nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

CCCP

Denerick wrote: »

LOL! My point is that Ukraine cannot be compared to Ireland, the US, or the UK. In fact, making such a comparison displays a mind incapable of distinguishing between subtleties.

Communism didn't function, if it did, it wouldn't have collapsed under its own weight and millions of people wouldn't have died for daring to speak out against a tremendously unjust system.

I know Ukraine is in a league of it's own when it comes to corruption, but communism not functioning is debatable, if you consider what could of been had corrupt leaders not lead it into oblivion. I'm not advocating communism, so don't get on your high horse here, and beginning a response with the abbreviation LOL displays a reactionary adolescent mind that is incapable of having a mature argument, it's insulting and immature.

I'm out of this debate my friend, better things to do.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

wiseguy wrote: »

Yet you continue to insist that socialism is given yet another "chance"

I am not a socialist. Where on earth have I insisted that socialism needs another chance?
Numerous times in this thread, I have identified myself as a social democrat. In fact, I have already criticised socialism as a utopian and extreme idea. Unless you are taking such an extreme view that advocating any sort of state intervention means that I am a socialist. I find it ironic that you lambast others for likening libertarianism to anarchism and yet you do the same thing, equating socialism to social democracy.

wiseguy wrote: »

Anarchy is not a system, its a lack of one, see the very definition of the word

If my memory serves me right, anarchy means 'without a ruler'. This does not mean it is not a system in and of itself. Merely one without a state.

wiseguy wrote: »

To expect something of "anarchy" is like expecting an atheist group to go to church on Sunday mass.

What about expecting it to provide security and a standard of living for all persons without the protection of the state?

wiseguy wrote: »

Tho' it seems once again that certain posters are deliberately trying to equate Libertarianism with Anarchy in order to polish their "ivory tower" or some other weird reason?

The thread clearly shows that most people achknowledge the differences between the two.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just read over their article. While they certainly put forward criticisms of socialism, they have not 'proved' that it is unworkable.

When dealing with extreme, overly-utupian political philosophies, it is usually fairly clear whether they can actually function in reality. Both socialism (lack of competition leads to inefficencies) and anarcho-capitalism (what happens to those who cannot afford protection/services)

Hazlittle

CCCP wrote: »

I see your point, would that include communism?
Ive been to Ukraine many times and asked many people over 40 the same question : Was life better or worse for you and your family in Soviet union? the answer is always the same, life was much better in soviet Ukraine then it is now in post soviet "capitalist" Ukraine.

Did you poll include the 10milllion dead during the 1936 holocaust? Yep communism is awesome alright.

CCCP wrote: »

The result, when times got hard (ice age) we survived and they didn't. Anarchy is absolutely stupid as an idea and not worth entertaining in my opinion.

can Anarchy even be compared to socialism , communism, and capitalism as a political system?

Every central government system has failed. To me its not an idea entertaining.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Must be a conspiracy. Communism is clearly a better system. Why havent you heard of the Cuban Utopian society? Its so good that people risk death by swimming to America to spread the joys of communism.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hayek support welfare and healthcare. Argh.

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

In Ireland people worked on peoples land to earn protection.

They were also kidnapped from other tribes and forced to work as slaves.
But anarcho-capitalists who portray tribal Ireland as some sort of happy-clappy tribal paradise love to skate over how patriarchal, enslaved and war-ridden Early Medieval Ireland was.

Also, Ireland was much more prone to warfare than other European nations at the time, as not only did you have to worry about foreigners; you had to worry about your neighbours, given that there were 150 kingdoms in IReland who were very prone to raiding each other.

Hazlittle wrote: »

I already posted a link to a PDF on a detailed report on the wild west. People are prone to cooperate when they see it as profitable. Democracy doesnt prevent racism either.

And what if protecting me isn't going to be profitable? Or in fact, will cause them to lose a profit?

Democracy may not prevent racism but the police force are obliged to provide protection to everyone. ANd when they don't, the media have a circus over brutality and abuse of power.

