anarchist society vs statist society

[JosephTheLibertarian]

which do you think would win out? let's say, statist army invades anarchist society, would the anarchist society be able to defend itself?

[Truth Warrior]

"Society" is a collectivist bogus abstraction. It doesn't exist.

[Indy4Chng]

Nope... the statist would win and the anarchist would end up being slaves. Fear has worked for thousands of years.. throughout history. That is one of the reasons there has to be some sort of organized government.

[Truth Warrior]

which do you think would win out? let's say, statist army invades anarchist society, would the anarchist society be able to defend itself?
Like the anti-9/11, anti-Viet Nam, anti-Iraq? :D

[yongrel]

Who has bigger guns?

[Truth Warrior]

Who has bigger guns?
In 1776, the Brits. :D

[Truth Warrior]

Thought experiment: Assume that each of the world's nations is just one individual. Where is the state?

Not the UN, BTW. :p

[Raditude]

People can rise up for a common purpose, and would be willing to listen to and follow someone into battle, even if they are anarchist. It's a respect thing.

[Truth Warrior]

People can rise up for a common purpose, and would be willing to listen to and follow someone into battle, even if they are anarchist. It's a respect thing. Some would, some would not.<IMHO> :)

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/goering-quote.jpg

[Paulitician]

It would depend on the circumstances, really. However, if we take current situations right now, most likely the statist nation would win. I mean, the reason there are certain anarchist nations now is most likely due to government failure of some sort, and the order of which a society had is now toppled, things are therefore chaotic, the people are poor--I don't think they'd have much success in waging a war of defending themselves all that great.

However, if we think in some theoritical world where anarchist nations sprang up naturally/voluntarily and there were as much anarchism as there were statism in terms of geographical area, I wouldn't be able to say, because there are so many other factors I'm unaware of.

[Paulitician]

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/goering-quote.jpg
This is bloody brilliant.

[TastyWheat]

I've thought about this while writing a novel (one that sucks pretty bad and won't ever be finished). I imagine even anarchists will oppose banding together to defeat a common adversary. Cooperation amongst individuals is the beginning of government and that goes against anarchist code (as stated in my terrible novel). So if anarchists win it would be through sheer determination and not superior strategy.

[brandon]

which do you think would win out? let's say, statist army invades anarchist society, would the anarchist society be able to defend itself?

You can't answer a question like this without more facts. If there are only 10 people living in the anarchist society and they are invaded by a military of 100,000 I think it is pretty obvious who will win. However, if there is an anarchist society with 100,000 armed people and they are invaded by some small statist nation with a military of only 1000 soldiers then the anarchist society will win.


I think it would be almost impossible for a statist army to win a battle against an equally sized anarchist society. Since the anarchist society does not have an official military, there would be no distinction between civilians and soldiers so everyone must be killed. Fighting an offensive war like this with such indescretion would not be tolerated by the citizens of the invading country or the rest of the world.

[Truth Warrior]

War Is A Racket
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4377.htm

[Truth Warrior]

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/us_vs_world.gif

[brandon]

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/us_vs_world.gif

That graph would suggest that an anarchist society would win out. Even with our excessive military spending we are unable to win the war in Iraq, which could be considered an anarchy due to their lack of a universally recognized government or military

[Truth Warrior]

That graph would suggest that an anarchist society would win out. Even with our excessive military spending we are unable to win the war in Iraq, which could be considered an anarchy due to their lack of a universally recognized government or military
;)

[pcosmar]

Anarchist Society=Oxymoron

Other than some fictitious utopia that could not exist, there are too many variables to say who would win. Numbers per side, supply and manufacturing, training and discipline , communication,etc.

:confused:

[Paulitician]

Anarchist Society=Oxymoron
How is that an oxymoron?

[T-K]

That graph would suggest that an anarchist society would win out. Even with our excessive military spending we are unable to win the war in Iraq, which could be considered an anarchy due to their lack of a universally recognized government or military

We won every battle militarily and the kill to death ratio is heavily in are favor. We have not stabilized the government ( and its questionable weather are leaders really want to). If you where to pick out any spot on the map in Iraq are military could probably take and hold it in a matter of days if not hours.

[Alex Libman]

Anarcho-capitalism, that is a free society without centralized government, is an ideal that no society can ever live up to. It's like saying "I believe in a society with no crime". And that's exactly what government is - organized crime made as civilized and predictable as possible. Take the government away, and socialists will grab their pitchforks and start re-distributing wealth the hard way. That's why I'm a pragmatic gradualist - all government sucks, but we do need some amount of it, as little as possible.


---

Baldwin reminds me of Hitler before he came to power, and this forum needs to get rid of the theocratic nut-jobs by ostracizing them before they completely ruin Ron Paul's legacy! Sure, he's saying all the right things now, but imagine what his Prohibition, errr, I mean """Constitution""" party would do if they came to power on state level! They won't just stop at outlawing gambling and pornography as their platform is calling for, no sir! We're talking about Christian Taliban here! :eek:

[Kludge]

Volunteer Militia > State Draftees

[LibertiORDeth]

How is that an oxymoron?


"Society" is a collectivist bogus abstraction. It doesn't exist.

There you have it.

[mport1]

Wow, that is a surprising result. You guys need to read up more on anarchism.

[NEPA_Revolution]

I say the anarchists if they could organize an army. Most would rather die than become slaves to a state, but if they failed to organize an army they would fail miserably.

