What is Anarchy?

Hazlittle

http://irishlibertyforum.org/researched-articles/68-what-is-anarchy.html

"That government is best which governs not at all”.
-Henry David Thoreau.

Anarchy is Greek for “without a leader or chief”. The basis for anarchist theory can go as far back as Aristotle. The word “Anarchy” first came into usage as a term of abuse during the English Civil by Royalists to describe Parliamentarians, claiming that their opponents prefer disorder in society. “Anarchy” today is still mostly used to describe a chaotic, lawless and violent society. The philosophical application of anarchy as a form of governance is called “Anarchism”. The modern schools of anarchist philosophy became popular in the ninetieth century after the Jacobin government of the French Revolution became unsatisfactory. There are as many forms of anarchy as there are anarchists. Most anarchist schools can be loosely divided into two main groups: collectivist and individualist anarchy. Anarchist thinkers may originally come from both left-wing and right-wing ideologies. There are few main principles common to all anarchists.

Articles continues to explain some anarchist theory. No historical examples given but I am told they will come later if you sign up on the left for the newsletter.

Personally I prefer anarcho-naturism. As I dont like government and I like being naked.:D

Denerick

These kinds of ideas are fine, so long as people don't begin to take them seriously. Most of the advocates of an anarchist society would be incapable of surviving in an anarchist society. That thought always makes me chuckle

Hazlittle

Denerick wrote: »

These kinds of ideas are fine, so long as people don't begin to take them seriously. Most of the advocates of an anarchist society would be incapable of surviving in an anarchist society. That thought always makes me chuckle

I'm not aware of a service I need that the government provides. Fire department would be the hardest to emulate but still it can be done. Anyway your comment is daft and immature.

oscarBravo

Hazlittle wrote: »

I'm not aware of a service I need that the government provides.

Come back to me on that when someone has broken into your house and taken all your stuff.

Denerick

Hazlittle wrote: »

I'm not aware of a service I need that the government provides. Fire department would be the hardest to emulate but still it can be done. Anyway your comment is daft and immature.

So you'd be willing and able to stand up to Al Capone?

Or perhaps society needs an overarching governing process to protect the weak from the brutal?

Its not daft or immature at all - its realistic. Anarchism is an adolescent ideology. Most grow out of it once they realise how much they are on their own already, even in the modern welfare state.

silverharp

Denerick wrote: »

So you'd be willing and able to stand up to Al Capone?

Or perhaps society needs an overarching governing process to protect the weak from the brutal?

Its not daft or immature at all - its realistic. Anarchism is an adolescent ideology. Most grow out of it once they realise how much they are on their own already, even in the modern welfare state.

the counter argument is that we are beginning to see that the welfare state is a ponzi scheme, there is no way the up and coming generation is going to enjoy the same benefits as their parents or grandparentss. personally I'd like to have the choice of funding my own medical needs versus buying the latest flat screen tv. So to be honest in this case adolescents areahead of the curve:D
Also from a living arrangement perspective I equate the modern breakdown in family structures and local communities as being corellated to the rise of big government and the welfare state. So one has to ask, after one has provided welfare to the bottom 10% say , why the rest? it is not doing me any favours that I couldnt look after on my own account.

Denerick

Thats missing the point. The issue is whether one could survive on their own in an anarchist society. My contention is that most could not, especially the semi intellectual (IE, students who have just discovered the Ayn Rand article on Wikipedia) types. In other words even debating it is futile.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hazlittle

oscarBravo wrote: »

Come back to me on that when someone has broken into your house and taken all your stuff.

Yep. Been attacked many times. I'd rather spend €310 once on a gun then spend €12k a year on services I dont receive.

Dont assume you know the story of my life keyboard warrior.

Denerick wrote: »

So you'd be willing and able to stand up to Al Capone?

Or perhaps society needs an overarching governing process to protect the weak from the brutal?

Organised crime exists because the black market exists which only exist because laws exist.

I'd pay directly for security then the way we do it know.

Denerick wrote: »

Its not daft or immature at all - its realistic. Anarchism is an adolescent ideology. Most grow out of it once they realise how much they are on their own already, even in the modern welfare state.

