[Potemkin]

I would not use the term egalitarian to describe anarchism in any form Pote. I used it in a bracket because I would say that anarchism is more egalitarian than hierarchical. The choices for this poll were restrictive which I had actually addressed. I forgot you are the English snooty on PoFo so I should have explained myself much better just for you so you didn't need to get your dictionary out.

Quite so, old boy!

Well that is true. But being that I suspect that there be no laws and you could do whatever you like (so complete freedom), I don't see it as a hierarchy as you can choose to ignore it if you like.

Freedom from what? From formal laws, yes. From tribal customs or the censure of the tribal elders? Nope. Those guys could order you to be expelled from the tribe or even killed. That's a hierarchy.

[B0ycey]

Freedom from what? From formal laws, yes. From tribal customs or the censure of the tribal elders? Nope. Those guys could order you to be expelled from the tribe or even killed. That's a hierarchy.

I don't see the future on mankind being an episode of GoT Pote. I suspect it will be a game of survival. People will look out for themselves and it will be groups of families. So people will not have any interest in killing for killing sakes. Also I think that the intelligence of modern mankind means I don't think that even a medieval society is possible. I just don't think that when the spoils have been lost and capital becomes a nothing concept that a hierarchy could ever be achieved again. I don't see a need for it. That is how I see things anyway. That is how I "guess" mankind will go.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I used it in a bracket because I would say that anarchism is more egalitarian than hierarchical.

That is crazy. If that is the case, then I (who could technically be classified as an Anarcho-Capitalist) would have to be considered an egalitarian-of-sorts

I've been called many things in my life.....but an egalitarian is definitely not one of them.

Well that is true. But being that I suspect that there be no laws and you could do whatever you like (so complete freedom), I don't see it as a hierarchy as you can choose to ignore it if you like.

I think the confusion here lies in that you seem to be confusing "equal opportunity" as it exists in a state of nature and egalitarianism as held by progressives and leftists.

"Equal opportunity" is not egalitarianism, if it were, then there would no difference between the political views of Communists and Libertarians. The State of Nature is not egalitarian because people are not naturally equal, but in a state of nature, people have equal opportunity to survive, thrive, and even overcome their natural inequality.

However in such a state of nature, this equal opportunity cannot be called egalitarian. Nature knows no equality and hierarchies develop naturally into forms of hierarchical governance because nature knows no equality. This is why patriarchy or some sort of feudalism will almost invariable evolve out of a state of anarchy. The strong will take the women they want, the land they want, and others will have to kiss the ring or die.

None of this requires a central form of governance and can exist in a pure state of private property, a natural order society.

In contrast, egalitarianism requires some sort of social structure to "level-off" what nature has left uneven (unequal). This almost always necessitates a form of democracy and common-ownership and rejection of natural human distinctions, whether it be sex, race, or whatever....This can exist in a small tribe or a giant empire, however neither of these can be said to be anarchist in themselves, they may be communal and unsophisticated, but they are not anarchist.

Hope that helps.

[B0ycey]

That is crazy. If that is the case, then I (who could technically be classified as an Anarcho-Capitalist) would have to be considered an egalitarian-of-sorts

The short answer is next time make a better poll. Or even better just start a topic. Then there be no confusion as I would have no need to use brackets.

I've been called many things in my life.....but an egalitarian is definitely not one of them.

I would not address you as an egalitarian VS. Nor your views. You made an assumption from "your" twisted logic.

I think the confusion here lies in that you seem to be confusing "equal opportunity" as it exists in a state of nature and egalitarianism as held by progressives and leftists.

In terms of this thread and how it has been presented, I see egalitarianism as equality and hierarchy as a privileged society.

"Equal opportunity" is not egalitarianism, if it were, then there would no difference between the political views of Communists and Libertarians. The State of Nature is not egalitarian because people are not naturally equal, but in a state of nature, people have equal opportunity to survive, thrive, and even overcome their natural inequality.

We will have to disagree here. This is exactly how I see egalitarism.

.

However in such a state of nature, this equal opportunity cannot be called egalitarian. Nature knows no equality and hierarchies develop naturally into forms of hierarchical governance because nature knows no equality. This is why patriarchy or some sort of feudalism will almost invariable evolve out of a state of anarchy. The strong will take the women they want, the land they want, and others will have to kiss the ring or die.

