Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Proof that anarchy works?

MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 1:17:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Pretty interesting article. Basically, it talks about a place in the Netherlands that was almost completely isolated, with a government, which survived and even thrived for some time.

Can a community without a central government avoid descending into chaos and rampant criminality? Can its economy grow and thrive without the intervening regulatory hand of the state? Can its disputes be settled without a monopoly on legal judgments? If the strange and little-known case of the condominum of Moresnet — a wedge of disputed territory in northwestern Europe, and arguably Europe's counterpart to America's so-called Wild West — acts as our guide, we must conclude that statelessness is not only possible but beneficial to progress, carrying profound advantages over coercive bureaucracies.

The remarkable experiment that was Moresenet was an indirect consequence of the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815), which, like all wars, empowered the governments of participating states at the expense of their populations: nationalism grew more fervent; many nations suspended specie payments indefinitely; and a new crop of destitute amputees appeared in streets all across Europe.

In the Congress of Vienna, which concluded the war, borders were redrawn according to the "balance-of-power" theory: no state should be in a position to dominate others militarily. There were some disagreements, one in particular between Prussia and the Netherlands regarding the miniscule, mineral-rich map spot known as the "old mountain" — Altenberg in German, Vieille Montagne in French — which held a large zinc mine that profitably extricated tons of ore from the ground. With a major war recently concluded, and the next nearest zinc source of any significance in England, it behooved the two powers to jointly control the operation.

They settled on an accommodation; the mountain mine would be a region of shared sovereignty. So from its inception in 1816, the zone would fall under the aegis of several states: Prussia and the Netherlands initially, and Belgium taking the place of the Netherlands after gaining its independence in 1830. Designated "Neutral Moresnet," the small land occupied a triangular spot between these three states, its area largely covered by the quarry, some company buildings, a bank, schools, several stores, a hospital, and the roughly 50 cottages housing 256 miners and support personnel.[1]

The territory "originate[ed] in mistake … perpetuated by [the] jealousy [and] inability of … two governments to concur in partition," and initially, little changed within the district.[2] But over the next few decades, Moresnet's small size and ambiguous oversight by several national powers came together to create an inadvertent experiment deep in the Aachen forests of northwestern Europe.

The first factor is that, although nominally monitored by several nations, by virtue of its small size, Moresnet was loosely supervised at best. Not only was it so small that a crumb would blot out its existence on most maps; neither was there much reason for its overseers to direct attention to it: it sat quietly, reliably excavating 8,500 tons of zinc each year. Occasionally a patrolling Prussian, Dutch, or Belgian soldier would wander close to the border — as a demilitarized zone, Moresnet territory was explicitly off limits for military forces — but for the most part the mining community was left alone.


Read the rest: [http://mises.org...]
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 2:15:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There many instances in which Anarchy has worked. Also ones where it has failed. There's just as many types of anarchy as there are types of states.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 2:21:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are a lot of examples throughout history where societies successfully functioned without a non-imposed State-like, aggressive government. Sometimes ignorant people (I won't mention names) say, "Well since anarchy is no longer utilized there, clearly it didn't work and can't ever work." Obviously that's dumb. Of course it only means that some aggressor decided to conquer or take over said societies, but might doesn't make right. If you removed the force of those governments, peaceful (non forced) governments could easily be opted into and dictate how society functions. There is nothing that the State currently provides through theft and coercion that free human beings cannot provide at a lower cost and perhaps higher quality through voluntary interaction in the market place.
President of DDO
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 10:28:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
People need government to the extent that they believe they need government. That's about it.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 11:25:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Of course anarchy f*cking works. Any time you or anyone else makes a decision without having it demanded by an authority figure, it's de facto anarchism because you're engaging in activity that doesn't require a state. Like, when I engage in a relationship with a girl? That's anarchism, because the state doesn't involve itself in my romance. It doesn't tell us when to kiss, fight, have sex, see a movie, cuddle on the couch, break up, make up... When I decide to go to the doctor to see about a rash I've been getting, that's anarchism. At the heart of it, anarchism is nothing else but acknowledging our potentiality, our capacity to create and shape the world as we would like. Anarchy, really, is always already present in what we do.
Jellyfish
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 3:24:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A country cannot survive without a government while other countries with governments exist. The strong prevail over the weak. The country with the government will march its army over to the anarchist country and take it over. That's what happened to the Americas.
All I got is nothing but a little bit of love
Gonna give it to the people then they'll see
Then they'll see
Jellyfish
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 3:26:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 3:24:40 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
A country cannot survive without a government while other countries with governments exist. The strong prevail over the weak. The country with the government will march its army over to the anarchist country and take it over. That's what happened to the Americas.

