[ninurta]

Okay, how would a militia work at guarding a society, buisness, nuclear plant or whatever it guards in an anarchist society? How would they be organized and run?

[sebbysteiny]

It wouldn't.

You can't get a permanent un-paid, untrained group of volunteers defending a nuclear power plant against attack without creating a government of some form and without paying for it (even if it is just for the equipment).

All of a suden, you require a taxation system as well, which will be manned by paid employees. Then, you need a fair way of deciding how much to tax vs how much resources the tax payers want to purchase. Politicians if you will.

[ninurta]

Not if they are just defending the plant for free electricity, then they are not paid (no militia to my knowledge is, some may be but not Voluntary ones).

They volunteer only because they get something out of it, electricity.

[sebbysteiny]

In my post, I assumed they were not paid. But who will purchase the weapons? And as we established before, there must be shifts. How many shifts would there be per day?

[Suska]

just because you have no imagination doesn't mean "It wouldn't. You can't" I'm past tired of hearing that.

First of all the workers of the plant would be paid right? its a service with a clear function that doesn't give them authority to do what they want with the plant. So why would they not have a security section if one was deemed necessary. Most likely it would take a trained foreign spy or terrorist to create a hazard at a nuclear plant and they'd have to get by the workers to do it.

If you want to bring up the concept of standing armies in an anarchism its the same thing, if people are willing to pay for it why would they not have an army or a police force, the anarchism means that such a force has no authority but what is paid for - by contrast were paying for a war on drugs. In an anarchist society people who want to use drugs would simply not pay and if then the police tried to enforce payment the entire rest of the anarchist society would strip them to nothingness for overstepping their authority.

[sebbysteiny]

Suska and ninurta

You are both in a corner. I'm pushing you into either admitting you need a police force (in which case it becomes very hard to justify how to maintain a police force without a government) or for trying to find a way of maintaining order without some kind of police force.

Ninurta understands the trap and is trying to avoid it. Suska, I think, also sees the trap but is trying to fight his way through it.

Two different strategies, lets see which (if any) works best.

Suska

Okay, so there is a police force but the person who want's to use drugs would not pay. Does that mean the person who wants drugs is allowed to kill without fear of the Police?

[Suska]

Does that mean the person who wants drugs is allowed to kill without fear of the Police?

Thats obvious, of course not, Anarchists don't throw away their natural rights - that would be murder. Victimless crimes are different. Despite what you say I don't find your hypothetical difficult at all. I've already answered it so what are you on about now? Anarchy isn't a matter of avoiding government at all costs, its about being governed by functionalities. When you need a police force you set one up and pay them to do a job, patrol for instance. When you don't need them you let them go. Anarchy is a way of making this very clear from the outset. Whereas in our society we pay police to tell us what to do, in an Anarchistic society they cannot exceed their charter. Anarchy has many forms, to my mind its just an adamant form of Democracy where even the majority may not impose their will.

[canadiancapitalist]

You are both in a corner. I'm pushing you into either admitting you need a police force (in which case it becomes very hard to justify how to maintain a police force without a government) or for trying to find a way of maintaining order without some kind of police force.

Well of course police as they currently exist could not exist in an anarchist society but who wants police as they currently exist anyway? The only "order" that needs to be maintained in an anarchist society is that of the preservation of property rights and a general respect for the non aggression principle, and that can be assured by the various stake holders in this equation.

[ninurta]

Suska and ninurta

You are both in a corner. I'm pushing you into either admitting you need a police force (in which case it becomes very hard to justify how to maintain a police force without a government) or for trying to find a way of maintaining order without some kind of police force.

Really? huh? I don't see how I am in a corner........
I believe that there are alternatives to a police force, but I don't think a police force in an anarchist society would be a good thing, it is counterproductive and simply not anarchist.

Ninurta understands the trap and is trying to avoid it. Suska, I think, also sees the trap but is trying to fight his way through it.

to be honest, no I don't understand the trap, didn't realize there was one. Is it because I didn't answer the question on shifts?
I just don't see how it would have to rely on shifts, at least not too much so. If you wanted free electricity, you might just agree to guard even if you work in shifts.

Two different strategies, lets see which (if any) works best.

his strategy, because I lack a strategy or a clue what the trap is. Maybe the trap you made is missing.

Suska

Okay, so there is a police force but the person who want's to use drugs would not pay. Does that mean the person who wants drugs is allowed to kill without fear of the Police?

How would having a police force work in anarchy and not become a state? this is about militias not police forces.

[sebbysteiny]

How would having a police force work in anarchy and not become a state?

Exactly. Suska, what's your answer?

I just don't see how it would have to rely on shifts, at least not too much so. If you wanted free electricity, you might just agree to guard even if you work in shifts.