Most anarchists I know are triple my age. And I am an adult male.

Denerick wrote: »

Thats missing the point. The issue is whether one could survive on their own in an anarchist society. My contention is that most could not, especially the semi intellectual (IE, students who have just discovered the Ayn Rand article on Wikipedia) types. In other words even debating it is futile.

I guess you didnt read the article in full. It says nothing about people living on their own. Anarchist isnt without order just doesnt have a mandatory order.

oscarBravo

Hazlittle wrote: »

I'd rather spend €310 once on a gun then spend €12k a year on services I dont receive.

In the absence of a police force, I doubt your single gun would keep you particularly safe.

Lockstep

Denerick wrote: »

These kinds of ideas are fine, so long as people don't begin to take them seriously. Most of the advocates of an anarchist society would be incapable of surviving in an anarchist society. That thought always makes me chuckle

There's a few anarchy advocates in my university. Only one of whom I can concievably see surviving in an anarchist society. All are the kids of highly paid public sector workers.
The irony never ceases to amaze me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think I mentioned before the time I was attending (Though not participating) in the anti-student fee's demonstration in front of the Dáil.

The horizon was littered with the black and red flags.

Never underestimate the ability of university students to be moronic idiots.

It nicely proves the point that university education isn't all its cracked up to be

nyarlothothep

Denerick wrote: »

I think I mentioned before the time I was attending (Though not participating) in the anti-student fee's demonstration in front of the Dáil.

The horizon was littered with the black and red flags.

Never underestimate the ability of university students to be moronic idiots.

It nicely proves the point that university education isn't all its cracked up to be

sigh generalizations abound.

Valmont

nyarlothothep wrote: »

sigh generalizations abound.

It was like the tea party protesters with the placards that read "Hands off my medicare".

Denerick

nyarlothothep wrote: »

sigh generalizations abound.

Which part do you disagree with? That students waved the anarchist flag? Or that students are moronic idiots? Logically I was not generalising all students as then I would be including myself as a 'moronic idiot'... Thus you must think that the anarchist flag wave is a generalisation... Well sir, that makes absolutely no sense, I mean in the linguistic sense... So what is your point?

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To give the Sex Pistols their due, the only one who advocated anarchy in any actual way was Johnny Rotten, and he was from an extremely poor background himself.
The Sex Pistols aren't really seen as proper anarchists in the anarcho-punk scene anyway.

Denerick wrote: »

I think I mentioned before the time I was attending (Though not participating) in the anti-student fee's demonstration in front of the Dáil.

The horizon was littered with the black and red flags.

Never underestimate the ability of university students to be moronic idiots.

It nicely proves the point that university education isn't all its cracked up to be

I was watching the same demonstration. It was hilarious seeing all those black and red flags, flown by the type of people who, if there was an anarchist/socialist revolition, would be the first to be lined against the wall to be shot as members of bourgeoisie.
There seems to be something about the more privileged university students that gets them attracted to extreme ideologies (be it hardline socialism, libertarianism or anarchism.

simplistic2

oscarBravo wrote: »

In the absence of a police force, I doubt your single gun would keep you particularly safe.

Why wouldnt there be a police force? Id gladly pay for a voluntary policing service.

simplistic2

Denerick wrote: »

These kinds of ideas are fine, so long as people don't begin to take them seriously. Most of the advocates of an anarchist society would be incapable of surviving in an anarchist society. That thought always makes me chuckle

The basic principles of Anarchist thought are self ownership , non-initiation of force and property rights.

If you genuinely care about your fellow man I think you would respect these principles. You wouldnt support violence being used against him or having the product of his labour stolen from him.

But your a democrat so I suppose you prefer the illusion of government. If you follow the principles of government on a personal level in your own life , taxation, assaulting people for vitimless crimes people would see you as a criminal.

But the fact is most of us are Anarchists in our personal lives we dont steal , assault anyone. Its just that many people have a problem appling this at a wider level.