Theoretically, if the entire world was anarchist it would work out though.
All I got is nothing but a little bit of love
Gonna give it to the people then they'll see
Then they'll see
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 3:30:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 3:26:07 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:24:40 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
A country cannot survive without a government while other countries with governments exist. The strong prevail over the weak. The country with the government will march its army over to the anarchist country and take it over. That's what happened to the Americas.

Theoretically, if the entire world was anarchist it would work out though.

I still don't see how that could work though. States are created through ideology. However, humans are pretty susceptible to propaganda, so its not that hard for a state to be created and maintained even under initial anarchist conditions.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 3:30:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 3:24:40 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
A country cannot survive without a government while other countries with governments exist. The strong prevail over the weak. The country with the government will march its army over to the anarchist country and take it over. That's what happened to the Americas.

Which brings up my idea of Anarcho-Explorationism. Which states that if an Anarchist society wishes to prosper in this day and age it either needs to move into space or under the Earth's surface.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 3:32:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 3:30:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:26:07 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:24:40 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
A country cannot survive without a government while other countries with governments exist. The strong prevail over the weak. The country with the government will march its army over to the anarchist country and take it over. That's what happened to the Americas.

Theoretically, if the entire world was anarchist it would work out though.

I still don't see how that could work though. States are created through ideology. However, humans are pretty susceptible to propaganda, so its not that hard for a state to be created and maintained even under initial anarchist conditions.

That's my main thing against Anarchism, is its ability to survive. I just can't imagine a anarchism country lasting ling without someone taking over, whether foreign or domestic.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 3:36:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 3:26:07 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:24:40 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
A country cannot survive without a government while other countries with governments exist. The strong prevail over the weak. The country with the government will march its army over to the anarchist country and take it over. That's what happened to the Americas.

Theoretically, if the entire world was anarchist it would work out though.

Gonna bring back CosmicAlfonzo's point, and say that the world already is anarchistic.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 3:38:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 3:30:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:26:07 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:24:40 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
A country cannot survive without a government while other countries with governments exist. The strong prevail over the weak. The country with the government will march its army over to the anarchist country and take it over. That's what happened to the Americas.

Theoretically, if the entire world was anarchist it would work out though.

I still don't see how that could work though. States are created through ideology. However, humans are pretty susceptible to propaganda, so its not that hard for a state to be created and maintained even under initial anarchist conditions.

We've been in anarchy for the great majority of our existence as a species. It's only certain pressures of singularities such as the agricultural revolution which produced the state and capitalism. Many would theorize that further singularities would actually turn us back to Anarchy.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 3:39:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 3:32:40 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:30:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:26:07 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:24:40 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
A country cannot survive without a government while other countries with governments exist. The strong prevail over the weak. The country with the government will march its army over to the anarchist country and take it over. That's what happened to the Americas.

Theoretically, if the entire world was anarchist it would work out though.

I still don't see how that could work though. States are created through ideology. However, humans are pretty susceptible to propaganda, so its not that hard for a state to be created and maintained even under initial anarchist conditions.

That's my main thing against Anarchism, is its ability to survive. I just can't imagine a anarchism country lasting ling without someone taking over, whether foreign or domestic.

Well one good argument for anarchism is that anarchist societies are actually difficult to conquer. The reason for this is that there's no centralized figure that you can kill to conquer them. If the people don't see the police force or military as legit, mere numbers and asymmetric warfare tactics would defeat them.

Good example is that England had a difficut time conquering anarchist ireland, while England had very little difficulty conquering statist India.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 3:41:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 3:39:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:32:40 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:30:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:26:07 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:24:40 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
A country cannot survive without a government while other countries with governments exist. The strong prevail over the weak. The country with the government will march its army over to the anarchist country and take it over. That's what happened to the Americas.

Theoretically, if the entire world was anarchist it would work out though.

I still don't see how that could work though. States are created through ideology. However, humans are pretty susceptible to propaganda, so its not that hard for a state to be created and maintained even under initial anarchist conditions.

