Anarchy

[blind2d]

So, for my non-affiliated friends here, a primer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-8DtU595dQ But really all of Thought Slime's videos are superb. I promise this isn't just to plug his yt channel, but also just to get a discussion going about the topic. I'm looking forward to the interesting different takes people might have on this.

[EvilNed]

I clicked the video, but there's no way I'm taking lessons on Anarchism from a guy who'd be dead within the first week from lack of food.

[blind2d]

...What lack of food? We overproduce as it is, which is how capitalism makes a profit. Which is the only point of capitalism. Making it evil intrinsically. So who would you take lessons from then? The Zapatistas? May as well. They're pretty awesome. So, this brings up an interesting point... Who do you wish to take lessons from, Ned? It's not me, right? Then who? Anyone? Or are you just completely closed-minded, like seemingly everyone else chiming in via the shoutbox? Honestly I'm disappointed in all of you. Not even trying to see the world from any shoes but your own. Continuing to parrot capitalist propaganda. Etc. Makes me do a heckin sad.

[JDP]

...What lack of food? We overproduce as it is, which is how capitalism makes a profit. Which is the only point of capitalism. Making it evil intrinsically. So who would you take lessons from then? The Zapatistas? May as well. They're pretty awesome. So, this brings up an interesting point... Who do you wish to take lessons from, Ned? It's not me, right? Then who? Anyone? Or are you just completely closed-minded, like seemingly everyone else chiming in via the shoutbox? Honestly I'm disappointed in all of you. Not even trying to see the world from any shoes but your own. Continuing to parrot capitalist propaganda. Etc. Makes me do a heckin sad. For, like, the umptieth time already: the replies we gave you in the shoutbox are not based on "capitalist propaganda" but simply on common sense and observation of human behavior for centuries. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the pattern. Just because you will behave and respect other people's lives, freedoms and rights, despite there being no actual "laws" around protecting such things, it does not follow that everyone else will follow suit. Rest assured that there will always be people with a very different mindset than yours who will misbehave. Again, BASIC HUMAN NATURE. Since there is no centralized government around upholding and enforcing the said laws protecting such things, keeping these "dissenting" elements in check in an anarchy is almost impossible. The citizenry itself would have to form militia-style groups to try to defend themselves from such criminally minded people. You basically would get an environment of "gang" wars. You know, sort of like a la Mad Max 2 (watch that movie and take another good look at what an anarchical environment will pretty much eventually lead to: the "bad guys", i.e. the criminal leeches who have no respect for anyone's well-being but their own and will not hesitate to trample, rape or kill anyone who oppose them, constantly trying to depredate on the "good guys", the people who respect other people's lives and freedoms, work and produce useful things.) You keep bizarrely thinking that this is just "paranoia" or "propaganda", but it is just simply reality. Just look at our very own society right now, which is not an anarchy and has in fact an entire judicial system in place enforcing and upholding a set of laws designed to protect the lives, rights & freedoms of the public, and we still have a load of crime and violence. Some people look in amazement at how the police force in many cities has had to become almost "militarized", but they fail to notice what kind of ruthless criminals they have had to increasingly confront (remember the Los Angeles shoot-out of 1997, for example? Only two bank robbers, but armed to the teeth and covered in body armor, and who would not hesitate to "spray" bullets all over the place, no matter who got hit in the process, gave the LAPD quite a lot of trouble to take them down.) Now imagine if there were no laws whatsoever, just some vague unwritten code of ethics, which can easily vary from person to person. Again, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to easily figure out and predict where such a society would eventually lead to: inevitable conflict.

[EvilNed]

...What lack of food? We overproduce as it is, which is how capitalism makes a profit. Society produced food long before we had capitalism. Widescale food production does not require capitalism, it requires organisation. Something anarchy doesn't have. So in an anarchic society, there's no food. And this guy is one of the first to go.

[blind2d]

Society produced food long before we had capitalism. Widescale food production does not require capitalism, it requires organisation. Something anarchy doesn't have. So in an anarchic society, there's no food. And this guy is one of the first to go. I must laugh. Anarchy isn't the lack of organization, but the lack of hierarchy. Horizontal governance. Need I say that again? Horizontal governance. Equality. Direct real popular democracy. Why would there be no food without landlords banks and money? Makes no sense. Next. - - - Updated - - - For, like, the umptieth time already: the replies we gave you in the shoutbox are not based on "capitalist propaganda" but simply on common sense and observation of human behavior for centuries. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the pattern. Just because you will behave and respect other people's lives, freedoms and rights, despite there being no actual "laws" around protecting such things, it does not follow that everyone else will follow suit. Rest assured that there will always be people with a very different mindset than yours who will misbehave. Again, BASIC HUMAN NATURE. Since there is no centralized government around upholding and enforcing the said laws protecting such things, keeping these "dissenting" elements in check in an anarchy is almost impossible. The citizenry itself would have to form militia-style groups to try to defend themselves from such criminally minded people. You basically would get an environment of "gang" wars. You know, sort of like a la Mad Max 2 (watch that movie and take another good look at what an anarchical environment will pretty much eventually lead to: the "bad guys", i.e. the criminal leeches who have no respect for anyone's well-being but their own and will not hesitate to trample, rape or kill anyone who oppose them, constantly trying to depredate on the "good guys", the people who respect other people's lives and freedoms, work and produce useful things.) You keep bizarrely thinking that this is just "paranoia" or "propaganda", but it is just simply reality. Just look at our very own society right now, which is not an anarchy and has in fact an entire judicial system in place enforcing and upholding a set of laws designed to protect the lives, rights & freedoms of the public, and we still have a load of crime and violence. Some people look in amazement at how the police force in many cities has had to become almost "militarized", but they fail to notice what kind of ruthless criminals they have had to increasingly confront (remember the Los Angeles shoot-out of 1997, for example? Only two bank robbers, but armed to the teeth and covered in body armor, and who would not hesitate to "spray" bullets all over the place, no matter who got hit in the process, gave the LAPD quite a lot of trouble to take them down.) Now imagine if there were no laws whatsoever, just some vague unwritten code of ethics, which can easily vary from person to person. Again, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to easily figure out and predict where such a society would eventually lead to: inevitable conflict. *deep sigh* Okay. Again, wtf does "common sense" mean? Centuries only? Why not millennia? I should hope not, as this has little to do with rocket science. Right, which is a true statement regardless of what political/government structure is in place, so I fail to see how it is relevant. Do you know what it means to enforce these laws you're defending so much? Sometimes the murder of innocent children. You're okay with that? You're just fine with police killing kids in their beds? Or the military in foreign countries? Again, it's about freedom, so yeah, that's fine, man. ...Again, there would be less incentive for criminal behavior if all feel respected and cared for. Love will win over hate. Are you seriously trying to talk reality and bringing up a Mad Max film? ...Should I actually take any of what you say seriously? It is trying to predict the future, right? And you're thinking of that future as being bad and scary, yes? Paranoia, without enough evidence (which you haven't cited any of yet, btw). Propaganda, because movies are largely capitalist in nature. Of course they're not going to paint anarchy in a positive light. Just look at the ridiculous Purge films. Propaganda. ...Right, so why do we have these useless laws? To oppress the poor and minorities? (yes) LOL, the police. 1997? That's a hell of a long time ago, isn't it? So why do the police continue to be more and more militarized? Hm, if there were no laws, then no police to create conflict with the robbers. Nothing wrong with them taking all the money without a single shot being fired. Conflict will always happen with people, sure, of course, but so what? Hardly much of an argument. You can't just use vague terms like 'common sense' and 'basic human nature' to justify an oppressive and violent system, my dude. Weak af. I forget but, is The Matrix somewhat anarchist? I know it's a trans analogy, but there's more to it than that, right? Just pondering.

[JDP]

