Skip to main content

View Diary: Anti-Capitalist Meetup: A Necessary Evil, or Just Evil? (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I sincerely hope you one day have the opportunity (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    misslegalbeagle, mjfgates

    to live in a lawless society.  Just not the one I live in.

    Where are we, now that we need us most?

    by Frank Knarf on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 03:22:26 PM PDT

    •  Perhaps you would like to elaborate with a well... (8+ / 0-)

      reasoned and supported argument.

      De air is de air. What can be done?

      by TPau on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 03:33:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's been done. You could start with classical (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG, Neuroptimalian

        sources or with Leviathan to save time, and work your way up to Rawls and his critics.

        Let me restate the original point.  I sure as shit hope I am never condemned to live in a lawless environment.

        Where are we, now that we need us most?

        by Frank Knarf on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 04:00:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you are forced to go to Hobbes justification (9+ / 0-)

          for the state to put forward your argument then your perspective of human nature is trapped in an artificial fabrication of someone whose purpose was to justify a strong state to contain human nature and protect property. Bentham's perspective was similar in terms of the rule of law. However, there has always been other currents in political philosophy that view society as consensual and human nature essentially benign. Hoping that Hobbes, Bentham and Rawls are not your last names in this discussion.

          "Hegel noticed somewhere that all great world history facts and people so to speak twice occur. He forgot to add: the one time as tragedy, the other time as farce" Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte .

          by NY brit expat on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 04:14:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, btw, I view my own nature as essentially (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            k9disc, ParkRanger

            benign, and I trust yours is as well.  I have however encountered a few people who have not impressed me in this way, and I understand from other sources I deem trustworthy that there are reasons to doubt the wisdom of such an optimistic view.

            I hope you're not a blank-slater?

            Where are we, now that we need us most?

            by Frank Knarf on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 05:11:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I really need to bone up on philosophy... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NY brit expat, Bob Guyer

              I feel you though. How can Leviathan not be the case when sociopaths always win.

              That's the piece of philosophy that we need to come up with. How do we not let the sociopaths lead. Probably an extinction scale problem as a species...

              But, man I really need to get with the program on classical and historic philosophy...

              Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

              by k9disc on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:11:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I share your thoughts... (0+ / 0-)

                on sociopaths and philosophy!!!


                I kinda screwed up with a careless uprate so (for now?) I'm a "No Rate" pariah. So when I give a comment "+110% n/t", please consider that a recommend. (That's my workaround fix to participating in this community!)

                by The Angry Architect on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:11:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you can unrec... (0+ / 0-)

                  If you accidently reccomend someone, just press the same button again and it will unrec that person as if nothing ever happened.

                  "We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

                  by Mudderway on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 04:01:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Organization! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                joe wobblie

                That's how we stop the sociopaths!

                •  Organization? Sounds like... laws are required (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  WB Reeves

                  And I will state for the record, social anarchist I may be, but the rule of law is required for society to function. "Just winging it" and "hoping everyone has the same ideas about right and wrong" do not work. Leaving laws vaguely defined as "don't hurt other people" sounds good, until the day comes when you have to try to prove a sociopath harmed you. Then you discover that, without written rules and a history of case law, a sociopath will not find it any harder to manipulate a jury than they would a legislature.

                  In short, doing away with the rule of law only makes the problem worse. I am always suspicious of plans that look at the current state of things and say "Well the problem is that the rules are too complicated, simplify the rules and the simple man will have a level playing field." The rules are complex because the world is complex, and by trying to simplify things, you are simply ignoring the hard earned wisdom of your ancestors, who put those complex rules into place because circumstance dictated they were necessary, usually because some sociopath had found a loop hole in the previous rules.

                  Doing away with rules does not do away with loopholes. With no rules, it's all a loophole.

                  •  What a mishmosh (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    joe wobblie

                    No laws exist, but juries do?  What the fuck are you even saying?  Who said the words "Just winging it", "hoping everyone has the same ideas about right and wrong", and "don't hurt other people", which you quote as if they came from someone's mouth?

                    I literally can't respond to this.  Read my post toward the end of the thread if you want to know what I ACTUALLY think, instead of your imagining of it.

                    •  Eh? Say what now? (0+ / 0-)

                      I was AGREEING with you, or so I thought. Perhaps that clears up some of the misunderstanding?

