Economic models in anarchism: what actually works?

redtinker36 said:.. and what exactly does it take for you to find some peace and be content?

"A good meal, a clear sky, and a head full of dreams..." (Joe)
Fair enough—though I suspect everyone else wants the exact same thing.

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? 😉

says:
The whole anarchist movement doesn't actually lay out a blueprint for building a "healthy and balanced" society—it just tells us we need to tear down what they call "flawed knowledge, toxic values, and broken institutions."

Come on, don't be stubborn—just take a look at what this guy has to say about anarchism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ghoXQxdk6s

fadedbison17 said: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.

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? 😉

Actually, I don't buy that for a second—because the moment you're forced to make a choice, you aren't truly free!

The idea that "freedom" means having a set of options to pick from is basically the capitalist "holy grail"—and honestly, it's usually just a convenient excuse used to justify forcing democratic elections on places like Iraq. Just because they're picking an option right now doesn't mean they actually have any real agency.

Does that make sense?

.. forget it .. you're just making it about him ..

What you’re actually after is freedom ... your own freedom. That means having the agency to do whatever makes you happy. ... So, what actually makes you happy? ... Well, that’s really the whole point of anarchy.

.. he needs it ..

"give me a crust of bread, a yard of sky, and a hat full of dreams..."

.. and I guess that’s less .. than that freedom of yours .. less .. forget it .. in the sense that it's harder to take from him .. yet easier to achieve ..

.. and why on earth does it matter if everyone else needs it too ..
.. damn it .. that's anarchy ..
.. once you're able to have .. your own desires ..

.. forget it .. this habit of setting things up .. as being "for" or "against" .. it's a smart way to start ..

.. when you see this .. for .. when you realize what you actually need ..
.. you'll try to ruin a perfectly good discussion .. by deciding .. well, damn it, you already have ..
.. you'll choose a piece of heaven .. choosing sex over war .. choosing love .. and freedom ..
.. and I'll be left holding the bag .. because my love for a good argument will be completely destroyed ..

.. for those who stick around .. the question remains .. and it will always be .. what the hell do you actually want ..

.. and then we'll remember God ..

.. tell me, Lord, for heaven's sake ..
.. how much will my life be worth at my final judgment ..
.. when I die, coming to you free ..
.. am I dying .. God .. in vain ..

.. that's how Bob Dylan sang it .. that kid from the Midwest .. a legend ..
.. beautiful song .. pure anarchy ..

redtinker36 said:.. forget it .. you're just making it about him ..

What you’re actually after is freedom ... your own freedom. That means having the agency to do whatever makes you happy. ... So, what actually makes you happy? ... Well, that’s really the whole point of anarchy.

.. he needs it ..

"give me a crust of bread, a yard of sky, and a hat full of dreams..."

.. and I guess that’s less .. than that freedom of yours .. less .. forget it .. in the sense that it's harder to take from him .. yet easier to achieve ..

.. and why on earth does it matter if everyone else needs it too ..
.. damn it .. that's anarchy ..
.. once you're able to have .. your own desires ..

.. forget it .. this habit of setting things up .. as being "for" or "against" .. it's a smart way to start ..

.. when you see this .. for .. when you realize what you actually need ..
.. you'll try to ruin a perfectly good discussion .. by deciding .. well, damn it, you already have ..
.. you'll choose a piece of heaven .. choosing sex over war .. choosing love .. and freedom ..
.. and I'll be left holding the bag .. because my love for a good argument will be completely destroyed ..

.. for those who stick around .. the question remains .. and it will always be .. what the hell do you actually want ..

.. and then we'll remember God ..

.. tell me, Lord, for heaven's sake ..
.. how much will my life be worth at my final judgment ..
.. when I die, coming to you free ..
.. am I dying .. God .. in vain ..

.. that's how Bob Dylan sang it .. that kid from the Midwest .. a legend ..
.. beautiful song .. pure anarchy ..

If we define anarchy as simply doing whatever makes us happy—even if those actions infringe upon someone else's right to choose—then we hit a wall. If your version of happiness requires you to cross a line where you resort to violence, then you aren't actually free. Because as long as something dictates your actions in that way, you lack true liberty.
In fact, as long as you crave freedom, you are essentially living out your own lack of it; the very act of desiring freedom proves you don't fully possess it yet.

