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

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

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

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.

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.