Statism is a religion , its an irrational belief that is dying thank God:D

Denerick

As a statist not only do I steal children and reapportion them to better families, I also thump the rich over the head in order to live longer by paying for a better health system and a more equitable pension settlement. In short I'm a monster.

oscarBravo

simplistic2 wrote: »

Why wouldnt there be a police force? Id gladly pay for a voluntary policing service.

...and now you're paying a lot more than the €310 for the gun.

simplistic2

Denerick wrote: »

As a statist not only do I steal children and reapportion them to better families, I also thump the rich over the head in order to live longer by paying for a better health system and a more equitable pension settlement. In short I'm a monster.

...disgusting

simplistic2

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and now you're paying a lot more than the €310 for the gun.

Id probably have both really. The gun to use as a deterrent and Id pay security to find people that get past the gun.

Denerick

simplistic2 wrote: »

...disgusting

I know. And then I take the money from industrialists and re apportion it to educate five year olds.

Seriously. I'm a bad man.

oscarBravo

simplistic2 wrote: »

Id probably have both really. The gun to use as a deterrent and Id pay security to find people that get past the gun.

Better hope you don't miss a payment. It would be a shame to have the cops refuse to help you because you're in arrears.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm fairly into punk music myself. Not a big fan of the Pistols (without Rotten, they'd have been a painfully mediocre group) and I always found them to lack anything meaningful to say.
I always had more time for groups like the Clash and the Stiff Little Fingers, with modern celtic-punk groups like the Dropkick Murphys or The Tossers being favorites at the moment.
Anarcho-punk isn't really my scene either, I have a few friends who are heavily into it (especially the squatting subculture) but my own views would be too centrist for such things.
There was a coalition who formed the Conservative Punk website (a backlash against a large number of punk groups who formed the Rock Against Bush group, backing Democrats in the 2004 election) a few years ago, which encompassed a fair few libertarians. The site has since gone under but a new Conpunk site has been set up, although it lacks the polish of the previous one.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There's quite a few libertarians around univerities these days (anecdotally, it seems very prevalent in philosophy and the university debating circuit)
Most university students seem to be apathetic though, there's always going to be Trots and Marxists around, they just tend to be extremely loud so it makes it look like there is a lot more of them than there really are.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hazlittle

oscarBravo wrote: »

In the absence of a police force, I doubt your single gun would keep you particularly safe.

We have a police and I am not safe without my gun. Seriously man do your own research. The wild west was safer than America is today. Somalia is safer than most parts of Africa. Police and laws gives you the illusion of justice.

Here's some reading. Dont post agin until you this short 20 page book.

http://irishlibertyforum.org/forum/topic.html?id=115

kickoutthejams wrote: »

There's a few anarchy advocates in my university. Only one of whom I can concievably see surviving in an anarchist society. All are the kids of highly paid public sector workers.
The irony never ceases to amaze me.

They're probably collective anarchists. Man seriously. You people need to read more.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm a big punk fan. Seen Pistols a few times. Saw them first when I was knee high.

Denerick wrote: »

I think I mentioned before the time I was attending (Though not participating) in the anti-student fee's demonstration in front of the Dáil.

I'm a proper anarchist that understands no state means no services. I dont get services so I'm fine with that. WSM arent reall anarchists. they're communists.

simplistic2 wrote: »

But your a democrat so I suppose you prefer the illusion of government. If you follow the principles of government on a personal level in your own life , taxation, assaulting people for vitimless crimes people would see you as a criminal.

But the fact is most of us are Anarchists in our personal lives we dont steal , assault anyone. Its just that many people have a problem appling this at a wider level.

Statism is a religion , its an irrational belief that is dying thank God:D

Correct brother. Democracy is the illusion of order. Try explaining to a mugger that his lifestyle is illegal or the British military about human rights.

nyarlothothep

I generally don't like punk, though I like the Sex Pistols and appreciate the progressive dynamism of The Clash, I'm a metalhead, but I digress, does this make me a rationalist nietzschean? no..... I advocate for the idea that people who elect representatives can basically hold them to account, ie if the representative fails to represent the people they are shafted immediately through the democratic will of the people without the inteference of private interests. This requires a certain level of social maturity which is the crux. That is what I advocate for...

