Freedomain Radio

 I'm not going to answer that until you deal with the scenario I laid out.  I think it shreds your entire argument, but that's just me.  If your argument doesn't stand based on what I have already said, then I don't have to deal with that question.

ok

The Russians begin their aggressive invasion of the anarchist land.  The anarchists send warnings around the world that they have been aggressed against and they will retaliate with nuclear weapons, if nothing is done to stop such an invasion.  Nothing's done, the anarchists launch the nuclear weapon directly at the capital of Russia, killing the President, Prime Minister, the Diet, the leaders of the military, and the entire governmental infrastructure of the Russian State.  The soldiers involved in the invasion, without a central control, are easily picked off by the guerillas of the anarchist region who are protecting their property.  The Russian people who remain are flooded with the anarchistic theories and the successes of the anarchistic society, before the aggressive invasion of the Russian government.  There is also a push to send radioactivity sickness medicine from the anarchistic society to the people who were unfortunate casualties of the nuclear weapon....  Russia joins the current anarchistic society in stateless society-dom and everyone lives happily ever after.

And before you go on about "this" wouldn't happen or "that" wouldn't happen in my scenario.... remember, you're scenario has never happened in the history of the world, even in current places like Somalia or during the Cold War.

What incentive do the Russians have to invade in the first place?

Anyone can set up a scare scenario to tear down a system - "what if Russians secretly deploy double agents to run for president and then take hold of the media to destroy democracy, etc etc etc"

How does any of this translate into an argument against DRO's and/or anarchy?

 So you're saying that anarchist would attack innocent, oppressed civilians to force a state to do what they want?  How is that morally any different than the state attacking innocent, oppressed civilians to force them to do what it wants?  If the anarchists actually do use nuclear weapons to force their will on the world how can they claim not to be hypocrites?  The citizens of the invading country, by anarchist philosophy, don't have any control over the things their country does.  Why should they pay the penalty?

So, that's a philosophical problem.

Even assuming that the Russians are stupid enough to leave all their leaders standing on the X, their military is not completely incompetent.  Soldiers aren't robots.  If you cut off their connection to the "brain" they don't wander around blindly until they get shot.  If every Russian leader was killed they would probably just withdraw.  However, lets assume that the area has already been colonized so the military stays to protect their citizens.  Now what you have is an area occupied by the military and a bunch of civilians.  The military already established a perimeter around the colonized area, that is why it is colonized, so they can easily control flow across it; they just don't allow any.  They throw up barbed wire, some mines, and leave some people on guard.  The anarchists, even the well funded ones, are going to have a very difficult time getting into the colonized area, which means life in there will be relatively peaceful.  If you were instead refering to the invasion part where the army is forcing anarchists away, then I'm sure there will be some casualties.  However, because the aim is not to control the local population, but to remove them, there is little necessity for restraint.  I don't care how well armed a couple anarchists are, they are going to have a very hard time dealing with tanks and planes.

So, that's a military problem.

I don't need you to remind me that we are talking about hypothetical situations.  You are the one with the burden of proof.  I support the state system, which has been working for a very long time.  Most of the stuff anarchists talk about "has never happened in the history of the world."  I think that, despite the fact that anarchists deny the charge of utopianism, they are assuming an awful lot about what people will decide to do.  The system of state rule is very stable in the sense that there is almost always a state of some kind, and when there isn't one is falling or rising.  Anarchism has never been tested meaningfully and has never proven that it is a viable, stable system of organization.  I think that if anarchism does get started somewhere it will revert back to the state system sooner rather than later because it is inherently unstable.  I think that for anarchism to work everyone has to agree that they want anarchism.  I think that they will have to make sacrifices to maintain their system just like people living in states do, the sacrifices will just be different.  If a state decided to occupy the land that anarchists claim the anarchists would have to deal with the power of that state.  If they can't, the system is not tenable.  If the system doesn't provide people with the same level of protection a state would, I think they will abandon it for the security of a state.

So, that's a human problem.

I'm not saying that it won't work, I'm just trying to get someone to explain how it will work.  Anarchists seem to be really good at complaining about what exists and really bad about answering questions regarding their prescription to fix it.

blueback:

Why would you assume that an invading state would have any interest in the system they are replacing?