It would have to rely on shifts because, as discussed, if the militia is unpaid, they can only be doing this in their spare time or they would not be able to feed their families. So people will only be able to devote a couple or hours a day max. This suggests shifts will be needed as one person cannot expect to be guarding it 24 hours a day. I estimate at least 12 shifts will be needed if you assume that all the guards will need time to put food on the table somehow.

This means that the militia would need to have 12 times the number of possible recruits as the enemy in order to repel an attack (as only 1/12th of the militia's size will be on the battlefield at any one time). Would you agree?

Also, I note you are suggesting the militia should get paid namely by free electricity.

Whereas in our society we pay police to tell us what to do, in an Anarchistic society they cannot exceed their charter.

This looks quite similar to most police forces. In the UK, the police have a charter which the police are not entitled to exceed.

Also, what happens if a person wants to take dope but who wants protection from murder?

and that can be assured by the various stake holders in this equation.

And how would that work?

[Suska]

youre acting like an ideology ought to have a complete and comprehensive culture within it. why would anyone of an ideology owe their culture to their ideology? i'm american, currently rural. what does anarchy as a ideology offer as opposed to or in response to government in its current and apparent incarnation? that's a real question.

Most of this stuff could be handled ad hoc using common sense and democratic process regardless of whatever that is called.

We get into issues when people want to escalate
One farmer wants all the farms
by natural default he may first try to take them by force
if that is barred by cost/benefit analysis he may try to take them by money
it doesn't matter the method; the problem is that someone has escalated
he has set himself above the common good. Created a hierarchy.

family hierarchies have obvious and individual faces - it isn't fatherhood that betrays fatherhood, it is bad fathers
but in politics it is routine and perhaps necessary to argue that ways of men are men
i do not argue that, i'd say there a men and there actions and ideology is post-facto rationalizing
therefore in the above scenario

a)community
b)the farmer demonstrates ego and force
c)if unsuccessful it is called tyranny
d)if successful eventually it is justified as divine will
e)the rejection of the justification of divine will is an anarchic move
f)the body of speculation regarding such moves and pre-conditions (a) is all categorized within the term Anarchy, and Anarchy posited as beneficial is the philosophy itself : that whatever you call it hierarchies beyond those natural to families are artificial, whereas subsets of community - as the fair and necessary dealings among equals - are as perfectly acceptable and they are perfectly accepted.

[ninurta]

Exactly. Suska, what's your answer?

lol, how could you have a police force without it becoming a state was the trap. Then maybe you should have noted that I didn't think a police force in an anarchist society was going to work. So why would I try to support and explain how do do something I neither support nor think there is a working way to execute without creating a state, if not immediately, then shortly down the road?

No wonder I didn't see the trap nor how I was backed in the corner, I was neither near a trap nor in a corner.

As for any talk about police forces, that is off topic.

It would have to rely on shifts because, as discussed, if the militia is unpaid, they can only be doing
this in their spare time or they would not be able to feed their families.

Well, that all depends. Are you going to live on your own? Then maybe you need to figure that one out, maybe get married. If you have a wife and kids, maybe you should get a babysitter or live with family so your wife can work. That is how you feed the family, or you grow your own food.

The answer to this is the same as the answer to how I would feed my family now. I am too poor, it would take me and my wife(If I was married) as it did my mom and step dad, to feed the family. I don't see how its an issue. If you think electricity is important enough.

So people will only be able to devote a couple or hours a day max. This suggests shifts will be needed as one person cannot expect to be guarding it 24 hours a day. I estimate at least 12 shifts will be needed if you assume that all the guards will need time to put food on the table somehow.

Okay, you have made your case that you need shifts. But this is a nonissue when your wife can work if there is a sense that you need electricity and want food on the table. The women can work too, but maybe this is just a cultural difference between us.

This means that the militia would need to have 12 times the number of possible recruits as the enemy in order to repel an attack (as only 1/12th of the militia's size will be on the battlefield at any one time). Would you agree?

I guess, but they are all payed free electricity, so its not money lost, depending on what you make to pay off the costs for fuel, running the place and all that. So there may be a limit to electricity one can get for free based on how much the person has earned.

Also, I note you are suggesting the militia should get paid namely by free electricity.

Is there a problem with that? Its just one way you can do it.

This looks quite similar to most police forces. In the UK, the police have a charter which the police are not entitled to exceed.

Same give or take for american police.

Also, what happens if a person wants to take dope but who wants protection from murder?

What does that have to do with exchanging protection by militia for electricity? Or whatever the buisness wanting protection has to offer in exchange for defense?
If you mean a society in general, I really don't know. If its against the societies rules, then find a society of druggies and murderers and don't expect them to let you live.

and that can be assured by the various stake holders in this equation.

