NationStates Jolt Archive

It is a commonly used argument that anarchism can't work because people are inherently bad. If given the chance, they would hurt others and so a government is necessary to stop them. This argument comes more or less from the book Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. As he put it, the state of nature would be nasty, brutish, and short.

This argument is understandably popular. However, it suffers from a major contradiction. If people are inherently bad, then giving them power is a terrible and short sighted idea that is doomed to result in something just as bad, if not worse, as anarchy supposedly would. Government officials would be corrupted by power and abuse it.

Some may argue that democracies prevent this from happening. People who are good are elected, so this danger doesn't exist. How do you know that the people you vote for are honest? For all we know, they could be lying when they say they can't accomplish their promises. Think about all the things they fail to do right.

Besides, democracy is self-refuting. If people are smart enough to pick leaders who will do what is good for the whole, why aren't they smart enough to make decisions that will benefit the whole? Is a president with average intelligence qualified to decide what a genius should do?

Interesting.

People are inherently flawed, some more so than others. All people are not equal. Some are very susceptible to temptation and corruption, while others are lesser so.

You can't prove that a politician is a good person. But you can kick them out of office in 4 years if they aren't, or have them impeached if they go nuts. So they accomplish very little by lying to get power.

People are intelligent enough to know right from wrong. Most aren't strong-willed enough to hold to it though. A person might know adultery is wrong, and yet given the chance to cheat, he would.

We elect a government who we feel has strong enough character to handle power, because we know that the masses as a whole cannot. It isn't a perfect solution, but what do you expect from an idea created by imperfect beings? ;)

Just food for thought.

You can't prove that a politician is a good person. But you can kick them out of office in 4 years if they aren't, or have them impeached if they go nuts. So they accomplish very little by lying to get power.

What if the government officials refuse to follow the election? There isn't any reason other than the separation of powers for government officials to step down.

People are intelligent enough to know right from wrong. Most aren't strong-willed enough to hold to it though. A person might know adultery is wrong, and yet given the chance to cheat, he would.

We elect a government who we feel has strong enough character to handle power, because we know that the masses as a whole cannot. It isn't a perfect solution, but what do you expect from an idea created by imperfect beings?

And how do we know the president has good character? From a conservative POV at least, Clinton didn't. Nixon certainly didn't. Despite that, both got into office.

Sorry to bring this up, Letila, but I posted an objection to anarchism several months back that you never really refuted.
Anarchism, as I believe yourself and Free Soviets stated on that thread, is a society with no hierarchy; everyone is equal and has equal say.
My problem with this is that in any society, there are those who cannot, or should not, have a say. I listed toddlers, patients in comas, Alzheimers' sufferers, and people with severe and incurable psychotic conditions. There are other categories as well, these are just representative.
Because these individuals will not have a 'vote' in any real sense, they are on a different hierarchical level from those who do have a 'vote', and I can't see any way round it.
Free Soviets admitted this flaw in anarchism. I wonder if you will.

What if the government officials refuse to follow the election? There isn't any reason other than the separation of powers for government officials to step down.

The government officials only have the power of those who listen to them. And I doubt anyone is going to listen to someone who refuses to follow the basic rules for which their position calls.

For example - the government official demands the police kill people legally protesting. The police realize the man is acting like a nut, and refuse to do what he asks.

So the government official orders the army to kill the police. But the army knows this guy is one short of a six pack, so they refuse to help him either.

You see, the government official doesn't have a choice in the matter. Unless every single person around him is equally corrupt as he is, he has no actual power. Anything he says or orders will simply be ignored.


And how do we know the president has good character? From a conservative POV at least, Clinton didn't. Nixon certainly didn't. Despite that, both got into office.

You don't prove. Nothing in life is a certainty. Can you prove your significant other isn't in fact going to cheat on you, ever? Can you prove your best friend isn't going to betray you, ever? Can you prove your boss isn't going to take part in illegal activities, ever?

So do you just assume everyone is corrupt and never trust anyone? Or do you judge them by their actions, and determine if they are trustworthy?

Maybe we should give control to a much more logical being.
http://ncyoung.com/grab_bag/Hal-2000.jpg

The government officials only have the power of those who listen to them. And I doubt anyone is going to listen to someone who refuses to follow the basic rules for which their position calls.

For example - the government official demands the police kill people legally protesting. The police realize the man is acting like a nut, and refuse to do what he asks.

