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

If you define true anarchy as 100% "every person for themselves," it's not sustainable because people will always form groups (government, basically) for protection and for "justice" from other people out to dominate and destroy.

Russia invade the US? Um, no. Believe it or not, not every country in the world follows the western model of "exceptionalist" imperialist conquest in order to prop up an otherwise unsustainable debt-based fantasy-casino economy (and no, Crimea is very very clearly not such a case).

Originally Posted by FryingMan

If you define true anarchy as 100% "every person for themselves," it's not sustainable because people will always form groups (government, basically) for protection and for "justice" from other people out to dominate and destroy.

What does this have to do with anarchy? This is a very odd definition and I've never in my whole life heard an anarchist define it this way.

Originally Posted by cmind

What does this have to do with anarchy? This is a very odd definition and I've never in my whole life heard an anarchist define it this way.

Here's the first listing from the O.E.D., in case Wikipedia fails to stand up to scrutiny:

1a. Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.

1b. A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without implications of disorder)

Not to question the authority of the anarchists you've heard speak, but I think these definitions might represent the understood condition of anarchy.

Also, to the OP, these definitions, along with my own understanding of anarchy, sort of imply that town meetings would not exist in an anarchist community. Every man really would be for himself, so no one would be willing to form groups, have meetings, or enforce the will of any majority on another individual. So I guess that might mean that true anarchy would not work, Somalia being an excellent example of what happens when it reigns.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Here's the first listing from the O.E.D., in case Wikipedia fails to stand up to scrutiny:

Why are you using a dictionary definition? If you want to examine the beliefs of anarchists, you need to use their definitions. Otherwise, who exactly are you arguing with?

I want to be clear on this point, because at least two people in this thread missed it:

It's ok to disagree with the political philosophy itself, but not on definitions. Definitions must be agreed upon before any real discussion can take place. Now, you can go right ahead and define anarchy as <insert bad things> if you want. But that's not what an anarchist means when they use the word. So you're arguing against a position that no one holds.

^^ Sorry; when you wrote this, I thought you were looking for where such a definition might come from:

Originally Posted by cmind

What does this have to do with anarchy? This is a very odd definition and I've never in my whole life heard an anarchist define it this way.

So posting a definition from an authority that most of the world tends to accept or at least respect seemed appropriate, just to show that others do indeed define anarchy in an "every man for himself" light, in spite of the fact that you were unaware of it. Generally, I think, established definitions of words tend to have something to do with the words. I hadn't realized that the stuff anarchists tell you takes precedence over accepted definitions. I guess that's okay, as long as you do not talk to people outside their circle about anarchy.

I made no mention of "examining the beliefs" of anarchists; I'm not sure where you got that from, as I don't think the thread was doing that either. Also, I wasn't arguing about anything, just presenting a definition from a better source than Wikipedia, so I guess I wasn't arguing with anyone.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

About the noisy neighbour: the others could build a soundproof wall surrounding his property, so that his noise would not reach them. During this building process, he and they would almost certainly reach an agreement.

That would be blocking him in, and he would have a big issue to raise. Why should neighbors have the responsibility of building the walls? Shouldn't he have to do that? Also, what about above his property?

What should be done once the story had reached the level where I asked the question?

Originally Posted by Voldmer

As for Russia invading the US, if it had no formal government: what would be the purpose for doing so? The US is valuable, to other governments, only for as long as the US itself has a government (with all the power structures that such a government wields over the public). An invading government, in an area without such power structures, would have to take each valuable asset in turn. In order to actually gain anything at all, Russia would have to seize control of every single thing they wanted - an insurmountable task. Especially so, since the people would not surrender without a fight (and, if they were not intensely stupid, they would be well organized - something that can not really be said about the US federal government ).

Russia has a major history of conquest, and so do countries in general. World history is covered with wars over invasions.

Originally Posted by FryingMan

If you define true anarchy as 100% "every person for themselves," it's not sustainable because people will always form groups (government, basically) for protection and for "justice" from other people out to dominate and destroy.

Anarchy is the absence of government. I agree that such a situation would result in the formation of government. History is full of examples of gangs fighting for rulership. When none of them take full control, the result is chaos. That is happening in Somalia right now.

Originally Posted by FryingMan

Russia invade the US? Um, no. Believe it or not, not every country in the world follows the western model of "exceptionalist" imperialist conquest in order to prop up an otherwise unsustainable debt-based fantasy-casino economy (and no, Crimea is very very clearly not such a case).

