Anarchy RMB Anarchy was Liberated by Security Council Resolution # 135

WA Delegate: The Xenopolis of YoriZ (elected )

Founder: Illichia

BoardActivity History Admin Rank

Most Nations: 117th Most World Assembly Endorsements: 146th Most Influential: 671st+8
Greatest Rich-Poor Divides: 865th Most Rebellious Youth: 1,024th Highest Crime Rates: 1,269th Most Armed: 1,534th Highest Drug Use: 1,540th Nudest: 1,789th Most Cheerful Citizens: 1,996th Most Cultured: 2,043rd
World Factbook Entry

Freedom, remember, is not the same as liberty.

Libertas Supra Omnia - Freedom Above All

'Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it.'
- Mikhail Bakunin

'If we do not do the impossible, we shall be faced with the unthinkable.'
- Murray Bookchin

Links:

Information
LinkSchools of Thought
LinkAn Anarchist FAQ
LinkCenter for a Stateless Society
LinkAnalytical Anarchism
LinkIndependent Media Center

Activism
LinkCNT Spain
LinkFood Not Bombs
LinkGuerrilla Gardening
LinkAnarchist Action Network

Anti-Consumerism
LinkMake it yourself
LinkNever enough?

Related to Nation States
LinkOld Regional Forum
LinkProposal for a new forum
* Please register to the Regional Forum *



Embassies: Federation of Anarchist Communes, Gay, Hippy Haven, Ohlliance, The Church of Eris, the Rejected Realms, Freak Show, The Anti Raiders Coalition, Flea Circus, belgium, The new world order of the left, Free Coalition of Governments, San Francisco Bay Area, Philosophy 115, Loosely Associated Nations, and The Green And Black.

Tags: Enormous, Anti-Fascist, Anarchist, Liberated, Featured, Socialist, Libertarian, and Founderless.

Regional Power: High

Anarchy contains 114 nations, the 117th most in the world.

Today's World Census Report

The Most Compassionate Citizens in Anarchy

Exhaustive World Census tests involving kittens revealed the following nations to be the most compassionate.

As a region, Anarchy is ranked 6,834th in the world for Most Compassionate Citizens.

NationWA CategoryMotto
1.The Republic of New Sensual DelightsNew York Times Democracy“Be Sensual Be Clean”
2.The Federated Anarchist Communes of Free Outer EugeniaCivil Rights Lovefest“Autonomy in Organization.”
3.The Green Community of Irontown IILiberal Democratic Socialists“What exactly are you here for?”
4.The Nomadic Peoples of NatapocLeft-wing Utopia“In the oligarchy we trust not.”
5.The Christliche Bundesrepublik of ShetlLiberal Democratic Socialists“The greatest one among you must be like the youngest.”
6.The Anarchist Confederation of AnarchadomLeft-wing Utopia“Ni Dios, Ni Amo, Ni Patria, Ni Partido, Ni Marido”
7.The Xenopolis of YoriZLiberal Democratic Socialists“Ⓐrtists, not Ⓐrmies!”
8.The Burlesk Brommende Bijen of BijenkorfCorrupt Dictatorship“bzzzzzzz”
9.The Republic of Rare Autonom YardLiberal Democratic Socialists“May Phex be with you”
10.The Libertarian Socialist Nation of Echelon StateLiberal Democratic Socialists“Own nothing. Give everything.”
1234. . .1112»

Regional Happenings

More...

Anarchy Regional Message Board

The Free Market Anarchy of Libertarian capitalists wrote:Are you ancap?


No, I'm not. As a matter of fact things like private enterprise are illegal in the Xenopolis.

I investigate in other forms of anarchism and have to say atm. I'm quite interested in social equality, education, media theory, self-determination and above al leaderless designteam management.

However, there are some very intersting ancap theorists.

Pantuxia

The Xenopolis of YoriZ wrote:No, I'm not. As a matter of fact things like private enterprise are illegal in the Xenopolis.
I investigate in other forms of anarchism and have to say atm. I'm quite interested in social equality, education, media theory, self-determination and above al leaderless designteam management.
However, there are some very intersting ancap theorists.

Indeed. Ancaps and Anarchists do agree on many things, and we can often co-operate, but we disagree when it comes to capitalism. As far as I know, most libertarians are fiercely anti-corporatist, and not big on war spending.

YoriZ and Astrum Nigrum

I'm not keen on war spending as well. War is about the most lunatic thing to spend on.

Reminder: Ⓐrtists, not Ⓐrmies!

Astrum Nigrum, Natapoc, and Pantuxia

Then who am I to tell anything.
My nationmanagement lead to a nation full of criminal bookreaders with a sinister fascination for weapons.
- What books are they reading (certainly no holy book)?
- What crimes are they committing (one of them is murder for sure)?
- How do citizens obtain weapons (the thriving black market)?

Astrum Nigrum and Pantuxia

at least you were first place in the human development index in the region. until yesterday ;-)

Pantuxia

The Free Market Anarchy of Libertarian capitalists wrote:It is not an oxymoron, We ancaps are the only true anarchists, read some rothbard you statist


No thanks. I already live in an anarcho-capitalist utopia and I wish to change it.

You see, the things you call "states", are really just advanced corporations with their own bylaws, shareholders, and tenant policies.

I've been thinking, don't we already live under anarcho-capitalism. It's just that most livable land is owned by special types of corporations called nations. These corporations have various rules about what you can and cannot do while on their property.

Now perhaps anarcho-capitalists reject the right of a land owner to set conditions on the use of their land? But how can they have opposition to the current system except that the land owner perhaps obtained his or her property in a way you they don't agree with or that, perhaps the land owner is not using his or her land in the way you approve of.

