Let's talk about anarchy!

[mbonder]

Ok back on topic, regardless of what color your skin is...

It seems as though people are favoring a scaled back model of governance rather than the complete lack of it. There seem to be two big reasons for this:

1. Loss of private property is a non-starter for most
2. Handling large scale infrastructure/social issues (Former mainly construction, latter being healthcare)

As decay has already stated, there is the ideal of anarchism (and we haven't really established a true definition here as Marshall pointed out, but I'm going to just go with no government/private property at all, so as to simplify things), and the realities of what can actually be done in society today.

It seems to me that so far the best possible solution would be a scaling back of government and a ramping up of local community efforts, a hybrid system of governance and non-governance so to speak. This way individual localities can handle their daily lives as they choose (so that from my last post, you don't really need Alaskans to agree with Texans), but the large-scale stuff like infrastructure and medicare/medicaid is still provided.

To me this sounds more like a libertarian viewpoint as there is still government in place (there would have to be if we accept the concept of private property rights, interestingly enough, one of the first issues that the Founding Fathers address when writing the Constitution), however, there is just less of it than the current system.

Perhaps you guys are actually closer to agreement than you think...(oh my gawd)

[Mediumrarechicken]

Perhaps I'm 1/4 black...good job assuming race. I thought it was PC to not assume race, gender or sexual preference

[decay]

oh good lord, it's called irony. calm down.

[marshallnoise]

quit derailing the thread, cracker, we're talking about anarchism.

[decay]

quit derailing the thread, cracker, we're talking about anarchism.

[Mediumrarechicken]

fine, i guess you don't have a problem with being considered less than credible.



already answered the equivalent of this question from z31maniac (start reading the thread rather than just typing, please; i can't stand people who have open mouths and closed ears).
it's really not at all easy to participate in small, self-organized communities without contributing something.
especially in the bay area right now- it's so expensive to live here that even if you opt for the slightly-cheaper warehouse life, if you're not willing to pull your weight, someone else will.

Because YOU feel like it's racist. Ok

[decay]

I'll call it whatever I want. If you think it's racist, then whatever no skin off my back.

fine, i guess you don't have a problem with being considered less than credible.

They are sustainable with people that know What they are doing. What if no one in your community doesn't have the knowledge? What do you do with freeloaders that don't want to put in their fair share of work?

already answered the equivalent of this question from z31maniac (start reading the thread rather than just typing, please; i can't stand people who have open mouths and closed ears).
it's really not at all easy to participate in small, self-organized communities without contributing something.
especially in the bay area right now- it's so expensive to live here that even if you opt for the slightly-cheaper warehouse life, if you're not willing to pull your weight, someone else will.

[Mediumrarechicken]

sigh. you realize that shit's racist, right? can we just call it by its given name, the Affordable Care Act or ACA, whatever our opinions about it?



these are *all* arguments that make it worth considering a more decentralized governance model.



i addressed how we handle everything before the first comma above, please let me know your thoughts.
everything following that- hmm. perhaps that means these technologies and infrastructures are not so sustainable, as they currently exist?
emerging technologies have the potential to help us with these problems. off-grid living is a thing people do. solar power is a huge enabler there, for just one example.

I'll call it whatever I want. If you think it's racist, then whatever no skin off my back.

They are sustainable with people that know What they are doing. What if no one in your community doesn't have the knowledge? What do you do with freeloaders that don't want to put in their fair share of work?

[decay]

Essentially all forms of anarchism are defined by the dissolution of the state and the abolition of private property.

can we amend the first part of that to "disollution of, or acceptance that you've been abandoned by, the state"? if so, i think we'll be on the same page there.

i acknowledge that the idea of abolishing private property seems extreme to a lot of people. i'd like you to consider that it emerged in response to the concentration of wealth and property in the hands of the ownership class, for hundreds of years now. some people have a problem with that.

Now if you want to keep the state, keep private property, and attempt to live self sufficiently in a tight knit community, growing your own food, looking out for each other, while respecting those around you and respecting the law, I fully support that, but that's not really anarchy or socio-anarchy.

picking up what you're putting down- the best solution the movement has been able to come up with for this is to communally buy land and act like "it's ours but nobody owns it". again; we're back to the ideals involved in the tenets of anarchism vs what's actually possible in the real world.

