/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 61 KB, 360x202, idontwannalive.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:06:53 2011 No.3599731 [Reply] [Original]

>Go onto Anarchism board
>See people talking about great living in anarchy would be
>See anarchists argue that scientific research facilities would be able to run more efficient than they do today with anarchy
>Doesn't realize that most research is funded by state
>Doesn't realize that if true anarchy did in fact exist, they would all probably be dead

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:08:53 2011 No.3599748 File: 3 KB, 127x125, 1290217730635.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Have faith in the free market, which my body represents. And then eat me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:09:53 2011 No.3599755 >>3599731 >Doesn't know what anarchy is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:11:53 2011 No.3599771 >>3599755 >Doesn't know what anarchy is

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:16:53 2011 No.3599798

>>3599731
this

>>3599755
Absence of a governing body and the laws that go with it. Anarchy is a free-for-all. Society would devolve into tribalism. Anyone with any power would fuck over most other people.

If the economic system doesn't collapse, it would eventually turn into a corporatocracy controlled by private armed groups run by the corporations.

If money becomes worthless then get ready for something between tribal warlords and mafia.

Also, kiss safety goodbye. Look at any riot anywhere and you'll quickly see that a significant portion of the population is just waiting to vandalize, loot, mug, etc.

Anarchists = hopeless idealists or retarded "edgy" adolescents.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:16:53 2011 No.3599800 >>3599771 I'm well aware of what anarchy is, but much of the posts on the board imply everyone shares their cooperative point of view.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:17:53 2011 No.3599807

>Watch rioters in England riot over innocent man being shot
>Realize people are rioting in entirely different cities than the one he got shot in
How is this relevant to you?
>Rioters say they're rioting against the imbalance of wealth in society
>Rioters rioting in their own neighborhoods, not the rich ones, destroying their own streets and buildings, not those of the rich.
Anarchy simply for the point of anarchy!

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:19:53 2011 No.3599814

>>3599798
nice painting of anarchism. There are a lot of religious organizations prepared for such an event, btw. The largest and best organized? The mormons. Up there in those mountains with fresh water every spring and enough farmland for millions. Also, mountains.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:21:53 2011 No.3599830
File: 30 KB, 500x333, 1313708730551.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Human beings by their very nature are social creatures that form hierarchical societies. People would band together and the most powerful groups will compete with each other for resources until one group dominates an area. Then we're back to the good old fashioned governments we're used to.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:22:53 2011 No.3599838 >>3599731 I do wonder if some kind of mildly anarchist small scale city could work? A country could never work.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:23:53 2011 No.3599844

you all are fucking retarded

anarchy would be far superior to what we have in our current system

we would be able have more resources without our government spending so much on wars, outsourcing, etc

working together, everyone would have to pitch in and receive an equal amount, that's how anarchy works

capitalism today is just corporate bastards laying off workers that are loyal to the companies they work for, for years, yet they get nothing in return

don't be so rash to judge anarchy and fuck off

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:23:53 2011 No.3599848 >state ran/funded anything >efficient Im not anarchist or even a libertarian fag and all for government funded research but its one of the most inefficient uses of money.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:24:53 2011 No.3599849 >>3599844 until some gets a gun and takes your shit and you have no one to call to help you

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:26:53 2011 No.3599862 >>3599844 Please leave.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:26:53 2011 No.3599866 >>3599844 No, that's not how anarchy "works", what you are describing is called Socialism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:30:53 2011 No.3599878 >>3599849 herp then self defence derp All discussion about anarchy eventually devolve to a de facto tribalist existence with paid militias guarding towns. There's no structure, there's just constant war.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:30:53 2011 No.3599881 Yeah, most of the people's idea of anarchy on this board sounds a lot more like socialism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:31:53 2011 No.3599882 >>3599844 do you even know what anarchy is retard?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:31:53 2011 No.3599886 >>3599814 lots of guns up in Utah, too.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:33:53 2011 No.3599893

Everyone's born an anarchist. They rapidly grow to accept that practically, there needs to be a social organiser. Some of them don't manage to mature that far, and think it's possible to live better without centralised infrastructure. These people are idiots.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:33:53 2011 No.3599897

>>3599814
It's ok. They'll be slowed down by the suits that they wear so we should be able to overpower them.

>>3599844
>we would be able have more resources without our government spending so much on wars, outsourcing, etc

What haappens when some other group of people spend their time and resources building up military technology and come over to rape and pillage everyrhing that you have?

>working together, everyone would have to pitch in and receive an equal amount, that's how anarchy works

That's exactly why it doesn't fucking work. Go study basic game theory. There is no way to create a Nash equilibrium in an anarchic society. You need rules for that. Without them, there will always be an incentive for someone to behave egoistically and the system will quickly collapse. It's the same reason that socialism fails. You're naively optimistic about human nature.

>capitalism today is just corporate bastards laying off workers that are loyal to the companies they work for, for years, yet they get nothing in return
Yeah... again, people exploit their situation to the detriment of others... not everyone does, but there will always be a percentage of the population who do and that ruins it for everyone.

>>3599848
The inefficiency is due to bureaucracy and corruption, which are themselves due to public apathy and ignorance. The state could run things efficiently, but the people would have to keep it in check. Most people expect someone else to do that for them, but they complain when no one does.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:34:53 2011 No.3599902 Most people who support anarchy, likely have never experienced it. What I say is to tell them to go live in a third world country, with little to no policing force, for a month, and then come back and see if they're still whistling the same tune.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:34:53 2011 No.3599903 File: 7 KB, 200x224, ike in africa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3599878 Like in Africa!

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:35:53 2011 No.3599906 >>3599903 You kid, but life in somalia has improved in quality somewhat since the government fell. It was essentially a larger version of the militias there now, and at least currently it's possible to pick a side to support.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:35:53 2011 No.3599908
File: 37 KB, 450x293, amish-people.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

the most ironic part of it all is the only anarchist societies that have functioned for a reasonable period times, are precisely the one's internet anarchists would find the most loathesome to live in.

Picture related.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:36:53 2011 No.3599914 File: 41 KB, 861x473, Science.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] OP is a faggot. Nothing new

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:36:53 2011 No.3599915 >>3599908 Aren't the amish more Theocratic, though?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:36:53 2011 No.3599920 >>3599902 >...go live in a third world country... Damn, you beat me to the punch!

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:37:53 2011 No.3599925 >>3599908 >implying the Amish aren't governed by religion

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:37:53 2011 No.3599926 >>3599798 >Anarchy is hierarchy everywhere >Doesn't know what anarchy is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:37:53 2011 No.3599927 >>3599920 Once more, most third world countries are the way they are, at least partially, due to the existent government having a negative influence.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:38:53 2011 No.3599932

>>3599902
I would support anarchy in a posthuman world (where most people are substrate independent minds living in VR) as it's more or less how it would be if we reach that state.
A mature nanotechnological society might also support it, but less than a posthuman one.
The main problem is human's physical and mortal nature, this is why humans organize like they do - to better survive, but eventually this organization ends up being exploited by humans who want more power than others. The only solution is to make it truly impossible to get to that state (such as in a posthuman world, killing someone could be made as impossible as changing the local laws of physics without somehow moving to a different universe with different laws of physics).