Anarchy isn't freedom, and neither is democracy. Neither system provides true freedom through mere choice or personal desire.

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.

.. No... forget it... that part about wanting freedom... I wasn't the one who said that...

fadedbison17 was the one...
.. But... saying you want freedom when you don't actually want it... that’s nonsense... just a bunch of empty words... nothing at all...
.. The very fact that you desire something proves you don't have it... and anything can stand in your way—even a person... You could reach freedom through any means imaginable... even murder...
.. It's much like how Marx thought the proletariat would achieve freedom through revolution... by slaughtering the bourgeoisie... and he thinks he'll pull it off... once he grows up a bit...

.. I'm just agreeing that what was said regarding freedom was clever...

.. Just as it would be "clever" to say you want God...
.. Or like that thing someone said... a piece of heaven...

.. This is all very profound... but practically useless...
.. And philosophically thin...
.. Because if you sprint toward the finish line... you end up leaving your poor self behind at the starting blocks...

.. Well... damn...
.. There's some grim news coming...
.. Humans won't be able to find happiness as humans anymore—good Lord... is that even possible...

.. Yes... it is... we are going to become anarchists... just like Jesus Christ... who was also an anarchist...

.. Damn it... what even is a conversation? A conversation is worthless... you jump straight to the end... and stories lose their point...
.. Because if you're a person who needs everyone around you—every jerk and every bastard—then why bother bothering them? Why wouldn't you... stand before the altar of that great pile of crap called God... cross yourself, get baptized, worship him, sing his praises day and night, and fall to your knees...

.. Much like the old folks... standing before that other god during the apocalypse...

What is a string of words, really, if we aren't communicating telepathically? If we actually could, I would be able to transmit that abstract sense of freedom directly to you—that feeling which, once it's shaped into language, somehow loses its essence. As it stands, you’re just looking at and commenting on the words themselves rather than the underlying thought. When you say, "the fact that you want something proves you don't have it," you're missing the point. You can desire something from a place of true freedom, or you can desire it from a place of lack. You simply cannot reach freedom through desire, because freedom isn't something external to you.

However, that very desire itself seems to act like a pose, as if reaching freedom is somehow undesirable. It’s almost as if someone would rather remain unfree and spend their time complaining just to have something to rail against; perhaps that is where your version of freedom lies. But if that is the case, you must be certain that you are complaining out of a sense of liberty, rather than out of a sense of deficiency. If you do that, you will find you already possess it.🤣

Of course, unfreedom is something that is often imposed upon us. It's a bit like my father; he had surgery a few months ago, and even though his health issues have largely resolved, he still acts as if they are there. He refuses to let go of the struggle. After all, why bother walking properly when you can just limp along? 🙂

.. forget it .. anarchy is all there is left .. nobody knows anything .. except me ..
.. well, since I do know ..

.. a neighborhood is an organism .. like a living creature .. and a person is a cell .. they make up that organism .. countless little cells ..

.. a person can't imagine that the organism would ever turn against its own cells ..
.. but .. damn it .. it can happen .. a diseased cell appears that needs to be kicked out .. and it’s only logical for the organism to turn against those specific cells .. that's how it protects itself .. and you .. you are the healthy cells ..

.. cancer happens .. that’s our next example ..
.. and when those cells start spreading .. like how some local mayor expands urban sprawl after buying up land from farmers for pennies ..
.. cancer .. once it spreads .. it loses perspective .. it can't see .. the big picture .. and so it happens .. it crushes other cells and starts tightening the organism's chest .. making it hard to breathe ..

.. so .. where the hell is the anarchy in all this? .. in this mess .. where are we even headed ..

.. at one point .. a cell realizes .. the beast is screwed .. that the politicians are just cartoon characters .. and that isn't even anarchy yet ..
.. at a second point .. a cell thinks .. what if we .. formed a united front .. against the prison .. against all those psychological and physical elements .. that block .. hinder .. and disrupt .. the normal flow of things .. and shouts .. tighten your belts .. and then the cell settles down .. it feels it has done enough .. for the good of the beast .. and a bright future for us all .. through its prophetic uprising .. and that still isn't anarchy ..
.. at a third point a cell realizes .. the beast is doomed and impossible to defend .. that the other cells .. are cancer-prone .. but there are so many of them .. that fighting becomes .. nearly impossible .. and that’s when the first sparks of anarchy begin to flash ..
.. only in the fourth stage do the true anarchists emerge .. people who realize the beast is lost .. who know the other cells are garbage .. and these people give up .. they say .. go to hell, both you and your politics .. they abandon .. all efforts .. all intentions .. they stop trying to scatter their will .. like a pack of rats .. all over the neighborhood .. they walk away .. and those are the anarchists .. the real ones .. just giving examples here .. Happy Easter ..
.. these anarchists .. try to gather .. at the top of their own heads .. so they can move .. from there .. into the heavens .. damn it .. that is 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?

