On crime:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/lawauthority.html

>What about immigration? Are people free to come and go as they please?

Yes.

>>3105981
Also about crime.

>Let me also add that when Veniaminoff wrote (in 1840) one murder only had been committed since the last century in a population of 60,000 people, and that among 1,800 Aleoutes not one single common law offence had been known for forty years.

I think that people who use this as a criticism seem to think of the worst about humans, or like to invoke the Hobbesian fallacy whenever they get a chance. Humans are naturally social, cooperative and altruistic, and most studies of human behavior seem to conclude this as well. The very few murders that occur are almost always the result of passion or mental illness, not mankind's innate evil nature.

>>3106043
>>3105981

Thank you! I'll certainly get around to reading that essay soon.
I'm finding this whole subject very fascinating.

Oh, I had another question!

Education. How would schools and the like work in a anarchist society?

>>3106269
not all schools are owned by the state, in other words not all schools are public, they would all just be private. Its the same things with the classic hurr dur no roads without the state argument.

>>3106364
Fair point. I just thought it would be a harder to teach, wouldn't it?

>>3106269
in all honesty they would probably be like schools in the pioneer days, communities would come together to build a school house and hire a teacher, that or some people would just have private tutors for their children

education would be of low standard which causes the country to fall behind. What is your way around that?

>>3106474
last time I checked public education fails compared to private schools.
also,
>implying there would be a country
>lrn2anarchy

>>3106403
This sounds like a step backwards, rather than forwards.

U.S. had 25% unemployment in the early 1930s and we still didn't have anarchy.

Probably because the majority of the world realizes how stupid Anarchy is and how destructive you retards are.

tl'dr: We won't have anarchy as long as intelligent beings are on the planet.

Anarchy doesn't mean the total breakdown of law and order. It just means that a giant federal or state government isn't going to tell you how to tie your shoes. It just means that communities have to band together, actually TALK to one another, establish rules and mutual responsibilities, and be personally responsible for making things run. It's direct democracy in action, basically. It's basically a real-life Ponyville.

>>3106671

This is the part of anarchy I like the sound of. Some of it (the more extreme stuff) just seems...dumb

>>3106607

That's the thing. Anarchy is a step backwards in every way.
The only plus side of anarchy is that it can be a place to take a step forwards from. So tearing up the current system and replacing it with an anarchy can be beneficial in the extremely long term.

From what we have seen in history, government follows Hegelian dialectics. Swinging from freedom to tyranny (or vice versa) and then settling somewhere between. You had the monarchy (tyranny) then the republic (freedom) and they led to the parliamentary monarchy

>>3106671

The problem is that eventually someone will roll along with his thugs and take over.

>>3106719

Is there any way to prevent this?

>>3106607
Why because it had the word pioneer in it? Choosing an education you see fit for your child seems like a step forward to me, instead of putting them in a building full of delinquents,special ed kids. A place where the military actively seeks out its killing force and a place that is designed more like a factory rather than a place of knowledge. A place thats ran by the same people that benefit from you employment through taxes.

>>3106762

Lobotomise every human?

>>3106719
Yeah. It's a distinct possibility that bands of "warlords" could begin to organize and raid peaceful communities. But communities can also organize defense, and regional alliances can be formed, something like the Iroquois federation, where communities are affiliated with each other for mutual protection, but don't give up their autonomy to do so.

>>3106821

And bam. Right back on the path to the nation state.

>>3106636
>implying statists aren't the ones who have destroyed everything in their path
oh my sides

>>3106849
True, things can always lead back that way, but ideally in smaller communities where everyone is engage and everyone is aware of what is going on and everyone's manpower is needed, power will remain more evenly distributed and the concentration of power that is the hallmark of a state is staved off.

>>3106916
that

>>3106916

Yes but problem. Typical guy is concerned only with being left alone and raising his family.
Eventually a nation will rise because its easier.

>>3106952
Well, that's actually not the historic norm. Traditionally, communities helped one another out. In fact, in most European villages, right up to the 19th century, money just wasn't used. Money was only used to do business with a shifty outsider passing through town. Usually business was done through a series of favors. I bake bread for you, you shoe my horse. Mrs. Tennehouse makes the best applejack, so I'll summer her some of my tomatoes in the summer, and when her applejack is ready in the autumn, she'll give me a bottle. I'm sure you've created similar networks with your friends, neighbors and co-workers. And I think if you think about it, you'll find that these exchanges are much more fulfilling than the sterility of shopping at Target.

