/anarcho/ - Anarchism Board

>What will the basis for our government be? (e.g. democracy, monarchy, republic)
Modified-Constitutional monarchy

>Who will lead this nation, and how will they be chosen?
A king, a House of Lords, House of Commons
King and Lords are born into the roles (they will be raised to view the role as an honor and that they serve their people, so as not to become self-centered). The House of Commons will be voted on by the people.

>How will laws be made?
Laws are voted upon by the House of Lords (can be suggested/brought up by the king of House of Commons). After passed by the Lords, the House of Commons vote to pass the law. The king may choose to override this law if he views it as an affront to the constitution

>What inalienable rights will citizens have?
Right to free speech (including critic of the government.), right to/from religion, right to bear arms (within reason. i.e. certain weapons will be illegal, and guns must be registered), right to free press (with the exception of defamation through falsified means), right to peacefully assemble and government petition, etc

>How will those rights be protected?
In our new constitution, it will be forbidden for the government to diminish, weaken, or in anyway destroy these rights, whether by law or royal decree

>How will we keep the government from becoming corrupted again?
as stated, certain acts (such as taking away rights) will be forbidden. it will be forbidden for government workers to take brides or in anyway endorse a company or entity. also, those born into a aristocratic family will be taught to serve the public (this i realize sounds like a pipe dream, but if all the lords are from the revolution, they will hopefully teach their children their values, i.e. to rule for the people)

>How will we deal with current hot topic issues (e.g. lgbt rights, immigration, drug laws, etc.)
laws will only be allowed to ban something if it creates an obvious and provable threat to the people or the kingdom. no banning law may be created on the grounds of religious views, personal opinion, or for illicit reasons (e.g. bribed, in favor of a sponsor, for personal gain)

>What will our economic system be?
it will be a union of communism and capitalism. this is open for suggestions. i want everyone to be able to do what they want. i believe money has its place, yet i am very much against having a lower class. (i know instituting a "ruling" class sounds hypocritical, but they will not be wealthy per se. beyond a family estate provided by the crown, the lords will not have all of the same powers as the lords of old. they will be members of the house of lords and heads of each states governments. however they will not have total rule of their state's people, nor will they be exorbitantly wealthy.)

>>8149
>answering his own bait thread

Stop shitting up this board with your cancer faggot.

>>8150
Is it so wrong for me to show my own opinion?

>>8150
Also, this is not bait. I am honestly interested in other people's models for a perfect America.

>>8152
>>8153

See >>8150

>>8154
Firstly, the only reason I answered my own post was that I wanted to go ahead and post what my opinion was. I wanted to show an example of what I meant with each question, so that it would not go misunderstood. Secondly, in what way is this cancer? Isn't the purpose of this whole board the discussion of anarchist ideas? With so much talk about revolution, is it so odd to ask people their opinion of how our country should function afterword?

>>8161
All body need some form of structure, whether it be as large as a full governing body, or as small as a tribal system. Laws and rights are a necessity, whether they are written or just common knowledge. ALL systems have them. Enforcement isn't necessarily a need part, but is usually found in most systems, whether through police, mob justice, or between the two parties in the dispute. Economics is a given, be it capitalist or communist. Whether you agree or not, regardless of it type, structure is required for survival of a group

>>8166
Let me first say that I thank you for contributing as a debater instead of a Sage Man. Now, I personally believe the only laws that are necessary are those that guarantee protection of people's rights, property, and self. I think that laws can and do serve a purpose when used correctly. For example, if one cannot protect his home and family, then without laws protecting against it, what is there to stop someone from taking his home? Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest does not work from a societal point of view. None can be equal in that scenario. Those that can take it will have it. Those that can't protect theirs, will surely lose it. Now we can hope and dream that we would build a perfect commune were all that we earn is merit based, and no one harms anyone, merely because they know they shouldn't. But there always have been and always will be bad people. Not having established laws will give them the ability to prey on the weak and go unpunished. Now, that does not mean that the laws we have now are good. The laws our society should have should only be there to help its citizens. To make sure the weak in society aren't exploited. To give everyone a chance at life and happiness

Well, ideally, everything everywhere would be varying shades of ancom, ancollectivist/Parecon, mutualist, or ayncrap. There's no good reasons to try out any sorts of voluntary government scenarios (a minarchist state, a voluntary monarchy, etc) that would arise in a country where we've wiped the slate clean. I think honestly anyone who could see any of the anarchist systems working in practice would gravitate towards one of them. So, anywhere that my revolutionary army would have been operating in would be under some form of anarchism. I'm not sure what areas would adopt which philosophies, but we could vaguely surmise that the right-libertarian and Alex Jones-ish fringe might gather up together somewhere to create ayncrapistan. The Marxists and the farthest left of the social-democrat hipsters in the major cities would probably be the ones to go anarcho-communist. I'm not sure where the older and more rural liberals would go, or what economic system the various minority groups would pick, besides the fact that they would group together with each other away from whites. The few partisan conservatives that there are among minorities would probably wed themselves firmly to ayncrapistan, but I don't know about the others.