                      •  Now I'm just more confused (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        joe wobblie

                        but sorry for being rude about it

                        •  Eh, s'what happens when I jump about a thread. (0+ / 0-)

                          When someone makes multiple comments and I want to add something to what they've said, most of the time I'll try to respond in one place, as high up the thread as I can. I feel it's better to try to put all related comments and supporting comments in one subthread.

                          As for "no laws, but juries" well, isn't that basically what they diarist is suggesting? I think it's a bad idea. To me, this whole idea smells of college libertarianism.

                          •  Yeah "no laws, but juries" makes no sense (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            joe wobblie

                            The idea of an arbitrary and uniform number of people who make such a decision is divorced from principles.  Either there's a law code and a legal bureaucracy or it's a free-for-all (which I favor, of course).

                          •  Yer in favor of a free for all? (0+ / 0-)

                            No rule of law, no courts, everyone is responsible for procuring his own justice sort of thing?

                          •  Community justice (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            joe wobblie

                            with self-defense being the top priority. Make it practically impossible for anyone to prey on the weak by arming the weak.  Eliminate the corrupt legal and political system, mainly the police, so communities are allowed to control their own space and people their own lives.  Build an economy based on humanity and solidarity instead of greed, by eliminating taxes and the concept of property title, so people are free to eliminate poverty and desperation.  When people are allowed to be human again, they'll act like it.  Not without organization- neighborhood assemblies and collectives are the general idea- but without dictatorial authority. That's what Anarchy means to me.

                          •  So, lynching then (0+ / 0-)

                            Gotcha. Not gonna work. Laws need to be written down. Consequences must be concrete. Eliminating the system is what the hierarchy wants. You have to remember why we formed governments in the first place: to protect ourselves from tyrants. What we need is a system they can't co-opt. I mean, a bunch of armed residents won't stop air pollution. They won't stop a company from manufacturing dangerous products. What would they do, get their guns and march on the factory? Yeah, owners can hire thugs, too.

                            Anarchy means "no dictators." Archons were dicators, an-archy means no Archons. If you have neighborhood assemblies that are democratic or consensus based, then any rules or laws they agree on will not be dictatorial. But they still must be written down!

                            I've studied the history of socialist, communist and anarchist collectives and one thing stands out: those without a written system of rules, with consequences written down and carried out in an impartial fashion when necessary, fail. A society without standard, agreed upon laws soon fails.

                            Ever been to a Rainbow Gathering? Anarchy in action. Real anarchy. At a Rainbow Gathering, everyone is a Shanti Sena, or peacekeeper. Everyone is responsible, yeah, but there are also pros. They do it every year. They spend their whole time doing it. They are good at it.

                            I mean, if you come to Rainbow, go off your meds, and decide jerking it in a sister's hair at main circle is cool thing, you WILL get duck taped into a sleeping bag and dropped off at the local hospital with a "help, I'm a crazy person who won't take my meds" note taped to your shirt. Could the average Rainbow hippie pull that off without injuring himself or the crazy dude? Not likely.

                            Look, most people really, really do not want to have to be in that line of work. We need a professional police and court system. We just need it controlled by and for we, the people, democratically and fairly.

                            What would you replace property title with? Use rights? Democratic control? Of what, the means of production? Houses? CLOTHES? We all get to vote on what you wear?

                            A little snark, yeah, but I've been thinking about this stuff for thirty years and there are no easy answers, man. Still, I'm always interested in what REAL anarchists have to say. Libertarians can take a long walk off a short pier.

                          •  Technically, (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            joe wobblie, SethRightmer

                            Lynching is apparently defined as 'removal of a person from police custody'- obviously impossible if police don't exist.  Yes, I know what you really meant.

                            Gotcha. Not gonna work. Laws need to be written down. Consequences must be concrete.
                            There is a difference between 'laws' in that sense and "The Law" as I think it's more generally used.  I mean, I'm pro-policy.  Yes, things should be written down, if that's what people want, just to be absolutely clear.  But, along a similar line, I keep on having this argument with anti-State capitalists and market anarchists over what a contract is- right-wing libertarians envision privatized courts; anarcho-communists see agreements/policies/'laws' as being more of general understandings; market anarchists are pro-contract but I think they mean it just in the sense of writing down those general agreements.  

                            What is at stake in the argument is consequences and punishment.  Right-wing libertarians are pro-punishment: Forced compensation and sometimes they're even for abduction and enslavement (jail).  Anarcho-communists and, apparently, market anarchists see the consequences as being more like trust being terminated, gifts or reciprocal trades being ended, etc- but nothing the 'criminal' possesses being taken away or them being physically held.

