Holt on April 11, 2011, 05:56:43 pm
I heard an interesting opinion on anarchists recently.

Anarchists only come about as a result of people living in situations where they don't have to worry about things like shelter, food and social stability.
In other words they only crop up in a society that is doing well. An interesting opinion to say the least. It certainly meshes with the living conditions of most anarchists I've met, mostly middle class folk from comfortable homes who I guess the more extreme anarchists would call "weekenders". The genuine anarchists are the aberration not the norm in this but even then they rarely ever actually follow through on their beliefs and instead just continue to live their normal comfortable middle class lifestyle.

Which actually brings to mind the only real anarchist I've ever met. A homeless guy who lived in a derelict house. Kind of funny really. He refused to pay taxes, participate in society, accept the law of the land or even agree to the concept of property yet according to the local grapevine he went to university and had a degree in some form of physics then decided to be a crazy anarchist. Still more of an anarchist than you folk will ever be, followed through on his beliefs which is more than can be said for the anarchists on this board.

spudit on April 11, 2011, 09:49:11 pm
A good post and a good topic; it will be popular. Perhaps though it belongs in the talk amongst yourselves catagory? Your call.

Fair warning though, I don't know all the conditions the regulars here live in and neither do you. It might be wise to go easy on the assumptions about the living conditions, wealth, education and such of people you have never met.

Me, I am leaning towards that homeless guy's life. Legally, I am homeless, since US law says living in a vehicle does not count as having a home and a boat is a vehicle, has a title like a car not a deed like a house. It may be different there in the UK, dunno. Soon I will be afloat again wandering the inland waters south of Seattle and pretty much living as that guy does. Different conditions, different world, and since I can't walk on water, some property is required. I am not as far along as your example but I am no phony either.

But anyway, easy does it on the assumptions. Anarchists or not, these folks are not a bunch of fat comfortable Tea Party Republicans  But then I don't that know for sure either.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

Holt on April 12, 2011, 07:58:33 am
You can live in some kinds of boat here in the UK. Canal boats mostly I think.

Xavin on April 12, 2011, 09:20:51 am
You can live in some kinds of boat here in the UK. Canal boats mostly I think.

You can get residential moorings, which count in pretty much all ways as a permenent address - so you can use the address for official documents, like drivers license and passport, and count as a resident of the local authority for access to services. But you are also liable for council tax (note for non-UK residents - this is a tax based on property value, charged by the local authority).

For almost all other moorings you're not officially allowed to stay living aboard for more than a certain portion of the year. In practice a blind eye gets turned a lot of the time, so long as you keep a low profile (and don't "rock the boat". Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

If you're self sufficient then you can sometimes find unclaimed/disused land to moor at - they tend to be isolated and you wouldn't have access to any shore-based services.


spudit on April 12, 2011, 11:02:07 am
Thanks for the input from across the pond gents.

I saw Holt using a broad brush on this mob and called him on it with the only example I know for sure. I yam about 3/4 nuts, know it and like it fine. I'm just plain tired of chasing things I never really wanted anyway. Most folks here live saner lives but I don't know for sure and neither does Holt. This forum might be the board of directors for Haliburton, we don't know.

Note, I insist yam is a verb on the water unless you can quote a higher nautical authority than Popeye. Ha, didn't think so.

Here, all saltwater and big rivers are federal property in general and they don't care. Legally, a 20 foot sloop and a container ship are pretty much treated the same, stay well off shore, out of traffic, don't leak anything, keep your paperwork up to date and you can park anywhere unless someone makes a fuss.  That's the goal, simple living on unclaimed, sort of, public property. Another option is living in temporary structures on State or Federal lands, in the US, national forests or BLM land.

Sigh, but then there all are overlapping government entities and those who think they are. City, county, state, tribal - the local tribes invested in lawyers as opposed to winchesters, way better outcomes, eccological do gooders, some of the corporate fisheries clean water as a raw material sort and busy bodies of all types. Blech! Do gooders.

