Posts by fadedbison17

Maria Palmer2 said:Can anyone point me toward some spots in Washington, D.C. where I can play badminton just for fun? I was checking the Democratic Party website and it looks like most clubs around here are strictly competitive—and since I'm 27, I'm definitely not looking to go pro 🙂. I'd just love to find somewhere where I can pay a fee and actually learn the basics... my company offers free court time, but honestly, we look like total amateurs compared to the people playing there 😛. Badminton seems awesome and I'd really love to pick it up, just casually.

A buddy of mine (used to be a pro) started running his own training sessions, which is where I've been going. You might even be able to convince him to do private lessons for just you guys whenever works best...
His site: www.filiploncaric.com

Zachary Turner6 said:As someone currently studying computer science, among other things, 😁

Hmm... alright then.
But how exactly would you prevent a monopoly under that system? In a laissez-faire (or strictly liberal) capitalist framework, it's essentially "survival of the fittest"—the big fish eat the small fish, and the even bigger fish eventually consume them. It follows a sort of natural market law. However, what happens when one player achieves absolute dominance? It’s inevitable, really, since the status quo never lasts forever. We just end up facing a different kind of tyranny—not a state ruling over society, but a single private entity ruling over everyone else. If everyone is constantly pushing to become stronger just to survive, once someone reaches the top, they will inevitably use their massive advantage to ensure they stay there. How do you regulate that? 🤷

After all, looking at the US, we see a pretty prime example of why an economy struggles when it's left to be self-sustaining (essentially left entirely to its own devices).

P.S. I'm currently reading through that article you sent over. If I run into any points that seem problematic, I'll bring them up so we can dissect them.

Regarding our fellow tech guy🙂 I finished my CS degree, now I'm diving into philosophy.

Great question! Feels like you're actually looking for a real answer here, not just small talk.

I was gonna write out a full response but changed my mind. There's this one article that tackles exactly what you're asking. Hope I'm not being annoying by dropping a link instead of typing it all out, but after re-reading it myself, I figured you'd get much more consistent info from the source than anything I could scramble together in a single post. If anything sounds crazy or if you have follow-ups, I'm down to chat.
Again, sorry for the link dump instead of a direct answer, but this piece was literally written to address your exact dilemma... and honestly, it's way more insightful than a few back-and-forth posts. Hope that's cool 😉

A READER ASKS: In a society of laissez-faire capitalism, what would prevent the formation of powerful monopolies able to gain control over the entire economy?

Zachary Turner6 said:My apologies. There was a bit of a misunderstanding—I only skimmed your post before rushing to scribble down those nonsense remarks I thought were appropriate at the time. I'll try to make sure that doesn't happen again.
It turns out I was right all along: you can’t honestly claim something works until you’ve actually sat down and scrutinized its flaws. You have to see if those downsides are truly acceptable or—more importantly—if they’re even solvable. My professional training has always hammered home the importance of looking at any idea or system through a critical lens—which, in my experience, requires a thorough decomposition of every moving part. I don't aim to be "for" anything, nor am I "against" anything; I just prefer to approach everything with a healthy grain of salt.

It seems to me that you’re viewing anarchy solely as a tactical tool for fighting the state—which is fine, I suppose—but then you're left completely stranded once the state actually disappears. It's a bit of a logical dead end. Honestly, given your perspective, I can't say I'm surprised you've hit a wall there.

Anarchy is essentially a struggle—an intellectual battle, really—where the ultimate prize is individual liberty. Fine. We both get that. But let’s stay on track here. Look at the thread title again: we aren't actually debating the concept of freedom itself; we are discussing the actual socio-economic framework of an anarchist society.🙄

...
Take a deep breath... now exhale. Just for a second, try shifting your perspective and looking at anarchy not as a destination, but as a principle—a method for actually achieving something. Forget about the collapse of the state for a moment; that’s really just one byproduct of what you’re actually chasing. What you truly want is freedom. Your own individual freedom. It means having the autonomy to pursue whatever actually makes you happy. So, let me ask you—what is it that brings you fulfillment? That right there—that pursuit—is the real goal of anarchy.

...
Take a look at the thread title.
And I’d appreciate it if you could dial back the condescension just a bit.
Anyway—and I know I’m going off on a tangent here, so bear with me—has it ever occurred to you that our definitions of freedom might be worlds apart? It’s entirely possible that my concept of liberty and yours could clash violently when put into practice. How exactly do we resolve that? The reality is that the world is full of people who are either amoral or flat-out immoral; not everyone is a saint like us forum dwellers. So, how do we actually solve that problem?
You mentioned something about separating the responsible individuals from the irresponsible ones. I’m curious—how exactly does that work in practice? How do we actually sort them out, and more importantly, who on earth would be tasked with making that call?

Look, you’re ultimately the only one in the driver's seat when it comes to deciding what’s actually good for you—no one else gets a vote in that department. And once you’ve made up your mind? Well, you have the total freedom to go out and chase that goal using whatever methods you see fit.
It might sound pretty terrifying at first—that feeling of being completely on your own, where nobody is breathing down your neck telling you what to do or how to act... but maybe you actually enjoy the rush... imagining all those endless possibilities... having the absolute freedom to choose exactly what YOU want. That’s what true liberty looks like.

😲😲
I'm just jerking myself off here, honestly...
...look, I am trying my best to stay serious—I really am—but...😂😂

What you wrote holds water, my dear interlocutor, but once again: can we please try to stick to the actual topic in the title instead of churning out manifestos and political slogans, okay?

So, I'm actually pretty curious—what's your field? What do you do for a living? Just asking because it'd be cool to tailor my future examples to what you actually do... might make things a bit less abstract and more down-to-earth...

Zachary Turner6 said:My apologies. There was a bit of a misunderstanding—I only skimmed your post before rushing to scribble down those nonsense remarks I thought were appropriate at the time. I'll try to make sure that doesn't happen again.
It turns out I was right all along: you can’t honestly claim something works until you’ve actually sat down and scrutinized its flaws. You have to see if those downsides are truly acceptable or—more importantly—if they’re even solvable. My professional training has always hammered home the importance of looking at any idea or system through a critical lens—which, in my experience, requires a thorough decomposition of every moving part. I don't aim to be "for" anything, nor am I "against" anything; I just prefer to approach everything with a healthy grain of salt.

It seems to me that you’re viewing anarchy solely as a tactical tool for fighting the state—which is fine, I suppose—but then you're left completely stranded once the state actually disappears. It's a bit of a logical dead end. Honestly, given your perspective, I can't say I'm surprised you've hit a wall there.

Anarchy is essentially a struggle—an intellectual battle, really—where the ultimate prize is individual liberty. Fine. We both get that. But let’s stay on track here. Look at the thread title again: we aren't actually debating the concept of freedom itself; we are discussing the actual socio-economic framework of an anarchist society.🙄

...
Take a deep breath... now exhale. Just for a second, try shifting your perspective and looking at anarchy not as a destination, but as a principle—a method for actually achieving something. Forget about the collapse of the state for a moment; that’s really just one byproduct of what you’re actually chasing. What you truly want is freedom. Your own individual freedom. It means having the autonomy to pursue whatever actually makes you happy. So, let me ask you—what is it that brings you fulfillment? That right there—that pursuit—is the real goal of anarchy.

...
Take a look at the thread title.
And I’d appreciate it if you could dial back the condescension just a bit.
Anyway—and I know I’m going off on a tangent here, so bear with me—has it ever occurred to you that our definitions of freedom might be worlds apart? It’s entirely possible that my concept of liberty and yours could clash violently when put into practice. How exactly do we resolve that? The reality is that the world is full of people who are either amoral or flat-out immoral; not everyone is a saint like us forum dwellers. So, how do we actually solve that problem?
You mentioned something about separating the responsible individuals from the irresponsible ones. I’m curious—how exactly does that work in practice? How do we actually sort them out, and more importantly, who on earth would be tasked with making that call?

Look, you’re ultimately the only one in the driver's seat when it comes to deciding what’s actually good for you—no one else gets a vote in that department. And once you’ve made up your mind? Well, you have the total freedom to go out and chase that goal using whatever methods you see fit.
It might sound pretty terrifying at first—that feeling of being completely on your own, where nobody is breathing down your neck telling you what to do or how to act... but maybe you actually enjoy the rush... imagining all those endless possibilities... having the absolute freedom to choose exactly what YOU want. That’s what true liberty looks like.

😲😲
I'm just jerking myself off here, honestly...
...look, I am trying my best to stay serious—I really am—but...😂😂

What you wrote holds water, my dear interlocutor, but once again: can we please try to stick to the actual topic in the title instead of churning out manifestos and political slogans, okay?

Look, I don't really know how much you actually know about economics... just a heads up...
I’m assuming you get where I'm coming from—if anarchy is all about individual freedom, then it only makes sense that the economy should be just as free... no government regulations, no strings attached...

