Anarchy = True Freedom?

af_thefragile

thesunwashot wrote: »

From what you say, you have a great deal of faith in each person to do the right thing. You argue that people will come together and form their own laws and police them, but how? You are saying my post is wrong but you don't explain how you foresee this happening. If a group or individual takes over a community using violence, people can't "just simply move out". How are those who don't want to live in harmony with your system to be accommodated?

You are advocating a state of nature approach here but acting like each person will think and act in the same way and reach some kind of harmony. Whilst it might be a nice idea, humans are not good at getting along. Power struggles always occur.

The best run any group has had at implementing anarchism was in Spain when people grouped to oppose Franco. Although this was a noble attempt at putting the principles into action, it was like minded people in opposition to another way of life rather than a whole state living peacefully as anarchists and it all ended very badly when the communists turned on them under Soviet instruction. By all rights you would think these groups would work together not against each other...

Anarchy is not about like minded people living together in harmony. Its about people having the freedom to live the way they chose to without anyone forcing their ideals onto them.

Although you say humans aren't good at getting along, humans are also not good at living by themselves. Humans have a natural tendency to socialise and form a society/community. Like the bunch of sailors who got marooned on an island. If they had to survive, they had to work together as a community. Its the natural order of things. It how humans have managed to survive all along. By forming societies and looking out for one another. This is how we say humans should live. I don't need to foresee it happening. Its how humans naturally behave.

You don't need to use force or violence to take over a community. Infact if someone tries to do that, the people will rebel against him and throw him out of the community.

And then about the one who doesn't wanna live within harmony or doesn't like the way the community is run, i stated this before, such a person is free to leave the community and go find another community he likes more. Anarchy means freedom to the person. The person is not obliged to be a part of the society like he would be under a communist/socialist rule. The person is a free man and he can go live wherever and however he wishes to. The person joins the community for his own benefit and because humans are social beings, we can't function too well if we're not a part of some community.


People always keep confusing anarchism with bunch of rebels and stuff. That is not anarchism, that rebellion! Anarchism is an order of society. It means every person is a free man and is free to make his own decisions. He doesn't have any duties towards the state. Though the state in return is not gonna nurse him with safety nets like social welfare, free education and healthcare etc. He is a free man and so he needs to look after himself and he is free to make his own living.
People will be rewarded on how much they put into the society they've decided to become a part of. The more the person contributes to the society, the more he will be rewarded back in return (through money, richness etc.). Its as fair as a society can get.

And equality is a myth.
We libertarians believe everyone is equal at the starting line, not at the finish line. And then its upto your courage, hardwork, talent etc. where you end up at the finish line.

af_thefragile

One thing to add:
They key difference between anarchy and other orders of society is that in anarchy one doesn't try to impose his ideals onto the whole society.

Anarchy, by definition, is the only order of society where men are free to chose their way to live (as long as they're not harming others). Where no one is trying to get the rest of the society succumb to his way of life.

turgon

Reading af_thefragiles post it reminded me of Lord of the Flies by William Golding.

The book comments a lot on society etc. Towards the end of the book the key idea is that Ralph (the disposed "democratic" leader) and his cohorts are being forced to join the "scouts," and army like institution under the directorship of Jack and another boy. They dont want to but due to force of arms they are not allowed live their lives.

Saying that modern Ireland represents Lord of the Flies is probably being way too dramatic. However one can see the similarities here between that scenario above and the way we are forced to adhere to a strict set of moral guidelines even though very often we disagree with them and dont want it.

af_thefragile

^Looks like i must check out that book!

silverharp

One for the Ron Paul fans

Question: Dr. Paul, what do you say to people who advocate self-government and who don’t simply want to return to the Constitution?

Dr. Paul: Great, that’s fine, I think that’s really what my goal is. Isn’t it interesting that if you have a government they’ll want us all to be socialistic and use us, but they’ll never let an enclave to become libertarian but if we lived in a libertarian society we would have no qualms if people wanted to live socialistically?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

they made the point that younger people have nothing to lose because they know social security wont be there when it comes around to their turn.

dsmythy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Think it was on a video posted here that a great thing to ask a socialist is whether they are a coercive socialist or a voluntary socialist.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

thesunwashot

af_thefragile wrote: »

Anarchy is not about like minded people living together in harmony. Its about people having the freedom to live the way they chose to without anyone forcing their ideals onto them.

