NationStates Jolt Archive

I understand that anarchists get a bad name: a lot of the James Bond villians are anarchists, there is the 'Anarchists Cookbook' which seems to have been written by more of a maniac than an anarchist and the term 'anarchist' is generally used to describe big, ignorant skinheads that want to abolish the law so that they can beat up as many people as they want.

This, however, is a misunderstanding, in my understanding. Anarchism is a rather caring, pacifistic political idea. Most anarchists are peaceful people who want to abolish the law and money to stop evils of the word like inheritance murder and drug-dealing. There are no motives for crime in an anarchist society. Take this situation, which actually happened once in my village: A man lets off his greyhound so that it can kill his neighbour's cat. Now, because there are no laws against the killing of cats this man cannot be lawfully punished but in anarchism he gets what he deserves.

So, what do you have against anarchy? After all, the majority of NationStates users voted for 'freedom' over 'peace'.

The crazy people that want to blow things up and call themselves anarchists are what's bad about it. Other than that it's the same as any other political idea really. It has it's good points and it's bad points.

The crazy people that want to blow things up and call themselves anarchists are what's bad about it. Other than that it's the same as any other political idea really. It has it's good points and it's bad points.

They call themselves 'anarchists', I call them 'arseholes'.

Your knowledge of anarchism in any of its forms seems minimal. Law is NOT abolished. The agencies providing it though change according to the type of anarchism. Insurance agencies, for instance, were recommended by some anarcho-capitalists (or even anarcho-syndicalists). Very few anarchists are crazy to suggest complete abolition of law. These tend to be idiots who should be exiled to some sand dune in the Sahara.

Your knowledge of anarchism in any of its forms seems minimal. Law is NOT abolished. The agencies providing it though change according to the type of anarchism. Insurance agencies, for instance, were recommended by some anarcho-capitalists (or even anarcho-syndicalists). Very few anarchists are crazy to suggest complete abolition of law. These tend to be idiots who should be exiled to some sand dune in the Sahara.

Oh, yeah, I know that but generally written laws are abolished. People are then governed by their own morals and respect for themselves and others.

....but in anarchism he gets what he deserves....
Which is?

Which is?

Well, a slap in the face or public shaming.

Pure and simple, anarchy isn't a viable solution.

In the global community, a "nation" of anarchists would be instantly invaded by its neighbors, divided up, and become nothing but a vague memory.

Assuming that there can be no outside interference (heh, like that's ever a good way to look at politics), an anarchy will eventually give way to government. You've heard people at your workplace arguing and whining and complaining, not about their boss, but about each other? What happens when that goes on for a few decades, with no authority figure to stop it escalating? What happens when a father finds out his daughter has been raped? He'll go, find the culprit, and murder him. The man's family will come after the father for vengeance, etc etc. A bloody family feud. People die. Nobody's gonna stop it, obviously. You'd have to force them to stop, which reeks of LAW.

Then, of course, there's the fact that modern amenities require a centralized lifestyle. If anybody in the world could keep the nuclear power plants operational as they passed through in their nomadic life, it'd be fine, but we can't. So, we have to have people staying put, so we'll eventually have land disputes, which will lead to mediation, which will become law.

It takes way too much assuming to make anarchy work. The first and most basic assumption is that the people of the area would accept it. They just get more outrageous as you go along.

Besides, how do you get rid of drug-dealing without organization? If I grow weed in my back yard, and I peddle it to little kids, what stops me but the law?

Not a viable option at all.

Oh, yeah, I know that but generally written laws are abolished. People are then governed by their own morals and respect for themselves and others.
Defensive law enforcement is put into place. Ie, an insurance agency only protects you against things done against you. It will not want to take on a client who is, say, a serial rapist, and lose in court. Nor will it take on a firm who frequently rips off its clients, and end up liable paying fees for its client's failures. The result is a form of contractual law, between clients and agencies. The agency protects you and does so at a lower cost if you keep to yourself. The idea of lawlesness in most forms of anarchism is a myth.

*snip*
Although I have my own reasons for being reserved relative to anarchism, I will clear up some mistakes here. Firstly, the idea of a nation simply invading an area of anarchism is unlikely, because the insurance agencies involved in protecting the area have a massive capital basis and the appropriate defensive mechanisms to make it costly for any fool who tries to invade.

Secondly, if you deal out weed to little kids (assuming the anarchist society deems this a crime), you will be committing a crime against the kids, and the insurance agency will prosecute you, within its capacity as law enforcer. We assume law needs a government to enforce it; it does not. It needs the society's support. If a society bestows insurance agencies the power to protect them, then this agency will do so.

Well, a slap in the face or public shaming.
Of course then you get the problem of who slaps him, how hard, who decides he should be slapped in the first place, what if he/she/they decide he should be killed?

The best serious defence of I've seen for Anarchy as a serious form of government, implied that Anarchy doesn't mean lack of rules, it means lack of leaders. So, in this kind of 'anarchy', there would still be laws and regulations, but people wouldn't organize themselves into states, and make all decisions democratically - without representatives.

Of course, this is about as realistic as the second coming of Christ and living in 'God's Kingdom' (apologies Christians...). It wouldn't work, because there will always be people who take leadership positions, even if unofficially. Groups would still form on some level, and you'd be back at square one. That's the best realistic result of Anarchy, while the worst would be far more frightening.

What complicates the view of Anarchy, apart from its definition (most people equate anarchy with lack of order), is the different anarchic systems. Some people envision Anarchy as a kind of communistic system (I have a really hard time trying to imagine that one) while others think of it as a highly libertarian one.

*snip*
It is for these reasons I only support anarcho-capitalism (with tinges of syndicalism) on an ideological, utopian level. Realistically, I remain a minarchist libertarian. Though many of the posters in this thread are utterly ignorant of even the most basic ideas behind anarchism. They should read a book on it.

It is for these reasons I only support anarcho-capitalism (with tinges of syndicalism) on an ideological, utopian level. Realistically, I remain a minarchist libertarian. Though many of the posters in this thread are utterly ignorant of even the most basic ideas behind anarchism. They should read a book on it.

I have to admit, my knowledge of Anarchy as a form of government was limited until I popped on these forums. Still have a hard time believing in it as a functional system, but anarcho-capitalism seems semi-feasible. (That would essentially arise into rule by corporations wouldn't it?)

I have to admit, my knowledge of Anarchy as a form of government was limited until I popped on these forums. Still have a hard time believing in it as a functional system, but anarcho-capitalism seems semi-feasible. (That would essentially arise into rule by corporations wouldn't it?)
Yes, but this depends on how many corporations form. The more there are, the weaker each individual corporation would be. Monopolies/collusions could periodically form, but there would be no guarantee that they'd last. I am a libertarian capitalist, but my knowledge of Capitalism's main defences is incomplete, as I am still reading through Rand, Adam Smith and Mises, and others. Both of the latter two maintain the same position as me, that minarchism is a more realistic alternative to any form of anarchy.

If you really love anarchy so much, go to friggin' Somalia. There, you'll see what life is like with no written laws, no government, etc. Government by law is replaced by "government by whichever gang is the best armed."

Learning what anarchism is would surely help many of those debating this topic.

The idea is not that anyone can do whatever they please. Since that would involve permitting people to set themselves up as autocrats, violating the principles of anarchism, the proposal is an obvious absurdity. Rather, it is that there are no rulers - people organize themselves more or less freely, and when there is a conflict that cannot be resolved through fair compromise, it is resolved on a democratic basis by those who will be affected by the controversial decision, and not by the decree of some higher official. It is the abolition of hierarchy, not of rules.

Learning what anarchism is would surely help many of those debating this topic.

My thoughts exactly.

If you really love anarchy so much, go to friggin' Somalia. There, you'll see what life is like with no written laws, no government, etc. Government by law is replaced by "government by whichever gang is the best armed."
Yes, and of course, this is what all major anarchists argue. The Somalian utopia. :rolleyes:

Your knowledge of anarchism in any of its forms seems minimal. Law is NOT abolished. The agencies providing it though change according to the type of anarchism. Insurance agencies, for instance, were recommended by some anarcho-capitalists (or even anarcho-syndicalists). Very few anarchists are crazy to suggest complete abolition of law. These tend to be idiots who should be exiled to some sand dune in the Sahara.

Erm... that is anarcho-capatalism, not anarchism in general. Anarcho-communists I think are unlikely to advocate insurance agencies, for example. Of course, yes anarchism of all types does not say no rules, just they should be enforced in different ways.

I can understand anarchists being nice people, its just their idea of how society should be that doesn't agree with people. They simply just think that if there were no governments, the world would be a better place. But the problem is: It wouldn't. People everywhere would be able to do anything without anybody able to put an end to their activities. It would be the stone age for us all over again. Not only that, but also governments and groups of people are really inevitable. Even nomadic groups have their own sets of rules so that they dont go crazy. It's really known from human history that a group of people can always overpower even the strongest of all individual humans. That's how people survive and get so much accomplished. But anarchy just means ending all of the successes brought by the groups that worked so hard to survive through the ice age.