Zachary Turner6 said:My apologies. There was a bit of a misunderstanding—I only skimmed your post before rushing to scribble down those nonsense remarks I thought were appropriate at the time. I'll try to make sure that doesn't happen again.
It turns out I was right all along: you can’t honestly claim something works until you’ve actually sat down and scrutinized its flaws. You have to see if those downsides are truly acceptable or—more importantly—if they’re even solvable. My professional training has always hammered home the importance of looking at any idea or system through a critical lens—which, in my experience, requires a thorough decomposition of every moving part. I don't aim to be "for" anything, nor am I "against" anything; I just prefer to approach everything with a healthy grain of salt.

It seems to me that you’re viewing anarchy solely as a tactical tool for fighting the state—which is fine, I suppose—but then you're left completely stranded once the state actually disappears. It's a bit of a logical dead end. Honestly, given your perspective, I can't say I'm surprised you've hit a wall there.

Anarchy is essentially a struggle—an intellectual battle, really—where the ultimate prize is individual liberty. Fine. We both get that. But let’s stay on track here. Look at the thread title again: we aren't actually debating the concept of freedom itself; we are discussing the actual socio-economic framework of an anarchist society.🙄

...
Take a deep breath... now exhale. Just for a second, try shifting your perspective and looking at anarchy not as a destination, but as a principle—a method for actually achieving something. Forget about the collapse of the state for a moment; that’s really just one byproduct of what you’re actually chasing. What you truly want is freedom. Your own individual freedom. It means having the autonomy to pursue whatever actually makes you happy. So, let me ask you—what is it that brings you fulfillment? That right there—that pursuit—is the real goal of anarchy.

...
Take a look at the thread title.
And I’d appreciate it if you could dial back the condescension just a bit.
Anyway—and I know I’m going off on a tangent here, so bear with me—has it ever occurred to you that our definitions of freedom might be worlds apart? It’s entirely possible that my concept of liberty and yours could clash violently when put into practice. How exactly do we resolve that? The reality is that the world is full of people who are either amoral or flat-out immoral; not everyone is a saint like us forum dwellers. So, how do we actually solve that problem?
You mentioned something about separating the responsible individuals from the irresponsible ones. I’m curious—how exactly does that work in practice? How do we actually sort them out, and more importantly, who on earth would be tasked with making that call?

Look, you’re ultimately the only one in the driver's seat when it comes to deciding what’s actually good for you—no one else gets a vote in that department. And once you’ve made up your mind? Well, you have the total freedom to go out and chase that goal using whatever methods you see fit.
It might sound pretty terrifying at first—that feeling of being completely on your own, where nobody is breathing down your neck telling you what to do or how to act... but maybe you actually enjoy the rush... imagining all those endless possibilities... having the absolute freedom to choose exactly what YOU want. That’s what true liberty looks like.

😲😲
I'm just jerking myself off here, honestly...
...look, I am trying my best to stay serious—I really am—but...😂😂

What you wrote holds water, my dear interlocutor, but once again: can we please try to stick to the actual topic in the title instead of churning out manifestos and political slogans, okay?

So, I just caught the thread title... "economic models in anarchism."
You earned that condescending tone—I just assumed you were actually focused when you typed that out. Based on your last post, I figured I’d have to break things down for you step-by-step... but now that you've admitted you didn't even read my reply and were just rushing through it, I guess I was wrong to think you were actually dialed in. We can go back to the abstract stuff then... 😉

Zachary Turner6 said:My apologies. There was a bit of a misunderstanding—I only skimmed your post before rushing to scribble down those nonsense remarks I thought were appropriate at the time. I'll try to make sure that doesn't happen again.
It turns out I was right all along: you can’t honestly claim something works until you’ve actually sat down and scrutinized its flaws. You have to see if those downsides are truly acceptable or—more importantly—if they’re even solvable. My professional training has always hammered home the importance of looking at any idea or system through a critical lens—which, in my experience, requires a thorough decomposition of every moving part. I don't aim to be "for" anything, nor am I "against" anything; I just prefer to approach everything with a healthy grain of salt.

It seems to me that you’re viewing anarchy solely as a tactical tool for fighting the state—which is fine, I suppose—but then you're left completely stranded once the state actually disappears. It's a bit of a logical dead end. Honestly, given your perspective, I can't say I'm surprised you've hit a wall there.

Anarchy is essentially a struggle—an intellectual battle, really—where the ultimate prize is individual liberty. Fine. We both get that. But let’s stay on track here. Look at the thread title again: we aren't actually debating the concept of freedom itself; we are discussing the actual socio-economic framework of an anarchist society.🙄

...
Take a deep breath... now exhale. Just for a second, try shifting your perspective and looking at anarchy not as a destination, but as a principle—a method for actually achieving something. Forget about the collapse of the state for a moment; that’s really just one byproduct of what you’re actually chasing. What you truly want is freedom. Your own individual freedom. It means having the autonomy to pursue whatever actually makes you happy. So, let me ask you—what is it that brings you fulfillment? That right there—that pursuit—is the real goal of anarchy.

...
Take a look at the thread title.
And I’d appreciate it if you could dial back the condescension just a bit.
Anyway—and I know I’m going off on a tangent here, so bear with me—has it ever occurred to you that our definitions of freedom might be worlds apart? It’s entirely possible that my concept of liberty and yours could clash violently when put into practice. How exactly do we resolve that? The reality is that the world is full of people who are either amoral or flat-out immoral; not everyone is a saint like us forum dwellers. So, how do we actually solve that problem?
You mentioned something about separating the responsible individuals from the irresponsible ones. I’m curious—how exactly does that work in practice? How do we actually sort them out, and more importantly, who on earth would be tasked with making that call?

Look, you’re ultimately the only one in the driver's seat when it comes to deciding what’s actually good for you—no one else gets a vote in that department. And once you’ve made up your mind? Well, you have the total freedom to go out and chase that goal using whatever methods you see fit.
It might sound pretty terrifying at first—that feeling of being completely on your own, where nobody is breathing down your neck telling you what to do or how to act... but maybe you actually enjoy the rush... imagining all those endless possibilities... having the absolute freedom to choose exactly what YOU want. That’s what true liberty looks like.

😲😲
I'm just jerking myself off here, honestly...
...look, I am trying my best to stay serious—I really am—but...😂😂

What you wrote holds water, my dear interlocutor, but once again: can we please try to stick to the actual topic in the title instead of churning out manifestos and political slogans, okay?

Why would anyone bother doing that?
The detour was fine by me. Honestly, you'd probably pick up a ton of useful info if you gave this article a read. The whole dilemma you brought up with your tangent kind of solves itself if you look at it this way.Ayn Rand: Man's rights.
The piece breaks down exactly what rights are, how they actually work, and the whole connection between liberty and rights.

P.S. Just to be clear, I'm not pushing anarchy—you know, the total abolition of the state—because I just don't think it's realistic. I've laid out my reasons for that before. What I'm actually talking about is laissez-faire capitalism, where the government stays completely out of the economy (similar to anarchy), but still handles things like the courts, the military, and the police.

electrictiger70 said:I never said people are savage animals; that was your assertion. 😉 I was simply pointing out that certain structures and hierarchies exist—whether they are formally recognized or just informally enforced beneath the surface (for instance, in modern society, look at the gap between the letter of the law and how laws are actually enforced). Regarding social cases, the point isn't whether they exist or not, but rather that our current social order might encourage a minimal level of social solidarity that at least exists—I'm not convinced that kind of solidarity exists in the system you are promising.
You misunderstood me—I didn't say the state creates wealth either. We all know who actually creates wealth. However, wealth is primarily created through the accumulation of capital, not merely by producing goods for a larger number of people. This is both the greatest advantage and the greatest mess regarding capitalism: the wealthy capture a specific portion of society while others are impoverished. But at the same time, no other economic system provides this level of wealth-building speed, which is precisely why capitalism has endured for so long.
I took a look at that economist you suggested. I noticed he touches on some pretty compelling points regarding how this kind of wealth accumulation ends up impoverishing certain segments of society. I'm inclined to agree with him there, though I don't quite have the bandwidth to dive deep into his work right now—maybe I will down the road. Regardless, thanks for the recommendation.

You might feel like my take on economics and politics lacks realism, but that's because I approach it from a sociological perspective—looking at things like human motivation and social organizational structures. It seems to me you tend to view everything through a strictly economic lens. Furthermore, I get the impression you're operating from the standpoint of normative theory, especially when it comes to ideas about social order, whereas I focus more on what is actually achievable in practice. Perhaps you could give that some thought before our next debate. 😉

The whole "brutal animals" thing was because: I got the impression you think state organization is what makes people feel solidary, and I was trying to tell you I think that's a flawed assumption. People are solidary simply because that's who they are. If someone asks me for a dollar on the street, I don't give it to them because the government told me to—I give it because I actually wanted to help. People do so much good just because they want to, and honestly, I think people are way more well-intentioned than the way you describe them. Social structure doesn't have anything to do with it. I called people "brutal animals" because from your post, it seemed like you think humans are just beasts that will do whatever nasty things they want unless the government keeps an eye on them. What I'm advocating for (laissez-faire capitalism) recognizes that people are responsible for their own actions, and I truly believe a responsible person will be more well-intentioned because they're more aware of what they do and the impact it has.
I think you're looking at goodwill or solidarity from the wrong angle. It's the people who are solidary, not the state. You can't force anyone (not even the government) to be solidary. People are solidary because they choose to be. That's what I meant, hope that clears things up...

