Sort:  

Well put @kennyskitchen. It will indeed take years but the seeds are breaking the surface now and the sprouts developing. The paradigm is changing and that is the first step :)

Yep, we are very much on the fast-track to this new world we all want to see :-) Simply looking at the changes from 1967-2017, and then thinking of the potential change from 2017-2067, it's mind-blowing to imagine where we're heading.

Its great. Just hope im still around to see it :)

There is a mass awakening happening, but that's also one reason there's a push for global war. How better to squash that awakening than to cull the herd? I prepare for the worst but hope for the best. We need to build voluntary and cooperative communities regardless of what the tax farms of the planet do.

Agreed! I think people are seeing through the push for war, its a race to wake up the 100th monkey and them to get the world up in arms. The monkey will win ;)

For my children's sake, I hope it does. We need to completely reject the idea of rulers and finally be free of them forever.

I hope so! I think we are close but once that realisation is achieved on mass their is still a long way to go :)

I think that the pushing of the old systems is one of the biggest reasons people are waking up in such massive numbers.

By the very nature of the old paradigm, using energy to try to push others down, everything they do works against them by making people more uncomfortable.

If it wasn't for the Federal Reserve & its fractional banking, we wouldn't have crypto-currencies, if it wasn't for 9/11 and other false flags, the "truth movement" wouldn't be even a fraction of what it is now.

By my observation of the patterns, we have less than a few decades before the pendulum has shifted wholly away from centralization & force; then it's just a matter of healing trauma and moving forward.

Wow, am I the only actual commenter? Good lord.

I do have questions, actually. Why would the government let these people do what they want? If they invaded and conquered, they could force the people to obey their laws, or else face the consequences. What would stop them from just coming in and saying, "all this land that you've been living on is now government property and as such you have to do X."?

I'm thinking of recent bullying activites by the US government - the Dakota Pipeline incident in particular. They wanted a certain resource - the land - and they took it despite the laws of the society that owned it.

Why wouldn't they do the same for an anarchist community? Then they would control the land and the people living on it.

Wow, am I the only actual commenter? Good lord.

I do seem to have caught a large number of bots with this one, I wonder if it was the tags I used, or what. Either way, at least their comments make it appear as though my post has quite a bit of activity, haha.

Why would the government let these people do what they want?

What government? In an anarchic society, there would be no government to "let" humans anything

If they invaded and conquered, they could force the people to obey their laws, or else face the consequences. What would stop them from just coming in and saying, "all this land that you've been living on is now government property and as such you have to do X."?

I discussed this a bit in my answer to #1. Assuming there is a government elsewhere that is interested in expanding its power, it would always target other governments and their subjects before attempting to conquer any free peoples. Also, as I again addressed in my answer to #1, the only way to actually defeat a decentralized, guerilla army is through total destruction of the people and the resources, which is neither profitable, efficient, or even necessarily possible.

I'm thinking of recent bullying activites by the US government - the Dakota Pipeline incident in particular. They wanted a certain resource - the land - and they took it despite the laws of the society that owned it.

There are quite a few flaws in this train of thought.

  1. The incident wasn't involving the US government so much as it was a private corporation, and its private security.
  2. The owners of the land, and the government of the tribe in question, all signed contracts with that corporation. They were not the ones fighting against what was happening, outsiders (or tribe members with no say in the decision) were.
  3. There was no anarchic, non-governmental, or decentralized interest on the other side of that conflict. The protesters were mostly people who pay taxes, believe in authority, and simply disagreed with what they understood to be happening (while still giving that corporation and its confederates TONS of their money & energy, effectively defeating their own purpose).

Then they would control the land and the people living on it.

You can never control free humans, they could only eliminate them, or be in a perpetual state of conflict with them.

This is one reason why people should never allow themselves to be disarmed. I would rather die than be ruled. We are all individual kings and queens. Actual rulers are always tyrants.

re-read. Perhaps you are commenting where others haven't because you have misunderstood...

anarcho communism seems like a contradiction in terms...somewhat like 'free slaves'.
pick one..can't be both at the same time.

Right at the beginning I mentioned that the person I was conversing with insisted on using "anarcho-communism" to describe to philosophies I espouse, where I do not identify with that term myself.

Although I do not actually identify with that language, I wouldn't say it's a contradiction in terms either, as communism is a classless, stateless society based on cooperation. The biggest difference between Marx and anarchists like Proudhon or Bakunin was simply the method of getting there. Marx thought we could eliminate the competitive market/ownership system first, then the state; anarchists know that the state must be eliminated first and foremost, as it is the key source of violence & coercion in existence.

The problem as I've experienced it is that elitists look at everyone else as communists. As a group of people who support a ruling class or oligarchy, any objection to that is "communism." I've been called a communist before. It's absurd. They are thinking, "people are bad, so we need to control them." "I'm better than those people, and they need to be controlled by me" is another way to say it. It's the classic:

People are bad, so we need a government made up of...

I'm a "communist" because I want people to be equal under the law, and the law should be extremely simple and based off harm to people and their property. I'm a "communist" because I believe people do not need rulers and can coexist just fine without them. I'm a "communist" for pointing out that the vast majority of people, on a daily basis, live in peace with each other. The list goes on and on...

It gets really old too.