Who will protect me if I am unable to afford a private defence agency?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sensibleken

In fairness. If you combine any system with a dictatorship its going to be f*cked up and colapse, whether its capitalism or socialism in the extreme form of communism.

the problem with the soviet union, cuba, china is that they are dictatorships. just as much as it was with chile, italy or any other dictatorship that wasnt socialist.

we wouldn't for example point at chile under pinnochet as a criticism of capitalism.

*note: Im not a communist*

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

True, I was reading "Economic Calculation In The Socialist
Commonwealth".
Economics isn't a science in sense of having a physical laboratory. Especially in academic debates like the above, it is difficult to claim that something is 'proven'. Market proponents might make their case better than others, but this is not proof that socialism is unworkable. In such matters, only on empiricism can we try to form a conclusion.
Also, economists are an unruly bunch, "Ask five economists and you'll get five different answers." as the saying goes.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In the same way that anarchistic societies are filled with warfare, oppression and misery. When put into the real world of course, outside of theoretics.
I'm not really sure how you can claim that socialist systems have been proven to be unworkable, whereas anarchists havn't, and yet both use the exact same argument to excuse their past failures.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They are not really socialists then; given that socialism involves control by the people (state) over the means of production.
The above is social democracy.

Hazlittle

kickoutthejams wrote: »

They were also kidnapped from other tribes and forced to work as slaves.

Slightly inaccurate.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

But anarcho-capitalists who portray tribal Ireland as some sort of happy-clappy tribal paradise love to skate over how patriarchal, enslaved and war-ridden Early Medieval Ireland was.

Also, Ireland was much more prone to warfare than other European nations at the time, as not only did you have to worry about foreigners; you had to worry about your neighbours, given that there were 150 kingdoms in IReland who were very prone to raiding each other.

In comparison to its European neighbors Ireland had far less wars and violence. Somalia in comparison to its African neighbors also has less violence. Similar the wild west had less violence.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

And what if protecting me isn't going to be profitable? Or in fact, will cause them to lose a profit?

Thats answered in the PDF I posted up. There was more money in protection than there was in robbery.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Democracy may not prevent racism but the police force are obliged to provide protection to everyone. ANd when they don't, the media have a circus over brutality and abuse of power.

Not in Ireland. I dont receive any help from the Gardai. We are forced to defend ourselves where I live.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Who will protect me if I am unable to afford a private defence agency?

Protect yourself, work for someone for protection, earn enough money for protection or organise a neighborhood defense group. How do you think people did this before with the police? We've only had police for less than 300 years!

Denerick

Hazlittle wrote: »

Not in Ireland. I dont receive any help from the Gardai. We are forced to defend ourselves where I live.

Where is that? Co. Roscommon in 1750? Get real.

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

Slightly inaccurate.

How so?
Surely you are aware of how widespread slavery was in Gaelic Ireland? Not just limited to those who were explicit slaves. There was an entire 'unfree' class of persons including laborers, unskilled wood/metal workers as well as captives and slaves. (McMahon, A Short History of Ireland, p.11)

Hazlittle wrote: »

In comparison to its European neighbors Ireland had far less wars and violence.

Once again, you make sweeping statements without even trying to back them up.
Warefare was utterly endemic in Irish society, so much so that many monastic attacks assumed to have been the work of vikings, were actually carried out by native Irish (Ó Cróinín, Early Medieval Ireland, p.239)
Indeed, the fragmented nature of Irish society meant they were essentially 'moving targets' to the Vikings and it was only in 841 that they managed to turn their fortunes around and see their first military successes. (Ó Cróinín, p.246) In fact, a reason the vikings attacked was that the Franks were too organised and strong under Charlemagne, sending the Danes to seek easier pickings in the British Isles ( Ó Cróinín, p.244) Hell, the annals indicate that before, during and after the Viking invasion, more churches were burned and more clerics murdered by the native Irish than by the Norse ( Ó Cróinín, p.261).