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:39:53 2011 No.3599934 >>3599927 no, it's because their government wasn't powerful enough to control and run the country.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:39:56 2011 No.3599940 [DELETED]

File: 24 KB, 296x386, 1313541229794.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3599731
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:40:53 2011 No.3599945 >>3599934 Which is because it's too corrupt to do so. Look at niger, which should theoretically be as rich as the UAE.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:40:53 2011 No.3599947

Anarchy: the idea that everyone, even governments, should have to play by the same set of rules.

Maybe it will turn out that we have to pick one gang to have a monopoly on violence, and spend our efforts on making sure that gang is responsive to the people it rules, and that it doesn't abuse that power. But let's not make any mistake about this being the reality of the situation. We don't need to have Stockholm Syndrome on top of everything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:41:53 2011 No.3599951 >>3599947 >implying the people are not the government Daaamn, nigga. You crazy. The majority of us want government.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:41:53 2011 No.3599952 >>3599947 >everyone plays by the same rules must be nice living in a fantasy world

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:42:53 2011 No.3599955 >>3599925 see >>3599748

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:42:53 2011 No.3599956

The proper definition of Anarchy is a government with out leadership. It's not a lack of government and law like most people say. It's just another form of government with no leaders.

Anything else is lies spread by the government to give anarchy a bad reputation. This may sound conspiratorial but fact any form of government other than what's currently in power is a threat because it directly competes with the current form of government. Stuff like the "Anarchist's Cookbook" was created to do just this. Almost everything in that book is a recipe to explode or hurt someone, and most of them are designed to blow up in the face of the whoever is stupid enough to do what's in the book.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:42:53 2011 No.3599957 >>3599947 the government can own nuclear weapons, so i and every other citizen should be allowed to as well?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:43:53 2011 No.3599963 >>3599731 What if we just had a society without money and we could funnel all the damn resources we want into science projects.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:43:53 2011 No.3599964

>>3599956
>The proper definition of Anarchy is a government with out leadership. It's not a lack of government and law like most people say. It's just another form of government with no leaders.
Describe the mechanism for making decisions for allocation of group resources.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:43:53 2011 No.3599960

>>3599934

We can know that Somalia improved it's lot in the ten years of anarchy than any other African nation did in the same ten years of mismanagement. So we at least know that anarchy is better than bad government.

And if criticism of Somalia's situation wrests on their late adoption of warlordism and theocracy, ie, state-like entities, well, then we agree that these governments are not doing them any good.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:43:53 2011 No.3599961

>>3599926
holy fuck you're stupid

Why do you think ghetto rats form gangs?
Why do you think the mafia is a big organization?
Why do you think there are so many warlords in Afghanistan, Somalia, etc?

Hierarchies form naturally. In an anarchic society, you will band together with your family for protection. Your family might band together with your neighbors for further protection, etc.

That's what tribalism is you fucking retard.

Now if the economic system doesn't collapse, organizations such as corporations will remain intact because they will have vast economic power. Without government regulation they will be able to establish monopolies, raise prices, make more money, hire private militias, etc.

Fuck you and your little fairytale vision of a perfectly altruistic socialist anarchic existence. You're either a troll or someone who's been in a basement for so fucking long that he has no idea whatsoever about human nature.

Did I mention that I think you're retarded?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:43:53 2011 No.3599962 >>3599957 the government can own guns, so i and every other citzen should be allowed to as well?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:44:53 2011 No.3599967 >>3599960 >somalia >anarchy they have a government and warlords that control and govern their own territory, hence no anarchy

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:44:53 2011 No.3599971 >>3599951 And that's fine. If the majority want, they can do. Such would be so without force. >>3599952 Is that not the ideal?

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:44:56 2011 No.3599968 [DELETED]

▲
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE
BIOLOGY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:45:53 2011 No.3599973 >>3599967 Just like Soviet Russia was never really communism, amirite?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:45:53 2011 No.3599974 >>3599962 yes. a gun can't wipe out an entire city and leave it uninhabitable for decades

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:46:53 2011 No.3599979 >>3599957 How would you decide who gets to own nuclear weapons?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:46:53 2011 No.3599980 Anarchy is the theoritical society where conflicts are minimized so as to achieve order. Anarchism is the revolutionnary theory aimed to achieve it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:46:53 2011 No.3599982 >>3599964 direct democracy

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:46:53 2011 No.3599987 >>3599844 I didn't realize the only form of government was Capitalism. Every hear of an RBE? Or resource based economy. If we could make that work humanity would be so much better.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:47:53 2011 No.3599990

>>3599927
True, but whatever peace and order comes from the absence of an oppressive government disintegrates becasue of the vacuum of power left behind for someone to fill. Look at what happened after Rome fell. Europe went into a millennium long Dark Age. Look at the DRC. After Belgium relinquished control of the DRC in 1960, they left a vaccum of power for the natives to fill. Today, there are over two dozen rebel groups vying for control in DRC, and civil war has killed over 5 million. it's the same thing that happened when Rome fell, it's the same thing that happened after European empires pulled out of Africa following WWII, and it's the same thing that would happen if a government pulled out of any nation, first or third world. Many are concerned that that's what will happen in Middle Eastern nations like Libya and Tunisia.

>>	Hopeless Necromantic Sat Aug 20 22:47:53 2011 No.3599991 The biggest problem with Anarchy is eventually people would just make a government to rule over them.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:48:53 2011 No.3599997

>>3599971
It is without force. Nobody is forcing you to continue to be alive in the country you are currently in.
>>3599974
A nuclear bomb is a far better deterrent against crime than any gun. They're both weapons to be used primarily to maim and kill, the difference is that we're used to controlling one and not the other. I'd argue that neither should be publicly available, but that's probably just because of some bullshit reason like a close friend being killed by a drunk guy with a handgun or some bullshit like that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:48:53 2011 No.3599999 >>3599991 exactly. that's why it's stupid

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:49:53 2011 No.3600003 >>3599999 quints means anarchy is stupid. end of discussion.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:49:53 2011 No.3600005

>>3599967

It would be hard to describe their situation bridging the millennium as anything other than anarchy. It was a dictatorship before; and is currently controlled by warlords and religious nuts. But in the middle you had no effective government whatsoever. And during those ten or so years, the quality of life and economic activity for the people in Somalia improved faster than in any other African state in the same period.

The bare minimum that we should be able to agree is that anarchy is better than bad government. Whether anarchy turns out to be stable or not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:49:53 2011 No.3600006 >>3599932 I'm pretty sure life in a VR world would be be governed by server admins.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:49:53 2011 No.3600008 >>3599893 >Trying to develop better alternatives in the interest of helping people > "HURR EDGY FAGET IDIOT FUCKING POOR WELFARE BABY!!!!" And so we watch two monkeys sling shit at each other.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:50:53 2011 No.3600018 play S.T.A.L.K.E.R. learn about anarchy becomes

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:50:53 2011 No.3600019 >>3600005 Sure. But neither one is especially optimal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:50:53 2011 No.3600012 >>3599961 No, hierarchies don't form naturally. If they did that would just mean that anarchy can't exist. Human nature is a myth made to comfort your ideology. Just because it's politics, doesn't mean you're allowed to avoid scientific examition.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:50:53 2011 No.3600013

>>3599897
>go study game theory
>Nash

Are you referring to raving paranoid schizophrenic Nash games theories (which gave us Mutual Assured Destruction) or the chilled-out after twenty years in the "home" Nash (which is giving us the NWO)?