But, some personal property is needed. Even primitives living in gentle climates own something if only a knife or pointy stick. Property rights  really are human rights. Oh boy, property rights debate! Well they say you can smother a fire with fuel if you do it fast enough, let's see!
« Last Edit: April 12, 2011, 11:06:23 am by spudit »
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

ContraryGuy on April 12, 2011, 11:50:15 am
Thanks for the input from across the pond gents.

I saw Holt using a broad brush on this mob and called him on it with the only example I know for sure. I yam about 3/4 nuts, know it and like it fine. I'm just plain tired of chasing things I never really wanted anyway. Most folks here live saner lives but I don't know for sure and neither does Holt. This forum might be the board of directors for Haliburton, we don't know.

Note, I insist yam is a verb on the water unless you can quote a higher nautical authority than Popeye. Ha, didn't think so.

Here, all saltwater and big rivers are federal property in general and they don't care. Legally, a 20 foot sloop and a container ship are pretty much treated the same, stay well off shore, out of traffic, don't leak anything, keep your paperwork up to date and you can park anywhere unless someone makes a fuss.  That's the goal, simple living on unclaimed, sort of, public property. Another option is living in temporary structures on State or Federal lands, in the US, national forests or BLM land.

Sigh, but then there all are overlapping government entities and those who think they are. City, county, state, tribal - the local tribes invested in lawyers as opposed to winchesters, way better outcomes, eccological do gooders, some of the corporate fisheries clean water as a raw material sort and busy bodies of all types. Blech! Do gooders.

But, some personal property is needed. Even primitives living in gentle climates own something if only a knife or pointy stick. Property rights  really are human rights. Oh boy, property rights debate! Well they say you can smother a fire with fuel if you do it fast enough, let's see!

Hi!  Time for me to stick my nose in. 

And guess what?  I'm not gonna be my name today, cause I agree with you all.

Everything Spudit says is true; I also live in Soggy Seattle, where the only warm thing is the coffee.
For those who dont know, BLM is the Bureau of Land Management; they're the guys who control leases and uses and struff on federal land.  As long as you're not growing pot, they tend to ignore you.

He's also right about property rights.  One of the biggest problems with anarchy is that no one respects property. 

Xavin on April 12, 2011, 12:02:15 pm
And guess what?  I'm not gonna be my name today, cause I agree with you all.

[...]

He's also right about property rights.  One of the biggest problems with anarchy is that no one respects property. 

And you were doing so well until the end.

Just to check - are you saying that anarchists don't respect property? Or that no-one respects property unless a government makes them?

I don't agree with either, you understand - I just want to know exactly which I'm disagreeing with at the moment  :)

(Or have I completely misunderstood your point?)

mellyrn on April 12, 2011, 12:36:26 pm
Quote
One of the biggest problems with anarchy is that no one respects property. 

There it is again:  it's always "they" need to be controlled by a government, and never "I" need to be so controlled.

spudit on April 12, 2011, 12:42:55 pm
A rare and precious day indeed CG. I'm based in Sunny Shelton myself.

I respect property my own and others. I speak for no one else.

But people can be made to respect property, at gun point if need be. It is an imperfect world, Pi is not a round number and it goes straight to crap down hill from there. But "or else" works fine for behavior modification, good enough.

Ultimate aquatic property rights.

Growing up in Chicago, I had a neighbor who had worked for Mr. Capone, the local Robin Hood. I stayed well out of the pirates/bandits are good or bad debate on the other thread, I yam sorely biased.

Paul told us wonderful stories about the old days and they always ended up the same way, take em up to Wisconsin and dump them in quicksand. Or, if in water, not the Lake, we drink that for God's sake, put them in something like a barrel so nothing floats up later and causes a problem. Put air holes in it, not that he'll need them, har har!

Note there to that pregnant wife killing SOB Peterson a while back.

