[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


A recognized Safe Space for liberty - if you're triggered and you know it, clap your hands!

File: 1450199373058-0.png (5.45 KB, 483x305, 483:305, image.png)

File: 1450199373058-1.png (20.48 KB, 638x617, 638:617, image.png)

 No.14038

>As an anti-dogmatic philosophy, anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy. There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications. Anarchism is usually considered a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics.

>Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.

Whaaaaaaaaaaat

This is from Wikipedia. Can someone tell me what Anarchism is in a few paragraphs?

 No.14044

>>14038

FUCK DA BOLIS :DDDDDD:DDDDD

:^)


 No.14045

File: 1450219348230-0.jpg (305.19 KB, 1648x1039, 1648:1039, not_all_anarchy_created_eq….jpg)

File: 1450219348237-1.png (66.14 KB, 505x705, 101:141, wage_quote_slavery_unqoute.png)

File: 1450219348239-2.png (412.37 KB, 640x640, 1:1, worthless_pile_of_human_sh….png)

File: 1450219348242-3.jpg (81.85 KB, 924x859, 924:859, first_Deadly_sin.jpg)

File: 1450219348245-4.jpg (56.5 KB, 417x415, 417:415, happy_now.jpg)

>>14038

Wikipedia is trying to be unbiased for the minority of "An"Coms.

Anarchism is the belief that the state is inherently a violent and coercive entity who is unneeded for a functioning society (that is, humans can function just fine without a state and live peacefully, and do so more willingly without a state- and/or that the state will always eventually grow into a horribly coercive entity).

With this in mind, the differences among anarchists (real anarchists, whether they believe in private property or not is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) are entirely based on how we expect people would react to such a stateless society.

When someone says that someone isn't a "real" anarchist, and aren't just being unironic shitheads, it's because said person wants to use force to make you conform to their idea of anarchy.


 No.14048

>>14045

Living without a state would be hell.

>Anarcho-Primitivism

Who the fuck follows this?


 No.14050

>>14038

>Can someone tell me what Anarchism is in a few paragraphs?

In the same way that atheism is the rejection of the belief in any gods, anarchism is the rejection of the belief in the necessity or benefit of having an entity with the socially-permitted power to compel compliance with violence or the threat thereof.

As >>14045 said, many varieties of anarchism exist, based usually on their vision of how society would be organized without a state.

>>14048

>Living without a state would be hell.

Only in the immediate aftermath of a collapsed state. The problem is that states envelop many institutions that people rely on, and so when the state suddenly disappears, the institutions which maintain social order disappear with it. If alternative institutions are formed instead, and people are able to transition over to them, then no such problem emerges.

Even without a gradual transition, though, the absence of a state develops into something which by many metrics is a vast improvement over state-controlled society.


 No.14051

>>14050

What about a small-scale government that existed solely for the protection of property rights, individual rights, state-run courts and the national defense? (Taxes non-mandatory)


 No.14052

>>14051

It's called minarchism and tends to develop obesity.


 No.14053

File: 1450291378551.gif (20.55 KB, 955x1014, 955:1014, nogod_nomasters_anarchism.gif)

Anarchism is being against all political authority, including the state, church and capitalism.


 No.14054

>>14045

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.


 No.14056

File: 1450295084245.jpg (2.75 KB, 124x122, 62:61, 1416219476068s.jpg)

>>14053

>>14054

>capitalism

>political authority


 No.14057

File: 1450295247857-0.jpg (29.97 KB, 283x540, 283:540, constitution.jpg)

File: 1450295247857-1.jpg (37.53 KB, 315x454, 315:454, utopian2.jpg)

>>14051

>government that existed solely for the protection of property rights, individual rights, state-run courts and the national defense?

Never ever limits itself. As long as it maintains a monopoly on those services, it has the means and the incentive to expand to envelop other areas.

>>14053

>>14054

>capitalism

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.


 No.14060

>>14053

Literally the only people I hear screaming no gods no masters are egoists (cool bros) and "An"Coms. Even Syndicalists don't go around shouting it.

