Anarchy. What emotion does that word provoke?

[CosmicCommander]

you seriously don't see what is wrong with that?

there would be like 0 (zero!) distribution of wealth. a few (very few (as in less than now)) people would be making huge profits, and everyone else (the vast majority of the population) would be living in abject poverty. Not that they would no it, because the company school would have them all convinced that this is the best place for them.

this is seriously what you want?

The majority of socialists are annoying, due to your Constant Two Dimensional look on this subject, no offense intended there. It would be a Corporate Bordello, the best will gain benefits, the weak will power the strong, not the other way around, only those with the Ability to be the best will advance, I see it as a form of Voluntary feudalism, where all men are born equal, but will only maintain equality if they have the ability to do so, if you'd like, I'll elaborate, but for now, this will suffice.

 

[THAC0]

you seriously don't see what is wrong with that?

there would be like 0 (zero!) distribution of wealth. a few (very few (as in less than now)) people would be making huge profits, and everyone else (the vast majority of the population) would be living in abject poverty. Not that they would no it, because the company school would have them all convinced that this is the best place for them.

this is seriously what you want?

The majority of socialists are annoying, due to your Constant Two Dimensional look on this subject, no offense intended there. It would be a Corporate Bordello, the best will gain benefits, the weak will power the strong, not the other way around, only those with the Ability to be the best will advance, I see it as a form of Voluntary feudalism, where all men are born equal, but will only maintain equality if they have the ability to do so, if you'd like, I'll elaborate, but for now, this will suffice.

annoying? yeah, i can see how advocating better treatment for people would get old after a while.

i'll keep this simple.

in your imaginary world businesses control education and have a limitless supply of people. Now, do you think that the children of the higher ups are going to go to school with the children of the guy who mops the floor? no, the kids of the big shots will get the best education that the company is willing to spend on them to train them as the next generation of big shots. while the kids of the other guy will learn the workings of a mop. There is no reason that a company would want to spend more money than it needs to on education for its workers kids. That isn't a situation where "the best will advance".

and since their won't be any regulations on companies in your world, there is nothing to stop one company from owning an entire town, so there is no where else to work if you don't like it, and since the company built the roads and can control who uses them, then you might not even be able to leave.

You think that you are advocating liberty, but what you are proposing is far worse than anything that some "big government" could do.

 

[loremazd]

No offense to your idealism folks, but when you see "The people will police themselves", I see "Society will run by mob rule."

 

[JemJar]

Emotion: Boredom. A shade of cynicism.

The people would police themselves. They'd exact punishment on "evil-doers". Then they'd make a set of rules to follow to define who is and isn't an "evil-doer". They'd call the rules "laws" and the evil-doers "criminals".

And people would pay a small amount of their regular income of food / energy etc etc to ensure that a few people were dedicated to "policing" these "laws" to reduce "crime". Then they'd share some of their material wealth with people of knowledge and skill in mathematics, science, art and languages in order that those people might teach their children some of that knowledge. these teaching people might become known as "teachers".

And now I'm back to boredom. Y'see, anarchy would just result in a loop. Sooner or later there'd still be a set of rules to follow, still a form of law and order, still bureaucracy and paperwork to ensure that the rules are followed precisely.

 

[Abedeus]

Laughter, at people who still believe it and like it.

In anarchy, you are the first person to die. They tend to eat their creators, you know.

 

[dwightsteel]

I am very well versed in the subject of anarchy and a firm believer. However when I try to have a logical discussion about it, people end up saying very stupid things, not by the fact that they are stupid (though there are those) but by the fact that they are mislead by popular culture's take on anarchy. Is there any conceptions you have of anarchy, why is it good, why do you think it's bad? While it might have a negative connotation in modern interpretations (some anarchists are even hiding under the name anti-authoritarians or anti-institutionalist) it may not be as bad a thing as you think...
Discuss! (I will try to check this regularly to respond to arguments and questions.)