At the end of the day, we need to be clear about what we're actually talking about here, because unfortunately, it seems like very few people in this thread actually grasp the concept of anarchy.

Anarchy isn't some tool used to liberate the individual from society; it’s actually a way to liberate society from the individuals within it.

The whole idea revolves around a society that refuses to recognize any kind of "corrective authority," driven by one pretty straightforward principle:

So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.
Voltaire

Anarchy has nothing to do with lawlessness, bloody revolutions, or constant activism. You can't force anarchy into existence through power; it happens when people take personal responsibility and simply stop acknowledging authority.

See, accepting authority is essentially admitting that we aren't capable of looking after ourselves. Governments and politicians act like glorified babysitters for a massive crowd that behaves, on a collective level, like a bunch of irresponsible teenagers. As long as we keep acting that way—well, it's obvious we're going to need a sitter. And that situation always plays out the same way: the moment there's a demand for a "corrective authority," you create a vacuum for political ambition. And let's be honest, that vacuum is usually filled by the exact type of people least qualified for the job—people who won't hesitate to use any means necessary to chase their own interests.

Once people finally wake up from this collective adolescence and realize that politics and democracy are about as real as Santa Claus and forest fairies—that's when you'll see true anarchy, or a society truly free from the whims of individual tyrants!

fadedbison17 said: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 😉

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. 🤷

Edward Flores4 said:At the end of the day, we need to be clear about what we're actually talking about here, because unfortunately, it seems like very few people in this thread actually grasp the concept of anarchy.

Anarchy isn't some tool used to liberate the individual from society; it’s actually a way to liberate society from the individuals within it.

The whole idea revolves around a society that refuses to recognize any kind of "corrective authority," driven by one pretty straightforward principle:

So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.
Voltaire

Anarchy has nothing to do with lawlessness, bloody revolutions, or constant activism. You can't force anarchy into existence through power; it happens when people take personal responsibility and simply stop acknowledging authority.

See, accepting authority is essentially admitting that we aren't capable of looking after ourselves. Governments and politicians act like glorified babysitters for a massive crowd that behaves, on a collective level, like a bunch of irresponsible teenagers. As long as we keep acting that way—well, it's obvious we're going to need a sitter. And that situation always plays out the same way: the moment there's a demand for a "corrective authority," you create a vacuum for political ambition. And let's be honest, that vacuum is usually filled by the exact type of people least qualified for the job—people who won't hesitate to use any means necessary to chase their own interests.

Once people finally wake up from this collective adolescence and realize that politics and democracy are about as real as Santa Claus and forest fairies—that's when you'll see true anarchy, or a society truly free from the whims of individual tyrants!

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.

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).

redtinker36 said:.. forget it .. anarchy is all there is left .. nobody knows anything .. except me ..
.. well, since I do know ..

.. a neighborhood is an organism .. like a living creature .. and a person is a cell .. they make up that organism .. countless little cells ..

.. a person can't imagine that the organism would ever turn against its own cells ..
.. but .. damn it .. it can happen .. a diseased cell appears that needs to be kicked out .. and it’s only logical for the organism to turn against those specific cells .. that's how it protects itself .. and you .. you are the healthy cells ..

.. cancer happens .. that’s our next example ..
.. and when those cells start spreading .. like how some local mayor expands urban sprawl after buying up land from farmers for pennies ..
.. cancer .. once it spreads .. it loses perspective .. it can't see .. the big picture .. and so it happens .. it crushes other cells and starts tightening the organism's chest .. making it hard to breathe ..

.. so .. where the hell is the anarchy in all this? .. in this mess .. where are we even headed ..