The rest of the 75% of workingman conservatives that aren't the most partisan, as well moderate Northern Rust Belt types and Blue Dog and labor Democrats, would probably be the ones to gravitate to mutualism, and to a lesser-extent, anarcho-collectivism. And as a mutualist, I'd obviously want mutualism to dominate as much as possible.

There would be no real crusade to try and remake the cultural landscape of the country, except in the realm of everyone accepting anarchism So there would be Christians and pagans, techno-communities and rustic retreats, hippies and fuddy-duddies, all brought together under the four anarchist philosophies.

I'd imagine there would also have to be some vague sense of common belonging among all these anarchist communities in order for us to be able to respond to outsiders effectively in a diplomatic or military sense at the very least, if not also for trade. So, all of the communities that dedicated themselves to the common defense of their anarchist brethren would have to be listed in some master list of communities somewhere, as part of an Anarchist Confederation. Obviously, any community could leave at any time, no questions asked, and any individual who disagreed with the coming of their community into this Confederation could simply declare themselves a citizen of no community, a wanderer subject to no law, or join another community.

And obviously, any community in the former America that doesn't want to be a part of it at all from the outset shouldn't have to be. Things might get complicated, though, if there are communities on opposite sides of a territory that are allied and attempting to trade with one another, and there's a community in the middle that declares itself ruggedly independent and threatens to shoot all intruders. The envoys and traders of the two allied towns would have a no-mans land that they would need access to and would be in a tough situation there. The various ideological divisions in this new America could obviously lead to some pretty nasty entangling alliances, and I'm not sure in what circumstances anarchist communities should be permitted to intervene in eachother's affairs if they go to war.

Another possible use for a semi-organized Confederation is the creation of a singular Army that's drawn from all over the vast territory of the former America, that can move as one if the entire coastline is attacked by some State in some mass invasion to take over the whole country. Having something to deal with that possibility strikes me as fairly important. It would probably be nigh-impossible to ensure that all of the individual communities could have control over the Army in a democratic, anarchist sense, so it would basically end up answering only to itself. Any delegates from the various communities that we could put in charge of it, even if there were thousands of them, would basically end up acting indistinguishably from a State, and would have absolute power over the life and death of millions.

So maybe the only solution really is to have each community defend itself independently, and then have each community send its army one by one to where the enemy is. But I'm not sure how reconnaissance (radar and such) would be coordinated under such a system.

I really wish they didn't make it so you couldn't write anything about anawrko-capitalizm without it being rearranged as ayncrap. It makes people who have no problem with ayncraps seem like they do.

>>8173
I did not mean to imply that the law itself would be what would stop the crime. I am nearly stating that without someway to deter and punish those that do these types of activities, there is no way to stop said activities from occurring. If there is a woman in her home, and three men invade her house, rape her, and kill her, what would happen to these men without some sort of judiciary system?

>>8171
Thank you for joining the discussion. I do like your idea of a sort of anarchist coalition. The idea of several communities that are loosely (VERY loosely) united in regards to trade and potentially military is an interesting model.
Now, I do have some questions. Will there be laws/rules in these communities? How will the rules be made? Also, I do see how each communities militia combining to fight a common enemy could work, but what if some of the communities are sympathetic of the enemy or turn on the others?
While I do like this model, as it guarantees the most freedom (in that the people may join whatever community they wish, if any), it seems a bit too loose. It seems like there is very little from stopping some up-and-coming dictator from corrupting the military and taking over the community, since an anarchist militia ( i presume) wouldn't have any major protocols beyond "protect the community". This dictator could easily convince the community that his way is the best way. It happens all the time with terrorist organizations.

>>8139
There will be no armies. The people will be a armed militia like Switzerland.

All laws have to be voted upon by at least 40% of the people.

For fundamental rights that require modification, it would be 70%.

[of the population, not of the people voting]

there will be 3 consuls instead of 1 president. Each from a different political party.

>>8190
Interesting and well thought out system brother. I take it the consuls will be voted for? How will our economic system work?

>>8191
Decentralized currency and any self sufficient economy. For it is not easily victim to foreign nations currency bias. We pretty much know the dollar fucked all other countries.