Have you studied the history of Soviet Russia? They were big time into conquest. The Soviet Union was an empire.

War over conquest is so prevalent in world history that it could be the title of a world history book.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Have you studied the history of Soviet Russia? They were big time into conquest. The Soviet Union was an empire.

War over conquest is so prevalent in world history that it could be the title of a world history book.

The Soviet Union was not Russia. Have you studied the entirety of Russian history? They were invaded and oppressed so many times, from the West and from the East, repeatedly, that they very understandably have developed a highly sensitive attitude towards security. In fact, Russia has been *amazingly restrained* in their responses to unbelievably provocative actions by the US and the west, where if the US were put in analogous situations to the ones they're placing Russia, the US would have gone apish!t a long time ago. The bolsheviks represented external forces, and did not represent historical Russian culture.

Recognizing the undeniable evils of the Soviet period, the Russian people could not be completely subdued, there were still amazing developments within the Soviet times: unparalleled literacy rates and education, arts, culture, and so forth.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That would be blocking him in, and he would have a big issue to raise.

Yes, and that is why he would be willing to reach an agreement.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why should neighbors have the responsibility of building the walls? Shouldn't he have to do that? Also, what about above his property?

If his noise bothers his neighbours, then they have to defend themselves against it. Building a soundproof wall would do the trick. It is not his obligation to provide their protection.

However, building such a wall costs money and effort, and that is why the neighbours would be willing to reach an agreement.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Have you studied the history of Soviet Russia? They were big time into conquest. The Soviet Union was an empire.

War over conquest is so prevalent in world history that it could be the title of a world history book.

Certainly true. But if you look back over the same history, you will find that conquest always implies taking over the power structures left by the previous government. If there are no such power structures to take over, then conquest becomes rather hopeless, since it would require too much effort, because it would be necessary to build these power structures from scratch - which is very expensive (witness the cost of modern government).

Originally Posted by FryingMan

The Soviet Union was not Russia. Have you studied the entirety of Russian history? They were invaded and oppressed so many times, from the West and from the East, repeatedly, that they very understandably have developed a highly sensitive attitude towards security. In fact, Russia has been *amazingly restrained* in their responses to unbelievably provocative actions by the US and the west, where if the US were put in analogous situations to the ones they're placing Russia, the US would have gone apish!t a long time ago. The bolsheviks represented external forces, and did not represent historical Russian culture.

Recognizing the undeniable evils of the Soviet period, the Russian people could not be completely subdued, there were still amazing developments within the Soviet times: unparalleled literacy rates and education, arts, culture, and so forth.

The Russian Revolution was conducted by Russians, and they ruled the country and formed an empire. The Soviet Union is also known as Soviet Russia. The country now called Russia was part of the Soviet Union. However, we are off topic.

No matter what you think of whether Russia would invade a large land with no government, my hypothetical still involved a Russian invasion. My question is how such a thing should be handled. You can substitute in a country you believe would engage in such a conquest. There are lots of them. The issue I am trying to analyze is how anarchy could work, including how invading militaries could be handled without a government.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Yes, and that is why he would be willing to reach an agreement.

That is not guaranteed. What should happen if he doesn't?

Originally Posted by Voldmer

If his noise bothers his neighbours, then they have to defend themselves against it. Building a soundproof wall would do the trick. It is not his obligation to provide their protection.

However, building such a wall costs money and effort, and that is why the neighbours would be willing to reach an agreement.

What would they be willing to tolerate? Do you see a possibility that somebody wouldn't agree to it?

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Certainly true. But if you look back over the same history, you will find that conquest always implies taking over the power structures left by the previous government. If there are no such power structures to take over, then conquest becomes rather hopeless, since it would require too much effort, because it would be necessary to build these power structures from scratch - which is very expensive (witness the cost of modern government).

It is generally resources, including land itself, that rulers are after. Every piece of land on this planet was taken over by a government at some point. Most of the land has been taken over by multiple governments.

Suppose that the hypothetical I described really happened, all the way to the end. At that point, how should it be handled?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is not guaranteed. What should happen if he doesn't?

Then he would be fenced in.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What would they be willing to tolerate? Do you see a possibility that somebody wouldn't agree to it?

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.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is generally resources, including land itself, that rulers are after. Every piece of land on this planet was taken over by a government at some point. Most of the land has been taken over by multiple governments.

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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Suppose that the hypothetical I described really happened, all the way to the end. At that point, how should it be handled?

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.

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?

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.