Am I A "Conspiracy Theorist"?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: grandpa Apparently, some are immune to getting the picture no matter how clear it is. These aren't the arguments of the "9/11 truth movement" or some "UFO watcher." But there are those who can dismiss anything I say, no matter how compelling the trends I note are. Go back to the original post. What kind kind of policies are the people listed typically proposing. Well, it's usually those which would benefit their industries, or large corporations. Consider what I just noted about Bernays and United Fruit. Given the evidence I've presented thus far, it's revealing that my conclusions wouldn't be evident to anyone reading them. Perhaps you're all just "haters," to use some modern parlance. Grandpa h.

So there is corruption inside administrations.

I'd like you to find a government in the world that doesn't engage in activities and planning to benefit itself, its contributing partners, and companies inside its borders.

ANY government will have its own dirty secrets in promoting its own national self interest. So the question is what now?

Obviously then we can either accept that and try to vote in people who are not as corrupt or we can sit and brood, cling to our guns and demand for some kind of revolution. What about your job, my job or the everyone else's jobs? How can you promote some kind of revolution when you probably can't support yourself without the system.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Milton Bradley There is no room for pragmatism in the pursuit of liberty, or truth.

What a joke.

Your attitude is so self serving its pathetic. It's all about you, you, you. YOU don't want healthcare to be free, YOU want immigrants bused out of the country, YOU want to be able to unrestrictedly own guns, smoke in public, private, use drugs, do ANYTHING not strictly under the power of some 200 year old document.

You want to go back in time to 1800 where people were independent and able to support themselves with the limited cooperation between a few local people. I sorry but the local blacksmith, tailor, tanner, and other trades are NOT coming back. Society can't survive without massive government oversight and assistance. We either have an authoritative democracy or absolute chaos.

The majority of citizens today would experience drastic lifestyle changes in order to change anything. Most of them, myself included are not willing to sacrifice and suffer just to uphold some 200 year old concept envisioned by sexist, racist, and self interested old men.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Well, when one side assumes that each liberty that has already been recognized by government can be renegotiated, yes, some of us will inevitably revert to the Second Ammendment to defend what we have legally established to be a "right of the citizen". We see this as one of those "inconvenient truths" that is non-negotiable, as many of the other truths you are so willing disregard in your attempts to undermine The Constitution of The United States. My side of this situation still has legal, and moral justification. Yours rests upon the erosion of existing laws, deregulation of existing rules, and a government overstepping it's bounds with predatory, and coercive tactics.

And this is all highly debatable. First of all, no side assumes that each right that has already been recognized can be renegotiated. Let's just take that little misstatement of belief and objective for what it is - inappropriate hyperbole - along with the idea that my side (since we are talking only two sides, mine and yours) is willing to disregard the Constitution. The real and honest core of this debate is whether or not the Constitution was more perfect 125 years ago, or if it is more perfect today. The fact that the founders meant for the Constitution to be pliable is not really up for debate either. If they thought it was perfect for all times, no Amendment mechanism would have been built into the document. So, we come back to the real question: Are the great and ideologically varried citizens of this democratic, constitutional republic better served and better protected today than they were "back in the day"? I say yes. You say no. We are all good so far. Is the citizenry perfectly protected? I think we would both give a big "No!" to that one. Are there many faults with our current system of governance? Again, both of us would say "You betcha". Here is where we start to part ways. I think the system is still very viable and still mostly beneficial. What I do not like, I realize I have a responsibility to work to change. But I also know and understand that in a DEMOCRATIC system, sometimes I have to live with being on the losing side of the debate. You think that you are SO RIGHT and others are SO WRONG, that it is ok to ignore the fact that everyone is still perfectly free to vote their will (even if many are too lazy to do it, they are still FREE to do it) and, by force of arms if necessary, alter the freely chosen course of a people operating within a free system to better suit the aims of a minority of individuals who think they understand better what choices that free people SHOULD be making. I think George Washington would arm himself, and SHOOT YOU.

