New here, how do you guys feel about libertarian socialism?

[LockHeart]

I don't see how it can feasibly work. Without a government sanctioned by the people, what level of society there is will be controlled by the person with the biggest stick. At least in democracies, in theory, we can choose who gets the stick...

I'm just a straight out libertarian; I believe that the government is a necessary evil and should be kept as small and as limited as possible, having the least possible impact on the lives of the people.

Anarchy promotes Direct Democracy, which is the only REAL form of democracy. In Representative "Democracy" you vote for someone to think for you on issues.

It might promote it, but in a scenario where is no rulership or enforced authority (i.e. everyone has absolute liberty) all the votes and opinions in the world won't matter if someone has the threat of force to back them up - with no arm of the executive to police the community and enforce the non-existant laws you are left open to violence and oppression. If you want direct democracy, move to Switzerland.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Everyone says it doesn't work, but we've lived in Anarchy for the past 50k or 5k years depending on if you're religious or not, heck Native Americans (I refuse to call them by the "i" word, shame that the name given to people by their conquerors is the one that sticks)lived in Anarchy until European settlers came. And yes you are correct that it would only work in small-scale commune sort of deals, which is exactly what I desire.

Really? You don't understand why anarchy could not possibly work now?

Those were primitive times with people that had primitive needs. They had abundant resources to satisfy those primitive needs. That's not how things work now. Now there is a much larger demand for resources, one that could not possibly be met in anarchy.

 

[fletch_talon]

Freedom needs limits.
Because there will always be people who take advantage of a world without any limits on their freedom.
We naturally fall into a system involving a hierarchy of some form, personally I rather the hierarchy we have now, as opposed to what we would have soon after anarchy is installed, which is a hierarchy based on who can be the shit out of whom.

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

I used to have your avatar as my desktop background.

Anyway, it's a nice idea, but the problem is the human element - as is often the case.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say the human element, if you just want to make statements without any explanation as to why you're saying that then I'll do it too.

No you're wrong it works.

Everyone says it doesn't work, but we've lived in Anarchy for the past 50k or 5k years depending on if you're religious or not, heck Native Americans (I refuse to call them by the "i" word, shame that the name given to people by their conquerors is the one that sticks)lived in Anarchy until European settlers came. And yes you are correct that it would only work in small-scale commune sort of deals, which is exactly what I desire.

I hear you and I really want to agree with you, but you know the say "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? It has. It's corrupted government and it's corrupted society and the damage that has been done is irreversible. Look at the example of the Native Americans. The idea worked for them as they had relatively small communities. It was as if each town was its own country with its own language (I think so anyway, I'm applying what I know about Aboriginals to this and assuming it's similar). But then when a society that didn't embrace those philosophy came across theirs, they crushed it. If that happened these days, it would be a disaster. The only way you could get to work in a large country is if you got every other country to play along and there's no chance in hell that will happen.

By the way, I went on holiday to the Greek island of Kethalonia. Beautiful island. But because of the nature of the Greek people, it was as if it was an anarchist state. I mean, in the whole time I was there, I never detected the slightest hint on a police force and it was just fine. Everyone got on with life, having fun and drinking Ouzo. It's in that kind of society that these ideas work but that's about it.

I'll address the Native American claim first.

"Endless testimonies . .. prove the mild and pacific temperament of the natives.... But our work was to exasperate, ravage, kill, mangle and destroy; small wonder, then, if they tried to kill one of us now and then.... The admiral, it is true, was blind as those who came after him, and he was so anxious to please the King that he committed irreparable crimes against the Indians.... "

- Las Casas
I'd find more quotes but I'm lazy, that should convey that Native Americans weren't as warlike as you suggested.

It seems irreversible, but there's tons of anarchist stuff out there so obviously some people are overcoming that, and you know the whole exception to the rule the rule falls apart thing.

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

I don't see how it can feasibly work. Without a government sanctioned by the people, what level of society there is will be controlled by the person with the biggest stick. At least in democracies, in theory, we can choose who gets the stick...

