Exactly. If it makes them happy to live in a communal society then that’s great. If it economically fails then that’s their problem. If it doesn’t workout then maybe they’ll start reading Rothbard’s stuff instead of Albert’s.
You guys don’t hate Zinn do you? And what do you think about Keith McHenry? Food Not Bombs might be the largest anarchist organization on Earth and it literally saves lives every day.
One would have to be particularly naive to think that when their false utopia collapses, they won’t demand food and shelter from me, by force if necessary.
Oh, when you mentioned anarcho-primitivists I thought you were talking about people in, say, the US or Europe who didn’t want to live in an industrial society.
On the other hand…I live in south america (argentina) and know that some of the people you refer to as anarcho-primitivists choose to leave the countryside and move into cities. Also, I wouldn’t regard these people as anarchists, if by that you mean they are voluntarists.
No. Coercion equals tyranny. If people choose to live in a communal democracy then there is no tyranny.
It is voluntary because there is no coercion. They can leave at any time. If they choose to do what the majority want then why do you care?
Neither are likely to do that. The state is likely to do that. How about we all work together to remove the state from our world?
The tyranny of the majority.
Neither are likely to do that? Sorry, I’m a student of history. Democracies get very oppressive when they can’t provide the prosperity and bliss they promise. And when they can’t squeeze their own people any more, they start to squeeze their neighbors.
I’m working to get out from under the state. Getting rid of the state is the beginning, not the end.
Well, I meant them also.
If they promote coercion, then they weren’t the ones I was thinking about. I basically think of anarcho-primitists as anyone who wants to re-wild (or never unwilded in the first place) and does not promote coercion.
Again, you can’t just generalize an entire group like that. They are not all the same. If their economy starts to fail, then they will get jobs in the an-cap society. If anyone tries to take something of yours by force, then kick their ass. I’ll even help ya [H]
Again, there is no tyranny if there is no coercion.
Of course.
But I thought we were generalizing these groups, by assuming they can work together based upon common goals…
So, my point is valid ? They can move to the countryside – nobody is stopping them ?
It seems to me that dissidents in primitive non-white communities would face the same problems and threats that dissidents face in western countries…I mean, what happens to a person who was born and lives in africa and doesn’t believe in the local gods…?
The will of the majority being forced upon the minority is coercion. It may not always be physical coercion, but it is coercion nonetheless (i.e. an easy example of this would be the package deal “solutions” the state employs towards various problems). Would you like to argue, like the anarcho-communists, on what coercion is “best” for society?
Otherwise, you are cherry picking coercion, just as they are. on the basis of a collectivist belief (i.e. the majority).
1.) How does this communal democracy deal with outside collectives and/or the possible outside polycentric society? Hopefully by not going to war with various people for resources, because democracy’s don’t rely on that at all (a bit of stinging sarcasm there, but justified).
2.) How do you define choose, how does one measure consent, etc.
3.) If the majority decide on Statism, does that mean it is morally correct? That, anarchism be damned, if the majority desires Statism again, should those who do not desire Statism be worried? Especially if the people who believe in majoritarianism think that they’re way is better than the non-Statist way? What guarentee would there be that such a Statist collective would be entirley voluntary, regardless?
4.) Coercion is not limited to physical coercion; this includes social coercion. Take for example how The State coerces you into paying your taxes with the threat of the IRS, yet, among people in The State, it is frowned upon on those who do not pay their taxes, & those who who second-guess it might very well reverse their rebellion based upon gossip. Not the best example, but there are many others if you look.
Before you are threatened with physical coercion, you are threatened with social coercion (i.e. austerity by your peers).
5.) Poppycock. AnSoc’s without respect for a polycentric law could easily demand property, An-Caps could too; you must look to see if the individual has a Statist streak or not. Example: Anarcho-Communists may view only the type of coercion beign used that needs to be questioned, not the concept itself; I could easily imagine a property dispute right there.
*Edit: I apologize for not quoting per my responses, I had to re-write this after Firefox randomly exited out & erased my previous response… 
This is getting out of hand. What Robin is saying isn’t support of statist democracy. Voluntary democracy works very simply. The only difference between voluntary democracies and the non-federal US democracies (the states), is that there are much less transaction costs to nullifying one’s contract with government. In other words, you need only take the time to find an adequate replacement rather than move hundreds of miles. Furthermore, one can be the citizen of multiple governments at once if one so chooses.
