[Beal]

Fine, but then give it a new name, don’t call it by an existing name. Above all, don’t apply your creation to someone else’s term as used in their preceding argument.

You obviously have missed the point, or are just refusing to address it.

We can add anthropology to semantics in your areas of deficiency.
I didn’t use the word tribe. There was a reason.

The word "tribe" is still commonly used by anthropologists. I don't have your CD encylopedia, so I can't verify that it pursues the nonsense notion that anthropologsts no longer use the word "tribe," or whether your quote is taken out of context. If it did indicate what you claimed it indicated, that probably reflected an unsuccessful, PC effort to stamp out a word that is allegedly condescending.

I used the word "tribe" for good reason, junior. Tribal societies, with chiefs and elders just as I described, were the most common form of human organization before the development of states. In fact many anthropologists describe them as a step in the evolution of human society after bands but before states or civilizations. Tribes organized for a number of reasons, but they almost always had chiefs or elders as leaders. In fact the presence of some form of leadership is one of the defining characteristics.

When the Europeans landed in America, they didn't find a whole lot of autonomous collectives, they found tribes, with chiefs and elders--people who held positions of authority over the rest of the organization.

Elders and leaders are not necessarily government. Even Chiefs are not necessarily government. See definition of government below.

Funny, Sans just got done trying to define anarchy as collective decision making and enforcement. Chiefs and elders make decisions that affect the whole group (that's kind of why they exist.) So are you in disagreement with Sans? Sorry, it just get's a little confusing, I guess, when every anarchist I meet has a completely different view of how their utopia would function.

Gee, I wonder if the fact that none of you can get your story straight means something...

If people voluntarily follow a leader, that isn’t government as long as they have the option of disobeying.

That's kind of an important point there, Dan: tribal members didn't have the option of disobeying. They might be punished or simply cast out of the group, but somehow, the notion that they were free to disobey is nonsense.

I didn’t use the word egalitarian

No, I did, to make an important distinction.

Nevertheless, a San culture did once exist

Ah yes, go ahead and find exceptions where highly limited government and collective economies functioned and pretend that 1) the same thing is possible in even an agrarian, let alone industrial society, and 2) ignore the original point: Bushmen have no ability to prohibit slavery.

[DubiousDan]

The word "tribe" is still commonly used by anthropologists. I don't have your CD encyclopedia, so I can't verify that it pursues the nonsense notion that anthropologists no longer use the word "tribe," or whether your quote is taken out of context. If it did indicate what you claimed it indicated, that probably reflected an unsuccessful, PC effort to stamp out a word that is allegedly condescending.

I used the word "tribe" for good reason, junior. Tribal societies, with chiefs and elders just as I described, were the most common form of human organization before the development of states. In fact many anthropologists describe them as a step in the evolution of human society after bands but before states or civilizations. Tribes organized for a number of reasons, but they almost always had chiefs or elders as leaders. In fact the presence of some form of leadership is one of the defining characteristics.

When the Europeans landed in America, they didn't find a whole lot of autonomous collectives, they found tribes, with chiefs and elders--people who held positions of authority over the rest of the organization.

Junior, I’m seventy-four years old, how old are you? How would you know what anthropologist describe? If you have read even one book on anthropology, then you should take a course on remedial reading. It would be nice to know the name of even one anthropologist who supports your viewpoints.

When Europeans landed in America, just how many hunter gatherer social orders did they encounter? Most Amerindians were agricultural, large numbers were civilized. There were a few hunter gatherer social orders. Theodora Kroeber describes one in “Ishi in Two Worlds”. Notice the chiefs and government therein. Your comic book anthropology is getting tiresome. My post was about hunter gatherer social orders. Most of your nonsense doesn’t apply to hunter gatherer social orders.

I spent a lot of time and effort to know what I know. I follow the conventions of language and logic. I make an effort to allow for the current state of American education when discussing issues. However, there is a limit.

You obviously want to play in your own little sandbox according to your own rules. You have my permission to do so.