I must laugh. Anarchy isn't the lack of organization, but the lack of hierarchy. Horizontal governance. Need I say that again? Horizontal governance. Equality. Direct real popular democracy. Why would there be no food without landlords banks and money? Makes no sense. Next. - - - Updated - - - *deep sigh* Okay. Again, wtf does "common sense" mean? Centuries only? Why not millennia? I should hope not, as this has little to do with rocket science. Right, which is a true statement regardless of what political/government structure is in place, so I fail to see how it is relevant. Do you know what it means to enforce these laws you're defending so much? Sometimes the murder of innocent children. You're okay with that? You're just fine with police killing kids in their beds? Or the military in foreign countries? Again, it's about freedom, so yeah, that's fine, man. ...Again, there would be less incentive for criminal behavior if all feel respected and cared for. Love will win over hate. Are you seriously trying to talk reality and bringing up a Mad Max film? ...Should I actually take any of what you say seriously? It is trying to predict the future, right? And you're thinking of that future as being bad and scary, yes? Paranoia, without enough evidence (which you haven't cited any of yet, btw). Propaganda, because movies are largely capitalist in nature. Of course they're not going to paint anarchy in a positive light. Just look at the ridiculous Purge films. Propaganda. ...Right, so why do we have these useless laws? To oppress the poor and minorities? (yes) LOL, the police. 1997? That's a hell of a long time ago, isn't it? So why do the police continue to be more and more militarized? Hm, if there were no laws, then no police to create conflict with the robbers. Nothing wrong with them taking all the money without a single shot being fired. Conflict will always happen with people, sure, of course, but so what? Hardly much of an argument. You can't just use vague terms like 'common sense' and 'basic human nature' to justify an oppressive and violent system, my dude. Weak af. I forget but, is The Matrix somewhat anarchist? I know it's a trans analogy, but there's more to it than that, right? Just pondering. LOL! There's just no way that anyone will be able to take many of your "answers" seriously. Millennia? Good luck finding records from that far back. But even then, we still can deduce what it was like in such remote times. Skeletal remains from prehistoric times often show the signs of human-on-human violence. So, yes, in fact even back then people were still much involved in such activities as bashing each other's skulls for whatever reason they thought warranted them. "The Law of the Jungle", remember? Yes, an analogy with a Mad Max film showing what happens when "the shit hits the fan" and there's no form of organized government left upholding laws to prevent mayhem makes much more common sense and based on things that would actually happen than such incredibly outlandish remarks as "if there were no laws, then no police to create conflict with the robbers. Nothing wrong with them taking all the money without a single shot being fired." You seem to be living in an alternative universe here. As if that money they were stealing just "grows on trees" and is rightfully of anyone who wants to take it! Also, if you think that pathological criminals like Phillips and Matasareanu are miraculously going to lay down their weapons and say "Oh, but we are now living in an anarchy, let us become good, peaceful, useful, productive citizens, let us stop stealing by force what is not actually ours, let us stop shooting whoever stands in our way, even any passerby; yes, let us just do that!" get ready for a very rude awakening, because it just ain't going to happen. In fact, it's only going to get worse, as such criminals would know very well that now there is actually no real organized resistance to their activities. That means that if they liked your skateboard (perhaps by using it as an example instead of money you will finally start understanding it better), they would just take it from you, and if you try to stop them, then get ready to become a piece of human Swiss Cheese! Yes, what you see in those films that you think are "propaganda" is a much better approximation of what would happen in an anarchy, with no laws being enforced anywhere, the criminal elements allowed to run amok, and only the citizenry itself left to try to defend itself from them. We can easily predict this from reality. Just look at any protest, riot or disaster where the law is temporarily absent for some reason or another. It doesn't take long to devolve into random violence and crime. If you have ever been caught in the middle of an ensuing riot, you should know this pretty well. There's always the smartasses who start breaking windows and looting everything in sight (I once saw a guy running away with half of a friggin' cow carcass on his back, and two guys carrying a fridge, all while trying to evade the cops who had just arrived to try to put some order back in place. The shit was hilarious and disturbing at the same time), and from then on it only gets worse and worse. So, when you see movies like Mad Max 2 or Dawn of the Dead portraying such ensuing mayhem when an organized form of law is no longer around, rest assured that the filmmakers are not indulging in 100% fiction here, much of it is actually based on how reality is. Again, it doesn't take a rocket scientist (look up the expression, as you don't seem to be familiar with it) to figure any of this out. You claim that you are not seeking a Utopia, but some of your answers suggest that you seem to already be living in one.