Lets say the Russians see that America has thrown off the oppression of its state structure and become a happy, prosperous non-violent anarchist society.   The Russians think "Oh!  Lookie!  They don't have an organized military any more."  The next thing they do is start landing on the coasts.  First they send in special forces.  The SF's covertly take over key communication nodes like TV and radio stations.  Remember that the free flow of information is vital to the effective organization of a distributed system like this anarchist thing.  They use force to make the announcers continue broadcasting as if nothing was amiss.  Then they start landing their troops who simply move inland from the coast.  The troops don't negotiate with anyone, they don't make any promises, they don't talk to the DROs.  All they do is establish a perimiter and force all non-Russians out of it.  If people don't leave, they kill them publicly as an incentive, or they simply use a dog to run them off, or whatever.

Now the Russians have a sizeable area that has infrastructure, but no tenants.  Phase B, if you will, is when they start landing thousands of their own citizens who colonize the area.  Perhaps they could even have bought a controlling interest in vital DRO's around the "country" who would now spring into action.  For the remaining DRO's to put up a meaningful defense they would have to band together, but the Russian-owned DRO's will sow confusion and help keep everyone off balance by feeding misinformation into the system and generally being difficult, if not outright hostile.  Maybe 5 or 10 years later the Russians simply expand their colony with another push and another batch of their own citizens.

The only way to fight a state is with another state.  Since you have already established that states are evil and love nothing more than using their power to abuse people, what incentive would foreign states have to respect the existence of the anarchist system?  They will simply see a large batch of natural resources being controlled by an organization that is not powerful enough to resist them, and take over.

I find your scenario kind of silly. Tibet is one thing, but hundreds of millions of people live on the north american continent. You can't just clear everyone out and set up little frontier towns, not without killing millions of people first, and you'd have to empty out a significant fraction of any given country to begin this colonizing process. It would be generations before any invading-colonizing force could exploit the natural resources more thoroughly than they could simply by trading with the people already there, and as a project it would probably run in the red for even longer.

I find this idea that an army could simply stop everyone from communicating with each other to be equally silly. Cell phones, walkie talkes, HAM radio sets, satellite dishes, or even just letters are going to find a lot of paths of communication out of any invaded area with millions of people living in it.

If any state tried to do this, it would take an absurd amount of resources, logistics, the motivation of a million madmen, and no politician from the invading country would be safe for a hundred years.

We can't just make up situations to prove we're right. This can be used to prove any point you wish. One may as well say "The Nazis take over the world. Therefore anarchy fails." or "Lex Luthor kills superman. Therefore the free market is bad."

blueback:

Anarchists seem to be really good at complaining about what exists and really bad about answering questions regarding their prescription to fix it.

I'm not going to do any more in this thread, this kind of macho baiting is just too ridiculous...

Beside the fact the no modern leadership class would risk nuclear annihilation of their own lives and property to occupy, what was it?  Western Oregon? with no hope of anything but a protracted guerilla war; beside the fact that a modern industrialized society would be able to wreck havoc on a foreign national army far in excess of what stone aged peasants were able to do the world's most powerful military in Vietnam; beside the fact that the most likely outcome of sending soldiers and colonists outside the range of control of a central government typically is an independence movement by the colonists; and beside the fact that nobody on earth can mount an amphibious invasion and establish a regular supply line across thousands of miles of ocean without the cooperation of the residents of the landing/staging area (and they will have to be able to defend themselves against their neighbors already), if the resources of a national army can defend against the attack, the same resources in the hands of professional private armies can defend against the attack. Thank you for reading that very long sentence.

If, on the other hand, there is no defense possible by a private army given resources, manpower, etc., then there is even less possibility of a defense by a national military that spends hundreds of billions of dollars on, for example, planes, ships, invisibilty cloaks, space death rays, psychic detection of enemy positions, self-sealing body armor,  psychoactive combat drugs, and who-knows-what-else that are never even built (google military boondogle--you can read for days).

I really think you have the makings of a fantastic piece of anarchist literature with this scenario--I really do.  I sort of want to write it myself, but you have clearly put more though into it than I have.  You might be infringing on the plot line of "Red Dawn," but I think you can draw out enough distinctions to make it your own.  You might want to have the Canadians and Mexicans ally with the Russians to truly give the stateless society a run for its money (the Nicaraguans and Cubans aren't as credible as villians as they were in the mid 80s).  Maybe even the UN could fund some old-money new england families as a provisional government in Toronto.

I enjoy the fact that apparently the only example of anarchy worth mentioning is Somalia, but you all assume that your society will be on par with modern America.  You think you'll have a massive industry, high tech toys, and everyone will have their own tank.

