oh I'm sorry I thought I was the anarchist.
why dont you explain it to me?

go ahead I'm all ears (eyes?)

Sarcasm isn't a good way out, dude. Try thinking up sentences that address what has been written.

look the rights of people not to be raped or killed are more important than the rights of others to rape or kill.

so if/when the community decides that it does not want rape or murder in it, they must take steps to achieve that.
so if by consensus the community decides to exile the person that is not authoritative, its a collective decision to protect themselves.

or maybe it is authoritarian I really do not want to argue semantics.

I am not a writer or an orator.
I am a poet and an artist and a traveler and a lover.

I'm articulating this to the best of my ability

We aren't arguing semantics though. I don't know where you got that idea.

If a person gets exiled against their will, their power is of less value than the power of whoever is enforcing the exile, right? Or is that wrong?

Look, either you defend your position or you don't. Stop back-pedaling, please. Either you believe what you say or you don't. Am I to interpret this to mean that you don't believe what you say or think? I'm sure as hell no writer or debater but I am literate which, despite the way you come off, you are too. Time to face reality, no more excuses.

if a community unanomously sp says this person should leave

you dont think thats right?

so the answer is right. some rights are more important thjan others. janes right to say 'no' is more important than johns percieved right to sexual access. the communitys right to say someone should leave is more important than one persons percieved right to stay.

I'm not back-pedaling or making excuses.
I'm just letting you know I can only explain to the best of my ability.

We're aren't at that stage yet. I am asking if the statement is true: "If a person gets exiled against their will, their power is of less value than the power of whoever is enforcing the exile"

If that statement is correct (no morals involved yet), then there is unequal power and, by the definition of anarchy that I *think* we've come to, it would not be a situation found in an anarchy.

yes its true.
continue

Ok, so you support this power inequality. Do you agree that it means the society is not anarchic, but is instead built around some kind of power structure whereby the higher numbers of people have more power over the minorities?

no.

decisions are usually made by consensus. that is how anarchist communities make decisions, so if there was say two peopel out of 2000 that didnt want that person to go, they wouldnt. someting else would be worked out

forgive all my typos, I'm heavily multitasking

It's probably safe to assume that one of those two people would be the murderer himself. Wouldn't he always enter an opinion that made it easy for him to kill again? And the community would be in a deadlock because he would never agree to what the vast majority wants. Therefore, the status quo (ie, life before the murder) would continue, right?

It's ok. I'm snorting coke while ejaculating on 100 dollar bills which I've laid out on the floor of my McMansion. We all multitask.

well Jerkface (I think it's funny to call you that even though I'm not mad at you), you can't present a theoretical framework of perfect anarchy, then take away the theoretical framework with a realistic scenario and ask what they would do.

In a perfect Anarchistic society, everyone would be wonderful to eachother and share everything including the workload, and life would be peaceful and there wouldn't be theives, liars or murderers. (Get up get on your feet!)

In a realistic anarchist society, there will be a few that stray from the ideal - so as a collective group, they must decide the fate of the offender. Even if it's not a central authority dishing out the punishment, maybe it's the family of the victim.

I think this is why pure Anarchy isn't viable by the way, because for consistency in punishment, eventually you'll want to write down what are considered crimes, and what the punishments will be for them. And that kinda sounds like laws ... bye bye pure anarchy, hello some more realistic version of it, but with rules.

I guess my point is, that when discussing the finer philisophical points of power inequities, you should probably stick to an idealistic framework. Once you throw reality in the mix, then the finer philisohical points are no longer valid.

One more thought on the matter - Anarchy really just means no ruler, no central authority, no laws, etc. I don't think it was ever meant to be some kind of ultra precice power equilibrium. I think you can have, even a hypothetical, idealistic anarchist society, and still see that the power is obviously not equal. At the very simplest level, take parents and their children. An obvious power imbalance there, yet it doesn't negate the concept, in theory, of an anarchist society.

thats assuming the murderer gets a vote.

they may they might not, each community is sure to be different.

also I think its funny that you assumed the murderer would be a man.


ok look heres an example. alot of anarchist gatherings are silver scene. which means no drugs or alcohol. this is not a condemnation of drugs or alcohol or their users. it is a recognition that some people have problems with them and do not want to be around them. usually if you violate this you are asked to leave.
because the right of people to not have drugs or alcohol around them are usually seen as more important than someones right to imbibe them in the presense of the former group.