[ProfessorChaos]

[EvilNed]

I must laugh. Anarchy isn't the lack of organization, but the lack of hierarchy. Horizontal governance. Need I say that again? Horizontal governance. Equality. Direct real popular democracy. Why would there be no food without landlords banks and money? Makes no sense. Next. Without hierarchy there is no organisation. And if you believe so, please provide an example of how an anarchic society can feed a population of millions (or even billions) of people. If nobody is in charge, then who allocates resources to the all the different processes that food production requires? Who makes sure the food is distributed to where it is needed? Of course, without organisation it just wouldn't happen. Under anarchy there is no widespread food distribution network, and there would be much less food overall. All food would be local, if even that. Most would probably be better off foraging their own food - leaving little time to cultural and scientific pursuits.

[blind2d]

LOL! There's just no way that anyone will be able to take many of your "answers" seriously. Millennia? Good luck finding records from that far back. But even then, we still can deduce what it was like in such remote times. Skeletal remains from prehistoric times often show the signs of human-on-human violence. So, yes, in fact even back then people were still much involved in such activities as bashing each other's skulls for whatever reason they thought warranted them. "The Law of the Jungle", remember? Yes, an analogy with a Mad Max film showing what happens when "the shit hits the fan" and there's no form of organized government left upholding laws to prevent mayhem makes much more common sense and based on things that would actually happen than such incredibly outlandish remarks as "if there were no laws, then no police to create conflict with the robbers. Nothing wrong with them taking all the money without a single shot being fired." You seem to be living in an alternative universe here. As if that money they were stealing just "grows on trees" and is rightfully of anyone who wants to take it! Also, if you think that pathological criminals like Phillips and Matasareanu are miraculously going to lay down their weapons and say "Oh, but we are now living in an anarchy, let us become good, peaceful, useful, productive citizens, let us stop stealing by force what is not actually ours, let us stop shooting whoever stands in our way, even any passerby; yes, let us just do that!" get ready for a very rude awakening, because it just ain't going to happen. In fact, it's only going to get worse, as such criminals would know very well that now there is actually no real organized resistance to their activities. That means that if they liked your skateboard (perhaps by using it as an example instead of money you will finally start understanding it better), they would just take it from you, and if you try to stop them, then get ready to become a piece of human Swiss Cheese! Yes, what you see in those films that you think are "propaganda" is a much better approximation of what would happen in an anarchy, with no laws being enforced anywhere, the criminal elements allowed to run amok, and only the citizenry itself left to try to defend itself from them. We can easily predict this from reality. Just look at any protest, riot or disaster where the law is temporarily absent for some reason or another. It doesn't take long to devolve into random violence and crime. If you have ever been caught in the middle of an ensuing riot, you should know this pretty well. There's always the smartasses who start breaking windows and looting everything in sight (I once saw a guy running away with half of a friggin' cow carcass on his back, and two guys carrying a fridge, all while trying to evade the cops who had just arrived to try to put some order back in place. The shit was hilarious and disturbing at the same time), and from then on it only gets worse and worse. So, when you see movies like Mad Max 2 or Dawn of the Dead portraying such ensuing mayhem when an organized form of law is no longer around, rest assured that the filmmakers are not indulging in 100% fiction here, much of it is actually based on how reality is. Again, it doesn't take a rocket scientist (look up the expression, as you don't seem to be familiar with it) to figure any of this out. You claim that you are not seeking a Utopia, but some of your answers suggest that you seem to already be living in one. And why not? Mmkay, so humans are naturally violent... They still also form societies and communities. So I don't see how any of that is relevant. Well obviously without capitalism, there wouldn't be a need for money. Have you even read Marx/Kropotkin/Goldman, etc? Again, that's a movie, so it's not realistic. I'm NOT saying that all people are going to magically become good and peaceful. What I AM saying is that society will be improved in this way. Not perfect or flawless, but improved. Again though I would ask what their motivation would be if they are secure and receiving the help they need. Why would you inflict violence upon someone else if your mental health is being adequately treated and you don't have to worry about much in your life? Just sheer boredom or curiosity? Fair enough, but again that's not relevant. ...If they want a material possession of mine and we agree that it would be better served to them rather than me then I will gladly part with it. If not, then perhaps we can work together to make a new one that they can have, or also sharing is a thing. Hmm, hmm, a protest without the law present? I don't know what world you're living in, but I have never witnessed this. Also, news flash, the supposed "criminal elements" are also *gasp!* the citizenry! Most crimes on the books are harmful more to capitalism and the system than they are others. And there you have it: the cops. The law. So what are you even talking about? Can you even make a case for nonviolent crime? How is that a thing? Also, anarchy is order. Cops are violent oppressors, thugs in uniforms. Why "worse and worse"? Riots never last forever, even if you didn't have violent oppressors intervening. Ah yes, the dead rising from the grave and eating the living. Very realistic. (Of course I'm familiar, I'm just being a bitch) But no utopia, no, just a better tomorrow. Is that really too much to dream for? Must I slog on through this life without any hope? Is that what you would have me do? - - - Updated - - - Without hierarchy there is no organisation. And if you believe so, please provide an example of how an anarchic society can feed a population of millions (or even billions) of people. If nobody is in charge, then who allocates resources to the all the different processes that food production requires? Who makes sure the food is distributed to where it is needed? Of course, without organisation it just wouldn't happen. Under anarchy there is no widespread food distribution network, and there would be much less food overall. All food would be local, if even that. Most would probably be better off foraging their own food - leaving little time to cultural and scientific pursuits. Well that's just incorrect. Again, horizontal government. Everyone would be "in charge". Anarchy is order, remember? Let's see, community gardens, greenhouses and hydroponics, fruit trees in common areas, and of course everything that would already be in production continuing, so... yeah? Maybe a little of the infrastructure might have to change, but beyond that, no. No need to "forage". How silly. Again, humans in the BC had time for science and the arts, so... *shrugs* You're just wrong, and I hope you're okay with that. - - - Updated - - - ...Aren't all forms of government "people governing themselves"?

