Anarchy

[foolish_yeti]

1. A transition would do more harm than good

Incorrect- the majority of the population in the world's situation would improve- it's just the fact that the higher classes in capitalist societies would see a decrease in consumption and affluence. So yeah, in their minds it would do more harm than good. Technology level and industry would drop because of the need to do things sustainably, but would still be at an acceptable level (and truly the only acceptable level is what can be sustained). Now of course the argument could be made that this drop would have adverse effects on certain aspects of life- and if for sure will, but the situation of the majority of the world's population will improve. Ah, well that's unthinkable to knowingly cause harm, or even death, to those affected by the change, you say? What do you think capitalism is doing every day in far greater numbers. So please don't try and take the moral high ground here- you cannot make a logical argument for it.

Incorrect, money is often confused with power in capitalist countries but look at the French pre-revolution as an example. The aristocracy had the power regardless of the wealth of the bourgeoisie (with was often much greater than that of the nobles).

The French are a fine example- thanks for bringing it up. You are quite right that pre-revolution the aristocracy held the majority of the power- although the closer you get to the revolution the less that is the case. You fail to mention that historically the aristocracy owned the majority of the land- the main factor of wealth. So while their claim to power was nobility, their means of exercising power was their great wealth. You think people just decided to listen to them because they said they were appointed by God? Step out of line and I'm sure they'd let you know who is in power- the twisted thing is they pay their own people to hurt their own people. It was around this time where you saw wealth shift from land to also include means of production as well as the merchant class (the bourgeoisie). As you said, the bourgeoisie surpassed the aristocracy in wealth. Then take a look at the French revolution itself- the fall of the monarchy and the feudal system- the rise of the plutocracy (also known as "democracy")- the shift in wealth caused a shift in power. Now take a look at current day examples. A prime example of this is NAFTA- which binds the hands of governments to protect their own people's interests. The rights of corporations, fictitious bodies, are held above the people. So yeah, money and power go hand in hand- with it you can buy henchmen for violence or buy people off in other manners.

It's easy to say: 'the community would support the elderly'. Unfortunately, the reality is that you'd only really want to support your own parents/grandparents. Those who actually did give to the elderly as a whole would be in the minority and wouldn't be enough to cover the needs. When communities get as big as cities are there is a complete dislocation from society, you don't feel responsible for the entire community and even if you did you couldn't do anything to have a significant benefit.

No, the reality is you'd want to support your community. Believe it or not in sustainable cultures to date the elderly held a place of honour and respect. Take a look at your last sentence- I love it. I couldn't agree more. Cities do not work. Not only is their the dislocation from society (through your own admission), but the requirement to import resources- which by definition is unsustainable.

The state does stop a dictatorship from rising up because it effectively separates powers and makes sure that they remain so. In an anarchic state there would be nothing to stop a popular figure gaining the support of the masses, coming to power and then initiating a reign of terror.

Can you explain why in thousands of years, hundreds of thousands of years- this rise of a popular figure never occurred. I can think of a great example in Capitalism- you guessed it- Hitler. Why was he able to rally an entire nation and bend them to his will? Germany was destroyed economically by WWI, and punished so severely that it created a desperate population. The funny thing about dictators is they cannot rise to power on their own. They either need a lot of money in comparison to those they wish to rule over (access to violence)....hmmm- wealth distribution, anyone?.... or they need a population so desperate that they will get behind anything that gives them hope.....hmmmm- wealth distribution, anyone? Dictators can only exist under the right conditions- there are plenty of examples within capitalistic society. Ever wonder why many of the countries under dictator rule were also the ones hardest hit by capitalistic expansion and annexing of resources?

That's right, everybody gets rich off of everybody else. First it was Western Europe and North America, then Japan and South Korea joined in, now China and India are getting into the swing. It seems like an unfair deal because your coming from the richer society. From the poorer society's views they realise that trade will benefit them even if it isn't equal at least it's something. The poor are still benefiting and one day when they've benefited enough they'll start doing the same to another country and the cycle will continue.

Okay- first off the idea that everyone is getting rich is false. As I've stated before, 85% of the wealth is in 10% of the hands. The bottom HALF of the world- 3.25 billion people- own 1% of the wealth. India- apparently getting into swing- has per capita assets of $1100 (compared to $144 000 for the states). You're idea of everyone getting rich of of everybody else else is flawed. The rich are getting rich off the backs of the poor- they're exactly the reason there are poor. How do you explain the fact that countries with a high number of poor are historically the ones who have been exploited the most? South America, by far and large, is poor. Central America as well...their resources are flowing up the hierarchy....both in their own countries and across the border into developed nations. To suggest that capitalism is bringing these people out from poverty is a backwards argument. It cannot be the cause of and solution to the problem. If I build a sweatshop in an impoverished nation will the people get a share of the wealth by working there. For sure. But who will get the majority of the wealth from that factory? The owners (they wouldn't open it if that wasn't the case). So yeah, it "benefits" them in that way....but wouldn't it benefit them a lot more if all the wealth from their land went to them? What is more benefical to these people- toiling in the fields for $4 a day, or toiling in those same fields for a day and walking home with all of the fruits of their labour? Capitalism is about exploitation. Anarchy looks to end that practice. To argue that you're benefiting these populations by taking their wealth and giving them a meager fraction is ridiculous.

Fine, one person's US$1 is worth just as much as another persons US$1. I should have expected such a point to be made

Oh yeah, it's such a ridiculous thing to point out that some people's money is worth more than others- can't look outside your nation- that's ridiculous. As long as your population's money is worth the same, then it's alright.

As for labour, sure it's a shame that these people aren't earning $20 an hour + super as I've already said. But it's better than nothing, which is what anarchy would offer.

How would anarchy offer nothing. If I am working for my own wealth off my own land base, how is that nothing. I work for an hour on my land, I've benefitted myself with exactly one hour of my own labour. Under a capitalist system, I can work 12hrs and make $4- where if I lived in North America, I could work for one hour and make $8. The whole principle behind capitalism is that the rich get rich of other people's labour. I pay you a devalued amount for your labour, and keep the difference for myself. You get the $1 I paid you to make a shoe, I keep the $100 profit that I made off of it. Anarchy offers people the ability to keep the wealth created through their own labour. How is that offering them nothing?

Then why are you still living in a capitalist society?

Trust me- I'm working on getting out. Nice Ad Hominem, by the way.

To say that tribalism has worked for hundreds of thousands of years is fine. But what happened to it? It ended in civilisation and dictatorships every time. It has only been fairly recently that democracy has finally emerged out of those kingships. We aren't going back to an old system. Civilisation was more effective than tribalism and so it prospered and tribes died out, simple as that.

The majority of tribal societies did not end in dictatorship. In fact it's the ones that did that eventually formed capitalism.

As for what happened to it- it was destroyed by capitalism. One day some tribes decided to annex their neighbours- and so on and so forth until you get to the present day. But doesn't that make capitalism superior? I mean, we were able to wipe out the majority of the native population of North America, our way of life must be more superior! Well, no- it may be more efficient at some things (e.g. violence), but efficiency means absolutely nothing if it's not sustainable. Think about it- for example you have 100h of land, which produce 1 ton of food a year....over time you develop a process that allows you to get 2 tons of food per year- but it turns 0.25h of land sterile. Great! You just doubled your efficiency! Sure, you'll be long dead before the land is, but if your ancestors continue along the same path, eventually they hit the wall. But his is exactly what happened- production was ramped up at the expense of the ecosystem. It thus took half the labour to produce the same results (well, not exactly, due to the law of diminishing returns...but the concept is the same). This freed up a lot of time for people to, oh, I dunno- become professional soldiers- very useful in making people see how great your obviously flawed system is. But isn't freeing up time great? It allowed for such great advances in technology! Well sure, but again, if it's not sustainable then it simply won't work. There is another great way to free up time as well- reduce consumption- and therefore the need for production. People spend their whole lives toiling away to get what? A white picket fence and nice car.

Sometimes it is good for scientists to compare animals and humans. But sometimes, like in this experiment, it is a mistake. Those deer didn't have technological advances and they didn't support each other.

Like it or not, humans are animals. It's not comparing humans to animals- it's comparing animals to animals. We for sure have technological advances to help us out- and we've survived so far because of it. We're an extremely resourceful species, but we still can't evade natural law. Unsustainable practices are unsustainable practices- less unsustainable doesn't solve the problem- it only delays the inevitable.

So you see the problem, people aren't about to just give up all that wealth they've accumulated because it's unfair on others.

Well, I would hope that they would because it's unsustainable- morality comes into play for me- but if you want just to be logical about it then sustainability is all you need. Unfortunately I do agree that people aren't just going to give up their wealth. It is going to take something to shock or force them to do so. It could be the sudden collapse of an entire ecosystem, I could be the mass death of thousands or millions of people...the personal question you have to ask yourself is what is it going to take to change your ways? Will you wait for all the salmon to disappear? Will you wait for the population of Africa to starve? At what point do you dig yourself in and say "¡Ya basta!" (enough already!).

[Anarchist]

Human nature can be re-programmed.

We just don't want it to be.

-X

Agree!
Assuming your anti-religion?(thought control)

I would much rather police myself then have these bastards do it for me,
especially since my morality dissagrees with theirs.

