Is anarchy a good idea? How could it work?

Every time I get into a discussion with an anarchist about how the needs met by police, courts, lawmaking bodies, and military could be met in an anarchist community, the conversation seems to hit a wall. I never get clear answers. The only answers I ever get are extremely vague. I finally got a little bit more of a specific answer from somebody earlier tonight on YouTube. He said that town meetings could solve everything. I responded by writing a story and following it with a question. If anybody reading this is an anarchist, please answer the question.


In an anarchist community, a man plays his music way too loud 20 hours a day. He is using concert speakers that he has on his roof to blast early Metallica and Slayer at all hours except when he sleeps. He is a professional writer, so he never has to show up anywhere. He just stays home, writes, and blasts thrash metal from concert speakers on his roof. His neighbors complain, and he doesn't care.

The neighbors set up a town meeting, and the noisy person doesn't want to go. At the town meeting, many of the people decide that the man should turn his music down. A lot of others say that he is on his own property and can play his music as loud as he wants to. Although the majority says he has to turn it down, the minority is complaining about who couldn't make the meeting because of good reasons and say that the decision does not count. The majority tells them to shut up and decides to go make the man turn his music down. The only way to do that is to go into his house and make him do it. The minority says they can't trespass like that, but the majority ignores them because it's about "justice." The only way to stop them is to fight them, so they have a battle in the guy's yard. 12 people get shot to death. When the justice crew (or trespassers?) walks into his house, he freaks out about having his house broken into and shoots the people.

Now there has to be a town meeting about the shooting. The residents disagree on what kind of town meeting to have and who has the right to force the man into jail if he is found guilty. Seven different town meetings are held to decide the fate of the man, and they argue over which one the man has to attend. They have to have a town meeting over which town meeting the man has to attend, but 15 town meetings form over that because they all have different ideas on the rules of town meeting trial.

A mob of people decide that they will end the clusterfuck by kidnapping the man and hanging him, and they hang him. They get caught, and now they are all facing town meetings for murder, but they and their supporters say they should not have to even go to a town meeting over such necessary justice. They are kidnapped and taken to a town meeting, but another town meeting says the lynchers are supposed to be at their town meeting, so they kidnap the lynch mob, and then the kidnappers are facing town meetings for violating a town meeting. The rages over so much perceived injustice result in a town civil war, and half the town is killed.

Meanwhile, Russia invades the United States because it no longer has a government. Russia has fighter jet teams, tank battalions, a naval fleet with aircraft carriers, drones, and millions of trained and organized soldiers. They also have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world. They use organized, high quality military strategy in working to take over the land. Since Canada and Mexico always depended on the United States for protection, Russia invades them too.

What can be done about this nightmare without the formation of a government?

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.

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 ;)).

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).

Quote:

---

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.

One definition on wikipedia:

Quote:

---

Since its inception in the original ancient Greek, anarchy has been used in the negative sense to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society.

---

But then again, I don't associate or communicate with anarchists all that much.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Somalia has groups fighting each other. The definition of "government" does get pretty fuzzy in this, but most anarchists believe in group organization without having an official "government." BLUELINE says he believes in that. I wonder if he is going to chime in on this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I wonder if he is going to chime in on this

---

Nope.

Basically anarchy only works if everyone is a decent and good person that is willing to cooperate with others. In other words, it can work on a small scale but the more people you have the more likely you are to have some jerk in the mix and that screws up the entire system.

In the above situation, there is two obvious solutions to the problem. The person turns down his music because he realizes he is bothering others. The people living near him move away. Again that requires the first person respecting others right to have some peace, or other people respecting his right to be annoying and finding an alternative such as moving, or accepting it.

Maybe person A plays his musics too loud but person B likes to walk around the streets naked. If he is willing to live with sound muffling headphones so the music no longer bothers him, in exchange for the ability of others to look the other way while he walks around town naked, everyone gets along. Everyone needs to be very mature though, and willing to put up with stuff to get what you want at times. There are people today, who would probably live just fine in such communities, but humans in general are not ready for such communities. We need to mature more as a race before we can work together like that without any rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FryingMan

One definition on wikipedia:

But then again, I don't associate or communicate with anarchists all that much.

---

That doesn't answer my question. Show me an anarchist who defines anarchy that way.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Descensus

Nope.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Basically anarchy only works if everyone is a decent and good person that is willing to cooperate with others. In other words, it can work on a small scale but the more people you have the more likely you are to have some jerk in the mix and that screws up the entire system.

In the above situation, there is two obvious solutions to the problem. The person turns down his music because he realizes he is bothering others. The people living near him move away. Again that requires the first person respecting others right to have some peace, or other people respecting his right to be annoying and finding an alternative such as moving, or accepting it.

Maybe person A plays his musics too loud but person B likes to walk around the streets naked. If he is willing to live with sound muffling headphones so the music no longer bothers him, in exchange for the ability of others to look the other way while he walks around town naked, everyone gets along. Everyone needs to be very mature though, and willing to put up with stuff to get what you want at times. There are people today, who would probably live just fine in such communities, but humans in general are not ready for such communities. We need to mature more as a race before we can work together like that without any rules.

---

There are also murderers, rapists, burglars, muggers, car jackers, and invading armies to think about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmind

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

---

Then he would be fenced in.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmind

That doesn't answer my question. Show me an anarchist who defines anarchy that way.

---

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..."

Which harmonises pretty well with how FryingMan and Sageous characterised anarchism.