>>3107146

Oh they're happy enough to deal with each other. But overall? They just don't care if they pay a portion of their produce to stop the crazy fucks with swords from coming and raping their ears.

>people taking complete responsibility for their actions
>completely crazy and backwards idea

What about entertainment?
Movies, music, hell ART.
What happens here?

>>3106707
>Implying unilinear historical development.

>>3107192
Well, that would imply that there would be a professional class of soldiers and a professional class of laborers. But in the sort of community I'm imagining, everyone would be responsible for defense.

Now, mind you, we have to divide theory and practice here. The kind of truly autonomous, anarchic model I'm describing here is more akin to what the Zapatistas in Mexico are trying to build. They can do this because the Mexican state is nowhere near as strong as the American state. Ideologically speaking, the American state as a monopoly on violence, so we couldn't literally try what I'm describing. But I think that we can consciously begin to move in this direction. There are lots of small things we could do that would have a cumulative affect over time: workers forming co-ops instead of working for a corporation; stronger parent-teacher involvement in schools; more civic participation; more demand for quality of life institutions like senior center, day cares and libraries; mutual aid programs; adult education opportunities; shopping at a mom and pop store instead of a big box store etc. It wouldn't be a big shift in how we think about ourselves as citizens, but it wouldn't necessarily be a big shift in behavior: Americans already donate a lot of community service. They would just put what they are already doing into a wider context.

the main rub I've had with anarchist is that they have more faith in the good nature of mankind than I do.

>>3107330
art would have to take a back seat to more necessarily endeavors (food, water, mutual defense) unless the community thinks it is important enough to "Pay"(feed cloth shelter) artists who can't relay on another good for trade.

>>3107442
Nope. Autonomous communities know how to set rules, which are crucial for day-to-day operations, and how to defend themselves both diplomatically and defensively if necessary.

In fact, if you want to talk about demented thinking, a very good argument can be made that a massive war machine like the US is supporting is less realistic than regional alliances.

>>3107330
>>3107531
I disagree. Smaller communities that have their own traditions and celebrations, folktales and tall tales are almost invariably more interesting than big cities with homogeneous corporate cultures.

I'll give you an example. When I had money to travel, I visited London. It was interesting, but it was just like any other major metropolitan area, a dime a dozen in global terms. But travelling through the Welsh countryside was magical. I had more fun sloshing through a field scattered with sheep shit than I did riding on the metro. And the people were much warmer as well. Art and culture survive were human connections are intimate and tradition is kept alive.

>>3107551
not going to argue with you.
nothing in my statement is disagreeing with your post.
are you saying I do have a high level of faith in the good will of mankind?

all I stated is that I don't have the kind of faith in man that most anarchistic that I've listened to on here do.

>>3107531
I can't get behind this..

>>3105963
Crime is handled thusly:
Any man has license to defend his own "rights" against invasion.

Accordingly, he has license to also seek the service of another, whether through commerce, mutual aid, or any other peaceful means, in performing this useful labor in his stead.

Private police forces? Community watch groups? Self-defense the universal order? Depends on your preference.

>>3107738
they you would most likely form or chose to live in a community that feels that the artist is worth supporting by providing for them (trading for their art) while they create art.

>>3107807
*then

>>3107642
Fair enough.

For me, the Greek notion of the golden mean is central to how I understand people. People are at their best when they have good self-knowledge and good knowledge of their communities; or rather when they can sense of their own contradictions and the contradictions within their communities and hold them all in a working tension, like a dance. They can't be pollyannaish and believe that people are too good, or become paranoid about human depravity (though keeping well in mind that people are can easily devolve into devils, while almost never becoming angels).

And these are what autonomous communities have to keep in mind. They have to create a system of justice that is based on consensus, yet one that functions to keep relations smooth. And they have to be able to defend themselves, while understanding that violence, even in the service of a just cause, always unleashes demons that consume both victim and victimizer.

I suppose, in the American context, this is what we have forgotten: that violence has its limits, and that a military imposing tyranny abroad will invariably impose tyranny at home. People actively engaged with their communities will understand the limits and the proper place of defense and violence. It will, God willing, make them humble and wise. It is our only hope to stopping an out of control military budget. Ideally, anarchy will work on the very local level, but have national and international implications.