Except that when you write about it and try to give examples, you refer to small groups (sailors on an island) or small communities which in your head seem to be unrelated. You seem to be saying that an Anarchist Ireland would be made up of lots of small communities each containing members who agree with each other (as the rest would have moved on) and who don't interfere with other communities right to be. This seems unrealistic.

I think you need to seriously address the logistics of what you suggest otherwise in grand Chomsky fashion it is political opinions without an idea of how to implement them.

Lets assume Ireland becomes an anarchist state. Do you envisage a centralised organisation which takes care of shared things such as educational policy, road maintenance, etc or do you see each community as providing for itself only. Would there be a centralised taxation system or would it be a case of chipping in for costs as you feel like it (as you mention there would be no coercion to do anything by a state).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

af_thefragile

thesunwashot wrote: »

Except that when you write about it and try to give examples, you refer to small groups (sailors on an island) or small communities which in your head seem to be unrelated. You seem to be saying that an Anarchist Ireland would be made up of lots of small communities each containing members who agree with each other (as the rest would have moved on) and who don't interfere with other communities right to be. This seems unrealistic.

I think you need to seriously address the logistics of what you suggest otherwise in grand Chomsky fashion it is political opinions without an idea of how to implement them.

Lets assume Ireland becomes an anarchist state. Do you envisage a centralised organisation which takes care of shared things such as educational policy, road maintenance, etc or do you see each community as providing for itself only. Would there be a centralised taxation system or would it be a case of chipping in for costs as you feel like it (as you mention there would be no coercion to do anything by a state).

Why is it unrealistic?
Why do all of ye socialist keep propagating the same rhetoric that people are too stupid to fend for themselves and entrepreneurs are too evil to care for the people?
You've gotta give the people a chance to grow and take responsibility for themselves. Its about time people need to get weaned off the state providing and looking after them.

Also the state usually does a lousy job whenever it does anything. Everything the state does in this country is inefficient. From Dublin Bus to the state run schools. Putting these services back in the hands of the people (by privatisation) would result in competition which would lead to a better, cheaper and more efficient service.

How would you want me to implement this?
Dissolve the central government. Give the businesses back to the people in a proper free market fashion without any government intervention and regulation. Get rid of income tax, let the people and businesses keep the hard earned money they make. Each state/county/society can have their own police force composed of the people of the society. Each state/county/society is free to have their own laws and their own system of governance.
As almost every industry is privatised, there is no need for government to take taxes from the people as the government has very little job in the society. The government is for the people, not for the few elite at the top.

I'm not calling for a complete break up of Ireland into its counties, as i mentioned before, Ireland will remain intact, there will be a small central government to take care of foreign policy, army and defense and common law (protection of people's rights and liberty). But thats it. No further involvement of the central government in the counties and any of the industries and market.

turgon

But will there have to be a small tax to upkeep government? Maybe a fixed amount per person per year?

Iwasfrozen

How would you want me to implement this?
Dissolve the central government. Give the businesses back to the people in a proper free market fashion without any government intervention and regulation. Get rid of income tax, let the people and businesses keep the hard earned money they make. Each state/county/society can have their own police force composed of the people of the society. Each state/county/society is free to have their own laws and their own system of governance.
As almost every industry is privatised, there is no need for government to take taxes from the people as the government has very little job in the society. The government is for the people, not for the few elite at the top.

And what, prey tell will prevent companies from forming a monopolie then charging the **** out of people for their product ? Who will pay for these regional Police Force ? what incentive is there for large businesses to move out of the city into the country ? What is to stop a large company hireing/bribing a "local police force" i.e Militia, and enslaving the population ?
You say that in a Libertarian society people will start off equal and finish with winners and losers but how would this work ? If all schools are private then wouldn't the Son/Daughter of a Doctor/Business Leader be able to afford better a better education giving them a better (or less than equal) start in life. Eventually you would find yourself living in a very Class Based society with the Rich at the top and Poor at the bottom with no way for the Poor to become Rich unless the Rich wanted them to be Rich.
Do you see where I'm coming form here ? Ironically in your desire for a Classless Society where everyone is equal and the Rich become Rich by Hard work alone you will find that those born into a Rich family will not need to work at all while those born into a Poor family will have to work extremely hard for little or no return.

silverharp

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ironically in your desire for a Classless Society where everyone is equal and the Rich become Rich by Hard work alone you will find that those born into a Rich family will not need to work at all while those born into a Poor family will have to work extremely hard for little or no return.

who said what now? , Part of wanting to be rich is to pass on the benefits to their offspring. A Libertarian doesnt have a problem with this in a free market. If the offspring are not good custodians , they will run their inheritance into the ground and the assets will be sold on to be used more efficiently.