Pure and simple, anarchy isn't a viable solution.

In the global community, a "nation" of anarchists would be instantly invaded by its neighbors, divided up, and become nothing but a vague memory.

Assuming that there can be no outside interference (heh, like that's ever a good way to look at politics), an anarchy will eventually give way to government. You've heard people at your workplace arguing and whining and complaining, not about their boss, but about each other? What happens when that goes on for a few decades, with no authority figure to stop it escalating? What happens when a father finds out his daughter has been raped? He'll go, find the culprit, and murder him. The man's family will come after the father for vengeance, etc etc. A bloody family feud. People die. Nobody's gonna stop it, obviously. You'd have to force them to stop, which reeks of LAW.

Then, of course, there's the fact that modern amenities require a centralized lifestyle. If anybody in the world could keep the nuclear power plants operational as they passed through in their nomadic life, it'd be fine, but we can't. So, we have to have people staying put, so we'll eventually have land disputes, which will lead to mediation, which will become law.

It takes way too much assuming to make anarchy work. The first and most basic assumption is that the people of the area would accept it. They just get more outrageous as you go along.

Besides, how do you get rid of drug-dealing without organization? If I grow weed in my back yard, and I peddle it to little kids, what stops me but the law?

Not a viable option at all.


Largely the above is why I disregard anarchism as a system in all its forms. Anarcho-capitalism I have extra problems with as well, but even the acceptable forms are impractical. And I know the above is not what is meant to happen, but the probelm is that in an anarchist system there is nothing really strong enough to prevent the bad, and bring about those things which require centralisation. and when they do arrive... well, you can pretty much call them governments by that point, with the power they will yield.

Just like any other radical idea, the media and government has tarnished the image of these ideals so badly that the common mans opinion of a belief is far different from the actual belief.

I mean, it happens to communism, it happens to anarchy, it happens to christians, it happens to satanists, it happens to pretty much anyone regardless of their beliefs.

For example, the common knowledge would have you believe anarchy is total chaos and lack of order and completely horrible and that all anarchists are crazy bomb-wielding suicide kamikazies, when in reality, Anarchy wants a stateless world, nothing less, nothing more.

Common knowledge would have you believe all communists are die-hard stalinist authoritarians who abuse human rights. Again, not true at all.

The media and common knowledge would have you think satanists sacrifice goats and cover themselves in blood while burning crosses and shit. Once again, not true at all. In fact, Satanists, in my experience of talking with them, are actually opposed to ritual sacrifice and that kind of stuff.

Just because a few nut cases from each misunderstood stereotype act like morons, it's not reason to judge us all like they are. The solution to this ignorance is simply to read a book, and tell your friends whats really going on.

"Anarcho-capitalism" is a contradiction in terms: read (http://www.capitalism.org/faq/anarchism.htm).

I have a lot of sympathy for anarchists. But I think they're dreamers. While communism requires "only" a fair proportion of people to behave nicely, anarchism, with its lack of any kind of authority, can be easily spoiled and abused by a very tiny group.

Anarchists don't all agree of what the perfect "anarchy" system would be. But I really don't see how it can be stable. Too bad, because it would be a nice system. Communism is more realistic, and not so far away.

Well, that's my opinion, and I expect anarchists to disagree with it ;)

Probably the best way to envision anarchism, is to imagine your own country, and then take away all the politicians.

Sounds good at first.

Then, once you figure out the long (or more likely short)-term ramifications of this, you'll see people electing leaders all over again, unless someone just declares himself leader. At best, you'd end up with some sort of Oligarchy, where the Banks make all the decisions, or the farmers call all the shots because they hold the food supply.

Anarchy, just isn't feasible in a modern context.

"Anarcho-capitalism" is a contradiction in terms: read (http://www.capitalism.org/faq/anarchism.htm).

I do agree wtih you about anarcho-capitalism. if there is no state, who is there to regulate the value of currency? Whos to say you just can't print billions of dollars of your own liking?

Really, that's the only problem I see with anarcho-capitalism. It would be rather hard to regulate a currency and money without a central governement to watch over it.

Oh, and if you read this and you know alot about anarcho-capitalism, forgive me if I sound dumb. I mean, I get the basic jist of it, but I haven't read THAT much about it.

"Anarcho-capitalism" is a contradiction in terms: read (http://www.capitalism.org/faq/anarchism.htm).

That would be probably one of the very rare time in which I agree with somone so opposite to me on the compass ;)

Anarchism is about the absence of any hierarchy, capitalism intrinsequely creates hierarchies and cannot exist without hierarchies.

"Anarcho-capitalism" is a contradiction in terms: read (http://www.capitalism.org/faq/anarchism.htm).

While I personally do believe capatalism and the state are linked, that article gives a totally stupid view of anarchism.

Anarchy wants a stateless world, nothing less, nothing more.

I agree with most of what you said, but not on that. Anarchy is not just about a "stateless world". Anarchy is about a world without hierarchy and oppression, it doesn't only oppose the states, it also opposes other forms of power, like the corporate power, both inside corporations and when corporations impose their will to people.

I do agree wtih you about anarcho-capitalism. if there is no state, who is there to regulate the value of currency? Whos to say you just can't print billions of dollars of your own liking?

I guess private banks could all print their money, and then each corporation and individual will decide to accept money from one bank or another, and at which value. Printing yourself the money of a bank would be probably treated like making a false contract, because money is, after all, just a transferable debt recognition of a bank (historically, a 10$ bill is the Federal Reserve recognizing it has a debt of the equivalent of 10$ in gold to you, it changed since the dollar is no longer backed by gold, but it's stil a debt recognition from the Federal Reserve to you).

Would be a pratical nightmare if there were many banks, so probably only a couple of them will be recognised. But well, anyway, in pure capitalism, a few big corporations will very quickly lock out most markets. And probably ally themselves afterwards, sharing the market between them, instead of competing ;)

I have a lot of sympathy for anarchists. But I think they're dreamers. While communism requires "only" a fair proportion of people to behave nicely, anarchism, with its lack of any kind of authority, can be easily spoiled and abused by a very tiny group.

Any hierarchical model of political organization can be more "easily spoiled and abused by a very tiny group" than an egalitarian one. That's a basic aspect of any hierarchy - the elevation of a small group to a position of power, and thus to the capability of abuse.

Any hierarchical model of political organization can be more "easily spoiled and abused by a very tiny group" than an egalitarian one. That's a basic aspect of any hierarchy - the elevation of a small group to a position of power, and thus to the capability of abuse.

Ah... but that has to be a particular small group, while anarchism can be spoilt by pretty much anyone.

Me and my mates messing about in the liberal democratic system will not ruin it for everybody. The leaders can do it if they misbehave, yes, but only the leaders really.

Anarchism, because it is so egalitarian, can be spoilt by a far wider range of people.

And anarchism relies too much on perfection really. In all forms. Anarcho-capatalism (which I dont regard as anarchism really) would be open to easy abuse by large companies, while as anarcho-communism relies on everyone co-operating and not trying to take power. Other forms will have similar problems.

A power vacuum means someone will try to fill it.

Anarchy can't exist with humans...or even most of life. There is always some form of society. Without society, most life would die off. IF the governments of the world dissolved themselves, we'd just start over...first small tribes and then grow into civilizations...Also, anarchy brings complete chaos. Without regulation and enforcement, what is to stop me from hijacking a radio frequency and broadcasting nonsense over a good station.

A power vacuum means someone will try to fill it.

There is no "power vacuum." People are not sheep; they do not and have never needed shepherds, and are perfectly capable of ruling themselves.

A minority attempting to attain power over everyone else would be stopped, hopefully (we cannot be sure, not in any system), by the people and not by the people's rulers.

Any hierarchical model of political organization can be more "easily spoiled and abused by a very tiny group" than an egalitarian one. That's a basic aspect of any hierarchy - the elevation of a small group to a position of power, and thus to the capability of abuse.

Well, that's why I argue for a very democratic hierarchy, in which decisions are taken directly by the people as much as possible, and in which power delegation is always tightly controlled (revocable mandates, ...). So if the "top" begin to abuse/spoil, they get kicked very quickly. In anarchy, as I see it, it's very easy for any group to abuse/spoil, not only to the top ones - and the majority can't do much.

I do agree with an egalitarian system, in its core. But that doesn't mean a system without laws, courts, elections, and probably even a "governement" and "police" force even if they would be very different from the ones of the current world.

"What's So Bad About Anarchy?"

Uh ... the strong make the rules and the weak have no recourse? Ya think?

