NP, I have some rage to vent

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Krylo

Once you've created a system of law is it really anarchy and free of coercive force?

I mean if you make a law that people can't kill, for instance, and someone kills somebody, what do you do about it? If you use force to stop him or remove him from the community you are using coercive force. If you don't use coercive force what's to stop him?

The point is that he voluntary associated with the law. He didn't have to join onto it. This is one of the problems though. Both options have been argued - either he accept the rules he helped shape or expel him from the collective good which is a large punishment in its own right. It is arguable how satisfactory this is.
The main idea is that once private property goes the need for most crimes will disappear though crimes of passion will remain.

Isn't this more mobocracy than true anarchy?

Mobocracy I always saw as more brute force rule but they similar. The key difference is that the collectives in anarchy have no negative power, only positive. By working with them you get a collective benefit but if you don't work with them you will not be punished whereas mobocracies tend to force you to join or to leave. I do have a bit of a conservative view on this issue.

The more anarchic communists argue that you don't need any form of organisation. There is no private property, no wage labour, people are free to do what they want and their natural tendencies will lead to the collective good. Some argue that there can be voluntary associations which may help to direct work if necessary- particularly workers collectives in factories and such like- but they are completely voluntary and are suggestive only.
It is important in such a system to have no private land/property- except as necessary for production. In such a system people are free to develop however they like and do what they want with maximum freedom which can never be obtained in a system where private property exists because that will always imply a coercive force is around. Without the restrictions imposed by a socialist/capitalist state people will be inherentely more productive and society will reach super-production where demand is satiated.

I don't know how well I'm explaining the theory, I'm not very good at explaining things. You can read the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
but it seems a bit dated.

Yeah, I don't like the idea of corporations having that much power for a whole SLEW of reasons. Like I said, I hate the idea fervently, but discussing the more communist anarchistic ideals is pretty interesting to me.

I really don't understand how anarcho-capitalism works, it seems a bit odd to me. Any form of private property means that a form of coercion exists- people won't be completely free.

[MasterOfMagic]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

The point is that he voluntary associated with the law. He didn't have to join onto it. This is one of the problems though. Both options have been argued - either he accept the rules he helped shape or expel him from the collective good which is a large punishment in its own right. It is arguable how satisfactory this is.
The main idea is that once private property goes the need for most crimes will disappear though crimes of passion will remain.

So, if you commit murder the anarcho-communist way of dealing with it is cutting them off from the collective food/resource supply, and that's it? This sounds like a recipe for more murder, so I'm sure I misunderstood.

The more anarchic communists argue that you don't need any form of organisation. There is no private property, no wage labour, people are free to do what they want and their natural tendencies will lead to the collective good. Some argue that there can be voluntary associations which may help to direct work if necessary- particularly workers collectives in factories and such like- but they are completely voluntary and are suggestive only.

Its interesting that you talk about factories. How would things like this be handled, generally? Who decides who runs the factory? What makes people listen to this person? If the people who decide they want to work in the factory end up being the ones who make the rules, it won't run efficiently at all. In both plants I've worked in, the people doing the actual work mostly had no idea how the general process worked, and so would make decisions that made their life easier, but messed up the finished product. They also tend to not believe the manager's word about why they need to change what they're doing, they only do so because they don't want to lose the job. I don't see the same incentive coming from the anarchist system.

After these thoughts I read this:

It is important in such a system to have no private land/property- except as necessary for production.

So, would someone owning the factory be seen as necessary then? How would this person get people to want to work the jobs? Alot of factories make things that the people in them would have no use for. There's no money...would we have to give up technology for this sort of system? I don't like that idea, nor do I think people in general would.