Right now we live in an era of democratic deficit, our society is modelled on the American capitalist system which is a sham democracy and likewise ours is also sham. This is in my opinion an historical/cultural/maybe even evolutionary legacy whereby authoritarnism is the order du jour but one we can overcome through insight and imagination. However to adopt such a position would be authoritarian in itself so I am open to recognizing some of the potential benefits of authoritarianism however much the system in itself disgusts me.

Ultimately I think technological progress coupled with a mass political awakening will cultivate the environment in which to practice liberatarianism whichever way one desires it to be, essentially a virtual reality bearing a relationship to forum board groups. This incorporates some problems, ie certain groups swallowing up others, cliques, monopolies etc but...with a world expanded beyond physical limitations finding ones societal niche and the greater range of choices would mean that the individual and their adopted society would mutually benefit. Imo the solution isn't in finding a one size fits all solution but in letting everyone find their own solution. There is no ideal/sustainable political system and technology will enable people to pursue their own utopias. Perhaps this will never happen but then what is science fiction today is science fact tomorrow.

Moreover I have attended university anarchist meetings and I can say based on my own experience that many of those who attended, note not all, but the majority had a clear understanding of anarchist theory and were not driven by reactionary sloganeering/politics. However I emphasize that this was part of my limited experience and I cannot claim that all student anarachists are like this nor, on the contrary, that all student anarchists are reactionary rebellious teenagers who wave black flags and are quote on quote liberal lefty pinkos.

Valmont

I see anarchy as setting the stage ripe for some band of hooligans to take over by force. It fails at the first hurdle for me.

Denerick

They're probably collective anarchists. Man seriously. You people need to read more.

We've read plenty. The problem is that while you're still stuck on Bakunin, we've moved on to Locke and Rousseau.

Hazlittle

Denerick wrote: »

We've read plenty. The problem is that while you're still stuck on Bakunin, we've moved on to Locke and Rousseau.

How rude of you.

I am not a Russian revolutionary. I dont see a point in debating with you if you arent going to be civil. I base my beliefs on experience and rational though. I started off with classical liberalism and moved on from there. I wouldnt even quote Bakunin or recommend him to anyone. The revolution failed and as I have presented links to books, I would prefer to copy successful models.

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

They're probably collective anarchists. Man seriously. You people need to read more.

Some are. In my own experience, sheltered kids from public sector backgrounds lean towards anarcho-socialism, sheltered kids from wealthy private sector backgrounds lean the other way. I disregard both from my social-democratic ivory tower.

Hazlittle wrote: »

I'm a big punk fan. Seen Pistols a few times. Saw them first when I was knee high.

Lucky bollocks. I'd love to have seen Rotten live. The rest aren't really worth bothering with. Never Mind the Bollocks had a couple of good songs and was mostly filler IMHO. That said, God Save the Queen is a masterpiece.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't have much time for anarchy myself (be it anarcho-socialism or anarcho-capitalism), so I'm really not the best source of info. Squatting is fairly common in the scene anyway. There were a few squats on my street when I was a kid, loads of mohawks and stuff hanging around smoking dope and flying pirate flags out of the window. Eventually the cops came and kicked everyone out and bricked up the doors and windows.
A few of my friends live in squats in England and it's not the sort of life I'd choose. One of them left his squat for a week to visit Ireland and when he came back, someone else had taken over the room in the squatting complex. Too unstable for my liking.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Free market libertarians. (I have a rough idea of your definition of libertarianism so I wouldn't try to mislead you there)
I know a few left-libertarians (mostly in the punk cene) but these are less prevalent than free market libertarians in my experience.

Hazlittle

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Some are. In my own experience, sheltered kids from public sector backgrounds lean towards anarcho-socialism, sheltered kids from wealthy private sector backgrounds lean the other way. I disregard both from my social-democratic ivory tower.

What about those from mildly decent working class backgrounds that have been reject by the system everytime they go for their "entitlements"?

Your comment looks a tad ridiculous when you look at the backgrounds actual anarcho-capitalists come from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

What about those from mildly decent working class backgrounds that have been reject by the system everytime they go for their "entitlements"?

