[Dystopian Darkness]

Anarchists, out of all the arguments you consider valid to justify an anarchist or anarchical-based society which one stands out? Name one single best argument according to your perspective.

When I was younger I had anarchist leanings. The argument I used more frequently was that The state is both unnatural an illegitimate. Unnatural because it is based on a higher authority making decisions in the name of the people, not allowing the latter to make decisions for themselves according to their instincts, intuition and reasoning; illegitimate because no one has ever asked me (an anarchist) or anyone else if we supported the State as the preferable institution to organize, run and sanction human societies

[Decky]

Somalia is really fucking great and being exploited by a bunch of dickheads under a logo is so much better than being exploited by ones marching under a flag. Fuck the NHS, workers should be free to die!

I love it how they pretend to be on the left.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

We live in the product of anarchy already. If we disposed of all the rules then the rich and powerful would just take over and implement their own rules which is basically what we have now.The Royal families that still cling to power today are a relic of our anarchist past.

[Decky]

[Dystopian Darkness]

We live in the product of anarchy already. If we disposed of all the rules then the rich and powerful would just take over and implement their own rules which is basically what we have now.The Royal families that still cling to power today are a relic of our anarchist past.

This makes no sense. Explain.

[Decky]

Makes perfect sense actually. Without a state it would just be rich individuals and groups oppressing us without being a state until eventually they got so powerful they end up being... a state. Which is how we have ended up with one now.

[Dystopian Darkness]

Makes perfect sense actually. Without a state it would just be rich individuals and groups oppressing us without being a state until eventually they got so powerful they end up being... a state. Which is how we have ended up with one now.

I agree with the basic content, but I don't understand why we are a product of anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of State, I don't see any stateless society in the world.

Libertarians will disagree with you, the free market rocks

[Decky]

Well what do you think exist before states? Statelessness, and what did it inevitable become (in your own words " I don't see any stateless society in the world")?

[jessupjonesjnr87]

This makes no sense. Explain.

what decky said

[Solastalgia]

Anarchists, out of all the arguments you consider valid to justify an anarchist or anarchical-based society which one stands out? Name one single best argument according to your perspective.

When I was younger I had anarchist leanings. The argument I used more frequently was that The state is both unnatural an illegitimate. Unnatural because it is based on a higher authority making decisions in the name of the people, not allowing the latter to make decisions for themselves according to their instincts, intuition and reasoning; illegitimate because no one has ever asked me (an anarchist) or anyone else if we supported the State as the preferable institution to organize, run and sanction human societies

For the vast majority of human history we (as a species) have lived as gatherer-hunters in a communal, anarchist, and egalitarian society. This is anthropology 101 right here, yet when people hear it coming from the only true anarchists (primitivists) - they simply dismiss it. [*][*] It's only since agricultural society and subsequent civilizations that we have incorporated hierarchy and the eventual state.

[SolarCross]

For the vast majority of human history we (as a species) have lived as gatherer-hunters in a communal, anarchist, and egalitarian society. This is anthropology 101 right here, yet when people hear it coming from the only true anarchists (primitivists) - they simply dismiss it. [*][*] It's only since agricultural society and subsequent civilizations that we have incorporated hierarchy and the eventual state.

Hunter-gatherers are like isolated extended families. For being small groups they don't have much potential for steep hierarchies though there is hierarchy:
elders, wisemen, heros
v
other men
v
women
v
children
v
animals (dogs)

They are communal only in the sense that they have nothing to own at all except food.

They are "anarchist" only to the extent that they are not territorial which they usually are.

Anyway even if hunter gatherers are paragons of anarchism that is still a shitty argument for anarchism for anyone that lives in a technological, highly populous and geographically extensive polity. Who wants to ditch their cars, doctors, computers, central heating and supermarket food in favour of squatting naked in the mud dying of malaria?

[anticlimacus]

Anarchists, out of all the arguments you consider valid to justify an anarchist or anarchical-based society which one stands out? Name one single best argument according to your perspective.

The state, understood as a monopoly on coercive force as directed by the most powerful in society, is inherently violent, conflictual, and thrives of social inequality. It is often founded primarily on war, and serving as a tool for the dominant classes in society, and its interests are often driven narrowly by the interests of the dominant few in society. I think that has generally been the history of everything that we have known and experienced as the state. In that sense, I take the state, more often than not, to simply be a highly sophisticated form of barbarism. That's one.

Second, I think there is nothing more powerful or compelling in individual or social life than endeavors that occur voluntarily, out of the free inspiration and passion of those who commit to them--cooperative enterprises especially. The state, as fundamentally a coercive and centralizing entity, is the antithesis to that force, even though it often poaches upon it, using it towards the ends of the dominant few who get to make the decisions.

We live in the product of anarchy already. If we disposed of all the rules then the rich and powerful would just take over and implement their own rules which is basically what we have now.The Royal families that still cling to power today are a relic of our anarchist past.

Anarchy is not the disposal of rules and order, etc. It is the former without unjustified coercion. It gives room for creativity and the enjoyment of what we do--like good jazz music. Nothing could be further from the truth than to blame the woes of contemporary society on the lack of authoritarian relationships.

[philiphos]

Makes perfect sense actually. Without a state it would just be rich individuals and groups oppressing us without being a state until eventually they got so powerful they end up being... a state. Which is how we have ended up with one now.

