[DubiousDan]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Melodramatic]

Looks very suspicious to me. Does everybody have a gun, or just the peace keepers?

Depends if said state feels it can allow guns without losing control (therefore giving it to some gang or tyrant). it does not have much survivability seeing as it would most likely regress eventually. that's why it is a transitional state.

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.

Then you have two real options, force your beliefs on everyone or create an alternative.

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.

So that fact that you have no water gives you the right to steal it form someone? sounds like the version of anarchy of statist propaganda.

My version of Anarchism may be a little different than yours.

Seems like your version of anarchy justifies active (violent) coercion due to inactive (economic, reality-based and consequential) coercion. Makes no sense to me.

As for Anarchism being untested, social orders which meet the criteria of Anarchism are probably the oldest Human social orders on Earth.

there is a difference between those who never tasted tyranny and those who give it up for the good of all.

It would be kind of nice to know what boundaries are in play.

External affairs and defense seem ideal. these might grow in time but it is a transitional state.

Corporations, anarchy? Neat trick. Buying? Are we talking money? Power, Anarchy? A little puzzled as to what you mean by Anarchy.

Power and anarchy are not contrast. Violence (for example coercion) and anarchy are contrast and therefore violent power and anarchy are contrast. Without violence all power is given by consent. if you do everything I say (for whatever reason) then I have power over you. If you give me your pig I have one more pig than you. Private property and anarchy are not contrast. private property and Anarcho-Communism is contrast. If Anarcho-Communism forces itself on everyone then it is violent and therefore not true Anarchy at all. if it agrees to live its way while people who do believe in private property live their way, than it is Anarchy.

For instance, where do dollars come from?
Remember, Minarchism is not Anarchism.
Again, economics depends on rules.

If you give me a pig I'll give you two chickens. There, economics without rules. Money is just a more efficient version of that. where do the dollars come form? I don't know. Where did they come form before we had governments (or at least dollar printing governments)?

Civilized folks are domesticated folks. Domesticated folks make good slaves but not good Anarchists.

Again the two are not contrast. If a slave agrees to the terms of slavery and has an option to leave than he is a freer man than you, me or anyone living in your anarchism. Just a stupid man. That's his right.

[DubiousDan]

Depends if said state feels it can allow guns without losing control (therefore giving it to some gang or tyrant). it does not have much survivability seeing as it would most likely regress eventually. that's why it is a transitional state.

That’s what the Communists claim.

Then you have two real options, force your beliefs on everyone or create an alternative.

You tend to attempt to force your reality on everyone else. I don’t see it that way. I’m a Taoist, to me, there is always the option of inaction. That is not what it seems to non-Taoists.

So that fact that you have no water gives you the right to steal it form someone? sounds like the version of anarchy of statist propaganda.

In interesting rebuttal to an argument that I never made. Controlling an existing resource is not the same as possession. If a person has a bottle of water on his person, or a wagon full of water, that’s his. If a man attempts to control a lake or a river, that’s another story. There are cases where a well could be property and there are cases where it might not. Simple control over a resource is not possession. Not in Anarchism, anyway.

If I’m dying of thirst, and somebody else has plenty of water, then we are entering the area of self defense. I have no right to endanger someone else’s life for my survival. However, the right to life is a powerful right, in a conflict of rights, it carries a lot of weight.

To consider the context, take a look at how it’s done in hunter gatherer social orders.

Seems like your version of anarchy justifies active (violent) coercion due to inactive (economic, reality-based and consequential) coercion. Makes no sense to me.

If you’re dead, you’re dead. In Anarchy, there is no coercion. You’re not talking about Anarchism, you’re talking Minarchism.

there is a difference between those who never tasted tyranny and those who give it up for the good of all.

This makes no sense to me. Give what up?

External affairs and defense seem ideal. these might grow in time but it is a transitional state.

I fail to see how you can isolate defense from internal affairs. As for the transitional state argument, that’s what the communists claim.

Power and anarchy are not contrast. Violence (for example coercion) and anarchy are contrast and therefore violent power and anarchy are contrast. Without violence all power is given by consent. if you do everything I say (for whatever reason) then I have power over you. If you give me your pig I have one more pig than you. Private property and anarchy are not contrast. private property and Anarcho-Communism is contrast. If Anarcho-Communism forces itself on everyone then it is violent and therefore not true Anarchy at all. if it agrees to live its way while people who do believe in private property live their way, than it is Anarchy.

First of all, I’m not an Anarcho-Communist. Proudhon was dominated by European thought and the social order of his time. He was my original inspiration. However, I’ve moved on. Fundamentally, my Anarchism is based on the Tao Teh Ching. However, it conforms to the lexigraphic definition (Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary) .

You have defined coercion as violence. That is not the standard definition. You may use it in your arguments but I don’t accept it for my arguments. It seems to me that you are making an argument by re-defining terms.
These are critical terms in play. Private property. Coercion. Power. Your arguments depend on your definitions.
They are invalid with the standard lexigraphic definitions.
One example should make my point.

Coercion :

From the Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, CD Version 3.0

Main Entry:co£er£cion
Pronunciation:-**r]zh*n, -*u], -**i], ]sh*n
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s
Etymology:Middle English cohercion, from Middle French, from Latin coertion-, coertio (also coerction-, coerctio), alteration of coercitio, from coercitus, past participle of coerc*re + -ion-, -io -ion

1 a : the act of coercing : use of physical or moral force to compel to act or assent *some form of coercion, overt or covert, which encroaches upon the natural freedom of individuals— John Dewey* b : a power or force that coerces *the submissive way of one long accustomed to obey under coercion— Charles Dickens*
2 : the application of sanctions or force by a government usually accompanied by the suppression of constitutional liberties in order to compel dissenters to conform *coercion acts*
3 : physical force tending to constrict or compress *the coercion of the ice around the ship's bows*
synonyms see FORCE

Your arguments play with your definitions, but then we aren’t talking about Anarchism. So back to Minarchism.

As for private property. That term is undefined. In the United States, that includes real estate. Real estate derives its existence from the state. Personal property is another matter. My Anarchism recognizes personal property as long as the state is not involved. If a state granted title defines legitimacy then it’s not personal property. Personal property is that property which if it were removed from your possession, the burden of proof would be upon you to prove that it was your property.
It should be obvious that if property derives from the state, it’s not Anarchistic.

If you give me a pig I'll give you two chickens. There, economics without rules. Money is just a more efficient version of that. where do the dollars come form? I don't know. Where did they come form before we had governments (or at least dollar printing governments)?

Your definition of economics. I won’t bother posting the MWUD’s definition.
As for dollars. At present they are fiat money. Fiat money is government created money by definition. However dollars existed before fiat money. They were currency which is a medium of exchange. It’s a little hard to have a medium of exchange without rules. However, before dollar printing, there was coinage, which was by and large, a state prerogative. However, real coinage in noble metals is really a highly developed form of barter. Again, there are a few rules involved.

Currency without a state is not impossible. It does require a bit more thought than you seem to give it. Reality does tend to be rather restrictive.

Again the two are not contrast. If a slave agrees to the terms of slavery and has an option to leave than he is a freer man than you, me or anyone living in your anarchism. Just a stupid man. That's his right.

Slavery is freedom. See, all you have to do is believe. A slave is freer than a man who lives in an Anarchism in which there can be no slavery. Eric Blair had a term for that kind of thinking.

[Melodramatic]

That’s what the Communists claim.

Of course it is. Both try to create a "free" society. The communist had the wrong definition of free and therefore the revolution the sought could never come true. What do you propose? Transforming the world instantly? Giving freedom has to be done carefully and slowly otherwise people will not know how to defend themselves form those who would abuse that freedom.

You tend to attempt to force your reality on everyone else. I don’t see it that way. I’m a Taoist, to me, there is always the option of inaction. That is not what it seems to non-Taoists.

huh?

