Let's talk about anarchy!

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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

[marshallnoise]

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

[decay]

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

[Mediumrarechicken]

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

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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?