Granted human nature is the root of the worlds problems, I still agree with removing the weeds that grow from them, (government,religion,currency) To those that believe Anarchy will cause progress to halt is fooling themselves, It doesnt take an institution to do what is needed, It takes an institution to take what you want through force of numbers.

What does anarchy mean to me?
It does, It does mean the world to me.

If i ever had a ship or an island it would follow the laws of anarchy,
funny thing is i would have to defend it from government (United States world police!) even if your not ready for anarchy,why cant one have a neutral zone? Im guessing that is the meaning of the rogue state? A place for those no longer in need of a system that tells us how to live and treat one another?

[Anarchist]

human nature is what is tought from birth and we are all tought greed which in turn enevitably destroys any peace we may ever have if the concept of greed is erased then anarchy would possible work

not everyone is taught greed. Some people learn it from their friends, while others are just greedy from when they are born.

Capitalism teaches greed, Sociolism teaches us that power corrupts.

I dont agree that we are born Greedy, reminds me of the Gay arguement!
Another problem caused by government and religion

[Anarchist]

question how do you go about joining the rogue state and what countrys - continent dose it cover?

I would like to know aswell

(sorry catching up on the conversation)

[Anarchist]

I'm more of a communist than an anarchist, though I see no reason why a true socialist society could not exist in an anarchist form (without the need for a centralised government). I believe once people are shown how much better and fairer a cooperative system free from oppression is, to the present corrupt exploitative one, there will not be the problems of selfishness. In our present western society the greed and selfishness comes from artificial consumer propaganda. It is truly not necessary to have a bigger car, a TV in every room or to eat luxury foods from half way round the world. People are starving to death and living on the streets. If communities worked together to supply their own needs without fat cats skimming off the top of the workers produce, there would be less resentment. Everyone would realise that the harder they worked the better the whole community (or country, or planet!) fairs - not as it presently is; the harder you work, the richer your boss gets.
There would be no crime of theft as everyone would have equal access to the community resources - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
If people do commit crimes against the group, they can of course be censored - by the group. This makes justice more direct, transparent and accountable.

I couldnt have said it any better

[Anarchist]

As for police- police enforce laws, which would theoretically be non-existent since they are a function of the state. Choas? Hardly- how effective are our precious laws? Murder is illegal- how many gun deaths were there in the States last year? The prohibition of illegal drugs most likely does more harm than good. As I stated previously laws are a modern invention and we have done just fine without them before and we can do it again.

They may not be perfect but I'm pretty fond of a law that says a complete stranger can't just walk up and stab me. I agree that stabbings will still occur with or without laws, but to say that laws aren't at least keeping stabbings under control is naive. Are you honestly suggesting that if somebody were to stab another human being they shouldn't be punished or do you just think that it would never happen because everybody would have formed a giant circle singing kumbaya?

Everything else you've mentioned is basically free market economics. Without a state there would only be private schools, private hospitals, private 'law' enforcement, private energy etc etc. Until now I guess I never really realised just how right wing anarchy was lol.

What i fail to understand is why you would let someone walk up and stab you? Arent you going to protect yourself? Or are you going to lay there and bleed hoping someone comes to help you? To Save you? Personally i would shoot the SOB with my F2000, thats just me though...

If people cause problems for the peace of the community they would most likely be dealt with, then we can all move on with our lives.

As for the crippled (i wont mention process of selection,oops) that would depend on the families that care about them, the thing we must also remember is that anarchy would take a few generations to truly kick in.
For example my parents are very attached to material things(they are unhappy) but they do not see the ideal of simply walking away, I do not believe that education and health care would be hurt as badly as you believe. We would still have the technology(pending a nuclear war) ancient tribes had education systems aswell as medicine men. Why couldnt we have a modernised form of that?

Flashleg8 ive agreed with everything youve written (page 9)
Again im still catching up and theres more i want to add to

[Anarchist]

[quote="chewyman]

BTW, all this talk of a doomsday with 99.3% casualty rates is supposed to convince us that capitalism is evil and any change will be one for the better? The earth is facing problems, no doubt about that, we've got global warming, poverty, pandemics, the threat of nuclear warfare and terrorism... But doomdayers such as yourself have been promising the end of the world for thousands of years. Poverty isn't something new to capitalism so stop blaming it for everything. Just because there are flaws to capitalism does not mean that we need to change and give anarchy or communism or anything else a go. Every system will have flaws, but you're suggesting replacing a slightly flawed system with a system that doesn't even make theoretical sense, let alone practical sense.[/quote]


STAY THE COURSE!

[Skittles!]

I think I need to stop watching this thread.

[chewyman]

Incorrect- the majority of the population in the world's situation would improve- it's just the fact that the higher classes in capitalist societies would see a decrease in consumption and affluence. So yeah, in their minds it would do more harm than good. Technology level and industry would drop because of the need to do things sustainably, but would still be at an acceptable level (and truly the only acceptable level is what can be sustained). Now of course the argument could be made that this drop would have adverse effects on certain aspects of life- and if for sure will, but the situation of the majority of the world's population will improve. Ah, well that's unthinkable to knowingly cause harm, or even death, to those affected by the change, you say? What do you think capitalism is doing every day in far greater numbers. So please don't try and take the moral high ground here- you cannot make a logical argument for it.

I'm being sent two very conflicting messages here. Apparently we have to give up all our technological advances because they are evil and unsustainable. But I'm also being told that:

those that believe Anarchy will cause progress to halt is fooling themselves

Which one of these arguments am I supposed to believe?

The French are a fine example- thanks for bringing it up. You are quite right that pre-revolution the aristocracy held the majority of the power- although the closer you get to the revolution the less that is the case. You fail to mention that historically the aristocracy owned the majority of the land- the main factor of wealth. So while their claim to power was nobility, their means of exercising power was their great wealth. You think people just decided to listen to them because they said they were appointed by God? Step out of line and I'm sure they'd let you know who is in power- the twisted thing is they pay their own people to hurt their own people. It was around this time where you saw wealth shift from land to also include means of production as well as the merchant class (the bourgeoisie). As you said, the bourgeoisie surpassed the aristocracy in wealth. Then take a look at the French revolution itself- the fall of the monarchy and the feudal system- the rise of the plutocracy (also known as "democracy")- the shift in wealth caused a shift in power. Now take a look at current day examples. A prime example of this is NAFTA- which binds the hands of governments to protect their own people's interests. The rights of corporations, fictitious bodies, are held above the people. So yeah, money and power go hand in hand- with it you can buy henchmen for violence or buy people off in other manners.

Money and land are not the same thing either. Money and land are both assets, money can purchase land and land can be utilised in earning money but that is where the similarities stop. French noble power came from the lands they owned and the surfs attached to them. But as I've already stated, many nobles were very poor compared to members of the bourgeoisie, but they we're still more powerful through government.

Corporations aren't fictitious bodies, they are an association of individuals and therefore have the same rights as individuals. As for buying people off as henchmen I agree that that is a flaw in a free market economy and it's why I believe a state must regulate the market to a limited extent. But in an anarchy the problem of henchmen would get even worse. There would be no state to say that you can't buy goons to beat others up and you could silence all resistance.

No, the reality is you'd want to support your community. Believe it or not in sustainable cultures to date the elderly held a place of honour and respect. Take a look at your last sentence- I love it. I couldn't agree more. Cities do not work. Not only is their the dislocation from society (through your own admission), but the requirement to import resources- which by definition is unsustainable.

I never said cities don't work. Cities form centres of learning, art, research, health care and business. Not every society can have a major hospital and that's why you don't see them in every town of 200 people. Only cities can sustain such major workings of civilisation. When a farmer from the countryside suffers from a rare heart disease s/he is sent to a hospital in the city for treatment. Cities unfortunately are be too high a concentration of people for the area to sustain and it is the responsibility of the rural sectors to support this imbalance. But I've already explained the benefit cities bring to the rural sectors. It is a symbiotic relationship where everybody benefits.

Can you explain why in thousands of years, hundreds of thousands of years- this rise of a popular figure never occurred. I can think of a great example in Capitalism- you guessed it- Hitler. Why was he able to rally an entire nation and bend them to his will? Germany was destroyed economically by WWI, and punished so severely that it created a desperate population. The funny thing about dictators is they cannot rise to power on their own. They either need a lot of money in comparison to those they wish to rule over (access to violence)....hmmm- wealth distribution, anyone?.... or they need a population so desperate that they will get behind anything that gives them hope.....hmmmm- wealth distribution, anyone? Dictators can only exist under the right conditions- there are plenty of examples within capitalistic society. Ever wonder why many of the countries under dictator rule were also the ones hardest hit by capitalistic expansion and annexing of resources?

Of course I can't name any figures. Those tribes rely on word of mouth, they have never developed a written language and effective means of recording. The fact that I can't name anybody is proof of how inefficient tribalism is at developing technology. What I can tell you though is that kings and their kingdoms didn't just appear out of nowhere.

Okay- first off the idea that everyone is getting rich is false. As I've stated before, 85% of the wealth is in 10% of the hands. The bottom HALF of the world- 3.25 billion people- own 1% of the wealth. India- apparently getting into swing- has per capita assets of $1100 (compared to $144 000 for the states). You're idea of everyone getting rich of of everybody else else is flawed. The rich are getting rich off the backs of the poor- they're exactly the reason there are poor. How do you explain the fact that countries with a high number of poor are historically the ones who have been exploited the most? South America, by far and large, is poor. Central America as well...their resources are flowing up the hierarchy....both in their own countries and across the border into developed nations. To suggest that capitalism is bringing these people out from poverty is a backwards argument. It cannot be the cause of and solution to the problem. If I build a sweatshop in an impoverished nation will the people get a share of the wealth by working there. For sure. But who will get the majority of the wealth from that factory? The owners (they wouldn't open it if that wasn't the case). So yeah, it "benefits" them in that way....but wouldn't it benefit them a lot more if all the wealth from their land went to them? What is more benefical to these people- toiling in the fields for $4 a day, or toiling in those same fields for a day and walking home with all of the fruits of their labour? Capitalism is about exploitation. Anarchy looks to end that practice. To argue that you're benefiting these populations by taking their wealth and giving them a meager fraction is ridiculous.

Why is it so ridiculous? You're still looking at this situation from a wealthy person's point of view. It's only natural that the party who puts forward the most capital or capital at the highest risk will get the bigger reward. So it's true in what you call 'exploitative capitalism' that the richer party gets a lot better off that the poorer party. But the sweatshop worker is also benefiting, it's that symbiotic relationship thing all over again.

Anarchy isn't offering a solution to the sweatshop worker, it's just putting the wealthy on the same level. Nobody is actually benefiting but the wealthy will suffer. If the sweatshop worker had a better option (working on and obtaining full reward for their labour) then don't you think that they would do it? The reason they aren't getting 100% for every shoe they make is that the material for the shoe isn't theirs, it's the company's. If a poor person thought that they could work and get all the money for their labours for themselves then don't you think they would do it? Services are one thing, but it's goods where the real money lies.

Oh yeah, it's such a ridiculous thing to point out that some people's money is worth more than others- can't look outside your nation- that's ridiculous. As long as your population's money is worth the same, then it's alright.

It's not ridiculous, it's just skirting the issue. The point remains the same and that's why I changed the example for you. If you'd like another example (and we're talking goods, not services here): one person's ounce of gold is worth just as much as another person's ounce. For services there is a level of unfairness. But you can't just wipe the slate clean, as nation's economies grow and GDP rises the same peoples' services will be worth more money. It's a process that will take time, but it's a process that has been proven to work.

How would anarchy offer nothing. If I am working for my own wealth off my own land base, how is that nothing. I work for an hour on my land, I've benefitted myself with exactly one hour of my own labour. Under a capitalist system, I can work 12hrs and make $4- where if I lived in North America, I could work for one hour and make $8. The whole principle behind capitalism is that the rich get rich of other people's labour. I pay you a devalued amount for your labour, and keep the difference for myself. You get the $1 I paid you to make a shoe, I keep the $100 profit that I made off of it. Anarchy offers people the ability to keep the wealth created through their own labour. How is that offering them nothing?

Nobody is forcing the sweatshop worker to work 12 hours for $4. S/he is free to work for his/her own wealth off of his/her own land base in capitalism just as you claim. The fact that the poor see more profit in working at a sweatshop should be telling you something is very wrong with your notions of anarchy. I've explained how wages for services will rise in my previous paragraph.

Trust me- I'm working on getting out. Nice Ad Hominem, by the way.

I don't particularly trust you. If you hadn't bought your computer and the hardware connecting you to the internet you'd already have enough money to get into Africa or South America. Heck, there are probably even small communities within the US that have been founded by anarchists as a sort of utopia. Thank you, but let's keep latin out of our debates shall we? As the old phrase goes: 'si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes'. Incidentally, if you see something wrong in my reasoning please point it out to me. I just fail to see how somebody can be so fond of tribalism but choose to live away from it enjoying the benefits of a system s/he claims degrades and exploits people.

The majority of tribal societies did not end in dictatorship. In fact it's the ones that did that eventually formed capitalism.

As for what happened to it- it was destroyed by capitalism. One day some tribes decided to annex their neighbours- and so on and so forth until you get to the present day. But doesn't that make capitalism superior? I mean, we were able to wipe out the majority of the native population of North America, our way of life must be more superior! Well, no- it may be more efficient at some things (e.g. violence), but efficiency means absolutely nothing if it's not sustainable. Think about it- for example you have 100h of land, which produce 1 ton of food a year....over time you develop a process that allows you to get 2 tons of food per year- but it turns 0.25h of land sterile. Great! You just doubled your efficiency! Sure, you'll be long dead before the land is, but if your ancestors continue along the same path, eventually they hit the wall.

Your question: does it make you superior?
The answer: yes.
One day the sun will have expanded to such an extent that temperatures on earth will reach an unlivable level. Before that an asteroid will hit the earth and wipe out life as we know it. Tribalism doesn't offer us any choice against that, capitalism gives us a chance to get off this rock. Before you say that my examples are in such a distant future that they don't matter think again. There's every chance an asteroid will hit us tomorrow, or if not tomorrow the day after, or the day after that. Space is enormous and because of the speed at which an asteroid would be traveling it's very likely that even with our current level of technology we wouldn't even know it was coming before it entered the atmosphere.

Like it or not, humans are animals. It's not comparing humans to animals- it's comparing animals to animals. We for sure have technological advances to help us out- and we've survived so far because of it. We're an extremely resourceful species, but we still can't evade natural law. Unsustainable practices are unsustainable practices- less unsustainable doesn't solve the problem- it only delays the inevitable.

Please refer to previous paragraph concerning giant rocks falling on our heads.

[chewyman]

As for police- police enforce laws, which would theoretically be non-existent since they are a function of the state. Choas? Hardly- how effective are our precious laws? Murder is illegal- how many gun deaths were there in the States last year? The prohibition of illegal drugs most likely does more harm than good. As I stated previously laws are a modern invention and we have done just fine without them before and we can do it again.

They may not be perfect but I'm pretty fond of a law that says a complete stranger can't just walk up and stab me. I agree that stabbings will still occur with or without laws, but to say that laws aren't at least keeping stabbings under control is naive. Are you honestly suggesting that if somebody were to stab another human being they shouldn't be punished or do you just think that it would never happen because everybody would have formed a giant circle singing kumbaya?

Everything else you've mentioned is basically free market economics. Without a state there would only be private schools, private hospitals, private 'law' enforcement, private energy etc etc. Until now I guess I never really realised just how right wing anarchy was lol.

What i fail to understand is why you would let someone walk up and stab you? Arent you going to protect yourself? Or are you going to lay there and bleed hoping someone comes to help you? To Save you? Personally i would shoot the SOB with my F2000, thats just me though...

If people cause problems for the peace of the community they would most likely be dealt with, then we can all move on with our lives.

As for the crippled (i wont mention process of selection,oops) that would depend on the families that care about them, the thing we must also remember is that anarchy would take a few generations to truly kick in.
For example my parents are very attached to material things(they are unhappy) but they do not see the ideal of simply walking away, I do not believe that education and health care would be hurt as badly as you believe. We would still have the technology(pending a nuclear war) ancient tribes had education systems aswell as medicine men. Why couldnt we have a modernised form of that?

Flashleg8 ive agreed with everything youve written (page 9)
Again im still catching up and theres more i want to add to

OK then, say I struggled but it was the national heavy weight boxer with the knife in his hand. Or say I was sick, starving or old. Whatever it is, does it have anything to do with the basic argument?

BTW, stop posting so much, just edit the original post if you're going to add information. This debate isn't just about your post count.



EDIT: Oh, and why do you think that F2000 or yours was produced? It sure as hell wasn't for the betterment of society. It was because capitalists knew that they could make a profit by meeting the demand in society for protection.

[Anarchist]

I cant believe that those in favour of Anarchy accept the chaos between conception and actualisation, the murder of millions of our society, and the destruction of most of our social and economics structures as an unfortunate, and acceptable non-issue.

That is where they enter the realm of Cloud cookoo land in my opinion.

I don't actually know any anarchists personally so I can't comment but I'll agree with you about communists. When the war in Iraq was first announced I was having a discussion about it with some political friends of mine. I was surprised to see one friend, who is a staunch communist, who supported the Americans invading Iraq. I said I was shocked to hear that and asked why. He basically told me that the war would turn global opinion against America and reveal the flaws of the bourgeoisie. The idea of supporting a war where tens of thousands of people would die because it would send a political message horrified me. Human life means nothing to a true communist, it is all about the will of the majority. It's a very utilitarian system and that's why it sounds so good on paper. Unfortunately, it's when you get down to the practicalities, like the lives of a few thousand human beings, that you start to see the flaws in it.

Your right, I guess hoping the world learns its lesson is worse then pulling the trigger. Arent you the one supporting the sweatshops?

One ideal with with anarchists tend to be a lack of selfishness, when you say wealth your saying Cars,TVs,Mansions,etc.. When a anarchist says it he means food,music,poetry,shelter. I dont need a TV, I need food. Glad your watching tv while i starve to death.

To alternative energy i prefer a Superconductivity,Magnetic engine approach. Nikolas Tesla was working on a never ending engine. The problem with that is its bad for economy. Why use a renewable universal resource when you can control it and raise prices?(sorry i dont remember the name of his engine, but if you research Non-fuel motors im sure youll come across it) Dont get me started on why hemp is illegal!