This is no different from an employment contract. You may not like x, y, and z about your job; but you like a, b, and c more; so you stay. If you choose to quit at anytime, no one can force you to work. If you were paid in advance, they have the right to use force to re-acquire their advance; but they cannot compell your future choices. Terminations of any unions are usually messy, but that does not mean they are either impossible or come at a steep cost in violence.
In a voluntary democracy, you may not like the outcomes of votes x, y, and z, but you like votes a, b, and c more, so you stay. You can leave at any time, and any breach of your property rights or freedom thereafter is aggression and may be met with force. There would most likely be non-democratic governments that you could hire to protect yourself from your former government. Things can get messy, depending upon how vague one’s former laws were, and how willing former and new governments are to risk escalation of economic conflict into violence. This still represents a better situation than statist democracy.
I have to add - the main difference that I see between statism and anarchism is geographical limitation. This is because the state claims to own all land within their sight without regard to homesteading and simultaneously behaves as an unabashed coercive monopoly. As long as anarchist democracies didn’t use force to defend property rights to land that wasn’t homesteaded or compell citizenship onto the unwilling, I fail to see how they threaten anarcho-capitalism. Furthermore, given that anarcho-capitalism is said to describe the most productive use of scarce resources, anarcho-democracies that did act unlawfully according to anarcho-capitalist principles should be unable to defend themselves when their aggression is checked.
I fail to see how self-government (anarchism) is as dangerous as statism, simply because some groups choose to govern themselves in a form we dislike. Statism seeks to allow only as much self-governance as will allow the state to retain power, otherwise using coercion to increase its own power and extend this border. Its ultimate formation is one world government with absolutely no choice for the individual, other than the bones thrown to him by the state (such as the illusion of voting) to keep him from revolting. Anarchism on the other hand is the power of the individual, in freely choosing how he shall be governed. Group cooperation resulting from this philosophy further empowers the individual, not some other group at his expense. If it did, it would be rejected.
Yes, your point is valid. [Y] No one is stopping the people in Europe and the US from moving to the country side. But governments in other nations aren’t always so respectful of the property rights of people who choose to live primitive lives.
Thanks,
Robin
That’s also a valid observation. Thanks for pointing that out [:)]
I think it’s safe to say that some of them can work together with you guys and some of them can’t. I’m just guessing that most of them can.
Check out the website Anarchism.net
That whole site is devoted to helping unite all the different types of anarchists.
Also, I found something on Wikipedia that you guys might like:
Anarchism without adjectives
Main article: Anarchism without adjectives
“Anarchism without adjectives”, in the words of historian George Richard Esenwein, “referred to an unhyphenated form of anarchism, that is, a doctrine without any qualifying labels such as communist, collectivist, mutualist, or individualist. For others,…[it] was simply understood as an attitude that tolerated the coexistence of different anarchist schools”.[100] “Anarchism without adjectives” emphasizes harmony among various anarchist factions and attempts to unite them around their shared anti-authoritarian beliefs. The position was first adopted in 1889 by Fernando Tarrida del Mármol as a call for toleration, after being troubled by the “bitter debates” among the different anarchist movements.[101] Voltairine de Cleyre,[102] Errico Malatesta,[103] and Fred Woodworth are noteworthy exponents of the view.[104]
I’m not cherry picking coercion. I’m against all coercion. If some group takes a vote and I choose to obey the decision, then I was not coerced to do anything.
BTW, we’re not talking about the American form of democracy here. We’re talking about anarcho-socialists.
You’re probably right meambobbo. I think after reading about ParEcon, I just can’t help but see Marxism. And we know how that turns out in action. Statist democracy on steroids.
I think there is a distinction to be made between democracy where the loser withdraw after voting against, (basically a market action) and democracies that expect the losers to go along with the result of the vote, regardless of how they feel about it.
Now, one could say “I will go along because I believe in my peers and democracy” but then, why bother to vote for or against? Just let the democracy decide, if you’re willing to subvert your opinion regardless of the outcome.