The church and god are either part of the state or irrelevant (this is why Christian Anarchists exist). I'm not going to argue Capitalism with you because we use different definitions with different context, and you refuse to use the word corporatism to describe the form of Capitalism that you believe is "the norm" instead of an outlier.


 No.14061

>>14057

>never limits itself

how? It has no control over the monetary flow in any way, and can not develop further. It is literally sustained on donations, and if you have a case to be heard, you have to pay to have it heard in the court (or pay nothing if you pay enough taxes).


 No.14064

>>14057

>You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

I know what it means, it's retarded anclaps who confuse it with trade.


 No.14065

>>14056

>People who own private property totally has no power over the others! I-It's just commie lies, baka!


 No.14068

>>14065

I have yet to see a definition of private property as opposed to personal property that isn't retarded, arbitrary as fuck, and would be heavily abused if you tried to enforce it.


 No.14069

>>14065

what the fuck


 No.14072

>>14061

It would also never happen. Free Rider Effect taken to its end results- For the first generation people would pay into it, but by the second generation no one wants to pay into it so they just start to bill everyone instead. A few generations and billing everyone turns into forced extortion of their income either through income tax or sales tax.


 No.14073

>>14064

I've been on /leftypol/ more than I'd like to try and get some sound philosophy out of your ilk.

You really don't, and your comrades would quickly turn on you and point out that trade is extortion and part of Capitalism.


 No.14074

File: 1450363249070-0.png (413.21 KB, 960x742, 480:371, 1551648_737077019653303_13….png)

File: 1450363249070-1.jpg (70.46 KB, 600x600, 1:1, v_is_for_Voluntary.jpg)

File: 1450363249070-2.png (39.44 KB, 660x668, 165:167, why.png)

File: 1450363249071-3.png (123.68 KB, 717x960, 239:320, property.png)

File: 1450363249071-4.jpg (68.21 KB, 720x643, 720:643, how_does_socialism_create_….jpg)

>>14068

This more or less.

>>14065

People who own private property totally have power over others. That power over others is also a spook that you'd rather propagate instead of either combating it with your own private property or dismantling it.

The distinction between private property and personal property is so negligible, it might as well be "muh feels."


 No.14075

File: 1450369468789.png (21.54 KB, 562x384, 281:192, capitalism definition.png)

>>14061

They start off with no power over the money, but after inevitably mis-managing their resources (due to the Economic Calculation Problem), they conclude that they need "better" sources of revenue, and use their monopoly courts to rule in favor of whatever powers they can cram under the Necessity Doctrine.

>>14064

>it's retarded anclaps who confuse it with trade.

If by "confuse it with" you mean "correctly refer to it by definition as", then yes.

>>14065

>>People who own private property totally has no power over the others!

1) Define "power".

2) Explain why this power is in any way relevant.

3) I defy you to establish how my right to exclude you from my house and my food constitutes me having political authority over you.


 No.14078

>>14072

>no one wants to pay into it

why?

>>14075

If they mis-manage their resources, the representatives would be liable to a trial.

Also, they have no way to force people to pay taxes. ever.


 No.14079

>>14078

>why?

Free Rider Effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

tl;dr- When people are allowed to voluntarily pay into a public good, it will end up either being underfunded or not funded at all in the long-term. At that point, everyone demands the good still be provided (such as police), but no one wants to fund it.

It's usually accompanied by a monopoly that keeps a private security force from offering a better service.


 No.14083

>>14079

It's really not public because only those who pay for those services get them.

You don't pay for the police? They won't protect you or your property if something goes wrong. You don't pay the government? They won't open their courts to you without a fee. Public servants would hold this as a part-time job because there would not really be much to do. Nobody's getting anything for free.


 No.14087

>>14083

So then what prevents someone from starting up an alternative service for a cheaper price?

What you're describing is a system similar to how pseudo-Anarcho-Capitalists envision those services.

A police agency isn't going to say "oops, we can't help you because you didn't pay your fees!" they're hired to do a service for a town, not to be personal bodyguards, but only for the people with green wristbands.

