[DubiousDan]

I am new here and this may be a bit presumptuous. However, I can’t seem to find a post which deals with the essential nature of anarchism. I notice that in the topics in existence there seems to be a great deal of confusion as to what anarchism is. There are subsets within anarchism as with most political philosophies. However, what I’m seeking to clarify is the superset. What is unqualified anarchism.

My personal anarchism covers a rather broad spectrum, from the anarchism of the “Tao Teh Ching” to the anarchism of Pierre Proudhon. I’m not into nihilism and I don’t consider it anarchism. I am willing to discuss the matter, however. As I said, I’m looking for the superset. To put it in other terms, the essentials of anarchism which if removed, would remove anarchism.

[Figlio di Moros]

Typically, anarchism is not defined by what it is but by what it isn't; aside from ancaps, I believe most anarchists could be defined by localism and direct democracy.

[DubiousDan]

Interesting, time passes. Never heard of ancaps before. I will have to investigate that in more detail. I once wrote a story about an anarchistic state that was a pure capitalism. Nobody was interested in it. So the concept is not novel to me.
I guess I don’t belong to the majority class, because neither term would define me. Direct democracy to me is the dictatorship of the majority. Localism seems to me to be something that might or might not be anarchistic. I agree that anarchism is difficult to define. I tend to assign to anarchism the property of voluntarism.

[Figlio di Moros]

Interesting, time passes. Never heard of ancaps before. I will have to investigate that in more detail. I once wrote a story about an anarchistic state that was a pure capitalism. Nobody was interested in it. So the concept is not novel to me.
I guess I don’t belong to the majority class, because neither term would define me. Direct democracy to me is the dictatorship of the majority. Localism seems to me to be something that might or might not be anarchistic. I agree that anarchism is difficult to define. I tend to assign to anarchism the property of voluntarism.

Ancap=Anarcho-capitalist

[DubiousDan]

Figlio de gli moros wrote:

Ancap=Anarcho-capitalist

Me:
Thanks, I Googled the term, but I appreciate the information.
By the way, do you know if they have a plan for maintaining the borders of an Ancap state? I scanned an article or two, but I could find no means of maintaining borders.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

By the way, do you know if they have a plan for maintaining the borders of an Ancap state? I scanned an article or two, but I could find no means of maintaining borders.

Militias with army grade weapons. Nothing out of the ordinary. Some of them that are really trusting in corporations even advocate private security forces, but that is so retarded that I'm sure I don't have to elaborate why.

[DubiousDan]

Quote by Cheesecake_Marmalade:

Militias with army grade weapons. Nothing out of the ordinary. Some of them that are really trusting in corporations even advocate private security forces, but that is so retarded that I'm sure I don't have to elaborate why.

Me:
Thank you. At least the Ancaps realize that a militia is essential for the existence of an Anarchist state. As for the corporate militia, I tend to agree with you. However, without hearing their explanation in detail, I can’t dismiss it, though it would be difficult to remain unbiased until the explanation is finished.

As I stated in my introduction, I am trying to define the superset of anarchism. I realize that anarchism in itself may be indefinable. However, in the usage in this sub-forum, I have noticed the word anarchism applied to political concepts that to me are not anarchistic. Rather than seeking to impose my concept of anarchism, I would like to see a consensus evolve. I realize that not everyone would get aboard, but if the more thoughtful would come to some sort of agreement, it would greatly facilitate discussion in the future. If you have some thoughts on the matter, I would be glad to hear them.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

However, without hearing their explanation in detail, I can’t dismiss it, though it would be difficult to remain unbiased until the explanation is finished.

I commend this, but most anarcho-capitalists are actually just minarchists in disguise, advocating an essentially free market combined with minimal taxes on.. say.. imports to pay for a national army (and sometimes with provisions for courts and police). They are constrained of course by capitalism, because capitalism requires a method in which fraud is kept to a minimum in order to maintain a "free" market in the sense of a market that lacks coercion, or else businesses become quasi governments as they grow larger and larger.