I'm just a straight out libertarian; I believe that the government is a necessary evil and should be kept as small and as limited as possible, having the least possible impact on the lives of the people.

Anarchy promotes Direct Democracy, which is the only REAL form of democracy. In Representative "Democracy" you vote for someone to think for you on issues.

It might promote it, but in a scenario where there no rulership or enforced authority (i.e. everyone has absolute liberty) all the votes and opinions in the world won't matter if someone has the threat of force to back them up - with no arm of the executive to police the community and enforce the non-existant laws you are left open to violence and oppression. If you want direct democracy, move to Switzerland.

You think everyone else is going to stand idly by? Also back to my need anarchist anarchist society etc.

Everyone says it doesn't work, but we've lived in Anarchy for the past 50k or 5k years depending on if you're religious or not, heck Native Americans (I refuse to call them by the "i" word, shame that the name given to people by their conquerors is the one that sticks)lived in Anarchy until European settlers came. And yes you are correct that it would only work in small-scale commune sort of deals, which is exactly what I desire.

Really? You don't understand why anarchy could not possibly work now?

Those were primitive times with people that had primitive needs. They had abundant resources to satisfy those primitive needs. That's not how things work now. Now there is a much larger demand for resources, one that could not possibly be met in anarchy.

Are you implying that resources are efficiently used under Capitalism? Care to explain the "natural" level of unemployment?

Freedom needs limits.
Because there will always be people who take advantage of a world without any limits on their freedom.
We naturally fall into a system involving a hierarchy of some form, personally I rather the hierarchy we have now, as opposed to what we would have soon after anarchy is installed, which is a hierarchy based on who can be the shit out of whom.

Anarchists anarchist society etc.

 

[Phoenix Arrow]

I'll address the Native American claim first.

"Endless testimonies . .. prove the mild and pacific temperament of the natives.... But our work was to exasperate, ravage, kill, mangle and destroy; small wonder, then, if they tried to kill one of us now and then.... The admiral, it is true, was blind as those who came after him, and he was so anxious to please the King that he committed irreparable crimes against the Indians.... "

- Las Casas
I'd find more quotes but I'm lazy, that should convey that Native Americans weren't as warlike as you suggested.

It seems irreversible, but there's tons of anarchist stuff out there so obviously some people are overcoming that, and you know the whole exception to the rule the rule falls apart thing.

Oh no, I meant the settlers were warlike, not the Native Americans.
Well, it's been nice talking to someone with opinions but I'm exhausted. Good luck at the whole founding an anarchist state thing.

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

I'll address the Native American claim first.

"Endless testimonies . .. prove the mild and pacific temperament of the natives.... But our work was to exasperate, ravage, kill, mangle and destroy; small wonder, then, if they tried to kill one of us now and then.... The admiral, it is true, was blind as those who came after him, and he was so anxious to please the King that he committed irreparable crimes against the Indians.... "

- Las Casas
I'd find more quotes but I'm lazy, that should convey that Native Americans weren't as warlike as you suggested.

It seems irreversible, but there's tons of anarchist stuff out there so obviously some people are overcoming that, and you know the whole exception to the rule the rule falls apart thing.

Oh no, I meant the settlers were warlike, not the Native Americans.
Well, it's been nice talking to someone with opinions but I'm exhausted. Good luck at the whole founding an anarchist state thing.

Oh yea, you're right, but might =/=right

 

[1066]

Okay.

First off, no. Native Americans did not live in Anarchy. They lived in something what were effectively nations. IE: the Iroquois were actually a number of nations, each made up of clans. There are heads of state (to use a modern term) and a form of central government.

I really only know Iroquois, actually, and I'll admit to much of my understanding being modern, but my understanding is that this at least predates European involvement.



On the grounds of the human element. As has been said, this doesn't work. For backing, go to literally any schoolyard and you'll notice groupings forming organically. It's what people do, and those with power (in this case almost always physical) will tend to try to subjugate others. This is simply human nature.