Can you prove that these exist in numbers? Or even that the represent a significant minority?

Hazlittle wrote: »

Your comment looks a tad ridiculous when you look at the backgrounds actual anarcho-capitalists come from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard

Seriously?
You give one example and use the plural for the background of anarcho-capitalists. You'll need to do better than that.

There is no mention there of his background (except that he went to Columbia)

On another note,
I always liked this little cartoon;

Hazlittle

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Can you prove that these exist in numbers? Or even that the represent a significant minority?

You didnt present any stats nor shall I. I was talking about myself anyway.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Seriously?
You give one example and use the plural for the background of anarcho-capitalists. You'll need to do better than that.

There is no mention there of his background (except that he went to Columbia)

On another note,
I always liked this little cartoon;

I gave reference to the person that invented the phrase anarcho-capitalism. The other famous Austrian economists like Mises and Schumpeter didnt come from rich backgrounds.

You're just trolling now.

Eliot Rosewater

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I always liked this little cartoon;

It's a funny cartoon, I guess, but I don't like the misconception that libertarians come from privileged backgrounds. My father is a primary school teacher; my mother was always a housewife. I don't think that that's at all privileged, or as rich as many detractors would like it to be. Personal liberty ideals don't appeal to me because I'm well-off (I'm a student with no job, in fact). They probably appeal to me because I consider myself responsible and strong enough to stand up for myself. You could equally criticise that kind of motivation too, of course. I have been told that my political beliefs fail to take account of the way other people are, which is fair enough I suppose.

wiseguy

I would consider myself to be Libertarian.
I came from a very poor background,
If anything it made me work harder, appreciate my education and gave me the will to move up in the world, something that leftie socialists would have no concept of, since the path forward is to take from the more successfull and to hand it over to the more lazy, killing the will to innovate and work harder.

To answer the opening post, Anarchy is paintbrush for socialists sitting in their ivory towers to paint Libertartians with. Every thread on Libertarianism on this forum seems to be hijacked by a few insisting on deliberately confusing it with Anarchy.

PS: “Most people who read "The Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers".” - Thomas Sowell quotes (American Writer and Economist, b.1930)

Lockstep

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It's a funny cartoon, I guess, but I don't like the misconception that libertarians come from privileged backgrounds. My father is a primary school teacher; my mother was always a housewife. I don't think that that's at all privileged, or as rich as many detractors would like it to be. Personal liberty ideals don't appeal to me because I'm well-off (I'm a student with no job, in fact). They probably appeal to me because I consider myself responsible and strong enough to stand up for myself. You could equally criticise that kind of motivation too, of course. I have been told that my political beliefs fail to take account of the way other people are, which is fair enough I suppose.

I don't think libertarianism necessarily equates to being from a well-off background. I do however, think that there is something about sheltered wealthy backgrounds which seems to encourage a sort of extremism and clinging to unworkable ideals (like anarchism). I wouldn't put libertarianism in the same category.
Libertarianism I would fundamentally disagree with, but can see some merits in it's defense of personal liberty and promotion of entrepreneurship. They at least recognise the necessity of the state in things like defence and policing.
Anarchy does not and I would view it as overly idealistic and utopian.

wiseguy wrote: »

I would consider myself to be Libertarian.
I came from a very poor background,
If anything it made me work harder, appreciate my education and gave me the will to move up in the world, something that leftie socialists would have no concept of, since the path forward is to take from the more successfull and to hand it over to the more lazy, killing the will to innovate and work harder.

