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

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

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.