06 Jun 07
Originally posted by rwingettA house with a flushing rule is not a town or a nation-state. There is no comparison.
If ten people live in a house together, they could vote on certain rules. Lets say they vote to impose a $10 fine on anyone who doesn't flush the toilet after they use it. If one person breaks the rule it's then up to the remaining nine to enforce the punishment. Are there any rulers in this scenario?
Start with a town of 10K people or a small city of 100,000. Now I agree that there are some areas that are regulated that shouldn't be. Do all 100,000 get together and decide whether or not there are speed limits in their city and what those speed limits are? Street by street? How do they get together and decide every little detail rather than having representatives allegedly speak on their behalf?
06 Jun 07
Originally posted by pawnhandlerYour mistake is in your inability to only look at the problem from anything other than a 'top-down' perspective. Since every government that has ever existed has operated in this fashion, this perception is understandable. Rules are made at the top of the hierarchical pyramid and they are imposed downward. But it doesn't have to be that way.
A house with a flushing rule is not a town or a nation-state. There is no comparison.
Start with a town of 10K people or a small city of 100,000. Now I agree that there are some areas that are regulated that shouldn't be. Do all 100,000 get together and decide whether or not there are speed limits in their city and what those speed limits are? Str ...[text shortened]... decide every little detail rather than having representatives allegedly speak on their behalf?
Instead of starting at the top, with a city of 100,000 people, and wondering how all the individuals at the bottom are going to be brought into cohesion, anarchists start at the bottom and work their way up. A small group of people can manage their own affairs quite well without needing any rulers. The number of existing, egalitarian communities throughout the world demonstrates this quite conclusively. So you start there, with the community of, say, 100 people as being society's basic building bloc. Each Community manages its own affairs through direct democracy.
With that basic unit in place, you then work your way upwards. Say ten Communities are grouped together into a Unit. This Unit helps coordinate the activities and production between each community. Ten Units could be grouped into ten Sections, which would help coordinate the activities and production between the Units. And ten of those Sections would comprise your City, which would help coordinate the activities and production between the Sections. But in each case, the power starts at the bottom, with the individual.
As for speed limits, there is no reason why the people couldn't vote on such things. There are a number of ways it could work. A study group could be commissioned to recommend what speed limits should be set at, and this could be voted on,yea or nay. Or the study group could recommend several options which could be voted on. Should the speed limit be 55 or 75? Vote on it.
06 Jun 07
Originally posted by rwingettA very desirable social arrangement that I think is quite viable so long as the means of capital production are wholly in the hands of the laborers who do the producing. Society would have two branches of self-government: the social branch (consisting of communities small and large that are run by rotating citizens' councils and popular referendums), and the economic branch (consisting of fully democratized syndicates run by workers' councils).
Your mistake is in your inability to only look at the problem from anything other than a 'top-down' perspective. Since every government that has ever existed has operated in this fashion, this perception is understandable. Rules are made at the top of the hierarchical pyramid and they are imposed downward. But it doesn't have to be that way.
Instead of ...[text shortened]... nd several options which could be voted on. Should the speed limit be 55 or 75? Vote on it.
06 Jun 07
Originally posted by Sam The ShamYou are mistaken, I'm afraid. Anarchists can have rules and laws, as long as they get to make and enforce the rules themselves instead of having them imposed upon them. Anarchists are against hierarchical institutions and economic exploitation.
Anarchists believe that there should be no rules or law. they believe that until someone comes along and takes all their stuff and they don't have anyone to cry about it to.
06 Jun 07
Originally posted by SoothfastThat sounds perfectly fine to me. When do we start?
A very desirable social arrangement that I think is quite viable so long as the means of capital production are wholly in the hands of the laborers who do the producing. Society would have two branches of self-government: the social branch (consisting of communities small and large that are run by rotating citizens' councils and popular referendums), and the economic branch (consisting of fully democratized syndicates run by workers' councils).
07 Jun 07
Originally posted by rwingettAfter lunch, say?
That sounds perfectly fine to me. When do we start?
As I've said in the Debate forum I'm pretty much an "anarchosyndicalist", though I'm still reading into anarchist literature and fine-tuning things.
Already in this thread we see a manifestation of the common misconception that anarchism means anarchy. But basically it can be put this way: anarchism means no rulers, not no rules.