Anarchy get's a bad rap. People think it means chaos- when in Reality, it just means the justification of all hierarchical institutions. If an institution can not justify its existence, it is unjust and musT be destroyed.

That's the dream, at least. I'm beginning to wonder if Space and its exploration isn't the ultimate answer to these questions. An infinite universe, an infinite frontier...infinite space to expand and experiment and explore.

Our planet isn't enough. It is finite. The frontiers are gone. Perhaps only one lies before us...

If we are talking about the surface- then most of it. Underneath the oceans is mostly a mystery, and of course some believe it is hollow- but even if that were the case- the Universe and its unending nature offer the ultimate frontier and pressure valve to our issues. If we could explore the vastness of space- if we could settle planets, govern ourselves, continue exploring and expanding and never stopping, unconstrained by resources- then we could truly live the Anarchist dream.

Otherwise, we're gonna have to find a way for technology to create a post scarcity society, and even that is going to require the harnessing of our immediate Solar System, which is far easier said than done.

Then I would have to ask for a further clarification of that statement.

I would say that's a pretty big claim and you should elaborate. Does it mean I can go out and get myself some virgin land?

We had anarchy once, back in hunter-gatherer times. The days of the western expansion of the US were essentially anarchistic when you're talking about the Louisiana territory and 'the West'. If you can get far enough away from society, the rule of far-away leaders becomes less meaningful, even now. The benefits of this way of life: you're basically as free as it's possible to be. The drawback: it's very dangerous and you don't get the stability created by modern societal structures. If I was a young man who wanted adventure, then I'd strike out on the frontier. If I was a middle-aged person with kids, I'd want a safe and stable society to raise my kids within.

We had anarchy once, back in hunter-gatherer times.

No, we didn't. We had much smaller "governments", but "governments" have existed longer than humans have even been on earth.

A "government" is simply an "authority" - something that makes and enforces the rules you live by. In the hunter-gather days it was the Alpha in a small family unit or tribe - there was a government and the only way to topple it was to replace it with something else.

At no point in human history has there been a moment when it was "every man for himself". Humans simply are not wired to live like that because we are social creatures, and every society has a "government" of some form.

most likely councils of elders

Back to the articles of confederation!

How would private property rights be enforced?

You believe private property is a right, no?

If so, how is that right exercised and secured in practice?

How are competing land claims resolved?

Contracts aren't worth shit without the power to enforce them.

Sure, you and I could agree to respect each other's property claims, and we could sign a contract choosing a given arbiter to settle any disputes. And you and I could each make similar two-party contracts with others, but that doesn't prevent others from making the claims on the same land, people who don't agree with our arbiter's decisions. How would we defend and exercise our land claims in the face of others who are making and defending the claims on that same land?

What are your thoughts on Jubilee?

If they have no claim, you defend yourself. Pretty simple.

What if they do have a claim, or say they do? If two parties with no mutual arbiters both make a claim for a piece of land, and cannot reach a mutual agreement, is physical force the only recourse?

That comes from Roman/Cannon law of Fiat. I disagree with it.

It comes from Levitical law, the idea that after the 49th year:

That fiftieth year shall be a jubilee to you. In it you shall not sow, neither reap that which grows of itself, nor gather from the undressed vines. For it is a jubilee; it shall be holy to you. You shall eat of its increase out of the field. In this Year of Jubilee each of you shall return to his property.

Unless your making an argument about altered history, which would be another discussion.

Do we agree a certain party can arbitrate?

A certain party like, I don't know, a government?

Why do you believe property and rights are real?

Property isn't physical. Objects are physical but ownership isn't a property of matter or energy. The ownership is added by our imagination.

I don't think I have a right to my body because I don't think rights are real. There's absolutely no evidence for rights.

Nobody truly owns anything...there is nothing Uncle Sam and his friends can’t take....we all just rent.

How does one acquire property?

Well in their world you kill them and take their land and daughters.

Wouldn’t you have to contract with every other person on earth (or at least those interested in appropriating your property)?

Can you explain further? I’m trying to understand your proposal, but not quite getting there...

Why do believe property and rights are real?

Cool name by the way.

Who said I did?

I must have misunderstood your reply. I apologise.

It's all good. I like testing the idea of property rights, and I don't think they're inalienable in the same way that life and liberty are.

"Government" is simply a direct result of humanity's existence as social creatures.

Whether you are talking about citizens following the laws of a government or children following the instructions of their parents, the concept is, at its base, the same - "might makes right".

When a child is born, it is helpless. The only way it can survive is with the help of a more powerful person - usually its parents. These parents only offer that help in return for something - obedience, love etc - but simply by being dependent on that parent, the child becomes subservient to them.

If the child chooses to rebel against the parent, or the parent simply abandons the child, its likelihood of survival drops dramatically. In a small social group the size of a single family, it is easy to see why this happens. But the same thing happens in a large social group such as a city, state or country - the person with the most power becomes dominant and those people with less power naturally take the subservient role they were hardwired to take from birth. Those people that reject the power structure are 'abandoned' by it and their chance of survival drops dramatically.

When a variable such as obedience to power results in dramatic difference in survival rates, it affects evolution. We as a species have simply evolved to become subservient to power in general.

If you take away "the government" a new "government" will simply take its place, whether you want it to or not. There is no getting away from it. It may be an elected government representative of the people, or it may be a violent dictator murdering anyone who opposes him, but there will be a government.

We are born into a "government" (parent-child relationship) and we grow into a "government" (elected officials, dictators, warlords etc) whether we like it or not.