Just asking, cause game theory actually has a rather indefensible history, what with treating people as cipherized robots.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:50:53 2011 No.3600014 >>3599914 I was talking about real research, not "HEY GUYS GO FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT STUDENTS LIKE MILK"

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:50:53 2011 No.3600015

>>3599982
I would have sayed direct democracy was fine some time ago, but now I would agree instead to something more refined. Form localized groups and negotiate a protocol for use within the group. People that agree with the protocol can join the group, others that don't, can make their own or stay independent. In the end, law is just protocols between people. Having a state force its law on the people is not that desirable as it's hard for someone to opt-out and make his own group or go with another group. I suspect in the future we will have more freedom with this, but currently most of the land is controlled by a state or another (not so much of the sea). The physical nature of the world also leaves on vulnerable to violence, which is quite unfortunate and why I would prefer the view described in >>3599932

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:51:53 2011 No.3600024 >>3599990 But that hasn't happened. The government has quietly taken action to rebuild itself, consistently failed, and consequently let the nation grow. With any luck, in 2012 a UN backed government will take power.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:51:53 2011 No.3600026 >>3600013 > (which gave us Mutual Assured Destruction) MAD works.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:51:53 2011 No.3600028 >>3600012 anarchies can exist, but only briefly until a hierarchy will form. it's like a false vacuum.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:52:53 2011 No.3600029 >>3599955 It's not faith if it makes logical sense.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:52:53 2011 No.3600031

>>3599997
>It is without force. Nobody is forcing you to continue to be alive in the country you are currently in.

So when one decides to opt out of government services, one can simply cease paying them?

Maybe if there were states over here, and a region of anarchy over here, we could talk. But you really have no choice right now. You may as well describe the situation in a space-station. One guy runs the place, and decides, with a few of the others, to rape every woman there every few days. If they don't like it, they can leave. To space.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:52:53 2011 No.3600034

>>3599947
>Anarchy: the idea that everyone, even governments, should have to play by the same set of rules.

>anarchy
>rules

Pick one.

anarchy
n : a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from
a failure of government) [syn: lawlessness]
>>3599956
>government with out leadership
>not a lack of government and law

Hey, can I redefine shit however I want make my argument so hazy that it no longer makes any sense?

I agree that governments have their own survival as their main agenda. Politicians are becoming increasingly corrupt and the abuse of the system is detrimental to most in several places. that's due to a faulty implementation of the system, not the design itself.

Anarchy very much means a lack of establish law. There is no recognized authority. Who imposes the laws? No one. You can make up your own laws and if you're stronger (financially, militarity, physically) than someone else, you can make them follow it, but anyone stronger than you can do whatever he wants to you and your "property".

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:53:53 2011 No.3600045 >>3600024 But that isn't anarchy, is it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:54:53 2011 No.3600055 >Doesn't realize that most research is funded by state >Doesn't realize that if true anarchy did in fact exist, they would all probably be dead >doesn't realize that most state-supported research is inefficient which is why it's state-supported

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:55:53 2011 No.3600060 File: 453 KB, 299x276, 773AR.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3599963

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:55:53 2011 No.3600062 ITT: hipsters bitching that they want anarchy instead of going out and actually doing something

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:55:53 2011 No.3600063 >>3600055 >most state-supported research is inefficient which is why it's state-supported sense, you make none

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:55:53 2011 No.3600064

>>3600031
When one decides to opt out of accepting the rules that must be followed to live here, one can GTFO of here. You have a choice between following the democratically decided laws and leaving by any means. The sea is your domain (outside of the 200-ish mile ecconomic buffer zone, that is)

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:55:53 2011 No.3600065

>>3600018

STALKER is a great analogy. There are the intelligent ones that will see it as an opportunity for scientific research and things that could never be accomplished by a monetarily based society, then there are those who trifle their attempts because they are barbaric idiots. I honestly think we should use eugenics to stop people from breeding. We shouldn't let Shanayna or Joe the retarded Christian who thinks the Earth is a couple thousand years old have kids.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:55:53 2011 No.3600068

>>3600034

>anarchy
>n : a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from
>a failure of government) [syn: lawlessness]

When anarchists say anarchy, they just mean an absence of the state. The negative connotations that term can have are not implied.

Why wouldn't there still be rules? I follow countless rules that aren't enforced by the state. There just wouldn't be rules that we don't agree to follow.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:55:53 2011 No.3600069 >>3599971 >does not know what the definition of fantasy means

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:56:53 2011 No.3600074 when you visit an "anarchy" board, you should think of it as a "lack of support for monocentric law" board. anarcho-capitalists aren't anti-hierarchical. they're anti-monopoly. the government is the biggest monopoly of them all.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:56:53 2011 No.3600077

>>3599990
>After Belgium relinquished control of the DRC in 1960, they left a vaccum of power for the natives to fill.
What they left behind was a bloody murderous power model for the natives to emulate, just like they did in Rwanda.

Please reexamine your basic premise - that Belgium was a model for anything but corruption, resource extraction, extortion and murder.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:57:53 2011 No.3600079 >>3600074 a monopoly established and supported by the majority of the population

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:57:53 2011 No.3600080 > visit anarchy board > violate the rules

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:57:53 2011 No.3600081 >>3600045 Pragmatically, it is. Technically, there's a government and it has no actual power whatsoever

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:57:53 2011 No.3600084 >>3600080 hahahahha +1

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:58:53 2011 No.3600090

>>3600079
either:
yes, but only because people grow up with this monopoly and just learn to accept it as something that has to be rather than something we can live without
or
right, and anarchists want to change their minds.

i don't see what you're trying to do here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:58:53 2011 No.3600091 >>3600064 I was born here. I never agreed to follow these rules. It is prudent for me to do so, sure, but I did not sign any contract or make any oath. Does it hurt anyone for me to just opt out and stay here?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:59:53 2011 No.3600093 >>3600074 But anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:59:53 2011 No.3600096 >>3600060 And what is so retarded about not having money?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 22:59:53 2011 No.3600098 >>3600065 stalker bro? stalker bro.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:00:53 2011 No.3600102

>>3600006
No, you would have maintainers, which could be made as inhuman as you'd like. Everyone would be given by default rights to their own consciusness being run and let's say a VR world of their own and possibly access to some public VR worlds. Where groups of people would be concerned, they would just instantiate some new VR world and only those that agree to some rules would be allowed (violating them would lead to a banning vote, or if completly private VR world, banning would only require the owner).

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:00:53 2011 No.3600103 >>3600090 so YOU know the truth and what's best for everyone while EVERYONE ELSE is ignorant?