None of this requires a central form of governance and can exist in a pure state of private property, a natural order society.

In contrast, egalitarianism requires some sort of social structure to "level-off" what nature has left uneven (unequal). This almost always necessitates a form of democracy and common-ownership and rejection of natural human distinctions, whether it be sex, race, or whatever....This can exist in a small tribe or a giant empire, however neither of these can be said to be anarchist in themselves, they may be communal and unsophisticated, but they are not anarchist.

Hope that helps.

I won't disagree with most of what you write except that hierarchy's are destined to develop . But I still regard anarchism more egalitarian than hierarchical nonetheless. But had I not tried to incorporated your poll into my post, we wouldn't be having this debate anyway. So I retract my statement to spare both your and Potes feelings and select that the future will be 'primative and anti social' instead.

[Potemkin]

I don't see the future on mankind being an episode of GoT Pote. I suspect it will be a game of survival. People will look out for themselves and it will be groups of families. So people will not have any interest in killing for killing sakes. Also I think that the intelligence of modern mankind means I don't think that even a medieval society is possible. I just don't think that when the spoils have been lost and capital becomes a nothing concept that a hierarchy could ever be achieved again. I don't see a need for it. That is how I see things anyway. That is how I "guess" mankind will go.

For the same reason a hierarchy was needed during and after the collapse of the Roman Empire - for protection. If there is absolute freedom from law, then there is no protection for the weak and defenseless except what can be provided by some local strongman or warlord. After all, there's a reason why feudalism developed in Europe in the aftermath of the collapse of the Roman Empire. And it was a highly successful system, lasting more than a thousand years, precisely because it offered people security in return for obedience to the hereditary hierarchy of the feudal lords. Any loss of centralised authority in the modern world would likely lead to a similar rigidly hierarchical society based on military force. Anarchism naturally tends to generate its own dialectical opposite.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The short answer is next time make a better poll. Or even better just start a topic. Then there be no confusion as I would have no need to use brackets.

Actually, you just need to understand words better.

Quit throwing a fit and blaming the poll and just take it on the chin like a man and move on and just learn not to equivocate on terms ever again.

I would not address you as an egalitarian VS. Nor your views. You made an assumption from "your" twisted logic.

In terms of this thread and how it has been presented, I see egalitarianism as equality and hierarchy as a privileged society.

If my definitions are too restrictive, than these are way too fucking broad.

We will have to disagree here. This is exactly how I see egalitarism.

Welcome to Libertarianism.

Which means we are in the same camp....

Well it does and I won't disagree with what you write. But I still regard anarchism more egalitarian than hierarchical. But had I not tried to incorporated your poll into my post, we wouldn't be having this debate. So I retract my statement to spare both of your feelings and select that the future will be 'primitive and anti social' instead.

I was just trying to help ya out bro....think of it this way, if me and @Potemkin actually agree on this, namely that you are using a word (egalitarian) incorrectly, then there is a pretty good chance your are using that word incorrectly.

Anyways....welcome to libertarianism, we can now officially grab a beer together as we mutually protest government rules and regulations which would infringe on the equal opportunity afforded by a state of nature (anarchy).

[Victoribus Spolia]

For the same reason a hierarchy was needed during and after the collapse of the Roman Empire - for protection. If there is absolute freedom from law, then there is no protection for the weak and defenseless except what can be provided by some local strongman or warlord. After all, there's a reason why feudalism developed in Europe in the aftermath of the collapse of the Roman Empire. And it was a highly successful system, lasting more than a thousand years, precisely because it offered people security in return for obedience to the hereditary hierarchy of the feudal lords. Any loss of centralised authority in the modern world would likely lead to a similar rigidly hierarchical society based on military force. Anarchism naturally tends to generate its own dialectical opposite.

Absolutely, I agree with everything you said except the last part of your last sentence. Why?

Because I would hardly call Feudalism the dialectical opposite of Anarchy.....not to rain of your Hegelian parade.

This is exactly the thesis of Hoppe that converted me recently. Anarcho-Capitalism IS Feudalism (A Private property society). The Natural Order which exists in the absence of government IS aristocratic Patriarchy.