.. at one point .. a cell realizes .. the beast is screwed .. that the politicians are just cartoon characters .. and that isn't even anarchy yet ..
.. at a second point .. a cell thinks .. what if we .. formed a united front .. against the prison .. against all those psychological and physical elements .. that block .. hinder .. and disrupt .. the normal flow of things .. and shouts .. tighten your belts .. and then the cell settles down .. it feels it has done enough .. for the good of the beast .. and a bright future for us all .. through its prophetic uprising .. and that still isn't anarchy ..
.. at a third point a cell realizes .. the beast is doomed and impossible to defend .. that the other cells .. are cancer-prone .. but there are so many of them .. that fighting becomes .. nearly impossible .. and that’s when the first sparks of anarchy begin to flash ..
.. only in the fourth stage do the true anarchists emerge .. people who realize the beast is lost .. who know the other cells are garbage .. and these people give up .. they say .. go to hell, both you and your politics .. they abandon .. all efforts .. all intentions .. they stop trying to scatter their will .. like a pack of rats .. all over the neighborhood .. they walk away .. and those are the anarchists .. the real ones .. just giving examples here .. Happy Easter ..
.. these anarchists .. try to gather .. at the top of their own heads .. so they can move .. from there .. into the heavens .. damn it .. that is anarchy ..

Why do you exclude the rest of the living world when you talk about "neighborhoods"? Take viruses, for example.
A virus can only survive by inhabiting another living organism—take HIV, for instance; it either dies off or finds a host to settle in and persist. How exactly are you going to explain anarchy and freedom to something like that?
Or look at ants. They have their own little "civilizations." How many anthills have you stepped on without even noticing? To them, are you a "healthy cell" or a "cancerous cell"? God knows, maybe..? Or perhaps some kind of chaotic force?

Humans have killed over a million chimpanzees. Chimpanzees have killed significantly fewer humans, mainly because they don't have access to firearms.

During the Middle Ages, the Black Death wiped out a third of the population.

Lions eat zebras. Bears eat both plants and animals. Sea lions eat almost anything—some even go after boots. Spotted sharks cruise near the coast and prey on people.
The entire living world consumes itself; both the biological and the non-biological realms are part of this cycle.

What does the "neighborhood" have to say about all that? How do we find freedom in that reality? 🙄

I’d really suggest checking out that interview I linked earlier in the thread. Honestly, I’m not really in the mood to give a full-blown lecture on self-governance—it's a lot to unpack—so you might as well see what Noam Chomsky has to say about it instead. Of course, if you end up thinking he’s totally off base, you can always shoot him an email yourself 🙂

.. don't bother asking the neighbors .. look .. why would anyone talk about what you already know ..

.. ask me instead .. look .. I know stories you haven't even dreamed of ..
.. those tales about lions and ants? those are the ones you know .. you call that the struggle for survival ..
.. the theory behind it is evolution .. some guy named Darwin laid it all out ..

.. there were people who saw it differently ..
.. they’d say that evolution isn't really a theory .. it's just an ideology .. a twisted, satanic one at that ..
.. to put it simply ..
.. this idea you have—that society can't function unless we're constantly hunting and killing one another—well, not everyone thought that way .. just think about Jesus ..
.. do you honestly believe someone always needs to watch over you to stop you from tearing your neighbor apart .. like lions tearing into smaller prey?

.. if a person is nothing more than that .. then frankly, I have no interest in them ..
.. what actually interests me is what emerges after you're gone ..

.. see .. I know stories that explain the freedom of the HIV virus .. the "freedom" of Jewish people in concentration camps .. and the freedom Hitler had while he destroyed them ..
.. and I'm not talking about the freedom of good versus evil .. or love versus hate .. this isn't about human morality or the mercy of gods .. it's more like the freedom of rain .. which simply falls .. whenever the conditions are right and nothing stands in its way ..

.. but humans are different .. humans alone are something .. a Russian once said, and it carries a hell of a weight ..

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.

Honestly? No way. Why don't you be the one to explain it to me then? 😁

It could just be an idea—something that takes root in your mind and eventually becomes a sort of moral authority, providing you with a blueprint for how to act.

Dušto... that’s just called inspiration or having an ideal.😉

By simply following some specific vision of social organization, you're essentially acknowledging an authority—in this case, the authority of an anarchist society. You might not see it that way, but you've really just swapped one type of authority for another.

That’s just your take.

This whole concept of "no authority" sounds great on paper, but it's completely unworkable in practice.