[Morality Games]

Ah, this page is full of realism. What a breath of fresh air.

I think George Washington would arm himself, and SHOOT YOU.

On this note, I think George Washington probably wouldn't comprehend the situation well enough to make a judgment on who to shoot one way or another.

[grandpa]

Quote by: HelioPrime So there is corruption inside administrations. I'd like you to find a government in the world that doesn't engage in activities and planning to benefit itself, its contributing partners, and companies inside its borders.

But to say they’ve been corrupt regularly is an understatement, to say the least. We know that has been going on for centuries in some fashion, yet people still yawn at it like it's no big deal.

Grandpa h.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: grandpa But to say they’ve been corrupt regularly is an understatement, to say the least. We know that has been going on for centuries in some fashion, yet people still yawn at it like it's no big deal. Grandpa h.

When it is common place is it still a big deal?

What your basically suggesting its that every government be overthrown by its people.

I'm guessing that is fairly close to your stance as a anarchist but then what? Do you have any ideas for any way to regulate society after you've thrown down every corrupt regime.

[grandpa]

Quote by: HelioPrime When it is common place is it still a big deal? What your basically suggesting its that every government be overthrown by its people.

Obviously, the more common something is the more it will affect people.

As for how to solve the problem, the first step is to realize we are in a world of hurt and see the sources of it. Most of them are actually ideological. This effort would include a deeper realization that, when it comes to government, we are not "its people." Until this level of consciousness is raised the people will not suffice. In other words, anarchism requires peopel sympathetic to anarchism.

Grandpa h.

[Morality Games]

How would an anarchical society administrate justice? Remember that legal processes have always been a part of the state. Any court or body of law is itself an element of a state.

How could an anarchical society justify the risk of having any type of social institution when there is strong potentiality it could grow into a state? How could a society remain a society if it has no institutions (no schools, no markets, no anything).

Moreover, if they took the risk, how would the society be able to regulate institutions so that they never grow into states without the enforcement-power (executive strength) of a state? Also, without an enforcement-power, how would the rulings of courts be carried out?

I have not yet begun to ask questions. The logistical problems of maintaining an anarchical society are staggeringly many, let alone the implementing one in our world's present context and the practical benefits of doing so. I don't think desire for anarchy is based on sound reasoning, so I can't call it a moral way of thinking (ideology).

'Potentiality' and 'probability' are always important considerations when proposing revolutionary systems like anarchy.

Actuality (reality as it is)
Potentiality (reality as it could be)
Probability (reality as it probably will be)
Improbability (reality as it probably will not be)
Nothingness (reality as it is not and cannot be)

My contention is that the functions performed by states are intrinistic to states and cannot exist (at least not functionally) if not as part of a state. I would argue states are not 'historical accidents' but a probable part of the potentialality of being human with other humans and therefore bound (certain) to become actualities so long as humans continue to live with each other.

Or, more simply, "State is within us. It is just waiting to happen."

[Domino]

How would an anarchical society administrate justice? Remember that legal processes have always been a part of the state. Any court or body of law is itself an element of a state.

Each individual has the capacity to dispense justice. If someone disagrees with a person's judgment, they may find it necessary to dispense some justice of their own. Someone who kills frivolously will likely soon be killed.

On the other hand, if two folk have a dispute, but it's not sufficiently serious to warrant violence, they may agree upon a neutral arbiter, perhaps even a variety of them.

How could an anarchical society justify the risk of having any type of social institution when there is strong potentiality it could grow into a state? How could a society remain a society if it has no institutions (no schools, no markets, no anything).

Anarchism must be guarded constantly. You do need schools, etc., but you must also watch them, and all other institutions, to ensure that they do not take too much power for themselves. Really, we should be doing this, anyway.

Moreover, if they took the risk, how would the society be able to regulate institutions so that they never grow into states without the enforcement-power (executive strength) of a state? Also, without an enforcement-power, how would the rulings of courts be carried out?

