Any Anarchists Here?

[Pardalis]

an anarchist communist one.
try and keep up please.

You think an anarchist communist dream is what drove early homo sapiens out of the caves?

 

[Arcade22]

if no one ever dreamed and worked toward a better world, we woulkd still be shivering in caves.
a better world will not happen on it's own.

You can dream and wish all you want but some of us prefer to live in the real world where things actually have to make some sense.

 

[bikerdruid]

You think an anarchist communist dream is what drove early homo sapiens out of the caves?

basically, yes.
that is how mankind lived for most of our existence, in cooperative, consensus governed communities.
the very model of anarchist communism.

 

[angrysoba]

basically, yes.
that is how mankind lived for most of our existence, in cooperative, consensus governed communities.
the very model of anarchist communism.

So, in other words, anarchism was our original "shivering-in-caves" existence when we were hunter-gatherers who spent our entire short lives on the brink of existence. Pre-historical anarchism was a time when we couldn't even dream of better things, so your idea that anarchism led to progress is in fact the exact reverse of the truth.

 

[bikerdruid]

So, in other words, anarchism was our original "shivering-in-caves" existence when we were hunter-gatherers who spent our entire short lives on the brink of existence. Pre-historical anarchism was a time when we couldn't even dream of better things, so your idea that anarchism led to progress is in fact the exact reverse of the truth.

early hunter-gatherer communities and the early agricultural communities were peaceful and productive.
man...i live with wood heat and no running water to live more simply.
it ain't everyone's cup-o-tea, but it works for me.

 

[angrysoba]

early hunter-gatherer communities and the early agricultural communities were peaceful and productive.
man...i live with wood heat and no running water to live more simply.
it ain't everyone's cup-o-tea, but it works for me.

And a computer powered by wood heat with a bits-'o-string-and-yoghurt-pots-web?

And you're certainly correct when you say it "ain't everyone's cup-o-tea". In fact, hunter-gatherers are going to be hard-pressed getting any cup-of-tea.

early hunter-gatherer communities and the early agricultural communities were peaceful and productive.

Evidence for this?

 

[Pardalis]

early hunter-gatherer communities and the early agricultural communities were peaceful and productive.

1-How do you know?

2- How many individuals were there in these communities?

3- What does that say about today, with towns with millions of people?

man...i live with wood heat and no running water to live more simply.
it ain't everyone's cup-o-tea, but it works for me.

For you, but not for the rest of us.

I kind of like running water, clean running water. It's kind of important for me, and my 1,6 million cohabitants.

 

[phantomb]

early hunter-gatherer communities and the early agricultural communities were peaceful and productive.

Evidence? I understand the issue of intergroup conflict among hunter-gatherers is a controversial subject in anthropology, but I've read estimates that say more than 10% of all mortality among hunter-gatherers was due to warfare. And early agricultural communities seem to have spread agriculture and urbanism not by example, but by outbreeding and replacing their neighbours, often violently.

 

[Thunder]

early hunter-gatherer communities and the early agricultural communities were peaceful and productive.

that's quite a generalization you just made.

 

[bikerdruid]

that's quite a generalization you just made.

pre colmbian america knew far more times of peace than of war.
contrast that to today.
the united states has been at perpetual war, all over the world, since 1941.

 

[Pardalis]

pre colmbian america knew far more times of peace than of war.

And how would you know that, since they have strictly no written history?

 

[Thunder]

the united states has been at perpetual war, all over the world, since 1941.

should we have just laid down and let the Communists take over Europe and Asia?

 

[USEagle13]

if someone has more land than they need, there is no reason to stop someone from squatting on it, as long as they keep to themselves and mind their own business.

You have to be pooping me here. What is the definition from an Anarchrists view point of the proper amount of land an individual should own before it is squatted on?

I'm curious because now it is sounding like some sort of hybrid form of distribution of wealth.

