Anarchism

[Josh Braun]

Anarchy means "without ruler", it doesn't mean chaos, and disorder.

 

Governments are naturally oppressive, which John Locke talks about in one of his essays on the contract between man and government. The only way to get rid of this oppression, is to not have a government.

 

There are many types of anarchism such as anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism, and anarcho-syndicalism. I feel that the best type of anarchism is anarcho-communism in a smaller community. That way everyone is equal in pay and social status, unlike with capitalism, and the people work for the greater good, without the natural oppressiveness of a government. It would be a direct democracy where the people run this shit for themselves.

 

Are governments necessary? Should we have an anarchist state? What would be the best type of anarchism? Is anarchism better than a government?

[Josh Braun]

the only problem I have with anarcho-capitalism is that the rich still have more power than the poor and who is going to regulate their power?

[Bryan Rosander, FL]

This is a lot more complex then it appears.

 

Politicians can't be bought if there aren't any.  The remaining "political" power tends to be wielded by land owners then and only when you are on their property.  When they abuse their power, they will lose money, sometimes drastically, because other businesses will stay away from them so that they don't get a bad reputation as well.  Overall, reputation becomes much more important and they have strong incentives to be responsible.

 

Most people who object to the free market claim that big corporations would be more free to abuse their workers without government protection and regulation.  The truth is that a freer economy makes it easier to leave that job for a better one.  If workers fear for their safety, they can just leave and work somewhere else.

 

The poor as a class actually have quite a bit of money and power because they have more people and are a much easier market to target for new products.

What matters more than wealth ratios is social mobility.  How easy is it to get a better job?  How easy is it to become self employed?  How easy is it to buy land?

 

It is easier to get a better job if the economy is strong, if you are already working, and if there are minimal legal hurdles for leaving a job and starting a new one.  While I assume the first one, the other ones should be more obvious.  Without a minimum wage and other regulation, more people can be hired.  Once they are hired and prove their value, they can get a promotion or get hired by a different company, or work as a freelance agent.  As for legal hurdles, the law in an Anarcho-capitalist society would be almost non-existent regarding hiring, firing, and leaving a job.

 

There would be even less legal barriers for self employment, as well as for getting a loan and buying property.  Banks would be responsible for their own loans and you would still have to get approved.

 

Depending on the area, you might have to provide your own security, but stores and neighborhoods do that already.

[Josh Braun]

Changing a huge nation such as the U.S. into an anarchistic state would be near impossible and a bad idea. And it wouldn't be impossible to create an army for the community.

 

The community probably wouldn't need an army because they are really small compared to other countries, or the will need one to defend their borders or gain resources against other anarcho-communistic communities.

[Bryan Rosander, FL]

That is assuming that gangs would form and that they would favor cities over the country.  In reality, based on the breakdown of the economy in Argentina, it seems that gangs favor less populated areas because it is easier to avoid being seen.  Cities will be more concentrated and be able to afford security.

 

Historically, this makes sense.  Walled cities were known to be places of safety and protection.  Outlying farms needed to protect themselves or leave in time of war.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

In anarcho-communism if someone is doing a job but they don't like it and they do it badly, how are you going to get them to do it better?

[Ash Phillips]

Simple, they don't do it. Anarcho-communism is about people putting their energies into what they enjoy for the good of the community. If someone hates carpentry but loves cooking, they should be building shelves, they should be making food. Obviously there are shitty jobs like waste disposal that need handling, the best solution in my opinion is a rota system.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Ok, what if they are just lazy. What if they have no motviation and just won't do anything, but they still expect to be fed, clothed and sheltered by the community. What is anarchic communism going to do about that?

 

Obviously there are shitty jobs like waste disposal that need handling, the best solution in my opinion is a rota system.

 

Ok, and how is that enforced?

[Abreo]

Ok, what if they are just lazy. What if they have no motviation and just won't do anything, but they still expect to be fed, clothed and sheltered by the community.

 

They'll be sorely disappointed. I'm sure I've told you this before (I'm not referring to my post below) but they wouldn't be allowed access to community resources and if they're whiny about that it isn't going to make any difference. If they refuse to work with everyone else they can't benefit from everyone else's work. They could attempt thievery but everyone would know what they looked like and who they are. 