A moral individual isn't going to stand by and watch when a police officer lets someone without a green band get raped. They'll either force the police to act, or get involved which makes it the police's responsibility.


 No.14088

>>14087

>what prevents someone from starting up an alternative service for a cheaper price?

They could not make one, because it would be akin to a paid gang. A group of men you could hire to confiscate others' property/ force others without a governing body on the top is extremely dangerous. They could pay them on the side, but the moment something is illegally destroyed/raided or something, they would be liable to legal action. The laws described by the states would be strictly enforced.

>A moral individual isn't going to stand by and watch when a police officer lets someone without a green band get raped. They'll either force the police to act, or get involved which makes it the police's responsibility.

The officer could unofficially get involved, but then he could not force the person he saved to pay him anything unless the court says so. The criminal would still be liable to a trial.

Obviously, all these scenarios require a minimal government over a small region, without any montary control and very strict laws. Also, there would be a law that states that A group of individuals voting to get rid of another group's rights when they have not broken any laws is illegal. The laws in effect prior to this would have to be ideal, and could jail/excommunicate only those who are severly damaged. I'm really not able to put this in words right now (it's pretty large) but I'll try in another post.


 No.14090

File: 1450398598290.jpg (39.46 KB, 375x720, 25:48, constitution4.jpg)

>>14078

>If they mis-manage their resources, the representatives would be liable to a trial.

That doesn't change anything. The point is that it's economically impossible for a monopolist to allocate resources efficiently.

Plus, in the same way that the officials in a monopoly legislature are subject to corruption, so are the judges. They're members of the same organization. The legislators and judges are just going to strike deals and the rulings will almost always go in their favor, if they ever get to trial in the first place (just like now).

>Also, they have no way to force people to pay taxes. ever.

But that's wrong, because one entity has a monopoly power to make and interpret the law. They can re-interpret their founding document to mean things explicitly forbidden by its text, just like they do now.

You can write whatever you want on paper, but it doesn't mean a damn thing if the entity it's supposed to control has a monopoly. That power always leads to abuse.

>>14083

>You don't pay for the police? They won't protect you or your property if something goes wrong. You don't pay the government?

Why not just have an open market in these services? It's still pay-to-use, but now the consumer has choices. This also eliminates all the monopoly privileges that lead to government corruption.

If you don't like a system of law, you don't pay for it and it leaves you alone. Sure; you don't have to follow any laws, but you aren't protected by any laws either. Nobody prosecutes if you're harmed. You have a strong personal incentive to pay for law, and you get to choose the law that best suits your needs. If your provider passes a law you don't like, you can just switch over to one of many competing providers.

Of course, this isn't really government anymore; it's a market for law.

>>14088

>They could not make one, because it would be akin to a paid gang.

And a what makes a government not a paid gang? Gangs have central governing bodies.

You're worried that one gang might get the power to overpower everyone else, and so your solution is to create a gang that overpowers everyone else?

>A group of men you could hire to confiscate others' property/ force others without a governing body on the top is extremely dangerous.

It would also be extremely unsustainable in a competing market, since:

1) Everyone has a personal incentive to hire people to protect them, leaving this gang in danger at every possible turn.

2) Picking fights is both risky and expensive, leaving them at a financial disadvantage compared to firms which minimize their use of violence.

3) They would have trouble attracting customers, since most folks think going around stealing people's shit at gunpoint is bad.

4) They would have trouble attracting employees, since most folks have a healthy understanding that picking fights with people is a good way to end up dead.

5) They wouldn't have a massive system of forced payment and indoctrination convincing everyone that without them, society would collapse; everyone can see and regularly has dealings with examples of agencies that don't do that kind of shit.

>The officer could unofficially get involved, but then he could not force the person he saved to pay him anything unless the court says so.

Our monopoly police forces watch people die in the streets and do nothing, because their training (I've actually been there) says their number one priority is their personal safety. The courts even rule that the police have no duty to protect you, and these cops face no punishment. Without such protections for your officers, how else do you attract employees to an otherwise dangerous profession?

