Guns and anarchist society

I dont think you understood what i was trying to say, what i meant was if the Volunteer syndicate suddenly decided that they should be getting paid, there would be little that the people they were suposed to be protecting could do other than pay, or face whatever consequences the now corrupt syndicate decided were suitable.

I know its not a very good example of anarchism in action (In-fact since it actually isn't anarchism, its a really bad example), but im trying to get across the idea of the small community's and the problems that they face (Bandits, violent takeovers etc.)

From what you had explained earlier, it sounded like the syndicates you described were made up by a handful of organised volunteer (or perhaps elected) "law enforcement" or "Security" people. Given a small amount of power in order to look after the interests of all the other people in the community, somewhat like a community watch. It would be relatively easy for those people to say "We are your leaders now". Now from what you are saying about " a syndicate of thousands of people", im not sure i understand what you are on about anymore. Could you explain?

In Australia, this is not something we are taught about in school, and up until maybe two months ago i didn't even know there was a Spanish revolution. And im new-ish to the whole concept of anarchy, but i hope to be doing some research on Historical examples of anarchy over the next couple of days, maybe ill be more insightful on the subject then.

Like many skeptics, i dont have another solution at the moment, but maybe i will have one after i read up on the Spanish revolution and such.

I was simply commenting that a community that did happen to run out of bullets (Perhaps many years after the revolution) would be at the mercy of a community (Or organisation) that was still well supplied with bullets. After many years (perhaps thirty or fourty?) of continuous use of bullets it is reasonable to expect that the supply of bullets would start to dwindle. Lack of any recourse (foe example water, cotton, food, wood, metal) could cause a community to become extremely vulnerable, or cause them to lash out at other community in the hopes of obtaining some of the recourse that they did not have.

 

Well... after the collapse of society in any case. The production of guns and bullets will virtually disappear, the only ones left with weapons, especially after years of surviving without society, will be gone too. So lets pray for civilizations end shall we?

 

Sure if you want to watch billions of innocent people die from starvation. [sarcasm]That sounds like a good time to me. I personally can't get enough of starving children.[/sarcasm]

 

Why not be a nihilist instead VB?

 

Since you won't answer my question, I will assume violence will be the tool used by you and those that decided that guns should not be allowed. So you have one group creating a social contract that imposes their will upon others through violence when they have done no harm to anyone. This sounds awfully familiar to me. So maybe we should start another thread on what peaceful actions will be prohibited in your "anarchist" community. We should probably also go over what actions will be compelled through violence and what other violent coercion you plan on doing through your direct democracy and social contracts in an "anarchist" society. I just want to be clear on what will happen to me when I refuse to obey your attempt to control me.

 

Maybe I am stupid. Maybe just a little slow. But let me get this strait. You won't use violence, but how do you kick someone out of the community?

 

You would be voted out and asked to leave, after which if you didn't you would be removed....and why would you want to stay somewhere where you weren't wanted?

 

I seem to remember something like that from US history. It was called the "Trail of Tears". That is a good question though, why the hell would the natives want to stay where it was obvious they weren't wanted? Why would the Palestinians want to live in Israel? Why do Latinos want to live in Arizona when the state government has sent a message saying they are not wanted there?

The idea that you can just get rid of people that disagree with you is a very dangerous one. History has shown this. Just because the majority agree on something does not make that something always right.

 

Because its my home, and who the fuck is anyone else to threaten me to control what I have, do or don't do when I'm not hurting anyone. Because its control through violence. Because I'm a free man and no one owns me. If you don't want to associate with me cause I have guns fine. If you want to convince others to shun me also, its their right to choose who they talk to and associate with. But keep your fucking hands off me and other people who don't agree with you, no matter how small the percentage of the population in the geographical area might be who chooses to not obey the other group.

There's my fucking point. At the root its violence. At the root its control. At the root its ownership over another person. It doesn't matter if its guns, drugs, knives, certain plants, certain chemicals, certain ideas written on paper or recorded, certain images. If your doing no harm, not attempting to harm and not directly threatening harm to anyone, no one has any business threatening or doing harm against you. Keep your damn hands to yourselves. Aggressive violence is the tool of the state, of government, of slavers and criminals, not the tool of those that believe no man should rule over another.

 

What your thick skull doesn't understand or are just being too clever for your own fucking good, is that you will have agreed to join the community under that particular communities charter....what part of this don't you understand? You sound like the genius's in the NRA with that bullshit your spouting, if they allow guns in that anarchist community fine, if they don't you don't have to live there...is that too complicated for your brain? These are Anarcho-Syndicalist principle's. And don't fuckin sit here and preach liberal pacifist bullshit and then demand the community to allow you to set your own individual rules...

