A new proposal

[Curio Vergessenheit]

Rational Anarchy

Rational Anarchy is a belief that laws have no need or place in society. However Rational Anarchists live with laws in order to co-exist with others and make no moves to change them .I am a rational anarchist so i believe this is a great idea. With funding, volunteers, and a large mass of land this could be an interesting social experiment; Create a community with volunteers and watch the results throughout three generations. Does anyone else believe in this idea?

[Korashk]

This is by no stretch of the imagination "a new proposal." It's basically just voluntaryism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism) combined with the libertarian Free State Project (http://freestateproject.org/).

Lots of people subscribe to the basic principles, including me. It might also apply to some anarchists of the non-capitalist variety of which there are a few on this site.

Also, your proposed name is just insulting to anarchists.

[JackShephard]

I think that people are always going to need some sort of government. There is no way you could create a large scale community (such as a whole nation) without running into issues like robbery, murder, or any other sort of violation. It would be a free for all and unstable. Correct me if I am misunderstanding anarchy.

[Korashk]

You are misunderstanding anarchy. Nobody but anarcho-communists (I joke) claim that utopia is possible.

There are very specific ideas as to how criminal justice systems would function in an anarcho-capitalist society. The one of the main differences between the society we have now and an anarcho-capitalist one is that the state won't have a monopoly on things like police and courts. Competing courts would vie for business.

One might even make the claim that a multitude of government-like entities would spring up in an anarcho-capitalist society, which is entirely possible and in no way contradicts the ideology.

Most people think that anarchy = no government, when in fact a closer approximation of its meaning would be no state. Governments can exist without being states and coercive hierarchy is the only kind of hierarchy that anarchy-capitalists oppose.

If you want to learn more about the concept I propose you visit the literature section of the The Ludwig von Mises Institute (http://mises.org/Literature) for a bunch of free articles and books on the subject.

[JackShephard]

Interesting idea. But what would happen in the case of a corrupt influence? Like a mafia? Buying their way through the court systems and bending laws.

[Korashk]

Interesting idea. But what would happen in the case of a corrupt influence? Like a mafia? Buying their way through the court systems and bending laws.
Those corrupt systems cease being utilized. There would be no central authority, your average court's jurisdiction wouldn't extend very far. Plus it would be much harder for a mafia to function in a free market as well as there being way less incentive.

[JackShephard]

Nevertheless, wether such a society would be better than our current one or not, we cannot eliminate imperfection in society. As long as there are humans, there will be corruption and imperfection. And I believe it is this realization that spawns different governments. Always striving towards perfection in their own way. Wether it be total control in the hands of a single power, in the hands of the people, or somewhere in between. If you had such a choice, your options are to choose which imperfect world suits you best.

I really like the idea of anarchy (or what little understanding I have of it) but I am content with my current government.

[Truth]

Nevertheless, wether such a society would be better than our current one or not, we cannot eliminate imperfection in society. As long as there are humans, there will be corruption and imperfection. And I believe it is this realization that spawns different governments. Always striving towards perfection in their own way. Wether it be total control in the hands of a single power, in the hands of the people, or somewhere in between. If you had such a choice, your options are to choose which imperfect world suits you best.

I really like the idea of anarchy (or what little understanding I have of it) but I am content with my current government. That is a god damned shame that you're content with the government. The government is the largest group of criminals; killing well over 1,000,000 innocent people directly with their actions in the last 2 years alone.

[Rage of the Menace]

Eventually, an Anarchistic society would decay and fall from grace much easier than one with a Government. A government is in place to keep order and depending on which type, control.

Government will always be more efficient in the control of power and organisation of a country or social system. Anarchism to me is a bunch of hormone fueled teenage rebels.

[Korashk]

Government will always be more efficient in the control of power and organisation of a country or social system.
Then why are almost all aspects of the government that compete with the private sector routinely shown to be less efficient than their private sector counterpart?

Anarchism to me is a bunch of hormone fueled teenage rebels.
Then you know nothing of anarchism. I suggest you read some of the thousands of free articles and books I linked to. You can find one on most subjects.

[BFG9001]

Anarchy is an insipid notion.

[Mortal Coil]

While I like the theory of anarchy, it takes far more faith in humankind than I personally am willing to supply.

[huginnmuninn]

I think on a small scale this would be an interesting experiment but it would have its own set of problems...but so does everyother form of government. if there was an experiement where this could be tested in an acurate way i would volunteer for it.

[Korashk]

While I like the theory of anarchy, it takes far more faith in humankind than I personally am willing to supply.
Please extrapolate on this claim. Why does anarchy take more faith in humankind than the alternatives?

I think on a small scale this would be an interesting experiment but it would have its own set of problems...but so does everyother form of government. if there was an experiement where this could be tested in an acurate way i would volunteer for it.
The small scale is exactly the scale that anarchy is supposed to work with. It's not a concept meant to "govern" large areas. In fact, the entire purpose is to create a situation where small-ish communities can pretty much govern themselves.