I would be lying if I said I came from a poor background but I certainly do not come from wealth, both of my parents work part time and have 4 kids to look after. Luckily, due to the Irish welfare state, I want for little. I attend the nearest university to my house, benefit from a tax funded education and healthcare and work part time to fund my way through college. It's a comfortable life and I recognise that it would not be possible (or made much more difficult) under a libertarian system. It shows that me, a fairly typical young person, can succeed and be given a leg-up and safetey-net, without stifling drive or independance.
I know a fair few libertarians (as well as socialists) and both groups tend to lie about their family background in order to appear from poorer backgrounds than they are (the libertarians to attempt to make it seem like they are self-made, the socialists to show their working-class credentials) I'm not saying you are though. Merely something I have noticed so feel free to disregard this as anecdotal.
Likewise, my father would broadly share my political beliefs while coming from a poor rural background himself (his father was a taxi driver and his mother worked in a chicken farm, thanks to governmental grants, he was able to attend university and study economics, Irish and history as well as going onto recieve an MA and PHD)

wiseguy wrote: »

To answer the opening post, Anarchy is paintbrush for socialists sitting in their ivory towers to paint Libertartians with. Every thread on Libertarianism on this forum seems to be hijacked by a few insisting on deliberately confusing it with Anarchy.

Then you would be wrong. This thread clearly shows that anarchists exist and differ from libertarians.

wiseguy wrote: »

PS: “Most people who read "The Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers".” - Thomas Sowell quotes (American Writer and Economist, b.1930)

I'm not a communist but that's completely untrue. Marx was a writer and a journalist (with a PHD) if my memory serves me correctly. Unless you would see them as not real jobs.

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

You didnt present any stats nor shall I. I was talking about myself anyway.

I didn't present stats as you need a definite statement to provide facts for; "George Bush is not a heroin addict" "God does not exist" "Working class people are not mostly anarchists"
All are things that are to be assumed false unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. But fair enough if you were referring to yourself.

By the way, I tend to be automatically suspicious when persons refer to themselves as working class.

Hazlittle wrote: »

I gave reference to the person that invented the phrase anarcho-capitalism. The other famous Austrian economists like Mises and Schumpeter didnt come from rich backgrounds.

You're just trolling now.[/QUOTE]
Wasn't Von Mises from a fairly wealthy family? One of Rothbard's parents was a chemist (not really a sign of poverty) Also, were'nt all three academics? I'm sure you would agree that academics are fairly notorious for being locked away in ivory towers.

Hazlittle

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I didn't present stats as you need a definite statement to provide facts for; "George Bush is not a heroin addict" "God does not exist" "Working class people are not mostly anarchists"
All are things that are to be assumed false unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. But fair enough if you were referring to yourself.

By the way, I tend to be automatically suspicious when persons refer to themselves as working class.




You're just trolling now.

Wasn't Von Mises from a fairly wealthy family? One of Rothbard's parents was a chemist (not really a sign of poverty) Also, were'nt all three academics? I'm sure you would agree that academics are fairly notorious for being locked away in ivory towers.[/QUOTE]


I dont base my opinions on notions.

You first claimed anarcho-capitalists usually come from privileged backgrounds with no supporting evidence. Rothbard came from the Bronx anway.

I'm dealing with someone that makes daft statements like "anarchy isnt workable" Man lasted longer without governments. On this thread, this bloody thread I know you have read, you have been given workable anarchist systems. Why dont you even try to make any attempt to research a topic before you comment on it? Like hundredths of examples on anarchist systems. You mightnt like those societies but they still functioned. Some for hundrethd of years.

Cause socialism and the current nameless system has work so well?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CCCP

kickoutthejams wrote: »

There's a few anarchy advocates in my university. Only one of whom I can concievably see surviving in an anarchist society. All are the kids of highly paid public sector workers.
The irony never ceases to amaze me.

Amazing idiots, and in a uni that would never exist if anarchy reigned (or didnt reign, whatever way you look at it)

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

I dont base my opinions on notions.

What do you base them on then?

Hazlittle wrote: »

You first claimed anarcho-capitalists usually come from privileged backgrounds with no supporting evidence. Rothbard came from the Bronx anway.

Oh, I don't mean the founders. The founders of Labour Parties were from extremely tough backgrounds, whereas nowadays they attract numerous middle class voters. However, your examples of anarcho-capitalists certainly don't seem to come from hardscrabble childhoods.
Also, the Bronx in the 20s is a very poor example. It was a respectable neighborhood at the time, like many regions in the US, it hasn't always been a slum.
My grandfather was born in the US and he had a fair few relatives from the Bronx, none of whom were poor. It was a different place back in the 20s and 30s and was a fairly important commercial area.