[JDP]

And why not? Mmkay, so humans are naturally violent... They still also form societies and communities. So I don't see how any of that is relevant. Well obviously without capitalism, there wouldn't be a need for money. Have you even read Marx/Kropotkin/Goldman, etc? Again, that's a movie, so it's not realistic. I'm NOT saying that all people are going to magically become good and peaceful. What I AM saying is that society will be improved in this way. Not perfect or flawless, but improved. Again though I would ask what their motivation would be if they are secure and receiving the help they need. Why would you inflict violence upon someone else if your mental health is being adequately treated and you don't have to worry about much in your life? Just sheer boredom or curiosity? Fair enough, but again that's not relevant. ...If they want a material possession of mine and we agree that it would be better served to them rather than me then I will gladly part with it. If not, then perhaps we can work together to make a new one that they can have, or also sharing is a thing. Hmm, hmm, a protest without the law present? I don't know what world you're living in, but I have never witnessed this. Also, news flash, the supposed "criminal elements" are also *gasp!* the citizenry! Most crimes on the books are harmful more to capitalism and the system than they are others. And there you have it: the cops. The law. So what are you even talking about? Can you even make a case for nonviolent crime? How is that a thing? Also, anarchy is order. Cops are violent oppressors, thugs in uniforms. Why "worse and worse"? Riots never last forever, even if you didn't have violent oppressors intervening. Ah yes, the dead rising from the grave and eating the living. Very realistic. (Of course I'm familiar, I'm just being a bitch) But no utopia, no, just a better tomorrow. Is that really too much to dream for? Must I slog on through this life without any hope? Is that what you would have me do? Yes, but those communities will always have crime and violence among them. Again, just plain old human nature. "It goes with the job", as the saying goes. In order to try to minimize them, people invented "laws". Religion itself is a form of this, BTW. Nobody knows if there really is some "supreme being" somewhere watching everything you do, but if you convince most people within a given society that this is a "fact", then you can also start to put some type of "fear" into them that if they misbehave and don't follow the guidelines of this "God" they will pay the consequences in the end, not by the hand of a human judge, but of a "supernatural" one. "Laws" in one form or another have been with mankind since way back. Once you remove them from the equation, you get... you guess it, "anarchy". I think you already know very well where such a "society" will eventually lead to. We have told you several times already what will very obviously happen in the end. It sure as heck is not going "improve" with the deterrent of "law" not being there to deal with the more criminally and violently minded elements that always accompany human societies. If you think that such violent criminals are going to sit down and "dialogue" with you to see if maybe you will be so kind as to make for them for free that skateboard of yours that they'd like to have for themselves, instead of just going ahead and taking it from you by force, and if you resist they will mow you down in a hail of bullets without any second thoughts about it.... well, you know the rest. Keep thinking. It's like if these bank robbers showed up at the bank with their arsenal and said: "Excuse me, my good man, can we please try to convince you to voluntarily give us all the money that's in your vaults? Yes? If so, please, put it in these neat bags which we happen to have brought with us. Thank you so much, kind sir!" Those people you mentioned were communists. And we can all see how "well" their ideas have worked! Do you seriously think that the majority of Chinese and North Koreans love living in communist regimes? Yes, the criminals are part of the citizenry, but they are the problem elements that the rest of the citizenry will have to directly get involved in dealing with, since there is no organized government and judicial system to do it for them. Get ready to "get your hands dirty", because they sure as heck are not going to go away or stop doing what they do voluntarily. Yes, kind of a la "Mad Max", as much as you think such things cannot happen except in the movies. A world without any laws or restrictions is a criminal's wet dream come true. ANYTHING GOES! Exactly what they love. So, an anarchy is a perfect "breeding" environment for them. Expect them to multiply. You are going to have your hands full trying to deal with them. The cops cannot be in all places at all times to try to keep order. Riots usually start where they are not present or not in enough numbers to try to keep the more unruly members of the crowd from going berserk and end up turning the whole thing into a mob. If you ever get caught in such a situation, if you value your life, your first instinct will be "let's get the fuck out of here before it gets uglier!" It all looks "cool" when you are watching it on TV from miles away, but being in the thick of it is a whole different thing. Specially when assorted "objects" (including pointy or round masses of lead) start "flying around" haphazardly. As I told you before, overlook the obvious fictional elements of such movies, whether they be flesh-eating zombies or screaming mohawk-sporting punks on post-apocalyptic vehicles. Those are there for shock effect and entertainment value. The unruliness, chaos and danger in the absence of any laws they are making inferences about is quite real, though. This is not "fiction". It has happened, and it will continue to happen. "Absolute freedom" is a chimera. There is no way to achieve such a thing in the real world. Sooner or later the "absolute freedoms" of some will conflict with those of others. It all goes back to what I told you before: HUMAN NATURE. It won't allow for such a thing to happen. We don't live in a perfect or ideal world. All individuals do not feel, think or behave in exactly the same manner. What seems "OK" to individual "A" might not necessarily be so for individual "B", and so on. Sooner or later you will have plenty of "dissenters" from your view of things who will not want to conform with them. Conflict will be inevitable. For example, to you murder might not be OK under any circumstance, but to others it will be part of their "absolute freedom". How are you going to keep them in check so that they do not go around doing what they think is "OK"? If you put laws into place in order to stop them from doing it, then you no longer have an "anarchy" but something else, since there now will be some restrictions regarding what can be accepted as "freedoms". Back to square one. ...Aren't all forms of government "people governing themselves"? Not "directly". They have to rely on a group of people devoted to that task (in the case of a democracy, a group of people elected by the votes of the citizenry themselves. One of the several reasons why this form of government has gained such an appeal and success.) Most people are busy living their lives, which is already enough of a task in itself for them to have to become directly involved in governance. So, pretty much the same reason why not everyone in a society can be doctors, or bakers, or fishermen, or firefighters, or miners, or construction workers, etc. Advanced & prosperous societies require groups of people who specialize in and devote their time to many different fields of activity, not everyone can be "governors", otherwise you would have a pretty dysfunctional society.

