[ninurta]

Okay, how would a militia work at guarding a society, buisness, nuclear plant or whatever it guards in an anarchist society? How would they be organized and run?

This alone, discussing this is on topic. I don't see how what you typed fit in into this because no you didn't make yourself clear.

[Suska]

This alone, discussing this is on topic.

You need to read what I wrote and understand it - that's the problem.

I don't see how what you typed fit in into this

its a service with a clear function ... could be handled ad hoc using common sense and democratic process ... common sense would allow people to come together in agreement to form a functional society

you didn't make yourself clear.

its a service with a clear function it could be handled ad hoc using common sense and democratic process, people would come together in agreement to form a functional society. Such functions might include a militia, security for high risk facilities, really anything - provided there was agreement and the position was not abused or construed to offer special privledges.

Is there something in that statemnet you don't understand?

[ninurta]

you didn't make yourself clear.

its a service with a clear function it could be handled ad hoc using common sense and democratic process, people would come together in agreement to form a functional society. Such functions might include a militia, security for high risk facilities, really anything - provided there was agreement and the position was not abused or construed to offer special privledges.

Is there something in that statemnet you don't understand?[/quote]
I understand what you are saying. But that would be democracy and not anarchy.

[Suska]

direct and comprehensive democracy is anarchy, anarchy is emphasized and adamantly sustained democracy.

[ninurta]

direct and comprehensive democracy is anarchy, anarchy is emphasized and adamantly sustained democracy.

No, its democracy, not anarchy. there is a difference, one is a government that is the people and countrols a state, or no state, just a city or whetever.

[Suska]

one is a government that is the people and countrols a state

comprehensive direct democracy is Anarchy. If every person is the government there is no government. you're mistaking representative government for direct democracy. It doesn't matter really. Anarchy can be used loosely, democracy is a particular system, I grant an Anarchy could be achieved some other way - say; randomly. the crucial thing is that there is no privledged class, like if everyone had an equal vote.

[DubiousDan]

Sebbysteiny:

It would have to rely on shifts because, as discussed, if the militia is unpaid, they can only be doing this in their spare time or they would not be able to feed their families. So people will only be able to devote a couple or hours a day max. This suggests shifts will be needed as one person cannot expect to be guarding it 24 hours a day. I estimate at least 12 shifts will be needed if you assume that all the guards will need time to put food on the table somehow.

This means that the militia would need to have 12 times the number of possible recruits as the enemy in order to repel an attack (as only 1/12th of the militia's size will be on the battlefield at any one time). Would you agree?

Me:
No. You are ignoring history and reality. Israel uses a militia. It works. If you don’t believe me, ask the Arabs. The Swiss developed modern infantry and destroyed the dominance of the elite mounted knight with a militia. Today, their militia is respected though out Europe. It has achieved the maximum goal of a militia. It has kept Switzerland free and out of war at that same time for nearly two centuries.
A militia can put more soldiers into battle than any other system. Yes, if you fight a prolonged war, then the militia becomes a drain on the economy. However, all prolonged wars are a drain on the economy. The militias function is to defend against attack. In the initial stage of an attack, almost all functions of the economy become secondary to defense. Militias require sacrifices, and the Swiss make those sacrifices, but the Swiss know something that Americans have forgotten. Freedom isn’t free.

[DubiousDan]

Suska:

comprehensive direct democracy is Anarchy. If every person is the government there is no government. you're mistaking representative government for direct democracy. It doesn't matter really. Anarchy can be used loosely, democracy is a particular system, I grant an Anarchy could be achieved some other way - say; randomly. the crucial thing is that there is no privledged class, like if everyone had an equal vote.

Me:
Don’t understand this comprehensive direct democracy thing. Unqualified direct democracy is the dictatorship of the majority. Fifty percent of the electorate plus one decide. That leaves the minority enslaved to the majority.
Does comprehensive direct democracy mean that 100% of the electorate be in agreement for a decision to be made? I’m not being argumentative here, I would like to know. If total agreement is required, then of course, you have anarchy.

However, equality of voting only means that you have true democracy, not anarchy. I am not a fan of unqualified direct democracy. By unqualified direct democracy, I mean direct democracy with no restrictions placed upon it.

[DubiousDan]

Ninurta:

No its not the real question, the real question is how to make a militia work in an anarchist society and remain an anarchist society.

Me:
In the context of Anarchism, that’s a relatively easy question. The militia must consist of almost every able bodied adult male of the anarchy. The militia would have to be self governing based on anarchistic principles and voluntary. That’s about it.

[ninurta]

[]one is a government that is the people and countrols a state[]
comprehensive direct democracy is Anarchy. If every person is the government there is no government. you're mistaking representative government for direct democracy. It doesn't matter really. Anarchy can be used loosely, democracy is a particular system, I grant an Anarchy could be achieved some other way - say; randomly. the crucial thing is that there is no privledged class, like if everyone had an equal vote.

I see what you are saying. No, not representative government, I meant direct democracy. Though it all depends I guess on how it is done.

On paper direct democracies are great, though if america was a direct democracy, my religion might be banned right now. And my children when I have them would be forced to learn how someone else's god allegedly created the earth in 6 days. So you can see an issue right there with direct democracies. Though it all depends on how you go about it too.

[][]It would have to rely on shifts because, as discussed, if the militia is unpaid, they can only be doing this in their spare time or they would not be able to feed their families. So people will only be able to devote a couple or hours a day max. This suggests shifts will be needed as one person cannot expect to be guarding it 24 hours a day. I estimate at least 12 shifts will be needed if you assume that all the guards will need time to put food on the table somehow.

This means that the militia would need to have 12 times the number of possible recruits as the enemy in order to repel an attack (as only 1/12th of the militia's size will be on the battlefield at any one time). Would you agree?
[]

Me:
No. You are ignoring history and reality. Israel uses a militia. It works. If you don’t believe me, ask the Arabs. The Swiss developed modern infantry and destroyed the dominance of the elite mounted knight with a militia. Today, their militia is respected though out Europe. It has achieved the maximum goal of a militia. It has kept Switzerland free and out of war at that same time for nearly two centuries.
A militia can put more soldiers into battle than any other system. Yes, if you fight a prolonged war, then the militia becomes a drain on the economy. However, all prolonged wars are a drain on the economy. The militias function is to defend against attack. In the initial stage of an attack, almost all functions of the economy become secondary to defense.

Though there are measures that can be taken I'm sure to make sure that we don't have too many economic issues. Like make sure that the funding for the war doesn't take away too much from people in protection taxes (what you as a citizen of anarchy pay to be defended) that it hurts the economy too much.

Militias require sacrifices, and the Swiss make those sacrifices, but the Swiss know something that Americans have forgotten. Freedom isn’t free.

Freedom is the most expensive thing to keep and maintain I am sure. Though its well worth it.

[Suska]

you can see an issue right there with direct democracies

You're talking about some sort of totally capricious Democracy wherein every whim goes unchallenged now and the thread is about Anarchy. You can ban a religion in a corrupt and stupid Democracy, you can't ban a religion in Anarchy - so long as you aren't sacrificing humans or some such idiotic thing that steps WAY clear over the line into something other than being equals in a cooperative commonwealth.

@DubiousDan, agreed, Democracy is something Anarchists could adopt or not, just as they could adopt Socialism or not - or whatever really so long as the principles of Anarchy are first and central to any agreement. I suspect the Anarchist version of such adoptions would stipulate that there be absolutely no bureaucratic obstacle to dissolving agreements, no voting or whatever to oust a Speaker, just if any party wants out of an arrangement the duties and benefits of the arrangement don't affect them effective immediately - walk on out.

[DubiousDan]

Suska:

@DubiousDan, agreed, Democracy is something Anarchists could adopt or not, just as they could adopt Socialism or not - or whatever really so long as the principles of Anarchy are first and central to any agreement. I suspect the Anarchist version of such adoptions would stipulate that there be absolutely no bureaucratic obstacle to dissolving agreements, no voting or whatever to oust a Speaker, just if any party wants out of an arrangement the duties and benefits of the arrangement don't affect them effective immediately - walk on out.

Me:
I think I get you. If I got it right, it’s pretty close to the Taoist idea, only we pretty much just let it happen. No, I should say that it’s pretty close to my version of the Taoist idea.