Share something pointless about your life!

[Obnoxious]

Ok, now go read on mutualism.

[magaginho]

Ok, now go read on mutualism.

Mutualism (biology), symbiotic interaction between different species that is mutually beneficial
Mutualism (economic theory), an economic theory created by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon based on the labor theory of value
Mutualism (movement), a politically neutral movement that aims at creating and promoting mutual organizations, insurances, and other funds

Movement means that terms are automatically applied. Therefore, it can't be applied under this discussion.
An economic theory is filled with rules. Therefore, it also can't be applied under this discussion.
Biology is nothing more than a theory that can't be translated into acts.

[Obnoxious]

Been a while since I quoted myself.

I'll just leave this at I read more about anarchy than just a dictionary definition...

[adailnaruto]

Mercy vs Obnoxious? Who will get banned first? Stay tuned for more!

[Kemii]

I somehow wish I never said anything, these past few pages I foresaw happening.

[Arbiterone]

No, that's not ignorance. That's you dodging the bullet. I'm gonna make the question again to see how far the hipocrisy goes;

What's your role as a moderator? Why are you a moderator? Why do jobs like a moderator exist?

Not sure how that contradicts what I said. You accepted the rules when you joined. And, unlike governments, you can leave whenever you want.

You only need to read the comment above. And...

In this specific case, his whole anarchy status quo goes down the drain when he's a moderator himself. You're going against something that you defend just by having the job that you have and that takes away all the credibility that you could have.

Google what is a private property. I think that's what is missing for you to understand this.

So what that it's an utopia?

My point isn't that it's possible, but if you're going to argue anarchy, argue anarchy for what anarchy is in the full meaning.

As someone who has read Rothberg, anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, lack of government and liberalism are all the same. They're just a matter of how much you trust the idea that everything a government does can be done by society itself, cheaper and better. They are all consequences of the same philosophy, the idea of natural human rights.
When I first touched the idea I couldn't understand how possibly roads could be constructed without a government. We are so used to the government we can't come up with a better idea. Eventually I saw everything the government does is only to rob you and justify it's existance.
The government first creates a problem, then brings it's solution. They first raise taxes, tributes and bureaucracy, causing lack of jobs, then they come up with social programs claiming this problem was a consequence of capitalism and they're the good guys. This is just one example.

I'll approach this way: Everyone knows there's something wrong in the system, right? Ask yourself, is it actually necessary that the government takes taxes from everyone, with the excuse of providing education and healthcare? Couldn't you do better if you had that money and spent it yourself?
In some countries the service is better than others, but in general it is the same -- you could pick a better service if the money was in your pocket.

I didn't say they'd kill each other. But I won't claim that isn't a possibility. You're pretending that society isn't inherently violent. You do realize that there are many forms of violence, right? Physical violence isn't the only one that matters, and other forms of violence are often times the cause or justification behind physical violence. A small town might work for your example. However, there is a very big difference between a small town and the world. The world is made up of different religions, cultures, etc. that many are still killing each other over.

I like to argue that anything infringing the natural human rights is a form of violence. Did I smoke on your face without your permission? That's infringing the right of property, as your body is your own property. And that's a type of violence.
To ensure violence is punished you need a judicial system. Lack of government does not equal the lack of a judicial system. Private companies themselves could compete in offering society the best judicial service, for example. If one goes corrupt, you can just not use their service. In Medieval Iceland, justice was done by a group of notorious people, going home by home asking each individual what they think should be done. This isn't necessarily how an anarchist society would work nowadays, but it proves society can organize a justice system themselves. I have seen great suggestions of how could this work in a society lacking a government.

EDIT: As for the religion matter, I'll assume you mean the situation in the middle east. None of that would happen if no government touched it. ISIS' existance would not be justified if no government bombarded their cities. The war wouldn't even start in the first place if a government didn't move jews to Palestine, dozens of years ago.

[Hugolich]

Don't. This was actually pretty entertaining.

[Obnoxious]

The government first creates a problem, then brings it's solution.

This is already absurdly incorrect, you're switching the order of facts to create a scenario that validates your opinion.
Government (and before it, any kind of leadership position) was created because human beings sooner or later can't cooperate with each other out of their own will. Some will be lazy, some will be malicious, some will be uncaring about the limitations of others. Any form of government, in essence, comes to counteract that, so there's an organized enforcing of certain rules to try to give society some balance.

[Arbiterone]

This is already absurdly incorrect, you're switching the order of facts to create a scenario that validates your opinion.
Government (and before it, any kind of leadership position) was created because human beings sooner or later can't cooperate with each other out of their own will. Some will be lazy, some will be malicious, some will be uncaring about the limitations of others. Any form of government, in essence, comes to counteract that, so there's an organized enforcing of certain rules to try to give society some balance.

Governments were created thousands of years ago in the form of kingdoms. They claimed they owned a land and everyone who wished to live there would have to pay them taxes.
When monarchy ended in France, it was filled by a republic. It basically does the same thing -- takes taxes from you, difference is it tries to justify it's existance by giving back a small portion of what they take from you. The system is the same, what changed is how hard they try to pretend they are actually necessary, so that they mantain themselves in power.

[Obnoxious]

Governments were created thousands of years ago in the form of kingdoms. They claimed they owned a land and everyone who wished to live there would have to pay them taxes.
When monarchy ended in France, it was filled by a republic. It basically does the same thing -- takes taxes from you, difference is it tries to justify it's existance by giving back a small portion of what they take from you. The system is the same, what changed is how hard they try to pretend they are actually necessary, so that they mantain themselves in power.

Governments were created way, way longer than any kingdom. A tribe leader is the tribe's government. This has nothing to do with land, taxes, kings or baguettes, it's all about someone taking charge because one way or another people will look out for themselves before others if no one is basically forcing them to.

[Mednieks4]

all the pacifist societies that just co-existed with the bloodthirsty conquerors of past times that wanted to enforce rules upon them have been exterminated never to return unless some apocalyptic event happens and the remainder of our species have no interest in recreating the society as it is today.
the only good communist country (even though basically socialist) was Yugoslavia and it was destroyed by the west eventually so a piece of advice to all the guys dreaming of something other than capitalism would be to stop, that is just how it is

[TheClam]

Why would everyone ever enforce peace when conflict stands at the very base of what a human is? Literally we would only have peace if each of us would have a planet of our own, but with means of instant communication and transportation among planets, which could be turned on and off at will. But then, would we be still human?
I personally accept the world as it is. I don't have to like it, you don't have to like it, but I accept and understand how things work and I'm not trying to impose my views and opinions onto anyone.

[unbanned]

but I accept and understand how things work

Do you though?

[magaginho]

You only need to read the comment above. And...
Google what is a private property. I think that's what is missing for you to understand this.

I probably know what a private property for longer than what you might think. I don't need to google to know how rules work under that board. In the same way that once you're born in a country your automatically a citizen of that country; You accept the rules or you find a country that provides your personal needs. Simple as that. You don't like the place where you live? Leave it.

About your anarchy status; I honestly believe that you're still being a hypocrite regarding what an anarchy stands for and you even are a practicer of a job that represents everything that a anarchy is against. My conversation with you comes to an end when you refuse to accept this as a fact.

I somehow wish I never said anything, these past few pages I foresaw happening.

What if, for a moment, you realized that the world doesn't spin around you and never will my child? Jesus, the self-absorption is real.

[TheClam]

Do you though?

There's no reason for you to think I do not.