The bottom line though always returns to the truth that the people against voluntaryism are elitists. They think they are better. They'll do good with the ring of power. They'll rule in a good way. Yeah, right. Leave me the hell alone, and stop trying to control me.

Calling you a communist, a fascist or any other of these political terms is just their way of maintaining their divide and rule policy what you actually are to them, in their minds anyway is a prole, surf, sheep or any other name you choose to call someone who isn't human like they are. And this is the attitude that allows them to do anything to you without affecting them because you're not human like they are. basic tribalism, if youre not one of my tribe I can kill you, enslave you and rape your women because your not one of us... Thats what we're up against, sad to say.....

Thanks and true!

Another way to think of this is that there are people who wish to control others or have other people do the controlling for them, and then there are people who do not wish to control others.

I reject rulers and I reject ruling others.

Wonderfully put!

ok...I missed that part.
irregardless it's wrong....both are wrong..

the experiment has been conducted since the beginning of civilization. Each and every time the results are the same.

Rat Utopia, Behavioral Sinks, Dunbar's Number and the monkeysphere

The experiment as you put it is the only reason humanity got to the point of creating "civilization" and even having the option for control mechanisms & government.

If early man had not worked cooperatively with their tribes/family, we would have gone extinct millennia ago. Those cooperative models led to agriculture, creating villages, and creating such (relative) abundance, that only then was it possible for the option to control, tax, and make war against others to exist.

you know...it's really hard to have a conversation with you when you ignore what I say and don't read the links I post for you.

That being the case...good bye.

I am familiar with these concept[s] (they're all mostly the same thought process), but there are inherent flaws in them and/or they don't really apply to the conversation we're having.

  • Rat Utopia - From the very link you gave:
    • "Instead of a population problem, one could argue that Universe 25 had a fair distribution problem."
    • “[r]ats may suffer from crowding; human beings can cope"
    • "Calhoun’s research was seen not only as questionable, but also as dangerous"
    • "Moral decay could arise 'not from density, but from excessive social interaction'
  • Behavioral Sinks - Literally the same thing as the "Rat Utopia"... this is simply a term for Calhoun's conclusions based on that experiment.
  • Dunbar's Number - This concept is perfectly in alignment with what I'm talking about, and is one of the many reasons that decentralization & anarchy are the only ways to successfully & peacefully organize humans.
  • Monkeysphere - Same as Dunbar's

Basically, you're arguing for anarchy & cooperative systems, and the only actual issue you're raising is overcrowding... which doesn't occur outside of artificially hierarchical models.

Rat Utopia is not anarchy, communism, or capitalism - it's a controlled society with limited, distributed resources from a higher-authority class, and no upward mobility, or expansion opportunities. And Einstein was wrong about what insanity is, but even using that definition, the experiment of government protecting liberty failed, too. So unless you want to be one of your "free slaves", you should choose anarchy as the experiment to test again, this time with new parameters. Cause that's actually how science works. Truth without certainty... not blind obedience to the state.

you misread the parameters of rat utopia...there was no control and no limited resources...everything was unlimited except for space. The rats were crowded too closely.

the point is that anytime the group size exceeds dunbar's number the behavior of the group becomes irrational. The Iron Law demonstrates that it happens EVERY time with no exception.

It seems to me the answer to your question #1 is that a decentralized country with a common religious belief (any common belief, really) cannot be conquered by a central command structure. Look at Afghanistan. It's never been conquered even by the two greatest superpowers on the planet. The only way to conquer and control is to change or undermine that common belief and replace it with something else. That's the role of propaganda. The definition of conquered is final cooperation with the power structure by the people overrun.

Question #2: In a truly anarchic society, there would be no force to conform to any sort of social model. People would form groups to be sure, but each group would act according to the consensus of the most influential (read popular). Some might be extremely communal, some might be hierarchical. As long as each group accepted the other group's inherent right to self determination, little conflict would arise that couldn't be handled with a "pow-wow." The Ejido system in Mexico is communal in nature and it's based on how the locals lived for the last 10,000 years. Viva Juarez!

#3: This can only be handled by a wholesale spiritual, consciousness, cultural shift. The adults among us must work hard to recognize and discard the programming we've been fed since birth. We're not the center of the universe or a special creature that is placed on Earth to control it. Once we realize that what's good for you also benefits me, the sharing and cooperating becomes a no-brainer. Raising children close to the Earth without the psychotic values of the consumer society will go a long ways towards making anarchic changes permanent.

Having said all that, we must realize that this continent now called America was once inhabited by largely peace loving, communal anarchists that were killed and forced onto tiny plots of land by insane invaders who believed the locals were inferior. Technology (and disease) overcame the Indians and though the infant American government adopted the pow-wow idea into their constitution, 200 + years later it's a totalitarian nightmare. Life moves in circles and hopefully we'll evolve to the point where we're all savages like the Indians used to be.

Thanks for the comment! I was actually the one answering the questions, not the one asking them.

The principal! He will give me TP! I would hate for my bungholio to get polio....Where I come from, we have no bunghole.

You're welcome. In parenthesis: (please let me know what you would say differently) I did. Guess I got confused.

It's all good :-) Thanks for your responses, I really like your thoughts, and they're definitely in line with my own thoughts.