Thread: Is anarchy a good idea? How could it work?

My sole contribution to this thread will be this post.

Look, the appropriate definition of anarchism wholly depends on who you're talking to. UM dropped the ball by not defining anarchism in any particular way. You wouldn't use your grandmother's definition (it's ruthless chaos!) when speaking to somebody who really digs Kropotkin (anarcho-communism) or David Friedman (anarcho-capitalism). What exactly are you talking about? Which kind of anarchy does the scenario given in the OP best match to? Define your terms before continuing.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You're an anarchist who doesn't want to explain how anarchy could work although you post in this forum? Are you sure that you're an anarchist? I keep seeing so many suggestions that you are not one. Why is that?

Never mind the fact that I've been around the block with you on this topic more than once. You're just going to have to accept that I don't think you're worth it.

Originally Posted by Descensus

My sole contribution to this thread will be this post.

Look, the appropriate definition of anarchism wholly depends on who you're talking to. UM dropped the ball by not defining anarchism in any particular way. You wouldn't use your grandmother's definition (it's ruthless chaos!) when speaking to somebody who really digs Kropotkin (anarcho-communism) or David Friedman (anarcho-capitalism). What exactly are you talking about? Which kind of anarchy does the scenario given in the OP best match to? Define your terms before continuing.

Read carefully:

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Anarchy is the absence of government.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

This thread is about not having a government and how things could work in such a situation.

I also told a story to illustrate a specific type of system that could exist in an anarchist society. It would be a clusterfuck. What do you propose?

Originally Posted by Descensus

Never mind the fact that I've been around the block with you on this topic more than once. You're just going to have to accept that I don't think you're worth it.

Am I the only person posting in this thread? Am I the only person reading it?

The truth is that you cannot explain in specific terms how police, courts, lawmaking bodies, and military could be functional and effective if they were private. You said they should be private, but you have never explained how that could work in anything better than extremely general terms.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Then he would be fenced in.

He can't knock the fence down?

Originally Posted by Voldmer

I have no idea what these imaginary people would be willing to tolerate. Certainly it is possible that someone would not agree to it. Then that person would stand aside.

So is it the might or the majority that makes right? Is the might or the majority ever evil?

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Yes, of course it is generally ressources, rulers are after. That's what they use the power structures to obtain.

Exactly. So rulers want land. That is a common reason for military invasion.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

No I won't suppose it, because I don't agree with the premise (the imaginary development you created). I don't subscribe to any "town hall meeting" type of anarchy; my guess is that such a form of anarchy would only work in fairly small (and probably geographically isolated) societies.

You don't have to subscribe to the town hall philosophy. If others do, they will have town meetings. What I described is a possibility.

What should an anarchist society do when rival groups within it are fighting over conflicting philosophies of justice?

What should an anarchist society do about an invading military?

I do seldomly post - I might add that I also frequently find myself dissenting from UM’s positions; however I must acquiesce my unfamiliarity to him, so I am amenable to any areas where we perhaps agree.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

Okay. Here are the words of Peter Kropotkin, a prominent and seminal anarchist who gave this definition for the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"the name given to a principle of theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of the needs and aspirations of a civilized being..."

The definition posted by Denziloe is suffice and the Wikipedia link below provides a rather lettered definition of anarchism as Cmind has posted.

Originally Posted by cmind

Anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would entirely concur with the need of contextualizing and semantically defining philosophies - or whatever it may be - and everyone seems to desire the same thing. So lets work with the aforementioned definitions and engage in a dialectical conversation regarding anarchism (if anything).

Anarchy is simply absence of government in society. It is societal statelessness. However, the confusion is over what qualifies as a government. When a group of people asserts authority over a few people, is the first group a government? That gets tricky. Five people asserting authority with no help from anybody and making rules for three people would not be a government, but five people with a large system of support forcing millions of people to follow their rules would be a government, or part of one. What qualifies as a government is a relevant issue, so everybody please work that into the discussion if you want to.

The major issue I raised is pretty open ended. How could anarchy (a societal situation of no government) work? I presented a very specific scenario for people to work with, but the major issue can be addressed without the story being addressed. If there are any people in here who call yourselves anarchists, tell us how you think society should work. People in here who think government is necessary, please explain why. That is the theme of this thread.

Do we need government? Why or why not?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Anarchy is simply absence of government in society. It is societal statelessness. However, the confusion is over what qualifies as a government. When a group of people asserts authority over a few people, is the first group a government? That gets tricky. Five people asserting authority with no help from anybody and making rules for three people would not be a government, but five people with a large system of support forcing millions of people to follow their rules would be a government, or part of one. What qualifies as a government is a relevant issue, so everybody please work that into the discussion if you want to.