No courts, no police, no trial by jury, no habeus corpus, etc., etc., etc. :rolleyes:

Anarchism isn't a state of lawless confusion. Think of it as Libertarian Socialism instead - that's a fairly accurate summation of anarchy.

Who decides who to slap & how hard? Everyone does. In our representative democracies, people - through their representatives - decide who to slap & how hard. In an anarchy, the representatives are done away with. That's the difference in a nutshell.

How can anyone ever decide to do anything in an anarchy? First of all, the only reason a representative democracy can work - at least in the multi-party incarnations - is because the representatives accept the basic prequisite; compromising.
If they didn't, nothing would ever happen in a democracy where no 1 party controls the majority of voters. Outside USA, such government constallations are extremely rare, yet the US democracy is arguably the most deficient on the planet.

Secondly, governing in an anarchy is accomplished by distributing decision-making. There is no reason why an entire population should be involved in the running of a school, for example. A generalised education plan is decided by the population, and the implimentation of it is then put in the hands of parents, educators & presumably some sort of advisors from the business sector - note that an anarchy doesn't have a private & public sector.

As I'm not inclined to write a book, try having a look at the Anarchy FAQ (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/)

It maximizes the negatives of every economic system because the lack of a regulatory framework to protect business, consumers, and markets from distortion, abuse, and anticompetitive practices leads to severe environmental and economic damage along with income inequality.

Also, it creates an environment in which the strong prey upon the weak and it compromises things that require an advanced social/government structure to support, like research, basic education, philosophy, the sciences, and virtually anything not directly related to personal survival and advancement.

The lack of law and enforcement of it virtually destroys any ability to advance beyond a fragmented system of local strongmen imposing their will by force, and prevents society from advancing economically, socially, politically, and culturally. The early Dark Ages were pretty much anarchy in action if you think about it.

With no government, it would be only a matter years before the world was brought under the domination of a tyrant. Chaos will have it victims, people will end up hungry, and some would take advantage. Someone would rise up to lead the people, someone with their own designs. If there is no government someone will make a new one.

"What's So Bad About Anarchy?"

Uh ... the strong make the rules and the weak have no recourse? Ya think?

No courts, no police, no trial by jury, no habeus corpus, etc., etc., etc. :rolleyes:The main point of anarchy is to abolish the state, because such a thing rules by force, instead of consent. If anything, the usual liberal propaganda you regurgitated applies to Democracy, not anarchy.

With no government, it would be only a matter years before the world was brought under the domination of a tyrant. Chaos will have it victims, people will end up hungry, and some would take advantage. Someone would rise up to lead the people, someone with their own designs. If there is no government someone will make a new one.
Exactly. Politics abhors a vacume.

There is no "power vacuum." People are not sheep; they do not and have never needed shepherds, and are perfectly capable of ruling themselves.

I agree on that.

A minority attempting to attain power over everyone else would be stopped, hopefully (we cannot be sure, not in any system), by the people and not by the people's rulers.

But how ? The local population acts by itself to aprehend by force (if needed, but it may be) the small group and to manage to neutralize it ? But how do you decide what is "allowed" and what is not ? If there is no legal framework in which people know before acting what they risk, it's the opendoor to arbitrarian decisions.

We also need to take some decisions on "global" levels (because it affects everyone, like rules on pollution) and some other on much more "local" levels. What has to be decided where needs also to be clear: we need a kind of "Constitution".

So well, if we have a "Constitution", a legal framework, institutions to handle it ("courts") it's not really anarchy, according to me.

I agree with most of what you said, but not on that. Anarchy is not just about a "stateless world". Anarchy is about a world without hierarchy and oppression, it doesn't only oppose the states, it also opposes other forms of power, like the corporate power, both inside corporations and when corporations impose their will to people.

Well, yeah, this is true, but usually when you eradicate the state, you also eradicate all of the above.

But yeah, the point of anarchism is, indeed, to eradicate those things as well.

So well, if we have a "Constitution", a legal framework, institutions to handle it ("courts") it's not really anarchy, according to me.

Sure it is. Again, the question is hierarchy. You can have organization, convention, rules, frameworks, etc. as long as they are established in a participatory democratic manner and not in top-down statism, and as long as they respect freedom of consent and association.

Anarchy can't exist with humans...or even most of life. There is always some form of society. Without society, most life would die off. IF the governments of the world dissolved themselves, we'd just start over...first small tribes and then grow into civilizations...Also, anarchy brings complete chaos. Without regulation and enforcement, what is to stop me from hijacking a radio frequency and broadcasting nonsense over a good station.

I am afraid you are confusing anarchy with lawlessness, rulelessness, and utter chaos, mr fortune teller predict-the-future-of-the-world.

What's to stop you from hijacking a perfectly good radio station? The common people, thats what, or I should say, who.

Sure it is. Again, the question is hierarchy. You can have organization, convention, rules, frameworks, etc. as long as they are established in a participatory democratic manner and not in top-down statism, and as long as they respect freedom of consent and association.

Well, they can't respect freedom of consent for everyone - even if someone doesn't consent to not spreading toxic elements in the lake, we have to prevent him from doing it ;)

Else, I understand what you mean. There is still one point in which hierarchy is unavoidable for me: emergency situations. In a team of firefighters fighting against a fire, there needs to be a chief, and the others need to obey. They don't have the time to expose arguments and decide together, and they need cohesion in their acts. It extends to all things that must be done quickly, like reacting to natural disaster, ... in those, we need hierarchy. But of course, the "chief" can be fired by his subalterns after the crisis ;)

Anarchy is the inherently unstable lack of any governing system, and completely unnatural. however, an autocracy can self-regulate, provided that the people retain the strength and will to rectify abuses of the current leadership..
of course, the idealised democracy is much the same thing, but without the pitchforks and torches.

It's rather unfortunate the media has so willingly & consistently perpetuated the fabrications of the socialists & liberals, since the 1900s.

I've not seen a single objection to anarchism in this thread, that actually has some sort of relevance to the anarchic ideology.

It's pathetic to see a 4 page thread full of people arguing against something they quite obviously don't have the slightest understanding of. Even Orthodox Christians arguing against their imagined evolutionism makes more sense - they at least have a rudimentary idea of what natural selection is.

Well, they can't respect freedom of consent for everyone - even if someone doesn't consent to not spreading toxic elements in the lake, we have to prevent him from doing it ;)

In which case that person would not be respecting the freedom of consent of those living near the lake, and thus would indeed need to be stopped.

There is still one point in which hierarchy is unavoidable for me: emergency situations. In a team of firefighters fighting against a fire, there needs to be a chief, and the others need to obey. They don't have the time to expose arguments and decide together, and they need cohesion in their acts. It extends to all things that must be done quickly, like reacting to natural disaster, ... in those, we need hierarchy. But of course, the "chief" can be fired by his subalterns after the crisis ;)

Of course. That would be a definite exception; when top-down structures are absolutely necessary, they should be retained, but only within the framework of a democratic egalitarian society.

In which case that person would not be respecting the freedom of consent of those living near the lake, and thus would indeed need to be stopped.

Of course. That would be a definite exception; when top-down structures are absolutely necessary, they should be retained, but only within the framework of a democratic egalitarian society.

Well, I would say we mostly agree :) But that's what I call "communism" (or "true communism" to make sure people don't mistake it for the stalin-like dictators).

I've not seen a single objection to anarchism in this thread, that actually has some sort of relevance to the anarchic ideology.

What about Kilobugya's point about the need for centralized authority for global issues like environmental protection? That's been a hard one for me for a long time, still don't have a good answer.

If you really love anarchy so much, go to friggin' Somalia. There, you'll see what life is like with no written laws, no government, etc. Government by law is replaced by "government by whichever gang is the best armed."

Somalia is a case of too many governments, not too few.

"What's So Bad About Anarchy?"

Uh ... the strong make the rules and the weak have no recourse? Ya think?

No courts, no police, no trial by jury, no habeus corpus, etc., etc., etc. :rolleyes:

You seem to be confusing the state of having no rulers with one of having no rules.

There is no "power vacuum." People are not sheep; they do not and have never needed shepherds, and are perfectly capable of ruling themselves.

If only that were true. Some people (I would argue many people) do want to be ruled. They will follow demagogues etc. They will be herded like sheep.

True, not all are, but for anarchism to work, all would have to reject the leadership and power of a few, and that will never happen.

What about Kilobugya's point about the need for centralized authority for global issues like environmental protection? That's been a hard one for me for a long time, still don't have a good answer.S/He posted that while I was writing the bit you quoted :p

I'm not sure it's such a big problem. I see some great problems with size, cultural diversity & anarchism, but not with the basic principles of governing.

Let's say a company wishes to act in a manner detrimental to other people - percieved or otherwise. As soon as awareness is raised, the company not only has to deal with a public that has the power to dismantle the company on the spot, it also has to deal with other companies (presumably) it relies on, for things like power, machinery & raw materials. Thirdly, it has to deal with any internal disputes that may arise when workers find out they're earning a living on destroying things for others.