Inda was a wealthy country, it was when england got there it ended up the way it is. Also religion effects government too, as for how to fix the inequality of the distribution of wealth?
-Rob the 10%

The problem with humanitarian aid isnt the actual process, its what we send. We send them food, when they need seeds. Wesend them water when they need to irrigate the land. We give them band aids when they need stitches. Capitalism is flawed, in the end all government is. At the least its time for a change.

The difference with a anarchist and a capitalist is glasnost (we will often admit that we were wrong or that your idea is better) Capitalism says "here take this and shut up"

Oh by the way, your Communist friend he was right.
(Your right about the EDIT, didnt think of that. Prolly screw it up but ill do it)

[Skittles!]

Okay. I have to disagree with your India thing..

India is still a wealthy country. It's only because of their social structure and possibly with the British that it is like it is.

[chewyman]

Your right, I guess hoping the world learns its lesson is worse then pulling the trigger. Arent you the one supporting the sweatshops?

What do sweatshops and the invasion of Iraq have to do with each other? I'm not the one that decided to go to war in Iraq, I was against the initial invasion. It wasn't capitalism that invaded Iraq it was the United States and a few allies, which just so happens to be a capitalist countries. Of all the different reasons for going to war only the oil one matches to capitalist motives but let's not get into a debate on the real reasons for war in Iraq shall we? It could have been WMD's, oil, Saddam's reign of terror, a response to terrorism, bringing democracy to the Middle East and a whole heap of other things. Supporting an invasion is just as bad as conducting one IMO.

One ideal with with anarchists tend to be a lack of selfishness, when you say wealth your saying Cars,TVs,Mansions,etc.. When a anarchist says it he means food,music,poetry,shelter. I dont need a TV, I need food. Glad your watching tv while i starve to death.

I honestly don't know how to reply to this. Are you trying to tell me that you're starving to death? If so, shouldn't you be out looking for a meal rather than talking over the internet?

To alternative energy i prefer a Superconductivity,Magnetic engine approach. Nikolas Tesla was working on a never ending engine. The problem with that is its bad for economy. Why use a renewable universal resource when you can control it and raise prices?(sorry i dont remember the name of his engine, but if you research Non-fuel motors im sure youll come across it) Dont get me started on why hemp is illegal!

I don't know anything about this so I won't comment. All I will say is that it sounds an awful lot like a perpetual motion machine, which defies the laws of physics. Power is used up, you can't have some engine that just produces infinite power without expending some sort of raw material. As for the legalisation of marijuana you don't need to get started. I'm a believer in the free market (within boundaries) and I definitely believe that hemp should be legalised.

Inda was a wealthy country, it was when england got there it ended up the way it is. Also religion effects government too, as for how to fix the inequality of the distribution of wealth?

Not actually true. While you could argue that it was wealthy it was also significantly far behind Western Europe in terms of technology (much like China pre-opium wars). However, the wealth that you've mentioned was concentrated into the hands of the elite, forgot 10%, more like 1%.

The problem with humanitarian aid isnt the actual process, its what we send. We send them food, when they need seeds. Wesend them water when they need to irrigate the land. We give them band aids when they need stitches. Capitalism is flawed, in the end all government is. At the least its time for a change.

It doesn't matter what we send if it never gets to where it's needed anyway. I have a friend who donated to one of those $1 a day programs to help a child in Africa and her village. My friend's dad visited Africa and went to see this girl and her village. It turned out that the village never existed and that the money had been funneled into the pockets of corrupt aid workers or government officials (I forget which).

The difference with a anarchist and a capitalist is glasnost (we will often admit that we were wrong or that your idea is better) Capitalism says "here take this and shut up"

I haven't seen any evidence of that so far. This seems like just an unsubstantiated generalisation to me...

Oh by the way, your Communist friend he was right. Razz

If by that you mean that the war turned global public opinion against the US then I agree (what was that about capitalists never agreeing). But if you mean that you also supported the war for that reason then you are a sick and twisted individual who needs to learn to appreciate the value of human life.

[Guiscard]

Anarchist, you've somewhat undone a lot of the really good arguments Yeti has been making...

I'm generally pretty socialist in my political stance, and I sure as hell don't agree with capitalism, but from you I get 'my-first-politics teenage angst' and from Yeti I get 'well reasoned political argument'. Don't come and say things like you're starving, because we all know that you live in a house with the internet. You're as well off as everyone else on this site. You don't seem to have thought through your arguments too well and its doing more harm than good in this debate.

On the other hand, good work Yeti. You've convinced me of a couple of things I'd never really thought about before.

[foolish_yeti]

I'm being sent two very conflicting messages here. Apparently we have to give up all our technological advances because they are evil and unsustainable. But I'm also being told that:

those that believe Anarchy will cause progress to halt is fooling themselves

Which one of these arguments am I supposed to believe?

I have never stated we have to give up all technological advances, or that they are all evil. What I did say is we have to find what level of technology is sustainable. Which does not mean that everything will stagnate- it just means that whatever advances are made need to keep sustainability in mind. The two statements are not incongruous at all.

Money and land are not the same thing either. Money and land are both assets, money can purchase land and land can be utilised in earning money but that is where the similarities stop.

French noble power came from the lands they owned and the surfs attached to them. But as I've already stated, many nobles were very poor compared to members of the bourgeoisie, but they we're still more powerful through government.[/quote]

Of course money and land are not the same thing. They are forms of wealth. My point was that you're talking of a period when the main source of wealth shifted from land to money. As I stated you are correct that in this period the nobles were more powerful than the merchants. Very soon after, you saw this power flip (the french revolution). You're using a transitional period to prove your point.

Corporations aren't fictitious bodies, they are an association of individuals and therefore have the same rights as individuals.

Corporations are intellectual creations- artificial legal constructions. You are quite right they are made up of people- but you can do that without being a corporation. Corporations were originally formed to accomplish tasks that were too massive for one person to do on their own- the legislature had to grant them corporate status, and they only existed until their goal was completed. This was done to protect public interest. Fine and dandy- modern corporations now have similar rights to actual people to protect their interests (not the people). Even if you are part of the corporation, you often cannot be held accountable for your actions- it falls on the corporation (an exception of course is when the corporation itself takes action against you). If you're interested in corporations the movie "the corporation" is an interesting introduction- it's online.

As for buying people off as henchmen I agree that that is a flaw in a free market economy and it's why I believe a state must regulate the market to a limited extent. But in an anarchy the problem of henchmen would get even worse. There would be no state to say that you can't buy goons to beat others up and you could silence all resistance.

My use of the word henchmen is problematic- I meant it to include legal henchmen, such as police and military personnel. That's not to say that all they do is evil. Cultural constructions are protected and propagated by their institutions. As for needing a state for protection- you are thinking at current crime levels, which would significantly drop- capitalism creates a lot of crime. Of course undesirable things would always occur- I'm not suggesting (as is often tabled against other forms of social organisation) that everyone would peacefully co-exist.

No, the reality is you'd want to support your community. Believe it or not in sustainable cultures to date the elderly held a place of honour and respect. Take a look at your last sentence- I love it. I couldn't agree more. Cities do not work. Not only is their the dislocation from society (through your own admission), but the requirement to import resources- which by definition is unsustainable.

Cities unfortunately are be too high a concentration of people for the area to sustain and it is the responsibility of the rural sectors to support this imbalance. But I've already explained the benefit cities bring to the rural sectors. It is a symbiotic relationship where everybody benefits.

If the rural communities surrounding an area could support a higher concentration of people in one area then that would be fine. You would still be within carrying capacity- it doesn't matter where the land needed is, as long as it's somewhere. The issue with it not being close is that transportation ups consumption a lot, as well as introduces the possibility of taking resources from land bases where the local population requires them. Thus, in terms of sustainability, local is grand. The problem with cities is this is not the case. No modern city is supported solely through it's rural surroundings.

What I can tell you though is that kings and their kingdoms didn't just appear out of nowhere.

Feudalism is a political form of organisation. Capitalism is an economic one. While it was never called Capitalism, there are very similar elements to the periods you are talking about. Industrialisation ramped up capitalism, but the main idea of privately owned means of production for profit was the same. Of course nobility did not just appear- as I've already related they came from tribalism (as did everything).

But the sweatshop worker is also benefiting, it's that symbiotic relationship thing all over again.

You've ignored my response and made the same argument again. It would benefit these workers more if they got the full value of their labour- rather than a fraction.

Anarchy isn't offering a solution to the sweatshop worker, it's just putting the wealthy on the same level. Nobody is actually benefiting but the wealthy will suffer.

I'm really not understanding you're whole notion that giving someone the entire value of their labour rather than a fraction is does not benefit them. I also don't understand how giving them ownership of their land back would also not benefit them.

If the sweatshop worker had a better option (working on and obtaining full reward for their labour) then don't you think that they would do it? The reason they aren't getting 100% for every shoe they make is that the material for the shoe isn't theirs, it's the company's. If a poor person thought that they could work and get all the money for their labours for themselves then don't you think they would do it? Services are one thing, but it's goods where the real money lies.

Some are trying to do so. Capitalism uses violence against them. Why do you think the States decimated Nicaragua? Why do you think the Mexican government is destroying the Zapatistas? Capitalism cannot stand people living outside the system. It is very difficult to get useable land in a capitalist world and attempt to remove oneself from the system. Those who are not resisting are doing so out of fear of violence.