                            Eliminating the system is what the hierarchy wants. You have to remember why we formed governments in the first place: to protect ourselves from tyrants.
                            are you joking
                            What we need is a system they can't co-opt. I mean, a bunch of armed residents won't stop air pollution. They won't stop a company from manufacturing dangerous products. What would they do, get their guns and march on the factory? Yeah, owners can hire thugs, too.
                            Sure they can.  That's why the ownership class should be eliminated (not killed; I mean that the CLASS should be eliminated).  When everything is owned on a communal basis and/or as part of collectives that have a purpose other than to make money, people are more compassionate.
                            Anarchy means "no dictators." Archons were dicators, an-archy means no Archons. If you have neighborhood assemblies that are democratic or consensus based, then any rules or laws they agree on will not be dictatorial. But they still must be written down!
                            If you like.  But even then the people who consented on them can contradict them at will, regardless of what it says on some damn piece of paper.  If a person contradicts the "law" and everyone's OK with it, then maybe the "law" could be updated, or maybe thrown away; who cares?

                            But if a person contradicts a "law" and everyone's NOT okay with it, then they may face expulsion or ostracism if reconciliation fails or is impossible.  Still, this is more a matter of knowing your neighbors rather than claiming that words on paper have magical powers, and that's how it should be.

                            I like the story of the "Thing" system the Vikings supposedly had, in which laws weren't written down; at an annual meeting, one person (which would change every year) would recite the laws.  The way to repeal laws was by just not saying it.  If no one calls you on it, it's gone.

                            I've studied the history of socialist, communist and anarchist collectives and one thing stands out: those without a written system of rules, with consequences written down and carried out in an impartial fashion when necessary, fail. A society without standard, agreed upon laws soon fails.
                            But if a society is not in good working order, all the laws in the world are useless.  Simply writing things down does not create virtuous citizens.
                            Ever been to a Rainbow Gathering? Anarchy in action. Real anarchy.
                            Agreed.
                            Look, most people really, really do not want to have to be in that line of work. We need a professional police and court system. We just need it controlled by and for we, the people, democratically and fairly.
                            I'm not saying everyone HAS to be involved in community defense.  I mean, it's not like you're going to have infants or octogenarians on patrol with machine guns or whatever.  Martial arts (including hand-to-hand combat and firearms) should probably be more widely taught than they are now, in any case.  But anyway how a community handles its own defense against disgruntled individuals is its own business, which probably means not everyone is directly involved and may even (and probably should) mean relying on other communities for assistance.  Certainly, communities should be organized to resist tyrants and potential tyrants, probably through a system of federations.  But, for something as important as security, community members should have direct control, as opposed to having to go through representatives and professionals as is the case today.
                            What would you replace property title with? Use rights? Democratic control? Of what, the means of production? Houses? CLOTHES? We all get to vote on what you wear?
                            Consent, which works differently from democracy.  In a Consent system, only those who are actually affected by a decision have standing.  Therefore nobody can justly force you to wear certain clothes, for example, unless someone can come up with a good argument why it's disruptive to the community (which is possible!).  
                            Without going too much more into it right now, those who work should make the decisions about their work conditions, products, and distribution, with the input of their suppliers and those who they are giving to, through industrial federations.  Like what the CNT did during the early part of the Spanish Civil War, although even then it was in a limited and incomplete form.  Then if suppliers don't like where their product is going (for whatever reason), they can simply cease to give to them; if a consumer doesn't like what they're getting, they can reject it.  The glue that holds it together is community and trust, which has to be built.
                            A little snark, yeah, but I've been thinking about this stuff for thirty years and there are no easy answers, man. Still, I'm always interested in what REAL anarchists have to say. Libertarians can take a long walk off a short pier.
                            Agreed.
                          •  Great stuff, Jay (0+ / 0-)

                            First let me say that "written down" is my way of saying "codified." So the Things count, the laws may not be written, but they are codified. People can all agree what the laws actually are. This is fairly important.

                            Contracts are agreements between two individuals, usually enforced by the community at large. They involve an exchange of some sort, without a reciprocal exchange, it isn't really a contract. There are generally agreed upon penalties for breaking contracts. To me, they form the basis of human society. We're a part of society because we've agreed to be part of it, and to pay the agreed upon cost.