Okay, how is all that stuff going to run?  How will the anarchistic area establish a common currency with which to trade together, let alone globally? 

blueback:

However, lets assume that the area has already been colonized so the military stays to protect their citizens.  Now what you have is an area occupied by the military and a bunch of civilians.  The military already established a perimeter around the colonized area, that is why it is colonized, so they can easily control flow across it; they just don't allow any.

blueback:

Most of the stuff anarchists talk about "has never happened in the history of the world." 

A "Nonstate" taking on a "State"? Civilians taking on the military? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?

The american colonists taking on the brittish govt? The american colonist were NOT a state, although each colony had their leaders. And they were civilians organizing themselves to take on a better funded and better armed military. Not only that, they were fighting an already entrenched military that was considered their own govt. Their big mistake was thinking they needed a gov't at all to replace the one they had just rid themselves of. Although, if you'll read the articles of confederation                   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation                                 they first did  consider small local governments that would band together for defense of each other.Canada was already preapproved if they wished to participate.

"Still at war with the Kingdom of Great Britain, the colonists were reluctant to establish another powerful national government. Jealously guarding their new independence, members of the Continental Congress created a loosely-structured unicameral legislature that protected the liberty of the individual states. While calling on Congress to regulate military and monetary affairs, for example, the Articles of Confederation provided no mechanism to force the states to comply with requests for troops or revenue. At times, this left the military in a precarious position, as George Washington wrote in a 1781 letter to the governor of Massachusetts, John Hancock."

I realize that weapons are much more efficient these days,but giving the right amount of money to the right persons can get you ANY weapons you desire. And do you really need weapons? I don't think Ghandi used any against the (armed)brittish corporation that already had control of the country he was living in.

Does anyone know who first advocated anarchy and when? Please post the answer if you do.

The mindset that you need a ruler is starting to fall by the wayside.One of the great things about our modern communication is the ability to share ideas, including the ones that point out that the old accepted ways of doing things may just be habits and not rational decisions.

blueback:

Anarchists seem to be really good at complaining about what exists and really bad about answering questions regarding their prescription to fix it.

I think you have been given many "prescriptions" here, some or all of which may work. And with billions of people available to come up with more, if none of the aforementioned works, I don't see how any problem that needs solving won't eventually be solved.

blueback:

I enjoy the fact that apparently the only example of anarchy worth mentioning is Somalia, but you all assume that your society will be on par with modern America.  You think you'll have a massive industry, high tech toys, and everyone will have their own tank.

Okay, how is all that stuff going to run?  How will the anarchistic area establish a common currency with which to trade together, let alone globally? 

I don't think that's a fair question at all, not unless you could answer the same question about any given modern society. Even assuming it is a fair question, it's not a very enlightening question to answer about anarchy, because the only answer that can be given is that people will do this as long as they have an interest in doing so, and that if they have an interest in doing so they will do it through a variety of means. If we thought there was a way to know the best way to structure global currency usage we wouldn't be anarchists, we would be statists.

However, we do understand that there isn't a way to know, so we're anarchists, and we can't answer your questions because the only thing we can rationally do is offer proscriptions (not prescriptions) against actions which are immoral, impose upon individual choice, and which clearly make things worse.

blueback:

Anarchism has never been tested meaningfully and has never proven that it is a viable, stable system of organization.

blueback:

  Most of the stuff anarchists talk about "has never happened in the history of the world." 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_and_present_anarchist_communities#The_autonomous_Shinmin_region_.281929-1

• 1.1 Celtic Ireland (650-1650)
• 1.2 Icelandic Commonwealth (930 to 1262)
• 1.3 An Early Anarchist Community in North Africa
• 1.4 Rhode Island (1636-1648)
• 1.5 Albemarle (1640s-1663)
• 1.6 Holy Experiment (Quaker) Pennsylvania (1681-1690)
• 1.7 Libertatia (1670s to 1690s)
• 1.8 Utopia (1847 to 1860s)
• 1.9 Modern Times (1851 to late 1860s)
• 1.10 Whiteway Colony (1898 to present)
• 1.11 Tolstoyan Agricultural Communes (1921-1937)
• 1.12 The autonomous Shinmin region (1929-1931)
• 1.13 Spanish revolution (1936 to 1939)
• 1.14 Anarchist Catalonia (1936 to 1939)
• 1.15 Israeli Kibbutz Movement
• 1.16 Freetown Christiania