Each and every citizen is judge, jury, and executioner. Every individual is a tyrant, a dictator, an executive of supreme power. In a society where no one is willing to take orders, there will be no way to escape justice. The court of public opinion is the only court that matters.

Yes, the result of these things will probably be a much smaller population, in the short-term, but it will be a much more civil population. In the long-term, we will learn to establish institutions which do not oppress.

For an example of my favorite future society, I recommend reading Robert Heinlein's Beyond This Horizon. It's so anarchic, it's hard to claim that it's anarchic.

[Morality Games]

Each individual has the capacity to dispense justice. If someone disagrees with a person's judgment, they may find it necessary to dispense some justice of their own. Someone who kills frivolously will likely soon be killed.

The objections are endless.

I'll start with a very small number.

What if the person who kills frivolously is more powerful than everyone else?

And if a person is immoral enough to kill frivolously, then why should they be expected not to use their power to attempt forming a state they are in charge of, so as to give themselves the best possible advantage in their dealings with neighbors?

After all, since he is so powerful, why would other immoral, powerful humans not want to enter his service, as being with him gives them additional advantage over their neighbors?

On the other hand, if two folk have a dispute, but it's not sufficiently serious to warrant violence, they may agree upon a neutral arbiter, perhaps even a variety of them.

Who decides if a person is qualified to be a neutral arbiter (what if the persons in disagreement can't agree on a judge)? How does one know if the person isn't secretly biased in favor of one person without any care for the actual disagreement? What precendent or standard does the arbiter draw upon in making his judgment?

Anarchism must be guarded constantly. You do need schools, etc., but you must also watch them, and all other institutions, to ensure that they do not take too much power for themselves. Really, we should be doing this, anyway.

Who monitors the institutions (collects information on), and for who and for what? Who has the authority to call an assembly, and where, so that they can collectively regulate and punish the schools or whatever social entity?

All of these things are suggestive of a primitive state (direct democracy without a constitution if nothing else). You need to institution to watch the other institutions, and this institution inevitably becomes the new state (determination of guilt, assembly of force, punishment of the offenders, etc).

Each and every citizen is judge, jury, and executioner.

Sounds much like the society established by early settlers of Iceland. A primitive state gradually took root, with a body of law and everything, in the form of an Althing. This is mainly because many senseless killings and much theft of land and other goods took place and the Icelanders want there to be an established order to things.

The state is just waiting to happen. Being human with other humans logically necessitates it.

In the long-term, we will learn to establish institutions which do not oppress.

How ... and ... why?

States develop out of motivations that are pretty much constant and common to all humans (and therefore often unthought of), whereas anarchical societies seem to require intense concentration, and even then, they appear to always be teetering on the edge of acquiring a state, and they don't seem likely to be happy and prosperous, since tyranny on a basis of individuals to individuals (without hope of recourse to a more objective, stronger authority) is still tyranny.

I think that anarchy is something impossible for humans in our world. It is only possible in fiction because novels presuppose many features inhuman become human and features human become inhuman.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Morality Games The objections are endless. I'll start with a very small number.

The "objections" are general, not unique to anarchism.

You seem like a smart enough guy, yet you have a complete misunderstanding of anarchist principles. None of them mean there will be no social order of any kind. In fact, anarchists strive to create a well-organized, egalitarian society without any ruling elites. For better or worse, there is no perfect blueprint for doing this, as I've already suggested.

Grandpa h.

[Domino]

The objections are endless.

It is not my intention to advocate, only to inform. It is entirely possible that your objections will outlast my knowledge.

What if the person who kills frivolously is more powerful than everyone else?

I don't believe this is possible, given the current state of technology. Snipers abound, and if they know you're out there, likely to kill, they'll be out there, waiting and watching. Even if your perp is a sniper, they can be caught, by a variety of means, and will be, when anyone can choose to pursue, investigate, and punish. I'd be willing to bet that, for any given homicidal killer, there are a great many people who would relish the opportunity to be a righteous killer.