>>3107642
Question, bro:

If people are, by nature, violent and opportunistic, then the common-sense strategy would be to trust none of them, correct? To sleep with one eye open, presuming that at any moment someone is going to fuck your shit with a rake and steal your toaster.

Now, if you take this view of humanity, surely you must think it the height of stupidity to believe that the government, which is a body of, by, and for humans exclusively, would behave any differently. You must think it absolutely insane to fear that every gun you see is seconds from your skull EXCEPT when that gun is carried by a man with a badge, right?

I mean, humans are violent opportunists. The last thing you should do is have faith in their basic decency. So the humans that make up a body called "government" should be no different, and entrusting them with "keeping the peace" must be downright SUICIDAL.

>>3107639
Some situationist author concluded an essay with a similar idea, calling on the creation of new cities which fostered creativity.

I like the idea of creating semi-permanent autonomous zones within cities, to develop an alternative to capitalist/consumerist life.

>>3107950
Kevin Carson, Samuel Konklin, PJ Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker, and many others have called for precisely this approach.

I think it's largely the chief method for achieving a voluntary society, politics being only a specific tool used to overcome certain obstacles to its development when necessary.

Anarchy demands a large scale re-evaluation of the world.Because when you have anarchy you are not germany/finland or whatever you are.You are just a pack of land with people on it trying to scrape by giving goats one another.

Every maniac killer could murder as he liked with the only thing to stop him would be another armed citizen,yet I ask:
How much of this until we have huge criminality?

Also child molesting,rapingsetc would be usual since no law or anything else to pursue the subject upon would be there.

Also investors etc would be turned off since they would be vunreble to any crazy whack commie hating on Capitalists.

What stops the foreign country to assault and take you over in a matter of days?No-one.

Since there is no millitary,since there is no state to keep the millitary on check. Everything would just be hard to do since no-one has a place in a society thus your yesterdays construction worker is now your new Drill sergeant!

Deal with it.

>>3108117
Wrong wrong wrong, Lurk more.

>>3107925
>common-sense strategy would be to trust none of them, correct?

It is not a trust no one point of view it is trust no one you don't know. there are good and bad people in the world and I don't think that changing or removing the system of governance is going to eliminate people who have bad intentions.

>surely you must think it the height of stupidity to believe that the government, which is a body of, by, and for humans exclusively, would behave any differently

you are right it doesn't behave any diffidently aside for the rare few who are part of the system and give a shit ( can't name one but they might exist). I am no fan of a powerful centralized government getting involved in things that are better handled by a State/Provence or local community.

> You must think it absolutely insane to fear that every gun you see is seconds from your skull EXCEPT when that gun is carried by a man with a badge, right?

a gun in the hand of a cop can kill me just as dead as one held by a criminal. the cops don't prevent crime they just mop up after the fact. That said where I live I am more likely to be shot by the criminal because the cops are too busy watching over the richer parts of town. you know the part with better stuff to steal and less random gunfire at night.

>I mean, humans are violent opportunists

I don't think all humans are just enough to fuck shit up for the rest of us.

>So the humans that make up a body called "government" should be no different, and entrusting them with "keeping the peace" must be downright SUICIDAL.

I don't trust them to keep the peace.

BTW, if anyone is interested in anarchy or pre-modern modes of society that could open the imagination to different ways of living and organizing communities, I would suggest reading some of david graeber's works, especially "Debt: the first 5000 years" and his account of autonomous zones in madagascar in "Possibilities". you will not be disappoint.

some where between "do anything you want" and "do what i say or die" there should be some sort of middle ground to stand on.

>>3108242
Inasmuch as I admire the consistency of your opinion, if you don't trust the people who make up government necessarily more or less than anyone else, what makes government a good idea?

>>3108442
Honestly it is the devil I know

I tried to come up with a better answer but that's what i got I can't say government is inherently a good idea nor can I say that its absence will make things better because I haven't had to opportunity to witness it

>>3108330
Graeber is the one who introduced me to the idea of gift economics. Really swell guy, he is.

DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DO

Is it possible with our current system (U.S. gov for sake of discussion) to go from what we have now to an anarchy/stateless way of living with out the use of force? how would people who chose to be members of the state be handled?

yes people are free to come and go as they please

geopolitical borders are fucking tyranny

>>3110692
so a group could come in from anywhere and move into your community change the way things are done by standing together out numbering the locals drowning out their voice leading to them fighting back or being push out

Anarchy.