 

Ok, and how is that enforced?

 

Write down a list of names, and when it comes to your name you take care of the trash. If training is required then the person who did it the day before helps you do it. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

They'll be sorely disappointed. I'm sure I've told you this before (I'm not referring to my post below) but they wouldn't be allowed access to community resources and if they're whiny about that it isn't going to make any difference. If they refuse to work with everyone else they can't benefit from everyone else's work. They could attempt thievery but everyone would know what they looked like and who they are.

 

But if there is no authority, how are they going to be denied these resources? What if someone doesn't want to stop helping them? What if a significent number feel a kind of misguided compassion?

 

Write down a list of names, and when it comes to your name you take care of the trash. If training is required then the person who did it the day before helps you do it.

 

And what happens if they just don't do it? You don't really have anarchy if you have a system in place that enforces them.

[Abreo]

But if there is no authority, how are they going to be denied these resources? What if someone doesn't want to stop helping them? What if a significent number feel a kind of misguided compassion?

 

Well if they felt misguided compassion they wouldn't have voted the person off the island so to speak in the first place. I would expect some people to feel bad, and the majority would resent them if they were ever caught helping someone, but when you all have to work together to survive you're not going to have too much sympathy for the lazy. 

 

I also wouldn't expect too many people to be lazy. There are jobs out there where people can come in and work anytime they want (one of them was a major corporation that has stores everywhere but I can't remember which one, the people at the store have schedules because they're paid by the hour but those who work at office buildings don't. I'd look it up now but I gotta go soon) and those people are willing to do their jobs without managers nagging at them to do it because they know it's what they have to do to survive. When you're working in order to feed yourself you're not likely to have much sympathy for those who refuse. I'm sure it'll take longer than it should for someone to be cut off but once they are they're screwed. Anybody caught helping them would probably receive enough scorn to make it an undesirable act. 

 

And what happens if they just don't do it? You don't really have anarchy if you have a system in place that enforces them.

 

Anarchy isn't the absence of systems because you will never have an absence of systems that enforces rules (even if you never decide on rules there will still be systems that enforce rules). For example, chucking rocks at lions. The basic rule is if you chuck too many rocks at a lion the lion will kill you. We will never exist in a world where free roaming lions won't kill you for chucking rocks at them, and thats not a rule enforced or created by any humans. What makes anarchy anarchy is the lack of a state and/or a lack of hierarchies. Without a certain small group of people having a monopoly over force there is no state and there is anarchy. Without a certain small group of people acting as authority figures there is anarchy. People all operating under the same rules and conditions without a single small group of people having a monopoly over enforcing them is anarchy. 

 

Oh and they would get in trouble. It's a one time offense so I'm sure it wouldn't be the worse thing in the world but they'd get in trouble somehow. Maybe it would be a three strikes and you're out sort of deal. There's the chance that nobody would ever take out the garbage but then everybody would just be basically silently agreeing to live in a world covered in garbage at that point. 

[Josh Braun]

And most people do the jobs they want so it's hardly a job. Adding to what Abreo said.

[Abreo]

Are they doing it badly because they don't like it or do they not like it because they're doing it badly, what is the demand for this type of job, how important is this job to the survival of the community and how easy is this job to perform/learn (is it dangerous)? Yes I need all of those questions answered before I can answer yours because they all obviously effect the ways that you can go about handling it.

 

For example as Ash pointed out a rota system would be beneficial for a job that many people can learn how to do but if for some reason the job is extremely difficult to learn how to do and needs the workers to be extremely familiar with the job functions then that might not be helpful. In any case there wouldn't be any 80 hour a week jobs (because you can theoretically hire an infinite number of people to perform a single job when you don't have to pay them in currency) and maybe a benefit to working terrible jobs could be shorter hours. If someone is just refusing to work though you can fire them (by having the community vote on it) and then after they're fired you just don't allow them access to community resources. Hopefully the threat of being cut off would be good enough but if it isn't it isn't.