Economic models in anarchism: what actually works?

electrictiger70 said:

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.

There’s a massive distinction between looking up to someone as a personal authority—someone you actually respect or learn from—and simply acknowledging the political authority of a stranger who holds power over you. I’m strictly talking about that second scenario here. Honestly, having personal heroes or people we look up to isn't the issue at all.

Moving forward... what exactly do you mean when you say you aren't sure if that's even possible? It doesn't really mean anything... does it?

You can't really know if something is doable until you actually get out there and try it—it’s just one of those things. If you run into some real, tangible roadblocks along the way, then by all means, lay them out on the table. I'm all for troubleshooting. But honestly? Just sitting there being skeptical doesn't really count as a valid argument. It doesn't move the needle.

Are you suggesting that before the Gutenberg printing press came along, social institutions and some sort of political authority just didn't exist?

That’s exactly it. Back then, everything really just boiled down to whoever had the most muscle. A king only held authority because he had the power to wipe out any opposition in his path. It wasn't like anyone actually voted for him or even gave him their respect—he just forced his rule on everyone through sheer intimidation. And honestly, if you have to use force to make people follow you, that isn't true authority at all.

When we talk about "authority," what we’re really talking about is someone claiming ownership over an idea—say, a specific political platform they want to push through. They pitch those ideas, and if people buy in, they get their votes. But here’s where the real issue starts: that act of voting is essentially just a collective nod of approval, a way for voters to say, "Okay, we recognize your authority now." And honestly? That’s exactly where things go sideways. Once that happens, the entire direction of society ends up being steered by one person’s private ambitions and individual philosophies. The scary part is that the public—the very people being led—has absolutely zero window into how those ideas actually work behind closed doors. We don't get a real chance to peek under the hood, let alone audit or correct those personal whims once the politician is already in power. It's like handing someone the keys to a car without ever getting to see the engine or check the brakes.

Honestly, instead of getting caught up in picking specific personalities or cults of personality, we really ought to be choosing between options that are actually transparent and grounded in reality—you know, things that can actually be implemented. We need policies that focus on moving society forward as a whole, rather than just serving the interests or egos of a few individuals.

And who exactly came up with this whole idea of ethics—did it just drop out of thin air one day?

Look, nobody just cooked this up out of thin air. Ethics isn't some flight of fancy or a collection of lofty, unreachable ideals—it’s much more grounded than that. At its core, ethics is built on the principle of reciprocity. Think of it like a finely tuned engine or a well-oiled machine where every single component has to pull its weight; it’s about that mutual, shared responsibility within the entire system to keep everything running smoothly.

It’s the same story with her—she’s leaning on some kind of external authority to back her up. But honestly, once you look past that, the very concept of enforcing this kind of ethics is built on the assumption that social authority actually exists in the first place. It's all tied together.

I don't know about that. Honestly, I think an ethical society just naturally corrects its own deviations without needing some massive, heavy-handed authority to step in and force things. It’s much simpler than people make it out to be—a healthy community just doesn't have any appetite for irresponsibility or intolerance. It self-regulates.

I honestly feel like society shouldn't have to play babysitter—if someone chooses to be completely irresponsible, then they should just face the music. It’s pretty simple, really: if you act recklessly and I step in to bail you out, I’m essentially subsidizing that bad behavior. At that point, I’m being just as irresponsible as you are by enabling it. Support systems, like access to work or steady paychecks, shouldn't be used to cushion people who refuse to take accountability for their own lives. It’s basic math.

Maybe you’re thinking strictly in terms of political authority—which might be why we aren't quite seeing eye to eye here.

I mean, isn't it just common sense that anarchism is fundamentally about tackling political authority? I don't get why people act like it’s some vague social theory—at its core, it's about deconstructing the power structures that try to run our lives. What on earth would your own personal authorities have to do with how society functions as a whole? It's two completely different things.

The whole concept of the modern state really boils down to one central thing—you’re essentially handing over the authority to punish anyone who steps out of line. It’s about delegating that power to the government to sanction people for breaking certain rules, whether we're talking about legal codes, social norms, or even those unwritten standards of public morality. It’s like giving someone else the keys to the disciplinary system, trusting them to decide what counts as "wrong" and how much it should cost you to break those rules.

See, this is exactly what I mean... you delegate "someone else" to tackle a problem that we personally don't even want to deal with, and the end result is just pure, unadulterated stupidity. Instead of us actually holding one another accountable—you know, looking out for each other like a community should—we just outsource all that responsibility to "the law" and various repressive government agencies. It’s a total mess.

If society stopped constantly rewarding and enabling irresponsibility, we’d honestly be dealing with a hell of a lot fewer problems. But that’s the thing—people actually *crave* being irresponsible. They don't want to shoulder the weight of making their own calls or holding up their end of the bargain with everyone else in the community. It just feels too heavy, you know? It’s much easier to just "delegate" those tough decisions to someone else—to hand off the responsibility—and then act completely blindsided when that person ends up using you as a stepping stone for their own selfish ambitions. People wonder why they got burned, but they practically handed over the matches and asked for a light. 😁

Honestly... if I wanted to design the most foolish, inefficient system imaginable, I don't think I could do a better job than what we’re dealing with right now. It’s just fundamentally broken—not even from a theoretical standpoint. When you start validating false, delegated authority, you effectively kill any incentive for people to actually take responsibility for themselves. It strips away the need for personal accountability and stops anyone from truly participating in the decisions that shape our society.