Another example, rebutting the statement that we have been Anarchist for 5000 years: Going back to the effective beginning with the first (at least well known) codified law (The always popular Hammurabi) the law has separate laws depending on social status. Since this is the first, we can assume the social structure happened organically.



In short, anarchy is a nice idea, but falls through. There is some leeway in Phoenix's example of a small community, but I still would be surprised to find one where no one differed to a de facto leader. In current society, and any large mass of people, really, without a government arm to maintain order people will not conform to a functioning society.

Things will not work until someone opportunistic enough or charismatic enough emerges to take some semblance of command and from there a natural hierarchy will develop. There really is no escaping it.

 

[Venatio]

Ummm welcome to the escapist. But if you really want to discuss why not join a forum about politics?

I agree, this is a video game review site after all. Its not a website for political commentaries.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Everyone says it doesn't work, but we've lived in Anarchy for the past 50k or 5k years depending on if you're religious or not, heck Native Americans (I refuse to call them by the "i" word, shame that the name given to people by their conquerors is the one that sticks)lived in Anarchy until European settlers came. And yes you are correct that it would only work in small-scale commune sort of deals, which is exactly what I desire.

Really? You don't understand why anarchy could not possibly work now?

Those were primitive times with people that had primitive needs. They had abundant resources to satisfy those primitive needs. That's not how things work now. Now there is a much larger demand for resources, one that could not possibly be met in anarchy.

Are you implying that resources are efficiently used under Capitalism? Care to explain the "natural" level of unemployment?

Resources are used far more efficiently in our modern age. We have made major advancements in our ability to gather and maintain resources. The problem with resource consumption stems more from the current population, not from the method we use to consume these resources.

If the world fell into a state of anarchy, millions of people would die from starvation. With such a limited amount of resources and nobody having any rules about how to gather, distribute, and maintain these resources, we would soon exhaust many of our resources. We would lose most of the luxuries we have come to associate with normal modern life. Overall, life would be a lot worse for everyone.

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

Okay.

First off, no. Native Americans did not live in Anarchy. They lived in something what were effectively nations. IE: the Iroquois were actually a number of nations, each made up of clans. There are heads of state (to use a modern term) and a form of central government.

I really only know Iroquois, actually, and I'll admit to much of my understanding being modern, but my understanding is that this at least predates European involvement.



On the grounds of the human element. As has been said, this doesn't work. For backing, go to literally any schoolyard and you'll notice groupings forming organically. It's what people do, and those with power (in this case almost always physical) will tend to try to subjugate others. This is simply human nature.

Another example, rebutting the statement that we have been Anarchist for 5000 years: Going back to the effective beginning with the first (at least well known) codified law (The always popular Hammurabi) the law has separate laws depending on social status. Since this is the first, we can assume the social structure happened organically.



In short, anarchy is a nice idea, but falls through. There is some leeway in Phoenix's example of a small community, but I still would be surprised to find one where no one differed to a de facto leader. In current society, and any large mass of people, really, without a government arm to maintain order people will not conform to a functioning society.

Things will not work until someone opportunistic enough or charismatic enough emerges to take some semblance of command and from there a natural hierarchy will develop. There really is no escaping it.

Gary Nash describes Iroquois culture:

" No laws and ordinances, sheriffs and constables, judges and juries, or courts or jails-the apparatus of authority in European societies-were to be found in the northeast woodlands prior to European arrival. Yet boundaries of acceptable behavior were firmly set. Though priding themselves on the autonomous individual, the Iroquois maintained a strict sense of right and wrong.... He who stole another's food or acted invalourously in war was "shamed" by his people and ostracized from their company until he had atoned for his actions and demonstrated to their satisfaction that he had morally purified himself."

Schoolyard argument doesn't work because they're raised under a society that promotes hierarchies so they will form of course.

Yes social hierarchy happened, I'm just arguing that it's wrong.