Unlike in a capitalist society, the workers aren't simply a resource, they're co-owners, and directly responsible for business practices.

If only that were true. Some people (I would argue many people) do want to be ruled. They will follow demagogues etc. They will be herded like sheep.

Then they will have that right. Since they ceded their freedom voluntarily, no principle is violated.

True, not all are, but for anarchism to work, all would have to reject the leadership and power of a few, and that will never happen.Not true. Everyone needn't be members of political parties for a representative democracy to work either.

People are free to participate - or refuse to participate - in an anarchy. If they wish to rally behind someone, all they have to do is voice their agreement. It's not radically different from what voters do today.

Not true. Everyone needn't be members of political parties for a representative democracy to work either.

People are free to participate - or refuse to participate - in an anarchy. If they wish to rally behind someone, all they have to do is voice their agreement. It's not radically different from what voters do today.


But whats to stop that group of people enforcing the will of their leader on others? Nothing substantial. Nothing that could really stop them. Everyone is not going to turn on them and prevent it. Those uninvolved, just as today, will ignore it, until it lands on their doorstep, and it is too late.

Let's say a company wishes to act in a manner detrimental to other people - percieved or otherwise. As soon as awareness is raised, the company not only has to deal with a public that has the power to dismantle the company on the spot, it also has to deal with other companies (presumably) it relies on, for things like power, machinery & raw materials. Thirdly, it has to deal with any internal disputes that may arise when workers find out they're earning a living on destroying things for others.

Unlike in a capitalist society, the workers aren't simply a resource, they're co-owners, and directly responsible for business practices.

"Company" is a bad example, because we're not discussing a capitalist system. In an anarchist society the public would have the capability to keep such entities in check, if they would exist at all.

I was thinking more along the lines of a region abolishing environmental protections to, say, stimulate economic growth. It hurts everyone, but it might help them (but not everyone else) more than it hurts them.

But whats to stop that group of people enforcing the will of their leader on others? Nothing substantial. Nothing that could really stop them. Everyone is not going to turn on them and prevent it. Those uninvolved, just as today, will ignore it, until it lands on their doorstep, and it is too late.What's to stop that from happening under any form of of government? Even the murderous despots get toppled on a regular basis.

"Company" is a bad example, because we're not discussing a capitalist system. In an anarchist society the public would have the capability to keep such entities in check, if they would exist at all.Very true. But seeing as all of 3 people in this thread seems to have just a basic understanding of what an anarchy is, I thought it prudent to stick to familiar words.

I was thinking more along the lines of a region abolishing environmental protections to, say, stimulate economic growth. It hurts everyone, but it might help them (but not everyone else) more than it hurts them.There's no simple solution. The 'global council' thing proposed earlier wouldn't prevent such an occurance in a world anarchy. The community in question could simply leave the council & go against it's decisions. An anarchy has a lot of the same failings as a democracy.

What might be done to prevent it, is global solidarity. If a society is stricken to the point it'll go against the agendas of it's neighbours, helping out will remove the incentive.
- at least in the situation you use as example.

There is still one point in which hierarchy is unavoidable for me: emergency situations. In a team of firefighters fighting against a fire, there needs to be a chief, and the others need to obey. They don't have the time to expose arguments and decide together, and they need cohesion in their acts. It extends to all things that must be done quickly, like reacting to natural disaster, ... in those, we need hierarchy. But of course, the "chief" can be fired by his subalterns after the crisis ;)

Refer to the movie 'Gangs of New York' for anarchic firefighting situations.

What's to stop that from happening under any form of of government? Even the murderous despots get toppled on a regular basis.

Yes, very true, but there are at least structures in place which stand some sort of chance at opposing such an attempt. Of course they dont always work, but I have yet come across any system in an anarchist framework which even has a chance.

And in the case of a political structure where there are states and government systems the above doesnt actually fundamentally change the system. It still remains a government and a state system. In an anarchist system, the anarchist system is destroyed and replaced with a government system.

There is no "power vacuum." People are not sheep; they do not and have never needed shepherds, and are perfectly capable of ruling themselves.

They may be perfectly capable, but I believe history shows that most of the time they would prefer not to. Not every single leader throughout history attained their position through force and intimidation.

Also, how exactly do you create a lawful society without a heirarchy? Wouldn't law have to be enforced by judges? Could you just ignore the ruling of a judge in an anarchy? Or could you just 'get your own judge' and do what you want anyway? Those judges would have to be chosen somehow... or would every single crime be treated by a mob mentality? A lynching at every tree?

Yes, very true, but there are at least structures in place which stand some sort of chance at opposing such an attempt. Of course they dont always work, but I have yet come across any system in an anarchist framework which even has a chance.I don't think I understand what you mean. Are you saying a state's ability to use military might against its citizens is a good thing? - If so, I wholeheartedly disagree.

And in the case of a political structure where there are states and government systems the above doesnt actually fundamentally change the system. It still remains a government and a state system. In an anarchist system, the anarchist system is destroyed and replaced with a government system.Let's say America suddenly becomes an anarchy tomorrow. The result would be the abolishment of the state, and a massive redistribution of property.
Let's say America suddenly decided to become a theocracy tomorrow. The result would be the re-establishment of pretty much all aspects of the state apparatus, and a massive redistribution of wealth.
... Etc ad nauseam.

Any sudden change in government form results in massive change. I fail to see how this applies specifically or especially to anarchy. As I've already said, anarchy have a lot of the same failings as democracy. It isn't some magic solution to every possible problem or conflict, it's simply a method for maintaining a functioning society & economy.

I understand that anarchists get a bad name: a lot of the James Bond villians are anarchists, there is the 'Anarchists Cookbook' which seems to have been written by more of a maniac than an anarchist and the term 'anarchist' is generally used to describe big, ignorant skinheads that want to abolish the law so that they can beat up as many people as they want.

This, however, is a misunderstanding, in my understanding. Anarchism is a rather caring, pacifistic political idea. Most anarchists are peaceful people who want to abolish the law and money to stop evils of the word like inheritance murder and drug-dealing. There are no motives for crime in an anarchist society. Take this situation, which actually happened once in my village: A man lets off his greyhound so that it can kill his neighbour's cat. Now, because there are no laws against the killing of cats this man cannot be lawfully punished but in anarchism he gets what he deserves.

So, what do you have against anarchy? After all, the majority of NationStates users voted for 'freedom' over 'peace'.

The only problem I have with anarchy is the belief that people without government would be propelled to create government.

I think that, if a government were formed with an innate tendency to annihilate itself, the pressure of people's desire to maintain a government would keep government at a minimal equilibrium. However, how does one form a government that has that tendency?

It is for these reasons I only support anarcho-capitalism (with tinges of syndicalism) on an ideological, utopian level. Realistically, I remain a minarchist libertarian. Though many of the posters in this thread are utterly ignorant of even the most basic ideas behind anarchism. They should read a book on it.

For a book, I would recommend "Chomsky On Anarchism." As an anarchist, even I found it very enlightening, and it's got something for anyone interested in the subject...

Let's say America suddenly becomes an anarchy tomorrow. The result would be the abolishment of the state, and a massive redistribution of property...

Hold it right there! Okay, why would there be a sudden massive redistribution of property in an anarchist government? Who would enforce it if there is no heirarchy? How do you 'make' everyone split of their property, if not by force allocated by the state, or worse yet, a mob?

I don't think I understand what you mean. Are you saying a state's ability to use military might against its citizens is a good thing? - If so, I wholeheartedly disagree.

I wasnt making a value judgement at all. I didnt say it was good or bad, just that there are plausible ways for it to prevent its overthrow. Personally I think the use of military might against civilians is wrong, and the removal of the democratic system to be also, but that has no effect on what I was saying.


Let's say America suddenly becomes an anarchy tomorrow. The result would be the abolishment of the state, and a massive redistribution of property.
Let's say America suddenly decided to become a theocracy tomorrow. The result would be the re-establishment of pretty much all aspects of the state apparatus, and a massive redistribution of wealth.
... Etc ad nauseam.

Any sudden change in government form results in massive change. I fail to see how this applies specifically or especially to anarchy.

Ach... difficult to explain what I mean. I can say that you havent actually addressed what I mean, but then my previous post probably didnt explain it well either.


it's simply a method for maintaining a functioning society & economy.

Well, I would argue, that though all very admirable (in some of its forms) it wouldnt function. Main problem I have with it. I just think it wont work.

The state = coercive force

Anarchy is simply the absence of coercive force. Or rather, a society within which no one is involuntarily subjected to coercive force.

Ideologically, I support anarcho-capitalism. If you remove the state, people will organise into mutually beneficial arrangements, but they'll do so voluntarily.