>>3111049
>change how things are done
>drown out their voice
are you implying that people move in and change how the local government works and what its focus is

and then are you saying omg anarchy is broken because of this

oh man brain damage exponential collapse here

>>3111472
anarchy is not broken it is just not attainable in the why you want it.

yes lets toss of the oppression of the state for the tyranny of the masses.

in anarchy you can have what you can defend and there is always someone bigger

The business of a school is merely to provide an environment for students and teachers to convene, for a fee. The business of an individual teacher is to explain things, to guide learner and to assess the learners' aptitudes in the subject material, for a fee. The business of a teaching community is to establish a curriculum for which accreditation yielded upon completion. The business of a student is to study things and to prove the absorption and aptitude of the subject material, rarely but possibly for a fee (as a researcher) if not some promotional compensation.

A scholar is effectively a student and a teacher, as the flow of knowledge goes both ways for him/her. Often people will demand access to school resources, paying a fee to the school to do so, and in turn, being paid to teach others within that knowledge community.

Surely there is no reason why this cannot occur in anarchy.

It's working pretty good in some areas in germany. They still use money though, because they need to buy the solar power and other stuff to be more independent from the state and corporations on a long shot.
The people are cooperating together and live in peace. One of the villages even have an artist. He sells his "artwork" online to finance the community. So as we see it isnt't even necessary to get rid of money as exchange medium to make trading easy. At least for the peaceful evolving process from this shit what we call democracy to real democracy

People will never be more free than whoever they put in power wants them to. Who that is is all that changes

Most of crime stems from property rights.
Get rid of property rights and you get 99 percent of crime

It takes a village to raise a child. I think education will be more free than it is now, with the entire community being involved in passing down their skills to children.

To the statists in this thread, how can you defend the state, when states have killed more people in this century than all murderers put together?

inb4 hurr durr, those were the commies, the US government alone killed more than all criminals put together.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081217214603AA4Ev5m

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm#Murders

US: 10 million, not counting WW2 pre-nukes (!), or anything before it

Criminals: 8 million.

>>3112221
get rid of laws and there will be no crime

>>3106719
Someone has already rolled up with his thugs and taken over. This band of thugs has even indoctrinated you to view them as good. They are called the government

“That this social order with its pauperism, famines, prisons, gallows, armies, and wars is necessary to society; that still greater disaster would ensue if this organization were destroyed; all this is said only by those who profit by this organization, while those who suffer from it – and they are ten times as numerous – think and say quite the contrary.”

>>3112221
You're suggesting that most crime is burglary, pickpocketing, embezzlement, vandalism, arson and the like. How do we know you're correct?

>I mean, crime will still exist, obviously. What happens when someone is robbed or murdered?
There are different branches of anarchism, each handling it with their own approaches. In a free and polycentric society there would not be one objective way of dealing with anything. The people themselves would come up with whatever systems they think is best. Some people like communists would probably just ostracize them or kick them out of the commune. Ancaps and mutualists would use things like tort law as a basic guide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz0AvdqRVnI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SINdTmy29cE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRDlCgNm2KM

>What about immigration? Are people free to come and go as they please?
Jesus Christ, use some common sense please? Are people within one arbitrary country allowed to travel within their own borders? Just Imagine the whole world was one huge country. Someone from Canada would be allowed to travel to South America just as someone from Texas is able to travel to Florida. Except of course it wouldn't be a country but you get the point, asshole.

>>3112231
>states have killed more people in this century than all murderers put together?

states don't kill people
people kill people

>>3112286
it sounds silly
but if everyone just shared everything we wouldn't have as much crime basically.
That's the idea.

>>3112296
when one state falls another rises to replace it revolution just make the switch faster

or

here comes the new boss same as the old boss

>>3108242
You havent given any argument whatsoever on why the state ought to exist. You're just apologizing for the status quo.

>>3112356
it is the getting everyone to share part is where it falls apart

unless you force them O wait back to tyranny

>>3112286
You can't get rid of natural law.

>>3112426
well that's why communism was more popular than anarchism, it seemed more straight forward

>>3112387
I wasn't trying to give an argument nor was i apologizing for the status quo.

I was simply answering questions asked of me by TheBaker !aw6Qj2QiR.

might makes right
if you can't defend it you don't deserve it
survival of the fittest

Anarchy.