And if a person is immoral enough to kill frivolously, then why should they be expected not to use their power to attempt forming a state they are in charge of, so as to give themselves the best possible advantage in their dealings with neighbors?

Aside from the frivolous killer's impending demise, one of the hopes of anarchism is that, in the successful society, it will be very hard to find people willing to enlist with him, if not from a sense of morality, then from fear of the public. Indeed, he could hardly trust anyone who did choose to go along with him.

Who decides if a person is qualified to be a neutral arbiter (what if the persons in disagreement can't agree on a judge)? How does one know if the person isn't secretly biased in favor of one person without any care for the actual disagreement? What precendent or standard does the arbiter draw upon in making his judgment?

The parties in dispute decide all these things, when they decide upon a judge. The only deadline on that choice is the one they impose themselves, and they choose what happens when they reach it.

One could hope that some people would acquire a reputation for wisdom and impartiality. Anarchists hope many things will be accomplished by reputation.

Who monitors the institutions (collects information on), and for who and for what? Who has the authority to call an assembly, and where, so that they can collectively regulate and punish the schools or whatever social entity?

For the most part, I would expect this from those members of the public who have to deal with those institutions. If a given person does not feel up to the task, they can go relate their story to others, and, as public opinion develops, certain members may determine there is sufficient mandate to take action.

One could hope that institutions would be regulated by each participant's strong sense of self-preservation.

Sounds much like the society established by early settlers of Iceland. A primitive state gradually took root, with a body of law and everything, in the form of an Althing. This is mainly because many senseless killings and much theft of land and other goods took place and the Icelanders want there to be an established order to things.

It is generally agreed that a successful anarchy requires a certain amount of technological sophistication to support its creation. Guns, for example, require little training and little maintenance, and are often concealable; they are a means of equalization that was not available to the original settlers of Iceland. Guns, of course, are far from the only innovation that makes anarchism more possible (cell phones and the internet come to mind), and there are doubtless many more to come.

As well, the establishment of an anarchism requires a certain level of education in its constituents. To say the least, they have to understand that it's possible and worth trying for, and they'll have to learn far more before it's achieved. It helps a lot if they have the means to educate the next generation, and to provide professional skills to those who don't have them.

The state is just waiting to happen. Being human with other humans logically necessitates it.

I would like to hear more of this logical requirement. I do not deny that there will likely be a persistent trend in that direction, but combating our persistent trends is a large part of what makes us civilized, and I see no reason to believe that this trend isn't like any other.

How ... and ... why?

Why: because only those institutions which do not oppress will be allowed to persist. The oppressed simply will not allow it.

How: well, if I knew all the details, I'd write a book on it. I'd say we already do a pretty good job of not oppressing one another, and I don't imagine it would be difficult for most institutions to find an accord with the new order.

States develop out of motivations that are pretty much constant and common to all humans (and therefore often unthought of), whereas anarchical societies seem to require intense concentration, and even then, they appear to always be teetering on the edge of acquiring a state, and they don't seem likely to be happy and prosperous, since tyranny on a basis of individuals to individuals (without hope of recourse to a more objective, stronger authority) is still tyranny.

Your hope of recourse is the society in which you live. Most people dislike tyranny, and, in a public setting, there will likely be someone who will step in to stop it, especially if asked. In a private setting, you're on your own, but that's always been the case, anyway.

As well, most people will be hesitant to be tyrants, when they have no way of knowing what lethality lies up any given sleeve.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa The "objections" are general, not unique to anarchism. You seem like a smart enough guy, yet you have a complete misunderstanding of anarchist principles. None of them mean there will be no social order of any kind. In fact, anarchists strive to create a well-organized, egalitarian society without any ruling elites. For better or worse, there is no perfect blueprint for doing this, as I've already suggested. Grandpa h.