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:00:53 2011 No.3600106

>>3600102
> continued
Now the possibilities, if it's physically implemented, in advanced stages you would have automated hardware or nanotechnological replicators increasing the size of the world and maintaing it and their rules. If you really don't agree to the core concepts of the system, you would be free to just instantiate yourself physically (as in a robot) and start you own. The problem with this form is obviously the physicallity of the world and the fact that someone could try to attack the physical implementation of the VR system, in which case you would just have to make a lot of backups and decentralize it as much as possible (into space). Greg Egan explored this concept quite a bit in his works. In Diaspora he explores the concept I described previously (although with some differences). The alternative to the physical existence would be a more abstract one where you leave the universe to one where the VR world rules are physical rules (this is only possible if the Ultimate Ensemble exists, which it may very well be, we'll probably be able to test this in ~50 years if there are no major technological road blocks to substrate independence). Egan also explored the latter case in "Permutation City", but he didn't give it a solid theoretical foundation (instead picked something a bit more subjective, but not really wrong) as those given in Schmidhuber and Tegmark's work (which is just physics and philosophy), strangely Egan's novel came before the works of those 2, yet it expresses the idea quite well.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:00:53 2011 No.3600107 >>3600093 eh yea i guess i'd agree. doesn't actually mean much to me though. not much of a point in debating it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:00:53 2011 No.3600109 >>3600091 implicit agreement. gtfo if you don't like it

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:00:53 2011 No.3600110 >>3600005 You keep referencing this Somalia, I'd like a source please. Also, we can also agree that bad government is better than bad anarchy. You can't compare the best of something to the worst of something.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:00:53 2011 No.3600112 MIGHT be dead...it's the chaos between the governed state and the anarchy one may "freak out" during, thus potentially causing a spike in deaths...have you read v for vendetta? far different from the movie

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:00:53 2011 No.3600113

>>3600080
anarchy.reddit.com is one of the most regulated places on the internet, it's an excellent example of what actually happens in a compete power vacuum. Draconian mods are draconian.

>>3600091
Hurts me. The fact that you're occupying land that could be used by my people to generate money and can't be is harmful to my country (true story). I do agree with the point about birth completely, but I think it's infinitely better than having kids treated as unprotected by law until they sign into being so.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:00:53 2011 No.3600114

>>3600091

You were born into a completely discovered world. Wouldn't it be awesome if you could make a new country and just experiment on it. It would be worth while to have a neutral land used for socio-economic testing on small scales and see how they work.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:01:53 2011 No.3600120 >>3600012 [citation required]

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:02:53 2011 No.3600124 >>3600103 anarchists think they do, sure. just as people who were against slavery thought. or capitalists did a couple hundred years ago. or people who first supported democracy. or socialists do today.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:03:53 2011 No.3600132 >>3600098 I own the games but haven't played them a lot. I love the series though I don't know much about it. The whole setting and everything is enough to entertain me. I love post apocalyptic scenarios.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:04:53 2011 No.3600139

>>3600012
>No, hierarchies don't form naturally. If they did that would just mean that anarchy can't exist.
BINGO. Anarchy is not a stable equilibrium of human society.

>Human nature is a myth made to comfort your ideology.
>Just because it's politics, doesn't mean you're allowed to avoid scientific examition.
"Blank slate" is dead and gone, man. It's a lie.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:04:53 2011 No.3600141

>>3600068
>Why wouldn't there still be rules? I follow countless rules that aren't enforced by the state. There just wouldn't be rules that we don't agree to follow.
>There just wouldn't be rules that we don't agree to follow.
>agree to follow

How do you not see the problem with this? You might agree to follow certain rules, tacit or otherwise, such as not stealing, not murdering, etc. What happens when 3 guys show up at your house, kill you and your family, and take your possessions?

Oh right, you're dead, because they didn't agree to follow your unenforced rules. If you want to enforce the rules, you no longer have anarchy. If you want to protect yourself then you have to remain forever stronger then them (weapons, strong friends, etc).

You seem to think "hey, I would behave, so everyone else would". Go walk around a really bad neighborhood and let me know what happens. You probably don't have one near you considering how sheltered you seem to be, so you may have to travel a bit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:06:53 2011 No.3600146 >>3600132 Although the STALKER scenario is an isolated area known as 'The Zone'. I didn't mean to imply the whole world is like that. That is another weird thing, our current world exists outside that one. Reminds me of District 9 in a way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:06:53 2011 No.3600152 >>3600139 Not for current humans, but an environment where anarchy is the most desirable state can be made.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:07:53 2011 No.3600154

>>3600005
>>3600012
>>3600013
You don't provide any substance in your attempts to degrade other's facts and proof. So far you have only states things that sound like they are purely from your philosophy.

Human nature or game theory come from careful observation of the past and present, I, or many others, can provide you articles supporting this, all of which comes from scientific "examition.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:07:53 2011 No.3600156 >>3600152 You missed what I'm saying. Changing the environment is insufficient. You would have to significantly change our genome.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:07:53 2011 No.3600159

>>3600120
Hierarchies are by definition artificial social structures.
Human nature has always been an empty excuse for people to justify their acts and their ideas without having to reflect on their education and culture.

In most cases, the use of the word "nature" indicates a non-scientific train of thought.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:08:53 2011 No.3600162 >>3600024 Yes it has happened, he just gave you numerous examples

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:09:53 2011 No.3600168

>>3600159
>Human nature has always been an empty excuse for people to justify their acts and their ideas without having to reflect on their education and culture.
FALSE notions of human nature have. Denying that there are any innate human tendencies at all is one of those false notions.

>In most cases, the use of the word "nature" indicates a non-scientific train of thought.
It's used to to simply indicate the general properties of a thing.

Human minds are not blank slates. Tabula rasa is a dead philosophy, because it is wrong.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:09:53 2011 No.3600170

>>3600110

The only link I can find quickly is from Mises, so some bias may be present. But other links are also biased in the other direction.

http://mises.org/daily/5418/Anarchy-in-Somalia

>>3600113

>Hurts me. The fact that you're occupying land that could be used by my people to generate money and can't be is harmful to my country (true story). I do agree with the point about birth completely, but I think it's infinitely better than having kids treated as unprotected by law until they sign into being so.

Being born into it doesn't seem right to me. I just want to not have to pay for government services. At the end of the day, the government is selling us a product. And since they have a monopoly on force, they can force us to buy it, and they can force other businesses out of the field, or to have to pay for the privilege.

There is a decent argument for the state as a kind of primary landlord. But extending this out to cover everything the state already does, and expecting people to buy the whole package in one go, a package that they had no say in designing, or they have to fuck off, that's not okay.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:11:53 2011 No.3600186 >>3600077 >Does not mention any of the other examples.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:11:53 2011 No.3600187

>>3600162
>derp
I was talking about somalia.
>>3600170
Me neither, but that's what we have. Given that the government is us, I think it's entirely right it caters to our whims (or is selling us a product, as you put it). I'd like to see part of the UK sectioned off as lawless and under some kind of international treaty, but I think it'd actually be impossible for that to happen now, what wit the UDHR.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:14:53 2011 No.3600206

>>3600139
>BINGO. Anarchy is not a stable equilibrium of human society.

This may be true. But there has to be a better way that the [gangster to warlord to despot] or [revolutionary to dictator] model, with the inherent violent baggage it brings from the start.

And I don't think people act better because laws are in place. If you look at the places where the strictest laws are in place to prohibit an action, you'll see that they do very little to curtail it. States with the death penalty do not have a lower murder rate than states without it. So it's not that punishment that keeps people from murdering one another. It's something else.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:17:53 2011 No.3600220

>>3600206
> States with the death penalty do not have a lower murder rate than states without it. So it's not that punishment that keeps people from murdering one another. It's something else.
I think there's a lot of truth to what you're saying, but lack of enforcement or simple lack of rules DO increase criminality.