That's my main thing against Anarchism, is its ability to survive. I just can't imagine a anarchism country lasting ling without someone taking over, whether foreign or domestic.

Well one good argument for anarchism is that anarchist societies are actually difficult to conquer. The reason for this is that there's no centralized figure that you can kill to conquer them. If the people don't see the police force or military as legit, mere numbers and asymmetric warfare tactics would defeat them.

Good example is that England had a difficut time conquering anarchist ireland, while England had very little difficulty conquering statist India.

Wasn't Ireland more fuedal?

Anyways, I see the point there, but they also lack that leadership element, which is pivotal is war. So, the advantage is also a disadvantage.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 3:45:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 3:41:12 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:39:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:32:40 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:30:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:26:07 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:24:40 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
A country cannot survive without a government while other countries with governments exist. The strong prevail over the weak. The country with the government will march its army over to the anarchist country and take it over. That's what happened to the Americas.

Theoretically, if the entire world was anarchist it would work out though.

I still don't see how that could work though. States are created through ideology. However, humans are pretty susceptible to propaganda, so its not that hard for a state to be created and maintained even under initial anarchist conditions.

That's my main thing against Anarchism, is its ability to survive. I just can't imagine a anarchism country lasting ling without someone taking over, whether foreign or domestic.

Well one good argument for anarchism is that anarchist societies are actually difficult to conquer. The reason for this is that there's no centralized figure that you can kill to conquer them. If the people don't see the police force or military as legit, mere numbers and asymmetric warfare tactics would defeat them.

Good example is that England had a difficut time conquering anarchist ireland, while England had very little difficulty conquering statist India.

Wasn't Ireland more fuedal?

Anyways, I see the point there, but they also lack that leadership element, which is pivotal is war. So, the advantage is also a disadvantage.

I think Machiavelli would say that it is easier to conquer, but harder to hold.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 4:00:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 3:38:29 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:30:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:26:07 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:24:40 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
A country cannot survive without a government while other countries with governments exist. The strong prevail over the weak. The country with the government will march its army over to the anarchist country and take it over. That's what happened to the Americas.

Theoretically, if the entire world was anarchist it would work out though.

I still don't see how that could work though. States are created through ideology. However, humans are pretty susceptible to propaganda, so its not that hard for a state to be created and maintained even under initial anarchist conditions.

We've been in anarchy for the great majority of our existence as a species. It's only certain pressures of singularities such as the agricultural revolution which produced the state and capitalism. Many would theorize that further singularities would actually turn us back to Anarchy.

I'm actually looking at the literature on hunter-gatherer society, and it seems that your right and they really were anarchist in nature.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 4:01:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 3:41:12 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:39:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:32:40 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:30:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:26:07 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:24:40 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
A country cannot survive without a government while other countries with governments exist. The strong prevail over the weak. The country with the government will march its army over to the anarchist country and take it over. That's what happened to the Americas.

Theoretically, if the entire world was anarchist it would work out though.

I still don't see how that could work though. States are created through ideology. However, humans are pretty susceptible to propaganda, so its not that hard for a state to be created and maintained even under initial anarchist conditions.

That's my main thing against Anarchism, is its ability to survive. I just can't imagine a anarchism country lasting ling without someone taking over, whether foreign or domestic.

Well one good argument for anarchism is that anarchist societies are actually difficult to conquer. The reason for this is that there's no centralized figure that you can kill to conquer them. If the people don't see the police force or military as legit, mere numbers and asymmetric warfare tactics would defeat them.

Good example is that England had a difficut time conquering anarchist ireland, while England had very little difficulty conquering statist India.

Wasn't Ireland more fuedal?

Anyways, I see the point there, but they also lack that leadership element, which is pivotal is war. So, the advantage is also a disadvantage.

Not necessarily. Some of Anarchist Catalonia's battalions were quite fearsome. People do have the capacity to regulate their own behavior, you know.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 4:11:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 4:01:03 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:41:12 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:39:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:32:40 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:30:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:26:07 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:24:40 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
A country cannot survive without a government while other countries with governments exist. The strong prevail over the weak. The country with the government will march its army over to the anarchist country and take it over. That's what happened to the Americas.

Theoretically, if the entire world was anarchist it would work out though.

I still don't see how that could work though. States are created through ideology. However, humans are pretty susceptible to propaganda, so its not that hard for a state to be created and maintained even under initial anarchist conditions.