And how would that work?[/quote]

[sebbysteiny]

lol, how could you have a police force without it becoming a state was the trap. Then maybe you should have noted that I didn't think a police force in an anarchist society was going to work.

That was Suska's trap as now he/she has to argue something that is not likely to work.

Your trap was that now you have to argue how a militia, once you take into account all the practicalities and the requirments of this militia, does not become a police force by another name.

But I'm not saying the trap was perfect, but I'm curious to see how you will respond. And I'm happy to double team with you against Suska, who thinks a police force is compatible with an anarchist state.

I don't see how its an issue. If you think electricity is important enough.

Firstly, this means at least two shifts (night and day as one person cannot stay up for 24 hours). But what about other important commodities like water, gas, telephones? You can't be a full time militia for all three can you? Then, if your wife is working and you are in the militia, who will look after and protect the children? Are you sure you don't need shifts?

Okay, you have made your case that you need shifts.

Great. How many shifts? Where I am going is that the more shifts, the larger the number of volunteers. Very soon, you will need a very large number of volunteers just to guard one power plant. And this will require some organising authority, and maybe payments. Training may also be required. In other words, a police force by another name.

[Suska]

sebby, don't try directing just yet, 80 posts in... lurk more

have either of you read anything ... even the wiki on Anarchy?

"Anarchists are those who advocate the absence of the state, arguing that common sense would allow people to come together in agreement to form a functional society"

none of the issues you've raised are a problem

[ninurta]

youre acting like an ideology ought to have a complete and comprehensive culture within it. why would anyone of an ideology owe their culture to their ideology? i'm american, currently rural.

Same here, I am an american living rural as well. How am I acting like an ideology ought to have a complete and comprehensive culture in it? And how amd I asking anyone anyone of an ideology to owe their culture to an ideology? Care to elaborate?

what does anarchy as a ideology offer as opposed to or in response to government in its current and apparent incarnation? that's a real question.

No its not the real question, the real question is how to make a militia work in an anarchist society and remain an anarchist society. Thats the the topic of the thread. You can make a seperate topic for that, I am uninterested in answering that. Why? Because thats something you should ask an anarchist, not me.

Most of this stuff could be handled ad hoc using common sense and democratic process regardless of whatever that is called.

And thats why the whole militia doesn't need to be on full time, and can be on stand-by.

We get into issues when people want to escalate
One farmer wants all the farms
by natural default he may first try to take them by force
if that is barred by cost/benefit analysis he may try to take them by money
it doesn't matter the method; the problem is that someone has escalated
he has set himself above the common good. Created a hierarchy.

And that's why I believe an anarchist society would be short-lived and become a state, because people want power and will sieze it. Whether there be small states or warlord factions, Somalia being an example, the situation of no government won't last long. And with warlords fighting for power comes territory, a state forms when the borders solidify.

But seriously, that's offtopic, please stop derailing.

family hierarchies have obvious and individual faces - it isn't fatherhood that betrays fatherhood, it is bad fathers
but in politics it is routine and perhaps necessary to argue that ways of men are men
i do not argue that, i'd say there a men and there actions and ideology is post-facto rationalizing

What does that have to do with militias specifically?

therefore in the above scenario

a)community
b)the farmer demonstrates ego and force
c)if unsuccessful it is called tyranny
d)if successful eventually it is justified as divine will
e)the rejection of the justification of divine will is an anarchic move
f)the body of speculation regarding such moves and pre-conditions (a) is all categorized within the term Anarchy, and Anarchy posited as beneficial is the philosophy itself : that whatever you call it hierarchies beyond those natural to families are artificial, whereas subsets of community - as the fair and necessary dealings among equals - are as perfectly acceptable and they are perfectly accepted.

Offtopic, we are only discussing specifically how militias work. We can get into how well anarchy can work, and the hierarchies form naturally in a topic if you make one, and not in this topic.

[sebbysteiny]

And thats why the whole militia doesn't need to be on full time, and can be on stand-by.

Unfortunately, I don't think that can be. An attacking force does not tell its opponents the exact time and place it will attack. In consequence, the plant must be protected from such threats 24/7 or by the time the militia arrive, there would be nothing left to protect.

And that's why I believe an anarchist society would be short-lived and become a state

So we all agree an anarchist society can't work. Great.

P.S, You may have noticed this militia potentially turning into the army of a war lord by the way.