China has a fairly low homicide rate. I think this is as much cultural as it is about harsh punishment, however.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:18:53 2011 No.3600225

There has been two major incidents of societies created around anarchist concepts.

The first was in Ukraine from 1918-1921 in a area populated by around seven million people based around the ideas of libertarian communism. The reason for its fall? Around the time of its creation the Soviets were moving into Ukraine and it was soon crushed by Soviet forces.

The second and most well known one happened around 1936 during the Spanish Civil War. It was crushed thanks partly to a Soviet backed Communist party, and partly due to Francisco Franco.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:21:53 2011 No.3600227 >>3600168 >>3600141 To the one or two people arguing for anarchy, please read these two posts.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:21:53 2011 No.3600228

>>3600159
Maybe you're misunderstanding the term "human nature".

You will find criminals from all walks of life. Thieves, murders, rapists, etc come from rich familes, poor families, families of all races, religions, educational backgrounds, etc.

So
>education and culture.
do not determine absolutely how we behave.

When I say it is human nature to do such things, I don't mean that we're mindless beasts bound to do them. What I mean is that inevitably there are always individuals who will see an opportunity for personal gain in a situation and they will not have any qualms with the negative consequences their actions may have on others.

Laws prevent crimes in many cases because the risk of punishment outweighs the personal gain. Lawless scenarios such as riots clearly demonstrate that the perceived lack of personal consequences quickly enables people to act out in pure selfishness (looting, vandalism, etc).

Just look at what happened in London and elsewhere in England last week. They can't even have peaceful demonstrations there without such people acting up.

Look at what happened in the wake of Katrina, etc.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:21:53 2011 No.3600229 >>3600220 only because culturally people have the shit kicked out of them for looking at people the wrong way.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:22:49 2011 No.3600231 [DELETED]

it doesn't make any sense to say "anarchy is shit. just look at somalia."

it's the only modern example of anarchy. it could either be the worst or best example of it. i'd lean toward "worst" considering somalia was even shittier with a government.

which really means somalia is shit because its citizens are shit. dumb niggers.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:23:53 2011 No.3600234

>>3600168
Arguing without any proof other than your intellectual comfort that hierarchies just happen isn't just wrong, it's stupid.
But it's due to your use of such stupid concepts as human nature. If you started from actual examination of humans and their societies, you wouldn't make these ridiculous errors.

I don't deny that individuals can feel safer under an authority, or that the rest of the range of human emotions are central to social organization, but the creation of an authority requires conscious choices and a solid cultural background.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:23:53 2011 No.3600235

>>3600034
>>3600068

>Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler") may refer to any of several politic tates, and has been variously defined by sources. Most often, the term "anarchy" describes the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority.[1][2] When used in this sense, anarchy may[3] or may not[4] imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society. In another sense, anarchy may not refer to a complete lack of authority or political organization, but instead refer to a social state characterized by a lack of a state, ruler, or libertarianism.[4]

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:23:53 2011 No.3600236 >>3600206 > States with the death penalty do not have a lower murder rate than states without it. So it's not that punishment that keeps people from murdering one another. It's something else. This doesn't follow.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:24:49 2011 No.3600239 [DELETED]

it doesn't make any sense to say "anarchy is shit. just look at somalia." it's the only modern example of anarchy. it could either be the worst or best example of it. i'd lean toward "worst" considering somalia was even shittier with a government. which really means somalia is shit because its citizens are shit. dumb niggers.

the best examples of stateless societies are medieval ireland, the western united states in the 1800s, and iceland. they all did very well. the only problem was that they all ended up being invaded/controlled by a state, foreign or not.

but i'm pretty sure military defense would be an easy service to ask for.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:24:53 2011 No.3600238

>>3600220

I think that if a study were actually done, we'd see that the level of anti-social behavior drops well before the punishment for that behavior is softened. And anti-social behavior itself certainly drops a generation after child abuse and incest ceases to be ignored or even accepted.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:25:53 2011 No.3600246

>>3600234
>If you started from actual examinations of humans and their societies, you wouldn't make these ridiculous errors.

Refer to this post>>3600228

More importantly, refer to the part where he said murderers, rapists, etc come from all walks of life, different societies, backgrounds, etc. Those living in Vancouver and London looted because they saw no reason not to, as they would likely not get caught, so they did it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:26:53 2011 No.3600247 >>3600231 It's not an example of anarchy. Multiples authoritarian powers competing =/= no authoritarian powers

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:27:53 2011 No.3600253

>>3600234
>Arguing without any proof other than your intellectual comfort that hierarchies just happen isn't just wrong, it's stupid.
Like you have any support that humans ARE blank slates, and that all behavior that would make your anarchy unstable is a result of environment only. It is YOU who is imagining a false idea of the nature of human behavior so as to not have it contradict YOUR philosophy.

Humans are NOT blank slates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:29:53 2011 No.3600266

>>3600225

The Ukrainian anarchy was fairly epic.

The Spanish anarchists were fucking retards. They claimed to be anarchists, sure, but for anarchists they sure had a lot of rules that were enforced with violence.

Somalian anarchy has been contended in this thread already. The least we can agree is, it shows that almost any other African is better at running a society than the African's who tend to end up at the head of a state or an army.

Irish anarchy before British rule was fairly decent. Though it was easily smashed by a state, this can hardly be an argument against it in and of itself.

The anarchy of the old west was fairly decent as well. Maybe the best example in history. Though this one was not great for the natives, and was propped up by investment from the east.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:31:53 2011 No.3600278

>>3600239
>medieval ireland
They had dynasties and kingdoms in medieval Ireland prior to Vikings.
>western united states
Had smaller governments, normally based on towns or small regions, federal government still had influence.
>icleland
Had a parliament.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:33:53 2011 No.3600291

>>3600234
>implying hierarcies are formal and documented
>implying that all responses to your posts came from the same person
>implying that humans are not naturally social or that social structures are all flat

Also,
>Arguing without any proof other than your intellectual comfort

"I'm going to accuse you of doing what I'm doing, even though you've actually provided arguments for your point."

Keep derping.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:38:53 2011 No.3600308

>>3600246
Walks of life determine heavily what kind of criminality emerges.
A few unusual examples don't allow you to ignore the millions that follow the expectations. They can also be partially explained by the fact that there's still similar cultural/social elements in the life of the rich and the poor that push to certain crimes, and "walks of life" aren't perfectly separated.
Looting is motivated by frustrated desire for consumption, enhanced by the value our societies put onto it, and some other things like mob morality. The penal responses do not solve anything : the looters knew they had a chance to be caught before that.
An anarchist society can solve a lot of the actual causes for criminality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:42:53 2011 No.3600330 >>3600308 >An anarchist society can solve a lot of the actual causes for criminality. But opens up weaknesses to sociopathy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:44:53 2011 No.3600342 >>3600330 >But opens up weaknesses to sociopathy. One presumes you mean a weakness that is not present in a state run society. So what means does the state have to prevent sociopaths from imposing force onto someone?