                            While I agree that the most ethical course of action in regards to criminals is withdrawal of rewards, there is a larger problem. If the criminal is violent or has a proven track record of harming others, simply shunning them makes them someone else's problem. Ever read Iain Banks "Culture" series? I like their solution, the slap-bot. It's a very powerful, very small drone that follows the criminal everywhere, warning people they come into contact with, and stopping any violence through direct intervention. Ah, the things you can do in a post scarcity society...

                            I'm not joking, people band together for mutual defense from tyranny. Not the only reason, of course, cooperation increases human freedom. But an important one. A system of governance increases an individual's ability to resist tyranny, on their own many do not have that power.

                            The problem with ideas like "doing away with ownership" is that they must be undertaken by everyone to be effective. You can say, "no more ownership" but if the rest of the world does not follow your example, you will still be facing a powerful owning class. If doing away with ownership is your answer to the power imbalance ownership creates, well, your plan is missing a few crucial steps.

                            Any time you say "community members should have direct control" you will get no disagreement from me. Ever hear of Project Cybersyn? It was Allende's experiment in direct democratic control of the means of production. Too bad we helped topple him right after the pilot program went live. Coincidence?

                            The problem with consent based systems is one of externalities and proving that one is affected by the externalities others create. We live in a highly interconnected world, and in some sense, your choice of fashion does impact me. What if you are wearing clothes that took vast quantities of resources to create, or that created a ton of pollution in their manufacture? In your system, each problem would be resolved on an individual basis.

                            Without clear cut guidelines, things would rapidly become unfair, for example, an attractive and influential person might be permitted to continue to purchase said clothes and contribute to pollution, while the unattractive and less social person the community has decided to place in the "scapegoat" role takes all the blame.

                            People have an innate sense of fairness and reciprocity but without clear cut guidelines this sense can be lead astray very easily.

                            I agree that those who are affected should be the ones who make decisions, but the devil is, as always, in the details. How do you determine who is affected? Who has that authority? What about issues that affect multiple communities?

                          •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            joe wobblie
                            We're a part of society because we've agreed to be part of it, and to pay the agreed upon cost.
                            "Society" to me comes from "social" which just means interactions between people.  Society is the system of interaction between people.  The only way to not be part of society is to be a hermit.  There is no choice in the matter, so there can't justly be any forced obligations.
                            If the criminal is violent or has a proven track record of harming others, simply shunning them makes them someone else's problem.
                            Sure.  That's why communities should be federated and communicate.  An important activity of anarchist groups today is to warn each other about abusive or dangerous individuals (although I wouldn't say it's a "major" activity since it's not terribly time-consuming).
                            Ever read Iain Banks "Culture" series? I like their solution, the slap-bot. It's a very powerful, very small drone that follows the criminal everywhere, warning people they come into contact with, and stopping any violence through direct intervention. Ah, the things you can do in a post scarcity society...
                            Sounds good.  So far it's just  been done through warning other groups, but there's no hard proof that's sufficient.  But anyway every group or community should initially assume that unknown individuals are not trustworthy, and take precautions until they become known or proven.
                            I'm not joking, people band together for mutual defense from tyranny. Not the only reason, of course, cooperation increases human freedom. But an important one. A system of governance increases an individual's ability to resist tyranny, on their own many do not have that power.
                            Cooperation and "government" are not the same thing.
                            The problem with ideas like "doing away with ownership" is that they must be undertaken by everyone to be effective. You can say, "no more ownership" but if the rest of the world does not follow your example, you will still be facing a powerful owning class. If doing away with ownership is your answer to the power imbalance ownership creates, well, your plan is missing a few crucial steps.
                            Of course, that's the end goal (although it can also be implemented prefiguratively to some extent).  Obviously there's a lot of work to do to get there.  Also, the problem is not "ownership" but title, extractive ownership, ownership for profit, absentee ownership, exclusive (in the sense of not including everyone it should) ownership (I may have misstated).
                            The problem with consent based systems is one of externalities and proving that one is affected by the externalities others create. We live in a highly interconnected world, and in some sense, your choice of fashion does impact me. What if you are wearing clothes that took vast quantities of resources to create, or that created a ton of pollution in their manufacture.
                            Then the problem obviously isn't the clothes themselves but the manufacturing process.
                            In your system, each problem would be resolved on an individual basis.

                            Without clear cut guidelines, things would rapidly become unfair

                            Things can rapidly become unfair even with clear-cut guidelines, if the community has become so dysfunctional that law writing, interpretation, communication, and enforcement are broken.  What a law actually states is hardly relevant.
                            for example, an attractive and influential person might be permitted to continue to purchase said clothes and contribute to pollution, while the unattractive and less social person the community has decided to place in the "scapegoat" role takes all the blame.
                            Why would a person want to live in a community that is dysfunctional or that hates them?