Iwasfrozen

who said what now? , Part of wanting to be rich is to pass on the benefits to their offspring. A Libertarian doesnt have a problem with this in a free market. If the offspring are not good custodians , they will run their inheritance into the ground and the assets will be sold on to be used more efficiently.

If you read the rest of my post you would see that as all schools are private Rich peoples children would go to the best schools, giving them a better education and a better start in life. Poor/Middle class people would not be able to afford to send their children to good schools giving them a disadvantage.
Thus the Rich stay Rich and the Poor stay Poor.

silverharp

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If you read the rest of my post you would see that as all schools are private Rich peoples children would go to the best schools, giving them a better education and a better start in life. Poor/Middle class people would not be able to afford to send their children to good schools giving them a disadvantage.
Thus the Rich stay Rich and the Poor stay Poor.

Statistically you could be right but so what? we are not talking feudal lords and inherited titles. Within a generation industries rise and fall so there is no guarantee that what made a family sucessful can be passed on with any certainty.
Break it down, take a sample of 1000 working class people, ask them what do they want for their kids? what is realistic? why should they be intimidated by saying they only have less then 1% chance of ever being rich (under any system).
Personally looking back at my own family history, go back 2 generations and I have working class and peasant farmers ancestors , my parents would have been middle class (through a bit of self reliance) and thankfully I've managed to build on it. I dont see anything in my recent family history where I can say "the man" was keeping them down. It seems like a bogus argument to talk about the rich staying rich and the poor staying poor. I have 0% chance of being a rich as Bill Gates , am I supposed to have a problem with that?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

I found this awfully dark quote apparently by John Paul II:

"Freedom is not the power to do what one wants. Freedom is the power to do what is right. "

It's actually a bit scary.

af_thefragile

turgon wrote: »

But will there have to be a small tax to upkeep government? Maybe a fixed amount per person per year?

Maybe there could be. Something small and affordable to run the police probably. I'm not an economist, so i guess it would be an economist's job of figuring out what this "affordable" amount of tax would be and would such a tax even be necessary cuz back in the days there was no such thing as income tax but the services still used to function pretty well. Maybe the revenue the society could generate would be enough to fund the police force.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And what, prey tell will prevent companies from forming a monopolie then charging the **** out of people for their product ? Who will pay for these regional Police Force ? what incentive is there for large businesses to move out of the city into the country ? What is to stop a large company hireing/bribing a "local police force" i.e Militia, and enslaving the population ?
You say that in a Libertarian society people will start off equal and finish with winners and losers but how would this work ? If all schools are private then wouldn't the Son/Daughter of a Doctor/Business Leader be able to afford better a better education giving them a better (or less than equal) start in life. Eventually you would find yourself living in a very Class Based society with the Rich at the top and Poor at the bottom with no way for the Poor to become Rich unless the Rich wanted them to be Rich.
Do you see where I'm coming form here ? Ironically in your desire for a Classless Society where everyone is equal and the Rich become Rich by Hard work alone you will find that those born into a Rich family will not need to work at all while those born into a Poor family will have to work extremely hard for little or no return.

What makes you think the government isn't charge the **** out of people already for the inefficient service it is providing. Dublin Bus would be a perfect example to throw in here. The fares keep going higher but the service remains the same. Also the police force works for the government not the people...
In a libertarian state the police force would work for the people (as it would be composed of the people from the society), if a business wanted to bribe the police, its quite likely it would have to end up bribing everyone in the force.

In a libertarian state the people would have the knowledge to figure out if a certain company is forming a monopoly and to stop it from doing so. But as this is quite hypothetical, maybe there could be laws against the formation of cartels. There could be audit firms that keep a check on businesses to make sure they aren't committing any fraud. Also there's even the question of companies agreeing to form a cartel in the first place.

Anyway, the point is all this already happens in this pseudo capitalistic state we've got. It can only get worse in a socialist state cuz over there every industry is a monopoly and the police belongs to the bureaucrats, not the common people.
In a liberal state, where everyone is free to set up their own businesses without any problem, it would be much harder to form a monopoly and also as the police is composed of the members of the society, they're working for the people and not for the businesses.

Coming to the question about classes, yes there will be classes in a libertarian society but its only fair. People who have worked hard have been rewarded by moving up the class ladder while the lazy people remain at the bottom of the ladder. Also if a person is born in a low class, he can move up the ladder through hard work, there have been many rags to riches stories around and such people are a great asset to the society. They become a mode of inspiration and idols for other people to look upto and follow. Such people would have no place in a socialist society. The bureaucrats remain bureaucrats and the proletariats remain proletariats.