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:46:53 2011 No.3600347

>>3600308
Walks of life determine the scale of the criminality, not the kind, looks at Madoff.

Millions follow the expectations because that is law, when set in a situation without law, you will see them looting.

Looting is motivated by human nature, and being in the right situation. By human nature I mean things like following the herd, wanting things you can't have normally, wanting nice things. Looters knew they had a very little chance of being caught.

An anarchists society can solve a lot of things, but it would open up even more doors for things that can potentially be worse.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:49:53 2011 No.3600358

>>3600342
Hmm, I don't know, early identification in schools, social media, laws, etc?

Just today, I saw a report of a kid who reportedly wanted to do things worse than Columbine, and was detained.

It seems you are only looking at the upsides and not even considering the downsides of an anarchy.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:50:53 2011 No.3600363

>>3600308
One of the importants points on the subject of criminality is also that in addition to solving the causes, on the contrary of authoritarian systems, breaking the rules in itself is not a problem in anarchy.
Murders and stuff can happen - like natural accidents, that's a shame when they do happen and the risks should be minimized/contained/prevented (while accepting that taking risks can be advantageous and that risk zero doesn't exist), but a few psychopaths left aren't the huge deal the existing penal systems, medias and politicians pretend they are.
Criminality rates would be at the center of the relevant policies, and not individual punishment. Tolerance is okay.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:54:53 2011 No.3600380

>>3600308
Poverty might make one more susceptible to looting, theft, mugging, and any other crime where the goal is simple material gain of relatively low value (e.g. less than a car).

Someone who's well off would not have the same incentive because they could easily buy such things.

Richer people end up in jail for insider trading, embezzling money, fraud, etc. The principle is the same though. They are stealing things outside of their immediate means (not always though). They don't resort to violence because violence wouldn't help them in any way. Hostile takeovers of companies, laying off thousands of people, defrauding families of their life savings, etc are violent in their own way though.

It shows complete apathy towards others in order to gain what they want. Apathic greed is a recurrent theme.

Also, human emotion appears universal across all walks of society. We all experience love, hate, fear, etc. Murders are often committed in heated moments of rage. Rich people may be less likely to murder a stranger for money than poor people, but rich people murdering e.g. spouses is not that uncommon. It may seem like it, but that's only because there are fewer rich people than poor people.

An anarchist society might solve some problems (although you seem to be thinking more of a socialist society), but it will only take a small percentage to break the system. Even if everyone had ideal conditions you will still end up with "criminal" behavior because humans aren't perfectly logical.

Some people are destructive for the sake of being destructive.

Anonymous Sat Aug 20 23:54:53 2011 No.3600381

>>3600363
So what you're saying is, in order to solve the causes of many people who would rather take the easy way and rob someone, we should take away any laws that are deters them from doing so?

Laws do in fact deter people from doing things, believe it or not.

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 00:00:53 2011 No.3600398

>>3600381
Not so much, really. Taking away the motivations for theft would be much more effective.

>>3600347
>By human nature I handwave the actual reasons and prepare oversimplifications and abusive generalizations and simple fallacies.
But if we follow your redefinition of human nature, then anarchy - or other kinds of political actions/states - can solve human nature.

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 00:01:53 2011 No.3600403

>>3600342
>So what means does the state have to prevent sociopaths from imposing force onto someone?
Consequences.

Laws don't impose a physical force. It's illegal to murder people but people still get murdered. More people would get murdered if it weren't illegal though, because many people stop themselves from becoming murderes because they don't want to go to jail.

Again, look at the riots. Looting is illegal. Looting doesn't happen because would-be looters think they'll get caught and go to jail. During the riots, these would-be looters didn't think they would be caught, so they become looters.

You're really getting to the point where you're just posting anything you can without thinking about it, because asking how the state prevents sociopathic crime is clearly stupid.

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 00:05:53 2011 No.3600418

>>3600403
When will you realize you're arguing with someone who doesn't have an understanding of how the three branches of the government works. Someone who completely ignores points made by others who provide good evidence. Someone who doesn't make logical sense and repeats the same shit over and over again in different words.

You really should stop responding and let him go to bed, high school starts in a few weeks you know.

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 00:05:53 2011 No.3600419

>>3600403

But sociopaths do not limit themselves to working outside the law. It's an oft-quoted, and accurate, piece of information that police officers and career criminals have very similar psych profiles.

The point is, how do we stop people from abusing the system to get what they want? Whether that system is the formal system of laws and states, or the informal systems that, in practice, keep most people from infringing on one another?

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 00:06:53 2011 No.3600426

>>3600419
>The point is, how do we stop people from abusing the system to get what they want? Whether that system is the formal system of laws and states, or the informal systems that, in practice, keep most people from infringing on one another?

I thought the point was whether or not no system at all was better than a system.

Go to bed.

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 00:08:53 2011 No.3600431

>>3600398
>Taking away the motivations for theft would be much more effective
>implying that this is possible

again, game theory

You can't program every single individual to adopt a preconfigured set of values unconditionally. Greed, jealousy, etc are not programmable. Maybe you can trains ome people to quell their own desires and emotions, but not everyone.

You would need a fully autocratic society to even attempt that.

also, Equilibrium

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 00:16:53 2011 No.3600465

>>3600419
>how do we stop people from abusing the system to get what they want?

I have no idea, but I'm sure you need a system for it, not the absence of one proposed by anarchy.

It has to remove the incentives but it has to do so in the least inhibitive way possible. Just because I'm arguing against anarchy doesn't mean that I want an invasive state. I think the state should be minimal and person freedom should extend up to the point where it negatively effects others, at which point laws and consequences are required to mediate conflicts.

It might not even be possible to create such a system. Corrupt individuals will eventually erode it and I see no way to maintain public interest in preserving it.

>>3600418
>contributes nothing while belitting others
>is still sat here reading this thread and replying like the rest of us

charliesheenwinning.jpg

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 00:18:53 2011 No.3600472

>>3600419
>informal systems that, in practice, keep most people from infringing on one another?
How exactly does anarchy do this? It seems like no rules at all would let them do whatever they want?

Oh, you were arguing that human nature doesn't exist, and that people are results of their cultures? Can be observed from ancient civilizations to today's modern culture and post disaster scenarios.

Refuted already multiple times on this thread, see "blank slate" and "tabula rasa".

What now? How do we stop sociopaths in this system? You explain why you think laws don't work? Why looting is because of society?

Stop straying from the original posts, in which people have pointed out flaws.

Many times, you will find the answers and counterpoints to the things you have been saying. However, you choose to ignore them because they do not agree with you, even though they are fact.

Why waste people's time if all you're going to do ignore facts that others have written out for you and continue to just stay in your own mindset?

Things like game theory have mound observational evidence. If you wave off years of research and development of the theory because of your own personal belief, that's fine, because you can believe what you want. But stop speaking like your own beliefs are facts, when they have no support besides more of your own anecdotal statements.

10/10

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 00:29:53 2011 No.3600511

>>3600472
I'm the other longpostfag in this thread replying to him. I wonder if it's just the 3 of us and >>3600418 in here.

I'm probably going to take the other faggot's advice and go to bed soon. I just wanted to say that it was nice seeing someone else argue coherently. I'm so used to thick people and trolls on here.

Have a nice life.

