Would you say that consensus is a form of tyranny?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

Isn't there a difference between feeling threatened and being tyrannized?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

Would taxes be a part of an anarchist society? If not, then how would things such as roads, fire departments, organization for natural disasters and such be paid for? If yes, then who would organize these funds and determine how they need to be spent? A government may not be perfect, but it is very valuable.

I'm also wondering how an anarchist society would protect the minority. How would you keep parents from sterilizing their mentally retarded children? If children are given the same rights as adults, how do you make them do things such as go to school? I can tell you now that my nine year old would love to go to school only when he feels like it. As humans, we are not cookie cutters of one another and we need rules in place that address these differences.

For some reason, the game SimCity comes to mind. Someone has to be the leader or the place falls into chaos. I can't see how an anarchist society could possibly exist: 1) I don't see how it could be functioning and productive in a way that meets the needs of society, but most importantly 2) there is no way you could prevent someone from taking on a leadership role.

__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!

The only reason I can think of as to why a society wouldn't need laws or government would be because they are 'good' and 'selfless'. As you pointed out, humans aren't absolutely or ultimately rational, therfore they aren't always 'good' or 'selfless'. BTW, I should have said that I use those terms very loosely because afterall who is to determine what is "good" or "selfless". I actually like your use of rational much better.

__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!

Basically, your argument boils down to his:
All systems in society must be based on authority, ergo, anarchism must be based on authority too.
Or , alternatively
All systems in society must be based on authority, anarchism claims to be not based on authority, ergo anarchism doesn't make sense.
Put into this propositional scheme, it's immediately obvious where the flaw is, viz. in the assumption of the premise.

It's precisely the fallacy of this assumption that is the core idea of anarchism. If one just takes a look around him, you can find numerous examples where this is actually the case. There are plenty of interpersonal interactions that have this characteristic. You'll find it in relationships, friendships, grassroots organizations, kibbutzim, collectivistic farming, mutual aid organizations, and so on and so forth.

You're making the same mistake SMadsen is making. You take bits and pieces of what you conceive to be anarchist, and transpose them into a hierarchical framework. That would never work. It's the framework itself that is to be rejected.
The alternative framework is entirely based on nothing more than voluntary cooperation. If that basic tenet is understood, the answers to your questions become obvious. A road is built when the community feels the need for it, as with all other things.
And money isn't around. There is no need for it, and it is a primary tool to create inequality in any case.
Children remain children. They will receive an education, but a real one. Not that indoctrination stuff we have today.

I'm not familiar with the game, but my guess, no, my certainty, is that this is because it is designed as such.

In your opinion, would it be fair to say that there would be leadership under anarchism but that it would be an altogether different sort of leadership?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

There will ALWAYS be a hierarchical framework whether it is officially announced or not. Some people are followers and they will elevate others up to be their leaders and I can't see any way you could prevent it from happening.

And I'm reminded of the time I needed a fence replaced. Since we shared this fence with our neighbor it was, of course, a joint project. What type of fence: wood or chain? Both..okay. How many feet of wood? How many feet of chain? Who has the time and the proper vehicle to pick up all the materials? Who then has the time and proper equipment to do help with the project? We have a question about the fence work, you're not home so let me leave a note on the door. Here's your answer, I guess we're playing tag, I'll leave the answer on your door since now you're not home. And this was all for an 80 foot fence that two families shared. I couldn't imagine attempting to build a road for an entire community with the entire community. Other than all of that, I know NOTHING about building a road. Guess what that means - I need a leader. Guess what we now have - hierarchical framework.

__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!

The word anarchism itself is greek and means "without rulers". How would it be possible to suggest "We have leadership, but it's a different kind of leadership"? Would it be, "We have leadership, but no leaders", "We have organization, but no one who organizes it"? It just doesn't make sense.

__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!

If one defines leadership as setting a proper example, rather than as the issuing of directives, then I think the problem you outline can be resolved.

Anarchy, IMO, places a higher value on process rather than results and I fail to see any problem with that. Yes, considerably less would "get done", but given that we human beings are so highly destructive of our environment, that strikes me as a positive.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

This is the utopian stuff that just freaks me out.

That road will get built when one person thinks it is profitable to build it and not before.

The community will whine about the need for a road and whine about paying tolls to the guy who actually built it. And they will whine that he built it without their 'consensus', and they will whine if he doesn't build it for their convenience. And they will whine that he doesn't keep it nice and shiney clean.

That's human nature.

I just don't see 'communities' organizing EVERYTHING on a consensus basis. That is just too utopian to even consider seriously. The Soviets proved that government by committee is very ugly indeed.

Using citizens instead of bureaucrats isn't likely to change that dynamic.

What does a Soviet committee have to do with consensus?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

No, remember there is no money. So, I'm really not sure when that road will get built or where they will get the supplies to build a road. And since it's an anarchist society, I'm sure there aren't any rules and procedures for building such a road. And you can forget any kind of travel outside of your little commune because it's going to be a big enough ordeal to have one community build one road let alone trying to get multiple communities to build interstates. We haven't addressed the issue of maintaining it or the other important infrastructures that make a community livable. Unless, of course, it is decided that we don't need transportation systems, running water, electricity, sanitation, building codes, mail service, etc....

What would we do about proper qualifications for employment or working conditions? What kind of education system are we talking about here?

__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!

Has anyone told the anarcho-capitalists this yet?

How can there be no money? Who will enforce that authoritarian rule?

Won't the anarcho-capitalist types just invent it anyway?

It seems to me that you're arguing from the assumption that the people in an anarchist community would be similar in mindset to the people that inhabit our society; if, however, one allows for the possibility that people can have significantly different mindsets and values then one needn't operate on the assumption that consensus is unworkable.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson