Let's talk about anarchy!

[marshallnoise]

Never been able to troll a troll so hard. I am actually proud of this moment. It's ok decay, I know it's hard to get called on your bullcrap. It's not fun, doesn't feel good and it points fingers back at you.

I still, 100% believe we are not using anarchy in the correct manner here. Am I flat out wrong?

[z31maniac]

The only problem I see with that, is that their sovereignty is still protected by my tax dollars and the protection of the Feds/Military from outside influence.

(forgive me if this has been covered already, I skipped over a lot of the inflammatory stuff)

[decay]

now that that mouth-breathing pile of redundant skin and fat is out of the discussion (at least for me), i'll happily continue discussing with anyone who wants to do so in a non-inflammatory fashion.

property rights came up as a talking point- i'd like to explore this a little.

as said in the wikipedia article, socio-anarchism retains the concept of personal property. being an adherent does not mean that my car, my laptop, my tv and my playstation suddenly belong to everyone. (i will probably share any of the above if you ask nicely and bring beer.)

there's a commune in southern california called slab city. i visited it as one of the stops on a vacation a few years back, and it's the best example of anarchism at work that i can think of at the moment. a bunch of people moved onto BLM land, and the BLM doesn't care about it enough to kick them out. they're not bothering anyone (ok except the military, some of the crazier ones like to harvest UXO from nearby mortar/artillery ranges, but they definitely do so at their own peril), they are generally self-sustaining, and i don't think it would be a worthwhile effort or use of funds to have a bunch of fedgov go in and oust them.

given that it would be otherwise sitting unused, in the middle of the desert, why should they not be able to occupy it as long as they're not causing any harm to anyone else? what would be the purpose of the federal government saying "we're not going to use this land for anything, but it's off-limits because we said so, and we're willing to spend money/resources to enforce that"?

i think the anarchist's viewpoint would be that they don't want *your* house, but if there's an unused parcel a mile away from an inland sea that smells like a giant bag of ass and nobody else wants to go there- fuck it. let them live there if it works for them. why do we need to assign/track ownership of something that almost nobody wants? that's the deal at slab city. if you can drag an RV out there, you've got a place to live.

[decay]

well it took 14 years, but someone finally made my ignore list.

[marshallnoise]

right. i've been arguing for anarchism this whole time, but really i'm a white supremacist.

*looks over at non-white girlfriend in his bed*

...

contribute something to the discussion or shut up, marshall.

Who died and made you King?

[decay]

right. i've been arguing for anarchism this whole time, but really i'm a white supremacist.

*looks over at non-white girlfriend in his bed*

...

contribute something to the discussion or shut up, marshall.

[marshallnoise]

again, that was a bit of kidding to keep things light-hearted.

i'm whiter than a freshly washed bedsheet, so like i said- irony in me calling someone a cracker.

i thought us lefties were supposed to be the easily-triggered ones? :P

Back back back back back back, waaaaay back pedalling.

[decay]

Not butthurt at all. It's just funny that you assume that I'm a white racist. Jumping to conclusions isn't a good idea.

again, that was a bit of kidding to keep things light-hearted.

i'm whiter than a freshly washed bedsheet, so like i said- irony in me calling someone a cracker.

i thought us lefties were supposed to be the easily-triggered ones? :P

[mbonder]

Your post has me somewhat cornfuzzeld, what you describe is the system of governance that this nation was founded on and the intentions of the founders themselves when forging the republic from nothing and the ashes of left by the Revolution. You allude to this with the mention of the Founders, but seem to not realize thats what your talking about. Local levels govt with the power vested in the people with a weaker centralized govt to provide the services that are for the good of all society.

No, I know exactly what I'm talking about, however, the set of Founding Fathers that eventually won the day, the Federalists (Hamilton, Washington, Madison, Jay especially) actually fought and got a stronger centralized government than what had existed under the Articles of Confederation. That stronger centralized government has led to where we are today, with the Federal government having authority over the state governments and by extension all of the people in the country. We can sit here and argue that the Constitution doesn't vest those powers explicitly in the Federal government, but the reality is that effectively that's what is happening. To say that the Federalists wanted a weak Federal government is simply revisionist history, or a lack of understanding what guys like Hamilton and Madison were fighting for (Madison at that point wanted a strong executive and a strong Federal government. He would eventually turn away from this idea before becoming president and siding with Jefferson).

To call America a Republic or a Representative Democracy is sort of a misnomer at this point (which I think is what decay has been getting at--the real results of this). Sure I can go to the polls every so often and vote for someone to represent me, but in reality there are only a few individuals that have the wealth and power to get on any given ticket and the participation of the average person in their governance is next to nothing.

Which I guess brings me back to the idea of scaling down the size of government as the average person doesn't participate in it anyway or it fails them in some way (poverty stricken areas that have high crime have been mentioned), and instead relying on individual citizens to do the work for the community. As previously stated, this more "hands off" approach seems to align more with a libertarian or utopian viewpoint depending upon how you view private property rights.

[Mediumrarechicken]

it was a joke. and no more offensive than your reference to former president obama's heritage. you don't get to claim butthurt after saying that, sorry.



it's very telling that everything you have to say here is a criticism of me directly, rather than the ideas being discussed.

it doesn't really matter that you think it's not possible; it's already happening. just not in montana.

it's not perfect, but if the status quo were perfect, we wouldn't be trying to find other solutions.

Not butthurt at all. It's just funny that you assume that I'm a white racist. Jumping to conclusions isn't a good idea.

[decay]

No its not as much at you directly its those 2 ideas you are trying to put together are polar opposites, "be good thy neighbor" is not exactly a new idea. Lending a helping hand to those in need is not either.

ok, what's not clear to me is what two ideas you think i have that are diametrically opposed. please bullet-point them and explain?

[mrsleeve]

No its not as much at you directly its those 2 ideas you are trying to put together are polar opposites, "be good thy neighbor" is not exactly a new idea. Lending a helping hand to those in need is not either.

[decay]

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

i have been saying that for a while.

the reason i am anarchist rather than libertarian is that the latter ideology does not have a solution for economically unhealthy distribution of wealth.

let's pretend we're students of history for a moment. there are precedents to look at here. what has happened to the various banana republics around the world where ownership of equity/wealth became highly concentrated to a very small subset of the given country's citizens?

hint: it usually doesn't turn out well.

[decay]

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

it was a joke. and no more offensive than your reference to former president obama's heritage. you don't get to claim butthurt after saying that, sorry.

So to sum up what you really are advocating would be the holy grail of all the 60-70's hippies, a self sustaining commune. Such places exist, go live in a Hutterite colony I dont think you will like it very much.....

Oh wait you want to keep your individual snowflakyness and live in a Utopian society, sorry I dont think those 2 items are compatible let alone can coexist very well in the manner you describe. I think you are a product of being caught between 2 worlds and are very conflicted about what you really think, I dont mean this in a insulting way at all please dont take it that way, mean it in the fact the things you describe her dont align well with many of your other opinions.

it's very telling that everything you have to say here is a criticism of me directly, rather than the ideas being discussed.

it doesn't really matter that you think it's not possible; it's already happening. just not in montana.

it's not perfect, but if the status quo were perfect, we wouldn't be trying to find other solutions.

[mrsleeve]

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.

So to sum up what you really are advocating would be the holy grail of all the 60-70's hippies, a self sustaining commune. Such places exist, go live in a Hutterite colony I dont think you will like it very much.....

Oh wait you want to keep your individual snowflakyness and live in a Utopian society, sorry I dont think those 2 items are compatible let alone can coexist very well in the manner you describe. I think you are a product of being caught between 2 worlds and are very conflicted about what you really think, I dont mean this in a insulting way at all please dont take it that way, mean it in the fact the things you describe her dont align well with many of your other opinions .

.

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.

Your post has me somewhat cornfuzzeld, what you describe is the system of governance that this nation was founded on and the intentions of the founders themselves when forging the republic from nothing and the ashes of left by the Revolution. You allude to this with the mention of the Founders, but seem to not realize thats what your talking about. Local levels govt with the power vested in the people with a weaker centralized govt to provide the services that are for the good of all society.