For your last point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

Everyone says it doesn't work, but we've lived in Anarchy for the past 50k or 5k years depending on if you're religious or not, heck Native Americans (I refuse to call them by the "i" word, shame that the name given to people by their conquerors is the one that sticks)lived in Anarchy until European settlers came. And yes you are correct that it would only work in small-scale commune sort of deals, which is exactly what I desire.

Really? You don't understand why anarchy could not possibly work now?

Those were primitive times with people that had primitive needs. They had abundant resources to satisfy those primitive needs. That's not how things work now. Now there is a much larger demand for resources, one that could not possibly be met in anarchy.

Are you implying that resources are efficiently used under Capitalism? Care to explain the "natural" level of unemployment?

Resources are used far more efficiently in our modern age. We have made major advancements in our ability to gather and maintain resources. The problem with resource consumption stems more from the current population, not from the method we use to consume these resources.

If the world fell into a state of anarchy, millions of people would die from starvation. With such a limited amount of resources and nobody having any rules about how to gather, distribute, and maintain these resources, we would soon exhaust many of our resources. We would lose most of the luxuries we have come to associate with normal modern life. Overall, life would be a lot worse for everyone.

On the contrary, the top 1% of the world's wealth would fall down to the bottom, and most everyone could live in relative excess.

 

[SonicKoala]

It's a nice idea, but it wouldn't work, and it's as simple as that. I think one of the biggest flaws in such a system (similar to communism) is that it preaches equality and freedom, yet to achieve such a system, there would HAVE to be some sort of violent revolution. Thousands (if not more) would have to die in order for such a system to come into practice. Even then, society today exists on such a large scale that this concept of peaceful co-operation simply couldn't work.

When these ideas originated (communism, anarchism, etc.), the world was a much different place. The complexity of the world today is far beyond what these men could have imagined, and in order for such a complex society to function, there NEEDS to be direct forms of leadership. This idea simply isn't practical.

 

[SonicKoala]

Everyone says it doesn't work, but we've lived in Anarchy for the past 50k or 5k years depending on if you're religious or not, heck Native Americans (I refuse to call them by the "i" word, shame that the name given to people by their conquerors is the one that sticks)lived in Anarchy until European settlers came. And yes you are correct that it would only work in small-scale commune sort of deals, which is exactly what I desire.

Really? You don't understand why anarchy could not possibly work now?

Those were primitive times with people that had primitive needs. They had abundant resources to satisfy those primitive needs. That's not how things work now. Now there is a much larger demand for resources, one that could not possibly be met in anarchy.

Are you implying that resources are efficiently used under Capitalism? Care to explain the "natural" level of unemployment?

Resources are used far more efficiently in our modern age. We have made major advancements in our ability to gather and maintain resources. The problem with resource consumption stems more from the current population, not from the method we use to consume these resources.

If the world fell into a state of anarchy, millions of people would die from starvation. With such a limited amount of resources and nobody having any rules about how to gather, distribute, and maintain these resources, we would soon exhaust many of our resources. We would lose most of the luxuries we have come to associate with normal modern life. Overall, life would be a lot worse for everyone.

On the contrary, the top 1% of the world's wealth would fall down to the bottom, and most everyone could live in relative excess.

And what magical system of distribution would you use to ensure that everyone on the bottom received an equal share of this wealth?

 

[Internet Kraken]

Everyone says it doesn't work, but we've lived in Anarchy for the past 50k or 5k years depending on if you're religious or not, heck Native Americans (I refuse to call them by the "i" word, shame that the name given to people by their conquerors is the one that sticks)lived in Anarchy until European settlers came. And yes you are correct that it would only work in small-scale commune sort of deals, which is exactly what I desire.

Really? You don't understand why anarchy could not possibly work now?

Those were primitive times with people that had primitive needs. They had abundant resources to satisfy those primitive needs. That's not how things work now. Now there is a much larger demand for resources, one that could not possibly be met in anarchy.

Are you implying that resources are efficiently used under Capitalism? Care to explain the "natural" level of unemployment?