People don't have a weird take on the term anarchy. It's the so called "anarchists" who have a weird take on it. It's a term with a very clear definition. You can look it up in the dictionary. Any other "take on it" turns the term into something else entirely.

Anarchy-a state of society without government or law.

Anyway, what comes to mind when I think of "Anarchy"? Misinformed.

 

[The_ModeRazor]

The emotion caused by telling people they are hopeless utopists, and then crushing their dreams with quick and brutal objections at the weak points.

 

[CosmicCommander]

you seriously don't see what is wrong with that?

there would be like 0 (zero!) distribution of wealth. a few (very few (as in less than now)) people would be making huge profits, and everyone else (the vast majority of the population) would be living in abject poverty. Not that they would no it, because the company school would have them all convinced that this is the best place for them.

this is seriously what you want?

The majority of socialists are annoying, due to your Constant Two Dimensional look on this subject, no offense intended there. It would be a Corporate Bordello, the best will gain benefits, the weak will power the strong, not the other way around, only those with the Ability to be the best will advance, I see it as a form of Voluntary feudalism, where all men are born equal, but will only maintain equality if they have the ability to do so, if you'd like, I'll elaborate, but for now, this will suffice.

annoying? yeah, i can see how advocating better treatment for people would get old after a while.

i'll keep this simple.

in your imaginary world businesses control education and have a limitless supply of people. Now, do you think that the children of the higher ups are going to go to school with the children of the guy who mops the floor? no, the kids of the big shots will get the best education that the company is willing to spend on them to train them as the next generation of big shots. while the kids of the other guy will learn the workings of a mop. There is no reason that a company would want to spend more money than it needs to on education for its workers kids. That isn't a situation where "the best will advance".

and since their won't be any regulations on companies in your world, there is nothing to stop one company from owning an entire town, so there is no where else to work if you don't like it, and since the company built the roads and can control who uses them, then you might not even be able to leave.

You think that you are advocating liberty, but what you are proposing is far worse than anything that some "big government" could do.

I'll educate you, my friend, with an extract from one of my favourite books:

My philosophy, the Philosophy of Liberty, is based on the principle of self-ownership.
You own your life.

To deny this is to imply that another person has a higher claim on your life than you have. No other person, or group of persons, owns your life nor do you own the lives of others. You exist in time: future, present, and past. This is manifest in life, liberty, and the product of your life and liberty. The exercise of choices over life and liberty is your prosperity. To lose your life is to lose your future. To lose your liberty is to lose your present. And to lose the product of your life and liberty is to lose the portion of your past that produced it.

A product of your life and liberty is your property. Property is the fruit of your labour, the product of your time, energy, and talents. It is that part of nature that you turn to valuable use. And it is the property of others that is given to you by voluntary Exchange and mutual consent. Two people who exchange property voluntarily are both better off or they wouldn?t do it. Only they may rightfully make that decision for themselves.

At times some people use force or fraud to take from others without willful, voluntary consent. Normally, the initiation of force to take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft. It is the same whether these actions are done by one person acting alone, by the many acting against a few, or even by officials with fine hats and titles.

You have the right to protect your own life, liberty, and justly acquired property from the forceful aggression of others. So you may rightfully ask others to help protect you. But you do not have a right to initiate force against the life, liberty, or property of others. Thus, you have no right to designate some person to initiate force against others on your behalf.

You have a right to seek leaders for yourself, but you have no right to impose rulers on others. No matter how officials are selected, they are only human beings and they have no rights or claims that are higher than those of any other human beings. Regardless of the imaginative labels for their behaviour or the numbers of people encouraging them, officials have no right to murder, to enslave, or to steal. You cannot give them any rights that you do not have yourself. Since you own your life, you are responsible for your life. You do not rent your life from others who demand your obedience. Nor are you a slave to others who demand your sacrifice. You choose your own goals based on your own values. Success and failure are both the necessary incentives to learn and to grow. Your action on behalf of others, or their action on behalf of you, is only virtuous when it is derived from voluntary, mutual consent. For virtue can only exist when there is free choice.