The major issue I raised is pretty open ended. How could anarchy (a societal situation of no government) work? I presented a very specific scenario for people to work with, but the major issue can be addressed without the story being addressed. If there are any people in here who call yourselves anarchists, tell us how you think society should work. People in here who think government is necessary, please explain why. That is the theme of this thread.

Do we need government? Why or why not?

As you correctly anticipated, it's a problem of defining "government". So I refuse to answer such a loaded question. I will answer a different question, which is: "Do we need a state?".

Answer: Not only do we not need one, but I don't see how having one could possibly work. Unless you consider modern states to be "working", in which case...god help you. But do you think that Americans (yes, America exists independently of the US state) would suddenly turn into ISIS if not for the federal government? I'll even let you keep the state governments (Kansas, Wyoming, etc.). First let's just talk about the federal government. Why do we need it?

Let me just skip to the answer, because I'm impatient:

I believe that you can preserve the institutions of common law, private property, and good neighborliness without the state. The state would have you believe that all these things came from them, but in reality it was the reverse. In other words, I believe that the state is actually a perversion and a corruption on what some might call "good government".

Now, you can have "state-like" entities. For example, town councils and whatnot. But their power should scale inversely with the number of people they claim to represent. So, the neighborhood organizations should be all-powerful, and the federal government should have so little power that you can effectively ignore it. This is how the US was envisioned, but our* current reality is the reverse.

*last edit: I'm Canadian, but I consider Canada to be part of the American Experiment, and perhaps even a truer version of it, but that's another discussion

Well - I hope this will lead to increasingly interesting somewheres for me to ponder...
Do go on please!

Originally Posted by cmind

As you correctly anticipated, it's a problem of defining "government". So I refuse to answer such a loaded question. I will answer a different question, which is: "Do we need a state?".

Using the word "government" makes a question loaded? No, it was just up to you to define "government" in your answer if you thought it needed to be discussed.

Originally Posted by cmind

Answer: Not only do we not need one, but I don't see how having one could possibly work. Unless you consider modern states to be "working", in which case...god help you. But do you think that Americans (yes, America exists independently of the US state) would suddenly turn into ISIS if not for the federal government? I'll even let you keep the state governments (Kansas, Wyoming, etc.). First let's just talk about the federal government. Why do we need it?

We need to call them states? Okay, sure. I think they do work, but no system is perfect. Plus, every state on Earth can be improved. I think that having no state at all is a horror story that is about as bad as brutal totalitarianism.

"America" is often used as a shortened version of "United States of America."

Originally Posted by cmind

Let me just skip to the answer, because I'm impatient:

I believe that you can preserve the institutions of common law, private property, and good neighborliness without the state. The state would have you believe that all these things came from them, but in reality it was the reverse. In other words, I believe that the state is actually a perversion and a corruption on what some might call "good government".

Now, you can have "state-like" entities. For example, town councils and whatnot. But their power should scale inversely with the number of people they claim to represent. So, the neighborhood organizations should be all-powerful, and the federal government should have so little power that you can effectively ignore it. This is how the US was envisioned, but our* current reality is the reverse.

*last edit: I'm Canadian, but I consider Canada to be part of the American Experiment, and perhaps even a truer version of it, but that's another discussion

So would police, courts, lawmaking bodies, and military be private in your ideal society? Would they exist at all? If not, what would replace them?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So would police, courts, lawmaking bodies, and military be private in your ideal society? Would they exist at all? If not, what would replace them?

You speak as if those things came from the state. But if you study history, you'll see that they all existed independently and for their own reasons, long before the state co-opted them.

And what does 'private' mean? The courts can't be private; they're the courts. They're the place where property rights are defined. The military can't be private; it's the People getting together to defend their property. By allowing the state to take over these institutions you are making them private, and giving certain humans the power to own them, where none existed before. You are doing the very thing you're worried about.

Being part of the state automatically makes them public.

So how exactly should they exist? I don't see them being functional without being part of the state. Please paint the picture. That is precisely what I am trying to get this thread to do, and it hasn't happened yet.

Yeah. Currently all you're arguing is that those powers needn't be in the hands of a single government. Well... of course. There's no a priori reason that the landmass and peoples of the USA couldn't be replaced with 2 or 200 independent countries.

But you're not actually ruling out the actual concept of those "supra-individual" entities, such as courts and police forces; indeed it sounds like you agree with them. But personally I can't differentiate between such entities and "states".

The important bit is the scaling of power. For example, most (hopefully all!) nuclear families are run as strict communism, the most economically repressive form of government. It would be hard to imagine a child needing to pay their parents for dinner. But as you move away from the family, the presence of states should diminish. I don't think any anarchist, right or left, would oppose neighborhood organizations dictating how often you have to mow your front lawn. But if such a law was enacted federally, it would be absurd and authoritarian. You'd think you're living in North Korea.

Indeed, left anarchists (I'm not one myself, but I'm familiar with their ideas) believe in syndicates, which are entities that would fall somewhere between worker unions and modern states, on the scale of power. The question of whether syndicates qualify as states, and are therefore antithetical to anarchism, is a century old debate and won't be settled here.

So with these examples in mind, it becomes clear that anarchism isn't really the abolition of anything even remotely resembling a state, if you're going to use a very broad definition. If, however, you're talking about THE State, then that's something more specific. And I think we all sort of know what it's referring to. We're talking about nationalistic entities, run by quasi-elected oligarchs, that claim ownership or control over the apparatuses of law, money, and defense. To the extent that a nation-state diverges from this, they become slightly more anarchistic. So, North Korea is very un-anarchistic, whereas Switzerland is a little bit more anarchistic. I'm being intentionally vague here because to get more specific would require me to take a side between "left" and "right" anarchism, which is irrelevant to the discussion of anarchism in the general sense.

This video will offer a lot of suggestions for how a society would function without a government:



Namely, what goes unsaid is the devaluation of money. An anarchist society wouldn't be able to have currency of any sort without causing a power entity to form. Alternatively, even bartering would create a flow of power. So, for a true anarchy to work and exist, we would have to have a post-scarcity and post-labor society, which would require a total paradigm shift that humans "earn their living," "work for a living," and "live to work." Until then, I cannot see an anarchy ending in any way other than a gangster state.

Originally Posted by Tiresias

Namely, what goes unsaid is the devaluation of money. An anarchist society wouldn't be able to have currency of any sort without causing a power entity to form.

I find it very surprising for you to say something so obviously false, considering the video you posted. We already know of currencies that obviate the need for power structures: cryptocurrencies. They're in their infancy today, but a lot of innovation is taking place and in 10 years they could be the preferred method of payment.

Automation would devalue the need for currency. If everything is in surplus, and it is the product of automation, why would it have any sort of value?

For example, if we completely automate farming and transportation, two of the large industries, you'd lose almost 7 million jobs totally, not including manufacturing jobs because if you are automating these processes, you should probably automate the creation of them too.

That's not just seven million people who have to get new jobs. That's seven million people who lost the ability to work in their chosen profession, either through years of experience or training. They won't easily, if ever, be able to transition into anything else, so they are just out of work. What will they do for money?

There's talk of universal basic income, but at the end of the day, if all but the absolute high echelon is automated out of work, what is the value of money if no one really has it? What's the value of the goods if they are produced through nothing but machines, in mass, and without fatigue?

Originally Posted by Tiresias

This video will offer a lot of suggestions for how a society would function without a government:

Can you sum it up? What could a society with no state/government (define them if you need to.) do about violence, robbery, and invasion? That is what I am trying to understand.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

He can't knock the fence down?

Sure he can. That changes nothing; they could simply build it better next time. What are you driving at?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So is it the might or the majority that makes right? Is the might or the majority ever evil?

Right or wrong is not decided by might or majority; it is a personal matter of ethics. There is no universal right or wrong.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Exactly. So rulers want land. That is a common reason for military invasion.

No rulers don't want land itself; they want the produce of the land. And they don't want to be the ones working the land. Give a ruler the choice between getting the land, or getting the tax revenue, the choice will be to get the tax revenue. It's mucher simpler to enrich yourself, if someone else is doing all the work for you.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What should an anarchist society do when rival groups within it are fighting over conflicting philosophies of justice?

What should an anarchist society do about an invading military?

Society shouldn't do a thing. The people might want to do something, and whatever they do should be their own choice.

If a military force invades, then I suggest that the people beat them up severely (actually, their appointed agents would do it for them), if the military force is actually trespassing. As long as it is not trespassing, they should do nothing but observe and prepare for self defence.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Can you sum it up? What could a society with no state/government (define them if you need to.) do about violence, robbery, and invasion? That is what I am trying to understand.

Remember back in the good old days when police departments were more Barney Fife and less SWAT? The notion of a community based, community organized friendly police service (not force), is a very anarchistic idea.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Sure he can. That changes nothing; they could simply build it better next time. What are you driving at?

That the suggested remedy is worthless and would just incite lawless conflict.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Right or wrong is not decided by might or majority; it is a personal matter of ethics. There is no universal right or wrong.

Then with your suggested system, local majority or might would always prevail. If your neighbors don't like they color of your house, they can spray paint a new color on it, or even their gang symbols, and there would be nothing you could do about it except paint a new color that they could paint over.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

No rulers don't want land itself; they want the produce of the land. And they don't want to be the ones working the land. Give a ruler the choice between getting the land, or getting the tax revenue, the choice will be to get the tax revenue. It's mucher simpler to enrich yourself, if someone else is doing all the work for you.

Rulers do want land because of the increased power and revenue that come with it. World history is covered with land invasion.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

If a military force invades, then I suggest that the people beat them up severely (actually, their appointed agents would do it for them), if the military force is actually trespassing. As long as it is not trespassing, they should do nothing but observe and prepare for self defence.

Let's say that invading force is Russia or China. Beat them up with what?

Originally Posted by cmind

Remember back in the good old days when police departments were more Barney Fife and less SWAT? The notion of a community based, community organized friendly police service (not force), is a very anarchistic idea.

Without a state, what would give people the authority to do that? There could be groups of thugs who form police services and lock people up for wearing the wrong colors or going to the wrong churches (according to them). What would determine that it's kidnapping, and what could be done about it?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Without a state, what would give people the authority to do that?

What's authority?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Can you sum it up? What could a society with no state/government (define them if you need to.) do about violence, robbery, and invasion? That is what I am trying to understand.

For the anarchy to work in a post-labor/post-scarcity society, there wouldn't be a need for theft or invasion; you have the same resources as everyone else. Like "Why would I need to break in and steal this red book; I can print as many as I want." Violence is part of the human condition, but tribes used to do deal with it as it affected them. If one person was killing kids, that was bad for everyone in the tribe, so he would be removed.

This is why I don't think it'll happen any time soon if ever. It would require an entire paradigm shift, and it's also why I don't really put much stock in anarcho-capitalism. I see the only way an anarchist society could work is by being the absolute extreme of communism. Personal property just makes us want and crave, and competition makes us hungry for more.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That the suggested remedy is worthless and would just incite lawless conflict.

Of course there will be lawless conflict - regardless of system. Human beings are not perfect. The only ways to avoid lawless conflict would be to either legalise all conflicts - or kill everyone.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then with your suggested system, local majority or might would always prevail. If your neighbors don't like they color of your house, they can spray paint a new color on it, or even their gang symbols, and there would be nothing you could do about it except paint a new color that they could paint over.

It is always, in every situation and under every system, the most powerful who prevail.

What would make anarchy less violent than any alternative, is the knowledge that if you make enemies, you will be more likely to die prematurely, or suffer other unfavourable consequences. Have you ever wondered about why the US and the Soviet Union never destroyed each other (and the rest of the world with them)? Between nations exists a state of anarchy.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Rulers do want land because of the increased power and revenue that come with it. World history is covered with land invasion.

That's not arguing; that's just repeating yourself regardless of what I responded.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Let's say that invading force is Russia or China. Beat them up with what?

Whatever means are appropriate for the situation.

I believe it was one of the Japanese generals during WW2 who said that invading the US would be a nightmare because there would be a guy with a gun around every corner. Now imagine if you were trying to invade a country like that, but there wasn't even a prize at the end (taking over the tax base).

Originally Posted by cmind

I believe it was one of the Japanese generals during WW2 who said that invading the US would be a nightmare because there would be a guy with a gun around every corner. Now imagine if you were trying to invade a country like that, but there wasn't even a prize at the end (taking over the tax base).

The armed U.S. citizenry is a big deterrent to consider, and it probably did play a role in Japan's decision not to invade the U.S. mainland. It is one of the reasons I support gun rights. We still need a military. A guerilla war would be Hell, but we need to be able to fight off an invading military much faster than that. There are those governments that would invade any way, so we have to give them an even bigger reason not to come here and a way to get them out of here in a hurry.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The armed U.S. citizenry is a big deterrent to consider, and it probably did play a role in Japan's decision not to invade the U.S. mainland. It is one of the reasons I support gun rights. We still need a military. A guerilla war would be Hell, but we need to be able to fight off an invading military much faster than that. There are those governments that would invade any way, so we have to give them an even bigger reason not to come here and a way to get them out of here in a hurry.

A guerilla war is hell because we have rules as established countries. If we didn't care (i.e. there was no government to restrict what weapons we could and couldn't use) an invading country could easily poison the population of an area, nuke us, or whatever else, nullifying personal armament. The reason Iraq 3.5 was so hellacious is because we had restraint still.