I hope your not using one of the bills you ejaculated on to snort the coke - cause that just seems sick and wrong - and probably wasteful too, dpending on which direction you rolled the bill (i.e. ejaculate on the inside or the outside)

"In a realistic anarchist society, there will be a few that stray from the ideal - so as a collective group, they must decide the fate of the offender."

thats right

I know, phil, but I hope you all don't think my writings on this topic are over-the-top or silly. In the perfect anarchic society, I think that murder would be physically impossible. it simply would be out of the question for any member to commit and, if it were committed, then it woudl cease to be anarchy and would enter the more normal political spectrum that we are all more familiar with. BUT, I think it's important to point out that if the anarchich society existed, and people were not able to commit murder, then that represents taking away freedom of men. Certainly, the freedom to murder is not one that we particularly enjoy or use often, but I feel that having it is somehow important to our humanity. otherwise, and in this perfect anarchy, we would be fairly predictable beasts of burden.

I think in you "realistic" anarchist society, phil, having the qualifier "realistic" makes it no longer an anarchist society at all. And actually, I think the inherent imbalance between parents and children does negate the possibility of an anarchist society. I haven't yet been convinced that it is possible.

Wait, why would the murderer not get a vote?? Is this some arbitrary automatic law that everyone already agreed to? It seems that they would have to vote on whether the murderer got the vote. And in this vote, he would almost surely be in favor of keeping his own voice.

I refer to the murderer as "he" because it is simpler, easier and quicker, not because I assume he has a dick. Don't be sexist, Sic.

What if someone of the silver scene is a real standup anarchist and is a very important member of the group.... he loves to drink soda, though. Technically, he'd be "asked to leave" because he is enjoying drugs but would this really be enforced?

the freedom to murder is not one that we particularly enjoy or use often, but I feel that having it is somehow important to our humanity. otherwise, and in this perfect anarchy, we would be fairly predictable beasts of burden.

I agree

What if someone of the silver scene is a real standup anarchist and is a very important member of the group.... he loves to drink soda, though. Technically, he'd be "asked to leave" because he is enjoying drugs but would this really be enforced?

is that a real question??

ugh. I would say no because soda is not usually considered a drug and its intoxicating effects are almost negligable.
I cant really imagine a situation where someone would be asked to cease particiption because they drink soda though.

you're getting a little fantastical

oh sorry I forgot your middle post.

I dont know. if it were my community I certainly wouldnt give him a vote. but I'm sure very community would be different

ok - that's a good clarification of your point. But I don't really think that Sicarius has ever argued that this theoretical limit of perfect anarchy is possible or the one that he desires to exist in. I'm not even sure most people would agree with you that what you are saying can't exist is called "anarchy" (or "panarchy, which is what started this). I think they would call it Utopia or something. Personally I think that you can have a lawless, leaderless society and that would be called anarchy. I don't think the equal power requirement has ever been part of the definition.

Having said that, I still don't think it's viable or sustainable, I'm just trying to redefine it for the sake of the conversation. I think you are trying to trap Sicarius into defending a position that until this thread, I've never heard him assert - and that is that anarchy is the complete balance of power between each and all members of the community.

IF that was the definition, then I agree completely with you that it is even theoretically impossible. But I just don't think that's ever been part of the definition.

Well, we've strayed far from the original topic and we're in the zone of hear-say, so I believe this discussion is about at a close. But, in summation, it appears that you agree, Sicarius, that certain unequal power structures should be maintained and certain authority should be given over certain undesirable elements in society. Is this accurate? Are you still an anarchist?

Thanks, phil, for clarifying. Now my previous post looks a bit silly! Oh well.

I'm not sure it can be any other way, though. How could one call it an anarchy if there is more power vested in some people than in others?