Look, maybe this whole system isn't exactly a masterpiece of perfection—I mean, let’s be real, any government agency can fall prey to corruption or start pulling strings just to serve certain power brokers and special interest groups. That’s just how things work sometimes. But at the same time, there's a practical side to it: this structure is what allows you to walk down a street in a city like Chicago or Philly feeling relatively secure. In those 90% of situations where nobody is looking for trouble, it’s this very framework that keeps things steady. If we didn't have these institutions in place to provide that baseline of order, who else would actually step up and guarantee that kind of safety for you?

Why do people even bother with killing and stealing in the first place? It’s a question that gets me thinking late at night—this fundamental glitch in our nature. Think about bees or termites for a second. They build these incredibly intricate, highly organized "societies," right? They have complex structures and roles that keep everything running smoothly, yet they don't need a written legal code or a massive police force to keep them from tearing each other apart. There isn't some central authority hovering over them, ready to throw them in a cell if they step out of line. They just... exist in harmony within their own systems. So, why is it different for us? Why can't we find that same level of natural equilibrium without needing an entire apparatus of laws and enforcement to keep the peace? It makes you wonder if we missed something fundamental in our evolution, or if our complexity just comes with a much darker set of baggage.

Whenever a disaster hits and our social institutions basically fall apart, you see this incredible thing happen—human cooperation and genuine solidarity just bubble to the surface immediately. It’s actually pretty beautiful to watch. But there's this weird catch: as soon as someone is officially "delegated" or "put in charge" of the relief efforts, we all suddenly feel like we don't have a single obligation to step up. We start delegating our own sense of responsibility to others... essentially outsourcing our conscience so someone else can be the one held accountable. Honestly, it's such a fundamentally stupid way to look at life. 🙂

I mean, you’ve got a point there... but I don't think that necessarily means everything we've built within our institutions is worthless. It’s more like—think of it like an old house that needs a serious structural overhaul. The foundation might still be solid, but the wiring is shot and the plumbing is a mess. We don't need to tear the whole thing down and start from scratch; we just need to go through with a fine-tooth comb and really revise how they operate.

Look, I don’t think we need to tear everything down and start from scratch—institutions can definitely stay—but they absolutely have to become secondary to society. Think of them more like a support crew rather than the main event. Ideally, institutions should only step in to handle those complex, messy issues that a community simply can't resolve on its own. Beyond that? They need to be directly accountable to the people, and their entire operation needs to be 100% transparent. It shouldn't feel like a black box where decisions happen behind closed doors; it should be an open book.

I still can’t quite wrap my head around the idea that we could actually pull off some kind of decentralized society. It just feels out of reach—honestly, I think humans are hardwired to seek out an individual authority figure, no matter how much we talk about autonomy. We have this deep-seated tendency to look for someone at the top to tell us what's what, almost like it's baked into our DNA. Even if you designed a perfect, distributed system from scratch, people would likely just end up gravitating toward some central leader or power player anyway. It's a tough cycle to break.

We’re essentially talking about the centralization of power—both political and economic—where a handful of individuals exert control over everyone else. To me, society isn't some machine you can just tune up; it’s an organic, living thing. Because of that, there’s no such thing as a "one size fits all" decision—no single policy is ever going to satisfy every different layer of the community at once. Honestly, this whole obsession with centralization feels like madness to me. It's a relic of the Industrial Revolution, born from that outdated mindset of thinking everything should run like a factory assembly line or a giant gear in a wheel.

Honestly, a system like this just doesn't cut it anymore—it’s completely out of sync with the digital and electronic age we’re living in today. It feels totally unsustainable, especially when you consider how fast everything moves now. If we don't see some serious changes coming down the pipeline soon, I really don't see how it's going to survive.

Is there actually a clear, detailed, battle-tested blueprint for how this would all work in practice—like a real roadmap—or are we all just tossing around high-level, abstract concepts at this point?

I’ve always felt that every "open source" project is essentially a little pocket of micro-anarchy—and honestly, so far, they all seem to be working beautifully. Take Wikipedia, for instance; it’s just one prime example of a much larger phenomenon. Wherever you find people acting with a sense of personal responsibility toward one another and moving in sync with a shared goal, you just don't need "official authority" or those heavy-handed, repressive structures to keep things running. It just works.

I honestly feel like you're missing the mark here too—it seems like there’s a bit of a disconnect in how you're viewing the gap between normative theory and how things actually play out in the real world.