Where did the idea come from that under capitalism people get rich at the expense of others (which implies making them poor)? I don't think you could have read that in Mises. Or maybe I just misunderstood what you wrote...

I don't get how wealth is created through capital accumulation. How does anything get "created" by accumulating? You have to create something first before you can accumulate it. I feel like you were trying to say something else...

electrictiger70 said:I never said people are savage animals; that was your assertion. 😉 I was simply pointing out that certain structures and hierarchies exist—whether they are formally recognized or just informally enforced beneath the surface (for instance, in modern society, look at the gap between the letter of the law and how laws are actually enforced). Regarding social cases, the point isn't whether they exist or not, but rather that our current social order might encourage a minimal level of social solidarity that at least exists—I'm not convinced that kind of solidarity exists in the system you are promising.
You misunderstood me—I didn't say the state creates wealth either. We all know who actually creates wealth. However, wealth is primarily created through the accumulation of capital, not merely by producing goods for a larger number of people. This is both the greatest advantage and the greatest mess regarding capitalism: the wealthy capture a specific portion of society while others are impoverished. But at the same time, no other economic system provides this level of wealth-building speed, which is precisely why capitalism has endured for so long.
I took a look at that economist you suggested. I noticed he touches on some pretty compelling points regarding how this kind of wealth accumulation ends up impoverishing certain segments of society. I'm inclined to agree with him there, though I don't quite have the bandwidth to dive deep into his work right now—maybe I will down the road. Regardless, thanks for the recommendation.

You might feel like my take on economics and politics lacks realism, but that's because I approach it from a sociological perspective—looking at things like human motivation and social organizational structures. It seems to me you tend to view everything through a strictly economic lens. Furthermore, I get the impression you're operating from the standpoint of normative theory, especially when it comes to ideas about social order, whereas I focus more on what is actually achievable in practice. Perhaps you could give that some thought before our next debate. 😉

In this whole discussion, I’ve been trying to follow your logic and push back whenever I feel like your reasoning doesn't quite hold up. That way, you'll actually get where I'm coming from. 😉
My take is basically:
a) I'm not interested in normative theory—I'm looking at reality, specifically what actually works. I dive into academic books—economics, philosophy, whatever—and look at real-world examples. I don't buy into something until I see it playing out in front of me. I don't have a TV and I don't read the news. I just get enough info on what's happening through friends and people I run into on the street.
b) You say you focus on what's achievable—but really, you're just focusing on what *you* think is achievable, without realizing how much your view of politics and social order is being shaped by outside stuff. From what I can tell, you watch a lot of TV and read the papers... and those outlets feed you a very consistent stream of misinformation that ends up feeling true just because it's so repetitive.

By the way, it's pretty obvious you have an issue with the ideas I'm putting forward. Part of that is just because I've only given you tiny snippets of laissez-faire capitalism theory so far—unless you're psychic, it's not gonna make sense yet. 🙂

I see you as an emotionally mature person (which is a plus!) (just a wild guess here—maybe even a mom? 😉) who isn't leaning hard enough on the scientific side of things (which is a bummer because you're capable of more!). Drawing political conclusions based on emotion is... not great for most people. It might soothe your conscience or help someone temporarily, but in the long run, you need that scientific foundation.

electrictiger70 said:It is truly wonderful to be so young and fueled by such idealism 😍

So, let us say, for instance, that I sit down with these individuals in need and tell them, "Look, guys, it is time to step up; we are cutting off your assistance effective immediately, so deal with it however you can."

Suppose we are operating within that anarchist social structure.

Consider the possibility that, among the population, there are people who lack the will, the motivation, the desire, or even the physical means to provide for themselves. What happens next?

Do we just sit on our side of town and wait for the people on the other side to start starving to death? Do we pretend this isn't a societal issue until the starvation becomes so widespread that it forces our hand, at which point the entire group suddenly feels a wave of moral disgust? (The whole scenario keeps reminding me of that movie beach, I have a feeling a social system like that would end up in much the same way..)
And all of this because the theory we started with failed to account for these types of people.

You simply cannot assume that every single person wants to take full responsibility for themselves, nor can you assume that such a system would function without any form of regulation. It is like assuming every person is inherently altruistic and willing to share everything, so I abolish private property while refusing any form of oversight. Then, inevitably, a few people emerge who aren't wired that way, and within a month, we have chaos. Within two months, when people are fighting in the streets and burning down each other's houses, the entire concept collapses.

I am not saying that people are inherently evil or anything of the sort. I am merely stating that you cannot build a social order based on such a narrow view of human nature. At least, not one that lacks some form of regulation.

I have gathered the impression that you struggle to grasp political issues because you focus solely on problems affecting your immediate surroundings, which prevents you from seeing the broader picture.
In short—if the political climate is a certain way, it is because the majority believes it is acceptable or they lack a better alternative. To claim that the status quo is fixed and cannot be improved significantly suggests that you value public opinion more than your own convictions (or perhaps you just lack better ideas).
Just because a majority holds a certain belief does not mean they are right. If the majority is doing something wrong, it does not mean you should follow suit. But I feel I am becoming tedious; it seems we are not even discussing the same thing anymore.
The situation can change—it is vital to know what you are striving for—and of course, it won't transform overnight.

I have come to the conclusion that you simply fail to grasp the core of the matter, which is why you are now attempting to deflect this conversation to another thread. At no point did I claim that the current status quo is acceptable or that it cannot and should not be transformed. 🤷

It appears I will ultimately have to address the concept of authority 😍

And do you even comprehend what authority entails? Authority is not limited to a single person; it can be the authority of an institution, of law, or of morality. It can even be an idea that takes root in your mind until it becomes a moral authority—a source from which you draw your behavioral guidelines.

By refusing to recognize the authority of this society, you are actually acknowledging the authority of non-recognition itself, making that specific brand of freedom just as illusory. Even the act of following a particular ideology regarding social organization constitutes an acknowledgment of some authority—in this instance, the authority of an anarchist society. You may not perceive it that way, but you have merely swapped one form of authority for another.

The entire notion of a lack of authority sounds quite elegant, but it is unworkable. Without recognizing some form of authority, a society cannot exist, and it remains highly questionable whether an individual can exist at all.

Furthermore, I must admit that citing Voltaire—who believed the finest form of social organization was enlightened despotism—is somewhat jarring when placed in a context intended to support a system that advocates for the dismantling of all authority.

To acknowledge authority is to simultaneously admit that we are incapable of looking after ourselves.

Who says?

And to refuse to acknowledge authority is to live in a universe where you are your own sole moral compass (it is quite peculiar that anarchist philosophy emerged alongside the extremes of liberal individualism).😍) . And honestly, what would that even look like? It’s a ridiculous premise—I don't like what you're doing, so I'll hit you with a rock, and you hit me back with a club until we both end up dead (and probably take some bystanders with us), all because the rest of the crowd hasn't officially voted yet? Because apparently, in a pure democracy, nobody can touch anyone else until everyone has cast a ballot to stop the fight. 😍

Governments and politicians are essentially just babysitters for a mass population that behaves like a group of irresponsible teenagers on a collective level. As long as we act this way, it’s obvious we need a sitter. This dynamic ALWAYS leads to the same result: the moment there is a demand for "corrective authority," political ambitions arise within the very individuals who are least qualified to handle the job and who won't hesitate to use any means necessary to satisfy their own egos.

Once people finally wake up from this period of collective adolescence and realize that politics and democracy are nothing more than fairy tales akin to Santa Claus and woodland sprites—that is when we will see true anarchy, or perhaps a society truly free from the whims of individual willpower!

What does it actually mean to say "we aren't capable of taking care of ourselves"? We aren't, really. How could we possibly manage ourselves in a system of over 330 million people without some form of regulation? Would every single day, someone like Joe from a small town in Ohio and I would have to meet in the town square to vote on whether we need to change a lightbulb at the local library or fix a streetlamp in a suburb? Then we'd have to vote on whether to lower the sales tax. Then we'd debate whether the Federal Reserve should raise interest rates. Then we'd have to sit around explaining the concept of interest rates to Joe...😁
And once we actually reach a decision, who enforces it? Who steps up and says, "Alright, this is the ruling"? Isn't that person, simply by virtue of their position, already standing above everyone else?
And there you have it: one person sitting higher in the hierarchy than the rest. There are our social powers. And once again, it all falls apart. Are we just spinning in circles, or is it just my perception? 🤔

If you can come up with a way for complex social systems to function as rapidly as they do today while allowing every single individual within that system to participate in every decision (and feel free to explain how you'd motivate every single person to actually bother deciding), then maybe we can talk. If you actually pull that off, you'll likely walk away with a Nobel Prize 😍. But even then, you're still left with the problem of regulating the decision-making process itself. So, we find ourselves right back at the beginning 😁.

