Any Anarcho-Capitalist Autistics?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, but they've changed the definition of anarchy to fit communism: see above. It's fine as long as everyone knows what everyone else is talking about.

It's the capitalists who are trying to change the definition. Proudhon, Kropotkin and Bakunin predate Rothbard by a whole century.

Many different voting systems.

How will it be organised, who will count the votes and how can you ensure that they are being honest?

Who will collect the votes? And how can you make sure they do not try to cheat, to sway the votes in the direction they choose?

Who will enforce the 'rules'. Will people be elected or will it be mob-rule?

How many people will be in the community? I ask this one because as size of community increases, so does the danger and practice of corruption.

In anarchy not only can chose which commune or worker coop you want to work with, you'll also won't have a boss.

I literally provided the dictionary definition of the word... It doesn't matter what you call it so long as everyone understands what you mean. You're currently confusing people by calling it anarchy when that is not in agreement with what anarchy is commonly understood to be describing.

Most people would call your system a form of collectivism/communism.

I'm not anarcho-capitalist, but I do lean left politically. I would probably stick with a moderate form of socialism such as evolutionary socialism. Communism is out of my range.

If I'm a slacker and don't work very much do I get an equal share of the products of my commune?

What would an anarcho-communist society look like and what was an example Anarcho-Communist society from the past? I knew Ancient Ireland and civilizations before Mesopotamia were a perfect example of what Anarcho-Capitalism is.

Isn't collectivist anarchism nothing more than an oxymoron because collectivism is putting a view on a group rather than one person.

There isn't a single way to do consensus or direct democracy. But here is one example I can give you.

Having one individual with all the decision making power, without justification is authoritarian. That's a dictatorship.

What I'm trying to show you is that government is needed to prevent pure chaos. I'm not sure what you are trying to show here, people voting with hand signals? That doesn't seem reasonable if you have just thousands of people, much less millions. I'm trying to show you that to have a system where people vote for rules will need both, people elected to handle and count votes and elected or payed officials to enforce rules and a law system, judges and lawyers. Thus as you build you system of no government, any attempt to have rules will require you to build a government, a body to govern.

Now I have been thinking lately that the best system for humanity possible will be an equal wealth system, as in complete equal wealth, no one has more $$ than another. I feel that with an equal wealth system, true equality would exist, thus responsibility would be taught to kids, they would have the best education opportunities, the best communities, so i seriously doubt you would have millions of people raised right will feel the need to be lazy, sit back and do nothing, as that is the main reason used to suggest this kind of system wouldn't work. I think when children are raised with good communities, good parents, good education and the ability to follow their passion and help the community be strong, that is what they will wish to do. With automation approaching, we would have tech for those boring jobs. Also, for people who aren't sure what they want to do, we would be able to supply a list of areas in demand. I believe it could be kept fair in some kind of way of account transparency, like being able to confirm no one is receiving more money than another, or perhaps the system wouldn't really need money. Those are just my ideas though, because of the greedy nature of people, I don't think that kind of system will actually develop.

It's useful is for small scale decisions. For large scale decisions we have anarchist federations, which are boards of recallable delegates.

A board of people is government officials. These board members would have to be elected or everyone could claim to be a board member, if that were not true nothing would be organized and it would be a system of chaos.

Last edited by Crimadella on 23 Mar 2019, 12:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Not necessarily, you are free to call them what ever you want. They don't have any power over the communities that elected them. This differs greatly from what most people have in mind when they use the word government.