I was responding to invictus when I said that

"property is theft when acquired by illegitimate means, but property is liberty when acquired through legitimate means because property represents the fruits of your labour, and to be robbed of your hard work is to be a slave." I agree with this completely. this is actually what the anarchist saying means.

I know you are not talking about todays capitalism.
I've read adam smiths work and ayn rands stuff and a few others.
but capitalism, in all its forms, laissez faire, todays, whatever, is inherently oppressive, hierarchal, exploitative, and ultimately unworkable.

consensus instead of democracy is my view.

Is consensus always attainable?

yes.

with exceptions.
it only works on a small scale. but that it can also work on a larger scale. a good example is the zapatistas, or 'bottom up democracy' as opposed to top down.

anyway I'm going to skinny dip in freezing ass lake erie I'll be back

Always with exceptions!

That's some concept!

It's like talking to a wall.

How does a bottom up democracy work?

What happens in the exceptions when consensus isn't attainable? Might makes right? The many beat the few into submission? If it only works on a small scale, then what do you do with people who want to interact and live in a society on a bigger scale? Off with their heads?

everything has exceptions.

with some exceptions.


a bottom up democracy works like this. (this si the zapatista model)

say you live in a small town. or a neighborhood or a larger city.
anyway theres 100-500 ish people in this group. you all make decisions using consensus. everyone trades off for like a week at being the decision maker, but you cant really make any descions unless everyone agrees. so basically you're a facilitator.
when your descision is made, a representative is chosen to go to a group of similar people who all represent small communities. this 2nd group then alks about the communities concerns, proposals etc. the rep goes back to their community and the actual descision is made. the rep then brings the communities descision to the council, as well as new concerns etc. then a rep from that council goes to a larger one and et cetra.
this seems really dry and complex, and it is, but the zapatistas are extremly happy with it, and it works very well for them.


you may feel like you're talking to a wall, but do think I do not feel the same?

jerkface.
consensus is always attainable when used properly. it works better in smaller groups.
in a large scale society consensus works as described above, or in a different way depending on the community

"Property is theft" is not an anrachist saying, but a communist one that anarchists have appropriated.

Nice to hear the Zapatista idea mentioned, as it's a very interesting model. It is not an anrachist system, of course, because the people do function as a government. It's just a local government system in which everyone has a very direct influence on the decision-making process.

Of course, such a system has it's drawbacks too. What One which has already been raised above is -"What happens when a consensus cannot be reached?" Failure to reach a consensus on a difficult or divisive issue, in particular, can divide a community. Indeed in such a 'bottom-up' system, disagreements within the community over political issues can cause serious clashes - when you are actually directly involved in making the decision, rather than having it made for you at arm's length by your elected representative, you can come to invest so much emotional capital in your side of the argument, that you develop ill feeling towards opponents of your position. (I hope that last bit makes sense.)

Nonetheless, whether it would succeed in all settings, the Zapatistas' model is very interesting.

of course it wouldnt succeed in all settings.
there is no one right way to live.
but, that said it works very well for them.

I have spoken with a few about it, though regrettably none at any real length. so I dont know what happens if consensus cannot be reached. but they must have figured it out they've been doing this for 19 years

Yes, and long may they continue. If they've found a system that works for them, then good luck to them.

long live the zapatistas

Wow, this reminds me of that thread about ideas someone else beat you to, despite you never hearing of them. I thought of this Bottom up democracy a while back, thinking it was a revolutionary new idea.

who says it isnt?

this goes back to the argument about the re-approriation and recycling of ideas. i.e. plagarism.

like I've said, there is no one right way to live. every community of people needs to figure out what works best for them