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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If people think the attack was unjustified, they attack the attackers. The next thing you know, a war has started.

I regretted adding that bit about "an eye for an eye" because that's not something mentioned by the Venus Project (which is an actual ongoing project), I don't know what they would do.

But I guess, since I did write it, I have to defend it?

In a world where we are community not bound by a ruling government... Why do you think any one crime would divide everyone in half. If someone murders another person, 99% of the community will be against the act of that person. Because this world is a futuristic world where everyone already collaborates to distribute all resources equally everywhere, they can easily collaborate via high-speed internet to give some ideas of what to do. The final choice is given to those who have "kidnapped" the criminal. And if those people use the harshest way possible (murder), which I don't think sophisticated people would necessarily choose, no one would care. They might say "Hey, why did you do that?" but there would be no war. Just like when USA used the death sentence (I don't know if they still do), no country went into war with them because of their barbaric ways. It would just be a frown from those who didn't agree, not a barbaric war. Those are people from the future we're talking about .

But again, as long as there will be crime, there may be a need for a "police" organization. The reason there is no justice system in a utopia is because there is no crime, not the other way around. I think this might only be possible in small communities where everyone knows each other. Who knows....

ITT: Non-anarchists claiming to understand anarchism better than anarchists.

DYK: The first police force came into existence in 1829. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...iminal_justice) No city used the police to enforce the rule of law before this period. Society must have been a volcanic mess of violence and impunity before this period, right? Actually, community self-policing functioned well enough for rural communities, only the exploding populations of cities during industrialization incited the necessity of a police force. There remain large, impoverished cities with no police force. Were the article not so well censored, apparently, I could look them up for you. There's one in Spain, which by all accounts, should be drowning in crime, but it's not. A city in Texas recently lost its police force and has noticed a 62% drop in crime.

Anarchists do not, in solidarity, fight to abolish the rule of law and replace it completely with a "natural order" unless you change your own definition of what a natural order entails. In the United States, the endless funding from Koch industries into right-wing libertarian groups only appears to be an anarchist/libertarian front, when in actuality the system being promoted is more like feudalism, a step backwards from the democratic revolution. It aims to remove government, not in order to remove people from government repression but to remove them from protections against repression. Democratic revolutions which put power into the hands of individuals is a step toward anarchism compared to the system of subjugation that existed before. Archy implies top-down administration. When a horizontal force legitimizes the people on the top, they become citizens rather than subjects. So-called anti-government libertarians would reverse this evolution. In my opinion, this is not anarchy, Anarchy means to empower individuals and free them from systematic strategies that disable them from leading a desirable life. Right-wing libertarians mean to remove their only tool to stop them from being exploited by the powerful.

In conclusion, baby, I'm an anarchist, not a spineless liberal.

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

I regretted adding that bit about "an eye for an eye" because that's not something mentioned by the Venus Project (which is an actual ongoing project), I don't know what they would do.

But I guess, since I did write it, I have to defend it?

In a world where we are community not bound by a ruling government... Why do you think any one crime would divide everyone in half. If someone murders another person, 99% of the community will be against the act of that person. Because this world is a futuristic world where everyone already collaborates to distribute all resources equally everywhere, they can easily collaborate via high-speed internet to give some ideas of what to do. The final choice is given to those who have "kidnapped" the criminal. And if those people use the harshest way possible (murder), which I don't think sophisticated people would necessarily choose, no one would care. They might say "Hey, why did you do that?" but there would be no war. Just like when USA used the death sentence (I don't know if they still do), no country went into war with them because of their barbaric ways. It would just be a frown from those who didn't agree, not a barbaric war. Those are people from the future we're talking about .

But again, as long as there will be crime, there may be a need for a "police" organization. The reason there is no justice system in a utopia is because there is no crime, not the other way around. I think this might only be possible in small communities where everyone knows each other. Who knows....

Some cases of victimization are very clear, but others are not. What would have happened if O.J. Simpson had been killed by a lynch mob when so many people thought he was innocent? What would have resulted from a lynch mob killing George Zimmerman? People often hate court verdicts, but they generally accept the fact that they are part of the system. They are much easier to accept than what some small vigilante group does.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

ITT: Non-anarchists claiming to understand anarchism better than anarchists.

Thanks for helping us understand anarchy better by answering none of my questions. I think you're stumped, as usual.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Some cases of victimization are very clear, but others are not. What would have happened if O.J. Simpson had been killed by a lynch mob when so many people thought he was innocent? What would have resulted from a lynch mob killing George Zimmerman? People often hate court verdicts, but they generally accept the fact that they are part of the system. They are much easier to accept than what some small vigilante group does.



Thanks for helping us understand anarchy better by answering none of my questions. I think you're stumped, as usual.

I don't usually find much benefit in viewing your posts, and this is no exception. Do you even know who Emma Goldman is? Because I haven't seen her name come up once in this thread. That's like debating on communism without mentioning Marx, or debating objectivism without bringing up Ayn Rand. So again, I repeat, you don't know what anarchism is and this thread is irrelevant regarding actual anarchism. But sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt your display of ignorance, please continue. I'll just see myself out.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I don't usually find much benefit in viewing your posts, and this is no exception. Do you even know who Emma Goldman is? Because I haven't seen her name come up once in this thread. That's like debating on communism without mentioning Marx, or debating objectivism without bringing up Ayn Rand. So again, I repeat, you don't know what anarchism is and this thread is irrelevant regarding actual anarchism. But sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt your display of ignorance, please continue. I'll just see myself out.

I gave you a golden opportunity to discuss whatever anarchist heroes of yours you wanted to praise and explain and to talk all about the brilliance of anarchy and how society could be doing so much better with it, but you are discussing me instead. I'm flattered, but you are doing a pitiful job of supporting the principle of anarchy. Do you think that surprises me? It's okay, though. BLUELINE/Descensus can't do it either.

To be honest, I am shocked by all these negative responses Universal Mind has been getting. What has he written before to deserve this? (Rhetoric).

Yes, his scenario was poor, I admit, but his question remains valid.

I would like to know more about anarchism. Maybe I sounded ignorant by humoring hopes for a future utopia. Maybe that sounds like innocent babbles from the perspective of well-read anarchists. But, I have a genuine hope that I could gain some type of enlightenment on the subject from this thread.

(And hopefully, this thread won't turn into a suggestion against anarchy.)

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

To be honest, I am shocked by all these negative responses Universal Mind has been getting. What has he written before to deserve this? (Rhetoric).

Yes, his scenario was poor, I admit, but his question remains valid.

I would like to know more about anarchism. Maybe I sounded ignorant by humoring hopes for a future utopia. Maybe that sounds like innocent babbles from the perspective of well-read anarchists. But, I have a genuine hope that I could gain some type of enlightenment on the subject from this thread.

(And hopefully, this thread won't turn into a suggestion against anarchy.)

Thanks, although I think my scenario provides an ideal ground for discussing what would and would not happen without a government/state. I didn't create this thread just for me. I figured that there would be people who want to understand anarchy better and would read the thread. Original Poster and Descensus both claim that they are anarchists, but I have never been able to get them to explain the detailed mechanics of their ideas of anarchy. They get pissed off at me on a personal level for trying to understand their ideas (not just about anarchy), and they don't explain them, even for the other people reading the threads. It makes it look like they have doubts and lack answers.

Original Poster says he is an anarcho-socialist, and Descensus says he is an anarcho-capitalist. They could be discussing a lot with each other and giving perspectives to everybody reading the thread. However, I am their only topic, and that is typical.

This thread is not supposed to be about me or primarily for me. It is supposed to be about anarchy and for people who want to learn about it.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I don't usually find much benefit in viewing your posts, and this is no exception. Do you even know who Emma Goldman is? Because I haven't seen her name come up once in this thread. That's like debating on communism without mentioning Marx, or debating objectivism without bringing up Ayn Rand. So again, I repeat, you don't know what anarchism is and this thread is irrelevant regarding actual anarchism. But sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt your display of ignorance, please continue. I'll just see myself out.

Well, this is unfair - he never claimed to understand anarchism and this thread is only irrelevant if (almost) nobody takes it upon themselves to explain.
I too am ignorant and with two actual anarchists on the board it's a true pity we don't get actual answers to reasonable questions from that quarter.
Shall I look up Emma Goldman and copy paste what I find, or will you find it within yourself to explain in your own words?

Goes to Descensus as well, except it's truly so that you've been through this extensively with him zig times before - but please then - give us links to these threads, it must have happened before my time/beyond my notice.