[Paulitician]

There you have it.
That still doesn't explain it. Perhaps it's meaningless to say society since you guys say society don't exist, but I don't see how an anarchist society is an oxymoron.

Anarchy means without rulers. A society is a collection of or total interactions among individuals. You can have all sorts of societies, anarchist included.

What truth warrior is pointing out is that society itself is not an actual 'thing', but rather an abstraction. I agree with that point of view, but you can still have a society of individualists, as oxymoronic as that sounds. The reason society is quite useless is because you have to put on arbitrary borders in order to define a "society" because if we think of society as the "total interactions among individuals," that would just mean the whole world.

Well, whatever, I'm just rambling and nitpicking now. I still believe you can have an anarchist society but it's more of a semantic thing.

[Paulitician]

I say the anarchists if they could organize an army. Most would rather die than become slaves to a state, but if they failed to organize an army they would fail miserably.
Organize how? Because if they tried to centralize, they'd just be playing the Statist's game. Wouldn't the so-called anarchist society benefit from complete decentralization against centralization?

[Kludge]

Organize how? Because if they tried to centralize, they'd just be playing the Statist's game. Wouldn't the so-called anarchist society benefit from complete decentralization against centralization?. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

[Brian4Liberty]

You guys need to read up more on anarchism.

Yeah, you guys! Consider yourselves scolded for being ignorant!

[Paulitician]

Anarcho-capitalism, that is a free society without centralized government, is an ideal that no society can ever live up to. It's like saying "I believe in a society with no crime". And that's exactly what government is - organized crime made as civilized and predictable as possible. Take the government away, and socialists will grab their pitchforks and start re-distributing wealth the hard way. That's why I'm a pragmatic gradualist - all government sucks, but we do need some amount of it, as little as possible.
Actually, I don't really think anarcho-capitalism is utopian in the sense that it doesn't expect crime. What government is, is a coercive monoply. Anarcho-capitalists want a society without coercion. Therefore, along with the philosophy and morals behind a society, what you need is some checks and balances that deal with and try to prevent coercion in order for anarcho-capitalism to work, otherwise people will just revent back to coercive government. I don't think government is at all necessary, theoritically. However, more people would need my type of attitude, that we don't need government for daily life (since we don't, I'm not dependent on the state whatsoever except I only interact with the state because it makes me), and when there are enough people who think and act this way, the state would just become obsolete and people would be much freer. This of course, will not happen in my lifetime, but I don't think states will always be necessary. If the ideal of doing your best to live without the government is passed on over generations and the centuries, then what you ultimately expect to get is a completely voluntary and therefore "free" society.

[Paulitician]

. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism
I understand this. When I asked "organize how," I wanted something specific such as whether he was thinking of centralization, or some other type of organizing.

[Conza88]

I pushed Anarchism over the line for the mean time..

Think the Bronx - seriously, do you think China would be able to occupy that place? Those guys defending their own property. YEA, that shit ain't happening.

[Kludge]

I understand this. When I asked "organize how," I wanted something specific such as whether he was thinking of centralization, or some other type of organizing.

I'd imagine voluntary organizations, not a "societal" effort so much.

People can still organize and collect themselves in anarchy.

[Paulitician]

I'm not trying to dispute that people can organize and collect themselves under anarchy. My main question is whether centralization is the way they'd want to organize, or if complete decentralization would be more favorable. After all, what is the point of a centralized aggressor when it has no specified target? The centralized aggressor, the Statist military, would therefore crumble faster. Or would people take issue with this?

[Conza88]

Originally Posted by Paulitician
I understand this. When I asked "organize how," I wanted something specific such as whether he was thinking of centralization, or some other type of organizing.

Do they even need to organize? All they have to do is defend their own property. If some nut has come prepared, "there were stories of survivalists with Machine guns and mounts..." haha, and if people knew the invasion was coming... they'd set up barb wire, land mines.. what ever.

[sophocles07]

What are we using as a definition of a "statist society"? As far as I know, it means a society with some sort of structured authority, even if it were decentralized you'd have many smaller, local statist organizations. To my mind, this is not avoidable. So I think the hypothetical question is somewhat useless. Meaning, though this may sound pessimisstic (I consider it realistic), no anarchist society--stateless, decentralized, etc.--(if it were possible to exist in the first place) could mobilize itself based on volunteerism, etc., without at some point destroying its nature (as a decentralized society). I.e., war, a statist motion, will result in a state.

[Truth Warrior]

Actually, I don't really think anarcho-capitalism is utopian in the sense that it doesn't expect crime. What government is, is a coercive monoply. Anarcho-capitalists want a society without coercion. Therefore, along with the philosophy and morals behind a society, what you need is some checks and balances that deal with and try to prevent coercion in order for anarcho-capitalism to work, otherwise people will just revent back to coercive government. I don't think government is at all necessary, theoritically. However, more people would need my type of attitude, that we don't need government for daily life (since we don't, I'm not dependent on the state whatsoever except I only interact with the state because it makes me), and when there are enough people who think and act this way, the state would just become obsolete and people would be much freer. This of course, will not happen in my lifetime, but I don't think states will always be necessary. If the ideal of doing your best to live without the government is passed on over generations and the centuries, then what you ultimately expect to get is a completely voluntary and therefore "free" society.
We are thinking along the same lines. ;)

Thanks! :)

[Truth Warrior]

Which would be easier, take military control of Washington D.C. or of America, house by house? ;)

Only two people can surrender me to an invading foreign power.

The POTUS and me.

Take the POTUS out of the equation. ;)