>>	THE FREE MARKET WILL !FIXITuBSJc Sun Aug 21 00:31:32 2011 No.3600520 File: 734 KB, 1095x795, 1313901110386.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Civilisation necessitates strong leadership and hierarchies. Anarchism is a childish and destructive ideology.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 21 00:34:53 2011 No.3600528 >>3600520 Way to show up at the end of a long discussion and blurt out redundant statements that have been discussed in detail above. The statement is obviously correct, but fuck what an aspie you must be.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 21 00:44:53 2011 No.3600551 File: 8 KB, 417x429, Hurr Durr.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 01:06:53 2011 No.3600661

Anarchy is impossible to achieve and maintain. Even once complete governmental and political powers are destroyed, and all the rules and regulations go down with them, people have nothing to restrict their actions.

Except, that is, for every other person around them. The lack of government created government, and will always lead to some sort of political power taking place. Once people are left to do whatever they wish, they will realize that people do things they don't like. A group with the power to enforce their own rules will do so, and as their numbers grow, so do the power their rules have over others.

Groups like this will spring up everywhere, eventually creating generations of rules and regulations, all created by the Anarchists that achieved the Anarchy they so desired in the first place.

Oh, and for anyone who care. There is a place being built outside of any government rules for those who wish to live without rules. It's being used as an experiment, and what I explained above will surely happen in this new "country" that is being built in the middle of the sea.

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 01:31:53 2011 No.3600779

>>3600661
>Anarchy is impossible to achieve and maintain.

Except for when it's the normal historical human social arrangement for nearly every tribal society outside of civilized influence. So, yeah, other than that 99% of human history, you might be right.

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 01:38:53 2011 No.3600819

>>3600779

Tribe does not equal Anarchy.

Tribal collections of people still had rules, they had structure. Anarchy has no structure, no rules, no regulations, no punishments, no defined curriculum or required traditions.

Tribemen. Tribe leader. Leader. Leaders have power. Power equates control. Leaders have control over groups. That control is called government. The opposite of Anarchy.

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 01:43:53 2011 No.3600849

I don't claim it would be better, but it would certainly be simpler, and in some perverted way more exciting.
I think people are tired of living lives that don't satiate them psychologically.
Yeah, they consume, but i think deep down they aren't satisfied because they didn't labor physically for it.

I wake every morning with the bizarre desire to join or start some post-apocalyptic cyberpunk band of ragtag gangsters.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 21 01:44:53 2011 No.3600856 File: 20 KB, 287x430, ChomskyonAnarchism_0011.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >read this >felt good >realize its all a pipe dream

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 01:51:53 2011 No.3600892

>>3600661
Possible in a posthuman society, actually it's likely to be the main form of organization (see >>3599932 >>3600102 >>3600106 ).
Difficult, but doable in a transhuman world (such as nanotech-only), but again the problems with people being able to kill people and psychopaths would exist.
In a non-transhuman world it would be possible, but very difficult, it basically requires each individual to be smart, have a well-thought morality/ethics, and be willing to cooperate with the group he is part of. If you make human existence/survival something which is inalienable (by "physical" law), anarchism comes naturally from that (one where people just negotiate with others freely and are not coerced to do anything - they just do what interests them)

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 02:22:53 2011 No.3601002

>>3600892

Anarchy = no organization
Groups of people working together leads to towns and similar settlements.
Towns = Organized groups of homes with people working to keep them tied together.
Towns = Non Anarchy
Group of people with similar morals = desire to maintain those morals
Group of people with similar morals + people with opposing morals = need for regulation and punishment of those breaking moral boundaries set by those groups.

It all leads to Non Anarchy.

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 02:31:53 2011 No.3601021

>>3601002
> Anarchy = no organization
I take it as ad-hoc organization as needed. No IMPOSED organization. Each person is free to form organizations with others and disband them at any point. The society as a whole is not centrally controlled.
> Groups of people working together leads to towns and similar settlements.
In my case, the "towns" are laws of the system. Other laws would be assuring someone's mind-program is run.
Maintenance would be automatic requiring no human intervention.
> Group of people with similar morals + people with opposing morals = need for regulation and punishment of those breaking moral boundaries set by those groups.
The system makes it incapable of punishing anyone for anything, it would only allow people to prevent others from participating in their communities if they don't follow some rules, but the person's mind would still exist independently and he could always start his own "community" with his own rules.
Punishment-not-being-possible and doing-stuff-to-survive no longer existing in this system leads to anarchy for the whole system, but it also leads to localized order for people interested in achieving some interest (for example: the creation of some software, doing scientific work, making entertainment and so on)

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 21 02:35:53 2011 No.3601028 So this board you all speak of, is it /b/ or am I missing something?

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 02:39:53 2011 No.3601040
File: 88 KB, 360x351, deal with it.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

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

Time for a Politics Lesson /sci/ stay classy.

Anarchism is merely completely equal and democratic control over civil society.

Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupt absolutely.

What people think is Anarchy is actually Randriod Anarcho Capitalism.

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 02:47:49 2011 No.3601058 [DELETED]

File: 18 KB, 179x200, Laughing.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>Not long ago
>Think the concept of anarchy could be viable, but it would be tribal communities. More benefit to the people, etc etc.
>Not all hurr durr anti establishment fuck the governmentz type
>Decide to check it out
>Go to deep web, anarchy sites, anarchy sites everywhere
>All about overthrowing the government, making explosives, etc. Nothing I didn't already know how to do
>okay.jpg
>Browse more
>Stop
>Realize how fucktarded it is and how it's just a bunch of retarded children thinking they're cool, and how it could in no way benefit the advancements of science and society
>mfw i lol at the fact I even considered it a non idealistic option
>Stick with being Libertarian instead
>everythingwentbetterthanexpected

>>	Ludwig !9CUY39dDYo Sun Aug 21 02:53:53 2011 No.3601073 >>3601040 If power corrupts does weakness purify?

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 02:59:53 2011 No.3601092

really? is everyone itt a troll retard that doesn't understand anarchy?

anarchy does not imply a local town militia free for all shitfest. it implies massive decentralization of political/monetary authority, not a tribalistic free for all most educated proponents of anarchy also believe in regional defense/law and order systems to protect basic human rights

tl;dr fuck off uneducated fuckwits basing their definition of anarchy on american public education and not wikipedia

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 03:01:53 2011 No.3601102

>>3601040

>Anarchism is merely completely equal and democratic control over civil society.

Anarchism is the absence of common power. That isn't equality, equality on a political power level (since it won't exist) sure, but not equality.

If there is no common power over the people what binds anyone to act in accordance to any law? Human nature?
Don's say democracy, because democracy is creating a common power over people dipshit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 21 03:03:53 2011 No.3601106 File: 134 KB, 480x480, 9489903[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I seriously don't know how the fuck I got here, I've never even been to sci before but i'm glad i could read this thread

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 21 03:07:53 2011 No.3601111 >>3601106 >OCCOR

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 21 03:07:53 2011 No.3601113 nobody in this thread knows shit.of they haven't read Proudhon ignorant faggots, the lot of you

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 21 03:09:53 2011 No.3601116 >>3601111 I have no idea what that is but nice quads Like I was just browsin and I see an extra tab with this on it and i was like WTF

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 03:12:53 2011 No.3601125

I'm a Libertarian who explored the idea of Anarchism for quite some time. I came to the realization that Anarchism is possible, only if the given scientific assumption that the evolution of morality is applicable. The only factor is time.