And finally about schooling, it doesn't just matter what school a person goes to, the person's ability, talent, skill, hardwork etc. also matters in where the person ends up in life. There have been many examples of people being born with a silver spoon, getting the best possible education and resources ending up in rehab. There have also been examples of people being born in very poor background, with no resources, who end up very high in life.
So again, there's nothing too unfair about such a system. The best person gets to go the furthest in a libertarian society and this is as fair a society could get. People get what they deserve.

Also if a poor person wants to go to a rich school, he (his parents) could take a loan or/and if he's too poor to afford school/university, he could apply for grants from the state. There would be a little bit of social welfare in the society but set up as a form of a charity rather than tax. Like i mentioned before, people are/should be morally obliged to give charity for the well being of society. Instead of the government leeching money of the people by the way of tax, people would instead donate voluntary charity which people could donate as much as they want and the money would be used only on the ones who really need it/deserve it. Charity/philanthropy would be a significant part of such a society. And as people are voluntarily doing it, its not a form of socialism where money is forcefully taken from the rich (who have worked hard to earn it) and distributed within the poor.

af_thefragile

And another thing i'ld like to add is right now we're just speculating.
There hasn't been proper libertarian society neither has there been a proper marxist society in history to speak of. All that we've had so far is people trying to rule over one another.

A libertarian state can finally put these orders of society to their proper test. By letting the anarchists run their society the anarchic/libertarian way and by letting the socialists run their society the socialist way, we're creating competition between the two societies under the state. It could be the ultimate test in determining out which form of society would be more perfect and superior.

The only way for real we can find out if all these systems of governance can work or not and figure out the flaws and advantages in them is by giving these systems a fair trails and only a libertarian state can provide such freedom to the people in the state to form their societies according to the socialist or anarchist or whatever system they wanna and see for themselves what works and what doesn't.

Speculation will only bring us this far.

People fight quite hard to get to their level of power and once they get there it becomes almost impossible for them to let go of the power they've worked so hard to achieve. They get blinded by it and only crave for more of it. This is why no leader/head of state will resort to a libertarian state cuz by doing so he'ld have to let go of all the power he's worked so hard to achieve, he'ld have to give all that power back to the people. A mere mortal can't do that!! Instead leaders crave for more power and the state slowly constricts into a form of false democracy/social dictatorship. Guess this is the natural order of humanity. Like in the book Lord of Flies. Democracy slowly loses out to a form of savage, animalistic order under a ruthless, power hungry leader.

And maybe the only way of putting things back to order is by the uprising of a revolutionary force from within the increasingly oppressed members of the state (as the leader keeps getting more and more oppressive on his power trip, he also needs to keep becoming more oppressive to control the growing number of responsibilities he's taking over and to make sure his state stays intact), the force itself led by a radical leader with fair intentions, fighting for freedom and liberty (a Che Guevara), to come and press the "Reset" button on the society. By overthrowing the oppressive leader and bringing back freedom to the people (after the dictator's oppression has gotten to a point people can't take it anymore). The new leader rises up to power the state and although he's been fair and for the people all along, now he's the head of the new state and now knows what power tastes like. The new leader (Fidel Castro could be the example here) gets addicted to this new power he's achieved and then only starts craving for more. The cycle continues until someone else rises up to press the "Reset" button and start the cycle over again!
This is the order of humanity. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

thesunwashot

af_thefragile wrote: »

There hasn't been proper libertarian society neither has there been a proper marxist society in history to speak of. All that we've had so far is people trying to rule over one another.

What is proper? How is it going to come about that people suddenly start to organise themselves according to your thinking? Generally speaking people do try and rule over one another. You get trade in all societies. You get power structures in all societies. People are innately competitive and those who win like to stay at the top.

I'm struggling a little with your posts. You write a lot but seem to contradict yourself frequently. You talk about no state and then mention a state to whom one can apply for grants. You keep talking about a police force and seem to think they will work for the people. Is this police force working to a set of laws? Who is deciding these laws? Do we also have a judicial system and prisons?

When you talk about classes that will exist what are these classes? Are we talking working class and those who own the means of production here or are you defining class roughly in terms of bands of wealth?

