Brodgar!

[SchlomoGoldstein]

The right side of your posts feel unwanted.

[zacty]

REVOLT REVOLT! VIVA LA BRODGAR! DOWN WITH TH- ooooh a shiny thing!

[Amanda44]

@ NaoWhut and Vigilance - Two really nice posts there, I think that they both sum up the spirit of Brodgar.

One question - did zach hand over the LS position? (He didn't get killed for it, is what i'm getting at.)

[_Gunnar]

Personally i feel that the spirit of Brodgar
does not include a "Sheriff" or any person
of power. Brodgar should be a place where
many come together and do not expect to
be safe, but earn their safety through the
trust and respect they gain.

It should be a place where names and lust
for power are left at the door. You should
not have to be kind to your neighbors and
refrain from killing them because you will
be punished. That is too much like all the
religions and governments currently in the
world. Instead Brodgar should be a place
where people are truly kind and good for
the sheer fact that they choose to be, not
because they fear a consequence if they
are to do something wrong.

That would be a perfect society, that would
be Brodgar, that would be a faction where
all are equal, there is no crime, and there
are no laws. This would be a mixture of
Communism and Anarchy. It would be rather
interesting if it were to work....

but humanity will most likely never allow it,
pride, greed, jealousy, laziness, and a lust
for power will always be the end of a perfect
society

Formatting aside (lol), I really agree with this post. Anarch[o-commun]ism is the only political system (or rather, lack of) I ever really liked. I don't think there is a problem with having someone call themselves a Sheriff, as long as they don't butt into other people's business. The H&H Village system doesn't really support anarchism natively, but it is essentially what we ran in Wyrmhold (and Hlidarendi w5), and I expect many many minor villages to lesser or greater degrees...

The problem with Brodgar (unlike Wyrmhold, etc) is that it is an infant anarcho-communist society in a very developed world, which leaves it very open to exploitation/(or just control) by existing groups. From talking to him in W5 zmurrell seemed like a nice boy, and I'm sure that he didn't intend to exert control, but I think that help should only be given to Brodgar if and when they ask for it, and superpowers shouldn't keep the LS position at any point. The Brodganis should have the right to determine their own path, and ask for aid if they want, but not be forced/encouraged down any particular one.

Incidentally, the end of Wyrmhold was lag, rather than "human nature". I could go on and on about post-scarcity societies, but I won't :p

edit: and Vigilance is probably the only person I would really trust to be a good anarchist sheriff, so thats awesome.

[dagrimreefah]

lol "anarcho-communism". You realize that is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron, right? Might as well say you believe down is up, and that you are a "Christain-athiest".

[_Gunnar]

lol "anarcho-communism". You realize that is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron, right? Might as well say you believe down is up, and that you are a "Christain-athiest".

no, its not, we just think that communism means different things.

[dagrimreefah]

no, its not, we just think that communism means different things.

No, I don't "think" communism means anything. I KNOW communism means control over the economy and means of production through force (the state), and that is 100% the opposite of what anarchy is.

[borka]

ah Grim - it doesn't make much sense to make them understand when they even mix chaos with anarchy...how can they see a difference in individual ppl wanting not to be ruled and a system that needs to be fully ruled overall for functioning ...

maybe gunnar thinks of anarcho - syndicalism...

[_Gunnar]

no, its not, we just think that communism means different things.

No, I don't "think" communism means anything. I KNOW communism means control over the economy and means of production through force (the state), and that is 100% the opposite of what anarchy is.

No, that is not what communism is, that is what a particular type of communism is.

Anarcho-communism does exist, is not an oxymoron, and your opinion on the matter doesn't really make any difference to that fact. If you look it up you will find out that there is plenty of literature about it. Basically marxist-leninists would usually say that you have to have a transition period where you have a state run by a vanguard party, which will eventually transform into a nice stateless society. That didn't work out so well, as I'm sure you know. Anarcho-communists (e.g. Kropotkin) would say that you have to move straight to a stateless society. Anarcho-syndicalism is slightly distinct from that, btw, and is a particular route to and model for a stateless society, which I think has too much of a statelike system, to be honest.

Of course, you do have a point in that trying to make an anarchist political theory is necessarily slightly logically impossible, but that doesn't stop people from trying .

edit: i don't really see the point in getting into this here, i think from my memory of reading threads a while back that you are a right wing libertarian, so there is little chance either of us will be able to change each others minds, and i don't want to wreck this thread, if you want to continue arguing about it feel free to pm me.

[dagrimreefah]

You are mistaken. I am not a "right wing libertarian". I am an anarcho-capitalist. That's a political and economic belief system that actually makes sense, for it is not a contradiction in terms like yours is.

Also, there are no "different kinds" of communism for you to pick and choose from. This isn't fucking wal-mart. Communism MEANS and IS control over production and the economy. That means NO PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. You can't have a communist system without THE ABOLITION of PRIVATE PROPERTY. That means a state. That means no anarchy. Your argument basically consists of "I don't like the real definition of that word so I want to think that it means something differnet than what it is universally accepted to mean". Well, as I said. Might as well tell yourself that the word "athiest" means something totally different than what it has been universally accepted to mean, and call yourself a Christain-athiest. Or that you don't believe in that kind of "down", so the type of "down" you believe in is really up.