>>3112331
The state is a system of coercive organization allowing for an elite few to reign destruction upon millions of people the likes which have never been seen before nor could ever be matched in a free society.

You people keep apologizing for state tyranny. You are the loyalists of your time and will forever be ridiculed by the future race of free human beings.

>>3112456
Probably because it doesn't exist.

>>3112331
The organization of states kills more than any other group put together. What makes the state specially more dangerous than random thugs, is that the stateman believes he is righteous, and thus there are practically no limits to his violence. This can be observed today, in the simple fact that it is states that developed and hold the power to eradicated our species.

>>3112518
Funny, this is the exact logic and excuse statists make when trying to rationalize their ideology.

>>3112617
so the only sides I can be for is the anarchists or state tyranny

false dichotomy is false

>>3112685
anarchists isnt a "side" any more than atheists is a "side"
if you support a state to solve problems you are statist, thats the definition of it and its not exactly complex

you could be a complete pacifist and just not give a fuck

or you could be against any kind of coercive and involuntary hierarchy

beware of cripto-statist they hide inside anarchist movements and feed information back to their elite masters in the state

>>3112626
Go on and say that to a mountain lion when her cubs are nearby.

>>3112804
Well, the most elite of anarchists are ex statists.

>>3112685
The state is inherently coercive by definition. It is a territorial monopoly on force.

>>3112815
You're an idiot.

>>3112858
are they really ex-statists or was it all a ruse to gain your trust

>>3105963
In complete anarchy, there is no crime. There is no law to break.

In complete anarchy, there's no defined border, so immigration doesn't really exist either.

>>3112883
Well, that's determined by how often my grasp of causality is impaired. For the most part, my grasp of the relationship between cause and outcome is "above average." Your ad hominmen attack is indicative of sloth on your part.

>>3112888
I don't need their trust. They need mine, because I'm going to be "sin nombre."

if funny that the state is always painted as a dominating monolith like it is not even possible for a state to do good. It seem about as bad as saying without the state everything would collapse into roving rape gangs.

nether view seems to paint the whole picture but who am I to criticize

>>3112993
>but who am I to criticize

No one, so shut the fuck up.

>>3113033
yep no one just like you and all the other anons

>>3112963
Your belief that "natural rights" exist is equally as intellectually lazy as declaring "God exists, prove me wrong!" You can never falsify these claims as they are assertions with no logical backing whatsoever. The observation of what some arbitrary wild animal does is a complete nonsequitur. There is nothing mystical about "natural rights" any more than the constitution has magical powers and isn't just a dated piece of paper.

I might as well be arguing why unicorns and fairies don't exist. All of this implies that somehow *I'm* the one who has the burden of proof.

Damn anarchist or communist or whatever
we don't want equal wages for everyone, we want to keep the American dream.
If you don't want that them beat it.

>>3112617
>You are the loyalists of your time and will forever be ridiculed by the future race of free human beings.

I'll be long dead by then so they can ridicule away

>>3113184
>we don't want equal wages for everyone, we want to keep the American dream.
>we
>we we we

Ah yes, the statist "we," always so quick to speak on behalf of everyone else. Inside every statist lies the heart of a closet authoritarian.

>>3113229
tacit consent

>>3113176
Well, there's nothing "magical" about natural law. I didn't mention natural rights, but there's nothing "magical" about them either. You just happen not to know what a "right" of any form truly is, hence your supposed disbelief.

>>3113274
Ah, so contracts and agreements concerning the most important aspects of society should be ambiguous and open to coercion? Why shouldn't everything else be the same way? Seems pretty arbitrary with that logic.

>>3113328
>Why shouldn't everything else be the same way?
it already is

you are free

>>3113314
>You just happen not to know what a "right" of any form truly is, hence your supposed disbelief.

Yes "I'm" just uneducated which is why I don't agree with you. People who are so quick to declare "rights" are usually the ones who have no clue what they are. Most of these misconceptions form because people so easily confuse a "right" with a "freedom."

"Freedom" concerns a person in relation to himself and the acts he is capable of performing. People are free to the extent that they do not behave aggressively towards others and the convections and social institutions which emerge spontaneously through the inter-subjective consensus.

"Rights" however concern one person in relation to another person or group. These can be anything from informal agreements, to social arrangements, to contracts, and so forth. You have a "right" to something only if someone has voluntarily agreed upon it. Anything that has to be given to you is a privilege, and not an entitlement. You are not "entitled" to "the right" to free healthcare, for example.