There's no need for the government to regulate currency. Various currencies will have floating values relative to each other, and you'd probably end up with something like a gold standard where people maintained their savings in some easily convertable form.

If you want the absence of all hierarchy, then you're talking about something resembling Marxist communism. You need a different word for it - anarchy doesn't describe it.

Ideologically, I support anarcho-capitalism. If you remove the state, people will organise into mutually beneficial arrangements, but they'll do so voluntarily.


Do you know this?

While I agree most people will probably want to get along with their neighbours etc, those that dont care will find it quite easy to muck it all up for everyone.

Hold it right there! Okay, why would there be a sudden massive redistribution of property in an anarchist government? Who would enforce it if there is no heirarchy? How do you 'make' everyone split of their property, if not by force allocated by the state, or worse yet, a mob?The example I addressed talked about the problems connected to abolishing a full-fledged anarchy & replacing it with something else.
In my example, I replaced a full-fledged corporatist democracy with an anarchy.

If you don't understand the process of governing in an anarchy, I suggest you read the FAQ I likned to earlier, or visit your library.I wasnt making a value judgement at all. I didnt say it was good or bad, just that there are plausible ways for it to prevent its overthrow. Personally I think the use of military might against civilians is wrong, and the removal of the democratic system to be also, but that has no effect on what I was saying.Sorry. I got the impression you were saying "But an anarchy can't defend itself against itself" as if it was a bad thing :p Ach... difficult to explain what I mean. I can say that you havent actually addressed what I mean, but then my previous post probably didnt explain it well either.Hmm.. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand you then. Please explain.Well, I would argue, that though all very admirable (in some of its forms) it wouldnt function. Main problem I have with it. I just think it wont work.I think it will eventually work, but I absolutely don't think it'd work presently. Any large scale attempt at an anarchy would immediately be destroyed by either europe, America or both.

If you really love anarchy so much, go to friggin' Somalia. There, you'll see what life is like with no written laws, no government, etc. Government by law is replaced by "government by whichever gang is the best armed."

Well, it might not be so bad if I show up with better guns and better trained men. :D

Do you know this?

While I agree most people will probably want to get along with their neighbours etc, those that dont care will find it quite easy to muck it all up for everyone.

Because those most people will defend each other through mutually beneficial agreements.

Will this reduce society to a series of armed camps? Maybe, but is that a bad thing?

The example I addressed talked about the problems connected to abolishing a full-fledged anarchy & replacing it with something else.
In my example, I replaced a full-fledged corporatist democracy with an anarchy.

If you don't understand the process of governing in an anarchy, I suggest you read the FAQ I likned to earlier, or visit your library.

Listen, if you're not willing to back up your politcal views in your own words, then what are you doing in a political forum?

I've already established that I understand the idea of Anarchy as a form of government. Criticizing it shouldn't result in a rebuke worthy of a hardcore Christian telling you to 'go read a bible.'

Will this reduce society to a series of armed camps? Maybe, but is that a bad thing?

Erm... if it does, yes.

That is exactly one of the stereotypes of anarchy. That it would result in what are essentially "gangs". And 99% of the population would say that, yes that is bad.

Hold it right there! Okay, why would there be a sudden massive redistribution of property in an anarchist government? Who would enforce it if there is no heirarchy? How do you 'make' everyone split of their property, if not by force allocated by the state, or worse yet, a mob?

Without a positive system of legal claims, the current distribution of property would be totally unmaintainable. Most property is tied to the owner by the government, and an elimination of government would make up a splitting up of property inevitable.

I've already established that I understand the idea of Anarchy as a form of government. Criticizing it shouldn't result in a rebuke worthy of a hardcore Christian telling you to 'go read a bible.'I wasn't trying to offend you, but your post didn't reflect any understanding of the subject, thus I suggested you get to know the topic, before commenting further.

I suppose I could have tried to explain how an anarechy works, but I'd rather not have you rely on my personal interpretation for reference - for a number of reasons.

It's not posible. Humans need to live in groups and have a leader. It' how we evovled. IF you broke up every government in the world today in about 10 years there would be thousands of mini governments. Also every period humans have lived through anarchy it's been total chaos and war.

It's not posible. Humans need to live in groups and have a leader. It' how we evovled. IF you broke up every government in the world today in about 10 years there would be thousands of mini governments. Also every period humans have lived through anarchy it's been total chaos and war.

Groups and organization is necessary, leadership is not.

I understand that anarchists get a bad name: a lot of the James Bond villians are anarchists, there is the 'Anarchists Cookbook' which seems to have been written by more of a maniac than an anarchist and the term 'anarchist' is generally used to describe big, ignorant skinheads that want to abolish the law so that they can beat up as many people as they want.

This, however, is a misunderstanding, in my understanding. Anarchism is a rather caring, pacifistic political idea. Most anarchists are peaceful people who want to abolish the law and money to stop evils of the word like inheritance murder and drug-dealing. There are no motives for crime in an anarchist society. Take this situation, which actually happened once in my village: A man lets off his greyhound so that it can kill his neighbour's cat. Now, because there are no laws against the killing of cats this man cannot be lawfully punished but in anarchism he gets what he deserves.

So, what do you have against anarchy? After all, the majority of NationStates users voted for 'freedom' over 'peace'.

*Eyes start to twitch* What.... Is so "bad" about anarchy? There is NO LAWS! Kill anybody you fucking' want, man! It is a state of perpetual civil war! People dying all around you! Situation:

Some kid accidentally steps on my toe. I take a gun and blow his fucking brains out! Did he get what he deserved? No. But he's still dead. Situation:

Just for the fucking fun of it, I go and rape a bunch of girls and then kill them. Did they "get what they deserved"? No. But it can happen under anarchy and I get away scot-frickity-free! That's what's bad about an-freakin'-stupid-freakin'-archy!

The crazy people that want to blow things up and call themselves anarchists are what's bad about it. Other than that it's the same as any other political idea really. It has it's good points and it's bad points.


If it has politics then its can't be anarchy. Anarchy is an impossiblity its in human nature to have some sort of leader, it will always happen, one person will ALWAYS rise above others and lead. Don't believe me? Think about your group of friends, isn't there someone who always seems to take charge? Or think about the people you work with, is there anyone who seems to lead his fellow coworkers? More then likely you know what I'm talking about and have seen this for yourself.

Now anarchy is defined as: Absence of any form of political authority. And an absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.(That was in 4 different dictionaries)

If someone is leading you, which will always happen you can't deny that, then it's no longer anarchy.

If you really love anarchy so much, go to friggin' Somalia. There, you'll see what life is like with no written laws, no government, etc. Government by law is replaced by "government by whichever gang is the best armed."

That's not anarchy, that is just lawlessness. Those "gangs" have leaders. Those leaders have rules. Those rules can be considered the laws of the group. Now the country may not have laws, but the "gangs" do. Also those "gangs" have a common purpose, they want to obtain power. Thus they are NOT anarchies.

Anarchy can not happen, because there will ALWAYS be an underlying purpose, and there will ALWAYS be a leader.

If it has politics then its can't be anarchy. Anarchy is an impossiblity its in human nature to have some sort of leader, it will always happen, one person will ALWAYS rise above others and lead. Don't believe me? Think about your group of friends, isn't there someone who always seems to take charge? Or think about the people you work with, is there anyone who seems to lead his fellow coworkers? More then likely you know what I'm talking about and have seen this for yourself.

Now anarchy is defined as: Absence of any form of political authority. And an absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.(That was in 4 different dictionaries)

If someone is leading you, which will always happen you can't deny that, then it's no longer anarchy.



That's not anarchy, that is just lawlessness. Those "gangs" have leaders. Those leaders have rules. Those rules can be considered the laws of the group. Now the country may not have laws, but the "gangs" do. Also those "gangs" have a common purpose, they want to obtain power. Thus they are NOT anarchies.

Anarchy can not happen, because there will ALWAYS be an underlying purpose, and there will ALWAYS be a leader.

Agreed...
Anarchy isn't new, man has been trying to think of ways to live without leaders for years. Even some christain groups tried it, and all attempts have been failures. Every communist has been plagued by dictaters and the reason is simple

With no middle class to oppose, with no other parties to oppose, with no alternatives to that system, and with government controlling everything, its just a matter of time before an authortarian takes over

I wasn't trying to offend you, but your post didn't reflect any understanding of the subject, thus I suggested you get to know the topic, before commenting further.

I suppose I could have tried to explain how an anarechy works, but I'd rather not have you rely on my personal interpretation for reference - for a number of reasons.

Fair enough, although I thought I had shown some level of understanding in earlier posts...

At any rate, let me rephrase the original question then; How exactly does society transition into an anarchist form of government without a heirarchy to make it happen? One would need leaders to facilitate the change, unless somehow you got the vast majority of society to agree without anyone taking the reins.