I agree that modern institutions are functioning far from optimal—"far from it" is an understatement—but the notion that a society can exist without some form of regulation and institutional structure is quite an illusion.

1.) What happened before welfare was even a thing? What happened to people who couldn't or wouldn't work back then? It feels like you can't even wrap your head around that possibility.
People aren't naturally savage animals that need a government to keep them in line. Your logic has a hole in it because bureaucrats are people too—why would they be any different from the other "savage animals"? It's not true that people turn into monsters just because they're free. That sounds like an irrational fear talking... 😉

2.) The theory of economic freedom—letting everyone spend money however they want—is proven to work better than anything else (check out any book by Ludwig von Mises if you want proof). It works better for the creators (they have more freedom, which means more incentive to produce). It also helps those in need—they get more opportunities to build something for themselves. Plus, it's always in the interest of the creators for society to thrive, since wealth is created by meeting the needs of as many people as possible. So, even those with less will always benefit indirectly.

Every political system is gonna have its share of social issues—it’s pretty naive to think there’s some perfect setup where those don't exist. When people can't wrap their heads around that, they start thinking the government is the one actually creating wealth. There isn't a single system out there where everyone gets exactly what they need... unless you consider the old Soviet Union an ideal. Even back then, nobody had enough; everyone just had basically nothing because the state decided that was all they needed.

Check out Ludwig von Mises—I think there's even a version translated into English. If you aren't looking to drop cash on books, his institute at mises.org has a solid free e-book (*Human Action*). They even released an audiobook version recently, so you don't even have to read it... you can just listen.

No offense, seriously! But your take on politics and economics just isn't grounded in reality. Not that I think you're being special about it 😉 Your explanations are super emotional, and I get why you don't want to buy into a theory that looks full of holes—especially if you're worried the consequences might be worse than the problems you're trying to fix. That’s actually healthy, rational thinking, and I respect it. But hey, since I pointed you toward where to get more info, you won't have any excuses if we ever dive into this again down the road 😉

Happy reading!

P.S. I'm not pushing anarchy here, just laissez-faire capitalism (keeping the economy separate from the state, while keeping things like courts, police, and the military under government control).

People aren't just animals meant to drift through life without purpose. You want a friend you can actually talk to—real connection. You want a career that actually means something to you. You want a partner who shares your core values. That’s what makes us human... if you run away from that stuff, you're just running away from your own nature. And trust me, that's a one-way ticket to being miserable. We're meant to find happiness as humans, not just exist like some mindless sheep or a whale out in the ocean.
Anyone telling you otherwise doesn't actually care about your happiness.

Zachary Turner6 said:Not quite. Sure, there are downsides, but there are benefits too. That said, when you're trying to judge the actual quality of a concept, I've always found it much more telling to scrutinize its flaws than to dwell on its perks.

I look at anarchy (even though—and I should clarify—I am not an anarchist) as a "positive." It is for something (individual liberty). For a person to truly be free, the state becomes an obstacle. That is why people want to move past it. The goal is freedom; dismantling the state is just one of the resulting consequences.

Fair enough. But what comes next once the state is gone? And just as importantly: how do we actually get there?

I wasn't talking about pros and cons of anarchy—I was talking about seeing anarchy as a principle used to achieve SOMETHING. Let me rephrase so it hopefully clicks...
Do me a favor and just focus for a second... relax... drop the tension in your shoulders and neck... don't rush through this... just breathe... while you read.

When I said "negative," I meant viewing anarchy as a principle where the main goal is being AGAINST something.
...
When I said "positive," I meant viewing anarchy as a principle where the main goal is working FOR something.

It seems like you're stuck seeing anarchy strictly as a tool to fight the government, so then you're lost once the government is gone. Totally understandable given your perspective...
...
Deep breath... exhale... and just try to flip the script for a moment and see anarchy as a principle for building something. Forget about the state disappearing for a sec... that's just one byproduct of what you're actually after. What you really want is freedom... *your* freedom. That means being able to do whatever makes you happy. ... So, what makes you happy? ... See, that's the whole point of anarchy.

Zachary Turner6 said:Not quite. Sure, there are downsides, but there are benefits too. That said, when you're trying to judge the actual quality of a concept, I've always found it much more telling to scrutinize its flaws than to dwell on its perks.

I look at anarchy (even though—and I should clarify—I am not an anarchist) as a "positive." It is for something (individual liberty). For a person to truly be free, the state becomes an obstacle. That is why people want to move past it. The goal is freedom; dismantling the state is just one of the resulting consequences.

Fair enough. But what comes next once the state is gone? And just as importantly: how do we actually get there?

You're free to decide for yourself what's best for you. And then, you have the freedom to go out and make it happen however you see fit.
Maybe that sounds a little scary... being totally on your own... nobody telling you what you should or shouldn't do... but maybe you'll dig it... the excitement... imagining all the possibilities open to you... You're free to choose what YOU want... That's what freedom is...

Get it? 😉

Zachary Turner6 said:Anarchism is the struggle—the necessity of dismantling the existing social structures and organizations that we've already established are fundamentally broken.

Even if those organizations and power structures (the way resources and authority are distributed) were successfully dismantled—meaning the anarchists actually achieved their goal of social anarchy—we'd still face a dilemma.

Anarchy becomes the new status quo.
It might serve as a transitional phase, because once the conflict ends—since the goal has been met—you have to move toward a state of peace to actually progress. Beyond that, there's a practical need to rebuild some form of rules and structure (which won't exist since we just tore everything down), because without some framework, there is no community. And let's face it, humans are inherently zoon politikon—social animals, right?

So, where does that leave us? Anarchism fails to move past the state of anarchy itself. Constant anarchy cannot be a sustainable or desirable permanent state for the reasons I've laid out, and therein lies the problem.

My apologies, I went over your limit—that was essentially three premises plus a conclusion (an aporia). Elaborate on that, and then we can dive into the details.😉

Sounds like you’re viewing anarchy as a "negative"—it's against something (the state). So once the state is gone, there's nothing left to be against. It's like you think the whole point of anarchy is just destroying the government for the sake of it.

I look at anarchy (even though, mind you, I'm no anarchist) as a "positive." It's for something (individual liberty). For a person to actually be free, the state gets in the way. That's why people want to move past it. The goal is freedom, and getting rid of the state is just one of the results...

electrictiger70 said:Of course, I was simply trying to point out that this online collaborative economy is still nowhere near true anarchism. Though, in my view, it definitely represents a very positive middle finger to capitalism. 😍

Quincy:

nothing is ever truly free. there is always some sort of profit motive behind it for someone. neither the Google teams, nor Mozilla, nor the people behind phenomena like YouTube or Facebook are altruists doing this for the greater good of humanity—even if users feel like things are "free." you moderators are my idols of selflessness (assuming you are indeed volunteers, which I have no reason to doubt). but hey, you know how it goes—people tend to value most what they can't have.😁😢🙂 But everyone else benefits from it too (myself included, and let's not forget that), so it's completely irrelevant to me whether someone profits from me chatting with friends or watching video clips. Honestly, I'd give anything for that concept to hold true!🙏

I agree with you. But from what I understand, the idea of anarchy implies that things should be, in some sense, entirely free. I am merely saying that such a thing is an illusion.

No, I don't see them that way. I just think the average citizen, say in a place like Chicago, doesn't really have the desire to spend their limited free time deciding on amendments to some specific law or debating a particular budget item. I'm not saying that's a good thing, and it would certainly be great if they did, but I think anarchism fails by conflating its idealized vision of how people *should* behave with how people actually *do* behave.
Naturally, it would be better if people had more opportunities to participate in decision-making. However, one must account for the fact that humans are not inherently altruistic beings whose primary motivation is thinking about the collective good. Perhaps some are, I won't deny that, but the majority of people will naturally prioritize their own interests first.
Then you run into this whole cascade of systemic issues. Take the education gap, for instance—you have people who haven't even finished high school struggling to grasp basic concepts like a federal budget reallocation.
I am telling you, it is not that simple. You have to resolve an entire spectrum of foundational problems just to reach a point where someone possesses the actual capacity to contemplate social issues. And even then, you are still left with the problem of motivation, which, in my view, is the most significant hurdle of all.

Quincy:

The reality is that some people simply do not care. If you look at it from the perspective of those generating wealth—those actually producing value for the country versus those who aren't—the solution to making life easier for them is economic freedom. It is the freedom to retain what they earn.

But isn't that, in a sense, a deeply selfish worldview? What about investing in the community? What about supporting socially vulnerable groups?