Time to read up on Jasay

http://www.dejasay.org/bib_journals_detail.asp?id=55
http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2006/Jasaypropertyrights.html

>>3113351
In what way are actual legitimate contracts ambiguous and not explicit? When has this apologism ever been seriously considered anywhere else except for social "contract" theory?

>>3113573
nom nom nom

>>3113552
Close.

Rights are those conditions which when an individual defends his/her own, he/she is always "in the right."

Being "in the right" is universal, objective and absolute, just as ethics are. It is not a matter of jurisdiction or era. How so? See...

Self defense is human nature.
Self determination is human nature.
Territorialism is human nature.
Creativity is human nature.
Association is human nature.

Partaking in these things is a natural right, so these things themselves are natural rights. Crime is one individual's violation of another individual's rights. A right does not extend as far as the violation of rights.

People have always, are always and always will be born with the same natural rights, as a condition of belonging to a sentient and sapient species.

Other kinds of rights that are not natural rights exist, and they are specified by social contract.

>>3113552
>property
You own it if you built it or bought it, and if it itself isn't a human life or a natural resource. Thus property must be some form of artifice. As to the ownership of the materials from which the property was constructed, they're claimed in variety of ways spanning from social law to natural law.

>>3113663
There are no such things as natural rights. All rights are man-made and are verified only by society.

>>3113796
What they are has been explained. You'd have to reject the definition in order to reject the existence. To assign a different word to the axiom presented would be fair enough, if such makes you happy. The point is that an observable phenomenon is empirical and real, regardless of the descriptions applied to it.

There are no such things as morals or ethics. Right and wrong are man-made concepts and are verified only by society.

>>3105963
nice pic ;) ill get back once I read the thread...

>>3113663
SOCIAL CONTRACT?
I DIDNT SIGN SHIT

>>3113663
>Rights are those conditions which when an individual defends his/her own

This translates to: You have about as many "rights" as people are willing to recognize.

You can make a whole shirt completely from scratch and claim it as your property. If everyone else around you think's it belongs to someone else or the collective itself, then the idea of "natural rights" doesn't mean much and becomes the irrelevant fantasy it is.

Again, it all comes down to the inter-subjective consensus and not some mystical code of "rights" which somehow exists outside of our subjective values and preferences and in the physical world.

Consider the following
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEME-1KMUT4

Also, asserting what is "human nature" is just as idiotic as declaring arbitrary acts to be "natural rights."

>>3113895
You can reject your contrived idea of rights along with their existence. Especially considering the fact that *THEY DON'T EXIST.*

>The point is that an observable phenomenon is empirical and real,

"Natural rights" are about as falsifiable as any other question begging assertion. Your nonsequitur example of wild animals was as laughable as it was irrelevant. Should we eat each other too? Should we just derive all of out laws from whatever wild animals we like? Because as we all know, nature such is peaceful and never a violent chaotic shitfest.

>>3114431
>
You can make a whole shirt completely from scratch and claim it as your property. If everyone else around you think's it belongs to someone else or the collective itself, then the idea of "natural rights" doesn't mean much and becomes the irrelevant fantasy it is.
Unless you have the power to defend the shirt.

>>3114559
>Unless you have the power to defend the shirt.

Yes, obviously. If you can fight a mob of disagreeing people for it or convince them that this is your property than it essentially becomes "your *socially recognized* property."

"Rights" are always in relation to other people and are thus *codes of inter-personal conduct.* Having "rights" while being alone on a island doesn't really mean anything anymore than a falling tree makes a sound in a deserted forest.

Prove me wrong bitch.

>>3114649
actually it does, it means you are free

>>3115019
free to obey

>>3105963

I'm a bit late but whatever

>Firstly what about crime?

The first thing to consider is how would anarchy come about? Most anarchists envision a mass popular uprising against the state and abolishing the state completely. Now, the anarchists themselves would have prepared for this, so they would build small, self-sufficient villages and communities, but what about the rest of society? They would never have expected such a thing and would be thrown into the chaotic fray that comes with a complete breakdown of law and order and will also find it very difficult to adapt to a radical, new way of life.

You can say what you like about trusting people not to commit crime, but if human nature has taught us anything, it's that you cannot fully trust humans without regulation and control. Crime would exist, of course. Anybody who says crime won't exist for whatever dumb reason just went full retard. Think about all the serial killers, pedophiles and rapists out there. Without the control of the state to keep these people away from the rest of society, they are free to run rampant and fulfil their darkest desires.