[decay]

obongocare

sigh. you realize that shit's racist, right? can we just call it by its given name, the Affordable Care Act or ACA, whatever our opinions about it?

I hate that Seattle basically runs the show as to who gets elected to run and represent the state, they don't represent me and what I believe in at all. I hate the over spending. I hate being told what I can and can't do. I'll be better off by myself.

these are *all* arguments that make it worth considering a more decentralized governance model.

But what happens when groups within the community have different ideas and things get violent, or a skyscraper needs work done to it and no one knows how to fix it? What happens when it needs to be torn down. Or the power grid goes down?

i addressed how we handle everything before the first comma above, please let me know your thoughts.
everything following that- hmm. perhaps that means these technologies and infrastructures are not so sustainable, as they currently exist?
emerging technologies have the potential to help us with these problems. off-grid living is a thing people do. solar power is a huge enabler there, for just one example.

[marshallnoise]

OT: I freaking love Chattanooga for all the reasons you listed. One of my favorite places on Earth.

[coldweatherblue]

I fully support being self sufficient of the local/state/federal government.

"When seconds matter, the police are just minutes away."

etc.

I live on a hundred acres of public land with plenty of deer, wild turkey, and rabbits. I can walk 1/4 mile through the forest and be on the shores of a 50,000 acre lake full of fish, or walk to my backyard and pick as many fresh tomatoes/beans/peppers/herbs as I can eat. I'm very friendly with my neighbors and we all have firearms/ammo and stores of non perishable food.

But that doesn't make me an anarchist.

Essentially all forms of anarchism are defined by the dissolution of the state and the abolition of private property.

I have several issues with this, but simply:

1. I'm responsible for helping poor and underserved people many of whom are basically kept alive by medicare/medicaid funding. Lack of federal government would essentially be a death sentence for these people. Unless there is a clear, national plan to keep these people safe, I would not support anarchism. If a national plan is developed, then by definition, it isn't anarchism.

2. I have worked hard to provide a stable, peaceful environment, where I can sleep at night knowing my family is safe. The abolition of private property would mean that at any time a group of strangers could come into my home, takeover my property, and I would have no legal recourse. Anarchism states that my possessing a home, a car, a couch, a TV, etc creates a hierarchical society and that ethically my possessions can be taken from me in order to create equality. I do not support this.

Now if you want to keep the state, keep private property, and attempt to live self sufficiently in a tight knit community, growing your own food, looking out for each other, while respecting those around you and respecting the law, I fully support that, but that's not really anarchy or socio-anarchy. Social anarchism also believes in the dissolution of the state and lack of private property.

[Mediumrarechicken]

well, libertarians are fond of the states'-rights argument, and i don't disagree with them on that point.

socio-anarchism posits that there could be some good in breaking it down further, to the neighborhood/community level.

thoughts?

I'm all for less government. I hate that my company provided insurance is 1400 bucks a month for a family(thank God my wife works for a company that cares about it's employees so we pay 200 for better insurance) because of obongocare. I hate that Seattle basically runs the show as to who gets elected to run and represent the state, they don't represent me and what I believe in at all. I hate the over spending. I hate being told what I can and can't do. I'll be better off by myself.

But what happens when groups within the community have different ideas and things get violent, or a skyscraper needs work done to it and no one knows how to fix it? What happens when it needs to be torn down. Or the power grid goes down?

[decay]

^I would like to hear your parallel between anarchism and libertarianism.

well, libertarians are fond of the states'-rights argument, and i don't disagree with them on that point.

socio-anarchism posits that there could be some good in breaking it down further, to the neighborhood/community level.

thoughts?

[z31maniac]

Z31, you can give me shit for throwing a definition of terms on the page so we can actually have a conversation, but what you can't call it is an argument in semantics when the definition of anarchy being used here is not even remotely related to what anarchy actually is. The gap isn't merely nuance that you can call semantics. We aren't discussing shades of blue here.

It's pointless to discuss when you can't even agree on the basic definition of what you are discussing.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

My point was more that you just pulled the first hit from Google vs anything else. And that words usage and meaning change over time.