• 2 Examples of revolts and uprisings with anarchist qualities
  • 2.1 Italian Factory Occupations and Councils
  • 2.2 Ukraine and the Makhnovist movement (1918 to 1921)
  • 2.3 Hungarian Revolution (1956)
  • 2.4 Situationist and Worker/Student Occupation Movement (May, 1968)
  • 2.5 Kwangju Uprising (May, 1980)
  • 2.6 Polish revolution/Solidarity 1980 to 1982
  • 2.7 Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities
  • 2.8 Cascadia Free State 1996 (US)
  • 2.9 Argentina (2001 to 2002)
  • 2.10 Abahlali baseMjondolo Rebellion: South Africa 2005 to Present
• 3 Examples of projects and other movements with anarchist qualities
  • 3.1 Cooperative businesses
  • 3.2 Squatter movements
  • 3.3 Laissez Faire City
  • 3.4 Free Software movement
  • 3.5 Western Sahara Exiles (1976 to Present)
931.29

 The american colonists taking on the brittish govt?

Wow, really?  I guess France was just cheering from the sidelines, huh?

the right amount of money to the right persons can get you ANY weapons you desire

I’ll allow that.  But can it get you someone who knows how to use the weapon?  Can it get you someone willing to die using the weapon?  Can it get you the support system necessary to employ the weapon?  Additionally, where is the “right” amount of money going to come from?  Anarchists can’t levy a tax to pay for a vitally necessary weapons system.  The best they could do would be to try to convince all the other anarchists that it was necessary and get them to chip in.  Assuming they were successful, what would be done with the weapons system after it was purchased and used?  Who would own it?  Who would maintain it?

our modern communication

Yeah, about that.  Why does everyone assume that they will have modern technology?  Well, I think they assume they will have it because it is the only way to make their system work.  Anarchism requires a free-flow of information from anywhere to everywhere.  That can’t be done, across an area of respectable size, without modern communication gear.  No one seems to have an idea how it will work, but they know that they need it, so obviously the invisible hand of the free market will produce it.

I don't see how any problem that needs solving won't eventually be solved

Are you sure that you have defined the problems correctly?  That is one of the most basic problem solving skills taught in grade school.  If you define your problem incorrectly you will not be able to solve it because it will not be solvable.  Are you sure that the existence of the state is really the problem?  If it’s not, then getting rid of the state won’t solve anything.

unless you could answer the same question about any given modern society

Okay.  Easy.  The state defines what money is, how much it is worth, and produces it.  The state also sets monetary policy, etc.  Since each state has its own definition of money, which is relatively stable because everyone in the country uses it, states can simply translate one standard of value into another.  The important thing is that change in money is very slow, which means people can depend on it being there tomorrow.  In an anarchist system what would stop people from changing the money system constantly?  How would people translate a value in one system accepted by a few people into a value in another system accepted by a few different people?

if they have an interest in doing so they will do it through a variety of means

I agree.  People will do pretty much whatever they are interested in doing whenever it is possible to do so.  However, what happens when you apply this to lying, cheating and stealing?  What happens when you apply this to the initiation of aggression?

the only thing we can rationally do is offer proscriptions (not prescriptions) against actions which are immoral, impose upon individual choice, and which clearly make things worse

If they clearly make things worse why is anarchism a fringe philosophy?  If it’s obvious, why doesn’t everyone agree?  I would say that the opposite is true.  That most people think the complete lack of a reliable structure in anarchy makes things worse, and the reliable structure of a state makes things better.

blueback:

The american colonists taking on the brittish govt?

Wow, really?  I guess France was just cheering from the sidelines, huh?

 Yes France was there, believe me it wasn't out of the "goodness" of their hearts, and they weren't the only ones aiding the colonists.

blueback:

The state defines what money is, how much it is worth, and produces it.  The state also sets monetary policy, etc.  Since each state has its own definition of money, which is relatively stable because everyone in the country uses it, states can simply translate one standard of value into another.  The important thing is that change in money is very slow, which means people can depend on it being there tomorrow.  In an anarchist system what would stop people from changing the money system constantly?  How would people translate a value in one system accepted by a few people into a value in another system accepted by a few different people?