Many anarcho-capitalists also point to the American "Wild West" as a pseudo anarcho-capitalist society.

[PDF] An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The -Not So Wild, Wild West (http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf)

[JackShephard]

That is a god damned shame that you're content with the government. The government is the largest group of criminals; killing well over 1,000,000 innocent people directly with their actions in the last 2 years alone.

I don't mean my government specifically. I mean the distribution of power in general. People elect representatives to be the voice of the people. I do not like how dishonest politicians can be however. Every presidential candidate makes promises they cannot keep. I am aware of the atrocities the US has committed and I do not condone them. Calm yoursef. Im not some bloodthirsty monster. But you should realize, this could come from any government depending on the circumstances.

[Curio Vergessenheit]

My point of this was to see other viewpoints which i have at this point. Crimes could be solved by the victim. If someone robs you, the result would be retaliation. This retaliation may come in a return theft or even death. A criminal syndicate would be possible but easily overthrown. Without laws, if someone knows the leader they can arm themselves and attack.

With a controlled test it would be possible to test this theory. The government by the people and for the people could be simply letting them deal with their own issues. However such a society would have flaws so testing is needed. I call it rational anarchy as it gives it a separate audible impression than anarchist. Anarchist alone sounds like just a rebellious idea. Ration Anarchy sounds slightly less like that and more of a governmental idea.

Thank you that is all.

[Mortal Coil]

Please extrapolate on this claim. Why does anarchy take more faith in humankind than the alternatives?
Because...

Rational Anarchy is a belief that laws have no need or place in society.
This means that humans are depended upon to abstain from stealing, assaulting etc., and there is no punishment if these happen. There would be no protection. I'm not saying that anarchy=chaos, but I am saying that without laws and people to enforce said laws, there would be, er, hitches.

[JackShephard]

Because...


This means that humans are depended upon to abstain from stealing, assaulting etc., and there is no punishment if these happen. There would be no protection. I'm not saying that anarchy=chaos, but I am saying that without laws and people to enforce said laws, there would be, er, hitches.

Agreed. You all seem to like the idea now but I wonder of you would change your mind if anarchy really did become the existing government system.

[Curio Vergessenheit]

This means that humans are depended upon to abstain from stealing, assaulting etc., and there is no punishment if these happen. There would be no protection. I'm not saying that anarchy=chaos, but I am saying that without laws and people to enforce said laws, there would be, er, hitches.

The enforcement would come from the victim in these cases. If say something was stolen, it would be possible to discover who it was and then punishment is controlled by the victim. If people needed protection, hiring others may or may not be an option.

[Truth]

I don't mean my government specifically. I mean the distribution of power in general. People elect representatives to be the voice of the people. I do not like how dishonest politicians can be however. Every presidential candidate makes promises they cannot keep. I am aware of the atrocities the US has committed and I do not condone them. Calm yoursef. Im not some bloodthirsty monster. But you should realize, this could come from any government depending on the circumstances. In Canada, we did not elect conservatives. The polls were quite obviously rigged; yet Stephen Harper is still in power.

The current government is corrupt, and they only have their own interest in mind.

[JackShephard]

In Canada, we did not elect conservatives. The polls were quite obviously rigged; yet Stephen Harper is still in power.

The current government is corrupt, and they only have their own interest in mind.

Proof?

And I hate to break it to ya, but ALL governments are corrupt. Do you really think we as a human race, or at least at the current moment, can make decisions that are not of selfish nature? It does not matter where you are, what government is in athourity, or what year it is, the scum of the earth will always end up in a position of power.

[Skyhawk]

Hasn't anyone considered a "direct democracy"?

Also, I skimmed the thread and noticed the Free Staters and Truth's comment towards another user being content with the government.

My opinion of the Free Staters: They are generally unemployed weed-smoking people who think just because McDonalds didn't want to hire them that the government is evil and must be fought. Don't like it here? Move to Somalia.

Truth: The government might kill, but it also saves lives. My mother wouldn't be alive if it (according to her) wasn't for government aid.
Last time I checked, most health agencies around here are nonprofits. o_O

Hate government? Move to Somalia.
/conversation

[JackShephard]

Hate government? Move to Somalia.
/conversation

Agreed 100%

Seriously, we have it way better than a lot of people. I think we forget to be grateful sometimes. Imagine having to struggle to find a meal every day or fighting disease and trying to stay alive on your own because there are no hospitals. STFU about how shitty everything is and be glad your life is more comfortable than most.

[Truth]

Proof?

And I hate to break it to ya, but ALL governments are corrupt. Do you really think we as a human race, or at least at the current moment, can make decisions that are not of selfish nature? It does not matter where you are, what government is in athourity, or what year it is, the scum of the earth will always end up in a position of power. I can't find a single person who says they voted for Conservative, not a single person.

Yet they some how won by a complete landslide?

It doesn't add up.