Quincy:

One of the greatest advantages of living in a society is cooperation with others through the exchange of goods. This implies that absolutely everyone would benefit if we prioritized the producers. That includes the very social cases you are mentioning.

However, a pure barter system would slow down the economy and progress so drastically that it would throw us back into the Middle Ages. That is simply not viable in the 21st century; it is completely unrealistic. Imagine if you needed internet access, but first you had to negotiate with AT&T regarding exactly how many chickens your connection was worth 😁. You bring three chickens to the counter, only to be told that the exchange rate isn't quite right 🤣, forcing you to invent a new currency on the spot... Large-scale systems simply cannot function without some form of standardization. A barter system might work in tiny, isolated communities, but large nations would collapse under such an organization, or descend into total chaos.
This is my fundamental issue with anarchism. I want to improve society, and I certainly don't believe our current system is perfect, but let’s try to discuss things in terms of what is real, achievable, and practical.

Quincy:

Why should a bureaucrat decide how to redistribute the wealth created by a business owner? Who actually benefits from that? You might see short-term relief for social programs, but in the long run, you are merely incentivizing irresponsibility.

True, but if the kind of arrangement advocated by anarchism were actually implemented, the wealth that entrepreneurs create wouldn't exist in the first place. 🤷 Bartering goods is certainly not a sustainable economic foundation for societal progress.
So, instead, let us think about it this way: let the entrepreneurs focus on creating wealth, and then we attempt to figure out how the total accumulated wealth of a nation can be distributed most effectively so that no one—or at least the majority—is left behind. We should focus on designing mechanisms that channel that wealth toward the general public good.

Quincy:

Furthermore, by using economic repression, you're effectively stripping away any incentive for people struggling on welfare to actually build something or take ownership of their lives. Why would anyone bother creating value when the government is just going to seize it anyway, or when they can simply rely on some other entrepreneur being forced to hand over what they earned just to keep them afloat? That kind of logic only serves to breed more irresponsibility. What kind of society would you actually want to live in—one built on individual responsibility, or one where everyone is essentially unaccountable?

Those are all very noble ideas you're presenting, but have you ever actually dealt with someone on public assistance in person? I think you might be surprised by how many of them truly have zero interest in taking responsibility for themselves. Of course, there are exceptions, but shouldn't our focus be on building an economy that uses market mechanisms to prevent these social issues from arising in the first place, rather than trying to force people to become more responsible through mandate? 🤷

You cannot design a social structure based on the assumption that human behavior will align with our ideals, or that we can somehow coerce people into being more responsible. It’s a lovely thought, and certainly something worth dreaming about, but as a starting point for organizing a society, it simply fails the reality test. Perhaps people don't want to be "responsible" in the way this argument suggests. If I understand you correctly, being responsible in this context requires a massive investment of time, resources, and intellect into the community at large. Who is going to do that when they could much more easily spend those resources on self-improvement? If memory serves, even in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, there wasn't a specific tier dedicated to communal investment; there was a focus on self-actualization, and only after that does the desire for altruism emerge. That likely applies to maybe 1% of the population, certainly not 90%. Assuming the majority of people act this way ignores the actual state of human nature.

I am certain that within such an anarchic structure, someone would immediately step up to figure out how to exploit the entire system for profit. Predicting the emergence of these types of individuals is the fundamental flaw of anarchism; they undermine the entire concept before it even gets off the ground. 🤷

Heh, I think we had a bit of a misunderstanding. I'm not suggesting (nor does anarchism suggest, as far as I know) getting rid of money entirely. Maybe I didn't word that right.
What I was actually getting at is that economic freedom is a win for everyone. Regarding those social welfare cases you brought up—I already told you—just go ask those people if they’d rather have the chance to earn their own way or have the government hand them stuff out of pity. If you actually respect people, you give them the opportunity to take care of themselves instead of treating them like they're helpless and need a handout. You sound like you know how social services work—so why not just talk to them?

I get the feeling you might be missing the bigger picture because you're focusing too much on local issues that hit close to home... In short—if the political climate is a mess, it's because most people either think it's fine or they don't have a better idea. Saying things can't change for the better just means you're prioritizing what everyone else thinks over your own principles (or maybe you just don't have any better ideas).
Just because the majority believes something doesn't make it right. And if the majority is doing something wrong, that doesn't mean you should follow suit. But I'm starting to ramble now, feels like we aren't even talking about the same thing anymore 😉
Things *can* change—you just gotta know what you're aiming for—and obviously, it won't happen overnight.

I've managed to tangle myself up in this debate so much I don't even know how to get out of it...🙂
Let's just save this argument for another day 😉

Zachary Turner6 said:The enforcement elements of a system shouldn't exist to "force" anyone to be responsible; their purpose is to protect those who are from those who aren't. It all comes down to implementation and how those enforcement arms actually function: I am willing to VOLUNTARILY accept the police, for instance, as a necessity that protects my rights—but that obviously comes with certain duties, too. Ideally, the police would act more like a moderator gently nudging you in the right direction, rather than slamming you over the head every single time you cross a line. In other words, an organization doesn't necessarily have to be bad—nor does its structure or the power it holds over me—provided that I VOLUNTARILY grant it that power.
I'm against any kind of repression, and just so we're clear, until a few years ago, I used to get quite carried away with anarchist ideas. However, I started looking at them critically very quickly and found plenty of holes in the logic; now, through these discussions, I'm seeing if I can patch at least some of those gaps.
Someone once mentioned that anarchism should be viewed as a tool rather than a final destination. I think they hit the nail on the head.

I get where you're coming from.
I remember learning about the two types of freedom—negative and positive.
Positive freedom is stuff like: you gotta pay taxes to the government, or you gotta serve in the military... sounds a lot like a duty.
Negative freedom is more like: you just can't hurt anyone else (basically, you can do whatever you want as long as you aren't causing harm). That doesn't feel like a duty. If you look at it logically, you aren't really giving anything up.
To me, that "positive freedom" feels a lot like repression.

You've got me interested. I'm actually a fan of something similar to anarchism—if by anarchy you mean getting rid of the state entirely to maximize individual liberty. We're talking total separation of state and economy... where the government only handles the police, the military, and the courts—pure laissez-faire capitalism (think Ayn Rand and Objectivism).
If you want to dive into those anarchist loopholes you mentioned, I'd love to hear what you think is broken. If you write it out, try to keep each hole to just 3 sentences max, please.

electrictiger70 said:👍 Exactly. Without institutions, it is difficult for a society to even exist. In such a vacuum, anyone could do whatever they wanted—for instance, if someone stole from me, I could burn their house down or hit them over the head with a club, and no one would be able to stop me.

I believe the government is necessary, but only as a minimal participant (much smaller than it is today)—strictly limited to the military, the police, and the judiciary. The state should be completely decoupled from the economy.

A state that is entirely disconnected from the economy would struggle to function, because that is essentially attempting to rely on Adam Smith’s invisible hand, and we have already seen that it doesn't always work. A market completely severed from the state ignores social needs entirely; it results in a market where people are left at the mercy of raw capitalism.

Still, it seems to me that the core issue isn't primarily economic, though the economy certainly has its issues (after all, where does progress and the drive to improve come from without competition? 🤷), but rather a matter of social organization.

I suspect people wouldn't know how to handle that level of responsibility if they had to decide everything themselves. It seems to me that most people have no desire to deal with social issues at all. Furthermore, there always seems to be a need for someone to make the final call—even if decisions are made based on some form of social consensus, there still has to be someone to count the votes and announce the results. Whether they want to or not, that person holds a privileged position, which inherently grants them a greater degree of social power and influence than everyone else—which effectively dismantles the entire concept of anarchy.
So, I don't know. To me, this version of anarchy is nothing more than a pure utopia.

Sounds like you view people as irresponsible and unwilling to look out for themselves. Sure, some people don't care, but looking at it from the perspective of those actually building wealth (the state, or those not producing anything), the solution is economic freedom. Let people keep what they earn. One of the best parts of living in a community is cooperating with others—trading goods and services. That means everyone wins if we prioritize the producers. And yeah, that includes those social cases you mentioned.
Why should some bureaucrat get to decide how to redistribute the wealth a business owner creates? Who actually benefits? Maybe if you're thinking short-term, the social cases win, but long-term you're just enabling their lack of responsibility.
Plus, using economic repression makes it impossible for social cases who *do* want to achieve something (take responsibility) to actually build anything. Why bother creating when the government is just going to take it anyway? Or when they can just rely on some other businessman being forced to give them what he earned?
Thinking like that just fuels irresponsibility.

What kind of society would you actually want to live in—one where people are responsible, or one where they aren't?

Zachary Turner6 said:And right there we hit the necessity for certain repressive elements within a society. Anarchism would function beautifully—mostly because it relies on individual, human responsibility—if *everyone* were equally conscientious and accountable. However, how do you stop those who aren't from causing harm to the rest of society? That’s another question left hanging in the air.

Bravo, servantes!