I'll let you know right now that the people where I come from are nice and all but if someone from around here walks outside their house and spots a tent with someone in it on their land; and they are not supposed to be there, then I'm sure there will be a call for the local police/sheriff/911 made.

Lay off the dope, get a job, and make your self useful to society if physically able. If you cannot find a job then join the military or something. Or a job core.

Shoot; you could even hit up a day labor sight (they employ citizens too; not just illegals), or the oil field is ALWAYS hiring. People love cars and plasticky things these days.

 

[Arcade22]

And a computer powered by wood heat with a bits-'o-string-and-yoghurt-pots-web?

Well if his other posts are any indication i would guess that it's powered by wishful thinking and dreams.

pre colmbian america knew far more times of peace than of war.

Again, where do you get this information from? Are you making things up as you go along?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

the united states has been at perpetual war, all over the world, since 1941.

Em, what?

and i guess you'd rather have had the US not give a while Eurasia became a Charnel House thanks to Hitler and Tojo or let Stalin expand across Eurasia.

And also, you've never heard of the Inca and Aztec Empires, who were among the most warlike empires of their time?

 

[Galteeth]

So your response to the question is that no one would ever rape anyone else in Anarchotopia?

And you wonder why people laugh at anarchists?


Why would violence go away under anarchy? Are people going to be replaced with robots?

Ok, I define anarchism as a state where people are free, i.e., no one forces their will upon others with force or the threat of force.

As I explained, you can't force someone to be an anarchist, this is self-contradictory. I am not saying I know "how" to get people to not be violent, if I knew that I would have done it already, and we'd have world peace. So in "anarchotopia" no one would ever rape anyone. If they did, then anarchy wouldn't exist. When I say I am an anarchist, it is the morality I advocate. It is not a program to end violence.

 

[Galteeth]

So, in other words, anarchism was our original "shivering-in-caves" existence when we were hunter-gatherers who spent our entire short lives on the brink of existence. Pre-historical anarchism was a time when we couldn't even dream of better things, so your idea that anarchism led to progress is in fact the exact reverse of the truth.

It might have been anarchism if in fact it was a voluntary, co-operative community. But their lack of technology was lead to their "shivering-in-caves" existence, not their lack of violence.

 

[Galteeth]

The current system most of us live under, centralized, formalized and departmentalized states with a strong monopoly on violence, is capable of giving us wealth, technology, physical wellbeing and security beyond what people were even capable of dreaming about two thousand years ago.

There has never been any comparable anarchistic society that has achieved anything even remotely similar. The majority of all anarchistic societies, if not all of them, have only existed for a couple of years before sane people grew tired of their ********. They mainly consists of dirt poor farmers and people with professions and roles that depend on non-anarchistic states and societies for their education, resources and survival.

I'd love to see any positive, well documented and self-reliant example of an anarchistic society that has a living standard comparable of what people had around 200 years ago, but something like that doesn't and most likely wont exist.

Under your conditions, the society is not allowed to trade. I don't see why conducting trade with the governed world should be a disqualifier.

 

[Galteeth]

in any case, the owner would tell the squatter: [qimg]http://cdn1.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/088/536/original/emot-frogout.gif?1292656457[/qimg]

ETA: The "owner"? They have a deed which legally recognises the claim to their land as well as the popular recoginition that it's the owner's land

Well, in my conception of anarchism, I think the idea of private property is a good thing, but that rather then be enforced with violence, done through recognition of utility. In the case of land in particular, the traditional Lockian notion of title is quite murky. Very few land owners are the ones that originally "improved" the land.
More to the point, I don't think people should be restricted from freedom of movement.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Well, in my conception of anarchism, I think the idea of private property is a good thing, but that rather then be enforced with violence, done through recognition of utility. In the case of land in particular, the traditional Lockian notion of title is quite murky. Very few land owners are the ones that originally "improved" the land.
More to the point, I don't think people should be restricted from freedom of movement.

how is the current system enforced by violence?

and who decides "utility"?

and there is a place called anarchotopia: Somalia^(tm)