You guys really aren't understanding my point. So I'll try it again. I'm not trying to say that anarchism is good or bad, or what its effects would be. I'm just pointing out that if you want to criticize any position, including anarchism, you need to criticize the actual position. If you define the word "anarchism" as a bunch of bad stuff, then you are not having a discussion. You're just making a circular argument. The fact that the average dumb fuck defines anarchy a certain way means jack shit. The academic definition of anarchy is totally different.

^^ Okay, then, dumb fucks and academicians aside, what is the definition of anarchy that you believe is the actual , current, and accurate one?

I'm sure your definition will help with the conversation, perhaps offering a solid baseline, so why not offer it up, rather than tell us all we are wrong for citing actual sources (including a well-known anarchist, who you seem to dismiss as a dumb fuck). I'm also not seeing the bad stuff we've inserted into the definition, so if you'd like to share that too, go right ahead...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmind

You guys really aren't understanding my point. So I'll try it again. I'm not trying to say that anarchism is good or bad, or what its effects would be. I'm just pointing out that if you want to criticize any position, including anarchism, you need to criticize the actual position. If you define the word "anarchism" as a bunch of bad stuff, then you are not having a discussion. You're just making a circular argument. The fact that the average dumb fuck defines anarchy a certain way means jack shit. The academic definition of anarchy is totally different.

---

You're either trolling or there's something seriously off about you. You asked for a definition of "anarchism". Several people provided authoritative definitions, but according to you it didn't count because the definitions weren't given by anarchists — and for some reason you didn't care to provide a definition of your own from the numerous anarchists you've spoken with. Now you've been given a definition by an actual anarchist, but it's still completely irrelevant, because... well, I don't even know at this point, you didn't even pretend to have a coherent reason for rejecting the definition this time. Tell me: you clearly have zero intention of making any kind of positive contribution to this discussion. So... why exactly are you here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

There are also murderers, rapists, burglars, muggers, car jackers, and invading armies to think about.

---

All of which will fall under people being jerks. In the future, when we can eliminate poverty and crime then the chances of a successful anarchy style government working will be greatly improved. At the moment, with how the world is now, a pure anarchy results in something like Somalia. Not a pleasant place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ Okay, then, dumb fucks and academicians aside, what is the definition of anarchy that you believe is the actual , current, and accurate one?

I'm sure your definition will help with the conversation, perhaps offering a solid baseline, so why not offer it up, rather than tell us all we are wrong for citing actual sources (including a well-known anarchist, who you seem to dismiss as a dumb fuck). I'm also not seeing the bad stuff we've inserted into the definition, so if you'd like to share that too, go right ahead...

---

Anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Start at the top of the page.

^^ Your post seems to run counter to what you've been saying...

Aside from this definition being someone else's definition, and not yours, it is also conceptually the same as the definitions we already listed for you, and that you quickly railed against as academic nonsense. So, is Wikipedia non-academic enough for you, which makes FryingMan's definition above valid? Also, what happened to your definition based on what actual anarchists told you? I had assumed you would have a sentence or two already in your head; why lean on Wikipedia if you are already sure of the definition?

Also, I can't help but notice you linked to a definition of anarchism, rather than anarchy, though that likely isn't too important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

All of which will fall under people being jerks. In the future, when we can eliminate poverty and crime then the chances of a successful anarchy style government working will be greatly improved. At the moment, with how the world is now, a pure anarchy results in something like Somalia. Not a pleasant place.

---

I just did a reality check right after I read your post. I honestly attempted to float out of my chair because I thought I might be dreaming. We actually agree on something. That almost never happens. :shock:

I think it will take biological evolution for humans to be ready to handle anarchy.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Anarchy is the absence of government.

---

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Then he would be fenced in.

---

He can't knock the fence down?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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."

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

---

What's authority?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

To add to Tirisias post-labor/post-scarcity society, a few years back, I watched a video about the Venus Project (which I can't find anymore). The goal is to live without a government, without money, and to use science for greater technological advance and distribution of resources instead. I will summarize what it says because it has an answer for violence:

Money stops science from evolving in a sense because for profit, products need to deteriorate so the consumer will buy again. If there was no money, we could produce products which would last for lifetimes. This would resolve the scarcity problem quite fast, and we technology could evolve faster. Everything would be sold in freely and people would take what they need. In a world where everyone can have anything they want, owning material loses all its value. People no longer desire objects as they do now so they consume a lot less. Also, there is no theft because there is no need for it. This world would have a different culture, where students don't go to school to get a job, but by interest.

And I guess, at that point, violence can be dealt as in the animal world. An eye for an eye. If someone attacks you, everyone attacks them back?

Anyways, that was a rushed description of a video I watched a long time ago, and they themselves say that you can't understand the Venus project by just watching a video of it, you'd have to study it well enough. It's complex. But it's inevitable. The world always change. And there will be something after capitalist democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiresias

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.

---

They could use nukes to wipe us out in a hurry, but then they wouldn't be able to settle here if they did. A poisoned water supply would catch on in a hurry, and there are lots of water supplies. An invading army would be able to take over this land if we didn't have a government, but they would have a Hell of a backlash to deal with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

And I guess, at that point, violence can be dealt as in the animal world. An eye for an eye. If someone attacks you, everyone attacks them back?

---

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

Quote:

---

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? :P

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 :P.

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.

Quote:

---

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? :P

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 :P.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.) :)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 ... ;)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Attachment 8239

Quote:

---

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.

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 :P 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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?