-> As someone working in IT, I’d argue that those setups aren't just theoretical; they are already actively being used.
Your first point is pure web advertising—take YouTube or Dropbox, for instance. They are great examples: free sites, free uploads, free downloads; the end user doesn't pay a single cent, yet these platforms have the potential to generate multi-million dollar revenues. How? Through advertising. And these are essentially virtual companies, networking their resources via a decentralized web that belongs to no one.

Furthermore: Dropbox or BitTorrent are excellent examples of open-source software that undergoes constant, iterative updates...

And moving further: how do you even envision a stock market that doesn't track supply and demand? There are people—hell, entire corporations—whose sole business is selling INFORMATION that influences the market (which is a massive amount of data), thereby driving both supply and demand. All stock exchanges are interconnected within the global market and remain interdependent—this recent crisis is just another perfect example of how the whole world suffers due to the total incompetence of Americans.

The other two points are theoretically viable, but they're far too susceptible to manipulation to maintain any actual credibility.

There you go, suburban—a little something for a seminar topic: link anarchism (philosophy) with web technologies (computer science) to find ways of distributing goods (information and capital) that align with anarchist principles (economics). Since agriculture isn't the primary driver anymore, information is the key. It's the most powerful form of capital out there today.

You basically answered your own question there. Not EVERYONE is going to be perfect or super responsible—now or ever. Let's just face that reality and let the folks who actually want to act right live in peace. We can make sure they stay protected from the scammers and cheats through objective justice... and leave the irresponsible ones to their own devices. They'll realize pretty quickly that being a jerk doesn't work when nobody's cleaning up after them.

Thinking repression will force someone to be responsible is a total illusion. Same goes for thinking some bureaucrat (or the government) knows better than any single person out there...
Just protect the good people—they're the ones who actually matter—and don't go hitting them with repression just because they're doing things right.

Peter Parker62 said:I guess it’s probably unnecessary for us all to keep repeating definitions of anarchism. I think it’s pretty clear to everyone here what we're talking about. There's that small minority that views it as just a state of pure chaos—seeing it as a potential "man is a wolf to man" situation—but if you look at the English Wikipedia, there are some really well-developed classifications of different types of anarchism, and honestly, the internet is full of shorter excerpts if anyone actually wants to read up on it.

What I'm specifically interested in, though, is how certain theories hold up in practice. For instance, Bakunin argues that the bourgeoisie ascend to management positions where they rake in unrealistically massive salaries, claiming they deserve it because their jobs are harder or carry more responsibility than those of the workers. But on the flip side, he suggests these positions should either be paid equally or, even better, the whole concept of management and administration should be scrapped entirely in favor of giving oversight of the facilities directly to the people. My first question is—what happens if you have a construction firm, say, where more than 50% of the employees are FBI agents or perhaps skilled tradespeople? I don't want to sound condescending, but those individuals might not necessarily be qualified to handle the economic or financial side of things. Then there's the second scenario: a massive corporation like Microsoft or some other giant. You'd still need to organize some kind of councils, committees, or boards, because you simply can't have a million employees deciding every tiny detail of business operations through a democratic vote. I also realize I made an inherent error by using the term "employees"—that word probably needs to be tossed out too. After all, who would coordinate and oversee everything?

On the other hand, regarding the abolition of the state itself—rather than just corporate structures—I see a potential opportunity for creating numerous voluntary funds that people could contribute to. To me, a system like that seems like an excellent replacement for sales tax, which, let's face it, feels like a constant, legalized robbery the government commits against its citizens.
Just to clarify the concept: you'd have a fund for infrastructure, a fund for cancer research, a fund for space exploration, maybe even a fund for religion (though I'm pretty convinced those folks would find a way to turn a profit very quickly... they're talented at that sort of thing), and so on.
For example, at the end of the month, if I'm frustrated with slow internet speeds, I could just pay $50, $100, or whatever amount I feel like into a telecommunications fund. Or I might pay a certain amount into a transit fund because I just blew out my car's suspension hitting a pothole. At a certain point, it just feels better to pay up and live comfortably rather than refuse to pay and deal with crumbling roads everywhere.

I suppose the fundamental principle, which always seems to get lost in the shuffle, should be that we—the people—are primary. Any form of governance, non-governance, or institutional setup exists solely to serve us. If a government starts suffocating us, stealing from us, or dragging us into wars, then it needs to go, because it has started existing merely for its own sake (which is how most modern states operate). But then again, if an institution is actually doing good (why shouldn't a state be?), then it ought to be preserved, because serving the people is its ultimate purpose, right?..

People in high-level roles carry more weight—more focus required, more mental heavy lifting—so it’s totally normal, and honestly fair, that they pull in more cash.
I was grabbing a ride in Los Angeles recently and chatting with a driver who's been at it for about 20 years. I asked him why he hasn't started his own business after all this time, especially since he knows the industry inside and out. He just said—man, who wants that kind of headache? What if someone comes at you with a complaint? Then you're stuck dealing with the fallout (that's the responsibility part).
The point is, we should be freeing people from unnecessary chains and letting those who want to be hyper-productive go for it—low taxes, fair courts, basically letting the government stay out of the economy. Just let talented, ambitious people do their thing without interference (classic Laissez-faire capitalism). Indirectly, even the less driven folks end up benefiting from that.
The answer isn't to pile on more regulations that just end up neutering the people who are actually responsible and entrepreneurial. That path doesn't lead to equality—it just leads to everyone having nothing.

Peter Parker62 said:I guess it’s probably unnecessary for us all to keep repeating definitions of anarchism. I think it’s pretty clear to everyone here what we're talking about. There's that small minority that views it as just a state of pure chaos—seeing it as a potential "man is a wolf to man" situation—but if you look at the English Wikipedia, there are some really well-developed classifications of different types of anarchism, and honestly, the internet is full of shorter excerpts if anyone actually wants to read up on it.

What I'm specifically interested in, though, is how certain theories hold up in practice. For instance, Bakunin argues that the bourgeoisie ascend to management positions where they rake in unrealistically massive salaries, claiming they deserve it because their jobs are harder or carry more responsibility than those of the workers. But on the flip side, he suggests these positions should either be paid equally or, even better, the whole concept of management and administration should be scrapped entirely in favor of giving oversight of the facilities directly to the people. My first question is—what happens if you have a construction firm, say, where more than 50% of the employees are FBI agents or perhaps skilled tradespeople? I don't want to sound condescending, but those individuals might not necessarily be qualified to handle the economic or financial side of things. Then there's the second scenario: a massive corporation like Microsoft or some other giant. You'd still need to organize some kind of councils, committees, or boards, because you simply can't have a million employees deciding every tiny detail of business operations through a democratic vote. I also realize I made an inherent error by using the term "employees"—that word probably needs to be tossed out too. After all, who would coordinate and oversee everything?

On the other hand, regarding the abolition of the state itself—rather than just corporate structures—I see a potential opportunity for creating numerous voluntary funds that people could contribute to. To me, a system like that seems like an excellent replacement for sales tax, which, let's face it, feels like a constant, legalized robbery the government commits against its citizens.
Just to clarify the concept: you'd have a fund for infrastructure, a fund for cancer research, a fund for space exploration, maybe even a fund for religion (though I'm pretty convinced those folks would find a way to turn a profit very quickly... they're talented at that sort of thing), and so on.
For example, at the end of the month, if I'm frustrated with slow internet speeds, I could just pay $50, $100, or whatever amount I feel like into a telecommunications fund. Or I might pay a certain amount into a transit fund because I just blew out my car's suspension hitting a pothole. At a certain point, it just feels better to pay up and live comfortably rather than refuse to pay and deal with crumbling roads everywhere.

I suppose the fundamental principle, which always seems to get lost in the shuffle, should be that we—the people—are primary. Any form of governance, non-governance, or institutional setup exists solely to serve us. If a government starts suffocating us, stealing from us, or dragging us into wars, then it needs to go, because it has started existing merely for its own sake (which is how most modern states operate). But then again, if an institution is actually doing good (why shouldn't a state be?), then it ought to be preserved, because serving the people is its ultimate purpose, right?..

Maybe some core essentials—like the police or the military (not counting mechanics, the internet, or religious groups 😉)—could be funded through a national lottery? You know, fund the stuff the government actually needs to regulate that way, and let everything else stay private. Private ownership is great because it actually gives people an incentive to produce things—they get to keep what they earn. It’s an illusion to think some bureaucrat is gonna do a better job than someone actually trying to succeed. Same goes for honesty—it's a myth that bureaucrats are more upright than entrepreneurs. Maybe we should start emphasizing that being ambitious doesn't automatically mean you're greedy... kind of like the vibe in *Atlas Shrugged* by Ayn Rand.

Peter Parker62 said:I guess it’s probably unnecessary for us all to keep repeating definitions of anarchism. I think it’s pretty clear to everyone here what we're talking about. There's that small minority that views it as just a state of pure chaos—seeing it as a potential "man is a wolf to man" situation—but if you look at the English Wikipedia, there are some really well-developed classifications of different types of anarchism, and honestly, the internet is full of shorter excerpts if anyone actually wants to read up on it.