Unworkable for whom... you?

Society can't exist without some form of recognized authority, and frankly, I doubt an individual can either.

Oh, please. Didn't societies—and individuals—exist long before writing or the invention of the Gutenberg printing press? It was only much later that concepts like authorship, authority, and law even emerged as we know them today.

True, and I have to admit, quoting Voltaire—who believed the best social structure was enlightened despotism—feels a bit jarring when used to support a system that advocates for tearing down all authority.

Just because he envisioned a different kind of society doesn't mean his point isn't hitting the nail right on the head, or that it isn't relevant. He identified the core issue, and honestly, that's what matters. Others have taken that idea and built upon it since; I don't see any problem with that!

Who said that?

Does it even matter? What matters is the substance of the argument, not who happened to say it.😉

If you refuse to acknowledge any kind of authority, you’re basically choosing to live in a vacuum—a tiny little universe where you're the only moral compass left on the map. It’s like trying to navigate a massive, complex city without street signs, laws, or even a basic sense of direction; eventually, you realize that if you're the only one setting the rules, then "right" and "wrong" just become whatever mood you happen to be in that day. Without some external standard to lean on, you aren't actually being free—you're just drifting in total isolation.

I mean, it’s not like we live in a vacuum—we live in a society. And honestly, a community that actually operates on a foundation of ethics is a much better North Star than any single individual in a position of authority. Ethics themselves are pretty straightforward and clear-cut; they’re principles anyone can step up and apply in their own life. Because of that, we don't really need some big, central authority figure breathing down our necks to tell us how to behave.

So, I was just sitting here thinking—how would that even work in practice? It’s a wild concept to wrap your head around. Imagine if the logic went like this: "I don't like what you're doing, so I'm going to take a shot at you with a rock," and then you respond by hitting me back with a sledgehammer, and we just keep going until we've both killed each other—and probably a few bystanders along the way. The kicker, though—the part that really trips me up—is the idea that we shouldn't even touch one another unless the rest of society has officially stepped in to vote on it. It assumes that nothing can happen unless there's some massive, collective consensus reached through a formal vote to stop us. In a world where everyone has to decide together before anyone can intervene, we'd just be left in this endless loop of violence while waiting for a committee to reach a decision. It feels totally disconnected from how actual human action works in the real world.

What exactly is stopping me from just decking you if I don't like what you're doing? Seriously—have you even been watching the news lately, or maybe scrolling through some true crime feeds? People are losing it out there.

The law only steps in to punish violence after the damage is already done—which basically means the law doesn't actually protect you from being victimized in the first place. It’s kind of like trying to fix a leaky pipe by just mopping up the floor every time it floods; you aren't stopping the leak, you're just reacting to the mess. In a way, our legal system acts more like a confirmation that we have no idea how to tackle the root causes of these issues. We just end up penalizing the aftermath while the actual problem continues to simmer right under the surface.

What does it actually mean when people say "we aren't capable of taking care of ourselves"? Honestly, maybe we aren't. I mean, how on earth could we possibly manage to look after one another in a system involving something like 330 million Americans without some kind of regulation or structure in place? It just wouldn't work.

People always seem to get anarchy wrong. They picture this chaotic, swirling mess where everything just falls apart, but that’s not it at all. Anarchy isn't actually unregulated—it’s incredibly well-structured. In many ways, it wouldn't even feel that different from the systems we navigate every single day in the States. The real distinction—the thing that actually changes the game—is simply the absence of centralized power. Once you strip away the concept of corporate ownership and those top-down political authorities that dictate how we live, you're left with something entirely different. It's about moving away from that singular, commanding force and toward something more organic.

You really ought to do some actual digging before jumping in like this—you're basically just arguing from a place of pure assumption at this point.

Every single day, Pero—who lives over in a suburb like maybe Naperville—and I meet up downtown. We just stand there in the middle of the plaza, raising our hands to cast a vote on whether we actually need to swap out a lightbulb in the local deli or if we should wait until we get back home to the suburbs.

Of course not... that kind of conversation would only ever happen in some random dive bar in a small Midwest town or a quiet suburb outside of Chicago. You’re only going to raise your hand for decisions that directly impact you—your paycheck, your job, your own backyard, stuff like that. Since we're living in the digital age anyway, "raising your hand" would really just mean clicking a button, and the voting results would be completely transparent. Honestly, it would be way simpler, more efficient, and a whole lot cheaper than this clunky system we're stuck with right now.