As I have stated before, the problem with your solution lies within your solution. Anarchists may "strive" to create a well-organized, egalitarian society without any ruling elites, but that is the same concept Communists strive for and the same concept Democratic/Constitutional Republics strive for and they all fail in reaching their ideal because people just do not cooperate with the means to the end. People will always corrupt the system. The question then becomes, "What system mitigates the problems most effectively?" If power is there to be had (and it is, no matter what ends you may strive for) how do we effectively keep power from becoming too concentrated and unaccountable? If the only power available to you is the power you can muster as an individual, the two most likely outcomes are widespead lawlessness or dictatorial repression by some cunning and ruthless individual. That is a truth that "stiving" does not erase.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 As I have stated before, the problem with your solution lies within your solution. Anarchists may "strive" to create a well-organized, egalitarian society without any ruling elites, but that is the same concept Communists strive for and the same concept Democratic/Constitutional Republics strive for and they all fail in reaching their ideal because people just do not cooperate with the means to the end.

No, anarchism is not entirely the same concept state-communists have (just to be clear, there are state communists and libertarian communists). State communists advocate the "dictatorship of the proletariat," a view anarchists tend to oppose very, very strongly.

I must make another point: None of this is intended to be my solution. I'm not trying to play dictator here, nor is it my job to come up with a blueprint to solve every potential problem that comes along. The fact anyone thinks so indicates the great lack of understanding of basic libertarian principles.

An egalitarian society is hated by authoritarians and of interest to anarchists. That is clear. Anarchism is NOT the same concept (or set of concepts) that constitutional republics advocate. Their ideal is subordination.

As for people not cooperating, it depends on the issue and the people you are talking about. In an authoritarian society, people certainly won't embody anarchist principles. They'll carry out orders, cooperating either because they're under the legal blackmail system of wages or because they've been brainwashed. Peoples' need to access food and shelter are obvious things authorities can take advantage of, and they do. The big and even not-so-big banks can dominate resources otherwise available relatively freely, and we'll have to pay them for this subordination.

Consider the words of Josiah Charles Stamp, the British civil servant, industrialist, economist, statistician, director of the Bank of England and chairman of the London Midland and Scottish Railway:

Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money .

Consider this:

On Saturday, March 8, activist Jamie 'Bork' Loughner spoke out against the repression of peaceful protest in New Orleans. She urged New Orleanians to take action to preserve their freedoms, and to support those fighting to oppose the demolition of public housing. Jamie 'Bork' Loughner, one of the founders of the Common Ground Health Clinic, is facing a felony charge with a possible five year prison sentence, for chaining herself to a public housing building in New Orleans last December. The next day, December 20, while protesting being locked out of City Hall with many others, she was beaten and tasered as the City Council prepared to vote unanimously to approve the demolition of over 4500 low income public housing units. Loughner spoke Saturday, March 8, at the Gillespie Memorial Community Breakfast at the Unitarian Church at South Claiborne and Jefferson in New Orleans. The title of her talk was “Freedom of speech on the line in New Orleans.” The felony charge against Bork is “possessing a false explosive device.” Police slapped this charge on her because she used a pipe to chain herself to the B.W. Cooper building slated for demolition last December 19, which forced work to shut down for the day. “Even the police agree that it wasn't a violent act,” Bork said Saturday. “But even acts of civil disobedience are being looked upon as acts of terrorism now. The two people arrested with me haven't been charged.” Jamie 'Bork ' Loughner: Freedom, Use It Or Lose It : NOLA Indymedia

What is the source of the problem here? Authority! It's standard, and I feel no guilt or shame whatsoever about locating the main source of the problem.

Grandpa h.

[Morality Games]

The "objections" are general, not unique to anarchism. You seem like a smart enough guy, yet you have a complete misunderstanding of anarchist principles. None of them mean there will be no social order of any kind. In fact, anarchists strive to create a well-organized, egalitarian society without any ruling elites. For better or worse, there is no perfect blueprint for doing this, as I've already suggested.

While my criticisms are general, that is because descriptions of anarchy have so far been vague. I can't criticize something in particular if there are no specifics to judge. I'm not going to research anarchy online and write an essay on why it is a bad idea. That's not really the point of a debate (maybe as a starting post, but not one in full swing).

