I would like to point out that categorical differentiation does not imply ZOMG THE COLLECTIVE.

I mean seriously, we can categorize chicas with hair as being blondies, brunettes and gingers... but that doesn't imply that all Blondies are part of THE BLONDE ZOMG COLLECTIVE, or any such non-sense. We can categorize MLB hitters as being L, R, or S... but that doesn't imply that all switch hitters are part of THE SWITCH-HITTER ZOMG COLLECTIVE.

So lets all back up here a second, and remember my desire to use step-wise refinement ITT. We aren't trying to categorize groups of individuals (tentatively called "clans" ITT, but that term is subject to change) is being in different THE ZOMG COLLECTIVES. In fact, the whole concept of THE ZOMG COLLECTIVE has absolutely nothing to do with the questions on the table right now ITT.

We are simply trying to arrive a value-less categories that we can use as neutral party observers regarding groups of individuals, categorized by how they organize their affairs, and their "social norms".

Every group is a collective? What group? The helping people write their thesis group (self-employed)?

You didn't answer my question. Fair enough. So you are in the completely value-less group of individuals who organize their affairs by not answering me.

Lets go back to the definition of a collective.

A collective is a group of entities that share or are motivated by at least one common issue or interest, or work together on a specific project(s) to achieve a common objective.[citation needed] Collectives differ from cooperatives in that they are not necessarily focused upon an economic benefit or saving (but can be that as well). There may be some issues with meaningfully describing the qualities of a collective.

From your friend Wikipedia, out of the interest of laziness.

Collectives are just groups of individuals doing stuff together for some purpose. If you are human you belong to the collective of humanity since we all work together on some level.


I think MD is being cheeky by using the term "clans" instead of collective just because Libertarians and ACists seem to love word play.

Well mutualists are, or are close enough, to what our ACists on this BBS call "REAL ANARCHISTS TM". And that's off topic ITT, for what I hope should be obvious reasons.

And I can't say if all ACists believe that ACism can uniquely co-exist with other systems. I've only heard from the ones who say that ACism can uniquely co-exist... but that doesn't mean that there are not other ACists who feel differently.

That's what this thread is all about... learning about ACism as a team! And that is one of the questions on the table right now: Is it a fair characterization to say that... ACists believe the ACism can uniquely co-exist with other forms of organization.

We have ACists and we have everyone else. There is no group of ACist clans.

You are assuming that people will find some groups so objectionable they will not even deal with the opposition. I find this assumption to be no basis in truth.

lol, I can totally relate to wiki laziness, so I like you a lot. But:

"A collective is a group of entities that share or are motivated by at least one common issue or interest, "

The collective has a common interest. This is different from the notion that we as individuals have common means or that we work together somehow (for example via free markets).

Let me explain, why I think this distinction is important:

a) I am an individualist myself, who cringes at the word "collective". Worse: I completely flip out. That may be my fault (and I actually really think it is), but I just think the word is too loaded (as in "capitalism")

b) It makes cooperation much easier. We do not need to be a collective to cooperate. We do not always need a common interest. Of course it is easier when we do.
Collectives are just groups of individuals doing stuff together for some purpose.

If you redefine "common interest" as "serving every group members purpose (self-interest) via "periodical involvement in a group" than yeah the definition becomes meaningless or you believe in the invisible hand.

All ACists believe the exact same thing; hold the exact same position on every topic for discussion. Also, people don't make decisions against their own best economics interests based on ideological reasons.

OK, two things... So at a global level you agree with General Tsao, that there are ACists... and everyone else can be categorized as "statists"?

Do you believe that different individual ACists could have "social norms" that diverge to such an extent that the rules derived from them would be mutually exclusive? If you do, we can define value-free mathematical sets of those ACists whose "social norms" are, say for example, pro-life, and those ACists whose "social norms" are pro-choice.

