Do You Feel like you have the personality of one party, and

Post Reply New Topic

I am not referring to the homesteaders, but a policy. Assuming no one else claimed the land, for instance, Antartica (extreme example I know), and someone went there and secured it and put up a dwelling there, then it would be theirs. Now, if someone went up there and someone dwelled there, yet murdered and took their stuff, that would be wrong, like in the case of the Native Americans. But, if you payed them, like the quakers did, that would not be wrong. Ithink we have a tad bit of agreement lol.

So the first thing we should do is figure out who came about what property in which manner. And divorce owners from whatever they acquired illegitimately. That party sounds fun.

f**k you. I wish anarchist would actually be logical for once. But I guess when the state comes knocking at your door, an dthrows you away, it was woth idealogical "pureness".

I am being logical. Most property in this world has been acquired through exploitation and theft. I refuse to support a system that will respect and then magnify the current wealth disparities and power imbalances.

What about Mark Cuban, did he rob anyone? Or did he create a broadcast mechanism for the internet, and someone decided to give him resources. Is he a thief? Or what about someone who sells on ebay? Are they evil?

Can this happen in an ancap society?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/american-d ... ce/5329966

I agree that was insensitive, but I believe that can happen under any system. But then again, would SunTrust, or any bank for that manner have power if corporations were not a reality, and if a federal reserve kept pumping them with money, stealing it from people who owned those bills?

You're completely incoherent.

No, you are.

I don't think anarchy could work at all in large, modern societies. In many small, tightly knit communities, it could probably work though. I've observed this for myself when I went to a small town in Maine. No one there has to worry about locking their doors, and the few police officers that are there are all volunteers. There is no real, formal law enforcement in this town, yet the system works because everyone there knows and trusts each other. People can violate many laws there and most likely nothing would happen to them. The local restaurant there was selling liquor without a license, but the volunteer police officers don't care. People there are just trustworthy enough to not violate laws in ways which would be harmful to other people. They only violate the law responsibly. This town isn't officially an anarchic society, but I picture that this is kind of what a successful anarchic society would look like.

In large, modern societies this wouldn't work though. Not everyone knows each other, so not everyone trusts or is concerned with each other. Not everyone in the society can get to know everyone else in the society, and be made to understand their circumstances. The only way to keep the society stable is to have strong law enforcement. The only alternative to hierarchy in these societies is chaos. The way in which the hierarchy is stratified can be changed, but it can never be eliminated. Since it can never be eliminated, people within the society will always be exploited in one way or another, not that anarchy can guarantee that no one will be exploited either. The only way to fix this would be if all of the people within the society somehow became perfect beings. That's the only way that any society can ever become perfect.

An anarchist society would be all within its rights to exercise legitimate coercive power in order to prevent crime.