Ideally there would be more than 3 consuls. Each party sets a consul, any party which has more than 5% of the populationa support is eligibile for a consul. So a maximum of 20 could be possible…

>>8139

in the land of anarchia the people were happy. each had a home and garden and a milk cow and some chickens. all the land was filled with villages of no more than a couple hundred persons interspersed here and there with a town populated by a couple of thousand persons. everyone produced most of their own goods. and whatever they did not produce for themselves they traded for in various markets. they had access to the internet by means of a wireless mesh network, an antenna on every house and a cell tower in every village.

the old people in anarchia were conservative. the young people in anarchia were rebellious. but not very rebellious since there was no law in that land. whatever disputes there were among them they simply had to negotiate for themselves. they minted no currency but did circulate bills of exchange denominated in various popular units. all their banking was done in private associations. private groups of persons pooling costs or risks or incomes.

people lived wherever they liked. people joined together with those they liked and avoided those they did not like. everyone knew enough to mind their own business. and there was space enough for everyone to be able to find a place for themselves.

anarchia has been invaded several times but they have no money to pay taxes with. they are too lazy to work or fight and too stubborn to vote without being paid up front. they're shiftless and steal whatever the invading army doesn't nail to the ground. put them in prison and they convert the place into a circus and no one can keep order. so generally invading armies tend to leave not long after declaring victory. the only war that has ever been fought in the country was between two opposite invaders. both of which left a lot poorer and sorrier for haing bothered with the lowest ranking country on earth.

for yes anarchia ranks at the bottom of every poll because anarchia never shows up for the polling. there's no data available so anarchia ranks a zero in every category.

although really it's not a bad place. the anarchists seem to like it anyway

>>8188

Well, I'll talk mostly about crime and punishment and such, instead of the economy, since that's what you seem to be most interested in.


It's pretty complicated, but basically things would be decentralized to the city or town block. The smallest group of people possible that could theoretically form a singular mass that would be able to accomplish things like taking out the trash and overseeing proper treatment of criminals and such. Each city block would draw a map of what their territory constitutes, and the surrounding areas would hopefully all recognize eachothers' territory.

Particularly important to anarchists is the idea that anyone who doesn't agree to anything that's decided in these direct democratic councils has the ability to leave to go anywhere else, and I think there should be stipulations in the Constitution of each city block of how the community would band together to help the dissenters leave speedily, if they desire. There would be stipulations that if anyone tried to make them submit to a decision, or force them to stay, they would be able to appeal to another community for help, and the other community would be able to clearly see that they were breaking their own laws by forcing someone to stay.

If enough people disagree with the direction a community is going, they can even gather up in one area that's within the borders of an already established city block, and proclaim their own new seceded territory. There would also be a general understanding that people could even leave en masse to an entirely different town or region of the country and set up a new community anywhere they want, so long as they don't do it violently and they receive through trade any territory they want. I'm not sure how that would work out 100% of the time, though if the people next to them disagreed, and the colonists really wanted to set up shop in that particular area.

So, basically the councils in a community would meet at stipulated intervals, and it would mostly operate according to consensus democracy, which tries to avoid simply having majority decisions and tries to get everyone to come to a unanimous decision. You would see the importance of having the smallest communities possible in that situation, as well as everyone choosing the kind of people they want to live with, and communities being able to exclude anyone they want that they don't think would be a good fit. Children would also probably given significantly more rights in an anarchist society, and there'd probably be an age at which you could become an official member of the councils. Children would also probably have more rights as to being able to leave their parents on their own and live with someone else, or even go to an entirely new community, than they do in this society. Google consensus democracy or "anarchist direct democracy" if ya wanna know moar. The Anarchist FAQ on infoshop.org is also pretty good.

For crime and punishment, well, there would obviously be a general culture of gun ownership and self-defense in the community, but most communities would also probably elect police forces to enforce the "laws". However, most of their actions would probably consist of deterring violence, or possibly deterring stealing and such. Any bad thing someone does according to the community's laws that doesn't require the immediate application of force would probably just be brought before the city block council, and the offender would have the opportunity to do something about what he did, or leave. Jails would also probably exist, with the wardens elected and recallable just like police officers. Obviously, a lot of emphasis would be placed on restitutive justice and rehabilitation, as opposed to putting people in jail, since we think jails are morally suspect. The Anarchist FAQ section on "What about crime" has an interesting tidbit about how courts would be set up to determine guilt according to the law, and what's interesting is how similar it is to alot of arachno-capitalist proposals, even though it would exist within the context of communal economics, or mutualist markets. And…if you haven't even heard of arachno-capitalism, I'm not really even sure how you managed to find your way here.

So, anything that ordinary people found odious in the old statist society, they would probably pass a resolution against in the anarchist society, probably.

I don't wanna get into the economic side of things cause that's far more complicated.