[blind2d]

Yes, but those communities will always have crime and violence among them. Again, just plain old human nature. "It goes with the job", as the saying goes. In order to try to minimize them, people invented "laws". Religion itself is a form of this, BTW. Nobody knows if there really is some "supreme being" somewhere watching everything you do, but if you convince most people within a given society that this is a "fact", then you can also start to put some type of "fear" into them that if they misbehave and don't follow the guidelines of this "God" they will pay the consequences in the end, not by the hand of a human judge, but of a "supernatural" one. "Laws" in one form or another have been with mankind since way back. Once you remove them from the equation, you get... you guess it, "anarchy". I think you already know very well where such a "society" will eventually lead to. We have told you several times already what will very obviously happen in the end. It sure as heck is not going "improve" with the deterrent of "law" not being there to deal with the more criminally and violently minded elements that always accompany human societies. If you think that such violent criminals are going to sit down and "dialogue" with you to see if maybe you will be so kind as to make for them for free that skateboard of yours that they'd like to have for themselves, instead of just going ahead and taking it from you by force, and if you resist they will mow you down in a hail of bullets without any second thoughts about it.... well, you know the rest. Keep thinking. It's like if these bank robbers showed up at the bank with their arsenal and said: "Excuse me, my good man, can we please try to convince you to voluntarily give us all the money that's in your vaults? Yes? If so, please, put it in these neat bags which we happen to have brought with us. Thank you so much, kind sir!" Those people you mentioned were communists. And we can all see how "well" their ideas have worked! Do you seriously think that the majority of Chinese and North Koreans love living in communist regimes? Yes, the criminals are part of the citizenry, but they are the problem elements that the rest of the citizenry will have to directly get involved in dealing with, since there is no organized government and judicial system to do it for them. Get ready to "get your hands dirty", because they sure as heck are not going to go away or stop doing what they do voluntarily. Yes, kind of a la "Mad Max", as much as you think such things cannot happen except in the movies. A world without any laws or restrictions is a criminal's wet dream come true. ANYTHING GOES! Exactly what they love. So, an anarchy is a perfect "breeding" environment for them. Expect them to multiply. You are going to have your hands full trying to deal with them. The cops cannot be in all places at all times to try to keep order. Riots usually start where they are not present or not in enough numbers to try to keep the more unruly members of the crowd from going berserk and end up turning the whole thing into a mob. If you ever get caught in such a situation, if you value your life, your first instinct will be "let's get the fuck out of here before it gets uglier!" It all looks "cool" when you are watching it on TV from miles away, but being in the thick of it is a whole different thing. Specially when assorted "objects" (including pointy or round masses of lead) start "flying around" haphazardly. As I told you before, overlook the obvious fictional elements of such movies, whether they be flesh-eating zombies or screaming mohawk-sporting punks on post-apocalyptic vehicles. Those are there for shock effect and entertainment value. The unruliness, chaos and danger in the absence of any laws they are making inferences about is quite real, though. This is not "fiction". It has happened, and it will continue to happen. "Absolute freedom" is a chimera. There is no way to achieve such a thing in the real world. Sooner or later the "absolute freedoms" of some will conflict with those of others. It all goes back to what I told you before: HUMAN NATURE. It won't allow for such a thing to happen. We don't live in a perfect or ideal world. All individuals do not feel, think or behave in exactly the same manner. What seems "OK" to individual "A" might not necessarily be so for individual "B", and so on. Sooner or later you will have plenty of "dissenters" from your view of things who will not want to conform with them. Conflict will be inevitable. For example, to you murder might not be OK under any circumstance, but to others it will be part of their "absolute freedom". How are you going to keep them in check so that they do not go around doing what they think is "OK"? If you put laws into place in order to stop them from doing it, then you no longer have an "anarchy" but something else, since there now will be some restrictions regarding what can be accepted as "freedoms". Back to square one. Not "directly". They have to rely on a group of people devoted to that task (in the case of a democracy, a group of people elected by the votes of the citizenry themselves. One of the several reasons why this form of government has gained such an appeal and success.) Most people are busy living their lives, which is already enough of a task in itself for them to have to become directly involved in governance. So, pretty much the same reason why not everyone in a society can be doctors, or bakers, or fishermen, or firefighters, or miners, or construction workers, etc. Advanced & prosperous societies require groups of people who specialize in and devote their time to many different fields of activity, not everyone can be "governors", otherwise you would have a pretty dysfunctional society. *sigh* Again I will say to you that the violent folks are the minority. They will not destroy our species or civilization completely without laws or cops, or even religion. Why would they? Seems like you're just scared. Or at the very least, pessimistic. China is not communist. They behave as much like America as Japan does, it would seem. Do you think Russia is still communist as well? It is to laugh, your apparent ignorance. Dictatorships for instance are not the communist ideal. Vietnam is one of the closest things to a true communist country that we have today, as far as I know. Notice you didn't mention it. Hm. No one does things "for us", exactly. Anarchy means helping each other. Cooperation and compassion. Sorry if that's too difficult for you to grasp, y'know, communities actually functioning well. ...You clearly don't get it. If there are no laws, then there would by definition be no criminals. Acts of horror and violence committed by individuals or groups? Sure, yes. But please learn what words mean. Again you are merely catastrophizing without any evidence. Pathetic. The cops shouldn't exist. You think everyone who isn't a cop is just looking around, waiting for the chance to riot as soon as no police are in sight? LOL, no, it'll be to fuck up any fascists I see. If people can deal with war, they can deal with a street fight. Alright, and these movies do not exist in a vacuum, either. But yeah, moving on. Mhm, but how about "more" freedom? "Maximum" freedom? Complete freedom is impossible within society, as we are all bound by relationships, etc. I'm aware of this. All I'm saying is abolish prisons and institutionalized murder/oppression. You sure do like to repeat yourself... Isn't it wonderful how diverse our species is? Not everyone is going to want to be in every community, yeah, which is fine. I've already said conflict will happen. Conflict always happens. That's life. Again, the community will have a council or something that will make decisions, etc. For the umpteenth time, anarchy doesn't mean no government, it means no hierarchy. Learn words please. Hmm, why not directly? Wouldn't that more accurately reflect the will of the people? Did you mean "Democratic Republic"? It has gained "success" because of the West being colonialist assholes. Basically forcing foreign nations to adopt this model or die. Like, you're aware of that, right? Capitalism forces us into excessive labor and distraction, so of course it's difficult to get involved in government, and when a large portion of the population doesn't believe they're being heard, of course they're not going to trust the government. But yeah, some people are better at some things than others. So? Hmm... As I wish to abolish money, what does "prosperous" mean in this context? Everyone could at the very least have an equal vote, which we don't see happening now.

[JDP]