I agree with the basic content, but I don't understand why we are a product of anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of State, I don't see any stateless society in the world.
Libertarians will disagree with you, the free market rocks

I would recommend you to Watch Family Guy Season10, episode21, about "Anarchy" society envisioned by Tea Party it's just like Decky Said the rich would create their "own rules" oppresing everyone else without the state to overwatch this things

I would share with you the link for the episode but I do not know if that's allowed in this forum =s

[lucky]

illegitimate because no one has ever asked me

That's not what "legitimate" means. "The law" and "Dystopian Darkness's permission" are two different things.

or anyone else if we supported the State as the preferable institution to organize, run and sanction human societies

Oh some other people have been asked. The state wouldn't exist if nobody wanted it to.

[Dagoth Ur]

Unnatural because it is based on a higher authority making decisions in the name of the people, not allowing the latter to make decisions for themselves according to their instincts, intuition and reasoning;

A. What does unnatural mean?
B. In what sense is authority unnatural?
C. Why do/did you believe that those capable of making decisions do not rise to the top?

illegitimate because no one has ever asked me (an anarchist) or anyone else if we supported the State as the preferable institution to organize, run and sanction human societies[/i]

If government only could exist if we all consented to it then it never would. For the collective benfit some toes must be stepped on.

[Starky]

I would say man's tendency to dominate and exploit his fellow man is completely natural. Et voilà, a state is born!

[Dystopian Darkness]

Well what do you think exist before states? Statelessness, and what did it inevitable become (in your own words " I don't see any stateless society in the world")?

I don't see why this is relevant to justify anarchism

For the vast majority of human history we (as a species) have lived as gatherer-hunters in a communal, anarchist, and egalitarian society. This is anthropology 101 right here, yet when people hear it coming from the only true anarchists (primitivists) - they simply dismiss it. [*][*] It's only since agricultural society and subsequent civilizations that we have incorporated hierarchy and the eventual state.

This doesn't prove anarchy is right, it just proves it worked sometime somewhere. We also lived in a feudalist and absolutist regime, does that mean it's acceptable to reinstate despotism again?

The state, understood as a monopoly on coercive force as directed by the most powerful in society, is inherently violent, conflictual, and thrives of social inequality. It is often founded primarily on war, and serving as a tool for the dominant classes in society, and its interests are often driven narrowly by the interests of the dominant few in society. I think that has generally been the history of everything that we have known and experienced as the state. In that sense, I take the state, more often than not, to simply be a highly sophisticated form of barbarism. That's one.

What makes you think those flaws wouldn't exist without the state?

Second, I think there is nothing more powerful or compelling in individual or social life than endeavors that occur voluntarily, out of the free inspiration and passion of those who commit to them--cooperative enterprises especially. The state, as fundamentally a coercive and centralizing entity, is the antithesis to that force, even though it often poaches upon it, using it towards the ends of the dominant few who get to make the decisions.

You're thinking unrealistically.

I would recommend you to Watch Family Guy Season10, episode21, about "Anarchy" society envisioned by Tea Party it's just like Decky Said the rich would create their "own rules" oppresing everyone else without the state to overwatch this things

That's anarcho-capitalism.

That's not what "legitimate" means. "The law" and "Dystopian Darkness's permission" are two different things.

When I said "me" I meant I and everyone in society

Oh some other people have been asked. The state wouldn't exist if nobody wanted it to.

I completely agree. I'm not arguing for anarchism here, I'm just trying to discuss it.

A. What does unnatural mean?
B. In what sense is authority unnatural?
C. Why do/did you believe that those capable of making decisions do not rise to the top?

I don't know why I used to think like that. I guess it was my rebellious inner self. I'm not an anarchist. And I agree with the implicit rhetoric answer

If government only could exist if we all consented to it then it never would. For the collective benfit some toes must be stepped on.

I agree

I would say man's tendency to dominate and exploit his fellow man is completely natural. Et voilà, a state is born!

Man has lots of tendencies

[anticlimacus]

What makes you think those flaws wouldn't exist without the state?

I say that I know these flaws (the flaws of violence, war, and preference for the most powerful) do, in fact, exist within the apparatus of the state. What I would argue is that the best way to move beyond such violent conditions is a stateless society. That there would be no violence without the state--I don't think that is realistic, accurate, or even verifiable at all. What I know, again, is that the state produces profound violence. What none of us know is what an organized (I stress organized!) stateless society would be like. My view is that it would be much better than the war producing, power mongering, wealthy-interested, power apparatuses that we have had for centuries.

You're thinking unrealistically

This is the most realistic thing I have said. The best art has been produced by passion and initiative. The best organizations that have sought social transformation has occurred from grass roots organizations concerned about their own well being. This is not unrealistic--this stuff actually happens. What is unrealistic is the idea that we can continually produce a better, fairer, and more secure world under the guise of states that exist, in what Hobbes called, a "war of all against all".

[RedPillAger]

the ethical argument is strong, but is subjective to some others. the logical argument is strong, but not all people are capable of using it.

[quetzalcoatl]

For the vast majority of human history we (as a species) have lived as gatherer-hunters in a communal, anarchist, and egalitarian society. This is anthropology 101 right here, yet when people hear it coming from the only true anarchists (primitivists) - they simply dismiss it. [*][*] It's only since agricultural society and subsequent civilizations that we have incorporated hierarchy and the eventual state.

This is the thing. You can't go back. It would require you to kill or starve 99% of the existing population in order to return to pre-agrarian tribal statelessness. Even this would be fruitless in the long run, as the evolution towards the state would simply repeat itself.