Look, before we try to explain what an interest rate actually is to someone like Perry, we really need to break down the fundamentals first...😁
Even when we finally land on a decision, there’s always that lingering question hanging in the air—who actually steps up to pull the trigger? Who is the one standing there saying, "Alright, this is the call, and it's final"? It makes you wonder, doesn't it? Because the very moment someone claims the authority to declare a decision valid, they aren't just making a choice—they're essentially placing themselves above everyone else by virtue of their position. It’s a bit of a paradox, really.

Look, we can just go with whatever option most people are voting for—it’s the easiest path forward, honestly. But I have to say it again—you clearly don't quite grasp what anarchy actually means, which makes this whole debate feel a bit like running in circles. To me, anarchy isn't chaos; it's a system where the people actually doing the work—say, the folks on the factory floor—are the ones who own the place and hold all the decision-making power.

Right now, you’re basically left without any recourse—not even those fundamental constitutional protections you’d expect, like the right to work or the right to be compensated for that work.

Edward Flores4 As stated by silentnomad23:
No! It would be much better if you were the one to explain it to me. 😁

Dušto... that’s what you call inspiration, or perhaps an ideal. 😉

Actually, no—authority isn't strictly a political concept. It manifests in so many other ways. You have authority within a family, personal authority, interpersonal dynamics, and all those various layers in between.
What I’m really trying to get at here is that you seem to accept certain sets of ideas without any real scrutiny. You just take them as gospel. Because of that, I find myself questioning whether a society could actually function without some form of political authority to hold things together.

Give me a break. Did society—or even the individual—not exist long before the written word or the arrival of the Gutenberg printing press? It was only much later that we saw the emergence of modern concepts like authorship, authority, and the rule of law.

Are you seriously suggesting that social institutions and some form of political authority didn't exist before the Gutenberg printing press? That’s just not how history works. They certainly existed; they simply weren't organized in the specific way we recognize within the framework of a modern state. I don't feel the need to sit here and list them all out for you...

Just because his vision for how society should function was different doesn't mean his core argument misses the mark or lacks relevance. He identified the fundamental issue perfectly, and that's really all that matters. Others have since taken that initial concept and expanded upon it—I honestly don't see the problem there.

Does it even matter? At the end of the day, what actually counts is the substance of what was said, not the identity of the person speaking. 😉

Fair enough, but I felt compelled to mention who actually said it... just so everyone is on the same page. 😁

It isn't really an issue if you are living within a community. A society that actually operates on a foundation of ethics provides a far superior benchmark than any single individual authority ever could. Ethics are remarkably straightforward and crystal clear; they are principles that anyone can apply to their own life. Because of that, we simply have no need for an authority figure to dictate them to us.

And who exactly came up with this whole concept of ethics? Did it just drop out of the sky? Behind it, there’s always some supposed authority figure standing there. Even the very notion of enforcing such an ethical code presupposes the existence of a social authority.
Perhaps you're thinking strictly in terms of political authority, which might be why we aren't seeing eye to eye on this.

What exactly is stopping me from just laying hands on you if I take issue with your actions? Have you even bothered to watch the news lately, or perhaps catch up on the crime reports?

That’s a bit of a generalization, isn't it? Sure, crime statistics can look grim, but what kind of actual percentage are we talking about here? Beyond that, there are legal consequences now for when someone hits you with a baseball bat. The entire concept of the modern state is built on this fundamental idea: you delegate the authority to punish those who violate social norms, ethics, or basic standards of conduct. Now, I’ll be the first to admit this system isn't perfect. Institutions can become corrupt, or they might start acting solely in the interest of powerful special interests and lobbyists. But at the same time, this structure is exactly what allows you to walk down a street feeling relatively secure, knowing you aren't part of that small fraction of violent incidents. If we move away from that, who exactly would guarantee that sense of security for you?

The law only penalizes violence AFTER it has already happened. That means the law doesn't actually protect you from being harmed at all. In reality, the legal system is just a confession that we don't know how to address the root causes of our problems; we merely sanction the fallout while the underlying issues persist.

You have a point there... but that doesn't necessarily mean our current institutions are worthless. It just means they need a complete overhaul.