[DubiousDan]

Cheesecake_Marmalade:

I commend this, but most anarcho-capitalists are actually just minarchists in disguise, advocating an essentially free market combined with minimal taxes on.. say.. imports to pay for a national army (and sometimes with provisions for courts and police). They are constrained of course by capitalism, because capitalism requires a method in which fraud is kept to a minimum in order to maintain a "free" market in the sense of a market that lacks coercion, or else businesses become quasi governments as they grow larger and larger.

Me:
No wonder everything was so confusing. I’m an anarchist, and I don’t know anything about anarchism today. Strange, I just came from a forum where everyone seemed to think that anarchism was unthinkable.

I’m more than a little puzzled by the Capitalism constraining. Is this in practice or in theory? It seems to me that Capitalism is similar to Christianity in that a lot of people claim to be, but few practice it. Offhand, I really can’t think of a true capitalist country anywhere on Earth. It’s not that I’m that fond of capitalism. It’s the game of the moment. Another variant of the old game of civilization by which the harvest is taken from the harvester and given to the elites.

As for the quasi governments, well, I thought they were already here. I think I’m missing something here. Perhaps you could help me out. As you may have noticed, I’m not the sharpest tack in the box.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

No wonder everything was so confusing. I’m an anarchist, and I don’t know anything about anarchism today. Strange, I just came from a forum where everyone seemed to think that anarchism was unthinkable.

It's unthinkable to those who don't think of it! I mean anarchism isn't that crazy, it's just people are too close-minded to view anything from a perspective other than their own. Also to think that anarchism is "impossible" is overly cynical. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anarchist by any measure (although I used to be an anarchist), but that's not because I think it's impossible it's because I think it's undesirable.

I’m more than a little puzzled by the Capitalism constraining. Is this in practice or in theory?

Well, it's kind of in both. The sort of unregulated Capitalism envisioned by anarcho-capitalists is constraining because in order for their "market solutions" to work out, one must assume that no fraud is taking place. Thus strict regulations need to be ingrained in the system at the beginning with the government oversight over it phased out as the self-policing becomes more trustworthy and effective, or there must always be something in place to ensure that fraud is not prevalent.

Let me expand on what I mean by the type of Capitalism envisioned by anarcho-capitalists. Whenever you talk to an anarcho-capitalist, one of the things that they inevitably mention is competition. They see private competition as the driver of all the greatest advancements of civilization. Technologies, quality of life, successful businesses, all of them can somehow be attributed to the economic competition brought on by laissez-faire capitalism. How true that is can be seen as debatable, but that's a pretty good idea of what they think.

Anyway, so in microeconomics there is an idea that states that under maximum competition with little government regulation, products would all be of roughly the same quality (high) at a relatively cheaper price. The companies that sell the products actually wouldn't be making that big of a profit because of how much competition there is, so there's all the stuff that's associated with that. The problem arises, of course, when greed is factored in. What incentive does a company have to do everything by the books if they're not going to make much of a profit either way?

That is of course an ideological thing that you'd have to figure out on your own.

It seems to me that Capitalism is similar to Christianity in that a lot of people claim to be, but few practice it.

Well capitalism can be defined as any system in which property is privately owned and money/money equivalents are exchanged for goods and services, so I'd say that pretty much all countries on earth are capitalist. However if you're thinking strictly of laissez-faire capitalism, then no country really practices it anymore even though a lot of countries used to when capitalism first replaced feudalism.

It’s not that I’m that fond of capitalism. It’s the game of the moment. Another variant of the old game of civilization by which the harvest is taken from the harvester and given to the elites.

Very true, but what can you do?

As for the quasi governments, well, I thought they were already here.

What do you mean?

Perhaps you could help me out. As you may have noticed, I’m not the sharpest tack in the box.

I'd gladly help you out, but I disagree. You seem like you want to learn, which is indicative of a sharper tack.