There are indeed interested readers, surely beyond the active membership as well, why not make your actual points for the benefit of everybody else, if anarchism is truly close to your hearts?
This thread is not primarily to get UM to agree it's a good thing - but maybe others might come to that conclusion, if you gave them the chance?

Why not take the questions as they are and forget who asked them? How can that be more relevant for you than having a platform for an important and fascinating topic with interested people?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Thanks, although I think my scenario provides an ideal ground for discussing what would and would not happen without a government/state. I didn't create this thread just for me. I figured that there would be people who want to understand anarchy better and would read the thread. Original Poster and Descensus both claim that they are anarchists, but I have never been able to get them to explain the detailed mechanics of their ideas of anarchy. They get pissed off at me on a personal level for trying to understand their ideas (not just about anarchy), and they don't explain them, even for the other people reading the threads. It makes it look like they have doubts and lack answers.

Original Poster says he is an anarcho-socialist, and Descensus says he is an anarcho-capitalist. They could be discussing a lot with each other and giving perspectives to everybody reading the thread. However, I am their only topic, and that is typical.

This thread is not supposed to be about me or primarily for me. It is supposed to be about anarchy and for people who want to learn about it.

Yeah indeed, shame that!
I go blue in the face at your posts from time to time as you know, but what on earth did you do in this thread to deserve this condescension?
Overdoing the initial example? Is that a reason to boycott a whole topic and lots of justified questions you're bringing up?
Nope - childish behaviour.

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so please pardon me, if the following is going over old territory.

Here's the short version of the Anarcho-Capitalist idea:

• Everyone own him/herself. Nobody owns nature, unless they put their own effort into cultivating it into something new (working the land, for example), at which point they become owners of this part of nature.
• Nobody should agress against anyone else, where agressing means taking control of the property of someone else.
• You may obtain the property of others only through willful exchange (or as a gift).

This would entail a peaceful society, if everyone behaves according to these rules.

When there is conflict (which necessarily happens, since people are not angelic), they seek judicial service from a third party. This third party rules, and if both adversaries accept the decision, peace is restored. If not, then additional judicial instances may be sought. If, in the end, no agreement can be reached, civilised conditions end, and a settlement is sought in other ways (possibly violent).

Violence is likely to be carried out by professional agencies, on behalf of the combattants - however, they may reject to carry out any such violence, if they can reach agreement, or if an agent deems the case unworthy. In such a case the violence may have to be carried out personally.

Under these conditions, those who are more civilised and generally avoid conflict, and more easily reach agreements in case of disputes, will thrive. And those who are less civilised, generally seek out conflict, and tend to seek settlement through violence, will not thrive.

Obviously, to explain everything fully, and without leaving glaring gaps, will take a lot more than can be done here, and I don't wish to explain all the details. There do, however, exist fine books about this topic. I can recommend seeking out texts by Murray Rothbard; these should be available free of charge (as e-pub etc.) from the Mises Institute.

Hope this helps.

Thank you Voldmer, that did clear some things up. (Although I would welcome more )

My first question reading this was whether there is money involved and if there might exist the same injustice as the present world, in which the richer combatants would win the agents over. But again, I assume we our trusting the morality of that third group in making objective laws. Maybe I should read further into the subject when I have more time.

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

My first question reading this was whether there is money involved and if there might exist the same injustice as the present world, in which the richer combatants would win the agents over.

Just as in any other society, there would be the possibility of corruption, such that people might pay the third party agencies under the table, in order to get a favorable ruling.

However, unlike our present world, there would not simply be one judicial system; in fact, these private courts would be businesses just like supermarkets, or dentists, and they would therefore be in constant competition with each other.

Private courts, discovered to be bribable, would loose standing in society, and honest people would tend to avoid seeking their services (whereas, of course, the miscreants would tend to prefer them - thus revealing themselves to the rest of society).

Thank you for explaining your idea, Voldmer.

You mentioned that there would possibly be violence when people don't agree to third parties or their decisions. I agree. That is why I think there would be a great deal of vigilante "justice" in that system. I think rival factions would spring up in a hurry over disputes and be at war with each other. I can see that escalating to horrific levels. That is what happened after the fall of the Roman Empire and other empires, and it is happening in Somalia now. Such gangs often become governments.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Thank you for explaining your idea, Voldmer.