                            Also,

                            purchase
                            ...still the wrong way to think of it.
                            People have an innate sense of fairness and reciprocity but without clear cut guidelines this sense can be lead astray very easily.
                            Words on paper are worthless.  What matters is how empowered and organized people are.
                            I agree that those who are affected should be the ones who make decisions, but the devil is, as always, in the details. How do you determine who is affected?
                            People seem to do a good job of recognizing this innately.
                            Who has that authority?
                            No one.  Everyone.  It's no different than it is today; it simply appears to be otherwise because the State does a good job convincing people that it's an invincible monolith.
                            What about issues that affect multiple communities?
                            Each community should be involved, probably through a delegate system.
                          •  You've made me think. Not many do that. (0+ / 0-)

                            Why have I become less of a pure anarchist as I've grown older? Have I simply become more cynical? Seen people fuck things up too many times to trust the bastards with that much power anymore? Perhaps.

                            Anarchy is not mere ochlocracy or majoritarianism. Being against hierarchy, anarchists would have to be against the idea that mere numbers make right. But therein lies the problem, if mere numbers do not make right, what does? What is the difference between anarchy and ochlocracy?

                            Rules. Plain and simple, anarchists abide by a set of rules. Call them Natural Rights, regulations, laws, agreements, what have you, they are all the same thing. You have an idea that everyone in a society agrees to. The idea has certain characteristics: it involves a trade, and there are penalties for breaking the agreement.

                            The trade is always, I will defend your rights if you defend mine. The penalties can be anything. As an anarchist, you would say the penalties can't take from the penalized person. Can you take their freedom from them? Can you deprive them of their rights? "Property" is actually nothing more than a bundle of rights. And rights are laws are agreements. They only work when people agree to them. Crow about your rights without a posse to back you up? You got nothing.

                            But when you have a group to defend the rights the group has agreed on, and the rules apply to everyone in the group, well, that is called "the rule of law." Very old concept, goes back to some fellow named Hammurabi, well thought of in general throughout long stretches of world history. Surprised I'm having to defend the concept, even to an anarchist. ;)

                            So, pardon my asking, but how is your proposed system different from libertarianism? And you mention communities being involved in larger issues through delegates. How is that different from our democratic republic? I mean, leaving out the obvious fact that our democratic republic has been co-opted by bandits and thugs.

                            Where you and I absolutely agree (much of the rest is actually philosophical hair splitting IMHO) is on property. Proudhon much? And let me ask you this, what is it with libertarians anyway? Why did they decide to stop calling themselves anarchists? There's only like a billion anarcho-hyphensomethings out there, they couldn't pick one? "Anarcho-capitalist" simply too honest for them?

                            Anyway let me just say in closing, thank you for sharing your time and brainpower with me. You should know this about me, though I sound certain sometimes, when I put something out there in a conversation, it should really all come prefaced with "what do you think about this idea?" because that's how I mean it. I'm not nearly as attached to my ideas as I come across, I think, I just get frustrated with dumb people who don't know they are dumb.

                            I'm an old school Cynic at heart, and as such, I'm trying really hard not to be a cynic as it has come to mean in common modern terms. It helps when I meet other people who really want a future without hierarchy and exploitation, and have given the whole thing some thought. :)