This is the basis of a truly free society. It is not only the most practical and humanitarian foundation for human action, it is also the most ethical. Problems that arise from the initiation of force by government have a solution. The solution is for people of the world to stop asking officials to initiate force on their behalf. Evil does not arise only from evil people, but also from good people who tolerate the initiation of force as a means to their own ends. In this manner, good people have empowered evil throughout history.

Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal. Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences. Achieving the free society requires courage to think, to talk, and to act?especially when it is easier to do nothing.

 

[Danny Ocean]

*snip*

Obsolete. For a long time humans were anarchistic, and we evolved out of it. It seems simple to me, therefore, that society as we know it is the natural progression of things.

 

[THAC0]

you seriously don't see what is wrong with that?

there would be like 0 (zero!) distribution of wealth. a few (very few (as in less than now)) people would be making huge profits, and everyone else (the vast majority of the population) would be living in abject poverty. Not that they would no it, because the company school would have them all convinced that this is the best place for them.

this is seriously what you want?

The majority of socialists are annoying, due to your Constant Two Dimensional look on this subject, no offense intended there. It would be a Corporate Bordello, the best will gain benefits, the weak will power the strong, not the other way around, only those with the Ability to be the best will advance, I see it as a form of Voluntary feudalism, where all men are born equal, but will only maintain equality if they have the ability to do so, if you'd like, I'll elaborate, but for now, this will suffice.

annoying? yeah, i can see how advocating better treatment for people would get old after a while.

i'll keep this simple.

in your imaginary world businesses control education and have a limitless supply of people. Now, do you think that the children of the higher ups are going to go to school with the children of the guy who mops the floor? no, the kids of the big shots will get the best education that the company is willing to spend on them to train them as the next generation of big shots. while the kids of the other guy will learn the workings of a mop. There is no reason that a company would want to spend more money than it needs to on education for its workers kids. That isn't a situation where "the best will advance".

and since their won't be any regulations on companies in your world, there is nothing to stop one company from owning an entire town, so there is no where else to work if you don't like it, and since the company built the roads and can control who uses them, then you might not even be able to leave.

You think that you are advocating liberty, but what you are proposing is far worse than anything that some "big government" could do.

I'll educate you, my friend, with an extract from one of my favourite books:

My philosophy, the Philosophy of Liberty, is based on the principle of self-ownership.
You own your life.

To deny this is to imply that another person has a higher claim on your life than you have. No other person, or group of persons, owns your life nor do you own the lives of others.
You exist in time: future, present, and past. This is manifest in life, liberty, and
the product of your life and liberty. The exercise of choices over life and liberty is
your prosperity. To lose your life is to lose your future. To lose your liberty is to lose
your present. And to lose the product of your life and liberty is to lose the portion of
your past that produced it.

A product of your life and liberty is your property. Property is the fruit of your
labour, the product of your time, energy, and talents. It is that part of nature that you
turn to valuable use. And it is the property of others that is given to you by voluntary
Exchange and mutual consent. Two people who exchange property voluntarily are
both better off or they wouldn?t do it. Only they may rightfully make that decision for
Themselves.

At times some people use force or fraud to take from others without willful,
voluntary consent. Normally, the initiation of force to take life is murder, to take
liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft. It is the same whether these actions are
done by one person acting alone, by the many acting against a few, or even by
officials with fine hats and titles.

You have the right to protect your own life, liberty, and justly acquired property
from the forceful aggression of others. So you may rightfully ask others to help
protect you. But you do not have a right to initiate force against the life, liberty, or
property of others. Thus, you have no right to designate some person to initiate force
against others on your behalf.

