Any Anarcho-Capitalist Autistics?

Post Reply New Topic

It boils down to this, creating a system without government means there are no real rules, because there is no one to enforce rules, there is no way to handle rules nor efficiently create rules. People who want to dominate over others would still exist, that seems to be a bad quality of humanity, as it repeats itself all throughout history. So to have no government protection would allow these people to be even more harsh towards the ones the dominate. You have to have a system in place, a system will be known as government, a governing body. Without a governing body it will be pure chaos, it will also allow people to build armies to 'take over' particular areas, thus creating forms of ownership and small governments which constantly battle each others in wars over territory. It will also leave the system vulnerable for other countries to send their armies in to claim the land and attempt to govern it.

Definition of government: the governing body of a nation, state, or community.

It doesn't matter what you call it, it is still a government. Any attempt to govern(enforce rules) would have to have a government to do so. A collection of people setting and enforcing rules is a governing body.

I'm not against rules and governance, I'm against the state.

The state is the way to ensure everyone within the state is on the same page as to what the rules are. Without the unification of state, you have small communities which have conflicts and battle eachother for territories.

Your idea of how to build the communities are the small communities that did exist at one time and were in constant battles with each-other and with other ruling forces set out to conquer and unify the land.

The huge difference in these days is population size, things would be extremely chaotic without a unified government, without rules and enforcement of rules, without courts to settle disputes.

I just don't understand how a system like that is going to survive, they would simply be an easy target for others to conquer. I don't even understand how a system like that would even come to be. If we tear our government down, while we are in the process of doing so, another government is going to invade us and potentially take us over.

You can't have a system that isn't unified large enough to have a military that is actually big enough to keep other countries from invading and conquering. Just like I said before, the attempt to build that system has no choice but to have a government.

You just stated that you aren't against rules, that is the basic definition of a government. A body to rule the land or community. That is why we cal local government, local government. A body which sets and enforces rules. Each town or city has government rule. The state unifies the cities and towns, the federal government unifies the states.

Rules =/= Rulers

Governments are top down structures. We don't need a government to establish and enforce rules in society.

Cyberocracy?

I acknowledge the fact that's a risk. But I don't think we have a choice.

Look at what we are doing to the planet. We are going to have to shoot to the moon to avoid extinction. We are going to defend the revolution. It's our only chance.

To eliminate the government is to give less control over pollution though, eliminating government is not going to resolve anything, it's going to make everything that much worse and allow others to conquer us. Notice how governments have conquered the entire globe with only the exception of a hand-full of bushmen on islands and deep in jungles. It's not a risk that eliminating government rule will allow a government to conquer us, it's more of a sure thing others will conquer us.

Like I keep saying, to eliminate government control is to plunge us into complete chaos. If the government were to collapse tomorrow, expect pure chaos to break out instantly. It's no longer a risk for committing awful crimes, robbing, stealing, killing and raping would break out in a very terrifying way all across the US. Another country would surely use that as a golden opportunity to occupy our country as well as take it over.

It's a nice idea/dream you have but it isn't realistic, it doesn't account for the horrific qualities of man-kind. If man-kind didn't have these horrible qualities, nearly any system would be good, it's not the systems that are bad, it's the people within them. Governments are corrupt because they rely on people to make them function, so it's not governments that are corrupt and horrible, it's people in general.

Which is it, they make large scale decisions, or they have no power over communities? Both cannot be true.

State regulation is band-aid solution for a systemic problem. We need to slow down production. Our economic system doesn't allow that to happen.


Rojava hasn't been conquered yet. Their still going strong.

Last edited by RushKing on 23 Mar 2019, 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

They don't make the decisions, they facilitate them. They bring their communities votes and concerns to the meeting, and they can get recalled at any time by their assemblies.

With modern technology why not have everyone vote? This sounds to me like the electoral college (send people to deliver the votes of the state).

Population is why production is increasing, unless you kill many millions of people off, we are still going to require production. When you remove government, you remove all restrictions, people would have a field day, pollution would escalate greatly.



Rojava has a government. We seem to be going in loops now. You are insisting that a governing body is not a government. No government = no rules, rules = governing body, there is absolutely no way to get around this, which is why people keep trying to point this out to you, an anarchist society has no rules, why? Because there is no body to set and enforce rules, anything goes. What you are doing is trying to create your own kind of extremely inefficient governing system and claim it's not a governing system. You either govern the land or community with rules or you don't and there are no rules.

Never going to happen. Increased production equals enhanced quality of life for everyone. To slow down production is to ask everyone to take a quality of life cut. Now some people believe this is necessary to save the world, others believe we can innovate our way out of our problems. This dichotomy of prophets and wizards was nicely described in the atlantic:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... le/550928/

I'm a wizard.

Do you believe we need a communist society for environmental reasons, or quality of life reasons? If the former you might be right. By all evidence communist socio-political structure slows down production. If the latter, you're very very wrong.

It would be way, way, way better for people to simply operate within the system we already have, for everyone to educate themselves and participate within the voting system we already have. One of our huge flaws is everyone seems to pay very little attention to local government elections, they tend to focus mostly on just the president, which honestly has nothing to do with the individuals within a local area, the president is the governor of the united states.

People, including me, need to learn more and participate in local and state elections rather than put all attention on the president only. State representatives matter, I was watching a guy walk around new york asking people if they knew who there elected state representative was, out of 20 or so people not one of them knew who their state representative was, they simply vote like robots, just pick republican or democrat, knowing absolutely nothing about them, that is quite horrific and more than likely why we are in the shape that we are in.

Capitalism is an infinite growth model on a finite planet. Capitalist enterprises need to expand to gain confidence from share holders. Capitalist economies rely on growing population to satisfy the growth imperative. Capitalism makes companies compete in selling products we don't need.