                          •  keeping it short to close- (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            joe wobblie
                            What is the difference between anarchy and ochlocracy?
                            In Anarchy there is no "general population" but rather a very large number of small groups.  There is no "mass" (and therefore the phrase 'anarchist mass movement' is an oxymoron).
                            The trade is always, I will defend your rights if you defend mine.
                            I think of it more as a gift than a trade.  The strong contribute more than the weak.  A reason for this, and I'm still hammering out the details, is that a gift dignifies the giver; people WANT to give to enhance their own self-esteem, self-actualization, and prestige.
                            So, pardon my asking, but how is your proposed system different from libertarianism?
                            Libertarianism is purely individualistic- everyone for themselves.  Anarchism calls for organization.
                            And you mention communities being involved in larger issues through delegates. How is that different from our democratic republic?
                            A democratic republic is an elected dictatorship through representatives.  There is no freedom to leave or to not contribute.  The majority can force the minority to take action it may disagree with.  Representatives make decisions for a group; delegates report decisions by a group.
                            In any case, the idea that 50%+1 is a legitimate way of making decisions is a complete travesty because it tramples over the reasons for disagreement of the minority- even if a 66% or 80% or even 100%-1 majority was required, if the minority disagrees, they either have reasons that should be heard, or they don't have good reasons and are either unclear on the concept (in which case it should be explained to them, or they should not be worked with at all if they resist learning and improving) or they are jerks or saboteurs (in which case they obviously should not be worked with- I find it funny in an absurd sense how the Democrats here on DK are certain the Republicans are trying to sabotage the economy, yet still admit them into the government...).
                            And let me ask you this, what is it with libertarians anyway?
                            Mostly they're privileged white men who want everything that interferes with the full exercise of their privilege to go away.  They want it to be 'every man for himself' because they have unfair advantages that would allow them to dominate.
                            Why did they decide to stop calling themselves anarchists?
                            "Libertarian" originally was synonymous with "Anarchist".  The word was taken away from us by (iirc) Milton Friedman in the 1950s (when we were extremely weak and they were ascendant) in order to refer to their brand of 'stateless' capitalism.
                            There's only like a billion anarcho-hyphensomethings out there, they couldn't pick one? "Anarcho-capitalist" simply too honest for them?
                            There are some that do.  Most Libertarians are "minarchists" meaning very small government, basically just to protect the only thing privileged white men care about: Private property.  Some Libertarians are completely against government but pro-capitalism, and refer to themselves as "Anarcho-Capitalists".  All of the actual Anarchists despise them and refuse to call them Anarcho-anything, so hopefully the term will die off.  They've been trying to take "Anarchist" from us ever since they took "Libertarian".
                            The main Anarchist critique of stateless capitalism is that if people still have to work for pay from an owner, there is not true freedom, because you are still under someone else's control.  Personally, I think a stronger argument is that stateless capitalism is an oxymoron: Property title is fundamental to capitalism, because that's how ownership is transferred (which is obviously necessary to capitalism).  But there has to be a single, central, monopolistic way of keeping track of property title, or else there will be conflicting claims and no way to resolve it.  "Anarcho-Capitalists" propose a free-market system of "Dispute Resolution Organizations" which are basically courts with their own police forces; theoretically, people with conflicting claims to a piece of property would hire a DRO and it would make a ruling, then use its 'police' to enforce it.  Finding the many reasons why this is crazy stupid is left as an exercise for the reader.
                          •  Even shorter response (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            joe wobblie

                            We are basically on the same page and that makes me happy. Especially regarding libertarians and why anarchists despise them, every smart anarchist I've talked to tells the exact same story. Libertarians were honest to drop the "anarchist" moniker, because they are not against hierarchy. They want a hierarchy, they just want a privatized one.

                            Now, as always, the real question for anarchists is: how do we get there from here? People aren't perfect. It is senseless to wave one's hands and say "anarchy will work once we have perfect people living in a perfect society. We just need to educate and empower them!" I mean, Buddha set out to liberate all people 2800 years ago, and his followers are still working on the project, and trying to liberate individuals is all they do.

                            Are people perfected yet? No. This whole thing is going to take a while.

                          •  Prefiguration (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            joe wobblie, SethRightmer

                            "Build the new world in the shell of the old".  Make TAZs that grow and become more resilient.  Find the cracks and pry them open.  Organize in ways that make make capitalism and the State irrelevant and that work for people.  It's a dual power strategy, with the new power being a society rather than a government.

    •  I currently live in a lawless society (7+ / 0-)

      No really. This isn't snark.

      I'm in the Peace Corps. In a little mountain town near the border of Haiti as I type this.
        There are three cops in this town of 7,000. The cops have one motorcycle. You literally never see cops in the streets. There is no law enforcement to speak of.

        And do you know what? I'm safer here than almost any place in the States.
         Why? Because neighbors know each other. There is an actual community here.
        When people walk down the street they saludo each other. When people want to be entertained, instead of watching TV (and being told that you should be afraid of everyone), they visit their neighbors.

        In a town without law enforcement people are living without fear.
         Sure there are lots of problems here. It's nowhere near perfect by any means (frequent lack of electricity and running water, extreme levels of poverty, just a few examples) .
         But the fact is that having police everywhere doesn't make you safer. Having a community makes you safer.

        It's a fact that is hidden from Americans because fear is a great control mechanism.

      Callate o despertaras la izquirda! - protest sign in Spain

      by gjohnsit on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 05:50:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Read the article again: We already do (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe wobblie

      Sure, you and I have to obey the law...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site