What I'm specifically interested in, though, is how certain theories hold up in practice. For instance, Bakunin argues that the bourgeoisie ascend to management positions where they rake in unrealistically massive salaries, claiming they deserve it because their jobs are harder or carry more responsibility than those of the workers. But on the flip side, he suggests these positions should either be paid equally or, even better, the whole concept of management and administration should be scrapped entirely in favor of giving oversight of the facilities directly to the people. My first question is—what happens if you have a construction firm, say, where more than 50% of the employees are FBI agents or perhaps skilled tradespeople? I don't want to sound condescending, but those individuals might not necessarily be qualified to handle the economic or financial side of things. Then there's the second scenario: a massive corporation like Microsoft or some other giant. You'd still need to organize some kind of councils, committees, or boards, because you simply can't have a million employees deciding every tiny detail of business operations through a democratic vote. I also realize I made an inherent error by using the term "employees"—that word probably needs to be tossed out too. After all, who would coordinate and oversee everything?

On the other hand, regarding the abolition of the state itself—rather than just corporate structures—I see a potential opportunity for creating numerous voluntary funds that people could contribute to. To me, a system like that seems like an excellent replacement for sales tax, which, let's face it, feels like a constant, legalized robbery the government commits against its citizens.
Just to clarify the concept: you'd have a fund for infrastructure, a fund for cancer research, a fund for space exploration, maybe even a fund for religion (though I'm pretty convinced those folks would find a way to turn a profit very quickly... they're talented at that sort of thing), and so on.
For example, at the end of the month, if I'm frustrated with slow internet speeds, I could just pay $50, $100, or whatever amount I feel like into a telecommunications fund. Or I might pay a certain amount into a transit fund because I just blew out my car's suspension hitting a pothole. At a certain point, it just feels better to pay up and live comfortably rather than refuse to pay and deal with crumbling roads everywhere.

I suppose the fundamental principle, which always seems to get lost in the shuffle, should be that we—the people—are primary. Any form of governance, non-governance, or institutional setup exists solely to serve us. If a government starts suffocating us, stealing from us, or dragging us into wars, then it needs to go, because it has started existing merely for its own sake (which is how most modern states operate). But then again, if an institution is actually doing good (why shouldn't a state be?), then it ought to be preserved, because serving the people is its ultimate purpose, right?..

Exactly. The government should be facilitating growth and individual freedom—not just collecting taxes, playing pretend businessman (building bridges and whatever...), and treating citizens like they're too incompetent to think or fight for themselves. They act like this overbearing parent who "knows" what's best for everyone.

Peter Parker62 said:While I was digging through various anarchist texts for a research paper I'm working on, I noticed a pattern. It seems like most of the philosophers and critics I've come across focus almost entirely on the ideology itself—basically just arguing why the state is a bad idea and why it needs to be dismantled. They might touch on getting rid of our current version of capitalism, but it feels like a secondary thought in most of the literature I've read so far.
On the flip side, it feels like hardly anyone—maybe nobody?—actually offers a concrete roadmap for solving the practical problems. Like, if you're planning to get rid of the whole employer-employee dynamic, how does labor actually get organized? If the goal is to scrap money, how do we handle the exchange of goods and services? How would production, transportation, and supply chains even function? I mean, we keep circling back to the same issue: how am I supposed to pay for bread and milk at the grocery store? It’s pretty obvious that offering some random service to the cashier isn't exactly the most efficient solution... (and let's be honest, that's probably not going to work out well either).
Basically, I was wondering if anyone could share their thoughts on what an economic system under these conditions might look like. Also, if you have any reading recommendations—ideally stuff available online—that would be great.

Since my paper isn't quite finished yet, it would also be really helpful if you could mention what you see as the biggest flaws in a final state of anarchy, or even the flaws in the transition process leading up to it...

Thanks, 🙂

Hey!

Not sure which philosophers you've been hitting up? From what I know, most writers on anarchism are all about nuking the state (laws)—basically saying everything should be private property. The goal of this kind of political setup is max individual freedom... meaning no one has the right to tell you what you can or can't do. That doesn't mean getting rid of money. People who want to kill off cash are usually just utopians. Just like most political systems, anarchists view money as a tool for exchange. Instead of farmers swapping grain back in the day (and using that grain to get whatever else they needed), money serves the same purpose. Money doesn't actually shrink individual freedom—if anything, it boosts it. Real anarchists push for capitalism (aka economic freedom)—they aren't trying to limit it. Utopians are the ones who want to scrap private property and money entirely—making everything "communal," or owned by the state.

Anyway, if you actually meant anarchists and not utopians, here's my take on the pros and cons.
The biggest pro is definitely the individual liberty anarchism aims for. Everyone's responsible for their own life, and nobody gets to meddle in what you choose to do. Promoting self-responsibility feels like a solid recipe for living a happy, fulfilling life... The biggest con is that anarchists don't seem to see the need for an institution (like a state within a specific area) to protect citizens from people using force against them. This means anarchists don't want objective justice (equal laws for everyone), which I think is super necessary. You need an unbiased party to set objective rules that apply to everyone in a given territory. Anarchists lean toward private police and private militaries. But if police are private, you end up with tons of different agencies, each with its own set of rules. The headache starts if I subscribe to one police service and my neighbor subscribes to another. Imagine I do something my police say is fine, but my neighbor's police say is illegal. We both call our respective cops, they both show up at my door—and then you've got a massive, unsolvable mess on your hands. That's why I think you need an institution to set objective, equal laws for all citizens.

I think government is necessary, but only as a minimal player—way smaller than what we have now—basically just the military, police, and the courts. Everything else should be totally decoupled from the economy.

As for those utopians... honestly, they seem like naive people who dodge reality by daydreaming about how things *should* work instead of actually thinking about how they *do* work. Take the idea of getting rid of money—utopians don't realize that individuals are the ones creating wealth (which money just represents), while the state (like some massive federal bureaucracy) can really only spend it. They think abolishing money will end poverty, but the truth is everyone is poor unless they decide to actually produce something. If you kill the way we measure wealth, you won't make everyone rich; you'll just make everyone broke. I'm sure you see the contradiction in saying bureaucrats are capable businessmen—they aren't actually producers.
The best proof of what happens when the state tries to scrap private property—that whole utopian drive—is the Soviet Union. They sold people this smoke and mirrors dream that giving up their freedom would make them happy. As you know, it turned out people ended up neither happy nor free.

I actually have a suggestion (for the authors who wrote about this topic) for a political system that maximizes individual liberty while also including the elements that anarchy is missing.

Not sure if any of this connects to what you're looking for... but hey, if you have questions, just ask!

James Lee77 said:You said the exact same thing in this post:

I feel like you're pulling my leg here. 🙂

Nah, I'm not kidding. You're just cherry-picking quotes again... I was being super clear—my response was addressing two different parts of your post.
I don't get why it's so hard to just read your own post (the quote) and then look at my reply to it? Maybe you just like playing word games? Hey, maybe I'm wrong, but if that's the case, I'm really not feeling it...

Anyway, you seem like a decent enough guy. This whole debate was actually pretty fun, at least for me. I've shared what I wanted to share, so I'm gonna head out now...

It was good talking to you 😉

swiftcobra15 said:It is only within a completed system of knowledge that we could
even attempt such an absurd claim as "man is part of the world."
However, every single system is built upon unprovable assumptions,
making it vulnerable to criticism at that level and preventing it from being universally true.

It’s only once we reach some kind of completed system of knowledge where we can
actually make an absurd claim like "man is part of the world."
But honestly, every single system is built on unprovable assumptions
which makes it open to criticism at that level... so it can't really be considered universal truth.
Most of what you're saying just goes over my head, so I'm gonna pass on this debate.
No offense 😉

James Lee77 said:There he goes again. Look, I'm not saying the Sun distinguishes things, and I'm definitely not saying the Sun counts.

What I am saying is that if a difference exists independently of humans, and if that difference can be expressed as a number, then numbers must exist independently of humans too.

Now, you could argue that there's no difference between hydrogen and helium that doesn't rely on a human mind, but if you go that route, you have to admit there's no difference between a crow and the Sun either.
I guess you're not gonna like that.

Or, you could say there's a difference between hydrogen and helium that exists regardless of us, but that it isn't a number.
If you say that, you better be able to explain what that difference is if it's not a number.

You could also just dodge the hard questions and the messy consequences of your own logic by rambling on about everything and anything.

The difference between hydrogen and helium is real and exists regardless of us—I get that. I think you either misread me or I didn't phrase things quite right...

James Lee77 said:There he goes again. Look, I'm not saying the Sun distinguishes things, and I'm definitely not saying the Sun counts.

What I am saying is that if a difference exists independently of humans, and if that difference can be expressed as a number, then numbers must exist independently of humans too.