Would you pay for that if you had better options?

The United States at its founding was pretty much exactly as you're envisioning your solution; extremely small government, strictly limited powers over small territories, laws and court rulings expressly forbidding violations of rights, nullification of unconstitutional law, personal responsibility for public servants, provisions against forming a standing army, an express prohibition on levying individual taxes, even court rulings enshrining individuals' right to opt out and ignore the system, paying no taxes and obeying no regulations, and much more.

The United States is now the largest police state the World has ever known, imprisoning more people, bombing more countries, turning more rights into licensed and registered privileges, and even taxing people individual even when they've left the country.

Small government begets more freedom, begets prosperity, begets revenue, begets bigger government. The smaller it starts, the larger it gets, and constitutions do nothing to stop this.


 No.14091

>>14088

So you want a monopoly on the government services, but you also don't want to make it a public good since you can't receive it unless you pay in.

How is this different from extortion?

>The criminal would still be liable to a trial.

But you said earlier that the officers would turn a blind eye to crime committed among people not paying the protection fees?

>Also, there would be a law that states that A group of individuals voting to get rid of another group's rights when they have not broken any laws is illegal.

That's already illegal- it didn't stop the government then, and it's certainly not stopping them now.

I understand the ideas of fines over jail time perfectly well (it's more efficient from an economic standpoint), but it sounds like there's a double standard that would either be blatantly ignored which ruins the point (cops helping people who didn't pay their extortion fees), or that you'd have a civil war on your hands (or severe riots) after a cop is involved in a scandal because he didn't help save someone from a criminal due to said person having not paid the extortion feeds.

It seems to me like your average citizen (keep in mind they're not very well read/learned) would push for legislation to turn it into a tax, or would kick out the current representatives and replace them with individuals who just didn't give a rat's ass about the law. Even then supreme court will rule against an amendment if they believe the context that it was broken under is perfectly reasonable and normal.


 No.14092

>>14088

You've got your heart in the right place, but I think you need to read up a little on Public Choice Theory and maybe investigate some works from Hoppe.


 No.14093

>>14090

I don't think it would be so much paying for law since the basis for crime would be based on if there was a victim or not (just competition of which security group does this best). Arbitration would be where you'd have the most disputes, so lawyers and judges would still be in high demand in a free market. Common law would be the main standard, but I'm sure you could find other standards to work off of.


 No.14094

>>14090

>Small government begets more freedom, begets prosperity, begets revenue, begets bigger government. The smaller it starts, the larger it gets, and constitutions do nothing to stop this.

Careful, some use this as an argument against anarchy (usually looking to monarchy instead).


 No.14098

>>14093

I'm referring to law in the general sense of systems of dispute resolution and avoidance, rather than statutes.

>>14094

I've never seen anyone attempt that. They'd be wrong, of course; a small government is still a government, and still has monopoly powers, whereas the absence government lacks such a problem. Good looking out, though.


 No.14099

>>14038

Anarchy is judaism taken to the extreme


 No.14100

>>14045

that wheel doesn't mention national anarchism, the only pro white anarchist option


 No.14102

The difference lies on how people describes "anarchy", as as lack of any authority or as complete human liberty.


 No.14131

File: 1450569494538.jpg (70.8 KB, 672x499, 672:499, Pol and stormfags_2ecaba_5….jpg)

>>14099

>>14100

You know /leftypol/ is annoying, and I disagree with them, but what I really hate more are the dead-brained /pol/acks.


 No.14145

>>14074

>>14045

These pictures look like parodies of ancaps, tbh


 No.14149

>>14038

This article does a pretty good job of describing the different forms of anarchism.

http://www.examiner.com/list/a-guide-to-branches-of-anarchism-and-their-flags


 No.14205

>>14131

Only the majority of them are dead-brained.


 No.17646

Anarchism is the belief that no-one should be granted a monopoly on the use of force.


 No.17647

>>14205

Nah, only 40%.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]