Funny, Sans just got done trying to define anarchy as collective decision making and enforcement. Chiefs and elders make decisions that affect the whole group (that's kind of why they exist.) So are you in disagreement with Sans? Sorry, it just get's a little confusing, I guess, when every anarchist I meet has a completely different view of how their utopia would function.

Gee, I wonder if the fact that none of you can get your story straight means something...

Gee, and of course, you will answer for every capitalist who posts? After all, you folks have got to get your act together. Dealing with stupidity like this is a waste of my time. As my old army sergeant used to say, “The easiest way to prove I’m an idiot is to argue with one.”

I’ll quit while, hopefully, there is a little doubt on the issue.

[Suska]

I asked you questions, not for a reference to reading material. If you don't want to answer the questions, there isn't much point to this thread... I have little interest in your patronizing bullshit.

Could you be even more patronizing at the same time? The fact is you don't know what you're talking about, if you want to act like that means you're smarter than everyone else I could be comfortable with that; you deserve your ignorance.

If you want to define Anarchy as the absence of government and government as decision making its clear you want to prove that anarchy cannot exists. Like I said, we've been over this before. But obviously you don't want to hear what I think.

[ninurta]

Babylon was the first civilization, i.e. the first society to stratify into classes, into lords and slaves, into a managing class and a producing class. It is therefore a metaphor for all class society since its birth. It's also more than a metaphor, since all civilizations since Babylon have been modelled on its bureaucratic organisation.
People striving to overthrow any masters are therefore overthrowing Babylon

No it wasn't, that was Sumeria and Egypt. Possibly also Harrappa, China, and a few others that predate Babylon by a few millenia. Then you have the civilization Babylon evolved from, the Akkadians.

Actually, Ancient Babylonia didn't have that type of class structure. Or aren't you thinking medieval europe sense of Lords, serfs and all that?

Babylon got it's class structure from Sumer and Akkad.

[Suska]

nin, have you never heard Babylon used as a synonym for civilization?
A search of my music folder turns up 10 songs with the term Babylon in the title. 4 with Zion.

[youtube]EPmNLyQXq70[/youtube]

[Beal]

Junior, I’m seventy-four years old

You're a 74 year old anarchist?

I mean, 18 I could understand. Maybe even 25. But 74?

How would you know what anthropologist describe?

You looked the word "tribe" up in an encyclopedia. In a rush to "prove me wrong" on something, you apparently misinterpreted the entry or used a poor encyclopedia. Either way, you are obviously the one who needs to broaden his horizons, not I. I guess it is not surprising that you believe your, ahem, "research skills" and "extensive expertise" have provided you with unique insight. You are, after all, a 74 year old anarchist.

The socio-political classifications of band, tribe, chiefdom, and state are a foundation of virtually any Anthro-101 class, not to mention Archaeology and Evolutionary Biology.

Here, why don't we just start going down the list of google results, instead of relying on your alleged authority?

Some community college in Arizona?
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb ... intro.html
See section "Bands, Tribes, Chiefdoms, and States"

What about a an Anthro dictionary at Oregon State University?
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html

Some random article? Who knows, maybe this person is an idiot. Maybe not. But I am seeing a bit of a pattern here...everyone still using the term "tribe."
http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... tml?cat=37

Take the McGraw-Hill test:
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0 ... rcise.html

Syllabus for a Political Anthro class at Boston University mentioning band, tribe, chiefdom, and state:
http://www.bu.edu/ir/files/courses/200- ... %20371.pdf

Are you done with the appeal to authority bullshit, junior?

It would be nice to know the name of even one anthropologist who supports your viewpoints.

Most Amerindians were agricultural

Many practiced horticulture, professor. Not that you would know the difference or why it matters to this discussion.

There were a few hunter gatherer social orders.

They ranged from primarily hunter-gatherers in North American tribes to a mixture of nomadic and sedentary groups to the South. Either way, 1) there were far more than a "few" hunter gatherers; and 2) it doesn't matter to this argument. Pretty much all of them had some form of non-collective leadership.