*sigh* Again I will say to you that the violent folks are the minority. They will not destroy our species or civilization completely without laws or cops, or even religion. Why would they? Seems like you're just scared. Or at the very least, pessimistic. No, but they sure won't make anything better by being allowed to do as they please. China is not communist. They behave as much like America as Japan does, it would seem. Do you think Russia is still communist as well? It is to laugh, your apparent ignorance. Dictatorships for instance are not the communist ideal. Vietnam is one of the closest things to a true communist country that we have today, as far as I know. Notice you didn't mention it. Hm. China is controlled by that country's communist party. Russia has become a rogue state, controlled by ex-KGBs like Putin. Vietnam is governed by a more moderate and progressive brand of communism. I notice that you didn't mention Cuba or Venezuela. Hm. As much as I hate to agree with a clown like Donald Fart, **ahem** I mean "Trump", he is quite correct when he says that Venezuela has gone from being the richest country in South America to the poorest and most chaotic one in the area. Thank that "achievement" to closet-communist dictator nutjobs like Chavez and his successor, Maduro. Rest assured that most Venezuelans would love to get rid of these bastards who have ruined that nation. The problem is that they won't fucking give up and continue to try to shove their dysfunctional Cuban backed-up "revolution" down the population's throat, whether they like or want it or not. As long as they have the support of the majority of the military (who are in their payroll), there won't be any peaceful solution for that nation. No one does things "for us", exactly. Anarchy means helping each other. Cooperation and compassion. Sorry if that's too difficult for you to grasp, y'know, communities actually functioning well. ...You clearly don't get it. If there are no laws, then there would by definition be no criminals. Acts of horror and violence committed by individuals or groups? Sure, yes. But please learn what words mean. Again you are merely catastrophizing without any evidence. Pathetic. The one who clearly doesn't get it is you. Anarchy won't solve anything. If anything it will just make it worse. Society's fundamental problems, like crime and violence, precede any form of organized government. Laws did not create criminals. The forms of government that eventually developed as civilizations progressed put sets of laws into place precisely to make things more orderly and secure for the inhabitants and to try to minimize crime and violence. Anarchy would be like going back to those pre-laws & governments of any kind period. Unless you are rough & ready to take your own personal "laws" into your own hands, anarchy is about the last thing that should be in your mind to support. If somebody does you wrong, there won't be anyone around to help you out, except you and maybe your family and friends. Sometimes you might be able to get away with serving "justice" to those who did you wrong, but the day will come when you will confront a foe who is stronger and better organized than you are. What are you gonna do then? Most likely just shut up and take it. If that's your cup of tea, you are more than welcome to it, and my share of it too, as I want nothing to do with such an insane unpredictable system. The cops shouldn't exist. You think everyone who isn't a cop is just looking around, waiting for the chance to riot as soon as no police are in sight? LOL, no, it'll be to fuck up any fascists I see. If people can deal with war, they can deal with a street fight. You must be a young person. Sure, when I was a young fellow I also thought cops were a nuisance. Shit, all we wanted to do is have fun, even if sometimes it meant doing something that was technically "illegal" (like graffitiing, for example), and the cops sometimes were the party-poopers. "Well, fuck them!" But as you grow up and gain more experience and responsibilities in life, you will see that that police force is there for practical and logical reasons. They are as necessary as everything else that helps keep a society functioning. No one is saying that they are perfect and that there aren't bad cops around who themselves misbehave, but imagining a functional society without a department of the government upholding and enforcing the law is simply absurd. It's just not gonna happen. Experience will teach you how much people like to "misbehave" when there is no authority around to uphold the law. Alright, and these movies do not exist in a vacuum, either. But yeah, moving on. So, according to you, all movies that show the same basic pattern -namely: absence of law = eventual strife & conflict- must be part of a gigantic "capitalist conspiracy". Strange idea, considering that such observations predate capitalism and movie-making by a very long time. Mhm, but how about "more" freedom? "Maximum" freedom? Complete freedom is impossible within society, as we are all bound by relationships, etc. I'm aware of this. OK, but then that means that anarchy is simply not possible either. Anarchy seeks that "complete freedom" of the individual. As soon as you start placing some limitations on it, it is not "anarchy" anymore. All I'm saying is abolish prisons and institutionalized murder/oppression. You sure do like to repeat yourself... I have to repeat myself because you simply won't concede the points. Isn't it wonderful how diverse our species is? Not everyone is going to want to be in every community, yeah, which is fine. I've already said conflict will happen. Conflict always happens. That's life. Again, the community will have a council or something that will make decisions, etc. For the umpteenth time, anarchy doesn't mean no government, it means no hierarchy. Learn words please. It seems it is you who is not learning the meaning of some words. "Anarchy" is defined as: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/anarchy And more on its etymology and several adaptations of the word: https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=anarchy Hmm, why not directly? Wouldn't that more accurately reflect the will of the people? Did you mean "Democratic Republic"? It has gained "success" because of the West being colonialist assholes. Basically forcing foreign nations to adopt this model or die. Like, you're aware of that, right? Strange idea, considering that plenty of nations have voluntarily adopted it without anyone twisting their arms. Returning back to the example of Venezuela: go ahead and ask the average starving Venezuelan if they would like to go back to the democracy they enjoyed prior to Chavez & Maduro taking over with their bogus and totally unrequested Cuban-backed-up communist "revolution" (or "robolution", i.e. robberlution, as Venezuelans jokingly refer to that farce) that has transformed that country into "a wasteland of terror", to paraphrase Dr. Menard from Zombie. Capitalism forces us into excessive labor and distraction, so of course it's difficult to get involved in government, and when a large portion of the population doesn't believe they're being heard, of course they're not going to trust the government. But yeah, some people are better at some things than others. So? Hmm... As I wish to abolish money, what does "prosperous" mean in this context? Everyone could at the very least have an equal vote, which we don't see happening now. Your line of argumentation seems to simply be: point an accusing finger and say "Capitalism!" Rinse & repeat. Once again, it has nothing to do with this particular system but simply with how life is. Most people are busy with their lives, whether they live in a "capitalist" system, or a monarchy, or a dictatorship, or what have you. Most people cannot and do not want to get involved directly in government. And thank goodness they don't! Can you imagine what would happen to society if everyone would want government positions and do nothing else? Who do you think would till the fields, raise livestock, mine minerals, smelt metals, construct buildings, practice medicine, bake goods, etc.??? Civilization would come to a halt. It is indispensable that society is composed of people devoted to many different skills. Money is a very convenient and useful invention. It has been with us since antiquity and has been used by all manner of political systems through the centuries. It certainly has withstood the test of time! But perhaps you would prefer going back to a clumsy "barter" system??? At this point, I am not getting surprised by several of your strange answers anymore.