[ninurta]

I think Ancap is the most doable system of anarchy. First, you have a means to purchase tech from countries that need money. Say Iran and North Korea (I don't like their politics either, though for buisness it would be a way to get weapons, tech, and other things when you don't have a means yet to get them for yourself) and others may have stuff to sell you. You purchase it to keep your militia as powerful as it can be, and your money will come from those who pay you for protection.

[DubiousDan]

Cheesecake_Marmalade:

Very true, but what can you do?

Me:
That’s what I’m trying to figure out. Oh, destroying civilization is no problem, at least as I see it. The view from the uninformed. It seems to me that civilization is moving along quite nicely on that path. I really can’t see Humanity surviving this century, barring cataclysm. A survivable cataclysm that would shatter Mankind’s acceptance of the industrial plague might slow things down.

Human survival is the problem, as I see it. In the technological acceleration, political incompetence is suicide. Technology is advancing at an exponential rate, Moore’s law, for example, and political competence, well, it doesn’t seem to be improving at all, but if it is improving, it’s at a linear rate at best.

As I see it, the only path to survival is to develop political competence to a degree capable of handling the technological acceleration. Some people call it the singularity, but that’s not quite how I see it.

Since political competence goes against the short term interests of our present elites, and their long term vision seem myopic at best, achieving political competence is going to be exceedingly difficult. However, the alternative, as I see it, is Human extinction.

As you can see, it’s a bit of a problem.

Cheesecake_Marmalade:
In reference to quasigovernments all ready being here.

What do you mean:

Me:
Well, take Microsoft for example. They practically control the World personal computer industry. They have more resources than many states. With minor exceptions, what they want done, gets done. Their very existence depends upon governmental decisions affecting their propriety rights. The Windows operating system is the beneficiary of court decisions which went to the player with the most resources. Apple bought the interface from Xerox PARC. When Atari made a similar interface, Apple took them to court and won. Apple had more resources than Atari. When Microsoft made their copy, Apple took them to court and lost. Microsoft had more resources than Apple.
Microsoft makes a religion of intellectual property rights, but when they want to copy software, the religious fervor fades. Take the Stacker episode for example. Microsoft’s success is the result of lawyers, not engineers.
When governments challenge their practices, the governments usually lose in the long run.

[DubiousDan]

Ninurta :

I think Ancap is the most doable system of anarchy. First, you have a means to purchase tech from countries that need money. Say Iran and North Korea (I don't like their politics either, though for buisness it would be a way to get weapons, tech, and other things when you don't have a means yet to get them for yourself) and others may have stuff to sell you. You purchase it to keep your militia as powerful as it can be, and your money will come from those who pay you for protection.

Me:
Sorry, I missed your post. You may be right, because I don’t know that much about Ancap. Raising money is a great problem, but in the context of creating a functional anarchy, it might be considered a trivial task. The Swiss militias were quite often mercenaries, as were Gordon R. Dickson’s fictional militia soldiers. However, where would you store these weapons and where would you base your militia? By the way, I’m not sure that Iran has much to sell in weaponry at the moment, you might consider the Israelis or the Pakistanis. The Pakistanis have some nice missiles and unlike Iran, they have nukes. So do the Israelis.

[ninurta]

Ninurta :

[]I think Ancap is the most doable system of anarchy. First, you have a means to purchase tech from countries that need money. Say Iran and North Korea (I don't like their politics either, though for buisness it would be a way to get weapons, tech, and other things when you don't have a means yet to get them for yourself) and others may have stuff to sell you. You purchase it to keep your militia as powerful as it can be, and your money will come from those who pay you for protection.[]

Me:
Sorry, I missed your post. You may be right, because I don’t know that much about Ancap. Raising money is a great problem, but in the context of creating a functional anarchy, it might be considered a trivial task. The Swiss militias were quite often mercenaries, as were Gordon R. Dickson’s fictional militia soldiers. However, where would you store these weapons and where would you base your militia? By the way, I’m not sure that Iran has much to sell in weaponry at the moment, you might consider the Israelis or the Pakistanis. The Pakistanis have some nice missiles and unlike Iran, they have nukes. So do the Israelis.