Now, you could argue that there's no difference between hydrogen and helium that doesn't rely on a human mind, but if you go that route, you have to admit there's no difference between a crow and the Sun either.
I guess you're not gonna like that.

Or, you could say there's a difference between hydrogen and helium that exists regardless of us, but that it isn't a number.
If you say that, you better be able to explain what that difference is if it's not a number.

You could also just dodge the hard questions and the messy consequences of your own logic by rambling on about everything and anything.

You can't claim the difference between hydrogen and helium is independent of humans because it was a human who distinguished one from the other using some criteria (which I don't know, like I said). Your statement implies you've already differentiated the two—helium and hydrogen—so you've already established a criterion, which means the distinction is done. You can't jump back now and pretend there's no difference, otherwise, helium and hydrogen wouldn't even exist as separate things.

James Lee77 said:There he goes again. Look, I'm not saying the Sun distinguishes things, and I'm definitely not saying the Sun counts.

What I am saying is that if a difference exists independently of humans, and if that difference can be expressed as a number, then numbers must exist independently of humans too.

Now, you could argue that there's no difference between hydrogen and helium that doesn't rely on a human mind, but if you go that route, you have to admit there's no difference between a crow and the Sun either.
I guess you're not gonna like that.

Or, you could say there's a difference between hydrogen and helium that exists regardless of us, but that it isn't a number.
If you say that, you better be able to explain what that difference is if it's not a number.

You could also just dodge the hard questions and the messy consequences of your own logic by rambling on about everything and anything.

Again, jumping to conclusions way too fast. Slow down a bit... how about this:

James Lee77 said:There he goes again. Look, I'm not saying the Sun distinguishes things, and I'm definitely not saying the Sun counts.

What I am saying is that if a difference exists independently of humans, and if that difference can be expressed as a number, then numbers must exist independently of humans too.

Now, you could argue that there's no difference between hydrogen and helium that doesn't rely on a human mind, but if you go that route, you have to admit there's no difference between a crow and the Sun either.
I guess you're not gonna like that.

Or, you could say there's a difference between hydrogen and helium that exists regardless of us, but that it isn't a number.
If you say that, you better be able to explain what that difference is if it's not a number.

You could also just dodge the hard questions and the messy consequences of your own logic by rambling on about everything and anything.

I feel like there's something implied in what you just said:
- I distinguish things.
- I count.
- I noticed two different things.
- I noticed the difference between those two things is numerical.

It seems to me you're skipping right past steps 2, 3, and 4 to jump straight to the conclusion that numbers are "built into nature."

What do you think?

James Lee77 said:Man, you are such a philosopher. 😉

So, basically, you're saying that only humans create the distinction between The Sun and the Crow.

Without us, all of it—The Sun, the crow, hydrogen, helium... it's all just one big, undifferentiated... what? A thing in itself? Matter? Objective reality?

You keep asking questions while totally ignoring the context. You want these obvious answers, but you don't want to take responsibility for the fact that *you*, being a human, are the one asking the question in the first place.

Look, I'm telling you that humans acquire knowledge about objective reality by distinguishing between objects. And those objects don't distinguish themselves—that's a human capability.
Plus, we learn letters, numbers, and all that stuff, so there's zero sense in talking about math from the perspective of The Sun and pretending you aren't human—because if you weren't human, neither numbers, nor The Sun, nor even this text would exist. Get it? You're losing the plot here...

Just accept that you learned numbers as a human and then applied them to describe things. Then you'll see how nonsensical it is to claim The Sun can count or has any kind of relationship with math.

P.S. I'm not a Kantian. Don't jump to conclusions. I'm not jumping to conclusions about you, so please don't do it to me. 😉

Here's a quote from an old post of mine about what you're getting at (the second half of your question)...

fadedbison17 said:The axioms of Axiom Objectivism are:
1) Consciousness is conscious.
Descartes argued that consciousness is axiomatic ("I think, therefore I am") because you can't logically deny your own mind while simultaneously using that mind to deny it. Still, his wording was off and his derivation of the axiom was flawed because he assumed someone could be conscious without being conscious *of* something.
Consciousness is the ability to perceive what exists.
Whether directly or indirectly, every phenomenon of consciousness is derived from someone's consciousness of the external world.
Extrospection is the process of perceiving directed outward—understanding something that exists in the outside world.
Introspection is the process of perceiving directed inward—understanding one's own psychological actions in relation to what exists in the external world, like thinking, feeling, remembering, etc.
A contentless state of consciousness is a contradiction in terms.
For consciousness to be aware, there has to be something outside of it to be aware of so it can function. Consciousness requires existence to work.
Basically, consciousness can't be conscious of itself, contrary to what Descartes suggested. To be conscious, it has to be conscious of something outside itself. Only after being aware of something external can it identify itself. It's like a car battery generating power for its own use—it needs to be triggered by something external. Consciousness needs existence.

2) Existence exists is an axiom stating that there’s actually *something* out there instead of nothing. At the core of every single thought is the observation: "I am aware of something." Just the fact that you’re aware of anything at all proves that something—in some form—exists... existence exists. And honestly, existence is everything that is. Plus, to even reach the thought "I am aware of something," you have to be conscious first (1).
Existence is axiomatic for all knowledge because you can't deny it without basically admitting it's true.
If I try to deny existence, I'm basically saying something doesn't exist. But you can't deny something unless existence is already a thing.

3) A is A: Aristotle's 'law of identity'
Everything that exists has a specific nature. Every entity—any "thing"—exists as something specific with characteristics that make it what it is. Like, "this leaf is red, dry, rough, and flammable." Or "this book is blue and has 190 pages." Or "this quarter is round, thick, smooth, and has a face on it." In all three cases, we're pointing to a specific identity. It doesn't matter which type of identity or characteristic we're talking about—their identities (leaf, book, quarter) include all those traits
Identity is just a concept describing an aspect of existence; specifically, existing as something definite with certain characteristics. An entity without an identity couldn't exist because it would be nothing. To exist means to exist as *something*, which means existing with a specific identity.

Having an identity means having one identity; an object can't have two. A tree can't be a smartphone and a dog can't be a cat. Every entity exists as something specific—its identity is set and it can't be something else. An entity can have multiple characteristics, but every single trait it has is part of its identity. A car could be red or it could be blue, but not both at once and not in the same way. Some parts of the car could be red and others blue, sure... but the whole car can't be red and blue simultaneously. Those two traits (red and blue) belong to one specific identity.

The concept of identity matters because it explicitly points out that reality has a definite (clear, precise) nature. Since reality has an identity, it's actually knowable. Since it exists in a specific way—there are no contradictions.

translated from: http://objectivism101.com/

James Lee77 said:No, you're totally mixing them up. And the point isn't that the sun counts 😵 it's that numbers still exist even when nobody is counting them.

So, we've got a distinction between things humans do (counting, categorizing) and things the sun does (shining, heating... I'm no physicist, you know).

The mere fact that you can actually grasp the difference between a hydrogen atom and a helium atom should be enough to make you realize that *you* are the one doing the counting and the distinguishing.

Beautifully said, Christopher.
So, what, there's zero difference between objects unless a human is there to distinguish them? Are you really sure that's what you're trying to say?

Exactly! That's my point! 👍
What's the point of using the word 'difference' if there isn't someone around to actually understand what that means??
Well, by that logic—what's the point of the word 'number' if there's nobody there to grasp the concept!

Then how can the Sun have anything to do with math—humans are the ones looking at the Sun, describing it, and making distinctions!?

And does the 'Sun' even exist, or is it just a label humans use to mark an object?
Can we two even talk about the Sun just because we learned what it was earlier?
Is the only reason we can chat about numbers, helium, hydrogen, and the Sun because we're people and these are just our labels for things?

James Lee77 said:🙏

But I guess the real question isn't really "can Los Angeles count," it's more like "do numbers even exist if nobody is there to count them?"

It’s kind of like asking "does Los Angeles still exist if nobody is looking at it?" You'd probably say "yeah, obviously." But when it comes to numbers, you seem to be saying they don't actually exist.

So here's the thing—if Los Angeles exists regardless of whether anyone perceives it, and if it's made of hydrogen and helium, and if the whole city undergoes a massive change once all that hydrogen turns into helium (which means the difference between hydrogen and helium matters for the object we call Los Angeles, which you admit exists)... Then I gotta ask: what actually makes hydrogen different from helium? If that difference is just a number, then it feels like numbers define how Los Angeles exists, even when there isn't a single human around to count anything.

Let me try this one more time... whatever happens, happens... 😉

I'll Throw a few facts your way—just let me know which ones you disagree with and why:
- To even ask a question like yours, you had to have the ability to count and the ability to distinguish things—skills you used to gather the data for this whole argument.
- The world around you doesn't care about your skills. You could learn to count totally wrong and the Sun wouldn't change one bit.
- Aside from humans (and if you want to be pedantic, man-made stuff like a calculator), there isn't any entity out there that can understand the concept of counting.
- Talking about counting as something separate from humanity just doesn't make sense...