The idea that the Irish were Christian and peace-loving is a long dispelled myth, hell, when it came to murder and mayhem, 'The Irish needed no instruction from anyone' (Ó Cróinín, p.262) Ireland in the Early MEdieval Period was, as McMahon quotes Hobbes, as 'Nasty, brutish and short'. With famine, pestilence and war keeping the population down (McMahon, p.12) McMahon goes onto say that it is surprising how quickly and bloodlessly CHristianity was co-opted into a society where warfare was both internecine and endemic (p.17)

Sorry, but you honestly come across as someone so desperate to come up with examples of working anarchist societies that you invent and muddle up history to try and bolster your opinions.

Hazlittle wrote: »

Somalia in comparison to its African neighbors also has less violence. Similar the wild west had less violence.

As the sources I have shown have already pointed out, Somalia is more dangerous now than ever. You have yet to show how Somalia is safer than it's neighbours and I'm sure you are aware of Somalia's international reputation for lawlessness and piracy (with the US, China, NATO and EU working together to try and curb the terrible problem with piracy. Indeed, attacks in the area have become more frequent Furthermore, the UN umbrella group is made up of groups that realising that the piracy is a result of the instability in Somalia
The WIld West had less violence? LEss violence than what? Other Wild Wests?

Hazlittle wrote: »

Thats answered in the PDF I posted up. There was more money in protection than there was in robbery.

And what about those who are literally unable to pay for protection? You keep dodging this question. In a world where everything is privatised, what about those who are too unprofitable to protect? Or those who are wealthy and powerful enough that they have a PDA that is strong than any rivals? Are they just immune?

Hazlittle wrote: »

Not in Ireland. I dont receive any help from the Gardai. We are forced to defend ourselves where I live.

I'm not sure where you live but I find that extremely hard to believe.
If you're unwilling to state where you live then there's little I can do about it, but it does mean I have close to zero belief that you live in such a lawless area as you claim.

Hazlittle wrote: »

Protect yourself, work for someone for protection, earn enough money for protection or organise a neighborhood defense group. How do you think people did this before with the police? We've only had police for less than 300 years!

There have been states across Britain and Ireland for centuries, with armies which could (and were) called out if enough of a threat to the peace was around. Constables and sherrifs were long-standing in the British Isles, even before the police forces were set up.

Your idea is ridiculously naive. If someone is too infirm to work to pay for a PDA, then how on earth would they protect themselves or work for someone else?

Your move. Although something tells me that your 'sources' will come from libertarian websites whereas I have limited mine to history books, governmental websites and news sources.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hazlittle

Denerick wrote: »

Where is that? Co. Roscommon in 1750? Get real.

Are you so far up in your little middle class ivory tower that you arent aware of the pandemic poverty in urban parts of Ireland? Burnt out cars in Darndale, cars being robbed with people in them on sheriff street, shootings in Coolock, small explosives in Kilbarrick? Mulingar? Limerick?

No your right. Everyone gets justice in Ireland. We certainly dont cover up child molestation or allow children to needless die under state care with little to no investigation.

Next time I get mugged I'll inform them we have laws.

:mad:

Denerick

Hazlittle wrote: »

Are you so far up in your little middle class ivory tower that you arent aware of the pandemic poverty in urban parts of Ireland? Burnt out cars in Darndale, cars being robbed with people in them on sheriff street, shootings in Coolock, small explosives in Kilbarrick? Mulingar? Limerick?

No your right. Everyone gets justice in Ireland. We certainly dont cover up child molestation or allow children to needless die under state care with little to no investigation.

Next time I get mugged I'll inform them we have laws.

:mad:

I don't know where to start with you. I'm from a rural area along the borderland so I'm familiar with shady shenanigans. You seem to be arguing a ludicrous point - does crime not exist in anarchist systems?

CCCP

Someone went off on a rant there about my previous post on communism, why when someone mentions communism without utterly condemning it in the same breath do other people automatically think that person is a communist?