I understand that anarchists get a bad name: a lot of the James Bond villians are anarchists, there is the 'Anarchists Cookbook' which seems to have been written by more of a maniac than an anarchist and the term 'anarchist' is generally used to describe big, ignorant skinheads that want to abolish the law so that they can beat up as many people as they want.

This, however, is a misunderstanding, in my understanding. Anarchism is a rather caring, pacifistic political idea. Most anarchists are peaceful people who want to abolish the law and money to stop evils of the word like inheritance murder and drug-dealing. There are no motives for crime in an anarchist society. Take this situation, which actually happened once in my village: A man lets off his greyhound so that it can kill his neighbour's cat. Now, because there are no laws against the killing of cats this man cannot be lawfully punished but in anarchism he gets what he deserves.

So, what do you have against anarchy? After all, the majority of NationStates users voted for 'freedom' over 'peace'.

And for every peaceful, caring anarchist who "just wants to be free from the man" there are about a thousand people who, absent the rule of law, will be looting stores and murdering their neighbors' loudmouth kids, pointy-haired bosses, and mothers-in-law in practically no time. Then the injured parties kill or maim the original bad guys back, and on and on and on. Vigilante justice and rampant crime. That's anarchy, for the brief period it exists, until it is inevitably followed by warlord, strongarm rule.

They may be perfectly capable, but I believe history shows that most of the time they would prefer not to. Not every single leader throughout history attained their position through force and intimidation.

Nor did every autocrat. But how many people living today in democracies would accept a return to autocracy?

Also, how exactly do you create a lawful society without a heirarchy? Wouldn't law have to be enforced by judges? Could you just ignore the ruling of a judge in an anarchy? Or could you just 'get your own judge' and do what you want anyway? Those judges would have to be chosen somehow... or would every single crime be treated by a mob mentality? A lynching at every tree?

You would have juries, and yes, their decisions would be binding. Law enforcement would be community-based and under direct democratic control, rather than the weapon of the state apparatus.

The notion that elitist systems of government are somehow more noble than the so-called "mob mentality" is rather laughable. The "rule of law" only applies to state power when the population forces it to apply; it is not something nobly accepted by our benevolent overlords. It is the result of increased democracy in governance, not of its lack.

If it has politics then its can't be anarchy.

you've clearly never attended an anarchist meeting

Now anarchy is defined as: Absence of any form of political authority. And an absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.(That was in 4 different dictionaries)

and when exactly did basic dictionaries become good on complex topics such as political theories and the like?

the rule of law

what does this phrase mean that you think it applies to state systems but not non-state ones?

Nor did every autocrat. But how many people living today in democracies would accept a return to autocracy?



You would have juries, and yes, their decisions would be binding. Law enforcement would be community-based and under direct democratic control, rather than the weapon of the state apparatus.

The notion that elitist systems of government are somehow more noble than the so-called "mob mentality" is rather laughable. The "rule of law" only applies to state power when the population forces it to apply; it is not something nobly accepted by our benevolent overlords. It is the result of increased democracy in governance, not of its lack.

I'm certainly not dismissing democracy. I'm first and formost a democrat (not a Democrat, as I'm not American). But this is my point; we elect leaders to take charge, because most people can't be bothered with the day to day administration of keeping the 'cogs in the wheel greased.'

I also don't share your dismal view of the state and our 'overlords'. Surely, there is corruption in the system, and a refinement of democracy to make things more accountable to the people is in order, but surely anarchy would lead to corruption by groups of people instead, such as Clan feuding. How do you define the reach of a 'community?' in an anarchist state? How long is the arm of the law? How do you protect the rights of an individual in such an establishment?

You would have juries, and yes, their decisions would be binding.
But wouldn't those decisions only be binding if the person accepted their authority? If he did not, he'd have to be removed from the society in some manner. The enforcement of this removal would, by necessity, grant some people more power than others. Unless you assume that corruption for some reason magically stops happening, I fail to see how any such anarchic system does not eventually devolve into a strong-arm situation.

Now anarchy is defined as: Absence of any form of political authority. And an absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.(That was in 4 different dictionaries)

In all fairness, there's a difference between philosophical anarchism and the common useage of the word 'anarchy' in the english language. (And to all the diehard anarchists, it was used to refer to lawlessness long before it was espoused as a political theory...)

The word anarchist originated as a term of abuse. At the Putney Debates (1647) during the English Civil War, Thomas Rainsborough remarked "I know that some particular men we debate with believe we are for anarchy" after Oliver Cromwell had said "No man says that you have a mind to anarchy, but that the consequence of this rule tends to anarchy, must end in anarchy"[1]. The term was later used against working class radicals and sans-culottes during and following the French Revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Fair enough, although I thought I had shown some level of understanding in earlier posts...Yes well.. Seeing some of the posts in this thread, I hope you'll forgive the occational lack of patience on my part.At any rate, let me rephrase the original question then; How exactly does society transition into an anarchist form of government without a heirarchy to make it happen? One would need leaders to facilitate the change, unless somehow you got the vast majority of society to agree without anyone taking the reins.If that was your original question, then my response was based entirely on a misunderstanding. I thought you objected to the idea that a redistribution of wealth would take place during a transition from or to anarchy. Sorry about that.

It is a good question, but unfortunately I think you've answered it yourself. I don't see how a society could progress into an anarchy without it being a slow process based on popular demand.
Obviously anarchy can't be adopted based on the demands of authority. At least, it is inconcievable to me how such a thing could work. I'd assume it would end up in chaos & civil war.

This, again, is a property I think is common to both democracy & anarchy, and it is why I never believed our invasion of Iraq would accomplish any significant progress. Both methods of governing are based entirely on the consent of the population. After all, how can one base a participatory social structure on an absense of participation?

Of course, I also think this is why we currently have no major anarchies around the world. No one feels inclined to give it a try - and given the current state of affairs, I don't either. I have no doubt that any attempt at establishing an anarchy would lead to both devastating economic sanctions & a swift invasion by some sorty of coalition of NATO countries.

At least, such responses have been the order of the day since the beginning of the last century, and I see no reason to suspect this has changed. I'm sure that if Norway decided to adapt an anarchic governing form, it would be subjected to massive sanctions & eventually an invasion by the EU nations and America.

But give it time. I think our history is a good indication that we will adopt anarchy eventually.

<snipped redundant bit>

But wouldn't those decisions only be binding if the person accepted their authority? If he did not, he'd have to be removed from the society in some manner. The enforcement of this removal would, by necessity, grant some people more power than others. Unless you assume that corruption for some reason magically stops happening, I fail to see how any such anarchic system does not eventually devolve into a strong-arm situation.

Why would it grant anyone more power than anyone else? Perhaps more power than the criminal, yes, but only insofar as to prevent him from assuming a position of power over others.

I'm certainly not dismissing democracy. I'm first and formost a democrat (not a Democrat, as I'm not American). But this is my point; we elect leaders to take charge, because most people can't be bothered with the day to day administration of keeping the 'cogs in the wheel greased.'

A different point altogether.

What you would do is to the degree that it is necessary, have administrators and managers. Unlike in a hierarchical system, however, the grass-roots democratic political institutions would be free to accept or reject their advice as they see fit.

I also don't share your dismal view of the state and our 'overlords'. Surely, there is corruption in the system,

If our leaders were incorruptible saints I still would support getting rid of them. We have the right to rule ourselves.

and a refinement of democracy to make things more accountable to the people is in order, but surely anarchy would lead to corruption by groups of people instead, such as Clan feuding.

Well, no system is perfect. You would probably have certain kinds of "tyranny of the majority" in an anarchist system; that is inevitable in any kind of democratic model, and unfortunately the only way to prevent it seems to be replacing it with a tyranny of the minority, which is only worse.

How do you define the reach of a 'community?' in an anarchist state?

You would try to put decisions in the hands of those affected by them most.

How long is the arm of the law?

Not sure what you mean by this.

How do you protect the rights of an individual in such an establishment?

The individual would be far freer in a society free from the tyranny of hierarchy than in a society based upon elite rule - at least, in a sense of "freedom" independent of the freedom of overlord to oppress those subordinate to him.

Individuals would be permitted to do as they please, as long as all participants are consenting.

The biggest problem with the Anarchistic and Communistic political theories is that they both depend on the vast majority of the people "keeping the faith" as it were, both to the point of not buying an up and coming leaders bullshit, to not being corrupt. There are people out there who love to do things that no civilized person will let them do, and all it takes is for enough of them to get together, and get enough weapons. Then the last hope of the Anarchist system is for the people to organize and stand against them. In all likelyhood, most people would submit rather than be killed.

The biggest problem with the Anarchistic and Communistic political theories is that they both depend on the vast majority of the people "keeping the faith" as it were, both to the point of not buying an up and coming leaders bullshit, to not being corrupt.But people already do. The thing is, people don't realise this is equally true for democracies, because they're brought up to think it's the only possible form of governing.