Resources are used far more efficiently in our modern age. We have made major advancements in our ability to gather and maintain resources. The problem with resource consumption stems more from the current population, not from the method we use to consume these resources.

If the world fell into a state of anarchy, millions of people would die from starvation. With such a limited amount of resources and nobody having any rules about how to gather, distribute, and maintain these resources, we would soon exhaust many of our resources. We would lose most of the luxuries we have come to associate with normal modern life. Overall, life would be a lot worse for everyone.

On the contrary, the top 1% of the world's wealth would fall down to the bottom, and most everyone could live in relative excess.

You really think that would happen?

Okay, here's the thing. Anarchy is never going to happen. Ever. Even if you destroyed every government, someone would just take power again. Someone who is powerful will gain access to a supply of resources. They will then use these resources to influence people into following them. These people will gather more resources for them, and as they gain more resources more people will join them. And then anarchy is no more. You once again have a society with some form of structure.

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

It's a nice idea, but it wouldn't work, and it's as simple as that. I think one of the biggest flaws in such a system (similar to communism) is that it preaches equality and freedom, yet to achieve such a system, there would HAVE to be some sort of violent revolution. Thousands (if not more) would have to die in order for such a system to come into practice. Even then, society today exists on such a large scale that this concept of peaceful co-operation simply couldn't work.

When these ideas originated (communism, anarchism, etc.), the world was a much different place. The complexity of the world today is far beyond what these men could have imagined, and in order for such a complex society to function, there NEEDS to be direct forms of leadership. This idea simply isn't practical.

Yea a violent revolution would probably have to take place... is there anything wrong with that? I mean yea sure killing people is bad, but the people we're killing are terrorists, exploiters, tyrants, etc etc. Sure the worlds more complicated today, we've got more technologies we can utilize to our benefit. We've got the internet which will make communication so much easier. When you say "these men" some of them are still alive you know? Noam Chomsky? Direct leadership isn't necessary, there have been several corporate experiments where the workers managed their own work and increased productivity. They stopped letting the workers manage their own work when the workers realized the boss is just exploiting their labor, and they demanded higher wages. Not practical? it's worked before etc etc. check the links I've posted.

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

Everyone says it doesn't work, but we've lived in Anarchy for the past 50k or 5k years depending on if you're religious or not, heck Native Americans (I refuse to call them by the "i" word, shame that the name given to people by their conquerors is the one that sticks)lived in Anarchy until European settlers came. And yes you are correct that it would only work in small-scale commune sort of deals, which is exactly what I desire.

Really? You don't understand why anarchy could not possibly work now?

Those were primitive times with people that had primitive needs. They had abundant resources to satisfy those primitive needs. That's not how things work now. Now there is a much larger demand for resources, one that could not possibly be met in anarchy.

Are you implying that resources are efficiently used under Capitalism? Care to explain the "natural" level of unemployment?

Resources are used far more efficiently in our modern age. We have made major advancements in our ability to gather and maintain resources. The problem with resource consumption stems more from the current population, not from the method we use to consume these resources.

If the world fell into a state of anarchy, millions of people would die from starvation. With such a limited amount of resources and nobody having any rules about how to gather, distribute, and maintain these resources, we would soon exhaust many of our resources. We would lose most of the luxuries we have come to associate with normal modern life. Overall, life would be a lot worse for everyone.

On the contrary, the top 1% of the world's wealth would fall down to the bottom, and most everyone could live in relative excess.

And what magical system of distribution would you use to ensure that everyone on the bottom received an equal share of this wealth?

Something like the people decide, oh look that guy is hungry, maybe he might need some of this food. If you're asking to the nature of an economy in an anarchist system, it could be communist, individualist, collectivist, etc.

Everyone says it doesn't work, but we've lived in Anarchy for the past 50k or 5k years depending on if you're religious or not, heck Native Americans (I refuse to call them by the "i" word, shame that the name given to people by their conquerors is the one that sticks)lived in Anarchy until European settlers came. And yes you are correct that it would only work in small-scale commune sort of deals, which is exactly what I desire.