The state sets monetary policy by force. Egold was doing quite well and had many happy customers till the USA decided they could be LOSING their share of OUR EARNINGS and so charged them with "money laundering".They aren't closing them down, of course, because they now have "roped and branded" another source of income for themselves. As for how people would translate a value in one system to a value in another system, it is already done billions of times a day all over the world.It is called currency exchange.

blueback:

I don't see how any problem that needs solving won't eventually be solved

 

Are you sure that you have defined the problems correctly?  That is one of the most basic problem solving skills taught in grade school.  If you define your problem incorrectly you will not be able to solve it because it will not be solvable.  Are you sure that the existence of the state is really the problem?  If it’s not, then getting rid of the state won’t solve anything.

 The only definition I supplied in this case was "needs solving". If it doesn't need solving, I guess its not a problem.

blueback:

the right amount of money to the right persons can get you ANY weapons you desire

 

I’ll allow that.  But can it get you someone who knows how to use the weapon?  Can it get you someone willing to die using the weapon?  Can it get you the support system necessary to employ the weapon?  Additionally, where is the “right” amount of money going to come from?  Anarchists can’t levy a tax to pay for a vitally necessary weapons system.  The best they could do would be to try to convince all the other anarchists that it was necessary and get them to chip in.  Assuming they were successful, what would be done with the weapons system after it was purchased and used?  Who would own it?  Who would maintain it?

Well, the owners or their agents

blueback:

Why does everyone assume that they will have modern technology?  Well, I think they assume they will have it because it is the only way to make their system work.  Anarchism requires a free-flow of information from anywhere to everywhere.  That can’t be done, across an area of respectable size, without modern communication gear.  No one seems to have an idea how it will work, but they know that they need it, so obviously the invisible hand of the free market will produce it.

Already been done, cell phones, radio, internet, all thanks to the free market. Yes I know that the forerunner of the internet was for US military use, but it was an independent contractor who developed it and he wasn't an american.

You know, you said that anarchists complain, but never come up with solutions. In this forum, I have seen you complain, but not put forth any solutions yourself.You might try it sometime. It's actually fun, and it's wonderful exercise for your brain!

blondie:

Yes France was there...and they weren't the only ones aiding the colonists.

Then we agree that the argument that the American Revolution was a bunch of anarchists banding together voluntarily to fend off a superpower is absurd.

blondie:

The state sets monetary policy by force

Yeah, I know, I said that.  We agree on that.  We disagree because I think it's a good idea and you think it's evil.

blondie:

It is called currency exchange

I said that too.  What I asked you was how that would work when an individual could invent their own money. 

blondie:

Well, the owners or their agents

 This is the sort of thing that makes me think you don't actually have any idea how anarchy would work, you just don't like taxes.  You skipped a half-dozen questions and supplied one absurdly obvious answer which doesn't really answer a question.  Again, you claimed that an expensive weapons system could be purchased as long as the money could be gotten together.  I asked you how anarchists would do that when they can't tax each other.  I also asked you how they would deal with the weapons system they all chipped in to buy when they didn't need it any more.  Who owns a thing that many people paid for?

blondie:

Yes I know that the forerunner of the internet was for US military use

So, you must be of the opinion that the internet would have been invented by anarchists if they'd had the chance.  Are you claiming that there is nothing a state could do that anarchists couldn't do?  Are you saying that anarchism is a direct replacement for the state?  If you are, why hasn't anarchism caught on?  If it is not only functionally equal to, but also morally superior to, states why is the world controlled by states and not anarchists?

blondie:

You...never come up with solutions. In this forum, I have seen you complain, but not put forth any solutions yourself.

 Ah, my favorite.  Deny, deny, deny, counter accuse.  I'm not being morally superior, I use that tactic too.  Anywho, don't think that your quick "flipping of the script" distracted me from the brevity and hollowness of your answers.  If you don't know, just say so.  I've never once said that anarchy is wrong.  I've only said that I don't see how it could work.  I am asking for clarification.  This entire website is devoted to the idea that anarchism should replace statism.  But you can't explain how anarchism would work.  Curious.

In regard to your assertion that I never present any solutions. . .I don't have to.  I think that things are pretty good the way they are.  The problems I think need solving are not being addressed on this forum; they would be off topic.  You think that the state is a problem that should be solved with anarchism.  However, the level of detail that has been contributed to this forum indicates that is a lot like saying that the Sun is a problem that should be solved with flashlights.

I keep giving you guys a chance to enlighten me.  I ask specific questions, not vague ones, that should be easy to answer if you have some idea what anarchism would look like.