My post was about hunter gatherer social orders.

Your point was about "most of human history," professor. I'll add "short attention span" to your growing list of expertises.

I spent a lot of time and effort to know what I know.

Your appeal to authority and $1 will buy you a cup of coffee.

Gee, and of course, you will answer for every capitalist who posts?

Most capitalists agree on at least the basics. You know, supply and demand, price signals, etc..? It says something when the basic tenets change from person to person.

[ninurta]

nin, have you never heard Babylon used as a synonym for civilization?
A search of my music folder turns up 10 songs with the term Babylon in the title. 4 with Zion.

[youtube]EPmNLyQXq70[/youtube]

Not until know. Though I get the concep.

[Beal]

If you want to define Anarchy as the absence of government and government as decision making

If you had a clue what this conversation was about, I might take your opinion a bit more seriously. (I never defined government solely as decision making.) Your contribution, thus far, has been lacking.

its clear you want to prove that anarchy cannot exist

I made no such claim, nor do I believe it to be true. Your homework, before you respond, is to reread this thread and figure out what started this discussion.

[Suska]

There are good answers to all the leading questions you ask before this, but for me this is where the thread starts

wiki is always helpful

I asked you questions, not for a reference to reading material. If you don't want to answer the questions, there isn't much point to this thread.

And my response was that I see you don't want to learn anything. Everything you've said after this is a repetition of that with a few mild insults thrown in, not just to me. And so here we are. I have no interest in explaining things to someone with your manners, I'm just here to make sure you know my feelings on the matter.

When you want to talk about what anarchy means you might try listening when people answer you, I find it gives people better things to talk about rather than say, what an ass so and so is.

[Beal]

And my response was that I see you don't want to learn anything.

Your response? I didn't even ask that question of you. You make it sound as if you have been part of this discussion at some point. You haven't, at least not with me. The only thing you have provided is worthless, personal side comments.

Everything you've said after this is a repetition of that with a few mild insults thrown in, not just to me.

Suska, you were the first person to introduce any kind of hostility to this discussion. You patronized me, insulted me, and added absolutely nothing else. I responded in kind. Do you not understand when you've been told to go screw yourself?

And so here we are. I have no interest in explaining things to someone with your manners, I'm just here to make sure you know my feelings on the matter.

I haven't asked you to explain anything. That was Sans. Look to the top of your screen. You will see a section that reads: [ Logout [ Suska ] ] That is a convenient little reminder of what name you are posting under.

I have asked nothing of you, other than to either participate in a meaningful manner or stop participating. This really isn't that tough.

[Suska]

This is the Anarchy forum, we talk about Anarchy here. There are a variety of ways to define Anarchy, here we define in its favorable light, as political philosophers such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon have described it. The question was "how do anarchists envision a modern society?" Your answer was, "Without government, you cannot prohibit anything." Which is really ground-level ignorant about Anarchy as a political philosophy, as well as off-topic - and instead of asking a question, for instance by adding the phrase, "how does this work.." to the beginning of your statement, you made a false statement which the barest scan of the wikipedia entry on Anarchy would clear up. When the logical question about your statement arose you made another bold one.

Any person or organization which endeavors to regulate or prohibit activity, including slavery, is de facto government.

Which, while not being entirely false is wide of the mark and again demonstrates a lack of basic understanding and no interest in asking a question. A series of such statements followed. Someone suggested a look at wikipedia, albeit not the Anarchy entry, still your answer was that you don't need reference material. At which point I suggested you do and your reply demonstrates enormous insincerity.

This answer you called "patronizing bullshit."

So now again you are wrong when you say

Suska, you were the first person to introduce any kind of hostility to this discussion.

On the other hand, I would be glad to discuss Anarchy as I understand it with you, but now I need some reassuring because so far as I can tell you are simply trolling the Anarchy forum, and I kind of like it. So I'm sticking up for it.