In an anarchic world, there would be no centralised government and therefore no centralised law and order. Villages and communities may come together to form their own police forces to protect their people and property from raiders. Unfortunately, these raiders have the potential to overwhelm the police forces of these villages and communities as they don't have connections with other villages to quickly call for re-inforcements. (continued)

Continued from >>3116059;

So where does that leave these villages and small communities? They cannot defend themselves, so who will defend these innocent people from the atrocities of human nature, should they be overwhelmed by a hostile invading force? Nobody, is the answer, because each village is de-centralised and looking out for themselves.

It's immoral to argue that, if you don't have the power to defend your life or your property, you deserve to have it all taken away from you by those that have the power to take it away. There is also the question of national security too. If a country became anarchic with no central government, who would be watching the shores and the skies for invaders? Nobody, is the answer, because this level of monitoring requires centralisation. It would be all too easy for a large invading force from a country that has a centralised government to swoop in, crush any resistance and install any kind of regime they wanted.

Anarchism weakens the security of everyone. You may argue that all human civilisation started out as de-centralised in small communities thousands of years ago, but things have changed in the world now. We have near instant communication right across our planet, and the technology to be able to travel around it in a matter of hours. We need centralisation so that we are equipped to stand up for ourselves in the modern world. (continued)

Crime is relative to poverty and race, not government.

Majority of people who steal from stores need the food to live. Majority murderers weren't thinking when they killed the guy who slept with his wife. It has nothing to do with the type of government we have.

In an anarchy, it would be as peaceful as it would have been if it weren't an anarchy.

Continued from >>3116145;

So where does this leave the people? The ordinary family, the parents work 9-5 and the kids go to school. These people aren't prepared for anarchy and they never will be. It's completely wrong to say that these people deserve to die, that they are somehow weak simply because they cannot adapt to the dystopian fantasies of a minority.

They have their strengths, but their strengths are geared towards operating in our current, modern world, not in some backwards medieval vision of society. A guy that is an excellent programmer, will find himself useless in this new world. He can't grow his own fruit and vegetables and rear livestock to see him and his family through the whole year because he's never been a farmer. He can't build houses, schools, churches, hospitals etc because he's never been a construction worker. He can't ensure his family's clean water supply because he's not a plumber.

With centralised society, all these things were done for him so that he had more time to focus on his programming and computer skills. He was able to follow more intellectual pursuits because his basic needs were supported for him, and it's the same story for the large majority of society. Once you make the basic needs of life easier to access, it allows people to focus on the intricacies of the world. This is how we have scientists that have made excellent discoveries that have changed our lives, this is why we have philosophers that have completely changed our way of thinking.

With anarchy, none of the modern world would be possible. With centralisation, everything is possible and human civilisation can continue it's struggle towards peace, prosperity and greater knowledge.

>>3116223
>>3116145
>>3116059

To summarise my points, the argument for and against anarchy is not a question of freedoms and civil liberties, but a question of security and survival.

This is what I feel a lot of anarchists are overlooking. To anarchists of /pol/, don't think about the revolution, but think about AFTER the revolution. Think about the world that you want to bring about.

bump

>>3116261
are you a utopian by any chance?

you need to know
-whats wrong
-why its wrong
-how will change happen without a way higher risk of more wrong
-what will be my part
-what will be the difficulties
-is the change going to be easy to maintain or will it need much force
-will the change lead to progressive thought or to a stalemate of authoritarian gangfights

>>3107639
>>3107950
On the subject of entertainment, in an anarchist society, would there ever be the level of entertainment that we have now? That brings joy and discussion to so many people? I mean, look! We have at least NINE boards right here on 4chan for discussing things like shows, movies, cartoons, literature, music, etc.

Would we ever have this in anarchy? I've heard arguments that this is technically consumerism and should be frowned upon but shouldn't I be FREE to be obsessed with, say, a favorite actor or a favorite set of movies? What if Tim Burton wanted to still make movies? In a world with decentralized communities, would he ever get them to my community?

Which brings me to another question. Would the internet exist? Anarchy relies on small communities to function properly. The internet makes it impossible for communities to remain small. Would it just have to "disappear" for the common good?

>>3116261
This makes good points as well.