Humans create governments where there there are none, because we are hardwired to do so. Nothing will change that.

I believe we should all vote on key issues via text, mail, voter booth, Facebook status whatever the majority of citizens want but in a smaller area. America is too big and too diverse to have a federal government law the rule of the land. Take Boston and LA for example and the types of people that live there, they from birth have a different set of values from social, economic, and parental input. So I think a smaller more community driven direct democratic process for key issues and it should be easier to vote. But the Zionist don't want that.

I’m impressed with your brain

Technically speaking there is no government and there's never been one. There's absolutely no scientific way to detect if government is present or absent. There's no scientific way to detect authority. This is because they're not real. They don't exist outside of the imagination.

Technically speaking there is no property rights and there's never been one. There's absolutely no scientific way to detect if property rights is present or absent. There's no scientific way to detect them. This is because they're not real. They don't exist outside of the imagination.

I think it would be more accurate to say that they are real, but only because enough people unconsciously agree to believe in their reality. If they actually were not real in any sense, why are people in prison? Why do people pay taxes? It's because nearly everyone agrees to treat government as reality. In such a situation, a couple dissenters are still held to societal standards of a "real" government because there is a sufficiently-accepted agreement that those few dissenters can't simply ignore the law. This is the fundamental reality that sovereign citizens fail to appreciate, and the reason their views, their rejection of government, does not prevent them from being held accountable to its laws

People usually participate in government for the same reason they participate in religion, they believe it. Islamic terrorists don't prove their fundamentalist Islam is true, they only demonstrate their own belief is strong.

That's not even remotely a rebuttal. I didn't say anything about people choosing to work in government. The point is that government is "real" because it is capable of effectuating consequences of its own, even if you don't believe in it. When a religious fundamentalist blows up a building, that does not confirm the reality of their religion and, if anything, is detrimental to common belief therein. Such an act is attributed to the perpetrator. When someone who ignores the law is imprisoned for breaking an "imaginary" law, he faces consequences which reinforce the reality of the law he did not believe in. The consequences confirm the reality of the government.

On one hand, this doesn't make government any more objectively real, but on the other hand, large and complex societies would be impossible without our shared imagination that they exist.

It's also not a rebuttal because, when turning to religion in a broader sense, its non-reality similarly doesn't prevent it from allowing for the coordination of massive numbers of people who have never met.

Our shared belief in fictions renders them real because they have real consequences. But don't take my word for it; go rob a bank if you don't think government exists and see what happens to you. Could an imaginary entity with no real existence employ people to investigate, try, convict, and imprison you?

When I said "participate in government" I was talking about voting and paying taxes, which you mentioned in your reply.

The point is that government is "real" because it is capable of effectuating consequences of its own, even if you don't believe in it.

The government doesn't do anything on its own. People do things, and some people identify as government workers. That's what is happening.

When a religious fundamentalist blows up a building, that does not confirm the reality of their religion and, if anything, is detrimental to common belief therein. Such an act is attributed to the perpetrator. When someone who ignores the law is imprisoned for breaking an "imaginary" law, he faces consequences which reinforce the reality of the law he did not believe in. The consequences confirm the reality of the government.

Both people, religious terrorists and government employees, are using violence as a consequence. A person labeled "religious terrorist" may blow up an abortion clinic for going against the perceived law of God, and other people labeled "government employees" may capture that person for going against the perceived law of government. Neither can scientifically prove their law, but both can point to the writings of others to support their beliefs.

On one hand, this doesn't make government any more objectively real, but on the other hand, large and complex societies would be impossible without our shared imagination that they exist.

and

It's also not a rebuttal because, when turning to religion in a broader sense, its non-reality similarly doesn't prevent it from allowing for the coordination of massive numbers of people who have never met.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic.

Our shared belief in fictions renders them real because they have real consequences. But don't take my word for it; go rob a bank if you don't think government exists and see what happens to you. Could an imaginary entity with no real existence employ people to investigate, try, convict, and imprison you?

This only proves people act upon their beliefs. Religious terrorists have flown airplanes into buildings, the Spanish Inquisition jailed and tortured people for various heresies, Om Supreme Truth gassed a subway, Jerry Jones convinced a bunch people to drink poisoned punch, etc. There are many examples throughout history of people performing extreme actions based upon false beliefs. Government is the same.

Yes, exactly. The shared beliefs create the reality. You're just rephrasing what I'm saying and then disagreeing with your own conclusion.

I don't understand the difference between religion and government in your view. Why is one real and the other not real?

we need it to protect ourselves from power grabbers from asia, while the decentralized power structure is invented

Would you consider banning people from governing their own lives too?

Do we need police?

HELL NO

If you're serious about this, you should go read Hobbes' writing on the state of nature from The Leviathan. I haven't read it in about 10 years and I couldn't do it justice in a Reddit comment anyway, but he gives a detailed analysis to the consequences of a society with no established government to compel compliance with norms. In essence, the result is naturally chaos because people will be scrabbling amongst themselves to see who can fuck each other over faster. Of course, the logical response to this is that people already do that; but think about how much more extreme it would be if there were no legislatures to set forth acceptable modes of behavior and no courts to check individual excesses.

HELL NO

It's all good. I like testing the idea of property rights, and I don't think they're inalienable in the same way that life and liberty are.

People usually participate in government for the same reason they participate in religion, they believe it. Islamic terrorists don't prove their fundamentalist Islam is true, they only demonstrate their own belief is strong.