It's so ingraned in most of us that we never realise our governments would collapse if we didn't support them. I don't see why it should be a bigger problem for an anarchy than a democracy. In fact, I consider this a strength.There are people out there who love to do things that no civilized person will let them do, and all it takes is for enough of them to get together, and get enough weapons. Then the last hope of the Anarchist system is for the people to organize and stand against them. In all likelyhood, most people would submit rather than be killed.My biggest problem with criticisms of anarchy, is that 90% of all such criticisms apply equally to virtually all other methods of governing, especially democratic forms. This post is a very good example of that.

Try applying your critique to your present society & see how you've managed to solve the problem. If you live in a democracy, the solution will likely be almost directly applicable to an anarchy.

Why would it grant anyone more power than anyone else? Perhaps more power than the criminal, yes, but only insofar as to prevent him from assuming a position of power over others.
Unless everybody has the same amount of power as the enforcer, the enforcer has more power.

If everybody has the same amount of power as the enforcer to begin with, then the disaffected party can use that power just as ably to take down the enforcer.

If the strength of the enforcer relies upon the numbers, then you're back in the gang situation, where those most willing to use their power upon others are those who take control. Those who are unwilling or afraid become fodder and sheep and you wind up with a hierarchical system once more.

The only way anarchy thus manages to work better than democracy is either the society is assumed to be homogenous or if it is assumed that humanity is much better and stronger than it is now at standing up to intimidation and oppression.

Democracy, with a defined power structure that can be occasionally changed, serves to limit the power of intimidation. Why? Because leadership and power is an incentive. It is what we provide to certain people on a limited basis to try to ensure that they care about what the general populace thinks.

If the cops start roughing you up, you complain to the police chief. If he doesn't listen, you complain to the city administration. If they don't listen, you complain to the press and then the people change the administration. The administration, if it wishes to maintain it's power and privilege, must work to smooth the ideas of the people, which means the police chief comes in danger of losing his position of power and authority, which means the enforcers get into trouble. However, often you don't need to go all the way to the community because that possibility exists in the first place, so the police chief handles it. (Or to be more accurate, internal affairs gets wind, etc.)

In an anarchy, if the enforcers start roughing you up, you complain directly to the press, and hope that enough people care enough (and haven't been intimidated themselves) to ensure the same group of enforcers isn't put in that position next time, and that the enforcers choose not to use whatever power advantage they have to maintain their position. You have no higher authority to appeal to. If it's a relatively small issue, most people won't care, and you always have at least one interest group (those doing the oppressing) that care very much. Application of power wins out over apathy.

(Which is, I suggest, why we aren't in an anarchial system today -- we were at some point after all, but it apparantly collapsed to oppression. What's changed that would prevent that from happening again?)

Unless everybody has the same amount of power as the enforcer, the enforcer has more power. If you're really interested, I'd suggest you try reading this (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI5.html#seci58). It's unfortunately rather long, but this is a pretty complicated topic.

- I know it's bad form to refer you to some random website, but I really, really can't be arsed to write a 10 page essey on it right now.

The problem with anarchism is that it's a naive and idealistic principle that relies on everyone being cooperative and nice to each other in order to work. You might not have anarchists who are skinheads looking to beat people up or drug dealers, but the skinheads and drug dealers will always be around still.

Anarchism is the penultimate in laissez-faire, and whenever you let human beings do whatever they want without restriction, shit happens. History is full of evidence.

I have to ask: what the hell do you lot have against Skinheads?!

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/lobby/3475/htch.jpg (http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/lobby/3475/index2.html)

I have to ask: what the hell do you lot have against Skinheads?!

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/lobby/3475/htch.jpg (http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/lobby/3475/index2.html)

I don't personally. Skinheads are in the same predicament as Muslims really. You have a few really warped freaks make the news for vicious shit, and the community as a whole gets painted with the same brush. Like the bomb-strapped Jihadist, the Neo-Nazi Skinhead has become a popular iconic media boogieman.

I don't personally. Skinheads are in the same predicament as Muslims really. You have a few really warped freaks make the news for vicious shit, and the community as a whole gets painted with the same brush. Like the bomb-strapped Jihadist, the Neo-Nazi Skinhead has become a popular iconic media boogieman.It just... It bothers me, because it's such a pathetic stereotype, and it really doesn't have much to do with reality at all. Nazi boneheads are thankfully a rare breed.

It started out as a multicultural working class thing, and despite BNP, psychotic yankees & the media, it still is. Skins come in all colours, from all countries. A racist Skinhead is a two-legged oxymoron.

I have to ask: what the hell do you lot have against Skinheads?!

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/lobby/3475/htch.jpg (http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/lobby/3475/index2.html)

Wot? You work on the docks?

Perfect Anarchism is, in my opinion, the best political system ever. The problem is that no-one in this world is perfect and there will be someone somewhere who will abuse the lack of laws

Wot? You work on the docks?Used to, actually. Long time ago though.

I understand that anarchists get a bad name: a lot of the James Bond villians are anarchists, there is the 'Anarchists Cookbook' which seems to have been written by more of a maniac than an anarchist and the term 'anarchist' is generally used to describe big, ignorant skinheads that want to abolish the law so that they can beat up as many people as they want.

This, however, is a misunderstanding, in my understanding. Anarchism is a rather caring, pacifistic political idea. Most anarchists are peaceful people who want to abolish the law and money to stop evils of the word like inheritance murder and drug-dealing. There are no motives for crime in an anarchist society. Take this situation, which actually happened once in my village: A man lets off his greyhound so that it can kill his neighbour's cat. Now, because there are no laws against the killing of cats this man cannot be lawfully punished but in anarchism he gets what he deserves.

So, what do you have against anarchy? After all, the majority of NationStates users voted for 'freedom' over 'peace'.

Anarchism is a country without a govenment. A ear for a ear may seem good, but think about it:

John Smith slips on leaf on Garry Johnson's drive. Emily Smith thinks it was on purpose. Emily hits John on the Head with a bottle. Emily accidently kills John. John's brothers attack the other family. Families take side. A civil war every week.

Plus, an Anarchist govenment (I know that doesn't make sense, but I don't know how to describe it) dosen't have a military, which means the country is up for grabs, as the country won't be in the UN or any another Union. The country will spilt up. People who are ruthless get on top. An Anarchist country wouldn't last 2 months.

Yes well.. Seeing some of the posts in this thread, I hope you'll forgive the occational lack of patience on my part.Sorry about that.

No worries. :) I took offence a little too easy there. THe way I phrased that question seemed like I was attacking you more than anything.

It is a good question, but unfortunately I think you've answered it yourself. I don't see how a society could progress into an anarchy without it being a slow process based on popular demand.
Obviously anarchy can't be adopted based on the demands of authority. At least, it is inconcievable to me how such a thing could work. I'd assume it would end up in chaos & civil war.

Precisely what I was trying to get at originally. Anarchy is supposed to be about voluntary comittment and removal of authoritarian and coercive structures, but the moment society goes to redistribute property, society is becoming coercive. There will be plenty of people who aren't going to want to give up what they have worked/fought for/inherited.

This, again, is a property I think is common to both democracy & anarchy, and it is why I never believed our invasion of Iraq would accomplish any significant progress. Both methods of governing are based entirely on the consent of the population. After all, how can one base a participatory social structure on an absense of participation?

Not to defend the invasion of Iraq, but there is a lot to say about bringing democracy there. I'm sure few people are happy about the invasion, but I'm also sure the majority of people who went out to vote were happy to do so. But you're right, creating democracy in foreign lands at the barrel of a gun is like threatening an obese person to eat healthier and exercise or you'll club them over the head.

Of course, I also think this is why we currently have no major anarchies around the world. No one feels inclined to give it a try - and given the current state of affairs, I don't either. I have no doubt that any attempt at establishing an anarchy would lead to both devastating economic sanctions & a swift invasion by some sorty of coalition of NATO countries.

Even assuming that a majority of people would want to create an anarchist society (without significant resistance within their own borders after all), states would suppress it to keep down anarchist leanings in their own countries.

At least, such responses have been the order of the day since the beginning of the last century, and I see no reason to suspect this has changed. I'm sure that if Norway decided to adapt an anarchic governing form, it would be subjected to massive sanctions & eventually an invasion by the EU nations and America.

More of the same. Although I imagine changing to a anarcho-communist model would offend anyone who had investments in Norway, plus would remove Norway from the global economic model by elimination of currency.

But give it time. I think our history is a good indication that we will adopt anarchy eventually.

I doubt it, and I certainly hope not. I'll be long dead by then. (Unless my immortality serum is perfected in time.)

Not sure what you mean by this.

