yaaaa erimoto, anarchy rules!

[ermitonto]

Then why has that version of "human nature" been absent from almost every indigenous tribe ever found? Practically every native people has been organized in a more-or-less non-hierarchical manner. You generally didn't seek power for yourself to dominate over others. For example, if you and some other hunters were dispatched to find food, and only you were successful, you wouldn't hoard up your meat and use it to make others do your bidding, like you would if you were really innately a power-seeker. You would share that food with the rest of the clan, confident that they would and will do the same for you, and deriving satisfaction out of helping your fellow man. Small nomadic communities, like the kind humans have lived in for the vast majority of their existence, cannot survive long in the wild in an atmosphere of excessive competition between factions. They need to rely on mutual aid and cooperation instead. As humans we are uniquely intelligent and social creatures. We work best when we pool our mental energy to come to collective solutions to our common problems.

P.S. That same human nature argument was used for centuries to justify slavery, you know.

[Arioch]

Well said, ermitonto.

[ermitonto]

Here I thought we were on the same wave...for once. Your words "History shows that true anarchy can not possibly arise unless the populace of a region is committed to anarchist principles."

"vast majority of people are willing to contribute to society even when not forced to"

But this is the case right now and it's not working because blah blah blah

I forgot to mention this earlier, but this is most certianly NOT the case. The people of New Orleans are not committed to anarchist principles. To assert the opposite is ridiculous. Show me one significant organization in New Orleans that promotes anarchism, or any kind of socialism for that matter. There are none, just brutal gangs consisting mostly of statist capitalists. The gangs aren't out there urging for the end of the State and capitalism, like every anarchist movement in history has. They're just out to assert their own form of authority.

Well said, ermitonto.

Why Thank you.

[tokosan]

The word comes from two Greek words, an (without) and arkhê (ruler), and means a social system devoid of rulers, that is, where nobody has the authority to limit another person's freedom to do as they wish in any way, unless that person is violating the freedom of another, in which case self-defense is justified.

Ok so.... that is exactly what is happening. Ok, there is no rulers, no authority to limit another's freedom.

Self-defense? what if you are a 70-year old crippled man, and you have to "defend" yourself against 5 men with guns?

Face it, you are so stupid to believe in anarchy. you just proved urself an idiot.

please, get off the internet

[ermitonto]

Umm, no, the 70-year-old crippled man would be protected by the community's voluntary association devoted to stopping crime (crime being the limitation of another's freedom, such as the 5 men with guns threatening the old man). Why does having a community organization for protecting people against such displays of authority necessitate a centralized, hierarchical social system? It doesn't, and if you'll look at the histories of Spain and the Ukraine you'll find the proof. As I have already explained, anarchy does NOT mean every man for himself. It means that those organizations necessary for the public good would be organized according to the principles of direct democracy, egalitarianism, free association and mutual aid.

What I mean by self-defense is the ability for the community to defend itself against violent, anti-social people. It does not mean every person is solely responsible for their own protection.

[tokosan]

Umm, no, the 70-year-old crippled man would be protected by the community's voluntary association devoted to stopping crime (crime being the limitation of another's freedom, such as the 5 men with guns threatening the old man). Why does having a community organization for protecting people against such displays of authority necessitate a centralized, hierarchical social system?

What guarantee do you have that enough people will join? What if this anarchal society needs to pool every avaliable rescource to fend off an invading army, but everyone does not want to? They would have to be MADE to, or the civilization would fall to an "organized" power. And, how would the volunteers get "money", or "things", to simplify matters. Let me guess, the people that had more "stuff" would kindly donate it to the helpful volunteers.

lol i dount it. humans are selfish creatures

Face it, anarchy is like communism. Looks good on paper, doesnt work in real life.

It doesn't, and if you'll look at the histories of Spain and the Ukraine you'll find the proof. As I have already explained, anarchy does NOT mean every man for himself. It means that those organizations necessary for the public good would be organized according to the principles of direct democracy, egalitarianism, free association and mutual aid.

show me any country that thrived for a long period of time while under anarchy. post a link, and PLEASE, not from a crappy website no one has ever heard of.

...