Hazlittle wrote: »

I'm dealing with someone that makes daft statements like "anarchy isnt workable" Man lasted longer without governments. On this thread, this bloody thread I know you have read, you have been given workable anarchist systems. Why dont you even try to make any attempt to research a topic before you comment on it? Like hundredths of examples on anarchist systems. You mightnt like those societies but they still functioned. Some for hundrethd of years.

How's about you give a good example of a working anarchist system?
I've seen you try to use Gaelic Ireland as an example of a working anarchist system. I refuted this and you didn't respond so forgive me if I am somewhat suspicious of a pie-in-the-sky, idealistic idea which goes against human nature.
Seriously now; in the abscence of a police force, what happens to someone who is unable to afford a private defence company? You claim that in the wild west, you had to avoid doing things that would make people want to shoot you but don't be so naive. What if my being Irish, tall, tattooed, Catholic or whatever causes someone to want to shoot me?
I know you'll probably come out with some utopian idea like "Noone would hire a company that killed people arbitrarily" which avoids things like the Mob or militias as we see in places like Somalia.

Hazlittle wrote: »

Cause socialism and the current nameless system has work so well?

Liberal democracy works extremely well. It's current system is a trainwreck after decades of cronyism, corruption and privatised gain/socialised losses. This does not mean that all forms of social/liberal democracy are bad.

Funnily enough, the last time I heard the phrase "Our current system works so well" was by a fascist lad I worked with who was advocating a dictatorship.

Denerick

Hazlittle wrote: »

I'm dealing with someone that makes daft statements like "anarchy isnt workable" Man lasted longer without governments. On this thread, this bloody thread I know you have read, you have been given workable anarchist systems. Why dont you even try to make any attempt to research a topic before you comment on it? Like hundredths of examples on anarchist systems. You mightnt like those societies but they still functioned. Some for hundrethd of years.

Cause socialism and the current nameless system has work so well?

There have been no workable anarchist systems. In fact you haven't addressed how it was that every human society has inevitably decided to embrace government as their state of nature.

Hobbes had it all figured out, so long ago. We need to sacrifice some liberty for personal safety. The world has had enough experiments in political utopianism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sensibleken

kickoutthejams wrote: »

To give the Sex Pistols their due, the only one who advocated anarchy in any actual way was Johnny Rotten, and he was from an extremely poor background himself.
The Sex Pistols aren't really seen as proper anarchists in the anarcho-punk scene anyway.

I spent a lot of time hanging out with anarcho punks and the hipocracy was astounding. I used to get into regular arguements about it. Such as how could they be anarchists and draw the dole at the same time. I did and still do admire the culture of squating and DIY that said

It seems to me from nearly every anarchist ive met that the idea has sprung from a complete lack of trust in government, understandable, but also an opertunism to take benifits if they can without questioning where it comes from. I must point out this was during the boom years when jobs were plentiful.

Denerick

Where did I pass a value judgement? I just made the statement that there have been no workable anarchist systems. Whether people genuinely believe it is plausible is another matter - I tend to think that they'll grow out of such delusions when they get older and stop getting the free education the State so egregiously forced upon them for a tiny registration fee.

sensibleken

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If they're anarcho capitalists maybe. But a lot of anarchists (the non capitalists types) reject private property.

The squaters I've known I have had a lot of respect for. They would find an abandoned property, usually in an advanced state of disrepair, move in, repair floors, ceilings etc and basically make it habitable.

rent in dublin at the time was astronomic and they found a way around it. fair play to them. The owners of these places had let places rotting, quite often in desirable locations such as leeson street and rathmines. Whats the point in having empty buildings when so many people were looking for somewhere to live they thought.

Another example was I was recently in leeds helping out on a squat of an old victorian school. It was a beautiful building in a very deprived area that has a lot of problems, some of the 7/7 bombers were from there.

It was being cleared out and done up to open as a community centre. but the local councilers wanted the building demolished and redeveloped into apartments, a completely mad decision. sufice to say the council one and several of the 'leaders' got sent down.