Really? You don't understand why anarchy could not possibly work now?

Those were primitive times with people that had primitive needs. They had abundant resources to satisfy those primitive needs. That's not how things work now. Now there is a much larger demand for resources, one that could not possibly be met in anarchy.

Are you implying that resources are efficiently used under Capitalism? Care to explain the "natural" level of unemployment?

Resources are used far more efficiently in our modern age. We have made major advancements in our ability to gather and maintain resources. The problem with resource consumption stems more from the current population, not from the method we use to consume these resources.

If the world fell into a state of anarchy, millions of people would die from starvation. With such a limited amount of resources and nobody having any rules about how to gather, distribute, and maintain these resources, we would soon exhaust many of our resources. We would lose most of the luxuries we have come to associate with normal modern life. Overall, life would be a lot worse for everyone.

On the contrary, the top 1% of the world's wealth would fall down to the bottom, and most everyone could live in relative excess.

You really think that would happen?

Okay, here's the thing. Anarchy is never going to happen. Ever. Even if you destroyed every government, someone would just take power again. Someone who is powerful will gain access to a supply of resources. They will then use these resources to influence people into following them. These people will gather more resources for them, and as they gain more resources more people will join them. And then anarchy is no more. You once again have a society with some form of structure.

Hey bro we all die why bother living? Same logic.

 

[Quotation Marx]

Bah. One problem I have with this is the assumption that all the tribal peoples were such civilized, noble beings, and that those who came into these areas were the horrible savages. They were all evil. Pure and simple. Indians, yes, I'm calling them that, cut off people's genitals and stuck it in the previous owners' mouths. Is that from kind, civilized folks? Hell no. They brutalized, and tortured, and slaughtered-Just the same as the Europeans, and Asians. Stop acting like they're special.
Secondly, any thought ever developed will work in the ideal-Because that's the ideal. But reality is NOT ideal. You said capitalism doesn't work. Doesn't America slap you in the face and say that it can? Bureaucracy and politics has cut it down, just like they turned communism into a life of hell, and always will because of how easy that system is to manipulate.
In a state of Anarchy, the definition of that lone word being a society without ruler or lawlessness, we'd all be screwed, because there's nothing but a person's conscience stopping murder, theft, assault, rape, etc. This works for those committing or punishing the crime. Safety, even its illusion, is shattered, and life becomes chaos.
As for socialism, it may just be my mindset as an American, but why should one person reap the benefits of another person's work? Yes, I understand that a small level needs to exist to keep society bound and running, instead of a state of every man for himself, dead bodies in the streets, rampant disease, etc. but you don't need people living on welfare. Using it as a tool to get back to a job and life? Yes. Using it as a paycheck to continue with? No.

 

[Internet Kraken]

You really think that would happen?

Okay, here's the thing. Anarchy is never going to happen. Ever. Even if you destroyed every government, someone would just take power again. Someone who is powerful will gain access to a supply of resources. They will then use these resources to influence people into following them. These people will gather more resources for them, and as they gain more resources more people will join them. And then anarchy is no more. You once again have a society with some form of structure.

Hey bro we all die why bother living? Same logic.

Um, no. I have no idea what you're talking about. Seems like you just completely avoided what I said.

Something like the people decide, oh look that guy is hungry, maybe he might need some of this food. If you're asking to the nature of an economy in an anarchist system, it could be communist, individualist, collectivist, etc.

Oh, brilliant idea. Except for one flaw that you conveniently avoided.


The people can be just as corrupt as the government. Everyone's going to try to take as much wealth as they. When people find out that they can't get as much as they want, conflict will be created. People will cry out Wwhy does he get as much as me, when I do so much more than him?" and "I didn't get enough! Why am I not being treated fairly?". And they will remember that they live in anarchy. And in anarchy, the ideas of what's right and wrong do not exist. The strongest person will get what they want and you can't do anything about it unless you want to get yourself killed.