[EvilNed]

Well that's just incorrect. Again, horizontal government. Everyone would be "in charge". Anarchy is order, remember? Let's see, community gardens, greenhouses and hydroponics, fruit trees in common areas, and of course everything that would already be in production continuing, so... yeah? Maybe a little of the infrastructure might have to change, but beyond that, no. No need to "forage". How silly. Again, humans in the BC had time for science and the arts, so... *shrugs* You're just wrong, and I hope you're okay with that. I'm sorry, but that wouldn't work. First off, any form of organization requires a hierarchy. One cannot exist on a large scale without the other. In an organization, one hand needs to know what the other is doing in order for you to work towards the same goal. Let's take an assembly plant: One worker puts the cars on the tires, and another puts the windows in. Both need to be done in order for the car to be finished; but someone else entirely needs to make sure both (and more) are done. In this scenario somebody needs to be in charge. Without that person both persons might end up putting the tires on, or the glass on, - or start working on another car before this is finished. If you do not understand this concept, then you simply do not understand how organization works. Second, your understanding of economy and infrastructure is much to vague or thin. In our society, there are a number of things that need to be maintained and checked in order for food to reach your store. Somebody needs to produce trucks, refine the oil, maintain the roads. That's the logistics part of it. Due to accidents, wear and tear and region specific causes the demands will vary and somebody will need to oversee and make sure each layer of this process is maintained. Somebody else entirely needs to supply the agricultural sector with tractors, farming equipment etc, and every country or region will have specific needs depending on what it grows and what the climate is - somebody needs to oversee this too in order for production to continue. That's just two very vital aspects of it, and there are more. Without organization where some people decide what others do (i.e. a hierarchy) this is not possible to maintain. So please, provide a very description of the type of organization that could maintain a food production on a massive scale. Not just a "Well, we'll just keep doing what we've been doing, whats the problem?" type of answer - because the way we're doing it is highly dependant on hierarchical organization.

[blind2d]

@JDP: Why not? Ever hear of Al Capone? Or the Black Panthers? 2) Venezuela isn't communist. Which is why I didn't mention it. But yeah, you can call something communist, but if it isn't communist in practice (the workers owning the means of production, the abolition of capital and the state, etc) then it's meaningless. 3) You haven't yet demonstrated with evidence how anarchy would be universally detrimental to our species. Try to minimize, yes, but they fail, don't they? So why not cast them out? Power corrupts, remember. I believe that education and care are more important than "laws". Negative reinforcement is not the best way to teach or govern, IMO. Also it wouldn't be like turning back the clock on anything, since we have modern knowledge and technology on our side. I see. You would rather have the devil you know than the one you don't. All I'm hearing from you is fear and negativity. That's not how we made any medical or scientific progress. 4) Interesting take, but I will dismiss it offhand, as is my right. 5) It depends what the limitations are. Can humans fly? Not without the assistance of machines. Working together produces greater works than solo labor. Also, anarchy means horizontal government. For the umpteenth time. 6) Nor will you, creating our current semi-impasse. 7) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy Your second link was decent. Read Kropotkin, for sure. 8) I may be confused with the intentional suppression of communism by the West over the past century or so, or... maybe "twisting their arms" looks different to you than to me. Again, Venezuela has never been truly communist. Bad Mouse Productions did a good video on it, I think. 9) If the boot fits, J. Capitalists are awfully good at normalizing the horrendous. They do control most media, after all. "Or what have you"? Seriously? But yeah, that's true. I'm not denying that. What a leap! Why would people getting more involved in government make the jump to them not wishing to do anything else? Again you're catastrophizing without evidence, being a complete pessimist. LOL, have you never seen ANY Star Trek? Money is not needed, and more of a hindrance than a help. Why barter if everyone has all they need? - - - Updated - - - I'm sorry, but that wouldn't work. First off, any form of organization requires a hierarchy. One cannot exist on a large scale without the other. In an organization, one hand needs to know what the other is doing in order for you to work towards the same goal. Let's take an assembly plant: One worker puts the cars on the tires, and another puts the windows in. Both need to be done in order for the car to be finished; but someone else entirely needs to make sure both (and more) are done. In this scenario somebody needs to be in charge. Without that person both persons might end up putting the tires on, or the glass on, - or start working on another car before this is finished. If you do not understand this concept, then you simply do not understand how organization works. Second, your understanding of economy and infrastructure is much to vague or thin. In our society, there are a number of things that need to be maintained and checked in order for food to reach your store. Somebody needs to produce trucks, refine the oil, maintain the roads. That's the logistics part of it. Due to accidents, wear and tear and region specific causes the demands will vary and somebody will need to oversee and make sure each layer of this process is maintained. Somebody else entirely needs to supply the agricultural sector with tractors, farming equipment etc, and every country or region will have specific needs depending on what it grows and what the climate is - somebody needs to oversee this too in order for production to continue. That's just two very vital aspects of it, and there are more. Without organization where some people decide what others do (i.e. a hierarchy) this is not possible to maintain. So please, provide a very description of the type of organization that could maintain a food production on a massive scale. Not just a "Well, we'll just keep doing what we've been doing, whats the problem?" type of answer - because the way we're doing it is highly dependant on hierarchical organization. LOL, what? No, the machines do that in the factories. The workers maintain and program the machines. Why is a hierarchy needed? Why would one person be in charge, if the group is working toward the same end? Yes, communication is important, but how is that related to a ruler? You seem to think humans are stupid, and don't know what job needs to be done when without someone exploiting their labor. Probably, but how's yours? Yes, which are all things that can be changed/improved. Use solar power. Again, this can be taken care of by the community, using horizontal democracy. Workers should own the means of production. ALL can oversee. It needs not be a boss or dictator. Again, why can't we ALL decide what we ALL do? You've just said it won't work, not how or why. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy