Anarchy

[Livemike]

Explain to me what you think the "different sets of interests within society" are, let alone what an "acceptable balance" of those interests would (or could) be.

Who said anything about consensus here?

- Rob

Well, without a government, societal harmony (essential for co-existence) must be achieved through consensus. Such consensus is not achievable where there are diverse interests in society , i.e. those interests conflict with each other.

And how does having a government contribute to "social harmony"? It seems to me _with_ a government social harmony is achieved through consensus. The consensus being to leave each other alone for the most part to pursue our "different sets of interests within society". It is perfectly possible to find an "acceptable balance" between competing interests without using government. In fact I'll bet you do that at least once today.

[Sonart]

Which came first? The people or the government?

Government. Like I said, even a pack of wolves has a government. A clan of Great Apes has a government... a set of group rules and a ruling authority with the means to enforce them.

I invite you to learn what anarchy is, though I suspect you don't want to.

And I invite you to look up the definition of the term 'Pipe Dream'. The opposite pipe dream from anarchism was communism, which looked equally appealling when discussed as an excercise in naval gazing. Alas, it didn't ... couldn't... work in the real world.

"Government" is a political agency that has a monopoly on the legal use of force within its territory or sphere. Families are organized by hierarchy, but are not "governments."

Really? Define political. Define hierarchy. Who determines who can use force against whom in a family, a clan or a tribe? Against a neighboring tribe?

Wolves are not human, so cannot have governments, by definition. You are attempting to use such a broad defintion of government that anything with more than 1 living organism is a government. Maybe goldfish are a government?

You ever studied wolves? The Alpha pair sets the rules and enforces them. Each other wolf in the pack knows their exact place in the pack, shows submission to those above them in rank, and dominance to those below them. Should they try to exceed the authority of their rank, they will be punished by the Alpha pair and, if necessary, the rest of the pack. These rules are vitally necessary, because the pack survives through close and often intricate cooperation, just as humans do, and exactly how they go about cooperating is determined by the governing body... the Alpha pair.

Not necessarily. That is the whole POINT of this discussion. Learn what the hell we're talking about.

No zynner, you learn what the hell you're talking about. You remind me of a guy that called in to the Joe Pyne show years ago. He figured money was the cause of societies problems, so his idea was that we should do away with money. What we'd do instead is that people would work and trade the fruits of their work within the community. And since not all work had tangible, physical results, people could trade using script of a pre-determined value, which they could then trade for other things they needed, which would also have a value translateable as a certain amount of script...

In other words... money.

You've decided that you don't like "the government" as you know it, so you'll simply do away with it. Presto, we're free! In it's place you'll have some vague community authority that determines rules, enforces them, settles differences between individuals, protects the community from domestic and outside threats...

In other words... a government.

There is no more reason to believe that people cannot exist witout a government police agency to enforce rules of conduct than there is to believe they cannot exist without a government grocery store to feed them. You're making the assumption, but it's not convincing.

Perhaps you're right, I'm making an assumption. Perhaps you can demonstrate what you mean with an example of a successful society that functioned without a governing body or means to enforce it's laws.

Who is going to stop me from setting up a gunsmithing shop?

Apparently anyone that wants to. Who's going to stop them? You? Where are you going to get the tools for smithing? The materials? You gonna mine, smelt and forge your own steel, make your own gunpowder? Do you think a society capable of all those technologies could exist without a governing authority enforcing the civilization necessary for cooperative commerce?

Like I said, this is all just naval gazing pipe dreams.

.

[gr8fuldaniel]

You gonna mine, smelt and forge your own steel, make your own gunpowder?

I can do all that. I can build a foundry and I am a machinist, I can make gunpowder. How is some thug with a club gonna take away my guns?

Dont get me wrong, I dont see how anarchy could ever last more than a few days. Its an environment ripe for chaos.

[SteveA]

i'm a bit of a hobbesian... people, when in a state of nature (i.e. anarchy) naturally organize themselves.. there is no example of a true anarchy because it's not natural, and therefore not possible. even the aboriginals in australia have their own semblance of an organized government (tribal government run by the elders)..

since there is no example of true anarchy, and since it's been proven by human history that people DO organize themselves (and construct rules/laws to regulate themselves) - i'm left to look at the term "anarchy" in the context of real life. it is possible to say that a state is in a state of anarchy - in afghanistan there were warring warlords, and other factions (the northern alliance and the taliban).. the central government definitely didn't make the rules in afghanistan while the taliban was there - not in territories it didn't control..

and just as autokylos suggested, i don't see how an organized society can revert itself back to the original state of nature (eg. anarchy).

To me anarchy is more of an ideal. If you define government to be a tolerated monopoly of force, then 'governments' would likely still evolve from anarchy, but that doesn't mean anarchy isn't a valuable concept, nor does it mean that many elements of anarchy don't already exist in our society. Many private institutions rely on effectively anarchic means - for example, the Catholic church is a global institution with millions of members that coordinate large scale endeavors without the need for a state or police enforcement and when most popes die they are revered more than most any political leaders could hope for. And there's little central control to the Catholic church, nor is the organization as a whole susceptible to something like a military coup. Individual churchs would still function fine even if they lost communication with the leadership of it. I'm not saying we need more Catholic churchs but I'm trying to demostrate how large organizations on a scale similar to nations still can exist in a more anarchic fashion. Other social institutions operate in this manner as well, in that they don't rely much of specific laws or police to maintain but simply on the value they offer to people and the desire people have to be a part of them and not be socially rejected from these.

From another point of view, we already live under anarchy, where every individual is a sovereign entity and we simply have people attempting to rule over us illegitimately.

The reality we live in is somewhere between these extremes, though I believe viewing individuals as independent, sovereign and responsible for themselves is a better route to pursue than assuming everyone is rightly subject to coercive attempts at subjugation by others.

Simply changing words to describe reality doesn't create any instantaneous differences but I believe as people recognize the value of greater individual independence and how this results in a stronger and more beneficial society, simply because there are less opportunities for it to become destructive, there will be an increased pressure to reduce the extent of government.

I think a good government is better than no government but the problem is that with most any enforced monopoly, things become inefficient, beaurocratic and corrupt. The expression 'power corrupts' is true and we don't have saints running the show. The only solution, from my view, is competition in government - which means you can't grant anyone, including a government, absolute authority over you - people ultimately need to remain sovereign over themselves. Having a larger public recognition of this and tolerance of it would be great to see but likely is something that will be a struggle to achieve.

[grandpa]

To me anarchy is more of an ideal.
If you define government to be a tolerated monopoly of
force, then 'governments' would likely still evolve from anarchy, but
that doesn't mean anarchy isn't a valuable concept, nor does
it mean that many elements of anarchy don't already exist
in our society.

Talk of idealism aside, I think most anarchists don't feel an ideal society is possible....too many people confuse anarchism with utopianism OR with complete chaos.
Yes, there are people who believe in both things, for whatever reason, but that's not the whole banana.
And there could probably no 100% anarchic society, but maybe a more anarchic society.
I think anarchism is far off, because many people in the world have a rather severe ignorance of what it often means.
But it's not likely to change, especially when people do not even see the organized chaos in world government.
"Because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about
expressing our power and influence."
---George Bush, 3/4/01
Yeah, right, George.

Many private institutions rely on effectively anarchic means - for example,
the Catholic church is a global institution with millions of
members that coordinate large scale endeavors without the need for
a state or police enforcement and when most popes die
they are revered more than most any political leaders could
hope for.

A church that capitalizes on collection plates and has people convinced some old guy is the mouthpiece of God. That's anarchic? I would hesitate to call it that.
I shoudl also remind you there was an assassination attempt on the last Pope, so not everybody reveres them.

Grandpa h.

[SteveA]

Talk of idealism aside, I think most anarchists don't feel an ideal society is possible....too many people confuse anarchism with utopianism OR with complete chaos.
Yes, there are people who believe in both things, for whatever reason, but that's not the whole banana.
And there could probably no 100% anarchic society, but maybe a more anarchic society.
I think anarchism is far off, because many people in the world have a rather severe ignorance of what it often means.
But it's not likely to change, especially when people do not even see the organized chaos in world government.

To me how anarchy is reflected in real life depends upon the values of the people involved. And we both seem to agree that removing an 'official' government would still likely leave 'unofficial' ones. So the value of anarchy isn't a matter of simply redefining words, but a change in how people view and act with regard to authority.

I know one disagreement about anarchy is whether or not property still exists. I believe the answer depends entirely on who you ask, though almost everyone would agree that stealing an apple someone intended to eat from their hand is still theft and I believe property extends beyond this to include most anything people have invested their time, energy and/or resources into. Though I do agree that sometimes this interest is simply a claim on being able to continue extracting value from it and doesn't always equate with private property, which would include the right to deny other people from using/accessing it. For example, people might have a right to travel across or otherwise use the ocean but it's not private property in that this includes a right to deny other people from doing the same, whereas someone does have the right to reject other people from using their car or house, and at least some of the land immediately surrounding it.

But anyway, the specifics still depend entirely on individual views and the customs/culture in an area. Simply removing any official forms of authority from the picture doesn't change individual values or the underlying culture but only how these are acted upon.

"Because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about
expressing our power and influence."
---George Bush, 3/4/01
Yeah, right, George.

Ah, but the world 'changed' on 9/11.

A church that capitalizes on collection plates and has people convinced some old guy is the mouthpiece of God. That's anarchic? I would hesitate to call it that.
I shoudl also remind you there was an assassination attempt on the last Pope, so not everybody reveres them.

Grandpa h.

I agree we don't need more Catholic churchs and large social organizations in the past have resulted in many atrocities but I was trying to show that it's still a relatively voluntary institution without a military or police to enforce things. It doesn't even have national borders. It might rely some on intimidation but still this is primarily a matter of speech only and not physical coercion or enforced taxation. Obviously they need resources and so it's not unrealistic that they encourage (ok, maybe propogandize) people to donate, but you don't go to prison for 'donation evasion'. There are no more inquisitions and at least currently they seem to take an anti-war stance as well, so overall it's a rather peaceful organization in comparison to many countries.

[Sonart]

I can do all that. I can build a foundry and I am a machinist, I can make gunpowder. How is some thug with a club gonna take away my guns?

By building himself bigger and better guns, by having a family or gang of thugs helping him, by living in the next county over that decided they'd prefer a government with a paramilitary (naturally no nation of 290 million people could survive without a government, so society will have devolved into a fuedal collection of local warlords). You fancy yourself as tough enough to defend yourself against outlaw gangs, do you?

Dont get me wrong, I dont see how anarchy could ever last more than a few days. Its an environment ripe for chaos.

Whew... thought you'd totally lost your senses there for a sec.

.

[SteveA]

Regarding the warlords stuff - it's unrealistic to assume that in a society where most people desired a more anarchic situation that warlords would reign.

If people spend most their time on building weapons and fighting, they tend to self destruct. So people simply need some minimal amount of defense and an intolerance of being subjugated in this manner and the rest tends to fall into place.

A warlord can't gain anything if people refuse to recognize his authority to rule over them and he's expended resources in making the attempt and if people are generally intolerant of this, he'd likely find his own life in jeapordy.

This might sound idealistic, but it's not if most people realize there's a benefit to this situation. Just as most people defend their homes because they recognize the value of it, people also defend their liberty when they see the value of it.

How did Saddam Hussein remain in power in Iraq? Simply because too many people were tolerant of his abuse of power. Don't make the same mistakes as the Iraqies.

[gr8fuldaniel]

By building himself bigger and better guns, by having a family or gang of thugs helping him, by living in the next county over that decided they'd prefer a government with a paramilitary

OK, I see what you are saying.

You fancy yourself as tough enough to defend yourself against outlaw gangs, do you?

Actually I am more of a peacenik, but I believe in self defense. I prefer flight over fight until I am cornered or injured. I am sure I would take up arms to fend off foreign agressors or domestic enemies who would usurp our Constitution.

If it came down to anarchy, I may be a mountaineer, watching the tribulation from afar. At least until something tangible/civilized formed

[grandpa]

To me how anarchy is reflected in real life depends
upon the values of the people involved.
And we both seem to agree that removing an 'official
government would still likely leave 'unofficial' ones.

Things like bartering and attempts to keep money in the local community are still done in real life. I think that's an important thing to consider.
And the most important hurdle to anarchism is people aren't civilized enough for it to occur currently. The US, or anyplace else, would need its collective head examined before trying this or that branch of anarchist philosophy out.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

OK, I see what you are saying.
Actually I am more of a peacenik, but I believe in self defense.

I am sort of with you on that one. I wish I were a pacifist, but I don't have that kind of discipline. I think pacifism should be respected by everybody.

Grandpa h.

[SteveA]

Things like bartering and attempts to keep money in the local community are still done in real life. I think that's an important thing to consider.
And the most important hurdle to anarchism is people aren't civilized enough for it to occur currently. The US, or anyplace else, would need its collective head examined before trying this or that branch of anarchist philosophy out.

Grandpa h.

You're missing the point that it's not a black or white scenario. People can move toward it without tossing out all semblences of government. I admit it's unlikely though given the current trend and the hold government schools currently have. It seems likely we'll just drift the way we're going until things break down and it becomes simple necessity to change course.