I’m pretty damn sure about that. 🙂

Look, we really need to distinguish between formal social structures and informal ones—they aren't even in the same ballpark. You can have all the official rules and hierarchies you want, but an informal structure doesn't just exist in a vacuum. It won't function without some kind of central power base forming somewhere along the line. It’s like trying to run a neighborhood watch without anyone actually stepping up to lead the charge; eventually, someone is going to emerge as the focal point, whether there's an official title attached to them or not. Power tends to gravitate toward a center, even in the most casual settings.

That’s just total nonsense. If that were actually true, it would mean there had to be some kind of "formal structure" in place from the very beginning—without which an "informal" society could never have even started to take shape in the first place. It's a bit of a circular argument, isn't it?

Actually, if you think about it... we only really started "formalizing" everything once the Gutenberg press came along. Before that, social structures and norms were almost entirely informal. This whole idea of strict "formality" is actually a pretty recent invention—it's a relatively new addition to the human toolkit. For the vast majority of our history, society operated through much more fluid, unofficial channels.

Look, if we actually reach a point where the workers themselves own the factory—where the people doing the heavy lifting are also the ones calling the shots—it’s not going to mean that hierarchy just vanishes into thin air. Sure, on paper, it’ll look like a flat, democratic structure, but let's be real for a second: humans are wired for organization. Even in a system designed for total equality, you're still going to see informal power structures start to bubble up underneath the official surface. It’s almost inevitable. We've seen this play out before in various organizations, and honestly, it's just part of how groups function. You might have the "official" leadership meetings, but then you'll have those unofficial circles where the actual influence sits—those little pockets of true authority that operate behind the scenes. It’s a pattern that keeps repeating itself, no matter how much you try to formalize things.

We never had anything even remotely close to that here. We used to have this whole "worker self-management" setup at our factories, but let’s be real—there was always this massive political authority looming over everything, and they always had the final say. The workers might get a small vote on things like holiday bonuses or local union perks, but when it came to actually running the factory, managing the city, or steering the country? They weren't even allowed to comment on those decisions, let alone participate in them. It was an illusion of control, really. 🙂

So, when you strip everything away, we’re really looking at the same old dilemma—it’s just swapped out socialism for capitalism. At the end of the day, as long as there's some kind of political authority calling the shots, the core issue doesn't actually change. It’s the same fundamental struggle, regardless of which economic label they slap on it.

Look, there’s just no dodging it—that’s why I’m saying if you could actually sit down and map out a blueprint for this that wouldn't immediately fall apart in the real world (which, let's be honest, I highly doubt), I’d be the first one handing you a Nobel Prize for it.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if someone already scooped up a Nobel Prize for figuring this out—it’s just that actually putting the theory into practice is a different beast entirely. Most people are driven by raw ambition and a lack of accountability, and let's be real, most of them have no intention of changing that nature.

It’s the same logic you see in any non-profit or "open source" organization. The moment a system fails to provide a way for individuals to chase their own profit or fulfill their personal ambitions, you end up with corruption and abuse becoming the default setting. It's practically built into the DNA.

When a society decides to "delegate" power by funneling people into central hubs where the potential for profit and influence is at its absolute peak... well, that tells you everything you need to know about how that society was designed from day one. It's essentially built on the assumption that people are inherently corruptible and irresponsible. I mean, anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together wouldn't organize a civilization that way unless that was the intended outcome. 😉

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.

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? 😉

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?

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.

fadedbison17 said: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...

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...

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... 😉

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.

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.

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?

fadedbison17 said: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?

Nice link. Thanks. (And honestly, I didn't realize until now that laissez-faire advocates actually push for the abolition of licensing and trademarks *blush*)

The author is persuasive, sure, but I’m still not entirely sold. Here is why:
Who is going to stop massive corporations from forming a conglomerate or a cartel to squeeze out the competition? We call it "merging," and while it's an incredibly efficient way to boost profits, it’s also a direct path to monopolizing an entire sector. Look, let's take a hypothetical: imagine if Microsoft and Yahoo decided to merge. In the world of commercial software—not talking about games or trivial stuff—those two companies really only face legitimate competition from Google and Apple... and, well, that's pretty much it. If those two giants decide to merge too, well, game over. Suddenly we have two ultra-giants instead of one. How is the market supposed to support anyone else trying to exist or thrive? At best, everyone else gets the crumbs, assuming they get anything at all.

(Though, I will say, computer science is one of those rare fields where open-source projects—which are essentially a prerequisite for anarchy—could function perfectly fine, provided users are a bit more educated.)

Furthermore: he argues that competition is the best defense against monopolies. I agree. He also claims that government regulations are what actually enable monopolies to exist. Fair enough. But here’s the kicker—if the state completely abandons its role in regulating the market, who stops these companies from simply resorting to force to secure their monopoly—to "trademark" their territory through sheer power? Animals do it—they use force to protect what they consider theirs. And since laissez-faire is supposed to represent the "natural laws" of the market, isn't that exactly what would happen?

Edward Flores4 said:

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

And don't think I've forgotten about you. I've been a bit swamped with work lately, but I'm planning to carve out an hour or two over the weekend to get better acquainted with good old Noam Chomsky—then I'll be back in the game.