I do not understand anarchist logic?

[Trus]

I've recently visited an anarchist Facebook page in which slams the government in every way possible. I do not understand the anarchist way of thought. They demand freedom and no laws and say that the world would run on voluntarism but its not a perfect world out there. People will still continue to commit crimes I believe even furthermore if there was no police/government to draw the line and say certain things are illegal. Is there any order in a Anarchist society? I also feel like they take for granite the bare necessities that we have access to that the government provides for us everyday like clean water to drink and to shower in, water purification and plumbing, FDA regulations, Military to protect us from threats. What if anarchy prevails in America and another country feels like this would be a great time to invade America when there is no military. I really do not understand it at all. They call us all statists but take part in the services that the government provides for them everyday. I'm pretty sure if armed gunmen would invade your house that you would deny the Police Department and die. I am really confused can someone please give their input.

[Kenny]

Spoiled kids that do not like to be told what to do .

[Bob]

anarchy lost its popularity in the 30s,. when people saw what the USSR had become.

[Geswin]

Because Obama is such a faggot

[Shranarchist]

Here's the principle that underlies all anarchist thinking: does any government have the right to demand anything from anyone who does not consent to live under the government? If so, how so? Can any one individual have the right to tell you how to live without your consent (we're assuming you're not doing anything to hurt others)? If an individual can't do it, why can a group do it, or a government? If a person claimed the right to tax you, and tell you how to conduct your affairs, you would demand justification. The state demands your taxes and your obedience, and anarchists are demanding justification.

Anarchist theorists from Proudhon (at least) onward have tended to ask this question - what is the least amount of authority/ coercion compatible with the maximum amount of freedom in an orderly society? They are not trying to do without "government" in the sense of people voluntarily working together to order their affairs, pool their resources, defend themselves from criminals and foreign threats, etc. They are trying to do away with "government with a capital 'G,'" that demands your allegiance, prevents your withdrawal from the system, and punishes you for violating its rules (even when they are unjust, arbitrary, or designed to benefit the rich and powerful). Anarchists do not want anyone to have to submit to a social order without their consent, or to be unable to leave a government when they no longer consent to be associated with it. This is compatible with Thomas Jefferson's call in the Declaration of Independence for people to be able to "alter or abolish" their government if it becomes destructive to liberty. Only it goes a step further, and says that all involuntary forms of governing are destructive to liberty, precisely because they are involuntary.

Now, anarchism comes with a whole host of philosophical and practical issues, and very few anarchists will deny this. The free rider problem, defense problems (local or international), how to deal with crime, how to deal with people who may need to be imprisoned for public safety, how to insure public safety with regard to a whole host of things - consumer goods, infrastructure, weapons proliferation, hazardous materials, etc. - and so on. There are many, many schools of anarchist thought, and some diverge quite radically from others. Primitivist anarchists want to abandon modern technology, and return to pre-industrial/ pre-technological modes of living. Socialist anarchists offer a host of voluntary governing agencies (like councils, syndicates, communes, etc.) that would adopt and direct most of the activities now being directed by the state. These agencies are usually democratic, decentralized, non-hierarchical, and anti-professional-bureaucracy. However, this requires a major change of our current mode of living; normal, everyday life would involve being a part of planning/ voting on community affairs. Broader regional affairs might be handled with representatives, through loose federations with other community syndicates/ councils/ whatever. It's a little like representative democratic governments, but with key differences; including the ability to fire representatives at any time with relative ease. Market anarchism advocates the state's services being taken over by private businesses and/ or cooperatives/ communes/ whatever - again, on a voluntary basis.

Perhaps it's impossible. But the broader project of anarchism - to eliminate unjust authority, force, coercion, and make social organization as free and voluntary as possible - is just, fair, and rational. If we assume that certain freedoms must necessarily be forfeited, then at the very least, we ought to be met with better justifications than "for love of country," "patriotic duty," "the social contract," and so forth. The position that all authority must at least be justified, and that the main project of societies is to maximize liberty while minimizing violence and oppression is sometimes called "philosophical anarchism." If literal anarchism is too utopian, and you reject it as impossible on practical grounds, then I submit that you cannot refute philosophical anarchism on ethical grounds. If you think you can, I'd love to hear your case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_anarchism

P.S.: regarding anarchists using state services - If I cannot control or avoid state services, and they claim the right to monopolize some services that are essential, how am I a hypocrite for taking those services? A thief steals all your money, but gives you food so you don't starve. Do you refuse the food because the theft was illegitimate?