I never said I advocated communism, and never said that atrocities and mass murder and suffering were not committed/caused by the regime. I simply said that communism is viable whereas anarchy is not. its my opinion. USSR was cruel, no doubt about it, but it did function, albeit it wasn't near as successful as the USA in terms of labor force-GDP ratio , but it did and can function as a political system, I'm not talking ethics here, cruel or not, it did and still does function in the world today.

Anarchy doesn't and I don't believe it can

Denerick

CCCP wrote: »

I never said I advocated communism, and never said that atrocities and mass murder and suffering were not committed/caused by the regime. I simply said that communism is viable whereas anarchy is not. its my opinion. USSR was cruel, no doubt about it, but it did function, albeit it wasn't near as successful as the USA in terms of labor force-GDP ratio , but it did and can function as a political system, I'm not talking ethics here, cruel or not, it did and still does function in the world today.

The USSR is not a satisfactory example of communism working in practise. As others have said, the socialist system incorporated a capitalist black market and bureaucratic state capitalism. It was socialist, but I'd struggle to really describe the society as socialist. It was a worship of the State more than anything else.

CCCP

Denerick wrote: »

The USSR is not a satisfactory example of communism working in practise. As others have said, the socialist system incorporated a capitalist black market and bureaucratic state capitalism. It was socialist, but I'd struggle to really describe the society as socialist. It was a worship of the State more than anything else.

I agree with you, your right its not a good example, I guess I just used it as it's the most famous (infamous) example of socialism, albeit corrupt. I like your point about worship of the state, its very true and evident in many ways including some of the older generations of Ukraine's pro USSR sentiment. and thank you for the well put and straight forward post, without resorting to ranting and raving like some other posters here have done.;)

Hazlittle

Denerick wrote: »

I don't know where to start with you. I'm from a rural area along the borderland so I'm familiar with shady shenanigans. You seem to be arguing a ludicrous point - does crime not exist in anarchist systems?

The fact is that this so called "civilised" government system doesnt work. Nothing the government does is done well. And it never will be. The legal system prevents justice from happening. Like you're defending this system but this system clearly fails. So why not try something else? Socialism and communism has clearly failed. Facsism failed. Every system involving a central authority has failed.

Democracy is the illusion of order.

Denerick

Hazlittle wrote: »

The fact is that this so called "civilised" government system doesnt work. Nothing the government does is done well. And it never will be. The legal system prevents justice from happening. Like you're defending this system but this system clearly fails. So why not try something else? Socialism and communism has clearly failed. Facsism failed. Every system involving a central authority has failed.

Democracy is the illusion of order.

Failure is inherent in all systems. I'm happy to settle for a system that recognises its limitations and does its best to find a satisfactory compromise between personal safety and liberty. Every other system has been proven to fail, at least under the democratic model you have a shot at success.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's a debate and while it certainly outlines a valid criticism of socialism, it does not 'prove' definitively that it is an unworkable system.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, but it is vulnerable to being a system with an extremely poor track record.
Also, I'd hazard a guess that most economists see the need for the state, even if it's just providing public goods as basic as the cops, courts and armed forces.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Once again, I am not disputing that there are very valid criticisms of socialism.
Merely that to completely prove that socialism is unworkable is nigh on impossible. As with anarchism, everything works lovely in theory.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Again, this mirrors socialism's claims that we are all good people who have been corrupted by the capitalist system, and that we can learn to live good and selfless lives if we spend enough time under the socialist system (or else Marx's ideas of the state withering away as we learn to become better people)
And as with socialism it sounds too utopian and against human nature (the duality of being greedy, grasping, ruthless, selfish, sadistic, altruistic, compassionate, generous and forgiving all at once) I'm not buying it that if we take such a seemingly illogical leap of faith that everything will turn out lovely.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They need not be Keynesian. Minarchists, social democrats, centrists, conservatives and so on all see the need for a state. As do many famous economists (Smith, Malthus, JS Mill, Marshall). I'd tentatively suggest Friedman here (if I remember rightly, he advocates the NEgative Income Tax)
Those who see no role for the government at all seem to be a veritable minority.

