Project Lawless Frontier

As I’ve asked before, please do not simply lump in all anarchists with a couple of people who want to see the world burn. I can assure that the reason I am an anarchist is because I want the exact opposite, and thinking and reading about how to achieve it is what led me to anarchism.

Everybody has there own perceptions, part of discussion is to try and narrow down the discrepancies people have about specific terms “anarchy” for instance. What is anarchy? Even the anarchists seem to hold differant opinion as they have differant views as polly pointed out.

I don’t think it’s fair to say that someone can’t understand an ideology simply because they don’t support it. With rules like that I’d have to bar all you anarchist from any discussion on government.

Has Pav shown that he misunderstands the principles of anarchism?

This though is what I see as one of the first real trials of an anarchist society, how are the clashes of interests dealt with?

Because Governments often use diplomacy and if that fails force, what some may call coercian.

Can an anarchist resolve an issue agressively against another person an still be an anrachist? As the mere act of imposing your will by force is something anarchists say they wish to be rid of.

Can you give an example?

yeah. in the post that i quoted.

you can take it as a rule of thumb that, for the most part, if somebody supports a political ideology, they do so because they think it would in some way be better. most people aren’t trying to support a world that sucks. so, having taken that as a rule of thumb, if you ever find yourself relegating somebody’s political belief to “a chaotic, dog-eat-dog world by definition,” chances are you don’t understand the definition.

for example, although I don’t agree with Marxism, I don’t actually believe that Marxists or communists actually want a world that sucks. I believe that they think it would be better. I also think they’re mistaken about that, but I don’t think that it’s fair to define it as a world that sucks.

so yes, pav doesn’t understand it. he’s taking his bias and treating it like it’s how anarchy is defined. if we’re gonna talk about what’s fair, i don’t think that’s fair.

Of what?

A conflict of interests that is currently solved by having a government.

We understand that you believe “your way” would make things better and we believe you’re mistaken about it as well.

His bleak notion is based on what he’s sees as likely or inevitable when anarchism is put into practice.

He believes it won’t work based on what historically happens when there isn’t government control. This is supported by the fact that there is no historical acount for an anarchistic society.

This doesn’t mean he doesn’t understand how you believe it would in fact function, just that he doesn’ think the reality will match the ideal.

Which is it? Is it based on what historically happens, or is there no historical account for him to base it on?

And no, it’s not just that he doesn’t think it will match the ideal. He doesn’t even acknowledge the ideal. He thinks that by definition it is dog-eat-dog. By definition, there is no ideal. By definition, it sucks. This is what he said:

Anything that’s not dog-eat-dog, every man for himself, is not “true anarchy” – or, in other words, true anarchy can only be that. There is no ideal, there is only dog-eat-dog.

So, yes, you may think that anarchy would be a bad system and would result in dog-eat-dog, but that’s fundamentally different from saying that it’s defined as dog-eat-dog. I think marxism will always result in a wrecked economy and people clambering to get out of it, but that’s fundementally different from saying marxism is defined as a world that sucks.

So, he doesn’t understand it, his definition is nonsense, and his comment on external trade being “hypocritical” is nonsense. He doesn’t understand what it is, so how can he know what is and isn’t hypocritical? He doesn’t know. As I said before, there’s nothing hypocritical about an anarchist voluntarily trading with whoever he wants. That’s a ridiculous claim.

He’s taking his own bias against anarchy (which may or may not be reasonable) and embedding that into the definition of anarchy (which isn’t reasonable). I’m not just gonna let that slide.

Just to make myself extra-clear:

Saying “It’s not true anarchy unless it’s dog-eat-dog” is about as reasonable as saying “You’re not a true Muslim unless you kill yourself in a suicide-bomb attempt.”

Fair trade between an anarcho society and a state society is perfectly reasonable. It’s a voluntary activity as defined by anarchos and therefore not hypocritical.

Honestly, if we use a physical barrier, then it stops being an anarchist colony and starts being a concentration camp.

Btw Pav, even if this thing is purely conceptual (although it isn’t to me), it is important to determine whether the colony would be in some god-forsaken corner of the Saharan desert or the mineral resources rich area of Guyana.

If there are no resources, there will be a lot of violence. Anarchists don’t like going hungry.

Yeah, individual people, that’s fine. My point is that I don’t understand how you do organized bulk trading of natural resources with another country, given the sort of collective agreements that have to be made, and not call it a system of, at least, loose Government.

What? You quoted me saying, “…but many Anarchists seem to still want a functional society, to some extent,” how is that me lumping in all Anarchists with a couple of people who want to see the world burn?

Bullshit. I differentiated. I said that some Anarchists do not want a, “Dog-eat-dog,” world, specifically. Do you disagree that some Anarchists want that and that some do not? Walker is a self-described Anarchists, Walker says he wants it all to burn, that’s one. There are others, check out some different Forums related to Anarchy. More than one of you want a functional society, more than one of you want it to burn, that’s why I differentiated.

I’m talking about how some self-described Anarchists define it. You cannot say that there are none that define it that way. I differentiated for different types of Anarchists, and for that reason. I recognize that not all Anarchists want that. I think what many want is what I would term, “Loose Government,” socialization and organization with no codification.

In my opinion, yes, PURE ANARCHY is dog-eat-dog. I expressly stated that is my opinion.

“In my opinion,” is what I term a qualifier. It means that I am not positing my statement as absolutely right in all cases, in fact, I specifically said that many self-described Anarchists do not feel that way or want a society as such.

Just to make myself extra-clear:

Qualifying what you say with, “In my opinion,” which your quote so conveniently omits, almost always results in someone speaking reasonably.

I’ve already stated I would give you guys, “Prime real estate,” I just want a dividing line because I don’t want you coming into our country thinking you can do whatever you want. At the same time, I don’t think it is fair to imprison you if you did not know you entered our country and you commit a crime, so that’s why I think there should be a divider.

Dog-eat-dog is a constant in both statism and anarchism.