Anarchist principles are not difficult enough not to understand. I'm just pointing out that the more order you add, the more it sounds more like a unrefined form of direct democracy. 'Order' necessitates 'command' and 'command' necessitates 'leadership' and leadership IS authority itself.

You can't expect that everyone is going to agree with one another all the time, or that in disagreeing they will be fair and peaceful with one another. Except in enviroments where it is more to their advantage than not, there is no precendent which suggests humans are of mind to act that way -- an anarchical society leaves plenty of breathing room for unfairness and injustice, the problem of which has yet to be explained away.

Your anarchy wants to dissolve a state to stop elites from emerging, yet it takes state-like power to stop elites from emerging (to gather information, to call assembly, to gather forces to prevent, to come up with strategies to defeat the would-be elite, to lead the forces in battle, etc). States also perform other vital functions which would be difficult to emulate with a smaller institution, and to repeat it, it would be difficult to prevent smaller institutions from emerging as states without state-like enforcement power.

A good book on this subject might be Aristotle's Politics.

Aside from the frivolous killer's impending demise, one of the hopes of anarchism is that, in the successful society, it will be very hard to find people willing to enlist with him, if not from a sense of morality, then from fear of the public. Indeed, he could hardly trust anyone who did choose to go along with him.

... that's too weak and uncertain an enforcement power considering the oh-so-many ways humans can (WILL) go bad. If the Founding Fathers felt safe rebelling from England and the Confederates were secure in their desire to succeed from the United States, then why would a society which lacks the enforcement power of an entity capable of summoning armed forces be much of a fear to a smart, ambitous, charismatic man who sees an opportunity? And like I said, why should people consider the society moral if there is a high probability they are being abused within it (or perceive themselves to be)?

For example, a man whose son is brutally raped and murderered by a child molestor may very well not be satisfied with simply acquirng revenge -- his fear of it happening again and his empathy for other people might induce him to want an institution which severely (law, judgment, enforcement) handicaps the movement of child molestors. Perhaps such an entity could exist on a scale small and focused enough not to be considered a state outright, but it is still a proto-State and could become one in full.

If the society of 'anarchists' is unwilling to fulfill the wish of this 'progressive', then he could very well consider it his moral right to install a state. Hence, he makes an agreement with the powerful person who agrees to pass laws against child molestors and to establish agencies to deal with the problem. And bear in mind things like this will happen all the time, not just child molesting, but rape, and other emotionally-charging crimes which make people think authority is not bad.

Why: because only those institutions which do not oppress will be allowed to persist. The oppressed simply will not allow it.

How are they going to stop it without forming state-like institutions? Who in an anarchical society mobilizes forces and gathers resources to deal with problems (not just military -- enviromental, etc).

Most people dislike tyranny,

Most people instinctively enjoy being in charge and having their way. Liberty is usually an acquired taste.

What is the source of the problem here? Authority!

This is like saying penises can be cut off because they rape women (and men), arms should be cut off because they strangle throats, and brains should be removed because they think, emote, and feel terrible things. Authority is part of community in the same way 'brain' is part of the body. It is the core of the community's nervous system.

I would like to hear more of this logical requirement. I do not deny that there will likely be a persistent trend in that direction, but combating our persistent trends is a large part of what makes us civilized, and I see no reason to believe that this trend isn't like any other.

It is basically a psycho-biological imperative to form states. Look at the hierarchies which form among animal 'societies' (lions, tigers, cats, dogs, wolves, elephants, horses, cows, everywhere and everything). As I have said, even taking steps to prevent it requires a proto-state (I am adding the adjective 'proto' mostly to be nice).

It is generally agreed that a successful anarchy requires a certain amount of technological sophistication to support its creation. Guns, for example, require little training and little maintenance, and are often concealable; they are a means of equalization that was not available to the original settlers of Iceland. Guns, of course, are far from the only innovation that makes anarchism more possible (cell phones and the internet come to mind), and there are doubtless many more to come.