You have a right to seek leaders for yourself, but you have no right to impose
rulers on others. No matter how officials are selected, they are only human beings and
they have no rights or claims that are higher than those of any other human beings.
Regardless of the imaginative labels for their behaviour or the numbers of people
encouraging them, officials have no right to murder, to enslave, or to steal. You
cannot give them any rights that you do not have yourself.
Since you own your life, you are responsible for your life. You do not rent your
life from others who demand your obedience. Nor are you a slave to others who
demand your sacrifice. You choose your own goals based on your own values.
Success and failure are both the necessary incentives to learn and to grow. Your
action on behalf of others, or their action on behalf of you, is only virtuous when it is
derived from voluntary, mutual consent. For virtue can only exist when there is free
choice.

This is the basis of a truly free society. It is not only the most practical and
humanitarian foundation for human action, it is also the most ethical.
Problems that arise from the initiation of force by government have a solution.
The solution is for people of the world to stop asking officials to initiate force on their
behalf. Evil does not arise only from evil people, but also from good people who
tolerate the initiation of force as a means to their own ends. In this manner, good
people have empowered evil throughout history.

Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the
marketplace of values rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal. Using
governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth and typically
results in unintended, perverse consequences. Achieving the free society requires
courage to think, to talk, and to act?especially when it is easier to do nothing.

actually i have already read that, but the person didn't cite it.

while i get the idea, it is not practical.

we have a big country, with a lot of land and a huge population (not that this would not be true in small countries as well).

we need a sizable infrastructure to maintain stability, and common welfare the government is the best entity to provide this.

we also need protection from private industries. as it is the government is not doing enough to protect people's rights from their jobs, or regulating businesses to the extent that it needs to, and what you are proposing is a thousand times (rhetoric math) worse.

the biggest threat to our liberty is a free market ruled by corporations that are left unchecked.

 

[CosmicCommander]

-Snip-

The system you will leave in it's place is one where people will be punished for being rich/intelligent/productive/creative; those people are immediatly haven their money taken of of them, and re-distributed to others!

I understand your wish for this system, but I have no love for every man, woman and child on the Earth, I am selfish, I care only for myself, and I love it. You seem to think all businesses are automatically evil, and harm every other man, businesses act for their own sake, but that sake is rarely malicious, and they could provide a less burdensome way to fill in many Government-owned places, and make the common man reap the benefits.

 

[THAC0]

-Snip-

The system you will leave in it's place is one where people will be punished for being rich/intelligent/productive/creative; those people are immediatly haven their money taken of of them, and re-distributed to others!

I understand your wish for this system, but I have no love for every man, woman and child on the Earth, I am selfish, I care only for myself, and I love it. You seem to think all businesses are automatically evil, and harm every other man, businesses act for their own sake, but that sake is rarely malicious, and they could provide a less burdensome way to fill in many Government-owned places, and make the common man reap the benefits.

i don't think that businesses are evil, but that doesn't mean much to the people that suffer because of them. A thorough reading of history will show you the catastrophes that result when industry is left unchecked. When you get things like the Iron Law of Wages. history has shown us what unregulated business leads to.

things like:
no environmental regulations.
no child labor regulations.
impossibly low wages.
unsafe work environments.
unhealthy work hours.
no protection from discrimination or harassment.
violent opposition to unions.
no quality standards.
no safety standards

keep in mind that the workers in this world may be bound by contracts that keep them from quitting.

the company may just pay them in script so they have no savings or way to acquire anything.

the company may own the roads (since they are the ones that built them) and just keep you there by force.

these are the things that would be the result of what you propose, and that is really the world you want to live in? you think that is freedom? really?

 

[Erana]

Spoiler: I always wind up thinking of anarchy like this:

At least, that's what I've found to be true in the few anarchsts I've seen.

