Central Council of Anarchy

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='03 November 2009 - 10:12 AM' timestamp='1257257554' post='1995655']

Sounds like Afganistan.

Jim
[/quote]

It does, doesn't it?

~Sternhauser

[Winchester]

Tribalism: Not anarchy.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Winchester' date='03 November 2009 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1257302992' post='1995923']
Tribalism: Not anarchy.
[/quote]


Tribalism where the strongest of the tribe rules, and the strongest tribe rules the territory.

It all begins with anarchy and ends up in a totalitarianism.

Jim

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='04 November 2009 - 10:05 AM' timestamp='1257343554' post='1996064']
Tribalism where the strongest of the tribe rules, and the strongest tribe rules the territory.

It all begins with anarchy and ends up in a totalitarianism.

Jim
[/quote]

Not to lend credence to the idea that a society in which the vast majority do not believe they have the right to initiate violence itself leads to the opposite idea, but, if this were the case, would that make a voluntary society a thing not to be striven for, or would it only make totalitarianism a thing to be fought?


~Sternhauser

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='04 November 2009 - 10:21 AM' timestamp='1257344485' post='1996067']
Not to lend credence to the idea that a society in which the vast majority do not believe they have the right to initiate violence itself leads to the opposite idea, but, if this were the case, would that make a voluntary society a thing not to be striven for, or would it only make totalitarianism a thing to be fought?


~Sternhauser
[/quote]


Voluntary society?

You mean like joining a commune?

People are born into societies. They don't have much choice about where they end up, nor who makes up those societies.

One thing is certain however, those societies are made up of both good and bad people. Although the majority are good, often, most are apathetic, unless certain rights are taken away, one being the means of sustaining one's existence for family and self, i.e. food, water, shelter. But there will always be the greedy and power hungry, who will subvert the majority in order to serve themselves. These must never be allowed to win.

Jim

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='04 November 2009 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1257350616' post='1996097']
Voluntary society?

You mean like joining a commune?

People are born into societies. They don't have much choice about where they end up, nor who makes up those societies.[/quote]

I mean like society. Society is not merely a group of people living in close proximity. Society is not an entity in itself: it is the sumtotal of the mutually-beneficial interactions among individuals. I say again, that there is a reason why robbery, theft, assault and murder are called "anti-social" behaviors.

[quote]One thing is certain however, those societies are made up of both good and bad people. Although the majority are good, often, most are apathetic, unless certain rights are taken away, one being the means of sustaining one's existence for family and self, i.e. food, water, shelter. But there will always be the greedy and power hungry, who will subvert the majority in order to serve themselves. These must never be allowed to win.

Jim
[/quote]

The greedy and power hungry will always win, so long as the majority of individuals continue to vote.

A right that can be taken away is not a right, it is a privilege. Rights come from God, and are inalienable. They can be infringed, they can be violated, they can be forefeited, but they can never be "taken away."

Social behavior is voluntary. Anti-social behavior is the initiation of aggression.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 5, 2009 by Sternhauser

[un.privileged]

Hey there, I am a Catholic and politically I consider myself to be a Libertarian Socialist (Anarchist) in the Mutualist tradition (free market anti-Capitalist), and very Distributist leaning. I believe that private property should be for everybody (especially for most families), and not concentrated in few capitalist hand. Good to find an agorist around here. Nice to meet you

[un.privileged]

I don't believe in private property in the Capitalistic sense, which sees that the right to private property is absolute. It is a means to serve labour, not as an end itself.

"Isolating these means as a separate property in order to set it up in the form of "capital" in opposition to "labour"-and even to practise exploitation of labour-is contrary to the very nature of these means and their possession. They cannot be [i]possessed against labour, [/i]they cannot even be [i]possessed for possession's sake, [/i]because the only legitimate title to their possession- whether in the form of private ownerhip or in the form of public or collective ownership-is [i]that they should serve labour, [/i]and thus, by serving labour, that they should make possible the achievement of the first principle of this order, namely, the universal destination of goods and the right to common use of them." ([i]Laborem Exercens[/i])
It becomes illegitimate to possess them when property ‘is not utilised or when it serves to impede the work of others, in an effort to gain a profit which is not the result of the overall expansion of work and the wealth of society, but rather is the result of curbing them or of illicit exploitation, speculation or the breaking of solidarity among working people ([i]Centesimus Annus[/i])
"On the other hand, property may also bring a series of deceptive promises that are a source of temptation. Those people and societies that go so far as to [i]absolutize[/i] the role of property end up experiencing the bitterest type of slavery.” ([i]Compendium of the Social Doctrines of the Church[/i])

I do think the agorist strategies to undermine the State is pretty awesome.

[Winchester]

I think it's cute when people believe a particular system will cure society's problems.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='un.privileged' timestamp='1282809731' post='2163420']
Hey there, I am a Catholic and politically I consider myself to be a Libertarian Socialist (Anarchist) in the Mutualist tradition (free market anti-Capitalist), and very Distributist leaning. I believe that private property should be for everybody (especially for most families), and not concentrated in few capitalist hand. Good to find an agorist around here. Nice to meet you
[/quote]


[quote name='un.privileged' timestamp='1282810875' post='2163421']
I don't believe in private property in the Capitalistic sense, which sees that the right to private property is absolute. It is a means to serve labour, not as an end itself.

"Isolating these means as a separate property in order to set it up in the form of "capital" in opposition to "labour"-and even to practise exploitation of labour-is contrary to the very nature of these means and their possession. They cannot be [i]possessed against labour, [/i]they cannot even be [i]possessed for possession's sake, [/i]because the only legitimate title to their possession- whether in the form of private ownerhip or in the form of public or collective ownership-is [i]that they should serve labour, [/i]and thus, by serving labour, that they should make possible the achievement of the first principle of this order, namely, the universal destination of goods and the right to common use of them." ([i]Laborem Exercens[/i])
It becomes illegitimate to possess them when property ‘is not utilised or when it serves to impede the work of others, in an effort to gain a profit which is not the result of the overall expansion of work and the wealth of society, but rather is the result of curbing them or of illicit exploitation, speculation or the breaking of solidarity among working people ([i]Centesimus Annus[/i])
"On the other hand, property may also bring a series of deceptive promises that are a source of temptation. Those people and societies that go so far as to [i]absolutize[/i] the role of property end up experiencing the bitterest type of slavery.” ([i]Compendium of the Social Doctrines of the Church[/i])

I do think the agorist strategies to undermine the State is pretty awesome.
[/quote]
I would love to see you debate Sternhauser...

[un.privileged]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1282834303' post='2163489']
I think it's cute when people believe a particular system will cure society's problems.
[/quote]

No system would cure society's problem, but certain systems could either be an improvement or a deterioration over the current system.

[Winchester]

[quote name='un.privileged' timestamp='1282891870' post='2163995']
No system would cure society's problem, but certain systems could either be an improvement or a deterioration over the current system.
[/quote]
The deterioration is due in large part to a loss of rights regarding personal property.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1282834303' post='2163489']
I think it's cute when people believe a particular system will cure society's problems.
[/quote]

Well, most of society is like that otherwise we wouldn't have such fierce battles over this sort of thing. Of course this includes, Catholics that get trapped in this train of thought.

EDIT: I like how 17 people only understand only one definition of the word anarchy, apparently some cannot see out of the box or view it in the context of the other question as well...

Edited August 27, 2010 by ThePenciledOne

[Winchester]

encyclopediadramatica.com has a comprehensive definition of anarchy.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1282925468' post='2164107']
encyclopediadramatica.com has a comprehensive definition of anarchy.
[/quote]
I just got pwned thanks to you.