You mentioned that there would possibly be violence when people don't agree to third parties or their decisions. I agree. That is why I think there would be a great deal of vigilante "justice" in that system. I think rival factions would spring up in a hurry over disputes and be at war with each other. I can see that escalating to horrific levels. That is what happened after the fall of the Roman Empire and other empires, and it is happening in Somalia now. Such gangs often become governments.

I think you are disregarding the level of civilisation inherent in the population. Somalia, for sure, is - what should we call it ... civilisationally challenged, maybe. And in such a situation, violence may be wide spread.

But amongst more civilised people, the situation would be very different. Civilised people of the west, for example, would not tend to go on violent sprees, joining marauding bands. First of all, they would want other people (specialists) to take care of their needs, rather than to do everything themselves. Second, they would not want to make enemies, so they would not want to attack the innocent, but only the already guilty - and they would not want to escalate matters by using excessive violence (which would give them a bad reputation). Third, they would want to feel safe at all times, so they would be concerned about preventing violence towards themselves - again outsourcing this to specialists.

I agree that the possibility exists, that one group of people becomes so powerful, that they can take control of society - thereby becoming a government. That is the ultimate worst case scenario.

It is also the scenario, that we already live under now ...

Originally Posted by Voldmer

It is also the scenario, that we already live under now ...

Something tells me that people like UM will never understand this point.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

I think you are disregarding the level of civilisation inherent in the population. Somalia, for sure, is - what should we call it ... civilisationally challenged, maybe. And in such a situation, violence may be wide spread.

But amongst more civilised people, the situation would be very different. Civilised people of the west, for example, would not tend to go on violent sprees, joining marauding bands. First of all, they would want other people (specialists) to take care of their needs, rather than to do everything themselves. Second, they would not want to make enemies, so they would not want to attack the innocent, but only the already guilty - and they would not want to escalate matters by using excessive violence (which would give them a bad reputation). Third, they would want to feel safe at all times, so they would be concerned about preventing violence towards themselves - again outsourcing this to specialists.

I agree that the possibility exists, that one group of people becomes so powerful, that they can take control of society - thereby becoming a government. That is the ultimate worst case scenario.

It is also the scenario, that we already live under now ...

I think we are much more civilized than Somalia because of the kinds of government situations that we have. If we suddenly no longer had our governments, we would be in severe clusterfucks of gang rivalry. The gang rivalry has existed for as long as humans have, and I agree that it is what is happening even with national governments. It is an inevitable fact of life. That is why I think we need large governments and to collectively work on having the best types possible. True anarchy cannot exist for long. Take over ends up happening every time, and sometimes it's lots of gangs controlling small areas each while fighting to rule over each other. We have to temper that.

Originally Posted by cmind

Something tells me that people like UM will never understand this point.

Your something is malfunctioning. I was comparing governments to gangs back in the 80's. Were you born yet then? Government is a type of authority by force, but that doesn't mean we don't need government. Authority by force is inevitable, so we need to assure that we have the best form of it that we can. That is my major point in this thread.

It sounds to me as if you have lost all hope - sort of like: "we're all going to be slaves for life anyway, so we might as well get comfortable with it!"

Personally, I believe in freedom and will never loose hope.

I don't know about your gang thing, Universal Mind. Not in Canada, I don't think. Here no one has a gun except for hunting. Some other people do, obviously. Gangs only exist as far as illegal drugs do, and other matters I'm not aware of. I can't see them taking over Canada. Most people just want to go back home and watch Netflix it seems, not create chaos in the roads. We already have a peaceful lifestyle, I think it would be an unpleasant effort for anyone to ravage the roads.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

It sounds to me as if you have lost all hope - sort of like: "we're all going to be slaves for life anyway, so we might as well get comfortable with it!"

Personally, I believe in freedom and will never loose hope.

I am all for freedom, but not completely unbounded freedom. We need laws against victimization, and we need to enforce those laws. I am a libertarian, and the kind of government I support would in no way make anybody slaves, except criminals who deserve it. We are not going to ever change the fact that there are bad people out there. With that being the case, we have to do things accordingly.

Your perspective reminds me of a meme I saw on Statist Daycare on Facebook, which is one of my favorite pages on there. I'm a minarchist and not an anarchist, but anarchists often do make good points and hilarious comments.