Regardless of what you want to call these value free mathematical sets, they do in fact logically exist. You have objected to using the term "clan", to identify these kinds of value-free mathematical sets. Which is fine... consider the word "clan" 86ed from this thread.

So what word would you like to use instead to identify these kinds of value-free mathematical sets? Or would you like to use a coinage for this thread, say "vafsi" for Va(lue) F(ree) S(ets of) Individuals? IDK, a rose smells the same no matter what it is called... so I'll leave the choice of term up to you, and just use "vafsi" in the meantime.

No, not at all. In fact I haven't assumed anything, period. But if I wanted to assume something... I would assume that all groups would deal with each other on at least some levels, certainly if they are all going to co-exist in peace.

Yes, I actually think this is your real concern with ACism. Let me sound condescending (but I swear, I'm not, I think): you could have phrased this question weeks ago. Or in your original post.

I reluctantly self-identify as an ACist (but have tremendous love for all other "non-statist" positions.) I do not know, whether ACists can uniquely co-exist. Why is this so important?

Err, I did mention this in my first post, in the very first line in fact.

Well I don't know why ACists, or at least some ACists, consider this important. That's what this thread is all about... learning about ACism as a team! That's one of the things we are trying to figure out here ITT.

And you missed what the question actually is. The question isn't if ACism could in fact uniquely co-exist... the question is do ACists believe ACism would in fact uniquely co-exist. We don't wanna go around STRAWMANNING the ACists by just assuming that they do believe this... that would be unfair to the ACists.

In fact its the opposite, they hold different positions on almost everything.

The MissileDog thinking is that you can divide people into "clans" with nearly identical beliefs is silly. The idea that people only will interact with people who only believe the same things as them as silly. People will interact with people that agree with them but disagree on other things. Sure, there may be a few separatist groups that want to live in isolation from the rest of society, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

MD- my point is not in terms of your usage of words but rather the concepts. You think that there are going to be subsets of people that don't interact. I disagree that will be common. There may be exceptions (think of the Amish - but even they interact with the outside world in some sects).

The fact that one set of people believes in abortion rights and another believes it is murder does not mean these groups will not interact. A subset of people might choose to not interact with those of the opposite group, but they may interact with their own who do interact with the others. Are these distinct sets? Say there are 5 people in society - Adam, Baker, Cain, David, and Elijah. Adam doesn't like Elijah and won't interact with him. Baker doesn't like Adam and won't interact with him. Cain also doesn't like Elijah and won't interact with anyone who interacts with Elijah.

Where are the subsets?
Adam can trade with Cain and David.
Baker can trade with David and Elijah
Cain can trade with Adam
David can trade with Adam, Baker, and Elijah
Elijah can trade with Baker and David.

Where are the "clans" in this case? Besides certain isolated groups (say the Amish), when would this concept ever have any meaning?

Or you are still assuming ACism = fuedalism, and the king gets to decide everything?

ACism coexisting with other groups is simply those other groups being ACist but having a voluntary agreement between members to share ownership or whatever else they want to do.

I'll try one more time... out of a universe of marbles, where some of them have significantly different colors, we can distinguish mathematical sets of marbles such that each set is of a different color. And if we wanted to ITT, we could call these kinda sets "clans" of marbles.

And likewise... out of a universe of individuals, where some of them have significantly different positions, we can distinguish mathematical sets of individuals such that each set is of a different positions. And if we wanted to ITT, we could call these kinda sets "clans" of individuals.

And in general... out of a universe of items, where some of them have significantly different attributes, we can distinguish mathematical sets of items such that each set is of a different attributes. And if we wanted to ITT, we could call these kinda sets "clans" of items.

Dude, what's silly is you are trying to argue against elementary logic and set theory ITT. Why are you doing that? Are you intentionally trying to derail this thread?

It's very silly, and your the only one ITT who has mentioned it. Twice now. Nobody else has gone out on that silly detour but you. Why do you keep mentioning this silly idea? Are you intentionally trying to derail this thread?