This is so insane. All someone needs to do is go crazy, rape and kill somebody, then start a rumor on the Internet or via cell-phone network that somebody who disliked a person who loved the murderered / raped person did it. Nobody can stop the upset person from killing the alleged murderer, because there are no authorities within the community higher than what an individual wants to do ... and thus no reassurance that the murderer / rapist will meet justice if the person who has lost a loved one does not act immediately.

It will definitely be more difficult to fairly determine guilt without state-like entities.

Most people were able to acquire swords, axes, or bows in Icelandic society -- I don't really see how this differs from the principle of guns. Even guns take skill to use, especially since other people have them (and could have better -- sniper versus shot gun).

The parties in dispute decide all these things, when they decide upon a judge. The only deadline on that choice is the one they impose themselves, and they choose what happens when they reach it. One could hope that some people would acquire a reputation for wisdom and impartiality. Anarchists hope many things will be accomplished by reputation.

Fruitless hope, since a person can just break the judgment if they don't like it (especially if they have enough powerful friends who "swear by their beard" that they have right on their side, no matter what the impartial person says).

... I want to do more, but I am under time constraints and need to check other posts.

I don't imagine it would be difficult for most institutions to find an accord with the new order.

Good, because far from being difficult, it is actually impossible -- institutions whose primary objective is social order would 'cooperate' with one another when necessary, which would lead to a gradual merge of these groups into a state -- unless a proto-state was established to make sure this didn't happen, which is also going to become a state (I actually think it already is a state, since it is governing what other people do through threat of force).

What's really sad is that the anarchsits will have dissolved a democratic government in favor of a 'gamble' that the new state is going to somehow be better than the liberalism of democracy -- as opposed to oligarchical (especially if it emerges from the market, which it probably will).

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Morality Games It will definitely be more difficult to fairly determine guilt without state-like entities.

This is a huge understatement. Look at the budget of most large police departments, especially the portion dedicated to criminal investigations and other highly technical, highly specialized work.

Not to mention that anarchistic society, in requiring people to "take the law into their own hands", would be highly primitive, since to do so would take massive amounts of time away from the means of production. It is efficient to have specialized entities - police, courts, lawyers, judges - to handle such matters. Specialization is no less beneficial to the criminal justice "industry" than it is to the auto industry.

I find anarchy to be an overly simplistic theory, one which fails to take into account the natural outgrowths of the social contract.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: tivodan1116 This is a huge understatement. Look at the budget of most large police departments, especially the portion dedicated to criminal investigations and other highly technical, highly specialized work. Not to mention that anarchistic society, in requiring people to "take the law into their own hands", would be highly primitive, since to do so would take massive amounts of time away from the means of production. It is efficient to have specialized entities - police, courts, lawyers, judges - to handle such matters. Specialization is no less beneficial to the criminal justice "industry" than it is to the auto industry. I find anarchy to be an overly simplistic theory, one which fails to take into account the natural outgrowths of the social contract.

Although many of the phrases and terms of my argument indicate I think anarchy is possible, the reverse is true -- use of statements such as you have quoted and terms like 'proto-state' are expressions of generousity. The truth is I think anarchy is only possible as a vague impression (feeling) in the mind -- the instant someone attempts to refine it into a concrete image (idea), they necessarily incorporate some features of the state (even authority) into their concept of society. The most anarchical society is a direct democracy without a constitution. Such a complete lack of checks and balances and centralized leadership reduces communities to lawless bastions of mob rule and individual on individual tyranny. Since no human could endure such a condition for long (being under a centralized tyranny is better -- easier to make sense of life that way), they would automatically form a more elaborate state (direct democracy without a constitution is still a state -- just an unrefined one).

So, my view is more technically anarchy is impossible and direct democracy without a constitution is the next closest thing (well, after what they had in Iceland, which did not last long enough to count as possible in the sense we are talking about -- in fact, the overall lack of institutions makes me wonder if it even passes for a society).