So the government official orders the army to kill the police. But the army knows this guy is one short of a six pack, so they refuse to help him either.

You see, the government official doesn't have a choice in the matter. Unless every single person around him is equally corrupt as he is, he has no actual power. Anything he says or orders will simply be ignored.

True. In truth, it's our authoritarian culture that is at fault. What keeps government in power is the myth that it is good.

You don't prove. Nothing in life is a certainty. Can you prove your significant other isn't in fact going to cheat on you, ever? Can you prove your best friend isn't going to betray you, ever? Can you prove your boss isn't going to take part in illegal activities, ever?

So do you just assume everyone is corrupt and never trust anyone? Or do you judge them by their actions, and determine if they are trustworthy?

It is a commonly used argument that anarchism can't work because people are inherently bad. If given the chance, they would hurt others and so a government is necessary to stop them. This argument comes more or less from the book Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. As he put it, the state of nature would be nasty, brutish, and short.

This argument is understandably popular. However, it suffers from a major contradiction. If people are inherently bad, then giving them power is a terrible and short sighted idea that is doomed to result in something just as bad, if not worse, as anarchy supposedly would. Government officials would be corrupted by power and abuse it.

Some may argue that democracies prevent this from happening. People who are good are elected, so this danger doesn't exist. How do you know that the people you vote for are honest? For all we know, they could be lying when they say they can't accomplish their promises. Think about all the things they fail to do right.

Besides, democracy is self-refuting. If people are smart enough to pick leaders who will do what is good for the whole, why aren't they smart enough to make decisions that will benefit the whole? Is a president with average intelligence qualified to decide what a genius should do?
i've always thought it was more about people being inherently disorganized, rather than actually bad. too many people trying to do their own thing, without a common structure that makes boundaries clear to everyone, is just asking for trouble (in my opinion). to me, government is about letting everyone know the most basic rules: you are free to do anything except violate the freedom of others, so no killing, stealing, or breaking of other simple kindergarten rules. government puts it all up there in big letters, and make it clear what the consequences are so that there is justice in punishment instead of emotion (theoretically).

now, at present i don't feel like my government does any of this particularly well. but i don't think my best friend dresses very well, and that doesn't stop me from thinking that clothing is, in general, a good idea. i'd rather try to fix my government, or try to get my friend to quit looking like 1986 exploded all over him, than simply try to eliminate government or clothing all together.

The government officials only have the power of those who listen to them. And I doubt anyone is going to listen to someone who refuses to follow the basic rules for which their position calls.

For example - the government official demands the police kill people legally protesting. The police realize the man is acting like a nut, and refuse to do what he asks.

So the government official orders the army to kill the police. But the army knows this guy is one short of a six pack, so they refuse to help him either.

You see, the government official doesn't have a choice in the matter. Unless every single person around him is equally corrupt as he is, he has no actual power. Anything he says or orders will simply be ignored.

True. In truth, it's our authoritarian culture that is at fault. What keeps government in power is the myth that it is good.

You don't prove. Nothing in life is a certainty. Can you prove your significant other isn't in fact going to cheat on you, ever? Can you prove your best friend isn't going to betray you, ever? Can you prove your boss isn't going to take part in illegal activities, ever?

So do you just assume everyone is corrupt and never trust anyone? Or do you judge them by their actions, and determine if they are trustworthy?

Haven't you heard the saying "power corrupts"? I see no reason to trust anyone given the power of life and death over me. The government has nuclear weapons, afterall. Trusting them with that kind of power seems foolish to me.

Sorry to bring this up, Letila, but I posted an objection to anarchism several months back that you never really refuted.
Anarchism, as I believe yourself and Free Soviets stated on that thread, is a society with no hierarchy; everyone is equal and has equal say.
My problem with this is that in any society, there are those who cannot, or should not, have a say. I listed toddlers, patients in comas, Alzheimers' sufferers, and people with severe and incurable psychotic conditions. There are other categories as well, these are just representative.
Because these individuals will not have a 'vote' in any real sense, they are on a different hierarchical level from those who do have a 'vote', and I can't see any way round it.
Free Soviets admitted this flaw in anarchism. I wonder if you will.