That's my main thing against Anarchism, is its ability to survive. I just can't imagine a anarchism country lasting ling without someone taking over, whether foreign or domestic.

Well one good argument for anarchism is that anarchist societies are actually difficult to conquer. The reason for this is that there's no centralized figure that you can kill to conquer them. If the people don't see the police force or military as legit, mere numbers and asymmetric warfare tactics would defeat them.

Good example is that England had a difficut time conquering anarchist ireland, while England had very little difficulty conquering statist India.

Wasn't Ireland more fuedal?

Anyways, I see the point there, but they also lack that leadership element, which is pivotal is war. So, the advantage is also a disadvantage.

Not necessarily. Some of Anarchist Catalonia's battalions were quite fearsome. People do have the capacity to regulate their own behavior, you know.

Fearsome is nice, but leadership can easily trump it. General Lee in the American Civil War is a good example.

Also, in this day and age, I can't imagine an anarchist society could create a military quite like, say, the US's, or China.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 4:16:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 4:11:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 4:01:03 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:41:12 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:39:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:32:40 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:30:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:26:07 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:24:40 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
A country cannot survive without a government while other countries with governments exist. The strong prevail over the weak. The country with the government will march its army over to the anarchist country and take it over. That's what happened to the Americas.

Theoretically, if the entire world was anarchist it would work out though.

I still don't see how that could work though. States are created through ideology. However, humans are pretty susceptible to propaganda, so its not that hard for a state to be created and maintained even under initial anarchist conditions.

That's my main thing against Anarchism, is its ability to survive. I just can't imagine a anarchism country lasting ling without someone taking over, whether foreign or domestic.

Well one good argument for anarchism is that anarchist societies are actually difficult to conquer. The reason for this is that there's no centralized figure that you can kill to conquer them. If the people don't see the police force or military as legit, mere numbers and asymmetric warfare tactics would defeat them.

Good example is that England had a difficut time conquering anarchist ireland, while England had very little difficulty conquering statist India.

Wasn't Ireland more fuedal?

Anyways, I see the point there, but they also lack that leadership element, which is pivotal is war. So, the advantage is also a disadvantage.

Not necessarily. Some of Anarchist Catalonia's battalions were quite fearsome. People do have the capacity to regulate their own behavior, you know.

Fearsome is nice, but leadership can easily trump it. General Lee in the American Civil War is a good example.

Also, in this day and age, I can't imagine an anarchist society could create a military quite like, say, the US's, or China.

They wouldn't need it. An anarchistic society don't need an army that can take and conquer another country. They only need to make it to costly to be worth the effort for others to try an hold their country.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 4:17:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 4:11:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 4:01:03 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:41:12 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:39:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:32:40 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:30:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:26:07 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:24:40 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
A country cannot survive without a government while other countries with governments exist. The strong prevail over the weak. The country with the government will march its army over to the anarchist country and take it over. That's what happened to the Americas.

Theoretically, if the entire world was anarchist it would work out though.

I still don't see how that could work though. States are created through ideology. However, humans are pretty susceptible to propaganda, so its not that hard for a state to be created and maintained even under initial anarchist conditions.

That's my main thing against Anarchism, is its ability to survive. I just can't imagine a anarchism country lasting ling without someone taking over, whether foreign or domestic.

Well one good argument for anarchism is that anarchist societies are actually difficult to conquer. The reason for this is that there's no centralized figure that you can kill to conquer them. If the people don't see the police force or military as legit, mere numbers and asymmetric warfare tactics would defeat them.

Good example is that England had a difficut time conquering anarchist ireland, while England had very little difficulty conquering statist India.

Wasn't Ireland more fuedal?

Anyways, I see the point there, but they also lack that leadership element, which is pivotal is war. So, the advantage is also a disadvantage.

Not necessarily. Some of Anarchist Catalonia's battalions were quite fearsome. People do have the capacity to regulate their own behavior, you know.

Fearsome is nice, but leadership can easily trump it. General Lee in the American Civil War is a good example.

Also, in this day and age, I can't imagine an anarchist society could create a military quite like, say, the US's, or China.

So?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 4:18:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 4:16:34 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
At 8/25/2012 4:11:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 4:01:03 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:41:12 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:39:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:32:40 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:30:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:26:07 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:24:40 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
A country cannot survive without a government while other countries with governments exist. The strong prevail over the weak. The country with the government will march its army over to the anarchist country and take it over. That's what happened to the Americas.

