5 ms·

I mean, did they rob peasants or the lords of the land with their amassed stolen wealth...? A community can decide to cast someone out, reprimand them, impriso

I mean, did they rob peasants or the lords of the land with their amassed stolen wealth...? A community can decide to cast someone out, reprimand them, imprison them, etc. The whole idea of restorative justice can actually exist when a community is able to address it.

crowbahr 6y ago
They robbed anyone and everyone. Some people just give 0 fucks about anyone besides themselves. Most people give 0 fucks about anyone outside of a moderate group of acquaintances and friends.
graeme 6y ago
....any travellers. And the point is they were outside communities. Right now we take for granted that we can travel from point a to point b without worrying about such threats.
bbarnett 6y ago
What the? A "community" which makes "communal decisions" is a form of government, not anarchism! How can you cast someone out, without gates? Guards? Walls? How can you throw them out? Prevent them from returning? Do you think the robbers will just stop, because you said "Stop!". I feel like you're trolling here. I could of course be wrong, but it feels that way.
- rhn_mk1 6y ago
  Anarchism is a form of self-governance.
  - bbarnett 6y ago
    Which has nothing to do with a government.
    - rhn_mk1 6y ago
      But it has everything to do with "A "community" which makes "communal decisions"", whatever you call it. I hope Merriam-Webster clears that up: "Definition of government 1 : the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization"
      - bbarnett 6y ago
        I specifically said that "community" which makes "communal decisions" is not anarchy. You've simply claimed it does, then mentioned "governing authority", which is not entirely in line, now is it?
        rhn_mk1 6y ago
        You're right on the strength of my argument, but you're wrong on anarchy not being able to create governments (in the M-W definition above). But I'm not going to argue this any more.
- throwaway49872 6y ago
  > A "community" which makes "communal decisions" is a form of government, not anarchism This is exactly Anarchism. Please learn the basics before posting.
  - bbarnett 6y ago
    Oh I know basics. It's gibberish, built upon mad fantasy.
    - bantunes 6y ago
      On the contrary - mad fantasy is to think humans as they behave today is how they will always behave in the future. Humans used to roam around Africa and forage for food in tribes. Now I can reply to you, from another continent perhaps, by tapping my fingers on a tablet. To think humans will ever stop dreaming about more equitable systems of organization, and how to implement them, that truly is mad fantasy to me.
      - bbarnett 6y ago
        Yet, I said no such thing. I did not say humans would stop dreaming, nor that humans will always behave the same. I did say that a specific political system was madness. If you want to discuss "What about in 1000 years", yeah -- OK. But we're talking about now, humans today. And anarchy does not, and will not, work. It ignores significant human behaviour.
        bantunes 6y ago
        It doesn't work for everyone, no. But just like in 1800s Europe, when monarchists died off suddenly republics were obvious. I suspect much of the same will come to pass regarding systems of government tending towards anarchism and boomers.
        bbarnett 6y ago
        This response has put me firmly in the "you need to think about this a bit, bantunes" camp. Why? The second you mentioned 'boomers', you mentioned what is very specifically an American phenomenon. It certainly isn't a Chinese, Russian, Japanese, South African, or, well, the "rest of the world" phenomenon. To me, this makes me think you are viewing the world from a US perspective, without any attempt to see things from outside that prism. On top of that, the wild assertion that "boomers" somehow created an authoritarian government is beyond incomprehensible. While every generation has its flaws, yes every single generation, boomers were the hippie generation. Yes, hippies. The "free love" movement, anti-authoritarian counter culture that quite literally existed in highly conservative Western post-war cultures. The level of protest, anti-materialism, anti-corporate stance which hippies took, particularly in the US, far, far, far outweighs anything seen in the decades since. Of course, like every other generation since, for thousands and thousands of years, once they aged they became just like those they wanted to replace. But, let's walk away from the fact that boomers = hippies, and hippies protested, fought, and died in protests en mass, and even enacted some real change. Let's look at the overall assertion here. You're claiming republics were "obvious", and that this somehow sparked an instantaneous move from feudal, to republic. Yet in many places, these changes took literally centuries. And the powers of Kings were very gradually eroded, sometimes with blood, and other times with threat of blood. Even "revolutionary" moments in most Western cultures were smaller stepping stones, each effecting smaller sections of culture about governing, and self-governing. And really, suffrage for the "common person", for example, is less than 100 years old in many democracies. Like the UK, Canada, the US. In fact, for many cases, less than 50 years! And this change was gradual too. For example, in the UK with Lords challenging the King's right to tax, creating the "House of Lords", or the modern Senate. Or, the allowance of freemen with significant land, or land rental, being allowed to vote. It wasn't until 1918 that all white men in the UK could vote, and women/everyone else at 1928. This was a gradual, step by step change, each transformative, but each fought for. Now ... I have no doubt change will come, for there is nothing that ever remains static. However, what you are suggesting is that people will simply "all get along". Literally, that is what anarchism suggests. For, you cannot compel people to leave, or stop them from doing things you don't want, if you do not use violence as an end tool. If you have a counter to this, a realistic, logical, sensible counter to the idea that people will just all be nice to one another? I'd love to hear it. I really would.
seventhtiger 6y ago
I honestly don't understand how that is unique at all. It sounds like every government that has ever existed. Once you define the community, its mechanism of decision, and the reprimands and punishments, I'm not sure what's less government about this than current government.