 

[CIA]

I always think of John Locke.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

i don't think that businesses are evil, but that doesn't mean much to the people that suffer because of them. A thorough reading of history will show you the catastrophes that result when industry is left unchecked. When you get things like the Iron Law of Wages. history has shown us what unregulated business leads to.

things like:
no environmental regulations.
no child labor regulations.
impossibly low wages.
unsafe work environments.
unhealthy work hours.
no protection from discrimination or harassment.
violent opposition to unions.
no quality standards.
no safety standards

keep in mind that the workers in this world may be bound by contracts that keep them from quitting.

the company may just pay them in script so they have no savings or way to acquire anything.

the company may own the roads (since they are the ones that built them) and just keep you there by force.

these are the things that would be the result of what you propose, and that is really the world you want to live in? you think that is freedom? really?

If I thought that would result of freedom, then I would grasp my shackles and hold on tight. But I object to the idea that any of these things could exist in a state of freedom. The immense power enjoyed by rich corporate interests is gained and maintained through the state. What you call 'unregulated business' was actually unchecked corporatism, protectionism, and cronyism. It was 'unregulated' in the sense that government did not explicitly impose limits, but it is fallacious to ignore that governments established these private tyrannies to begin with.

It is my contention that the state is inherently top-down. It will always be run by the powerful for the benefit of the powerful. Freedom historically leads to the growth of a middle class which recruits from all other classes. Government is not antagonistic toward 'big-business'- government is what sustains its power. Even corporations are statist constructs.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

we also need protection from private industries. as it is the government is not doing enough to protect people's rights from their jobs, or regulating businesses to the extent that it needs to, and what you are proposing is a thousand times (rhetoric math) worse.

the biggest threat to our liberty is a free market ruled by corporations that are left unchecked.

Like I said, this is simply fallacious. I agree that we need protection from private industries, which is one of the many reasons I'm a libertarian and an anarchist. But you seem to be thinking that what we have now is the result of freedom, which is incorrect. What we have now is the result of government action on behalf of big business. Take away that which sustains their power, and big-business ceases to be.

 

[lwm3398]

Well first, it's a word. A word that basically means 'Absence of order'.

Though it can refer to the Utopian concept of a society living totally free of government, it remains exactly that: A Utopia. An impossible ideal that can only end in bloodshed.

Because if you give any human any kind of total freedom, their first instinct will be to abuse it.

 

[Knonsense]

It brings about the same emotions as most beautiful but impossible things. Mainly frustration at people who think they can be implemented.

Well first, it's a word. A word that basically means 'Absence of order'.

A lot of anarchists would disagree with you there. This symbol should probably be familiar to you.

This means "Anarchy is Order"

Of course, there are a lot of jackasses who disfigure it by allowing the lines of the 'A' to breach the outer walls of the circle so it looks like a preschooler with Parkinson's disease did it, and talk about how much they love chaos.

 

[THAC0]

snip

If I thought that would result of freedom, then I would grasp my shackles and hold on tight. But I object to the idea that any of these things could exist in a state of freedom. The immense power enjoyed by rich corporate interests is gained and maintained through the state. What you call 'unregulated business' was actually unchecked corporatism, protectionism, and cronyism. It was 'unregulated' in the sense that government did not explicitly impose limits, but it is fallacious to ignore that governments established these private tyrannies to begin with.

It is my contention that the state is inherently top-down. It will always be run by the powerful for the benefit of the powerful. Freedom historically leads to the growth of a middle class which recruits from all other classes. Government is not antagonistic toward 'big-business'- government is what sustains its power. Even corporations are statist constructs.

i didn't mean to imply that the relationship between gov. and big business was "antagonistic"
but rather that it NEEDS to be antagonistic.

I can't every recall a point in history where the working class has ever cried out "please deregulate our employers" (well, i guess the republicans would).

To give a solid example, the coal mining companies around here like to stress how much good they do. they give very nice wages, safe conditions, good benefits, and do a lot of stuff with conservation and environmental groups. All of these things are things that the coal companies fought tooth and nail against right up to the minute that they lost at the state level and had these regulations forced on them.Now they claim them as a moral high ground. How would this have played out in your world?

if i could suggest a book to you it would be Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" and see the freedom that private businesses are willing to let you keep.