Click to enlarge:

statist daycare.jpg

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

I don't know about your gang thing, Universal Mind. Not in Canada, I don't think. Here no one has a gun except for hunting. Some other people do, obviously. Gangs only exist as far as illegal drugs do, and other matters I'm not aware of. I can't see them taking over Canada. Most people just want to go back home and watch Netflix it seems, not create chaos in the roads. We already have a peaceful lifestyle, I think it would be an unpleasant effort for anyone to ravage the roads.

Things are like that because you have a government. There are other factors too, but you would not have the peace you now have without a government. If your government suddenly broke up one day, things would get really disturbing right away.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Things are like that because you have a government. There are other factors too, but you would not have the peace you now have without a government. If your government suddenly broke up one day, things would get really disturbing right away.

I would agree that at some point there needed to be a government to make us what we are today. But I don't think there needs to be a government to maintain us that way. Can you imagine that maybe government is not a necessary part of society, but a necessary part in the evolution of society?

I don't understand why people always make people sound so evil. We all act selfishly sometimes, but we all also act altruistic to others. There might be bad people but there are mostly good people. When I went to South America, I kept getting warned to be careful, not to stray away from touristic areas, to not trust other people (and these warnings were given to me by the people there themselves). I did stray, though, because I go where my legs bring me instinctively. I just followed my instinct and I talked to people in the borders of the city, they gained my trust, I even went to one of their houses, ate a pear, gave an English lesson to a child. And I can't regret what I have done. I actually have tears writing this, because these people were such good people, even if they lived in something chaotic. There are bad things there. Students get raped by their professors, it's common. But I only met good people. It was very special. I believe in Human goodness. There is one bad person in a hundred. In a well organized society, one with little poverty, there will be no chaos.

I am a little cynical when it comes to humans and humanity as a whole, and generally believe that humans will ultimately choose for their own interests over those of others. Therefor, humans without any government would be all after their own interests, and that wouldn't turn out so well. Governments, although run by humans, are ultimately systems, and the systems themselves are not evil, just sometimes the people running them Communism is a great system, but it doesn't take into account the greed and evilness that is hidden deep down in humans (in some rather shallowly) and thus we have seen communistic governments typically oppressive and just flat out bad. Democracy, republics, blah blah all are at the core systems, just like communism, and thus should work perfectly if used by robots, but there are still evil and greedy people. These types of systems, however, just help account for some of the human flaws, and thus we are left with a slightly less-sucky government and society. Humans are evil and greedy, and if left on their own everything will be evil and greedy. Paired with a perfect systematic government, things kinda cancel out and you are left with what we have today, which is horrible, but I would still have governments and society over pure humanity.

People bad -> people need government to make them good -> put people in charge of government -> ?

I don't think all people are bad. Most are pretty all right. I also don't think all people have good in them. There is some real scum out there with no regard for others and lots of drive to hurt and screw over other people. That is what we have to deal with. They live in our societies. We also have the threat of invasions. Like I said earlier, world history is infested with them.

Governments are not totally good in any case, but they are necessary systems. They are run by people, but whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A government is not just people. It is a system of people organization.

cmind, please explain how you think order and safety can be maintained without a government. You keep dogging government, but you are not explaining how things can work without one.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

cmind, please explain how you think order and safety can be maintained without a government. You keep dogging government, but you are not explaining how things can work without one.

It's like asking how sex could work without rape. Obviously, the people involved figure it out. Whatever courts or police or defense the people need, they will create it for themselves, cooperatively.

You can't look at a clear-cut rainforest and say exactly what would grow if it wasn't destroyed. But that doesn't mean that clear-cutting is a good idea.

Originally Posted by cmind

It's like asking how sex could work without rape. Obviously, the people involved figure it out. Whatever courts or police or defense the people need, they will create it for themselves, cooperatively.

You can't look at a clear-cut rainforest and say exactly what would grow if it wasn't destroyed. But that doesn't mean that clear-cutting is a good idea.

I have explained how the alternative is worse. Why do you disagree? How could society get around the general scenario I described?

Which police forces should be able to arrest people? If my two best friends and I call ourselves police and lock you up for 20 years because we don't like your hair cut, how is it not kidnapping? Which courts get to decide whether people are guilty of crimes? Who decides what the crimes are? What could be done about invasions? What would stop the Russian, Chinese, or British government from becoming the government?