The basis of anarchism is ideal. This is why most people will not accept it in any form - it doesn't bode well to people who live in today's society with today's morals. We, as a collection of individuals, still treat each other like kids, forcing each other to pay for shit we don't want to (effectively stealing) in the name of a "good" - be it war, or some ineffective form of social welfare. I think to accept Anarchism we would have to evolve morally, to accept universally, the non-aggression principle. The logical step from our current position in history would be the step following the moral principle of self ownership, the acceptance of adult choice - meaning every human adult cannot be forced against his or her will to participate, monetarily or physically, in something they do not wish to. This will lead then lead to the idea that is absolutely fundamental of a stateless society: voluntarism and self-governance. With humans becoming more evolutionarily and selectively moral and ethical, society will no longer acquire the services of a "governing" body beyond themselves.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 21 03:14:53 2011 No.3601130 >>3601125 Anarchism + Enormously brainwashed Religious public = peace

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 03:15:53 2011 No.3601134

>>3601113
so an 1800s politician is supposed to know more about economics, political theory and psychology than our contemporaries? Try again.

Alone the idea that "property is theft" hints that his theory is based on weird ideas of ownership, freedom and action.

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 03:21:53 2011 No.3601151

>>3601125
this moral evolution you speak of already happened. it just works on the 250 people per tribe basis, altruism on the family size level.

Without any kind of natural selection, we will not be able to expand a minimally altruistic level to a whole population. and this natural selection usually favors exactly what already is: family altruism and tribal cooperation-if-beneficial.

also, you point that you pay for stuff involuntarily is laughable. you are required to pay for it because you consumed it. without society you would not be who you are so you owe everything to society. secondly, the point of redistribution is not that it is inefficient, but that it is the only way we have to prevent the inherent drifting apart of classes in capitalism.

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 03:25:53 2011 No.3601167

>>3601125

Of course, the foundations of proper anarchy rest on ideas that are only possible through proper child rearing (parents who teach their kids about self-responsibilty, self-ownership, and respect of other individuals) and political education. These processes, coupled, could take more than 500 years to a thousand to be fully realized. Although, I have to say that technology is making self-governance easier.

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 03:37:53 2011 No.3601205

>>3601151
> you are required to pay for it because you consumed it.
> without society you would not be who you are so you owe everything to society.
> the point of redistribution...is the only way we have to prevent the inherent drifting apart of classes in capitalism.

those things you just spouted are communistic sympathetic lies.
Situation 1) Single Person who pays taxes for students to go to college. Didn't reap the benefits personally. Markets are inflated with vast amount of degrees. His degree drops in value. He is fucked. Don't give me that everyone is smarter bullshit. College kids =/= smart.
2) I don't owe shit to no "society," I owe my friend who let me borrow some money. I owe my mother and father for giving me life. I don't owe anyone else shit - I traded something of value to them.
3) Redistribution of wealth because of capitalism is bullshit. Biggest lie perpetuated ever by governments in power. Expanding the welfare state was one way for Gov. to get into the lives of people. Secondly, capitalism doesn't exist except at maybe local level/small businesses. Corporations and monopolies exist through government subsidies (i.e. bailouts).

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 21 03:44:53 2011 No.3601229 >>3601130 religion =/= morality.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 21 03:46:53 2011 No.3601239 I actually think there could be an interesting cross section made if we overlapped Objectivism with Anarchy. But I haven't puzzled it out, just thought in passing that it could work.

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 04:06:53 2011 No.3601286

>>3601205
yes, rawls is a communist. That's the problem with most libertards: black and white thinking.

1) transfer payment over time. He pays taxes now for his education yesterday. No, his tuition was not enough to do that.
Then, the argument you are trying to prevent, is a good one. There is a strong correlation between the size of population and technological progress (more minds covering more of the possible idea space). Education strengthens this correlation (more ideas from this generated idea space are functional and get acted upon). Everyone benefits.

2) you live in a society that is built on the sweat and blood of the people that came before you. They deferred part of their gratification/consumption to create a better tomorrow. Another part of the costs they handed into the future to the beneficiaries: you. And you have to pay for what you consume.
Knowledge and infrastructure that was created and which you benefit greatly from.

Also, that the skills you have are worth money in our society is like you winning a lottery. just random chance. You benefiting from this lottery is as "deserved" as a dumb strong man being poor today where he would have been king just a few decades ago.

3) ITS ALL A CONSPIRACY!
though government is inefficient, it is the best possible option from worse alternatives.

Also, stop using buzzwords. You sound like a marxist with different sound bites.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 21 05:02:53 2011 No.3601459 File: 188 KB, 650x857, 1311328674020.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 05:10:54 2011 No.3601481

>>3601286
>Education strengthens this correlation (more ideas from this generated idea space are functional and get acted upon). Everyone benefits.

Not exactly we send plenty of people to school who do nothing with it and fail, there are plenty of these people, only the people that want to go should.
>2) you live in a society that is built on the sweat and blood of the people that came before you. They deferred part of their gratification/consumption to create a better tomorrow.

Wrong we benefit from their own selfishness during their time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK_-iVppgQs

>though government is inefficient, it is the best possible option from worse alternatives.

Except all the empirical evidenc states otherwise

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 10:14:54 2011 No.3602256

>>3600849
>simpler and more exciting
>don't claim it would be better
Well shit, we can all just stay home and jack off, that would be simpler and better, but it still would be detrimental to ourselves.
>I think people are tired of living lives that don't satiate them psychologically.
No, I think you think people think that.
>Yeah, they consume, but i think deep down they aren't satisfied because they didn't labor physically for it.
Just about everyone works for what they have (I don't mean there aren't some kids who get everything they want for free), just about everyone. Some do it through different methods, such as sitting down and designing schematics, solving formulas, etc. Just because it's not physically intensive, it's still satisfying.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 21 10:15:54 2011 No.3602264 OP what board were you referring to?

Anonymous Sun Aug 21 10:16:54 2011 No.3602265

>>3601092
What you're talking about has already been discussed in this thread. Such a system would very likely get no large scale projects done (space shuttle, colliders, etc), and would be very susceptible to take overs by other regions, etc.

>>3601113
>You're all stupid and I'm right!

>>3601125
>I think to accept Anarchism we would have to evolve morally, to accept universally, the non-aggression principle.
Yes, I agree with just about everything in this post. If everyone had the same type of mindset and morals, we could have an anarchist system. However, in this thread already, we have discussed why this would not work. Game theory has been brought up multiple times, such nature does not come from our culture/environment, as tabula rasa is false (also discussed).

>>3601481
>Not exactly we send plenty of people to school who do nothing with it and fail, there are plenty of these people, only the people that want to go should.
I agree, but I think he was arguing that having more people that understand the reasons for ideas will follow them more willingly.

>Except all the empirical evidenc states otherwise
I have yet to see this evidence, the best I've seen is for short periods of anarchy, which is not really that great compared to many cases with government.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Aug 21 10:26:54 2011 No.3602297 File: 341 KB, 412x468, naked_anarchists.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]