It's not ridiculous, it's just skirting the issue. The point remains the same and that's why I changed the example for you. If you'd like another example (and we're talking goods, not services here): one person's ounce of gold is worth just as much as another person's ounce.

Your example was money- which is different than gold (although the prices are linked). One is national, the other international.

Nobody is forcing the sweatshop worker to work 12 hours for $4. S/he is free to work for his/her own wealth off of his/her own land base in capitalism just as you claim. The fact that the poor see more profit in working at a sweatshop should be telling you something is very wrong with your notions of anarchy.

They are being forced. However it's not as overt as someone with a gun to their head (although sometimes this is the case). If they could make their living elsewhere they would- go work in a sweatshop and see how happy it makes you. Of course they would do something else if they felt they had the choice. As I previously stated- access to land is the main issue.

I don't particularly trust you. If you hadn't bought your computer and the hardware connecting you to the internet you'd already have enough money to get into Africa or South America.

The African and South American people cannot even live sustainably off their own land due to capitalism. Besides, moving onto someone else's land is not a viable option. If they are support themselves sustainably they cannot do so with an influx of new population looking to get away from capitalism.

Thank you, but let's keep latin out of our debates shall we? As the old phrase goes: 'si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes'. Incidentally, if you see something wrong in my reasoning please point it out to me. I just fail to see how somebody can be so fond of tribalism but choose to live away from it enjoying the benefits of a system s/he claims degrades and exploits people.

Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy.

One day the sun will have expanded to such an extent that temperatures on earth will reach an unlivable level. Before that an asteroid will hit the earth and wipe out life as we know it. Tribalism doesn't offer us any choice against that, capitalism gives us a chance to get off this rock. Before you say that my examples are in such a distant future that they don't matter think again. There's every chance an asteroid will hit us tomorrow, or if not tomorrow the day after, or the day after that. Space is enormous and because of the speed at which an asteroid would be traveling it's very likely that even with our current level of technology we wouldn't even know it was coming before it entered the atmosphere.

You've already been quite vocal in your criticism of me for doomsday prophecy, as well as for believing that a collapse is not only imminent but close- and then you turn around and try and use this? Whatever, I'll bite- First off, the sun will not expand for a looooooooooooooooong time. As for the asteroid there's nothing we can do to prevent it- but we do have a chance to do something about Capitalism.

[Neutrino]

Your question: does it make you superior?
The answer: yes.
One day the sun will have expanded to such an extent that temperatures on earth will reach an unlivable level. Before that an asteroid will hit the earth and wipe out life as we know it. Tribalism doesn't offer us any choice against that, capitalism gives us a chance to get off this rock. Before you say that my examples are in such a distant future that they don't matter think again. There's every chance an asteroid will hit us tomorrow, or if not tomorrow the day after, or the day after that. Space is enormous and because of the speed at which an asteroid would be traveling it's very likely that even with our current level of technology we wouldn't even know it was coming before it entered the atmosphere.

I was sure someone would bring this up as a defence for Capitalism.

Now, Sol going Gas Giant is 5 Billion + years away. Thats not something you have to worry about any time soon. Infact, the human race is likely to be extincy, as the average lifespan of a species is 5 Mill or so years (I cant remember where I got this from), so even with humanitiys shiny technology we are unlikely to last 5000 Million years.

Now: the Asteriod thing.
There is a chance that an Asteriod might impact tomorrow. Is there anything we can do about it? No.
Will there be anything we can do about it in 20 years, even under Capitalism? Probably not.
If you want to support some kind of Asteriod Protection System as a big policy, you had better start now, because it will take years and billions of dollars to get one in place. And will it be reliable? Nope.
You can throw hundreds of billions of dollars at it and hope that your system will work, or use those resources for humanity down here and just hope that nothing wil come. Trust me, the second option is far better.

There are somethings you can plan for and some things you cant. Asteriod protection is one that you cant.

Just say humanity sticks to Capitalism and manages to survive until they get a significant number of people off-planet. Now, pretty much as soon as that happens, mining and various forms of exploitation will begin. Now, because this is Capitalism, these various froms of exploiting the natural resources will take place on huge scales. NEO (Near Earth Objects) will be used up in mere decades the Asteriod belt might take a while, but that will go too eventually. The Trojans, as rich as they may be, wont take long when faced with such ruthless exploitation.

The beauty of unrestrained population growth is that it is exponential (doubles roughly every 35 years, at the present rate). Now, at that rate, humanity will use up all of the available water in the solar system in a few hundred years (Total Pop. 100 trillion or so). At that point you will have to leave.
Humanity scatters to the stars, etc etc, colonising planets, exploiting things, etc. Now, if humanity wishes to maintain that high population growth and that large amount of exploiting, the leading edge of the colonising wave will have to move faster and faster. Eventually it will hit the speed of light (note, all of this is happening in crappy sublight ships), at which point you are screwed. Towards the center of the colonising bubble, where the planets have been colonised for the longest, people will begin to run out of resources. Theyare in a system surounded by just as desperate and heavily armed systems fighting over limited resources. You guess what happens.

Een though this example deals mostly with unrestrained population growth, it can also be used against Capitalism.

High use of resources for personal gain = rsources used up faster = damnit, im out of fuel, lets go to another planet and get more = expantion = running out of resources = war.

[foolish_yeti]

I'm being sent two very conflicting messages here. Apparently we have to give up all our technological advances because they are evil and unsustainable. But I'm also being told that:

those that believe Anarchy will cause progress to halt is fooling themselves

Which one of these arguments am I supposed to believe?

I have never stated we have to give up all technological advances, or that they are all evil. What I did say is we have to find what level of technology is sustainable. Which does not mean that everything will stagnate- it just means that whatever advances are made need to keep sustainability in mind. The two statements are not incongruous at all.

Money and land are not the same thing either. Money and land are both assets, money can purchase land and land can be utilised in earning money but that is where the similarities stop.

French noble power came from the lands they owned and the surfs attached to them. But as I've already stated, many nobles were very poor compared to members of the bourgeoisie, but they we're still more powerful through government.

Of course money and land are not the same thing. They are forms of wealth. My point was that you're talking of a period when the main source of wealth shifted from land to money. As I stated you are correct that in this period the nobles were more powerful than the merchants. Very soon after, you saw this power flip (the french revolution). You're using a transitional period to prove your point.

Corporations aren't fictitious bodies, they are an association of individuals and therefore have the same rights as individuals.

Corporations are intellectual creations- artificial legal constructions. You are quite right they are made up of people- but you can do that without being a corporation. Corporations were originally formed to accomplish tasks that were too massive for one person to do on their own- the legislature had to grant them corporate status, and they only existed until their goal was completed. This was done to protect public interest. Fine and dandy- modern corporations now have similar rights to actual people to protect their interests (not the people). Even if you are part of the corporation, you often cannot be held accountable for your actions- it falls on the corporation (an exception of course is when the corporation itself takes action against you). If you're interested in corporations the movie "the corporation" is an interesting introduction- it's online.

As for buying people off as henchmen I agree that that is a flaw in a free market economy and it's why I believe a state must regulate the market to a limited extent. But in an anarchy the problem of henchmen would get even worse. There would be no state to say that you can't buy goons to beat others up and you could silence all resistance.

My use of the word henchmen is problematic- I meant it to include legal henchmen, such as police and military personnel. That's not to say that all they do is evil. Cultural constructions are protected and propagated by their institutions. As for needing a state for protection- you are thinking at current crime levels, which would significantly drop- capitalism creates a lot of crime. Of course undesirable things would always occur- I'm not suggesting (as is often tabled against other forms of social organisation) that everyone would peacefully co-exist.

Cities unfortunately are be too high a concentration of people for the area to sustain and it is the responsibility of the rural sectors to support this imbalance. But I've already explained the benefit cities bring to the rural sectors. It is a symbiotic relationship where everybody benefits.

If the rural communities surrounding an area could support a higher concentration of people in one area then that would be fine. You would still be within carrying capacity- it doesn't matter where the land needed is, as long as it's somewhere. The issue with it not being close is that transportation ups consumption a lot, as well as introduces the possibility of taking resources from land bases where the local population requires them. Thus, in terms of sustainability, local is grand. The problem with cities is this is not the case. No modern city is supported solely through it's rural surroundings.

What I can tell you though is that kings and their kingdoms didn't just appear out of nowhere.

Feudalism is a political form of organisation. Capitalism is an economic one. While it was never called Capitalism, there are very similar elements to the periods you are talking about. Industrialisation ramped up capitalism, but the main idea of privately owned means of production for profit was the same. Of course nobility did not just appear- as I've already related they came from tribalism (as did everything).

But the sweatshop worker is also benefiting, it's that symbiotic relationship thing all over again.

You've ignored my response and made the same argument again. It would benefit these workers more if they got the full value of their labour- rather than a fraction.

Anarchy isn't offering a solution to the sweatshop worker, it's just putting the wealthy on the same level. Nobody is actually benefiting but the wealthy will suffer.

I'm really not understanding you're whole notion that giving someone the entire value of their labour rather than a fraction is does not benefit them. I also don't understand how giving them ownership of their land back would also not benefit them.