And ghoul you are so fucking Melodramatic, you would compare an Anarcho community coming together after somebody has made a problem of themselves (regardless of race) and asking that person to leave the community because they violated their own agreement to institutionalized racism? What your saying demeans the seriousness of what is happening to my people in Arizona and California and Texas and fucking everywhere!! How the fuck dare you? And I would suggest that unless you are doing something about it and not just spouting rhetoric behind a fucking computer that you don't redundantly trivialize the struggle and suffering of an entire race of people.

 

Its Naive to expect that everybody in a post-revolutionary society would hold firm Anarchist beliefs. Anarchism is seen by most as a taboo topic, simply because they do not understand it. Criminal and extremist (facist/religious) groups would probably still exist in the Post-revolutionary world, and it is not unreasonable to expect them to function as "Bandit Gangs", attacking community and travelers on the road. I would expect and excessive amount of gun use, and the fact that "Anarchists are peaceful" would be null if they were using guns to defend themselves from violent "Non-Anarchists"

Ive looked back through your posts, and all i can get from it is "A syndicate (group of people) who are volunteers, and trusted to stop psychopaths from obtaining guns"

I think I must have missed the bit where you talked about more than one syndicate, if there were more one syndicate (possibly working together) in a community, that would definitely help to keep corruption out of the syndicates. Im starting to think that "Syndicate" is the wrong word for what you are describing. But im starting to agree with your idea.

 

Arizona is a bit far from me so no I am not doing anything about that. Instead I do work with Native Americans considering I live near a few reservations. I help provide food and other assistance to reservations. I witness the end result of the thinking that you can just get rid of people. I see that shit every day. Suggesting that you can just remove people and make them go away is the same thing. You cannot say that just because it's an anarcho system it is justified. You cannot say that because someone disagrees with you that they should be removed. And removed from where? Are you suggesting that there will be borders? An anarchist state with defined borders, nice idea there. It does not matter what system of government it is under, it is wrong.

 

To think that the end of civilization will come through starvation is fucking retarded. (no sarcasm)

P.S., your boxes that describe your tone of voice isnt needed you arrogant fuck

 

The end of civilization would cause starvation. You think food magically appears in markets around the world? Civilization provides the means for us to feed billions of people. Without it we can only sustain 10 million through purely hunter-gather means. So keep praying.

 

So your here to criticize Anarchism but you offer no solutions:
"You cannot say that because someone disagrees with you that they should be removed" this to me sounds like your still going on about NGNM85, and of course they can be removed if they agree to a charter and then don't abide by their own word and again you are trivializing Institutional Racism. So what is your brilliant philosophy that is superior to Anarcho-Syndicalism? I really don't think you have a clue.....

 

Of course an anarchist society would have borders, how else would you define anarchist areas from non-anarchist areas? And we arnt talking about kicking people out of anarchism all together, simply kicking them out of a community, the removed person could then move to another community within the borders, providing they were welcomed in to that community.

 

Its not my place to "allow", I have no authority till it becomes an immediate threat against me or others. I have no problem with property, I do have a problem with someone claiming some large piece of land as theirs when the have not mixed their labor with it, as governments have done. I have no problem with trade, as long as it is not fraudulent. I will not use violence, unless violence is threatened against me or others. I have no authority beyond myself.

I would not sell weapons to children, and I would actively oppose anyone who did irresponsibly, but I would not turn to violence.

I'm saying it is immoral and an assumption of ownership to use aggressive violence to force someone not to have a gun. Everyone in the community is free to not own weapons, they are free to expose those they find that do, they are not free to turn to violence as that person is not their property, they have not authority over them. The opposite is also true, everyone is free to have a gun, but they are not free to impose gun ownership on anyone. A school can have whatever rules it wants, because its rules are limited to the school and not a persons home. So a school can prohibit guns from the school, cannot prohibit a student from having a gun outside of school.

The issue is violence, not guns. Violence is what determines ownership. That is why defensive violence is fine, you own your self so you have all authority to defend yourself against others. It is also why aggressive violence is wrong. You do not own the other person, so you have no authority to initiate force against them, and if you do initiate force you have made an assumption of ownership over that person. I believe owning other people is wrong, so I will not use aggressive violence to get what I want. If I want a gun free community, I will use voluntary means to do so, not violence. I have all the authority to use my voice to speak out against guns and those who own guns. If have all authority to not associate with those people, to not help them, to not look at them. But I have no authority to lay hands on them, to make threats of violence, to do harm to them.