Doesn't Iran have IED's? Good point though, I would prefer to trade with pakistan because of the advantage of it being a larger state. Or buy from Israel to potentially prevent US breaking up an anarchist autonomous region into a state.Whichever strategy has the best payoff.

If you control a militia, you would probably build a base for it as headquarters, maybe hidden in some obscure place. And mobile bases elsewhere and have them all hidden. And have most of the supplies and stuff hidden in the secret main bases. Though that's no different than Georgia defending itself against Russia, it's a remote possibility in the best conditions, though probably not a likely success at defending it.

Though you could always use a hacking tool to steal tech from foreign computers and databases. And reverse engineer that technology and put it to use. Also to build a stronger militia you can pay people to go find homeless and other disenfranchised people in other countries that may want to join this lovely new system and get some of them to join the militia. Eventually it may be possible to expand.

Though he problem comes mainly in defence, you need alot of anarchists and alot of technology. Because without them, you are in trouble every time a state comes by that has the power to invade you.

[DubiousDan]

Ninuta:

Though he problem comes mainly in defence, you need alot of anarchists and alot of technology. Because without them, you are in trouble every time a state comes by that has the power to invade you.

Me:
Valid point. However, you can hide in plain sight. If you are an anarchy, unless you can protect your borders, you create a void which will be filled. However, if you are an organization within a state, the state will protect you as long as it does not perceive you to be a threat or a social negative. As long as you can convince the state that you are an asset, you will be welcome.
To attract anarchists, you must declare yourself as pro anarchy. Anarchy goes against everything states stand for, after all, that’s what Anarchy is about. What you need is an organization which will attract potential anarchists with out identifying itself as anarchist.
Civilization itself rests on great and obvious lies. It may seem strange that a lie can both be great and obvious at the same time. The great and obvious lie works by convincing the potential believer that the believer will benefit from the lie. People have a tendency to believe that the truth is beautiful.
To declare your purpose openly may be emotionally satisfying, but it is counterproductive. If a man has a gun, and I have a knife, if I brandish my knife at a distance and threaten, I am dead. If I walk up to the man, smile, and hold out my hand to shake his hand, then stab him with the knife in my other hand, what good is his gun.
If your opponent works by treachery and deceit, than it is utter folly to be open and clear in your purpose. Study Niccolo Machiavelli, Lao T’zu and Sun T’zu, and you learn the techniques of defense. Victory is not an option, defense is eternal, for once victorious, the conquest must be maintained.
The problem with most anarchist activists is that they love to shout slogans and posture. The quiet man is the invisible man. The invisible man can accomplish much.

[ninurta]

What political philosophy was Lao Tzu?

Good point Dubiousdan.

[Suska]

What political philosophy was Lao Tzu

Dischordian

probably

[DubiousDan]

Ninurta:

What political philosophy was Lao Tzu?

Good point Dubiousdan.

Me:

The Tao Teh Ching is Agnostic and Anarchistic. Lao T’zu is the titular author of the Tao Teh Ching.

Thank you.

[ninurta]

You're welcome. Agnosticism isn't a political philosophy. I just didn't know Lao Tzu wrote anything on politics.

As for the Tao Te Ching, I meant in general the philosophy of Lao Tzu.

[DubiousDan]

Ninurta:

You're welcome. Agnosticism isn't a political philosophy. I just didn't know Lao Tzu wrote anything on politics.

As for the Tao Te Ching, I meant in general the philosophy of Lao Tzu.

Me:
I suggest Googling Lao T’zu.
The only extant writing of Lao T’zu is the Tao Teh Ching. However, it is not a given that Lao T’zu ever existed. When people speak of the philosophy of Lao T’zu, they mean the Tao Teh Ching.

Sorry about bringing up agnosticism. It sometimes helps down the road. The Tao Teh Ching is partly a political treatise. It deals with anarchy from a different perspective. However, there is order without coercion. The how and why of that is a bit difficult to follow from the standpoint of Western anarchism.