[Suska]

And thats why the whole militia doesn't need to be on full time

no, my meaning was - thats why the whole militia doesn't need to be designed until you have a specific necessity right in front of you, which answers some of your other questions. you don't need to know these things until the native culture needs something extra.

please stop derailing

dont be an idiot, its exactly to the point

What does that have to do with militias specifically?

i made a clear distinction between personal and societal hierarchies to be clear that i don't accept the form of anarchy that interferes with families.

and not in this topic.

go complain in the basement if you dont like it, if you can get a mod to agree im derailing ill accept a warning and leave you to your nonsense

So we all agree an anarchist society can't work.

wrong anarchy is the natural condition and 'works' all the time. what doesn't work is that you are applying government and hierarchy standards to Anarchy and can't figure out that that doesn't work.

militia potentially turning into the army of a war lord by the way.

this is why i wrote the bit about the farmer. if no one tries to conquer their neighbor there isn't a problem and a militia is just as it sounds, a bunch of guys the community can rely on to defend them from external threats. in the case that someone does try to form a hierarchy the anarchy is under threat and the people need to decide if they still want it, if they do they have to form a counter to the coup.

[sebbysteiny]

Suska

dont be an idiot, its exactly to the point

go complain in the basement if you dont like it, if you can get a mod to agree im derailing ill accept a warning and leave you to your nonsense

I would urge you to be more polite to your fellow bloggers. We are all people here and sharing our ideas together is a privillege.

My view is that we must all be big enough to distinguish between our identity and our ideas. So by all means attack the idea, but not the person.

the case that someone does try to form a hierarchy the anarchy is under threat and the people need to decide if they still want it, if they do they have to form a counter to the coup.

A militia would, however, need to be organised if it is to be an effective fighting force. For example, somebody would need to pick a battle strategy and decide where to deploy their men. How can this be done without a chain of command and, effectively, a hierarchy?

[ninurta]

Unfortunately, I don't think that can be.

Why? Paul Revere did just fine when yelling, "the british are coming! The british are coming!"

An attacking force does not tell its opponents the exact time and place it will attack.

Thats why the militia must be on stand-by, in case they need to hurry to battle.

In consequence, the plant must be protected from such threats 24/7 or by the time the militia arrive, there would be nothing left to protect.

Why? You need just enough there to defend against minor threats, you see people advancing you call back-up to be ready. If they are hostile you order in the militia. Who said they had to be far away? Why not make a city around the plant and be inhabited by workers/owners/militia?

So we all agree an anarchist society can't work. Great.

Not all of us.

P.S, You may have noticed this militia potentially turning into the army of a war lord by the way.

yeah, that all depends on alot of things. It depends, is the militia loyal to the plant or its owner?

As for Suska:

no, my meaning was - thats why the whole militia doesn't need to be designed until you have a specific necessity right in front of you, which answers some of your other questions. you don't need to know these things until the native culture needs something extra.

O, but how do you get all these people to become the militia when the specific necessity is right in front of you? How do you get people trained in time. These are needed if you want to save the power plant or whatever else is in danger.

dont be an idiot, its exactly to the point

what is? If its not specifically talking about militias, its offtopic. If you want to change the topic away from militias, thats derailing. I'm not being an idiot, I just want to stay on topic.

i made a clear distinction between personal and societal hierarchies to be clear that i don't accept the form of anarchy that interferes with families.

Umm.......what's that have to do with militias?

go complain in the basement if you dont like it, if you can get a mod to agree im derailing ill accept a warning and leave you to your nonsense

........and we will continue talking about militias, at least until you can explain how whatever you are talking about is relevant.

wrong anarchy is the natural condition and 'works' all the time. what doesn't work is that you are applying government and hierarchy standards to Anarchy and can't figure out that that doesn't work.

wrong topic, be glad to discuss that elsewhere.

militia potentially turning into the army of a war lord by the way.
this is why i wrote the bit about the farmer. if no one tries to conquer their neighbor there isn't a problem and a militia is just as it sounds, a bunch of guys the community can rely on to defend them from external threats. in the case that someone does try to form a hierarchy the anarchy is under threat and the people need to decide if they still want it, if they do they have to form a counter to the coup.

Yeah, but it doesn't matter if its just that one, all it takes is one leader to lead an army and form a nation. No matter if its George Washington, or Alalu forming the citystate of Sumeria, it still can and will happen. Why? Well there are many possibilities of how and why.

Militias have to have some organization, or they won't be very effective. So with organization and even power (which saying a militia doesn't have is bogus), and whoever leads (all human societies have a leader, its human nature), then gets power.

[Suska]

thats derailing

you can have your thread to yourselves, but understand this; you have no idea what you are talking about - you have made that embarrassingly clear. one day, when you are all grown up you will learn to ask questions when you want to know something, instead of inventing fantasies and fallacies in order to make yourself look smart to yourself. I have been and will continue to be patient and explain where your errors are if you change your position from "off-topic" to "please explain".