If the sweatshop worker had a better option (working on and obtaining full reward for their labour) then don't you think that they would do it? The reason they aren't getting 100% for every shoe they make is that the material for the shoe isn't theirs, it's the company's. If a poor person thought that they could work and get all the money for their labours for themselves then don't you think they would do it? Services are one thing, but it's goods where the real money lies.

Some are trying to do so. Capitalism uses violence against them. Why do you think the States decimated Nicaragua? Why do you think the Mexican government is destroying the Zapatistas? Capitalism cannot stand people living outside the system. It is very difficult to get useable land in a capitalist world and attempt to remove oneself from the system. Those who are not resisting are doing so out of fear of violence.

It's not ridiculous, it's just skirting the issue. The point remains the same and that's why I changed the example for you. If you'd like another example (and we're talking goods, not services here): one person's ounce of gold is worth just as much as another person's ounce.

Your example was money- which is different than gold (although the prices are linked). One is national, the other international.

Nobody is forcing the sweatshop worker to work 12 hours for $4. S/he is free to work for his/her own wealth off of his/her own land base in capitalism just as you claim. The fact that the poor see more profit in working at a sweatshop should be telling you something is very wrong with your notions of anarchy.

They are being forced. However it's not as overt as someone with a gun to their head (although sometimes this is the case). If they could make their living elsewhere they would- go work in a sweatshop and see how happy it makes you. Of course they would do something else if they felt they had the choice. As I previously stated- access to land is the main issue.

I don't particularly trust you. If you hadn't bought your computer and the hardware connecting you to the internet you'd already have enough money to get into Africa or South America.

The African and South American people cannot even live sustainably off their own land due to capitalism. There are very few communities living sustainably anywhere because they have been pretty much wiped out or annexed into the capitalistic system. Besides, moving onto someone else's land is not a viable option. If they are support themselves sustainably they cannot do so with an influx of new population looking to get away from capitalism.

Thank you, but let's keep latin out of our debates shall we? As the old phrase goes: 'si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes'. Incidentally, if you see something wrong in my reasoning please point it out to me. I just fail to see how somebody can be so fond of tribalism but choose to live away from it enjoying the benefits of a system s/he claims degrades and exploits people.

Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy.

One day the sun will have expanded to such an extent that temperatures on earth will reach an unlivable level. Before that an asteroid will hit the earth and wipe out life as we know it. Tribalism doesn't offer us any choice against that, capitalism gives us a chance to get off this rock. Before you say that my examples are in such a distant future that they don't matter think again. There's every chance an asteroid will hit us tomorrow, or if not tomorrow the day after, or the day after that. Space is enormous and because of the speed at which an asteroid would be traveling it's very likely that even with our current level of technology we wouldn't even know it was coming before it entered the atmosphere.

You've already been quite vocal in your criticism of me for doomsday prophecy, as well as for believing that a collapse is not only imminent but close- and then you turn around and try and use this? Whatever, I'll bite- First off, the sun will not expand for a looooooooooooooooong time. As for the asteroid there's nothing we can do to prevent it- but we do have a chance to do something about Capitalism.

[chewyman]

I was sure someone would bring this up as a defence for Capitalism.

Now, Sol going Gas Giant is 5 Billion + years away. Thats not something you have to worry about any time soon. Infact, the human race is likely to be extincy, as the average lifespan of a species is 5 Mill or so years (I cant remember where I got this from), so even with humanitiys shiny technology we are unlikely to last 5000 Million years.

Now: the Asteriod thing.
There is a chance that an Asteriod might impact tomorrow. Is there anything we can do about it? No.
Will there be anything we can do about it in 20 years, even under Capitalism? Probably not.
If you want to support some kind of Asteriod Protection System as a big policy, you had better start now, because it will take years and billions of dollars to get one in place. And will it be reliable? Nope.
You can throw hundreds of billions of dollars at it and hope that your system will work, or use those resources for humanity down here and just hope that nothing wil come. Trust me, the second option is far better.

There are somethings you can plan for and some things you cant. Asteriod protection is one that you cant.

Just say humanity sticks to Capitalism and manages to survive until they get a significant number of people off-planet. Now, pretty much as soon as that happens, mining and various forms of exploitation will begin. Now, because this is Capitalism, these various froms of exploiting the natural resources will take place on huge scales. NEO (Near Earth Objects) will be used up in mere decades the Asteriod belt might take a while, but that will go too eventually. The Trojans, as rich as they may be, wont take long when faced with such ruthless exploitation.

The beauty of unrestrained population growth is that it is exponential (doubles roughly every 35 years, at the present rate). Now, at that rate, humanity will use up all of the available water in the solar system in a few hundred years (Total Pop. 100 trillion or so). At that point you will have to leave.
Humanity scatters to the stars, etc etc, colonising planets, exploiting things, etc. Now, if humanity wishes to maintain that high population growth and that large amount of exploiting, the leading edge of the colonising wave will have to move faster and faster. Eventually it will hit the speed of light (note, all of this is happening in crappy sublight ships), at which point you are screwed. Towards the center of the colonising bubble, where the planets have been colonised for the longest, people will begin to run out of resources. Theyare in a system surounded by just as desperate and heavily armed systems fighting over limited resources. You guess what happens.

Een though this example deals mostly with unrestrained population growth, it can also be used against Capitalism.

High use of resources for personal gain = rsources used up faster = damnit, im out of fuel, lets go to another planet and get more = expantion = running out of resources = war.

I really, really don't want to argue with you about this. We're now talking so far into the future that technology will have changed to unrecognisable levels. As for war, that's just part of humans not getting along and it's not going to change whether the society is anarchic, capitalist, communist, feudal or tribal. Just one thing, you don't just 'run out' of water. When it is used and evaporates it then condenses to form rain and comes back down. The water you drink is billions of years old and has been drunk before you thousands of times.

Of course money and land are not the same thing. They are forms of wealth. My point was that you're talking of a period when the main source of wealth shifted from land to money. As I stated you are correct that in this period the nobles were more powerful than the merchants. Very soon after, you saw this power flip (the french revolution). You're using a transitional period to prove your point.

Is there a problem with that? My point is proven and that's what matters.

Corporations are intellectual creations- artificial legal constructions. You are quite right they are made up of people- but you can do that without being a corporation. Corporations were originally formed to accomplish tasks that were too massive for one person to do on their own- the legislature had to grant them corporate status, and they only existed until their goal was completed. This was done to protect public interest. Fine and dandy- modern corporations now have similar rights to actual people to protect their interests (not the people). Even if you are part of the corporation, you often cannot be held accountable for your actions- it falls on the corporation (an exception of course is when the corporation itself takes action against you). If you're interested in corporations the movie "the corporation" is an interesting introduction- it's online.

I agree but no, I'm not interested.

My use of the word henchmen is problematic- I meant it to include legal henchmen, such as police and military personnel. That's not to say that all they do is evil. Cultural constructions are protected and propagated by their institutions. As for needing a state for protection- you are thinking at current crime levels, which would significantly drop- capitalism creates a lot of crime. Of course undesirable things would always occur- I'm not suggesting (as is often tabled against other forms of social organisation) that everyone would peacefully co-exist.

No, I'm thinking of how crime would change it's form. Even if everybody could have an apple each there will always be the desire to have two apples at the expense of somebody else. What's more important is that when the state is gone there is nothing to stop me from doing that, then hiring goons with the promise of more than the one apple to beat people up, steal their apples and form my own gang state. Please don't say that wouldn't happen because there would be enough apples for everybody who wanted any, you're not an idealist like my comrade Neutrino are you?

If the rural communities surrounding an area could support a higher concentration of people in one area then that would be fine. You would still be within carrying capacity- it doesn't matter where the land needed is, as long as it's somewhere. The issue with it not being close is that transportation ups consumption a lot, as well as introduces the possibility of taking resources from land bases where the local population requires them. Thus, in terms of sustainability, local is grand. The problem with cities is this is not the case. No modern city is supported solely through it's rural surroundings.

And the rural surroundings in other places, and other cities... If every city formed a protectionist policy and decided to rely solely on local produce for survival we would see a global great depression. That's basic economics and I wish I had of thought of that argument before lol. What you're suggesting will have the same effect as any protectionist policy and it's basic economic theory that tells you what happens after that.

Feudalism is a political form of organisation. Capitalism is an economic one. While it was never called Capitalism, there are very similar elements to the periods you are talking about. Industrialisation ramped up capitalism, but the main idea of privately owned means of production for profit was the same. Of course nobility did not just appear- as I've already related they came from tribalism (as did everything).

Yup, it's funny how there have always been traces of capitalism in society isn't it? My guess is that that is just because capitalism reflects the basic human desire to gain wealth.

You've ignored my response and made the same argument again. It would benefit these workers more if they got the full value of their labour- rather than a fraction.

Then they should do that. But they shouldn't be allowed to use somebody else's assets for that.

I'm really not understanding you're whole notion that giving someone the entire value of their labour rather than a fraction is does not benefit them. I also don't understand how giving them ownership of their land back would also not benefit them.

Sure, land redistribution would benefit them. Ruin the economy like it always does, but benefit the individual until they realise their $1 000 Zimbabwean dollars is now worth the same as what $1 Zimbabwean dollar could have bought them yesterday.

Some are trying to do so. Capitalism uses violence against them. Why do you think the States decimated Nicaragua? Why do you think the Mexican government is destroying the Zapatistas? Capitalism cannot stand people living outside the system. It is very difficult to get useable land in a capitalist world and attempt to remove oneself from the system. Those who are not resisting are doing so out of fear of violence.

I don't know enough about either case to comment unfortunately. I did a brief Wikipedia search of Nicaragua and couldn't find any reference to capitalism's 'evil influence'. Would you please mind explaining these events or choosing some other examples?

Your example was money- which is different than gold (although the prices are linked). One is national, the other international.

Which is why I changed the example.

They are being forced. However it's not as overt as someone with a gun to their head (although sometimes this is the case). If they could make their living elsewhere they would- go work in a sweatshop and see how happy it makes you. Of course they would do something else if they felt they had the choice. As I previously stated- access to land is the main issue.

I thought you were against Ad Hominem arguments? Of course I wouldn't like to work in a sweatshop, who in their right mind would? But I have the choice thanks to my country's strong economy to demand more for my labour. Of course, I need more since everything is so much more expensive to buy. Those in poorer countries have the same choice I do, unfortunately their economies are a lot weaker and that is why sweatshops are a good alternative. As for land redistribution, you're starting to sound like Robin Hood. The same thing happens every time: individual farming isn't as effective -> less food is produced -> people starve -> depression.

The African and South American people cannot even live sustainably off their own land due to capitalism. There are very few communities living sustainably anywhere because they have been pretty much wiped out or annexed into the capitalistic system. Besides, moving onto someone else's land is not a viable option. If they are support themselves sustainably they cannot do so with an influx of new population looking to get away from capitalism.

Well there's plenty of free land in the US (where I assume you live). I'm sure somebody there has started his/her own little anarchic tribe somewhere there and is welcoming newcomers.

Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy.

Now you've caught my attention as a philosophy student. How exactly is Ad Hominem a logical fallacy?

You've already been quite vocal in your criticism of me for doomsday prophecy, as well as for believing that a collapse is not only imminent but close- and then you turn around and try and use this? Whatever, I'll bite- First off, the sun will not expand for a looooooooooooooooong time. As for the asteroid there's nothing we can do to prevent it- but we do have a chance to do something about Capitalism.

Yup, and I don't much like the asteroid argument either, I just figured I may as well drop to the level of doom-sayer with you
Of course we can prevent an asteroid's approach. NASA already have projects in place and are conducting research into more. That said, more research is definitely needed. Even more importantly is getting mankind off of this rock and into the solar system. Your doomsday is apparently close but just a scientific guess. Mine is 100% certain and could happen at any moment but will definitely happen sooner or later. I think mine wins

[foolish_yeti]

Just one thing, you don't just 'run out' of water. When it is used and evaporates it then condenses to form rain and comes back down. The water you drink is billions of years old and has been drunk before you thousands of times.

You do just run out of water. As you stated- water is a renewable resource. Evaporation desalinates water, which if it doesn't fall into salt water is drinkable by humans. This occurs at a certain rate. If you consume the fresh water faster than it can recoup- you have run out of water.

Of course money and land are not the same thing. They are forms of wealth. My point was that you're talking of a period when the main source of wealth shifted from land to money. As I stated you are correct that in this period the nobles were more powerful than the merchants. Very soon after, you saw this power flip (the french revolution). You're using a transitional period to prove your point.

Is there a problem with that? My point is proven and that's what matters.

Yes, you are "proving" your point with an exception. The wealthiest held the power before this and have had it ever since.

No, I'm thinking of how crime would change it's form. Even if everybody could have an apple each there will always be the desire to have two apples at the expense of somebody else. What's more important is that when the state is gone there is nothing to stop me from doing that, then hiring goons with the promise of more than the one apple to beat people up, steal their apples and form my own gang state.

Well first of all- I don't share your grim view of human nature- so I don't believe it will happen. But I'll jump over to your side for a bit- if this is the case then we're totally screwed. If those in power stop the everyman from stealing a second apple- who stops those in power? It doesn't matter if it's individuals wanting the second apple or if it's governments or if it's corporations- if human nature is greed then we're all screwed.

And the rural surroundings in other places, and other cities...

Again you're reverting to this impossibility of everyone supporting everyone else. I'll break it down for you. Say the entire earth is tiny and holds only three cities. Each city needs 100 resources to survive. They can produce 25 themselves and their rural counterparts can produce 75. The problem is they are using 125- over by 25% (the current global average). Well no prob! City A will just get 25 resources from city B. But now city B needs 50 resources. No prob! They'll just take it from city C. Well now city C needs 75 resources. No prob! They can just take it from city A? So city C is shit out of luck. But is city C just going to sit there- no, they sell less to city B, and ramp up production. But wait, city B now needs more, so they ramp up production. But wait.....anyways I hope you get the point. In case it hasn't been made painfully obvious- at a certain point of efficiency for technology, ecosystem harm happens. Ultimately reducing the capacity of the land to produce. What do you think of when you think of Iraq's landscape? That was once covered in trees.

If every city formed a protectionist policy and decided to rely solely on local produce for survival we would see a global great depression. That's basic economics and I wish I had of thought of that argument before lol.

Of course you'd go into a depression by current economic standards- because current economic standards are too high- they're unsustainable. That's why on top of relying on local resources you have to change your lifestyle. I'm not suggesting this will be a smooth and easy transition.

Yup, it's funny how there have always been traces of capitalism in society isn't it? My guess is that that is just because capitalism reflects the basic human desire to gain wealth.

Again with the greedy human nature argument.

Then they should do that. But they shouldn't be allowed to use somebody else's assets for that.

Then what justifies those other people using their assests? What justified the colonization of North America and the theft of the natives resources. I'll tell you what. In a hierarchical society violence is only acceptable when it flows downwards.

Sure, land redistribution would benefit them. Ruin the economy like it always does, but benefit the individual until they realise their $1 000 Zimbabwean dollars is now worth the same as what $1 Zimbabwean dollar could have bought them yesterday.

Yeah and I'm sure they'd be real upset that they now had access to abundant shelter, food, water but they couldn't buy and Ipod.

I don't know enough about either case to comment unfortunately. I did a brief Wikipedia search of Nicaragua and couldn't find any reference to capitalism's 'evil influence'. Would you please mind explaining these events or choosing some other examples?

No worries- most people have no idea. Here's a short Chomsky article on it- you'll have to check facts in it if you're skeptical: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomOdon_Nicaragua.html

I thought you were against Ad Hominem arguments? Of course I wouldn't like to work in a sweatshop, who in their right mind would? But I have the choice thanks to my country's strong economy to demand more for my labour. Of course, I need more since everything is so much more expensive to buy. Those in poorer countries have the same choice I do, unfortunately their economies are a lot weaker and that is why sweatshops are a good alternative. As for land redistribution, you're starting to sound like Robin Hood. The same thing happens every time: individual farming isn't as effective -> less food is produced -> people starve -> depression.

To clear up real quick- asking someone to imagine themselves in another's shoes is not Ad Hominem- you should take a look into logical fallicies- they're very helpful.

Well there's plenty of free land in the US (where I assume you live). I'm sure somebody there has started his/her own little anarchic tribe somewhere there and is welcoming newcomers.

Nope, I'm Canadian. You're correct- there is free land- it's free for a reason. In Canada it's usually because it's up north in even colder regions of Canada. I'm not really interested in debating why I haven't uprooted, as it's detracting from the debate at hand. It doesn't serve to prove it can't be done. Also the short of it is- me moving to Swaziland or where ever will not change the current system which will destroy the ecosystem. While we still need to simultaneously be working to live as sustainable as possible, it's ultimately of no use if the system still exists. In 75 years when our ancestors are starving on the land, they won't care if some of us lived sustainably- they'll be wondering why we didn't do anything to stop those who did.

Now you've caught my attention as a philosophy student. How exactly is Ad Hominem a logical fallacy?

Wow- are you studying philosophy? And you don't know about logical fallacies? That genuinely surprises me. As I said before you can wiki it for an explanation of that particular one- and I encourage you to look at some others as well.

Yup, and I don't much like the asteroid argument either, I just figured I may as well drop to the level of doom-sayer with you
Of course we can prevent an asteroid's approach. NASA already have projects in place and are conducting research into more. That said, more research is definitely needed.

I don't have the exact numbers- but check out a book by Bill Bryson "A Short History of Nearly Everything"- a funny and insanely interesting book. Anyhoo- in it he talks about asteroids. You know about in the movies or in stories there's the scenario where this asteroid is seen in the sky (either by the naked eye or some telescope), zooming ever closer to our speck in the sky. It's totally ridiculous. Asteroids are moving so fast that you see it with the naked eye and a second later it would hit. A telescope would help (maybe you'd get a few days notice), but even then you have to decide if it's going to hit you, and act. The problem with acting is physics. To stop something, you have to apply an equal or greater force in the opposite direction. To deflect it you need less energy, but even then- how much kinetic energy is in an asteroid? Well let's just blow it up with a nuke! Armegeddon style. Now you got millions if not billions of shards coming at the earth.

Your doomsday is apparently close but just a scientific guess. Mine is 100% certain and could happen at any moment but will definitely happen sooner or later. I think mine wins

First off, it's not a guess. If you use more resources than you have you will die. Nothing really scientific about it. There is also the tiny fact that a large portion of science is "guesses"- educated guesses.

