 |
| |
|
|
tandeetaylor
|
|
Las Vegas
Apr 2001
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
What if you choose to call that group a corporation? There are differences between states making decisions for you, capitalists making decisions for you, and making decisions for yourself. |
 You're just hilarious. But we're going to stop this here before everyone else gets mad at us. Sorry I continued it.
quote:
Interesting how a lot of other forum members don't. Isn't that the most amusing thing you've heard? |
Yes, but when "libertarian" is referred to on this board, you know damn well what it means because most, if not all (you don't count, you're just silly), of the people who call themselves "libertarians" are using the US 2002 definition. We can't rename our party for you now. Sorry. EDIT: And I do believe that, even in the rest of the world (you know, those of us that live in this century), anarchism is thought to mean "lack of government." And that's certainly a borderline libertarian (US 2002)idea.
quote:
I was using "libertarianism" to explain my political ideas. It is libertarianism but socialist. |
OK, and I'll start using "communism" to explain my political ideas because I like the way it sounds. What everyone thinks it is be damned.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tandeetaylor
|
|
Las Vegas
Apr 2001
time: 21:23
|
|
No. That's what I mean by "modern Conservative."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tandeetaylor
|
|
Las Vegas
Apr 2001
time: 21:23
|
|
Or, at least, that's how they define themselves.
But I don't define libertarianism as minimal government, I define it as "lack of bad government."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
Anarchy means that I can walk into your home today with a gun, shoot you dead, rape your wife and daughter if they are appealing to me, and take over your possessions. Of course, anyone else with a bigger gun can do the same thing to me.
Thus, I also doubt anarchy can survive for too long, because sooner or later some strongmen or women will come along and reestablish order.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Andrew1999
|
|
This discussion was played out in Afghanistan a few years ago and tyranny (the Taliban) won over anarchy (the opposition).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Then it should've been referred to for what it is; a feudal situation. It is not anarchy.
|
I'm amused by your obsession with the word 'anarchy'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Seeing as how I'm an anarchist, it's somewhat annoying having the word repeatedly misrepresented. |
The problem is YOU ALONE interpret the word differently than everyone else.
The meaning of a word is defined as how general public understands it, and not by an individual.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
No, just about everyone else is ignorant about a two century old political ideology and fundamental historical events. Like I told tandee, the general public has a wrong idea of what fascism or classical liberalism mean. The general public has the wrong idea of innumerable scientific terms. The general public can sometimes be pretty damn ignorant about a lot of stuff. |
Hmmm... sounds like intellectual elitism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
'Feudal' relationship emplies a set of duties impossed on both serf and master: it is not a one way relationship, so it is difficult to name Somalia as such: |
In feudal societies, obligations lords had on serfs were essentially nil. It was a nominal concept, with a few exceptions (Tibet, for instance, to a small extent). Of course, a prince may free serfs to undermine the nobility(i.e. 12th century England), but that significes a withdrawal from the feudal system.
quote:
also, in a feudal relation, you still need some overarching Authority that enforces the duties of both: you still need a titular king or Emperor. Without one, a 'feudal' society can ahrdly exist. |
In many generally recognized as feudal societies, the authority of the Prince simply didn't exist. For instance, Japan during the Warring States period where the Emperor had no power.
quote:
Without public order of some type, |
Not all anarchists, myself included, believe there should be absolutely no state coercion.
quote:
private relations fall apart: How can a private individual maintain authority (over children or employees) woithout some sort of power over them or some sort of power to back their legitimacy? |
Parents need the state to enforce their authority over children?  And again, anarchist societies are socialist.
quote:
Anarchy at a small local level ends so quickly because some sort of, even just local public authority is needed for private life to continue, hence warlord. |
Not at all. In hunter-gatherer societies, anarchy has existed for thousands of years.
quote:
All the 'Anarchist' societies you describe still exist in a world of order: this catalan experiment could never have occured in a land totally devoid of some sort of order: some warlord then comes and destroys it. |
I never said otherwise. Anarchists have no problem with order, and many anarchists don't have any problem with minimal state coercion.
quote:
I agree that order can exist in small communities without having cohersive force, though shame-based cohersion is crucial. In large areas such a system can't survive, since it is too weak to survive the actions of some authoritative system: |
I don't know if I agree. I wouldn't support such a system, but seeing as how we haven't seen a single example of it, that's pure speculation.
quote:
hence why all such 'anarchist' experiments fail badly. |
I think they stacked up damn well considering what they faced - overwhelming external force bent on destroying them.
quote:
Hmmm... sounds like intellectual elitism. |
Yep. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SKILORD
It can be said that tyranny cannot long last either as rebellions will eventually tear it apart. |
What do you define as 'long'? Czarist rule in russia survived about 300 years or more, several human generations, ans survived many rebelions. Saddam has been in power 20 years plus, as if we don't invade, he could be there until he dies. The Roman empire lasted for centuries, so did the Byzantine, Ottoman, Chinese, Pharaonic, Persian, so forth and so on.
So, while I can give you many examples of 'tyrannies' lasting centuries, can you give me an example of ANY anarchist community, as you seek to define it, that has lasted a century?
No human system can survive indefinitely: changes in the socio-policial structure always undermine any system or force it to change.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
In feudal societies, obligations lords had on serfs were essentially nil. It was a nominal concept, with a few exceptions (Tibet, for instance, to a small extent). Of course, a prince may free serfs to undermine the nobility(i.e. 12th century England), but that significes a withdrawal from the feudal system. |
Serfs were not slaves, and the basic obligation of Nobles was protection from others, so most Nobles did do their job.
quote:
In many generally recognized as feudal societies, the authority of the Prince simply didn't exist. For instance, Japan during the Warring States period where the Emperor had no power. |
Even when the actual power of the King was nominal due to weakness in the post, the post still existed and any energetic leader who wanted could seek to restore central power. The claims of Nobles stille xisted in the King or Emperor: if the post was so useless, wehy not get rid of it? Because even when powerless, the king legitimizes the system, which is vital.
quote:
Parents need the state to enforce their authority over children? And again, anarchist societies are socialist. |
On issue of marriage and estates? yes. Whether a kid gos to bed is not an issue for society: rules about who mqarries whom and transfers of property are.
quote:
Not at all. In hunter-gatherer societies, anarchy has existed for thousands of years. |
But we aren't hunter gatheres living is bands of 120 or less. We are advanced post industrial, post agricultural societies of millions: I do not seek to run the US or any other state based on what worked for hunter-gatheres any more than a baseball team uses the playbook of a soccer team.
quote:
I think they stacked up damn well considering what they faced - overwhelming external force bent on destroying them. |
Doing well means nothing when in the end you are dead. You either survive or not.
quote:
Yep. |
At least we agree on the value of intellectual elitism
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-11-2002 14:20
There, of course, have always been anarchists in anarchist societies.
|