Perhaps it is a flaw in anarchism, but it's also a flaw in government.

i've always thought it was more about people being inherently disorganized, rather than actually bad. too many people trying to do their own thing, without a common structure that makes boundaries clear to everyone, is just asking for trouble (in my opinion). to me, government is about letting everyone know the most basic rules: you are free to do anything except violate the freedom of others, so no killing, stealing, or breaking of other simple kindergarten rules. government puts it all up there in big letters, and make it clear what the consequences are so that there is justice in punishment instead of emotion (theoretically).

now, at present i don't feel like my government does any of this particularly well. but i don't think my best friend dresses very well, and that doesn't stop me from thinking that clothing is, in general, a good idea. i'd rather try to fix my government, or try to get my friend to quit looking like 1986 exploded all over him, than simply try to eliminate government or clothing all together.

You can organize without hierarchy, though. People don't need hierarchy to know murder is wrong.

You can organize without hierarchy, though. People don't need hierarchy to know murder is wrong.
you can, but then you run into the problem of justice; if somebody commits a murder, and there is no system of hierarchy, then you have (essentially) a mob justice system. since no single person has any power over the criminal, you have to gang up in order to punish him/her. now, in part government does that too, but our hierarchy specifically sets things up so that the people who have been directly wronged are NOT allowed to be the ones passing sentence or judging guilt; this allows emotion to be put aside in difficult cases, and lets more objective people judge what the appropriate action would be.

now, if you aren't going to have hierarchy, then you certainly can't have a court system. hell, you can't have judges, lawyers, or any personel other than the jury. and you can't have any standards for selecting that jury, because you don't have a hierarchy that would enforce those standards; the jury would just be elected by group vote, and therefore is exactly the same as a mob-system.

personally, i think the hierarchical structure of American courts is actually pretty damn amazing in construction. there are some problems that have arrisen, and there are several issues i think need to be fixed, but the core structure is brilliantly effective. i don't see any way to construct that without hierarchy; if you can describe how you would do that, then i will cede the point willingly. however, please realize that there will not be any one-sentence answer for that...you will actually have to use more detail than "you don't need hierarchy, government is evil."

Perhaps it is a flaw in anarchism, but it's also a flaw in government.


Governments are openly hierarchical; my argument is that anarchism cannot avoid a minimum level of hierarchy, for the reasons given above.

you can, but then you run into the problem of justice; if somebody commits a murder, and there is no system of hierarchy, then you have (essentially) a mob justice system. since no single person has any power over the criminal, you have to gang up in order to punish him/her. now, in part government does that too, but our hierarchy specifically sets things up so that the people who have been directly wronged are NOT allowed to be the ones passing sentence or judging guilt; this allows emotion to be put aside in difficult cases, and lets more objective people judge what the appropriate action would be.

now, if you aren't going to have hierarchy, then you certainly can't have a court system. hell, you can't have judges, lawyers, or any personel other than the jury. and you can't have any standards for selecting that jury, because you don't have a hierarchy that would enforce those standards; the jury would just be elected by group vote, and therefore is exactly the same as a mob-system.

I thought the point of punishment was to keep people from commiting crimes. If it's violent, then oh well. Governments don't seem to mind owning enough nukes to kill the whole world and have killed millions of people. They have no room to call anarchism violent.

I also don't see how judges are necessarily objective. If the person commits a crime against the government, is the judge really going to be objective? I don't see why, unless judges are now all Vulcans. Judges are just as human as the rest of us and just as fallable.

personally, i think the hierarchical structure of American courts is actually pretty damn amazing in construction. there are some problems that have arrisen, and there are several issues i think need to be fixed, but the core structure is brilliantly effective. i don't see any way to construct that without hierarchy; if you can describe how you would do that, then i will cede the point willingly. however, please realize that there will not be any one-sentence answer for that...you will actually have to use more detail than "you don't need hierarchy, government is evil."

Given the fact that Sacco, Vanzetti, and 4 other anarchists were unfairly executed, I think the system works terribly. Then there is the fact that people who are rich can afford better lawyers. That doesn't seem brilliantly effective or objective to me.

Governments are openly hierarchical; my argument is that anarchism cannot avoid a minimum level of hierarchy, for the reasons given above.
i certainly agree with that assessment.

i certainly agree with that assessment.
Thanks, Bottle!
:)
Hey, we actually agreed on something!

P.S. I used to be Reactivists, but I left my nation fallow for a bit too long, so it got deleted!

How, exactly, do you prevent hiearchy? Certainly it would require a certain hierarachy to actually prevent it... which is suppression...