[kclborat]

I believe big government is the way to go. For example, social welfare. Without the government's aid, poor people will have to rely on private donations. The people around them have already shown their unwillingness to part with their money by ousting the receiver of a portion of their money (taxes), and there is little reason why people would give money besides out of the kindness in their hearts.

PS this page is way too long

[chewyman]

You do just run out of water. As you stated- water is a renewable resource. Evaporation desalinates water, which if it doesn't fall into salt water is drinkable by humans. This occurs at a certain rate. If you consume the fresh water faster than it can recoup- you have run out of water.

No, you run out of water when there isn't any water left. Evaporating water faster than it condenses means you will reach a point where there isn't any water left, but until the excess is used up you haven't actually run out. Anyway, I forget what this has to do with anarchy so let's move on

Yes, you are "proving" your point with an exception. The wealthiest held the power before this and have had it ever since.

It isn't an exception, it just takes tumultuous periods in history to separate the two influences, which, while not the same are very similar.

Well first of all- I don't share your grim view of human nature- so I don't believe it will happen. But I'll jump over to your side for a bit- if this is the case then we're totally screwed. If those in power stop the everyman from stealing a second apple- who stops those in power? It doesn't matter if it's individuals wanting the second apple or if it's governments or if it's corporations- if human nature is greed then we're all screwed.

That's why governments have a separation of power.

Ultimately reducing the capacity of the land to produce. What do you think of when you think of Iraq's landscape? That was once covered in trees.

Maybe I'm just an optimist but I believe that before this ecosystem doomsday happens the balance will have shifted. Eventually we will reach an equilibrium with nature but it won't be by giving up on society. That equilibrium will happen because of the market and more advanced technology than we have today.

Of course you'd go into a depression by current economic standards- because current economic standards are too high- they're unsustainable. That's why on top of relying on local resources you have to change your lifestyle. I'm not suggesting this will be a smooth and easy transition.

See it seems to me that this is the beginning disagreement between us that leads to everything else. You believe that we have to give up on all that we've achieved and go back to the golden days. I believe that if we continue to trust in the market then the market will help us to reach an equilibrium point between advancement and nature without having to go backwards.

Then what justifies those other people using their assests? What justified the colonization of North America and the theft of the natives resources. I'll tell you what. In a hierarchical society violence is only acceptable when it flows downwards.

The strong take from the weak? Now you're not just complaining about human nature, you're complaining about one of the universal laws. It's all Darwinian theory, it may not appeal to our humanity but it's nature running its course nevertheless.

Yeah and I'm sure they'd be real upset that they now had access to abundant shelter, food, water but they couldn't buy and Ipod.

You're pretty out of date with current affairs if you think the problems in Zimbabwe end with the people not being able to afford iPods.

No worries- most people have no idea. Here's a short Chomsky article on it- you'll have to check facts in it if you're skeptical: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Choms ... ragua.html

I'll look into it, but don't expect a response for at least a couple of days. Oh, and please tell me you don't accept Chomsky word for word? The guy is a signed and paid commie.

To clear up real quick- asking someone to imagine themselves in another's shoes is not Ad Hominem- you should take a look into logical fallicies- they're very helpful.

Wow- are you studying philosophy? And you don't know about logical fallacies? That genuinely surprises me. As I said before you can wiki it for an explanation of that particular one- and I encourage you to look at some others as well.

I know what logical fallacies are, but I don't see why Ad Hominem arguments fall under this category.

Nope, I'm Canadian. You're correct- there is free land- it's free for a reason. In Canada it's usually because it's up north in even colder regions of Canada. I'm not really interested in debating why I haven't uprooted, as it's detracting from the debate at hand. It doesn't serve to prove it can't be done. Also the short of it is- me moving to Swaziland or where ever will not change the current system which will destroy the ecosystem. While we still need to simultaneously be working to live as sustainable as possible, it's ultimately of no use if the system still exists. In 75 years when our ancestors are starving on the land, they won't care if some of us lived sustainably- they'll be wondering why we didn't do anything to stop those who did.

My point is that you aren't willing to be the first to give up technology and wealth to live in this Utopian anarchy. If a believer in anarchy isn't prepared to make the first step towards achieving it then who will? Do you expect society to just say to itself one day, 'hey let's all just give up everything we've earned and get along'? It takes demagogs for things like that to happen.

I don't have the exact numbers- but check out a book by Bill Bryson "A Short History of Nearly Everything"- a funny and insanely interesting book. Anyhoo- in it he talks about asteroids. You know about in the movies or in stories there's the scenario where this asteroid is seen in the sky (either by the naked eye or some telescope), zooming ever closer to our speck in the sky. It's totally ridiculous. Asteroids are moving so fast that you see it with the naked eye and a second later it would hit. A telescope would help (maybe you'd get a few days notice), but even then you have to decide if it's going to hit you, and act. The problem with acting is physics. To stop something, you have to apply an equal or greater force in the opposite direction. To deflect it you need less energy, but even then- how much kinetic energy is in an asteroid? Well let's just blow it up with a nuke! Armegeddon style. Now you got millions if not billions of shards coming at the earth.

I've read it and I agree that it's a fantastically good read. I don't even pretend to know about what NASA gets up to. I'm happy enough reading that a shuttle landed safely at the International Space Station than getting into the physics behind it. I'm not going to argue the science with you about how it's done. What I've said is just what I've read; that is that NASA already have systems prepared for the next big rock coming our way. As technology improves I have no doubt that so will our rock defence.

First off, it's not a guess. If you use more resources than you have you will die. Nothing really scientific about it. There is also the tiny fact that a large portion of science is "guesses"- educated guesses.

Or reach a point where you can sustain that usage...

I believe big government is the way to go. For example, social welfare. Without the government's aid, poor people will have to rely on private donations. The people around them have already shown their unwillingness to part with their money by ousting the receiver of a portion of their money (taxes), and there is little reason why people would give money besides out of the kindness in their hearts.

Giggle, I never even thought to consider all the good arguments from a socialists perspective on why anarchy sucks. Good points and thanks

BTW, I think we're starting to move off track. This thread is supposed to be discussing anarchy, we're moving more and more into the flaws of capitalism (of which there are some, I'm not suggesting capitalism is perfect, just better than anarchy).

[foolish_yeti]

I've had my say, take from it what you will. I'm done.

Cheers.

[chewyman]

Huzzah for attrition!

Victory is mine lol

[Neutrino]

No, you run out of water when there isn't any water left. Evaporating water faster than it condenses means you will reach a point where there isn't any water left, but until the excess is used up you haven't actually run out. Anyway, I forget what this has to do with anarchy so let's move on

I was actually speaking, not of running out of water, but not having enough water in the entire solar system for humanity.

Maybe I'm just an optimist but I believe that before this ecosystem doomsday happens the balance will have shifted. Eventually we will reach an equilibrium with nature but it won't be by giving up on society. That equilibrium will happen because of the market and more advanced technology than we have today.

Balanced? Humanity used up 60% of the resources on earth. Food, land, timber, metals, everything.
60% just for 1 large group of hairless apes, 40% for th rest of life on earth.
60-40 is not balanced.

See it seems to me that this is the beginning disagreement between us that leads to everything else. You believe that we have to give up on all that we've achieved and go back to the golden days. I believe that if we continue to trust in the market then the market will help us to reach an equilibrium point between advancement and nature without having to go backwards.

What makes you think that technalogical advancement will stop? Research may be throttled back to make it sustainable, but it is very unlikely that it will be stopped entirly.

The strong take from the weak? Now you're not just complaining about human nature, you're complaining about one of the universal laws. It's all Darwinian theory, it may not appeal to our humanity but it's nature running its course nevertheless.

Isnt the point of humanity to make ourselves better than animals? Not destroying those less advantaged than ourselves? Improving humanity in general, not just those rich enough to afford it?

Or reach a point where you can sustain that usage...

Which is a few decades or more <- thataway.

[chewyman]

I was actually speaking, not of running out of water, but not having enough water in the entire solar system for humanity.

As I said, we are so far away from colonising the solar system that there's no point debating water consumption. That will be an issue for our children's children's children's etc etc children.

Balanced? Humanity used up 60% of the resources on earth. Food, land, timber, metals, everything.
60% just for 1 large group of hairless apes, 40% for th rest of life on earth.
60-40 is not balanced.

Could you please provide a source for this statistic? (Preferably not a card carrying communists like Chomsky )

What makes you think that technalogical advancement will stop? Research may be throttled back to make it sustainable, but it is very unlikely that it will be stopped entirly.

Actually I don't believe it will stop. Once we reach that equilibrium point things will stop for a while. But technology will keep advancing, allowing the graph to slide towards greater populations without the worry of being unsustainable.

Isnt the point of humanity to make ourselves better than animals? Not destroying those less advantaged than ourselves? Improving humanity in general, not just those rich enough to afford it?

Not that I'm aware of, besides, who decided this 'point'? I thought we were still looking for a meaning to life and as has already been pointed out, humans are animals and therefore cannot be better than animals. Anyway, I didn't say that the strong conquering the weak is a point of humanity, I said it was a law of nature.

Which is a few decades or more <- thataway.

Nope, if you want to go backwards to reach sustainable technology don't think decades, think millennium. Foolish_yeti was discussing a return to tribalism, that's approximately 3/4000BCE.