Anarchy isn't unregulated chaos. It is highly structured, and honestly, not that different from the systems we navigate today. The fundamental difference lies in the absence of centralized power, corporate ownership, and individual political authorities.

I still find that impossible to believe. Even if you managed to build some sort of decentralized society, people will inevitably gravitate toward individual authorities. Someone will emerge as a local leader everyone seeks advice from; someone else will be the brother of the person ensuring the gears turn—if you even claim it's "regulated." From there, it is just a short step to actual political power.

Of course not... those debates would only happen in small-town diners or local coffee shops. You would only cast a vote for decisions that directly impact you, like your specific job or community matters. Since we live in a digital age, voting would simply boil down to clicking a button, and the results would be completely transparent. In fact, it would be much simpler, more efficient, and cheaper than the cumbersome system we have now.

Is there an actual, detailed, proven blueprint for how this would function, or are we just talking about abstract ideals?

The prevailing option is whatever the majority decides. It’s that simple. But again—you clearly don't grasp what anarchy actually entails, which makes this discussion pointless. Anarchy is a system where the workers themselves own the factory and, as such, hold the decision-making power.

Right now, you have no rights at all—not even the basic constitutional protections you should be entitled to, like the right to work or the right to fair compensation for that labor.

I don't understand anarchy because I don't find its core tenets logical. It seems to me that you don't quite grasp the distinction between normative theory and actual reality either.

A formal social structure is not the same thing as an informal one, and informal structures cannot exist without some kind of center of power emerging somewhere 🤷. Even in a world where the workers own the factory, that becomes the formal structure, and beneath it, informal power centers will always form. We have seen this play out before, and it always happens. You can't avoid it. That is why I say, if you could actually produce a concept that works in practice—which I highly doubt—I would be the first to hand you a Nobel Prize.

fadedbison17 said: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).

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. 😉

redtinker36 said:.. don't bother asking the neighbors .. look .. why would anyone talk about what you already know ..

.. ask me instead .. look .. I know stories you haven't even dreamed of ..
.. those tales about lions and ants? those are the ones you know .. you call that the struggle for survival ..
.. the theory behind it is evolution .. some guy named Darwin laid it all out ..

.. there were people who saw it differently ..
.. they’d say that evolution isn't really a theory .. it's just an ideology .. a twisted, satanic one at that ..
.. to put it simply ..
.. this idea you have—that society can't function unless we're constantly hunting and killing one another—well, not everyone thought that way .. just think about Jesus ..
.. do you honestly believe someone always needs to watch over you to stop you from tearing your neighbor apart .. like lions tearing into smaller prey?

.. if a person is nothing more than that .. then frankly, I have no interest in them ..
.. what actually interests me is what emerges after you're gone ..

.. see .. I know stories that explain the freedom of the HIV virus .. the "freedom" of Jewish people in concentration camps .. and the freedom Hitler had while he destroyed them ..
.. and I'm not talking about the freedom of good versus evil .. or love versus hate .. this isn't about human morality or the mercy of gods .. it's more like the freedom of rain .. which simply falls .. whenever the conditions are right and nothing stands in its way ..

.. but humans are different .. humans alone are something .. a Russian once said, and it carries a hell of a weight ..

What about Jesus Christ fishing? Do you have any idea how long it takes for a fish to die once it's pulled onto dry land?
Have you ever prepared a fish? Has one ever come out of the grocery bag still alive? You can only imagine the suffering... It would be much kinder to just give it a quick tap on the head to end it instantly rather than catching it and leaving it to gasp in the air.
Those poor little things, eyes staring, flopping around. What kind of person could do that?
Or is that man also just submerged in (evolutionary) reality?

Yesterday I killed a spider and thought: 'My God, did I really need to do that?'
Usually, I don't kill them; I just gently catch them on a piece of paper and move them outside the window so they can live.
But yesterday, before I could even process it, it was already under my flip-flop.
How? Why?
Then I replayed the moment in my mind and realized its shape and color reminded me so much of a Black Widow that my instinct just kicked in—that raw survival drive. Though, looking back realistically, there wasn't any real danger since Black Widows aren't common around here this time of year; you wouldn't see them for another seven or eight months.

I don't know stories that explain the freedom of viruses, Jews, or Hitler, but I certainly understand the freedom of viruses, Jews, and Hitler. Just like I understand yours, honey. 🙂