dictatorship. If that's your definition, fine, but it completely negates any meaning of the word dictatorship.

edit: though if you weren't able to decipher what I said, I take that as a complement

 

[_random_]

Do you really believe this is anything other than gibberish? Honestly?

That tends to be the result of arbitrary redefinition of words to exploit their negative connotations.

 

[stormerne]

Back to the original question...

In a disaster scenario, the liquor would doubtless be more easily and freely convertible than gold that would have no use. With no means to put it to practical use, gold would only be as valuable as everyone believed it was.

In a non-disaster scenario, 80 bottles of my favorite liquor are currently selling for 4 times what I could get for an ounce of gold.

So... easy choice.

 

[amadeus]

I would imagine international prestige and appearances. Plus there is a precedent now that if a country tries to conquer a smaller country, an alliance of countries to come together and come against the conquering nation.

Ostracization and mutual defense could work similarly on different scales. Private defense agencies would also help fill the void, since most people probably don't want to take up soldiering themselves.

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

I actually read an interview not too long ago about a guy who was trapped in a city during the some part of the whole Yugoslavian snafu. He said his family raided a nearby distillery and traded booze for food and other supplies.

So yeah, booze. For sure.