The Anarchy thread

well to not keep derailing the other thread here i continue the discussion:

On March 04 2010 15:58 Funktion wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2010 08:12 Baal wrote: i said that in their lapse of anarchy Somalia showed a HUGE unprecedented growth like nothing seen before not only in that country but in the whole region proving that anarchy worked way way better than any government in Somalia. I think you mean any PREVIOUS government and not just "any government" (which I thought was a dictatorship?). The quote from Leeson doesn't really support your arguement. He is just saying that it's still crap, just not as crap as before, which is not hard. Also is it possible to show what you base your "HUGE" growth statement on? I think you are making some huge leaps in conclusions without enough evidence to base those conclusions on. Feel free to start that new thread up.

As i said, it was chaotic anarchy, it wasnt a planned functional anarchy in the 1st world, it was in the middle of struggle for power etc, and it still showed growth, higher than any country near Somalia.

This basically says that Anarchy can work, you have to accept it, we can discuss if democratic capitalism is better, but most people think that anarchy is the end of everything and absolute chaos, while Somalia proved it is not.

Somalia is not a representation of an ideal anarchy for obvious reasons, but if you took a country like Finland that decided to embrace anarchy, where their level of civility is really high then you would see a true working anarchy.

jesus do you ever give up?

ban baal

i'll argue with you because im bored.

Anarchy isnt even worth discussing because it's theoretically impossible. Someone somewhere IS going to be in charge, there is a reason there has never been an ararchy because it's impossible.

The whole time I thought you were saying it was better/best model not that it simply works. If the proposition is that it can work then yes I agree with you.

However "showed growth, higher than any country near Somalia" I don't think you can directly attribute that to anarchy with out right certainty. Ethiopia and Kenya have tumultuous histories and are hardly stable yard sticks for solid comparison. More than likely they were in further decline during that period.

Is it a prerequisite to have "high civility" for "working anarchy" to work?

On March 04 2010 18:47 CrownRoyal wrote: jesus do you ever give up? ban baal

He was moving/making the thread in General as requested...

On March 04 2010 19:01 Funktion wrote: The whole time I thought you were saying it was better/best model not that it simply works. If the proposition is that it can work then yes I agree with you. However "showed growth, higher than any country near Somalia" I don't think you can directly attribute that to anarchy with out right certainty. Ethiopia and Kenya have tumultuous histories and are hardly stable yard sticks for solid comparison. More than likely they were in further decline during that period. Is it a prerequisite to have "high civility" for "working anarchy" to work?

its a prerequisite for any model to work, we (mexico) are a democratic capitalist country rotten in corruption to the core, we are non functional, violent and in chaos, our system clearly does not work, and its also proof that democratic capitalism isnt the keystone to economic models.

Yes my proposition is that anarchy is the best option, you aknowledge that it works, as you can see CrownRoyal believes it doesnt work at all ignoring Somalias evidence.


And yes, south africa is no example of economic models but the thing is, Somalia adopted a very shitty form of anarchy and even in those conditions it worked better than any other form of government around, so in their own african micro cosmos, Anarchy has proven (with a small sample yes) that it works better.

What makes you believe it just wont work on stronger economies with a higher level of civility?

On March 04 2010 18:53 CrownRoyal wrote: i'll argue with you because im bored. Anarchy isnt even worth discussing because it's theoretically impossible. Someone somewhere IS going to be in charge, there is a reason there has never been an ararchy because it's impossible.

So you deny its possibility of existence?

Funktion thinks it works but its not the best model, others think its not functional, you believe it simply cannot exist.

Well you are wrong, there has been long and successful anarchies in our history:

Like Iceland, and many islands lived in anarchy and multiple communities around the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

is mexico in africa?

On March 04 2010 19:17 rozyboy wrote: is mexico in africa?

If you are gonig to make a retarded post just post it instead of waiting for an actual reply to your senseless question.

i think anarchy wont work with the how sick man has evolved in the recent 20 years and with the internet showing people that "deviant" behavior is "acceptable" is some parts of the world, this just reinforces some really disturbing beliefs or practices sickos have. i think anarchy now would just mean total , well anarchy lol

Baal excuse me , but you're dunb.
You try to talk about anarchy with people who have no clue what the fuck it is.
Seriously , why ? WHY ?

you may choose to attribute somalias growth to them being an anarchist society
you could also argue that it certainly didnt help bring stability.. security is the original reasoning behind the existance of states, if you fail there then well, the rest doesn't really matter. you can certainly argue that some democracies also fail at maintaining security, but there are also multiple examples of it succeeding. but no large society with surrounding states without a completely homogenous population has ever succeeded in maintaining security for its citizens and the state.

