I think I am going to search for ASism threads now.

Thank you leavesofliberty. And welcome back!

This is the kinda comment I'm looking for... or the opposite comment, that the concept of clans I presented does not make sense. And the idea is that if we can reach a consensus on this one tiny, tiny concept... we can use that as a building block going forward ITT. That's what I mean by step-wise refinement.

To perhaps slightly over-simplify, the issues on the table right now ITT, are these...

• Is it a fair characterization that... ACists believe that ACist clans can co-exist with clans using other styles of organization, as long as each "leaves each other alone"?
• Is it a fair characterization that... ACists believe that different clans, even those using the same style of organization, can have "social norms" so divergent to be mutually exclusive, and...
• Were any of the four dichotomies I presented above false dichotomies?

I can't promise we'll get around to chatting about stuff like Dunbar numbers... but for now let's hold off on advanced concepts like that. For now I'd like to see if conducting a learning thread using step-wise refinement is even practical or possible on this BBS.

So does anyone else have any thoughts regarding this concept of clans (and only this concept of clans for now) that I presented above?

What is the enforcement mechanism to stop my clan starts attacking your clan?

No.

There aren't this many groups. S-Clans and A-Clans, that's it. By my definition (and may I remind you)

The M-Clans and F-Clans (as you have led me to understand them) would just be part of S-Clans. For better or for worse (this is not an argument thread!), any group which does not recognize personal property is a statist group.

They will put you in the penalty box where you will feel great shame for two minutes.

Once again, I can't promise we'll get to things like "national" defense. But if we did that would be a whole ways down the road. But I would like to make a general note.

One thing that "statists" do, which I find is completely unfair, is to start asking these kinda questions to the ACists... before they have any clear understanding of what ACism actually is. IMO (and it's just an opinion) we should first understand how ACism would work without being under crises... in other words how ACism would work normally, if everyone followed the rules in good faith, first. I mean seriously, certain varieties of "statism" work different under crisis than normally... for instance mandatory rationing, suspension of civil liberties, conscription, etc. Would it be fair to judge "statism" only under those circumstances?

Thank you my General, for your comments!

Let me clarify a little bit about a few of things. First, you mentioned that only S-clans and A-clans are imaginable, and you feel M- and F- clans should be included under S-clans. But what about P-clans, in other words forms of Non-ACist Anarchy clans? Do you feel that any form of Non-ACist Anarchy is logically impossible?

Secondly, I didn't explicitly say this, but I was only considering treating land as property for the time being, and hoped we could save considering treating things or ideas as property later down the road. And I didn't say anything about the M- and F- clans not treating land as personal property. In fact I never used the word personal at all... I meant not treating land as property in general, including both "personal", "public", or any other qualification.

Maybe it would help if I gave an example form of what I was imagining as P-, M- and F-clans, to help clarify this discussion...

• An example of a possible form of P-clan is this... exactly like an A-clan (ACist) except that this P-clan's "social norms" have led them to have the following rule: every resident must voluntarily tithe a percentage of their income to a private charity of their choice, on pain of being shunned and boycotted the same as a murderer. Here defined as using the word "voluntary" as libertarian/ACists use the word.
  
  
• An example of a possible form of M-clan is this... a non-"statist" migratory people who hunt herds of wild animals. These people claim no ownership of land, and they claim no ownership of the animals in the herd. What they do claim is that the herd has a "natural" right to exist, thrive, and wander their range at will. And that they, as a clan, have an absolute, but non-exclusive "right" to follow that herd, and hunt that herd in a sustainable manner.
  
  
• An example of a possible form of F-clan is this... a clan which is religious based. Under their religion, their god has given them non-exclusive dominion over certain general geographical spheres of influence... but these areas do not have a defined geographical boundary. Also their god commands them to share their spheres of influence with infidels as long as these infidels do not act blasphemous or sinful.
  
  They share the land in their spheres of influence by their traditional religious canon rules, revealed by their god, and handed down from the elder days. Among these canon rules are commandments to never (a) organize a government, or (b) divide the land in their spheres of influence up in any fixed geographical manner.

For the sake of keeping the discussion manageable, Tsao's idea seems better. For now, I don't see a need to go beyond the idea that there are non-AC clans. So long as they leave AC clans alone, AC will leave them alone. How other clans organize internally only becomes relevant in the case of crises, and since we're avoiding that scenario, it shouldn't matter at this stage.

Calling them ACist clans is also stupid, really what you have is ACist individuals.

Get off the individualist kick. You would still live and interact with your neighbours, and form bonds, which would lead to something akin to tribalism.

Get off the collectivist kick. It's bad for individual liberty.

Sorry, but until you are the only human left you belong to a collective. Hate to disappoint you there.

And I am also sorry you and other ACists are entirely too narcissistic to weigh the need of the individual in one hand and the need of the collective in the other hand like Classic Liberals. You know the people ACists and Libertarian pilfer quotes from?

There is no collective. A group of people, or society, is just a bunch of individuals. The "collective" is not a separate individual with its own concerns and needs and desires.

Well I obviously disagree. First of all... all the clans are going to necessarily interact under normal and peaceful situations. And we need to consider how this works among all different kinds of non-ACist clans, if we are going to be fair to ACists regarding their claim that ACists are unique in being able to co-exist.

But mainly I'm going this route to lay some logical and terminological ground work. I've gone down this path before, and what I have found is that both the ACists and the "statists" get hung up on an obvious false dichotomy... that ACism and "statism" (usually modern representative democracy "statism") are the only two logical options. I'm trying to nip that false dichotomy in the bud, as it were.

So to review, we have two candidate classifications of clans on the table here...

(a) Proposed by me, endorsed by leavesofliberty: see above.

(b) Proposed by General Tsao, and logically extrapolated as...

At the global level clans can be divided as "ACist" and "statist". Statist here being defined in this category system as everthing that isn't ACist.

Then the "statist" category can further be divided into what we might call, for lack of a better term as "Statist-Statism" which are clans whose organization features what ACists would call a "government" or "the state". And again, for lack of better term, every thing else we might call "Anarcho-Statists".

Then "Anarcho-Statists" can be divided up into propertarian and non-propertarian categories, and then "Non-properterian Anarcho-Statist" clans can be divided up into migratory and fixed clans, as above.

So let's hear some more other opinions on this matter...

Your thread sucks imo

Sounds like an awfully lonely way to go through life.