Anarchism: Impossible Utopia or Best Possible Chance?

[Dancing Mustard]

I've just realised why this thread is going nowhere.

It's because its originator doesn't know the first thing about either economics or human nature.

[Frigidus]

Personally I love threads like this, although I usually end up trying to debate someone who's put days of their life into researching it. I put up a good fight though.

[Tyr]

stop equating libertarian and anarchist thier not the same

To the contrary. Anarchism is the logical outcome of libertarianism, a full realization of the NAP.

You and bike boy don't seem to grasp that.

no anarchists are radicals whow ant to abolish government whereas libertarians simply want less government intrusions into our lives

Oh, how little you know.

Rothbard? Market Anarchist. Friedman and Friedman? Market Anarchists. Von Mises? Market Anarchist. Spooner? Market Anarchist. Bastiat? Market Anarchist. The foremost libertarians were Market Anarchists, and Market Anarchism is the full realization of the Non-Aggression Principle, unlike your Minarchism horseshit that only half ass applies the principle.

But hey, I don't begrudge you of that. Because in a Market Anarchist society, you could have whatever government you choose for yourself. Crazy, right? People making choices for themselves. Seems almost foreign to most folks these days.

So this horseshit about

anarchists are radicals whow ant to abolish government

is just plain uniformed. We don't want to abolish government. In order to abolish it, we would need to use force, which we're opposed to (that good ole NAP at it again!). If you want government, fine! Just don't force me into your little club.

goverbnment for all and government for some are mutually exclusive principles the law either applies to everyone or no one you have to join our club its the way society works best

[F1fth]

Well, DM and Guis pretty much summed up what I attempted to say (ever-so-clumsily). Well met, guys.

To add one more thing: sure, all people are not inherently evil. But there certainly are people out there who are willing to take advantage of others, and certainly people out there blind enough to follow those people. Once those groups gain enough power, you find an inevitable Statehood forced upon you, except you won't get to bitch about it on the internet and there will be no higher power to stop them. And most importantly, you won't be able to leave and go somewhere else. One of the keys of a hierarchy is not allowing the lower tiers to leave.

It's nice to pretend that people wouldn't f*ck each other over, but they would.

[mybike_yourface]

Voluntary interaction (contracts, jobs, etc.) aren't antithetical to anarchsim. I don't equate bosses with exploitation either, as you choose who to contract your labor and time too. There is no coercive process behind finding and choosing an employer.

Also consider that companies have less leeway to be unethical; without governments to support, enforce, and give money to such companies that would brandish such a view and actions, companies rely on their own ethical judgments to not only attract the consumer, but employees as well. It's one big circle.

This is quite obviously bollocks. People will always seek positions of power. They will always exploit others below them to get ahead. The state may well allow this to happen in some instances, but there are plenty of obvious situations in which abuse and exploitation would happen with or without state intervention. Companies don't have to rely on their own ethical judgments if they have monopolies, especially geographically. If you live in a region where the only natural resource and therefore job opportunity is, for example, mining then your employer has a monopoly and can pay you whatever the f*ck he likes. There is categorically no way to avoid abuse and exploitation in a free market because it is an inherent part of the human personality. People will lie, cheat, steal and shit on the people below them.

Free market ethics works on paper, but nowhere else.

Wouldn't this be an argument against the State? If we accept that everyone is evil, and given the opportunity they will be evil, wouldn't that mean that State, being made of men, run by men, and created by men, evil (if not more evil, due to its coercive power?). If this were truly the case, wouldn't man be better off without an unnatural hierarchy so that he isn't taken advantage of?

I suppose that you could say that, but I feel that it also implies that no matter what economic or political system we choose to live by the worse parts of human nature will plague us. Generally every political system, whether already in place or a possible alternative can be said to not "actually work" because of human nature. No matter what choice we make there will have to be sacrifices that have to be made. Until human nature is flawless we will constantly have to balance freedoms and well-being. Frankly I'm not nearly well-educated enough to say which political is system is best, but the above will always apply.

i don't believe it's human nature. it's society and this failed experiment called civilization. remember we're socialized into being human. when raised with dogs we act like dogs.

Perhaps society has accentuated the behavior to some extent, but it is the nature of all animals to do whatever they can to survive. Generally the more comfortable your life is the easier it is to survive, making comfortable living a priority. On a side note, perhaps society has trained us to be moral beings. Humans are the only animal with morals, so what's to say that they have always existed?

human being are social animals. it's been the reason for our success as a species. as far as morality goes i definatley think it's a human constuct and we'd be better off moving closer to nature.

[mybike_yourface]

Well, DM and Guis pretty much summed up what I attempted to say (ever-so-clumsily). Well met, guys.

To add one more thing: sure, all people are not inherently evil. But there certainly are people out there who are willing to take advantage of others, and certainly people out there blind enough to follow those people. Once those groups gain enough power, you find an inevitable Statehood forced upon you, except you won't get to bitch about it on the internet and there will be no higher power to stop them. And most importantly, you won't be able to leave and go somewhere else. One of the keys of a hierarchy is not allowing the lower tiers to leave.

It's nice to pretend that people wouldn't f*ck each other over, but they would.

and what is capitalism at it's core other than fucking people over.

[mybike_yourface]

there are "market anarchists" who are actually anarchist.

Which I am. Market Anarchist, and Anarcho-Capitalist are interchangeable, or didn't you know? I just prefer rejecting "capitalist" because it is often associated with todays corporatism and mercantilism, when Capitalism is nothing of the sort.

but you're a capitalist who doesn't even realise it.

I admitted to being a Capitalist, but obviously you didn't read what I had wrote about that. This doesn't surprise me, given your responses to my posts.

you believe in capital, usery, profit, private property right?

Yes.

sorry you're not in the club.

This conversation goes no further. You obviously have no clue what Anarchism is or means.

there are folks who call themselves market anarchist who oppose proffit. i think what you believe in is what has been erroniously labeled "free-market anarchism"


you obviously have no idea what anarchism is. you seem to be completely unaware of it's origins, which are most definatley anti-capitalist. anarchists are against capital, usery, profit, private property. you're just another libertarian. you may be a radical libertarian or an anti-statist but you are NOT an anarchist. face it. i'm sure it's a lonely existance. i've been involved in anarchist activism for a while and you people are a small group from what i've seen. mostly confined to college campuses and your only thing close to allies are libertarians.