[Pants-of-dog]

Since feudalism requires a hierarchical state that enforces laws, it cannot be anarchist.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Since feudalism requires a hierarchical state that enforces laws, it cannot be anarchist.

Anarcho-Capitalism, as Hoppe and other Paleo-Libertarians advocate, is that in a state of nature, where no government organizations exist, a personal retainer of property controlling its circumstances can hardly be called a state of governance in the modern sense. That the proprietors of such impose "rents" or "laws" is not government, as one can opt out of the property controlled by the proprietor and go to another.

A person controlling the circumstances of his own private property is not considered contrary to anarcho-capitalism by anarcho-captialists. the third-party infringement of such based on the monopolization of coercion and expropriation is, and that is the minimal definition of government (according to Hoppe), this would be the contrary to private property absolutism (anarchy).

[B0ycey]

For the same reason a hierarchy was needed during and after the collapse of the Roman Empire - for protection. If there is absolute freedom from law, then there is no protection for the weak and defenseless except what can be provided by some local strongman or warlord. After all, there's a reason why feudalism developed in Europe in the aftermath of the collapse of the Roman Empire. And it was a highly successful system, lasting more than a thousand years, precisely because it offered people security in return for obedience to the hereditary hierarchy of the feudal lords. Any loss of centralised authority in the modern world would likely lead to a similar rigidly hierarchical society based on military force. Anarchism naturally tends to generate its own dialectical opposite.

For a Communist who believes that Marx is destined to be correct, you are sure fighting hard for feudalism if society collapses. If it helps, I don't think Marx is correct either. Human instinct is too greedy and selfish after all.

Naturally there be fighting among tribes. But I don't think humans will give up their ultimate freedoms in a lawless society for a social contract of protection. Protection will be achieved by working together (pacts). And I will also repeat that I don't think a heirarchy could be achieved ever again - as no one is going to submit their rights to someone else by good grace alone. Rome and Egypt were sustained and built by slavery. Perhaps if people were to develop or obtain strong weaponry perhaps yes, Feudalism is humanities destiny. But I think if society does collapse, with the expection of America, weapons would be relatively primative for most people to begin with so survival will be everyone's objectives, not dominance or recreating a "Brave New World". I see a future being more like Mad Max than GoT.

[Victoribus Spolia]

For a Communist who believes that Marx is destined to be correct, you are sure fighting hard for feudalism if society collapses. If it helps, I don't think Marx is correct either. Human instinct is too greedy and selfish after all.

Well its hard not to agree with me after all....

I see a future being more like Mad Max

Sure, that is how it will be at the start, but as things stabilize, the resultant systems could only be described as "feudal."

[Potemkin]

Because I would hardly call Feudalism the dialectical opposite of Anarchy.....not to rain of your Hegelian parade.

This is exactly the thesis of Hoppe that converted me recently. Anarcho-Capitalism IS Feudalism (A Private property society). The Natural Order which exists in the absence of government IS aristocratic Patriarchy.

I would rather say that anarcho-capitalism naturally gives rise to feudalism, rather than being feudalism. After all, the feudal system of medieval Europe did not arise out of capitalism, but out of the slave-based latifundia estates of the late Roman Empire - a slave-based agrarian economy. Any form of anarchism - which is to say, any loss of centralised authority - will tend to lead to military warlords establishing themselves as hereditary feudal lords by offering protection to those who cannot protect themselves. This neo-feudal system would likely take a different economic form than medieval European feudalism, but would be a similar form of hierarchy - based on the use or threat of military force, based on the inalienable control of the means of production, and hereditary.

For a Communist who believes that Marx is destined to be correct, you are sure fighting hard for feudalism if society collapses. If it helps, I don't think Marx is correct either. Human instinct is too greedy and selfish after all.

Rosa Luxemburg once wrote that there are only two possible futures for capitalist society - socialism or barbarism. What I have just described is the 'barbarism' option. The fight for socialism is the fight for human civilisation itself.