On March 04 2010 19:30 whamm! wrote: i think anarchy wont work with the how sick man has evolved in the recent 20 years and with the internet showing people that "deviant" behavior is "acceptable" is some parts of the world, this just reinforces some really disturbing beliefs or practices sickos have. i think anarchy now would just mean total , well anarchy lol

Actually the internet is one example of functional anarchy, there is no oversight or control in the internet yet it works.

On March 04 2010 20:07 Liquid`Drone wrote: you may choose to attribute somalias growth to them being an anarchist society you could also argue that it certainly didnt help bring stability.. security is the original reasoning behind the existance of states, if you fail there then well, the rest doesn't really matter. you can certainly argue that some democracies also fail at maintaining security, but there are also multiple examples of it succeeding. but no large society with surrounding states without a completely homogenous population has ever succeeded in maintaining security for its citizens and the state.

You mean that there is no example of big anarchy society surrounding with states taht have provided stability?.

So are you saying that the only threat to a anarchy are foreign states that will try to overtake it?

On March 04 2010 19:56 waga wrote: Baal excuse me , but you're dunb. You try to talk about anarchy with people who have no clue what the fuck it is. Seriously , why ? WHY ?

because its our duty to raise awareness

i make waffles in the toaster, they are anarchy waffles

On March 04 2010 20:51 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On March 04 2010 20:07 Liquid`Drone wrote: you may choose to attribute somalias growth to them being an anarchist society you could also argue that it certainly didnt help bring stability.. security is the original reasoning behind the existance of states, if you fail there then well, the rest doesn't really matter. you can certainly argue that some democracies also fail at maintaining security, but there are also multiple examples of it succeeding. but no large society with surrounding states without a completely homogenous population has ever succeeded in maintaining security for its citizens and the state. You mean that there is no example of big anarchy society surrounding with states taht have provided stability?. So are you saying that the only threat to a anarchy are foreign states that will try to overtake it?

im not saying that's the only threat. internal security is also a problem, but that CAN be avoided through the population being small and "equal minded". however, any state with a small population historically will have had quite significant problems with external security..

I was about to craft an elaborate argument, but just got my fucking shit pushed in at the poker tables so I'm going to try to make it short and go play GTA. I would simply like brother Baal to respond to the problem of factions with respect to Anarchy. Before the Constitutional Convention James Madison spent several weeks furiously reading and studying about Ancient governments. What he discovered is that factions commonly destroyed Republics. He defines a faction as:

"a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

Anarchy on a scale as large as a country is going to leave people seriously fucked up. Because what i found extremely fascinating when studying American Government is that I believe Ancient Republics were governed and formed on the premise that you would be good to your neighbor and do what is best for your community. People are "ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious," said James Hamilton, and to structure a government on the belief that people are good is foolish.

Getting longer than I wanted but I will leave one more quote by Madison:

"The lesson we are to draw from the whole is, that where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a republican government, the majority, if united, have always an opportunity. The only remedy is, to enlarge the sphere, and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties, that, in the first place, a majority will not be likely, at the same moment, to have a common interest separate from that of the whole, or of the minority; and in the second place, that in case they should have such an interest, they may not be so apt to unite in the pursuit of it. It was incumbent on us, then, to try this remedy, and, with that view, to frame a republican system on such a scale, and in such a form, as will control all the evils which have been experienced."

If someone responds, I will come back and participate.

I think the main "problem", except the obvious in that there's always a bunch of faggots fucking everything up and that a system without a way to deal with them (ie: use of force) will be fucked up really fast, is that people would just turn into groups and create small "communities" with their own rules etc (anarcho capitalism?) and from there on it would be survival of the fittest and say what you want about industrialists and commerce; but they bring on growth and they need a basic system of property rights and then you'd sooner or later have a capitalistic system of some kind anyway.

Basically; a system without a way to defend itself and force itself upon the individuals will only survive if it's inherently stronger then any other system AND not threatened by some outside force (ie: invading army). In my opinion anarchy fails the first point since after a certain point of population you'll need the incentive private ownership gives for hard work etc.

here are some good links for starters:

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=760184