[acvar]

That is an assumption that a lot of libertarians make, but private property as we know it today could not exist without the state,

Then please explain how chimps, some monkeys, and a few birds all have chattel, and many other animals hold real estate? Are you claiming these anaimals have states?

and wage labor is a result of the artificial scarcities caused by private property.

Scarcity is not an artificial construct. It really does exist. Many animals without any sense of property succumb to it evey day.

Did you know that there were no police forces until the rise of capitalism?

No, because it is not true.

Capitalism relies upon the security state,

Again tell that to the chimps and monkeys who practice it. Tell that to the drug dealers who practice capitalism outside the proctections of the state. Tell that to the international traders who once again practice it without the support of any force of law. Do you realize how full of shit you are?

[Paradigm]

Then please explain how chimps, some monkeys, and a few birds all have chattel, and many other animals hold real estate? Are you claiming these anaimals have states?

No, I'm saying your claim is false. They don't own real estate. This is the kind of ignorance that comes from failing to understand the difference between property and possession. Property is a much more complex thing than mere territory. It involves the ability not only to deny others access to it even when you've abandoned it, but to transfer it in exchange for profit. What's more, territory belongs either to solitary animals or to a social group of animals living with each other. Property, on the other hand, is divided up among humans living within the same society. There is not even the slightest analogy to this in the animal kingdom.

Scarcity is not an artificial construct. It really does exist. Many animals without any sense of property succumb to it evey day.

In the context of wage labor, the artificial scarcity referred to that of capital. An oligopoly in land ownership prevents development of housing and industry in accordance with people's needs, and instead produces only enough capital to maintain a profit while using rents as leverage to shore up speculative profits and prevent the return on capital from falling(a phenomenon known in classical economics as the tendency of the rate of profit to fall).

No, because it is not true.

Yes it is, unlike everything you've said so far.

Again tell that to the chimps and monkeys who practice it. Tell that to the drug dealers who practice capitalism outside the proctections of the state. Tell that to the international traders who once again practice it without the support of any force of law. Do you realize how full of shit you are?

A clear demonstration that you haven't the slightest clue what capitalism is. Chimps and monkees do not practice anything like capitalism. Drug dealers have their profits handily protected by the state through prohibition(another form of artificial scarcity). International trade predates capitalism by millenia. You utterly fail at understanding the terms you're using.

[Malatant of Shadow]

AThe state may be defined as any political entity in which there is a separate political class whose decisions are enforced on the populace.

Using this definition and applying some of the other things you said, it seems to me that something could fit more conventional definitions of the state and at the same time fit your definition of anarchy. Would you say that's true?

[SecretSquirrel]

A person who thinks that anarchism is compatible with forced mutualism or communitarianism is not somebody you should bother debating.

[acvar]

Paradigm: I am sorry but you are simply ignorant. Chimps most certainly do pactice capitalism. Chimps like to eat nuts. To eat those nuts they need tools to crack them open. Those tools are improvised hand axes since chimps are not tool makers only tool users. Good improvised hand axes are rather rare to find so chimps take ownership of the ones they find. Yes they do leave them lying around just like you leave most of your possesions lying around most of the time, but when they want their hand axe other chimps return them to them without question. When the chimps notice that others are using their hand axe without permission they retrieve it. Other chimps will ask to borrow good hand axes, and it has been observed that the owners of said hand axes demand various favors in return for their use (mostly grooming and sex). How is this not capitalism? How is this not the private ownership and renting out of a means of production? Well it is.

International shiping is considered to be the birth of capitalism so of course it predates its formal definition.

[Paradigm]

Using this definition and applying some of the other things you said, it seems to me that something could fit more conventional definitions of the state and at the same time fit your definition of anarchy. Would you say that's true?

You'd have to be more specific about what "conventional" definition of the state you mean. The most commonly cited one is that given by Max Weber: The state is an entity that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. By that definition, no, it would not fit my definition of anarchy. Would could conceivably stretch the definition of government to be compatible with anarchy, since people would still come together to govern their communities. But if we were to use the word in such a way, it refer to a process rather than an institution, as people would come together as needed for whatever collective needs they need to address.

[Malatant of Shadow]

So, Paradigm, to clarify, your conception of a government consistent with anarchy would not include a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

Does that mean that the governing process or arrangement or whatever you want to call it would not be empowered to enforce its rulings? Or does it mean that other entities would also have access to legitimate use of force, hence the government would not have a monopoly?

[Paradigm]

Does that mean that the governing process or arrangement or whatever you want to call it would not be empowered to enforce its rulings? Or does it mean that other entities would also have access to legitimate use of force, hence the government would not have a monopoly?

There would be no "rulings." Only consensus. That is, the people would come together and decide what they're going to do, then go out and do it. It's about people getting on the same page and coordinating their actions together, not making a decision that they enforce on others. The legitimacy of a consensus would be measured by people's willingness to carry it out. As for force, the people would collaborate to defend their communities.

[michael3]

I'm glad you're an Anarchist willing to consider force, but where do you draw the line? I likewise favor force in an Anarchist society, but i'm a bit fuzzy on details as of yet.

[SecretSquirrel]

if you are in favor of the use of force to build your ideal society then you are not an anarchist. you are a fascist

[Paradigm]

I'm glad you're an Anarchist willing to consider force, but where do you draw the line? I likewise favor force in an Anarchist society, but i'm a bit fuzzy on details as of yet.

The force I refer to is simply people defending themselves and their communities. It should be used whenever someone is a threat to others, and other options are not available or realistic. Restorative justice should be used to the fullest extent possible, but in cases of deranged people like serial killers, that may not be an option, and more forceful means should be employed to protect the people from them. All in all, the amount of force required in such a society would be considerably less than in a society like ours that requires the protection of ill-gotten fortunes.

[michael3]

"The force I refer to is simply people defending themselves and their communities. It should be used whenever someone is a threat to others, and other options are not available or realistic. Restorative justice should be used to the fullest extent possible, but in cases of deranged people like serial killers, that may not be an option, and more forceful means should be employed to protect the people from them. All in all, the amount of force required in such a society would be considerably less than in a society like ours that requires the protection of ill-gotten fortunes."

Ok, that is pretty much what i'm in favor of, apparently, I just wanted to be sure. I certainly agree that less force would be required than in a society that desires protection of ill-gotten personal gains.

[michael3]

if you are in favor of the use of force to build your ideal society then you are not an anarchist. you are a fascist

Not to build it, the 'ideal society', but the use of such force required to defend it. And not the intitiation of force either. You seem to have a rather broad and unrealistic concept of the term; fascist.