You mention and allude to free market economics. How, other than the removal of state equaling a removal of controls on the economy, does this feature in your conception of an anarchist state? It certainly isn't at all in the spirit of the great anarchists of old who tended to be mutalists or collectivists. Proudhon said "property is theft" where property refers to the owning of estates/means of production, etc. In Catalonia, regarded as the greatest anarchist experiment, the economy wasn't run as a free market. I can see how you connect the free market since it does retain some of the spirit but does so quite perversely. Bakunin would be spinning in his grave at this.

af_thefragile

thesunwashot wrote: »

What is proper? How is it going to come about that people suddenly start to organise themselves according to your thinking? Generally speaking people do try and rule over one another. You get trade in all societies. You get power structures in all societies. People are innately competitive and those who win like to stay at the top.

I'm struggling a little with your posts. You write a lot but seem to contradict yourself frequently. You talk about no state and then mention a state to whom one can apply for grants. You keep talking about a police force and seem to think they will work for the people. Is this police force working to a set of laws? Who is deciding these laws? Do we also have a judicial system and prisons?

When you talk about classes that will exist what are these classes? Are we talking working class and those who own the means of production here or are you defining class roughly in terms of bands of wealth?

You mention and allude to free market economics. How, other than the removal of state equaling a removal of controls on the economy, does this feature in your conception of an anarchist state? It certainly isn't at all in the spirit of the great anarchists of old who tended to be mutalists or collectivists. Proudhon said "property is theft" where property refers to the owning of estates/means of production, etc. In Catalonia, regarded as the greatest anarchist experiment, the economy wasn't run as a free market. I can see how you connect the free market since it does retain some of the spirit but does so quite perversely. Bakunin would be spinning in his grave at this.

The state i mentioned which people apply for grants to is not the central state, its the society/county council. Like the local credit union.

People of the society decide their own laws. Thats the whole point of an anarchic society. The people get to decide how they want to run the society.

The police works according to the laws decided by the society. There is a local judicial system (like in the old days communities used to have their local judicial system) and if a person is not happy with the local rule and if the case is big or controversial enough, maybe he could maybe apply to a higher court which could be under the central state.
As i mentioned there is a central state which only deals with foreign policy, defense and common law, so probably the court could come under the common state law bit.

There could also be prisons. Local prisons for criminals committing minor crimes and maybe a bigger high security central prison for criminals who have committed major crimes.

Class is class through bands of wealth. The Bill Gates kind of rich, the millionaire down the street kind of rich, the professional lawyer, doctor kind of rich and coming down the wealth scale.
Its not the aristocrats vs bureaucrats vs working class kind of class.
Its just a cosmetic illusion of class.

Look, i'm making this all up as i go along, as it makes sense to me. Again, i'm just speculating. But you've gotta realise the main concept about libertarianism/anarchism is letting people live whatever way they want to.
Under a libertarian state people are free to live as socialists, anarchists, collectivist, individualist, however they wish to. Thats the whole point. People can form their own society, they have have their own laws as they find fit and they can create or adapt their own system on how to run it. Thats the point of anarchism/libertarianism. People are free to choose to live their life the way they want to without any influence from an external force (you could maybe exclude God if you wish so).

I'm not an economist mate, i'm just a med student (and an art student sorta). I can't tell you how exactly a free market would work in such a state.
I follow what Thomas Paine advocated about liberty in his Common Sense pamphlet and what Ron Paul propagates as it makes the most logical sense to me. And what a few austrian school economists (like Peter Schiff, Lew Rockwell) teach about free market and how it is run.

There have been loads of anarchists with different believes and ideologies themselves. I'm an anarcho-capitalist i believe.
But then again, the whole point of anarchism/libertarianism is to not impose your ideologies onto others but instead just give people the freedom to adapt their own ideologies. Thats what the whole libertarian state focuses around. People thinking and taking responsibility for themselves.

pagancornflake

af_thefragile wrote: »

And send all the socialists to North Korea?

Or one of those horrible nordic countries.

pagancornflake

af_thefragile wrote: »

This is exactly what people get wrong about anarchism. Thats why i first mention anarchy promotes society but abolishes government as in a central/federal government.

The only difference is the magnitude of the government established. Its role to police, legislate and regulate based on the demands of the people (the majority, I might add), is still a requisite for cohesion regardless of how local it is. People would still have to make some compromises in ideology in order to live cohesivley with one another. If they want to move somewhere because they feel they are making too many compromises to live where they are, how can you guarantee that there will be a place which fits them better?

pagancornflake

af_thefragile wrote: »

There have been loads of anarchists with different believes and ideologies themselves. I'm an anarcho-capitalist i believe.But then again, the whole point of anarchism/libertarianism is to not impose your ideologies onto others but instead just give people the freedom to adapt their own ideologies. Thats what the whole libertarian state focuses around. People thinking and taking responsibility for themselves.

