Capitalism Sucks and you know it.

[khomotso]

That society will just win and attract the winners.

I hear you, and you may be right. But then I want to ask: winning according to what standard? Let's say you have a very productive society with a better bottom line, and it starts to compare itself to a society with a much weaker market, but much lower working hours and much higher personal satisfaction among its citizens? Who is winning? Which society will envy the other? Depends on which person you talk to, I'd imagine.

I think you'd find a situation where people would start to migrate - probably in both directions, depending on what gets the individual going - and neither one would overwhelm the other.

I think I see a case not for winning, but coexistence.

[jblank]

Exactly, Trent Steel and TMH.
What jblank is describing is chaos or a state of nature. Anarchy, as a society, means communities working as a cohesive unit for the survival and benefit of the entire community.
If somebody pulls out a machine gun, then the community would either be aided by other communities to ensure their autonomy or would fight for itself as a trained militia to defend itself.
Life wouldn't be perfect as this sort of issue could come up, but I think a well organized community (but not a centrally run community) could easily fight off such an attack.

There is no way that would work, nor would be a better system than what we have. If government broke down, someone, or some clan/group, would attempt to fill that vacuum, and either war or violent chaos would ensue. Sorry but what you describe just doesnt sound appealing.

It is something that DOES work.
The Zapatistas have run under this model for almost 11 years now in Chiapas, Mexico. They are victims of violence, but that doesn't force them into authoritarianism. They are autonomous in every sense of the word, seeking assistance from like minded communities around the world to ensure their survival.
It also worked in Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War (until the Stalinists murdered the anarchists and disbanded the fascist-killing militias).

Of all people to hear describe this sort of system as undesireable, I never expected a libertarian to do so. Besides the standing army and the capitalistic part of the no/small government thing, where do we differ, jblank?

We differ in that I am no longer a follower of Libertarian principles, and I do not subscribe to their beliefs like I once did. I also believe that there needs to be some sort of government, some sort of organization, outside of tribal bands. Your "preferred" form of government, may work on a micro scale, but would be a nightmare, a violent one at that, if attempted on the scale the size of a nation.

I also still dont believe what you are describing is "Anarchy" (apparantly I am not alone in this), but call it what you will, it doesnt sound appealing.

[gellar]

That society will just win and attract the winners.

I hear you, and you may be right. But then I want to ask: winning according to what standard? Let's say you have a very productive society with a better bottom line, and it starts to compare itself to a society with a much weaker market, but much lower working hours and much higher personal satisfaction among its citizens? Who is winning? Which society will envy the other? Depends on which person you talk to, I'd imagine.

I think you'd find a situation where people would start to migrate - probably in both directions, depending on what gets the individual going - and neither one would overwhelm the other.

I think I see a case not for winning, but coexistence.

Well look what we have now. Japan and the US both have a considerable amount of innovation going on, while Norway doesn't really have crap. Now don't get me wrong, I loves me some Norway, but the rewards there are far lower than they are in the more Capitalistic societies. And Norway isn't exactly 100% Socialist.

gellar

[Eduardo X]

That society will just win and attract the winners.

I hear you, and you may be right. But then I want to ask: winning according to what standard? Let's say you have a very productive society with a better bottom line, and it starts to compare itself to a society with a much weaker market, but much lower working hours and much higher personal satisfaction among its citizens? Who is winning? Which society will envy the other? Depends on which person you talk to, I'd imagine.

I think you'd find a situation where people would start to migrate - probably in both directions, depending on what gets the individual going - and neither one would overwhelm the other.

I think I see a case not for winning, but coexistence.

Well look what we have now. Japan and the US both have a considerable amount of innovation going on, while Norway doesn't really have crap. Now don't get me wrong, I loves me some Norway, but the rewards there are far lower than they are in the more Capitalistic societies. And Norway isn't exactly 100% Socialist.