Anarcho-capitalists on this forum often say that land owners can set whatever restrictions they wish on the user of their property. They also tend to agree that land owners have the right to defend their property with whatever form of violence they feel they require.

Take, the united states for example. It's a legal corporation composed of other corporations (states and territories). The land owner: The united states government allows others certain rights (for a price) to use it's land. This can range from the ability to enter the land without being considered a trespasser (illegal immigrant), or the ability to purchase the right to exclusive use of some small part of land within the united states.

If nations are simply advanced corporations then why is it wrong for them to collect fees (taxes), and set regulations (laws) on those who enter their land? Since anarcho-capitalists believe trespassers can be dealt with by lethal force it's surely a right of governments to kill, fine, or imprison those who are no longer welcome or who break their contracts.

Some such ancaps will say "I never signed such a contract", to them I will say: Entry into a country is equal to signing a contract to obey the laws of that country because laws are really just the land owners rules and land owners have every right to make as many laws as they wish, no matter how arbitrary.

I know anarcho-capitalists believe this because they often stand up to the right of business owners to, for example, only serve white people or only hire men if they so choose.

Governments do not maintain a monopoly on violence. They only regulate the types of violence that they allow on their land (as is their right since they are land owners)

How can an anarcho-capitalist say that any rule or regulation a land owner decides to make is wrong? Since governments claim (real) ownership of all land within a certain area that is recognized as their country are they not legitimate land owners? Why is it okay to disrespect their ability to create arbitrary rules on the use of their land?

Perhaps the crime committed by governments is more like "false advertising" because they allow consumers to think that they, not the government, owns the land. But ancaps are usually against regulating marketing, in favor of letting the "market" decide.

This is not really true though because the government never lets you buy land. It only lets you buy a title to land, meaning it lets you have certain rights to that land but the government, and the government only, maintains the ultimate land rights and reserves the right to evict you and charge you for any reason.

Ancaps do not object to the right of a land owner to be authoritarian in the way they allow others to use their land and since modern nations are really just advanced corporations/landlords that allow others to resell, sublet for a price and a portion of proceeds, ancaps have philosophical standing to complain about the current situation.

YoriZ, Astrum Nigrum, and Pantuxia

Further, feudalism is justified by anarcho-capitalism, by saying that the king is the landlord, and all the peasants have to pay rent in the from of taxes because it is their private property.

Modern democratic republics do not deviate from this rule.

You can justify a democratic republic or literally any other form of organization. It's common for corporations, like microsoft for example to be "owned" by millions of people today. Shareholders have various rights and ability to vote in election of the board of directors.

The board of directors can appoint the CEO. But some corporations have bylaws that make them run almost identical to how many (non-dictatorship) countries operate. Ancaps do not reject this type of collectivism.

What is it you ancaps are actually opposed to? The amount of land someone can own? Surely restrictions on land ownership would be contrary to ancap ethos? Then someone (or a corporation owned by many someones) owning a continent or even owning all available land is legitimate. Surely the modern situation of several large landowner conglomerates with names such as "The united states", or Britain", are legitimate and generous landowners. Are they not?

In this case all modern states are legitimate. Ancap... Show me why this is not so...

Astrum Nigrum and Pantuxia

The Nomadic Peoples of Natapoc wrote:
I've been thinking, don't we already live under anarcho-capitalism. It's just that most livable land is owned by special types of corporations called nations.


If this is true I may have some proof. The bienvenue sign to my city clearly states that it is a corporation and it even has a board of directors, the few dealings I've had with the city make reference to the fact that it's a corporation. If anything it's unnerving.

Following new legislation in Pantuxia, the government refuses to transmit electricity to secessionist regions.
Whoops. That's not what I thought would happen.

The Nomadic Peoples of Natapoc wrote:Further, feudalism is justified by anarcho-capitalism, by saying that the king is the landlord, and all the peasants have to pay rent in the from of taxes because it is their private property.
Modern democratic republics do not deviate from this rule.
You can justify a democratic republic or literally any other form of organization. It's common for corporations, like microsoft for example to be "owned" by millions of people today. Shareholders have various rights and ability to vote in election of the board of directors.
The board of directors can appoint the CEO. But some corporations have bylaws that make them run almost identical to how many (non-dictatorship) countries operate. Ancaps do not reject this type of collectivism.
What is it you ancaps are actually opposed to? The amount of land someone can own? Surely restrictions on land ownership would be contrary to ancap ethos? Then someone (or a corporation owned by many someones) owning a continent or even owning all available land is legitimate. Surely the modern situation of several large landowner conglomerates with names such as "The united states", or Britain", are legitimate and generous landowners. Are they not?
In this case all modern states are legitimate. Ancap... Show me why this is not so...


I'm going to defend it here:

Corporations wouldn't exist in An"Cap." First off. Corporations are the creatures of the state, we could rather expect to see very different social arrangements. I would expect more sole traders and partnerships, for example. I don't think there would be any limited liability companies. Cooperatives, maybe.

You want a working "feudal" model of An"Cap?" Medieval Iceland, is your best bet. It's government was completely "privatized," and there were no feudal arrangements as we've seen in Europe - people were not bound to their land but their chieftain. Law as well, was polycentric. It applied to people, not the land. Ergo I don't believe that AnCap would resemble any traditional feudal model as we know, unless you think allowing people the ability to rent out their homes counts as feudalism. (Something that would not be tolerated in, e.g. Mutualism. How they wish to enforce this is beyond me.)

I've known some AnCaps to be supporters of large land distribution schemes. Land needs to be homesteaded in order to be legitimate. Remember that, at least for the United States, large swaths of land were merely stolen from the Native Americans. There was not really any form of fair trade, which requires consent from both actors. As for Britain, all land was considered the property of the Queen, so take it up with her.

Forum View

by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics