- 06 Jun 2010 00:21
#13411125
Looks very suspicious to me. Does everybody have a gun, or just the peace keepers?
Seems to me that was what the Communist Manifesto was created to counteract. If the larger group has all the available resources, then suffering the consequences could be starvation or even dying of thirst. This seems to be a rehash of economic feudalism. I’ll pass.
What you call no-coercion, I call tyranny. Sorry, if someone has the only well around, and wants to enslave me in exchange for water, I’ll reserve the right to take the water by force if I can.
My version of Anarchism may be a little different than yours.
As for Anarchism being untested, social orders which meet the criteria of Anarchism are probably the oldest Human social orders on Earth. Even today, the Hadza survive.
Well, you play your game and I’ll play mine. I might point out that the Hadza get by quite nicely without either form of coercion. It seems to me that the rich folks don’t have much problem hiring folks to coerce other folks. The richer the rich, the more folks they can hire. Poor folks are a bit easier to resist. As I look around the world, it seems to me that economic power is the power in play. After the rich disarm, then I’ll worry about the poor.
Can’t argue with that. It would be kind of nice to know what boundaries are in play.
Corporations, anarchy? Neat trick. Buying? Are we talking money? Power, Anarchy? A little puzzled as to what you mean by Anarchy. Minarchy is not Anarchy.
As far as how different CRD will look from Anarchy, that’s a little hard to guess without knowing anything about CRD. Didn’t stop you, though.
Obviously. I also have a very different view of economics than you do. For instance, where do dollars come from?
Remember, Minarchism is not Anarchism.
Again, economics depends on rules. Exactly how do you plan on enforcing those rules? Frankly, I don’t think you understand Anarchism very well. Your ideas may play in Minarchism, but I can’t see how they would play in Anarchism. You keep saying things will work, but you don’t say how.
I don’t lightly jump to Anarchism because I realize the enormous difference between our social order and Anarchism.
Civilized folks are domesticated folks. Domesticated folks make good slaves but not good Anarchists.
How do you take a domesticated man and turn him into feral man? I doubt if you have even considered that.
I happened to have been raised by a feral man. Not many Humans today have had that experience.
Dogs don’t want to live like wolves and wolves don’t want to live like dogs.
By dogs, I’m referring to the domesticated variety. By wolves, I’m referring to the feral variety.
Melodramatic wrote:It will certainly not. Its a transitional state its goal is to show people they can live without coercion, by leaving its own to a minimum. It is supposed to help the growth of voluntary communities while forcing them to non-coercion (using coercion). in a way it will prevent violence until the people are ready to defend themselves. this may come in the form of a peaceful resigning by popular demand or the usual sort of revolution.
Looks very suspicious to me. Does everybody have a gun, or just the peace keepers?
Melodramatic wrote:Indeed its a sad world but I'll accept it. But that's how anarchism (and the libertarian transitional state) will look, if it will be non-violent. Unless the people will unite and reject this system making a better one. They can do that without violence. It just means that they will suffer the economic consequences of not trading whit a larger group. remember that in the end the rich are rich for two reasons, the state and the people. the state will not exist, or will not intervene. The people will learn that they do have the power. they don't have to give them their money and serve their interests. they can create an alternative.
Seems to me that was what the Communist Manifesto was created to counteract. If the larger group has all the available resources, then suffering the consequences could be starvation or even dying of thirst. This seems to be a rehash of economic feudalism. I’ll pass.
Melodramatic wrote:You might be right but to me the goal is no-coercion. I'll destroy anything in the way. if civilization or the elite will stand in the way of freedom then they will fall as well. I just don't make presumptions seeing how untested anarchism truly is.
What you call no-coercion, I call tyranny. Sorry, if someone has the only well around, and wants to enslave me in exchange for water, I’ll reserve the right to take the water by force if I can.
My version of Anarchism may be a little different than yours.
As for Anarchism being untested, social orders which meet the criteria of Anarchism are probably the oldest Human social orders on Earth. Even today, the Hadza survive.
Melodramatic wrote:I do. But I don't wish to enforce that. That way we get pulled too deep into this coercion/not coercion game. That way we will be doomed to forever coerce each other. the way I see it violent and direct coercion are more dangerous than economic and indirect coercion and therefore only the former must be destroyed. The other I will work to fade away naturally, simply by making a better alternative. In a way I'll fight violence with violence and economic coercion with economic coercion.
Well, you play your game and I’ll play mine. I might point out that the Hadza get by quite nicely without either form of coercion. It seems to me that the rich folks don’t have much problem hiring folks to coerce other folks. The richer the rich, the more folks they can hire. Poor folks are a bit easier to resist. As I look around the world, it seems to me that economic power is the power in play. After the rich disarm, then I’ll worry about the poor.
Melodramatic wrote:representative seems reasonable, as long as it stays within its boundaries.
Can’t argue with that. It would be kind of nice to know what boundaries are in play.
Melodramatic wrote:that may be very different form how anarchy will look. if people will continue buying form the corporations they will have more power.
Corporations, anarchy? Neat trick. Buying? Are we talking money? Power, Anarchy? A little puzzled as to what you mean by Anarchy. Minarchy is not Anarchy.
As far as how different CRD will look from Anarchy, that’s a little hard to guess without knowing anything about CRD. Didn’t stop you, though.
Melodramatic wrote:Then you have a very different view of anarchism then I do. With anarchism there will be no politics but their will be economics. People will constantly vote with their dollars because that's how you get things done without coercion. That indeed means that the person with the most dollars will have the most power but he will still be subjected to the people. How much power he will have will be ultimately decided by the people, and if they wish to continue this capitalistic game. that is the case with a Minarchist state.
Obviously. I also have a very different view of economics than you do. For instance, where do dollars come from?
Remember, Minarchism is not Anarchism.
Again, economics depends on rules. Exactly how do you plan on enforcing those rules? Frankly, I don’t think you understand Anarchism very well. Your ideas may play in Minarchism, but I can’t see how they would play in Anarchism. You keep saying things will work, but you don’t say how.
I don’t lightly jump to Anarchism because I realize the enormous difference between our social order and Anarchism.
Civilized folks are domesticated folks. Domesticated folks make good slaves but not good Anarchists.
How do you take a domesticated man and turn him into feral man? I doubt if you have even considered that.
I happened to have been raised by a feral man. Not many Humans today have had that experience.
Dogs don’t want to live like wolves and wolves don’t want to live like dogs.
By dogs, I’m referring to the domesticated variety. By wolves, I’m referring to the feral variety.
“Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler”, A. Einstein
“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” A. Einstein.
“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” A. Einstein.