Is a completely stateless society possible?

Ahem. Emphasis mine. You were defining government as any form of social organization whatsoever. Anarchists defining stuff doesn't seem to be as much of an issue.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Why thank you, Savage Heathen, I will very much enjoy my police state, over your darwinist dystopia.

Because that's what government is.

The entire concept of anarchism, when taken properly, is fundamentally silly and idiotic. Anarchists don't want anarchy, they want tribalism.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

Well actually what anarchists want is shifting non-permanent governance. Leadership is not entrenched or constant but rather constantly changing so as to meet the current demands of society.

It is still a form of Government, however.

edited 9th Jan '12 1:06:34 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

Which is apparently why I don't count as an anarchist despite my political beliefs being primarily driven by a desire to avoid the flaws of the nation-state model.

Whatever. Call me a libertarian socialist or an antinationalist or a syndicalist or whatever. I am not interested in playing semantics. I will identify as an anarchist for the same reason Neal Stephenson insisted on selling Cryptonomicon in the sci-fi section - because anarchism is as much an attitude as it is a policy position. The idea of countries are silly, and any form of government is no more than a means to a collective goal and should be given no more loyalty than that would so demand.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Hence the invention of patriotism.

A silly and pointless invention if ever there was one.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

It's not really an invention. People have always identified with their group. Regardless of what some pseudo-intellectuals want to proclaim, nationalism predates the French Revolution, it has always been there. It just was not always a political factor... but it is human nature. However, I'm well aware that "it's natural" doesn't mean "it's good", of course.

edited 9th Jan '12 4:27:36 AM by Octo

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Human group identification is natural, tying that identification up with an abstract construct like nationhood is an artificial invention. And unlike my iPod Touch, it tends to cause as many problems in the long run as it solves.

Though your mileage may vary depending on your experiences with the iPod Touch.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Jumping back a few pages, to the statement from SH (paraphrased) that public opinion doesn't harm one's rights, as someone living in the south and at least vaguely familiar with its past I have to call bullshit.

Lynch mobs are a physical manifestation of public opinion, taken to its extremes. How well do you practice your rights when your corpse is swinging from a tree by a rope?

All your safe space are belong to Trump

That's certainly a big problem. Generally, the State is a larger threat to liberty than one's neighbors. However, if those neighbors happen to be murderous Klansmen, the situation gets a sharp turn for the worse...

Still, let's keep in mind that the South systemmatically disarmed blacks. Blacks were soft targets that couldn't fight back, until black WWII veterans started arming themselves for their collective self-defense (Black Panther Party and others). Under anarchy, minorities could (and would) fight back against the racists. What would prevent gays, blacks, or any other oppressed group from banding together for their mutual defense?

Some armed groups will be defensive. These'll have to be tolerated and probably encouraged. Others will be predatory thugs violating the rights of people. These'll have to be put down. *shrug*

edited 9th Jan '12 7:08:01 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

The two worries being raised are that the predatory groups won't be put down, and the defensive minorities will.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

@ Savage: See the post I made on the last page about Convicted by Public Opinion. What if co-operatives refuse to trade with the person, even if they were innocent?

And anyone innocent but Convicted by Public Opinion?

edited 9th Jan '12 7:09:49 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

Then who are going to decide which groups to be tolerated and which groups to be put down? Other groups?

edited 9th Jan '12 7:14:40 AM by Blurring

If a chicken crosses the road and nobody else is around to see it, does the road move beneath the chicken instead?

Unfortunately, if a community hates an individual to the point of boycotting him, he won't have much choice but to move elsewhere, live as a pariah or fix his reputation.

Considering that Convicted by Public Opinion still happens with the State (and the ostracized individual's options are pretty much the same), it's simply an existing problem anarchy won't fix, not a new problem it would create.

If it's a post-collapse, bad anarchy? Pretty much, yeah. If it's a revolutionary, good anarchy? The large'n'democratic anarchist militia ensuring things don't go to Hell.

edited 9th Jan '12 7:18:06 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Unless that guy is a really major prick, maybe. But, within a community, humans will form groups of their own. Then they start competing with each other.

edited 9th Jan '12 7:17:05 AM by Blurring

If a chicken crosses the road and nobody else is around to see it, does the road move beneath the chicken instead?

And hope a Militia doesn't get him first?

Grim.

edited 9th Jan '12 7:17:32 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

I never claimed that anarchy solves all social problems: It solves most, it's powerless to fix a few, and it's possible that it introduces some of its own.

Like every other social system, mind ya.

edited 9th Jan '12 7:28:10 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Mahatma Gandhi was skeptical of any purported political or societal system that claimed to be so effective people would no longer need to be good.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

The effectiveness of a system is always going to be dependent on the people who participate in it and to an (arguably greater) extent the people whose society it governs. All a system can do is try to bring out the best and discourage the worst in both groups.

Thats why monarchies and other dictatorships are essentially flipping a coin over the fate of your country.

edited 9th Jan '12 7:54:01 AM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Generally speaking your problems are always and have always been mass stupidity and corruption.

While we're talking about the issues with anarchism, how much worse would the USA be under that system than under the current system? Well see that depends on what social conventions you put into place. That's what really counts anyway in a country.

For instance, why is America a two-party system when everybody and their unborn children know it sucks? Because people just have a social convention to merely vote either democrat or republican knowing that doing so is damaging their personal and/or national interests. There's no solving this with any form of democracy if people just choose time and again to pick obviously corrupt people and just roll with it.

Fuck that noise.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

I will also throw in the fun fact that while a kalashnikov can allegedly be made by a village smith, I would not count on their quality. I would also make a guess that the quality of bullets they would offer would be comparably low. So I find it believable that while power flows from the barrel of a gun, real guns would flow out of factories. That's not to mention the fact that both factories and local artisans need raw materials, and they don't just lie on the street. So it seems to me that while everyone would be equal, those who would control mines and weapons' factories would be more equal than the rest.

"Atheism is the religion whose followers are easiest to troll"

^ And those who pull the trigger on their fellow man would be the most equal of all.