[Truth To Power]

Barring extreme catastrophe, it will be technologically advanced because there is no putting that genie back in the bottle. It will be egalitarian because superhuman artificial intelligence (SAI) will make hierarchy both functionally superfluous (SAI will be in charge because no human will be able to compete with it) and difficult to sustain (though the nature of the post-singularity world will depend sensitively on how we manage the emergence of SAI). Human variation will become wider in some ways, but much narrower in the ways that tend to sustain hierarchy -- intelligence and personality -- because people will be able to choose which of their genes they pass on, and the ones that are maladaptive in modern highly technical societies will disappear. In 100 years or so, there will be effectively no one left who is unintelligent, unhealthy, impulsive, violent, etc. Even the deleterious effects of undesirable genes will be reversible with drugs, nanosurgery, etc.

[Pants-of-dog]

Anarcho-Capitalism, as Hoppe and other Paleo-Libertarians advocate, is that in a state of nature, where no government organizations exist, a personal retainer of property controlling its circumstances can hardly be called a state of governance in the modern sense. That the proprietors of such impose "rents" or "laws" is not government, as one can opt out of the property controlled by the proprietor and go to another.

A person controlling the circumstances of his own private property is not considered contrary to anarcho-capitalism by anarcho-captialists. the third-party infringement of such based on the monopolization of coercion and expropriation is, and that is the minimal definition of government (according to Hoppe), this would be the contrary to private property absolutism (anarchy).

Then this is not feudalism, but would almost certainly lead to it, as @Potemkin pointed out.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Rosa Luxemburg once wrote that there are only two possible futures for capitalist society - socialism or barbarism. What I have just described is the 'barbarism' option. The fight for socialism is the fight for human civilisation itself.

Unless what she calls barbarism is actually the civilization we lost and all crave deep inside whereas the socialist outcome is the true barbarism......otherwise, she may be absolutely right.

So.....@Potemkin,

I have been drinking single-malt scotch consistently now for several months and I no longer can stomach Bourbon....

Many thanks Great Master!

[Potemkin]

I have been drinking single-malt scotch consistently now for several months and I no longer can stomach Bourbon....

Many thanks Great Master!

Glad to have been of service, VS.

I hope you're not still smoking aromatic tobaccos....

[Victoribus Spolia]

Then this is not feudalism, but would almost certainly lead to it, as @Potemkin pointed out.

I think that depends on definitions.

If we mean the historical particularities following the collapse of Rome, then you may be right, but obviously I am referring to a future scenario that would not be exactly the same.

Furthermore, regarding what you and Potemkin have stated, it would seem a lot of this rides of how broad or strict we are regarding the term "anarchy."

Once again, if by anarchy we only mean a state of chaos (the more colloquial use of the phrase), then of course the two are incompatible.

However, I have been using Anarchy in the more etymological sense of "no government" as in, no third person monopolization of coercion and expropriation over-and-against other private property owners.

My use of term has been broad enough to allow for both a chaotic period immediately post-collapse and after the dust settles, so long as no third-party government that violates absolute property rights emerges.

That this system is essentially feudalism in its structure, for me, is entirely sufficient to at least call it "Neo-Feudalist."

[Victoribus Spolia]

I hope you're not still smoking aromatic tobaccos

But Master.......I am still weak and cannot but finish my tin of cherry liquer soaked cavendish....forgive my weakness (and frugality).

Teach me O' Master.....what shall I smoketh?

[Truth To Power]

I would hardly call Feudalism the dialectical opposite of Anarchy.....not to rain of your Hegelian parade.

Correct. Feudalism is what happens when private landowning, which is a creature of government, persists even when government disappears.

This is exactly the thesis of Hoppe that converted me recently.

Abandon all hope, ye who succumb to Hoppe...

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is one of the most dishonest and destructive "intellectuals" since Kant.

Anarcho-Capitalism IS Feudalism (A Private property society).

Correct! Poor, violent, stagnant, unjust, ignorant -- all the societal qualities Atilla and the witch doctor (to borrow from Ayn Rand) find most desirable. Right up your alley.

The Natural Order which exists in the absence of government IS aristocratic Patriarchy.

Which is why societies with governments reliably out-compete those without.

[Truth To Power]

Since feudalism requires a hierarchical state that enforces laws, it cannot be anarchist.

Feudalism does not require a state, only its fossilized remains: private ownership of land. Feudalism has never emerged in any pre-governmental society, only in post-governmental ones.