Hazlittle

Denerick wrote: »

Failure is inherent in all systems. I'm happy to settle for a system that recognises its limitations and does its best to find a satisfactory compromise between personal safety and liberty. Every other system has been proven to fail, at least under the democratic model you have a shot at success.

Switzerland is the longest living democratic state. I would agree that is also the most successful state. But it isnt perfect and it is very slowly falling apart. Falling apart slower than America and the rest of Europe but as every state is doomed to failure Switzerland will fall.

All governments have failed, all governments will fail.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thats what I have been trying to say thanks.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Those who see no role for the government at all seem to be a veritable minority.

An increasing minority. read Hoppe. Go on to IrishlibertyForum.org They've put up plenty of Hoppe videos. And Stafan Molyneux.

Denerick

Hazlittle wrote: »

Switzerland is the longest living democratic state. I would agree that is also the most successful state. But it isnt perfect and it is very slowly falling apart. Falling apart slower than America and the rest of Europe but as every state is doomed to failure Switzerland will fall.

There is a queasy religious determinism to your 'arguments'. Saying that something is 'destined' to happen is not an argument.

All governments have failed, all governments will fail.

The entire history of mankind has been one of governance. Too many lives have been lost in the pursuit of a perfect society. I hope you grow out of your anarchism soon.

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

An increasing minority. read Hoppe. Go on to IrishlibertyForum.org They've put up plenty of Hoppe videos. And Stafan Molyneux.

Question is; how fast are they increasing? Or are they actually increasing at all? One swallow does not make a summer.

I live in the countryside with an extremely poor internet connection, making videos take an extremely long time to stream. I would be happy to read any articles on the matter though, if you can link me to specifics.

However, you really need to structure your arguments better. You keep on saying "read this author" or "Read that article". That's not how these debates work. The usual procedure to make your arguments and then cite them correctly to back up your reasoning.
If someone's only defence was to "Read Marx" or "Das Kapital answers your question" it seems they are trying to have the last word but are unable to structure their answers in a coherent manner.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

Denerick wrote: »

Too many lives have been lost in the pursuit of a perfect society. I hope you grow out of your anarchism soon.

Just because people here are proposing better systems does not mean they are proposing utopian systems. That is an important distinction I think you gloss over- especially with regards to a libertarian society.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Merely that to completely prove that socialism is unworkable is nigh on impossible. As with anarchism, everything works lovely in theory.

Except socialism, because of the economic calculation problem. Which really is the crux of the matter when you get down to it.

Denerick

Valmont wrote: »

Just because people here are proposing better systems does not mean they are proposing utopian systems. That is an important distinction I think you gloss over- especially with regards to a libertarian society.

I suppose I should clear up this misconception.

I do not consider Libertarians to be utopianists. I understand and am at times attracted by the allure of Libertarian philosophy. Anarchism on the other hand certainly is a utopian idealogy (Anarcho-Capitalism or otherwise) as it seems to think non coercion will result in greater living standards.

Eliot Rosewater

Denerick wrote: »

I understand and am at times attracted by the allure of Libertarian philosophy.

Give this man some cookies.

I think a lot depends on how someone wishes to implement their ideals. You probably have a number of anarcho-capitalists who would love to tear down the government tomorrow and let that be that. But most people favour gradual change, and I think this is important. Someone might call me utopian in my abstract political ideals, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But if I were given the reins of power I would change things very slowly to take into account the reality of contemporary culture and the needs created by the current system - and that is not utopian I think.

Denerick

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think a lot depends on how someone wishes to implement their ideals. You probably have a number of anarcho-capitalists who would love to tear down the government tomorrow and let that be that. But most people favour gradual change, and I think this is important. Someone might call me utopian in my abstract political ideals, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But if I were given the reins of power I would change things very slowly to take into account the reality of contemporary culture and the needs created by the current system - and that is not utopian I think.

The difference is that if somebody put me in power I'd inevitably take the odd kickback from industrialists and enjoy the ministerial plane. I'd be charging expenses on every chicken fillet roll I buy. Tis sad but true!