crowbahr 6y ago

They robbed anyone and everyone. Some people just give 0 fucks about anyone besides themselves. Most people give 0 fucks about anyone outside of a moderate group of acquaintances and friends.

graeme 6y ago

....any travellers. And the point is they were outside communities. Right now we take for granted that we can travel from point a to point b without worrying about such threats.

bbarnett 6y ago

What the? A "community" which makes "communal decisions" is a form of government, not anarchism! How can you cast someone out, without gates? Guards? Walls? How can you throw them out? Prevent them from returning? Do you think the robbers will just stop, because you said "Stop!". I feel like you're trolling here. I could of course be wrong, but it feels that way.

rhn_mk1 6y ago
Anarchism is a form of self-governance.
- bbarnett 6y ago
  Which has nothing to do with a government.
  - rhn_mk1 6y ago
    But it has everything to do with "A "community" which makes "communal decisions"", whatever you call it. I hope Merriam-Webster clears that up: "Definition of government 1 : the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization"
    - bbarnett 6y ago
      I specifically said that "community" which makes "communal decisions" is not anarchy. You've simply claimed it does, then mentioned "governing authority", which is not entirely in line, now is it?
      - rhn_mk1 6y ago
        You're right on the strength of my argument, but you're wrong on anarchy not being able to create governments (in the M-W definition above). But I'm not going to argue this any more.
throwaway49872 6y ago
> A "community" which makes "communal decisions" is a form of government, not anarchism This is exactly Anarchism. Please learn the basics before posting.
- bbarnett 6y ago
  Oh I know basics. It's gibberish, built upon mad fantasy.
  - bantunes 6y ago
    On the contrary - mad fantasy is to think humans as they behave today is how they will always behave in the future. Humans used to roam around Africa and forage for food in tribes. Now I can reply to you, from another continent perhaps, by tapping my fingers on a tablet. To think humans will ever stop dreaming about more equitable systems of organization, and how to implement them, that truly is mad fantasy to me.
    - bbarnett 6y ago
      Yet, I said no such thing. I did not say humans would stop dreaming, nor that humans will always behave the same. I did say that a specific political system was madness. If you want to discuss "What about in 1000 years", yeah -- OK. But we're talking about now, humans today. And anarchy does not, and will not, work. It ignores significant human behaviour.
      - bantunes 6y ago
        It doesn't work for everyone, no. But just like in 1800s Europe, when monarchists died off suddenly republics were obvious. I suspect much of the same will come to pass regarding systems of government tending towards anarchism and boomers.
        bbarnett 6y ago
        This response has put me firmly in the "you need to think about this a bit, bantunes" camp. Why? The second you mentioned 'boomers', you mentioned what is very specifically an American phenomenon. It certainly isn't a Chinese, Russian, Japanese, South African, or, well, the "rest of the world" phenomenon. To me, this makes me think you are viewing the world from a US perspective, without any attempt to see things from outside that prism. On top of that, the wild assertion that "boomers" somehow created an authoritarian government is beyond incomprehensible. While every generation has its flaws, yes every single generation, boomers were the hippie generation. Yes, hippies. The "free love" movement, anti-authoritarian counter culture that quite literally existed in highly conservative Western post-war cultures. The level of protest, anti-materialism, anti-corporate stance which hippies took, particularly in the US, far, far, far outweighs anything seen in the decades since. Of course, like every other generation since, for thousands and thousands of years, once they aged they became just like those they wanted to replace. But, let's walk away from the fact that boomers = hippies, and hippies protested, fought, and died in protests en mass, and even enacted some real change. Let's look at the overall assertion here. You're claiming republics were "obvious", and that this somehow sparked an instantaneous move from feudal, to republic. Yet in many places, these changes took literally centuries. And the powers of Kings were very gradually eroded, sometimes with blood, and other times with threat of blood. Even "revolutionary" moments in most Western cultures were smaller stepping stones, each effecting smaller sections of culture about governing, and self-governing. And really, suffrage for the "common person", for example, is less than 100 years old in many democracies. Like the UK, Canada, the US. In fact, for many cases, less than 50 years! And this change was gradual too. For example, in the UK with Lords challenging the King's right to tax, creating the "House of Lords", or the modern Senate. Or, the allowance of freemen with significant land, or land rental, being allowed to vote. It wasn't until 1918 that all white men in the UK could vote, and women/everyone else at 1928. This was a gradual, step by step change, each transformative, but each fought for. Now ... I have no doubt change will come, for there is nothing that ever remains static. However, what you are suggesting is that people will simply "all get along". Literally, that is what anarchism suggests. For, you cannot compel people to leave, or stop them from doing things you don't want, if you do not use violence as an end tool. If you have a counter to this, a realistic, logical, sensible counter to the idea that people will just all be nice to one another? I'd love to hear it. I really would.

seventhtiger 6y ago

I honestly don't understand how that is unique at all. It sounds like every government that has ever existed. Once you define the community, its mechanism of decision, and the reprimands and punishments, I'm not sure what's less government about this than current government.