I was about 13 years old at the time, being mentored by a master in the fine art of dumping bodies never to be seen again. Property rights enforcement on a dark and stormy night?

Paul is long gone and I hear a cop bought his old house. Sigh, it's still an imperfect world.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

spudit on April 12, 2011, 12:54:27 pm
OK, I gotta.

As a recovering Chicagoan I say my home town has had exactly 2 good managers in its 150 years, both very different, both deeply flawed, imperfect, overbearing at times, but good enough.

Alphonse Gabrial Capone and Richard Joseph Dailey, not his idiot son. One ran a criminal organization, the other the local mob. Both got the job done.

No, I ain't going back.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

ContraryGuy on April 12, 2011, 01:06:56 pm
And guess what?  I'm not gonna be my name today, cause I agree with you all.

[...]

He's also right about property rights.  One of the biggest problems with anarchy is that no one respects property. 

And you were doing so well until the end.

Just to check - are you saying that anarchists don't respect property? Or that no-one respects property unless a government makes them?

I don't agree with either, you understand - I just want to know exactly which I'm disagreeing with at the moment  :)

(Or have I completely misunderstood your point?)

You have completely missed my point.  Allow me to explicate.

In typical anarchism, no one owns property because no on *can* own property.  In an anarchy, there is no central authority that one can go to and say "I stake my claim to the piece land that stretches from x to to z to aa; let anyone who asks know that is mine."
Now, in a neighborhood, the people who live there can agree with each other that so and so's property stops at x and so on, but anyone from outside that neighborhood doesnt have to respect those claims.

See, what I'm saying is that anarchs dont have to respect the property rights of others.  They can, but there is nothing forcing them too.
Everyone here will ignore the way anarchy currently is in favor of their idealized version.  There is nothing that says anarchs cant respect property, only that they wont.

Thats my problem with anarchy.  AnCap is worse because then you throw in the profit/greed motive.  In a stable society, even under a brutal dictator, there is an understood concept of property rights.  If people lived in an open and stable society where no government existed, there would be property rights and reasonable people would come to agreements.
But, if you called that same government-less society an anarchy, people would behave as if it were; because in an anarchy, there are no property rights.  
This is what people believe, and so they act on that belief.

Brugle on April 12, 2011, 01:24:13 pm
In typical anarchism, no one owns property because no on *can* own property.  In an anarchy, there is no central authority that one can go to and say "I stake my claim to the piece land that stretches from x to to z to aa; let anyone who asks know that is mine."

Total bullshit.  Over and over again, people have cooperated in establishing property rights without any central authority.  Learn a little history.

In fact, whenever a government is established, it often becomes the greatest violator of property rights.

ContraryGuy on April 12, 2011, 04:09:24 pm
In typical anarchism, no one owns property because no on *can* own property.  In an anarchy, there is no central authority that one can go to and say "I stake my claim to the piece land that stretches from x to to z to aa; let anyone who asks know that is mine."

Total bullshit.  Over and over again, people have cooperated in establishing property rights without any central authority.  Learn a little history.

In fact, whenever a government is established, it often becomes the greatest violator of property rights.


Aside from your repetition of the usual idealist talking points, I wonder if you didnt see the part where I said "If people lived in an open and stable society where no government existed, there would be property rights and reasonable people would come to agreements."

And you also missed the part about "if you called that same government-less society an anarchy, people would behave as if it were".

Reading comprehension, maybe.

If you tell someone that society is anarchy, and their is enough evidence that they can see for themselves, they will act as if they lived in an anarchy.

Annnnnddd, no amount of words will convince someone who believes that anarchy means lawlessness that your law-filled, orderly, government-less society is not anarchy.
Just like some people will never believe that President Obama is a legal US citizen, regardless of the evidence that he is.

Holt on April 12, 2011, 04:22:02 pm
You're attempting to reason with idealists. This can not be done. The only way to affect their views is to expose them directly to the reality of said views. In other words go to an anarchist region and just throw them on the street.

 

anything