Controlling an existing resource is not the same as possession. If a person has a bottle of water on his person, or a wagon full of water, that’s his. If a man attempts to control a lake or a river, that’s another story.

There is little real difference. two natural resources on in a bottle and one in a hole in the ground. Is your claim that we cant own land because we cant hold it?

There are cases where a well could be property and there are cases where it might not. Simple control over a resource is not possession. Not in Anarchism, anyway.

I'm not sure I understand. the question of natural resources has troubled me at the past. how exactly do you suppose handling them? without violent coercion of course.

If I’m dying of thirst, and somebody else has plenty of water, then we are entering the area of self defense.

No were not. Self defense will be if he attacked you. In said case he just didn't save you. To force everyone to save everyone is pure violent coercion, you decided you need it more then they do so you take it away.

If you’re dead, you’re dead. In Anarchy, there is no coercion. You’re not talking about Anarchism, you’re talking Minarchism.

No looking for the killer then?

No I'm not. I suggest having no state and therefore no violence except for self-defense. You claim that economical freedom is wrong and therefore justify violent coercion. So I have economic coercion and you have violent coercion (and probably economic coercion too seeing as violence is a very ineffective tool on the long term). If anything your the Minarchist.

This makes no sense to me. Give what up?

what I meant was that you cant compare modern anarchism with historical "anarchism" (most of it doesn't truly answer my definition of anarchism). All historical anarchism I know of existed because no one was the tyrant. Modern anarchism will exist because we give up tyranny in favor of peace. Therefore you cant assume the two will function alike. Its a different world.

I fail to see how you can isolate defense from internal affairs.

You can't truly but that's why I offer a transitional state. External defense will be less of a problem but internal defense if forever an internal issue. It is to follow the basic rules that anarchism will follow later, protecting the rights of the people and preventing violence. the state's goal will forever be to protect the people and teach them to protect themselves. then it will fade away as the people will not need it.

You have defined coercion as violence. That is not the standard definition. You may use it in your arguments but I don’t accept it for my arguments. It seems to me that you are making an argument by re-defining terms.
These are critical terms in play. Private property. Coercion. Power. Your arguments depend on your definitions.

Fair enough. I'll clarify.

I believe my definition of coercion does not differ from the given definition. I simply usually mean violent coercion, unless otherwise stated. I'll be more clear in the future. the definition of violent coercion will be to use violence, violent threats, imprisonment and such to make an individual in a certain way involuntarily.

while power in general is the ability to influence our surroundings I was referring to social power aka the ability to influence the actions of someone else. This is usually done by social or economical means (sometimes by the use of non-violent coercion). There is of course violent power that is closely related to violent coercion.

Private property is an item you have jurisdiction over. In this case I find land and other items equal seeing as other items are just resources brought from some land. my problem with private property is the original allocation which might rely on violence. But I have seen no other logical alternatives that do not require violence so I'm sticking with it. in a way property is a social standard saying that you my own stuff and I my own stuff and we wont use each others stuff without consent. No government there.

Slavery is freedom. See, all you have to do is believe. A slave is freer than a man who lives in an Anarchism in which there can be no slavery. Eric Blair had a term for that kind of thinking.

and freedom is slavery. That's the way you see it at least. you look at the what and not the why. Yes he is a slave but why? because he wants to be. Is he still a slave? can you call a man that chooses how to live hes life and has the option to change (however uncomfortable), a slave?

The man who constantly suffers the intervention of some restricting ideology that allows others to hurt him if he does not live by its law is the real slave.

[DubiousDan]

and freedom is slavery. That's the way you see it at least. you look at the what and not the why. Yes he is a slave but why? because he wants to be. Is he still a slave? can you call a man that chooses how to live hes life and has the option to change (however uncomfortable), a slave?

The man who constantly suffers the intervention of some restricting ideology that allows others to hurt him if he does not live by its law is the real slave.

This is typical of your arguments. Language has rules. You have your own language, and in your language, your arguments make sense, at least to you.
I don’t really want to learn your language.