gellar

I think the best example of what gellar is describing is Cuba.
Cuba has probably the highest standard of living (and of course not financially) behind the industrialized nations in America. There simply is no competition. They have free education for all, free healthcare for all, free food (to an extent) for all, and either 99% or 100% employment.
However, because they are an island (in so many senses) of socialism, people know that they could get all kinds of cool shit in the US and risk their lives to obtain it. If you ask most of the working class folks who land on the shores of Miami if they hate Castro and Cuba, you'll mostly hear "no." The rich Cubans in Miami hate Castro. The poor people (as is almost always the case, worldwide) don't really care one way or the other. They just want good food and shelter. Many Cubans leave Cuba with strong communist ideals, but stronger "I want money" ideals. Top that with a bizarre immigration policy implemented by the US and you have quite a lot of Cubans coming to Miami, escaping what some around the world would consider a poor person's paradise.
Cuba provides a great deal of innovation in terms of medicine, creating vaccines for diseases the US drug companies could care less about. The world's biggest killer, Malaria, could be solved with, according to many, about $10 billion, but since it isn't profitable to exterminate the disease and build free wells and water purifiers for poor people, the US isn't doing it. Cuba is trying, even with its meager resources.
If you go to any other American country (besides the US) and ask them what Cuba does for America, as opposed to what the US does for America, they will respond with mostly enthusiastic praise for the medicine and doctors Cuba provides. When Hurricaine Mitch devestated Central America, it was Cuban doctors who provided the most for Americans. The Cuban government trains poor people from around America, even the US, to become doctors for poor communities for free. I met a woman from Oakland who was studying to be a doctor for her community in Oakland. She was in Cuba pretty much against the will of her government for the sole purpose of helping her community in Oakland. The majority of the American people, the peasants and campesinos and farmers, all believe Cuba is a wonderful place. But a lot of those same people in Cuba think it is just okay, and leave for the US.
It is all very interesting.

[Mr. Fed]

And they know how to keep their gay poets in line. Word.

[Dirt]

It's all about the American Dream. Marketing works.

[gellar]

And they know how to keep their gay poets in line. Word.

You complete me.

gellar

[Eduardo X]

And they know how to keep their gay poets in line. Word.

The US sure knows how to keep its socialists (Debs), Anarchists (Goldman, Sherman Austin), Black Nationalists (Hampton), Queers (Stonewall), and so on in line.
Each strong nation has its skeletons. Each nation has its atrocities, and most never are held accountable for them. Even Cuba, who put those with AIDS into concentration camps, murdered dissidents in 2002 in accordance to the war on terror, and imprisoned many queers in 1970-73, has not been held accountable.
P.S. Before Night Falls the movie changed Arenas' story to make Cuba seem worse. If you ask me, a simple presentation of the facts is more powerful than embelishment.

[Mr. Sparkle]

There is ALWAYS centralized power in any group dynamic.

There are leaders and there are followers... whether that centralized power is codefied is "official" is immaterial window dressing.

[Grifman]

The point was related to the fact that if we acknowledge our "issue" as a species; what do we do?

Note: My Original post was somewhat "troll bait" as I'm promoting transhumanist beliefs, which exist outside of the political spectrum... so feel free to ignore as needed.

My point is we've tried and failed again and again. How many philsophers, religious leaders, social activists, etc have tried to get us to rid ourselves of our baser natures and failed? You act like no one has ever tried to change the human condition. I say they have and have failed.

Grifman

[Mr. Fed]

The US sure knows how to keep its socialists (Debs), Anarchists (Goldman, Sherman Austin), Black Nationalists (Hampton), Queers (Stonewall), and so on in line.

[bush bash] [/bush bash]

"Yeah? Well . .. well... CLINTON got a BLOW JOB in the OVAL OFFICE!"

[Mr. Sparkle]

The point was related to the fact that if we acknowledge our "issue" as a species; what do we do?

Note: My Original post was somewhat "troll bait" as I'm promoting transhumanist beliefs, which exist outside of the political spectrum... so feel free to ignore as needed.

My point is we've tried and failed again and again. How many philsophers, religious leaders, social activists, etc have tried to get us to rid ourselves of our baser natures and failed? You act like no one has ever tried to change the human condition. I say they have and have failed.

Grifman

You're obviously somebody who avoids the Quinnian threads like the plaque... good choice.

I agree with you 100%... though I take it a step further and say that our problems are biologically "hardcoded" into us... and that reliance on biological processes makes it impossible for any of the methods you mention of having any appreciable effect on the whole of society. Small groups maybe... bigger than a tribe? No fucking way.

I argue that technology is the only means to escape Human Nature... though most balk at that, because it means to "win" we have to stop being human. Not terribly romantic.

But that arguement is not entirely on topic so I'll stop here. If you are interested in continuing this discussion, feel free to join in at This thread