How, exactly, do you prevent hiearchy? Certainly it would require a certain hierarachy to actually prevent it... which is suppression...

People just need to stop taking hierarchy seriously. Currently, the police and military think orders should be enforced. If they realized the immorality of it, the government would lose all it's power. Congressmen (and they usually are men) can't make people pay taxes if they have no one to enforce the law.

Becouse I know from my own experience that people are stupid, and they are to stupid to vote so in that way democracy works.

People just need to stop taking hierarchy seriously. Currently, the police and military think orders should be enforced. If they realized the immorality of it, the government would lose all it's power. Congressmen (and they usually are men) can't make people pay taxes if they have no one to enforce the law.

So... brainwash people to hate the government - that your plan? I doubt you'll be able to convince millions of people to think like that.

So... brainwash people to hate the government - that your plan? I doubt you'll be able to convince millions of people to think like that.

No my friend; if a government is truly democratic, it is suppoused to be based in the trust of all the members of its society, if that trust dissapears... then government dissapears too, unless it's not truly democratic :p :D

So... brainwash people to hate the government - that your plan? I doubt you'll be able to convince millions of people to think like that.

Brainwashing isn't necessary. Only a coward afraid of responsibility would knowingly choose to be ruled.

So... brainwash people to hate the government - that your plan? I doubt you'll be able to convince millions of people to think like that.

Brainwashing isn't necessary. Only a coward afraid of responsibility would knowingly choose to be ruled.

I do not choose to be ruled, I merely think that tasks are easier to manage with a single mind to give it direction.

Only a coward afraid of responsibility would knowingly choose to be ruled.

Hehe... that's a good one, I never thought of it that way. ;)

I do not choose to be ruled, I merely think that tasks are easier to manage with a single mind to give it direction.

It sounds to me like you don't want to take responsibility.

It sounds to me like you don't want to take responsibility.

Well, if we're going to just make snipes at each other using amateur psychology, then I could say that arrogance is a motivation in your rejection of authority, but I would hope that we can rise above such behaviour.

For example, what if people want to build a well to supply them with water. If people disagree on its design, who gets the final say? If people couldn't agree it would end up never being built.

For example, what if people want to build a well to supply them with water. If people disagree on its design, who gets the final say? If people couldn't agree it would end up never being built.

A government would do no better. Do you think forcing everyone to agree with your plan is going to help?

Ohhh! He called you arrogant Letila! hahaha :D

For example, what if people want to build a well to supply them with water. If people disagree on its design, who gets the final say? If people couldn't agree it would end up never being built.

The well, if it's REALLY necesary for someone, will be built by that someone. If several people need it and one or more disagree in the way it should be done, then they'll build their own one, or just realize that they should accept the other guys perspective, if demonstrated better.

As stated by Letila, a government would do no better.

A government would do no better. Do you think forcing everyone to agree with your plan is going to help?

You are not being clear. It is not force if you have been elected to make the decision of which design is best. Explain how, in anarchy, the situation would be resolved. Note that there are only enough resources to build one well.

As stated by Letila, a government would do no better.

So you're saying that a government would not be able to settle on a design either? Somehow I doubt your logic. Perhaps my explanation of the scenario was unclear?

So you're saying that a government would not be able to settle on a design either? Somehow I doubt your logic. Perhaps my explanation of the scenario was unclear?

First, acknowledge I'm not an anarchist.

Sometimes (and only SOMETIMES) a government can settle on a design that's best for everyone (or "less bad" than others), but that can be done just the same by the individual will of the people that need that well.

So... brainwash people to hate the government - that your plan? I doubt you'll be able to convince millions of people to think like that.

Brainwashing isn't necessary. Only a coward afraid of responsibility would knowingly choose to be ruled.
not true.

it all depends on your moral reality and belief. I personally believe in the social contract with a morally responsible government. If you dont like the government, practice civil disobedience and try to change it from the inside.

If you dont like the government, practice civil disobedience and try to change it from the inside.

Or get rid of it altogether and be free by default.

So you're saying that a government would not be able to settle on a design either? Somehow I doubt your logic. Perhaps my explanation of the scenario was unclear?

It would be able to settle on one, but it would create a lot of anger if forced on the others.

This view of anarchy that we are using is extremely oversimplified, it would require an equal distribution of resources and an equal population density to keep it in balance or hierarchy will immediately begin by default.