Theoretically, if the entire world was anarchist it would work out though.

I still don't see how that could work though. States are created through ideology. However, humans are pretty susceptible to propaganda, so its not that hard for a state to be created and maintained even under initial anarchist conditions.

That's my main thing against Anarchism, is its ability to survive. I just can't imagine a anarchism country lasting ling without someone taking over, whether foreign or domestic.

Well one good argument for anarchism is that anarchist societies are actually difficult to conquer. The reason for this is that there's no centralized figure that you can kill to conquer them. If the people don't see the police force or military as legit, mere numbers and asymmetric warfare tactics would defeat them.

Good example is that England had a difficut time conquering anarchist ireland, while England had very little difficulty conquering statist India.

Wasn't Ireland more fuedal?

Anyways, I see the point there, but they also lack that leadership element, which is pivotal is war. So, the advantage is also a disadvantage.

Not necessarily. Some of Anarchist Catalonia's battalions were quite fearsome. People do have the capacity to regulate their own behavior, you know.

Fearsome is nice, but leadership can easily trump it. General Lee in the American Civil War is a good example.

Also, in this day and age, I can't imagine an anarchist society could create a military quite like, say, the US's, or China.

They wouldn't need it. An anarchistic society don't need an army that can take and conquer another country. They only need to make it to costly to be worth the effort for others to try an hold their country.

This. China and the U.S. are imperialistic. Anarchist nations are interested in freedom, not domination. Despite the fact that it was a poor nation with little resources, North Vietnam defeated the most powerful military in the world.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 4:21:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@OberHerr

Think of riots that occur. If a riot occurs, there is absolutely little local governments can do to maintain the riot, even though they are disorganized and do not necessarily have a leader.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 4:24:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, Freedo. I'm a little bit coflicted about the idea that anarchist societies existed in past times. Native americans were hunter-gather societies that clearly had a hierachy society (chief leaders). So then why would we assume that people from other geographical locations had an egalitarian society, and why were the native Americans egalitarian but the rest of the world wasn't? Was there some sort of singularity that caused societies to go from egalitarian societies to tribal societies?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 4:26:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 4:21:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
@OberHerr

Think of riots that occur. If a riot occurs, there is absolutely little local governments can do to maintain the riot, even though they are disorganized and do not necessarily have a leader.

If the only goal of the police was to break the opposition, they would merely have to kill off enough to control them.

And, if anarchy is really like a riot, the best way for someone to take over it would be to let them destroy each other.

My point is anarchy is very susceptible to either foreign, or domestic takeovers. Maybe both.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 4:26:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 4:26:02 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 4:21:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
@OberHerr

Think of riots that occur. If a riot occurs, there is absolutely little local governments can do to maintain the riot, even though they are disorganized and do not necessarily have a leader.

If the only goal of the police was to break the opposition, they would merely have to kill off enough to control them.

And, if anarchy is really like a riot, the best way for someone to take over it would be to let them destroy each other.

LOL, people involved in riots do not destroy each other.
My point is anarchy is very susceptible to either foreign, or domestic takeovers. Maybe both.
Somalia wasn't.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 4:28:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 4:18:39 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/25/2012 4:16:34 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
At 8/25/2012 4:11:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 4:01:03 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:41:12 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:39:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:32:40 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:30:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:26:07 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:24:40 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
A country cannot survive without a government while other countries with governments exist. The strong prevail over the weak. The country with the government will march its army over to the anarchist country and take it over. That's what happened to the Americas.

Theoretically, if the entire world was anarchist it would work out though.

I still don't see how that could work though. States are created through ideology. However, humans are pretty susceptible to propaganda, so its not that hard for a state to be created and maintained even under initial anarchist conditions.

That's my main thing against Anarchism, is its ability to survive. I just can't imagine a anarchism country lasting ling without someone taking over, whether foreign or domestic.

Well one good argument for anarchism is that anarchist societies are actually difficult to conquer. The reason for this is that there's no centralized figure that you can kill to conquer them. If the people don't see the police force or military as legit, mere numbers and asymmetric warfare tactics would defeat them.

Good example is that England had a difficut time conquering anarchist ireland, while England had very little difficulty conquering statist India.

Wasn't Ireland more fuedal?