[Melodramatic]

This is typical of your arguments. Language has rules. You have your own language, and in your language, your arguments make sense, at least to you.
I don’t really want to learn your language.

Rules are annoying. But please explain I do want my arguments to be clear.

[DubiousDan]

Rules are annoying. But please explain I do want my arguments to be clear.

Children learn language best. That’s the way Humans are designed. It’s part of the cultural upload. Children know there are things you can say, and things you can’t say.
Of course, as people get older, they get smart, and they start playing games with language. Some of the games are good, some are bad. Most are bad. The goal is not to communicate, but dominate, in the bad games.
In the good games, the goal is to refine language for greater clarity and precision. A process that the oligarchy would prefer not to be too wide spread.

Each Human being carries his universe in his brain. Each one is different. Communicating between these universes requires reaching a common ground in meaning. It’s a goal, not a reality. No word means exactly the same to one person as it does to another. However, we can try to standardize the meaning to a degree that permits communication. Meaning is more or less standardized by usage, but that can vary from group to group. That’s where dictionaries come in. Dictionaries don’t create meaning, they take meaning from usage, and write it down. In defining a word, a lexicologist writes down examples of usage and stores them. When he feels he has enough, he tries to create definitions that will fit his stored examples. He may only need one, or he may need a dozen definitions. Obviously, not all examples of use are stored. Even smart people say some pretty stupid things at times, and the not so smart, well, they do it a lot more. It’s up to the lexicologist to pick the reasonable uses of the word. It’s a judgment call, and not everybody can be a lexicologist. Some do it better than others, and that’s why we have different grades of dictionaries. That’s normal, some people do it better at making things, and those people usually can get away with charging a little more.

So if you use a meaning from a good dictionary, and somebody doesn’t understand it, they can look it up. If you use a meaning that isn’t in the dictionary, then they can’t look it up. They have to guess the meaning from context. Propagandists love that. Eric Blair addressed that in “1984”.
Of course, you can define the word when you use it. Then the people who read it or hear it, know where you are coming from. However if your definition goes too far afield, it causes problem. For example if you defined National Socialism as Socialism, or Capitalism as Democracy.

However, even using the dictionary, you run into problems. There are multiple definitions, so which one do you use? Context is supposed to determine that, but it isn’t always clear. Obviously, the person who first uses the term owns the meaning. After all, he should know what he meant, so if there is a definition that fits his argument, that’s the one in play, and he is the final authority on which definition applies. You can’t apply your definition to a term in play if it differs from the one that was put in play. You can, I’ve been stupid enough to do it, but it’s always a mistake.

After you make your meaning as clear as possible by using standardized definitions, you aren’t home free. Words are components in language. Their use is governed by the rules of language. In its simpler form, it’s grammar, the stuff you are supposed to learn in elementary school, if you didn’t pick it up in your childhood. Nowadays, the schools are a bit sloppy, so grammar is a bit sloppy. Of course, the rules get more complex the better you want to be at the game. That’s why you have college level courses in a language, and after that, you still aren’t home free. There is semantics and logic.
Still, lexicography and grammar will take you a long ways.

[Melodramatic]

that's not what I wanted you to explain. I wanted to know what wrong with my argument. I assume the definition of a slave? the slave I described originally isn't a real slave as he is not owned by another man (I was exaggerating to make my point). My point was that if you choose to live or work under the conditions of a slave, that doesn't make you a slave.

[DubiousDan]

that's not what I wanted you to explain. I wanted to know what wrong with my argument. I assume the definition of a slave? the slave I described originally isn't a real slave as he is not owned by another man (I was exaggerating to make my point). My point was that if you choose to live or work under the conditions of a slave, that doesn't make you a slave.

You stated that he was a slave. I can’t read your mind. Obviously, if he isn’t a slave, then he isn’t a slave.

[Melodramatic]

You stated that he was a slave. I can’t read your mind. Obviously, if he isn’t a slave, then he isn’t a slave.

Well I did wright he had a right to leave. That pretty much destroys the whole slavery thing.