*tag*

And say one locally constituted area decides (based on its individual ideology) that this ideology is threatened by other ideologies? What is to stop them from imposing theirs on a neighbour or others in their locality?
For example, take the actions of what I can only presume was the Galwegian anarchists today. They tore down a number of election posters belonging to local election candidates (which is illegal according to this locality i.e. Ireland ) in an ignorant attack on their democratic right to run and advertise themselves for local election (as agreed on by the people in this country). What I do not understand (following the hypothetical I read earlier detailing the right of anarchists in communist dublin to move to an anarchist locality elsewhere) is why these people feel the need to interrupt this locality and its legislation and customs with theirs, instead of moving to their potential paradise in an anarchist state in sub saharan Africa?

Do tell

turgon

pagancornflake wrote: »

What is to stop them from imposing theirs on a neighbour or others in their locality?

Money. War is expensive, and keeping another area under your control more so. In the anarchist society only those wanting the war would pay. They would also have to pay for occupation costs etc. It wouldnt be feasible given the small size of the individual states proposed.

You have to think outside the box.

Brian.

what occupation costs would you need over your area? the price of a gun? not everyone in an area are brave enough to die for their freedom..... they would whind up being bullied through fear.........

af_thefragile

pagancornflake wrote: »

The only difference is the magnitude of the government established. Its role to police, legislate and regulate based on the demands of the people (the majority, I might add), is still a requisite for cohesion regardless of how local it is. People would still have to make some compromises in ideology in order to live cohesivley with one another. If they want to move somewhere because they feel they are making too many compromises to live where they are, how can you guarantee that there will be a place which fits them better?

Cuz there is bound to be somewhere the person feels more comfortable to fit in. And if the person really can't find anywhere fit for himself, he could go live in the middle of the woods by himself. No one's stopping him from doing that too.

pagancornflake wrote: »

*tag*

And say one locally constituted area decides (based on its individual ideology) that this ideology is threatened by other ideologies? What is to stop them from imposing theirs on a neighbour or others in their locality?

Why would they wanna do that? Also no one is stopping them from propagating their ideologies in a peaceful way, as long as they're not harming anyone else. People also have the freedom to religion so yes no one is stopping Bible thumpers from walking around towns too. They can enjoy the freedom of the state too.
And then turgon mentioned about war. This would be more of an extreme case. But you've gotta realise wars are only fought for the interests of the few elite at the top. Most common people don't want a war. Its too expensive, too horrific and too tragic!

For example, take the actions of what I can only presume was the Galwegian anarchists today. They tore down a number of election posters belonging to local election candidates (which is illegal according to this locality i.e. Ireland ) in an ignorant attack on their democratic right to run and advertise themselves for local election (as agreed on by the people in this country). What I do not understand (following the hypothetical I read earlier detailing the right of anarchists in communist dublin to move to an anarchist locality elsewhere) is why these people feel the need to interrupt this locality and its legislation and customs with theirs, instead of moving to their potential paradise in an anarchist state in sub saharan Africa?

Do tell

They're not anarchists. They're rebellious kids.
Anarchists wouldn't stop others from expressing themselves as long as they aren't causing any harm to anyone else. If not anything they could be socialists. Can't let too many people stand for one election!!

Who's speaking about interrupting? The locality is composed of like minded people.
I guess it has been proved that only like minded people can get along the best with another. You can notice this around schools, colleges etc. where all the nerdy kids, punk kids, emo kids, preppy kids etc. hang around together in their various groups.
So i guess it wouldn't be very fair if you take a nerdy kid and put him between a bunch of punks, something which could happen in a socialist state...

af_thefragile

Brian. wrote: »

what occupation costs would you need over your area? the price of a gun? not everyone in an area are brave enough to die for their freedom..... they would whind up being bullied through fear.........

could you like phrase that more clearly?
Cuz i'm not sure i get what you're trying to say...

turgon

Brian. wrote: »

what occupation costs would you need over your area? the price of a gun?

Whereas realizing the cost of occupation would be a deterrent was outside the box, well this one is plain easy.

• Army - both ammunition, labor and bases, machinery, vehicles etc
• Police
• Justice system to be imposed
• Prison system for dissenters

Given this Libertarian utopia has little to no tax, this will have to be funded by individuals. Can you see this happening?