Anyways, I see the point there, but they also lack that leadership element, which is pivotal is war. So, the advantage is also a disadvantage.

Not necessarily. Some of Anarchist Catalonia's battalions were quite fearsome. People do have the capacity to regulate their own behavior, you know.

Fearsome is nice, but leadership can easily trump it. General Lee in the American Civil War is a good example.

Also, in this day and age, I can't imagine an anarchist society could create a military quite like, say, the US's, or China.

They wouldn't need it. An anarchistic society don't need an army that can take and conquer another country. They only need to make it to costly to be worth the effort for others to try an hold their country.

This. China and the U.S. are imperialistic. Anarchist nations are interested in freedom, not domination. Despite the fact that it was a poor nation with little resources, North Vietnam defeated the most powerful military in the world.

They won, because 1. Soviets helped them 2. We weren't committed to the war internally. 3. We were winning to for someone else.

Also, were not imperialist. If we were, we would have made Iraq a US colony.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 4:30:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, were not imperialist. If we were, we would have made Iraq a US colony.

We may not be imperialist overtly, but certainly covertly.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 4:30:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 4:26:53 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/25/2012 4:26:02 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 4:21:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
@OberHerr

Think of riots that occur. If a riot occurs, there is absolutely little local governments can do to maintain the riot, even though they are disorganized and do not necessarily have a leader.

If the only goal of the police was to break the opposition, they would merely have to kill off enough to control them.

And, if anarchy is really like a riot, the best way for someone to take over it would be to let them destroy each other.

LOL, people involved in riots do not destroy each other.

A riot nation would. Especially if that was their "foundation".

And, by destroy each other, I dont mean kill each other off, though it's possible, I mean economically as well.

My point is anarchy is very susceptible to either foreign, or domestic takeovers. Maybe both.
Somalia wasn't.

If someone with a big enough stick came in, they could easily take over Somalia. You would have to be brutal, but I doubt it would be hard.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 4:31:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 4:28:10 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 4:18:39 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/25/2012 4:16:34 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
At 8/25/2012 4:11:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 4:01:03 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:41:12 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:39:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:32:40 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:30:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:26:07 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
At 8/25/2012 3:24:40 PM, Jellyfish wrote:
A country cannot survive without a government while other countries with governments exist. The strong prevail over the weak. The country with the government will march its army over to the anarchist country and take it over. That's what happened to the Americas.

Theoretically, if the entire world was anarchist it would work out though.

I still don't see how that could work though. States are created through ideology. However, humans are pretty susceptible to propaganda, so its not that hard for a state to be created and maintained even under initial anarchist conditions.

That's my main thing against Anarchism, is its ability to survive. I just can't imagine a anarchism country lasting ling without someone taking over, whether foreign or domestic.

Well one good argument for anarchism is that anarchist societies are actually difficult to conquer. The reason for this is that there's no centralized figure that you can kill to conquer them. If the people don't see the police force or military as legit, mere numbers and asymmetric warfare tactics would defeat them.

Good example is that England had a difficut time conquering anarchist ireland, while England had very little difficulty conquering statist India.

Wasn't Ireland more fuedal?

Anyways, I see the point there, but they also lack that leadership element, which is pivotal is war. So, the advantage is also a disadvantage.

Not necessarily. Some of Anarchist Catalonia's battalions were quite fearsome. People do have the capacity to regulate their own behavior, you know.

Fearsome is nice, but leadership can easily trump it. General Lee in the American Civil War is a good example.

Also, in this day and age, I can't imagine an anarchist society could create a military quite like, say, the US's, or China.

They wouldn't need it. An anarchistic society don't need an army that can take and conquer another country. They only need to make it to costly to be worth the effort for others to try an hold their country.

This. China and the U.S. are imperialistic. Anarchist nations are interested in freedom, not domination. Despite the fact that it was a poor nation with little resources, North Vietnam defeated the most powerful military in the world.

They won, because 1. Soviets helped them
Not really . . . I mean, it didn't really help them.
2. We weren't committed to the war internally.
This is because the war was televised and a lot of troops got killed. Imperialistic wars rarely have more support than the nation being invaded does.
3. We were winning to for someone else.

See post 2.
Also, were not imperialist. If we were, we would have made Iraq a US colony.

Imperialism =/= Colonialism. Plus, we don't have to take over every nation we invade in order to be imperialist. We did set up a puppet government in Iraq.