However they choose. If it results in war and conflict, they better have the workforce, capital, technology, intelligence, willpower, and economic system to produce what they need to win their wars. Such a battle between similar groups of anarcho-democrats and anarcho-capitalists could tip favor away from democracy if ancaps won it. There’s no need to stress the NAP, because any group can simply define aggression, so that ___ group has already aggressed against them.
Of course, these battles could simply be economic only. As far as trade, democracies would vote on their trading policy. Ancap groups would be restricted to free trade policies. It would work the same way as nations do now, only there would not be clear geographic distinctions. In that line of thought, it’d be next to impossible to prevent free trade. This is yet another reason why Ancap has the balances tilted in its favor.
If one hires a different group/tribe/government to protect himself against the aggression of another group, or simply resists himself, it is quite clear that he does not consent. Yet, will is less meaningful than power. So long as one has the power to incur greater costs than benefits against those who attempt to coerce him, he will most often remain free. Where he has a choice amongst coercive entities but not enough power to resist them all, given no other costs/benefits (such as having to move), he will always choose the least coercive one. It is quite clear that one believes he has not chosen or has terminated his agreement with a government that taxes him, when he pays another agency at a more expedient pay schedule to prevent the former group from taxing him.
Will everyone ever agree on a single moral code? No. Statism is seen as moral to some and immoral to others. The point of anarchism isn’t simply a basis of morality, but one of practicality. It has moral foundations that most would agree with. It’s true deterrent is the public’s belief in its impracticality in acheiving its goals. The basis of anarchism is not competing governments and individuals, but cooperating ones. That is, individuals band together against aggressive coercion under the banner of self-government. If one group attempts to declare it is morally obligated to subvert another’s will, that is statism. Voluntary democracy is take-it-or-leave-it. If you attempt to leave it and they don’t let you, they are being statist. If you leave it then try to re-enter, they won’t have you back, and you use force to re-enter, you are the statist. Again, it is insignificant whether some majority believes in the morality of statism. Do they have the power to implement it? I feel anarchism is a fundamental shift in society, just as we shifted away from aristocracy to democracy. Once it is out the bag in some large-scale example, it will always have more power than the old regimes of statism.
I think Aristotle once argued that there was no thing as coercion, that even when faced with death, you alone have the power over your decisions. Obviously, we understand coercion is not simply force, but also threat of direct harm to one’s person and property. It is not coercion for a democracy to demand taxes, and if you don’t pay, they stop providing you the services that they offer. It is another thing to attempt to steal your property or imprison your body if you do not pay.
Otherwise, we venture into the coercive libertarian philosophy, which is a completely flawed ideology. This basically states that I should be able to use force to secure ___ freedom. For example, other people shouldn’t be able to forbid me from their property if I choose to make statements that offend them.
It is less important that there is a common societal definition of coercion than there is a power structure devoted to opposing it. Consider our current state. Most don’t know half about how it operates and how it defines crime, but they support its endevour to eliminate crime, even while not realizing that the state is committing crime. The fundamental reason that this situation exists is not lack of public knowledge about the definition of crime and understandings of coercion, but lack of market competition to provide protection against not only petty criminals but the state itself.
I agree, but as I said, it’s not so much about whether some group is coercive in ___ area, but whether or not they can do so continuously and profitably in an anarchist environment. Without a firm form of taxation (individuals can freely hire protection against such from others), any agency’s power is derived from their market demand. Foolishly engaging in costly policies diminishes its ability to provide its core services to consumers, who may fly to different agencies, which decreases its ability to pay for its coercive adventures. It’s like the ever-expanding democratic welfare state; it’s destined to collapse because its fundamentals are flawed.
Of course, power doesn’t always end up on the “right” or moral side, according to one’s view of aggressive coercion. Anarchism does not claim to offer utopia. It is simply a system designed to put much greater limits on government tyranny.
What makes you think they would wage war? Like I said before, the ones who randomly break private property are either FBI infiltrators or the idiots who listen to the FBI infiltrators. And how do you know it would even be a democracy? Tons of an-socs prefer consensus over democracy.
Statist collective? Statists are not anarchists.
Do you mean name calling? Sorry, but I wouldn’t even consider that coercion.
Who do you think has a Statist streak?