[Brian Grimes]

An (without)
Archy (rulers)

Anarchy means without rulers, not law. An anarchist society would still have laws. Since anarchy means without rulers, anarchism is opposed to all forms of social, political, and economic hierarchies.

As for crime, every society has it. There will be no society without crime. But in an anarchist society, crime would be greatly reduced. Most Mala Prohibita laws (acts that are prohibited by law) would be abolished. Gay marriage, drugs, etc. Those would be gone. It's about responsibility. If someone wants to do drugs, there's no stopping them. If they screw themselves up, it is their fault, but society would be willing to rehabilitate them if they desire the help.

Crimes such as theft would be greatly reduced. The main cause in theft and robbery is poverty. Not having enough of a necessity causes one to steal. Anarchy being classless, poverty is non-existent therefore the crime rates would drop. But crimes like murder and rape will always be around. It's sad to say it, but it's true. And for those, the community would decide what to do.

The government's military would be non-existent because anarchism is anti-imperialist and that's exactly what the US military is; imperialistic. Yes, it may protect us on this land, but why is it stationed around the world instead of protecting us? Imperialism. An anarchist society wouldn't have an imperialist military to spread capitalist empires for corporate desires, it would have a voluntary and cooperative militia.

[The MopPetal]

First of all I want to say that if you want to understand "anarchist logic" then you have to have an open mind and be willing to listen to what an anarchist has to say or else you will just remain ignorant. I am sorry if you were called a statist and if you were the worst part about that is you probably don't even know what a statist is... I will not do that to you.

I prefer to label myself as a Market Anarchist but I have many friends who label themselves as Voluntarists and for the Anarchists that I associate with, we try to follow the "Non-Aggression Principle" which says that aggression and fraud is inherently illegitimate and that no individual has the right to initiate force against another individual. The only government services that I personally participate in are those that the government has made it extremely difficult or impossible to bypass. I work a full time job and get paid good money for it so I don't need any government services personally.

As far as your question "is there any order in an anarchist society?". Indeed there is. When your driving on the highway in dense crazy traffic and there are no cops around do people suddenly descend into indiscernible chaos? Obviously the answer to that is no. Why? Because driving at high speeds on a highway with dense traffic is dangerous and most people would like to complete that feat uninjured and with their life still intact. If that is true then what would make an anarchist society any different? Look up "Spontaneous Order" which shows how order naturally arises out of seemingly chaos without the use of violence.

I don't think I've ever heard a Voluntarist say that in a voluntarist utopia there will never ever be crime or fraud or hideous acts of violence. The goal of anarchism is to de-institutionalize the monopoly on violence that any form of government currently holds. When I say "monopoly on violence" I mean that if someone tries to compete with the government in providing services or if someone decides they don't want to pay taxes because their tax dollars goes to fund unjust wars, or if someone just does something that the state doesn't like then the government will use up to lethal violence against that person if they have to. All you have to do to find proof of that is look up the Kelly Thomas case. There would still be moral standards in a Voluntarist society but it would just be based on non-violence and would be measured by weather or not an individual is using aggression against another individual illegitimately.

I am not going to call you a statist because I do not know you personally but statism causes people to not have the ability to think for themselves and gives people the excuse to remain ignorant and not ever have to think for themselves. All you have to do in a statist utopia is watch the news and pop culture and they will tell you what to think. In a statist utopia, ignorance is bliss.

This vid will give you a glimpse into a Voluntarists mind. Larken Rose talks about how people imagine government to have authority over them when that authority actually does not exist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrKKyV6ynAs

[FCS 1]

True Anarchy is alot like True Communism in that both systems from a mathematical and logical perspective are sound, but only in its design. The problem is humans. Humanity at least in its current state is simply incompatible to these concepts beyond a trivial short period and in small populations. Our tribal instinct to associate into groups of distinction and our desire to enforce hegemony subconsciously over competing groups makes it impossible to remain within the guidelines of each concept which require a high degree of both apathy and honesty to work. Often people who think they desire an anarchist system are misguided by Hollywood illusions of utopian-John Lennon style civilization. Its not true. The remaining advocates lack the empathy to appreciate the difference between True Anarchy, and Chaotic Anarchy, they view themselves and the world around them as products of chaos to begin with, sadly anarchy as it unfortunately is in some places of the world today may actually be beneficial to those types of people. Its best not to dwell in forums of high concentrations of singular opinions, only frustration will result. Just remember, that everyone is a hypocrite to some degree, on some issue.