The individual would be far freer in a society free from the tyranny of hierarchy than in a society based upon elite rule - at least, in a sense of "freedom" independent of the freedom of overlord to oppress those subordinate to him.

Individuals would be permitted to do as they please, as long as all participants are consenting.

This is what I mean; 'What defines the community?'

Say for example, the United States transforms itself into an anarchist nation, while Canada and Mexico retain their current systems. Is the entirety of the United States considered 'the community', or is it only so many people within a certain jurisdiction?

Let's say that in one city in the southern states (apologies to southerners, not trying to generalize), a black family lives in a predominately caucasian neighbourhood. What defines the limits of a community's power and authority? Do mulitple 'communities' overlap each other, and if so, who takes precedence when a dispute erupts between the two communities? The one with the most votes? If a black person commits a crime in the area, and in this hypothetical city, the white community wants to see him hang for his crime, but the black community doesn't, how do you prevent sectarian infighting without the 'coercian' of higher levels of authority?

Now I realize that these are problems that emerge in our current democracies as well, but if you take a look at the history of the southern states in America, you would find that black people had a large helping hand from the federal government, who might have found it harder if they simply had to rely on the whim's of the local populace.

Most importantly, if 'Individuals would be permitted to do as they please, as long as all participants are consenting', how do you get every single person to consent, at all times?

I'll save the economics side of things for later...

Unless everybody has the same amount of power as the enforcer, the enforcer has more power.

If everybody has the same amount of power as the enforcer to begin with, then the disaffected party can use that power just as ably to take down the enforcer.

If the strength of the enforcer relies upon the numbers, then you're back in the gang situation, where those most willing to use their power upon others are those who take control. Those who are unwilling or afraid become fodder and sheep and you wind up with a hierarchical system once more.

The only way anarchy thus manages to work better than democracy is either the society is assumed to be homogenous or if it is assumed that humanity is much better and stronger than it is now at standing up to intimidation and oppression.

Democracy, with a defined power structure that can be occasionally changed, serves to limit the power of intimidation. Why? Because leadership and power is an incentive. It is what we provide to certain people on a limited basis to try to ensure that they care about what the general populace thinks.

If the cops start roughing you up, you complain to the police chief. If he doesn't listen, you complain to the city administration. If they don't listen, you complain to the press and then the people change the administration. The administration, if it wishes to maintain it's power and privilege, must work to smooth the ideas of the people, which means the police chief comes in danger of losing his position of power and authority, which means the enforcers get into trouble. However, often you don't need to go all the way to the community because that possibility exists in the first place, so the police chief handles it. (Or to be more accurate, internal affairs gets wind, etc.)

In an anarchy, if the enforcers start roughing you up, you complain directly to the press, and hope that enough people care enough (and haven't been intimidated themselves) to ensure the same group of enforcers isn't put in that position next time, and that the enforcers choose not to use whatever power advantage they have to maintain their position. You have no higher authority to appeal to. If it's a relatively small issue, most people won't care, and you always have at least one interest group (those doing the oppressing) that care very much. Application of power wins out over apathy.

(Which is, I suggest, why we aren't in an anarchial system today -- we were at some point after all, but it apparantly collapsed to oppression. What's changed that would prevent that from happening again?)

Well Stated! :)

If you're really interested, I'd suggest you try reading this (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI5.html#seci58). It's unfortunately rather long, but this is a pretty complicated topic.

Well, while I can agree with some of the idea, many anarcho-capatalists wouldnt of course.

Unless everybody has the same amount of power as the enforcer, the enforcer has more power.

If everybody has the same amount of power as the enforcer to begin with, then the disaffected party can use that power just as ably to take down the enforcer.

If the strength of the enforcer relies upon the numbers, then you're back in the gang situation, where those most willing to use their power upon others are those who take control. Those who are unwilling or afraid become fodder and sheep and you wind up with a hierarchical system once more.

The only way anarchy thus manages to work better than democracy is either the society is assumed to be homogenous or if it is assumed that humanity is much better and stronger than it is now at standing up to intimidation and oppression.

Democracy, with a defined power structure that can be occasionally changed, serves to limit the power of intimidation. Why? Because leadership and power is an incentive. It is what we provide to certain people on a limited basis to try to ensure that they care about what the general populace thinks.

If the cops start roughing you up, you complain to the police chief. If he doesn't listen, you complain to the city administration. If they don't listen, you complain to the press and then the people change the administration. The administration, if it wishes to maintain it's power and privilege, must work to smooth the ideas of the people, which means the police chief comes in danger of losing his position of power and authority, which means the enforcers get into trouble. However, often you don't need to go all the way to the community because that possibility exists in the first place, so the police chief handles it. (Or to be more accurate, internal affairs gets wind, etc.)

In an anarchy, if the enforcers start roughing you up, you complain directly to the press, and hope that enough people care enough (and haven't been intimidated themselves) to ensure the same group of enforcers isn't put in that position next time, and that the enforcers choose not to use whatever power advantage they have to maintain their position. You have no higher authority to appeal to. If it's a relatively small issue, most people won't care, and you always have at least one interest group (those doing the oppressing) that care very much. Application of power wins out over apathy.

(Which is, I suggest, why we aren't in an anarchial system today -- we were at some point after all, but it apparantly collapsed to oppression. What's changed that would prevent that from happening again?)

Your whole argument makes the assumption that there is no system of political organization - that the only relevant power is the power of the mob. This is not the case.

What is the case is that, ultimately, all democratic political systems depend on the capability of the people to act in some way to safeguard the democracy - otherwise, those in power could merely cancel elections, or they could be overthrown by a powerful minority. In an anarchist system these problems are reduced - the population already takes an active role in governance, and the lack of a hierarchical system means that the assasination of a few people won't cripple the system.

This is what I mean; 'What defines the community?'

Say for example, the United States transforms itself into an anarchist nation, while Canada and Mexico retain their current systems. Is the entirety of the United States considered 'the community', or is it only so many people within a certain jurisdiction?

Why would you need to define communities at all? You try to put decisions in the hands of those affected by them.

Let's say that in one city in the southern states (apologies to southerners, not trying to generalize), a black family lives in a predominately caucasian neighbourhood. What defines the limits of a community's power and authority? Do mulitple 'communities' overlap each other, and if so, who takes precedence when a dispute erupts between the two communities? The one with the most votes? If a black person commits a crime in the area, and in this hypothetical city, the white community wants to see him hang for his crime, but the black community doesn't, how do you prevent sectarian infighting without the 'coercian' of higher levels of authority?

See the Anarchist FAQ section on crime (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci58).

Now I realize that these are problems that emerge in our current democracies as well, but if you take a look at the history of the southern states in America, you would find that black people had a large helping hand from the federal government, who might have found it harder if they simply had to rely on the whim's of the local populace.

Considering that the oppression of Blacks was enforced by the state in the first place and that the liberation of Blacks was mostly the result of their own efforts, with the state responding only as it was forced to, your argument here is flawed.

Though I will grant that some enforcement mechanisms would probably prove necessary to protect civil rights; boycotts and other sorts of "non-violent direct action" might serve.

Most importantly, if 'Individuals would be permitted to do as they please, as long as all participants are consenting', how do you get every single person to consent, at all times?

You don't. If a choice must be made and no option has unanimous support, the majority rules.

Why would you need to define communities at all? You try to put decisions in the hands of those affected by them.

People already define their communities, often by racial or ethnic groups. A sudden transformation into an anarchic society isn't going to change a biological instinct. Anarchists keep refering to the First Nations peoples as examples of working Anarchy, but the Hedonosaunee, Inuit, Blackfoot and Toltec didn't live in large urban metropolises alongside japanese, egyptians and englishman.

So if you 'try to put decisions in the hands of those affected by them', it means you leave the bullies in charge of the bulllied. After all, it only concerns the groups involved.[/QUOTE]

See the Anarchist FAQ section on crime (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci58).

First of all, this section doesn't even begin to answer my question about minority persecution. All it states, is that crime would be virtually eliminated because the reasons for crime would disapear (which we're supposed to take on blind faith...). It doesn't answer the problems of mass migration, racial prejudice, or what happens when famine occurs and order somehow has to be maintained.

Let's take France for example. Here's a society that had racially inspired riots not too long ago. This is largely due to segregation and lack of employment opportunities amongst young ethnic males.

Without some higher authority telling businesses to start hiring these people, you end up with a powder keg. In an anarchic situation, people are free to make up their own rules, and there definitely isn't any coercion from a higher authority to 'force them' to share. Supposedly, all of France would be redistributed so that everyone has a fair share. So what happens when people start spilling over the borders because things are bad in Spain? Anarchism would simply reinforce tribalism.

Considering that the oppression of Blacks was enforced by the state in the first place and that the liberation of Blacks was mostly the result of their own efforts, with the state responding only as it was forced to, your argument here is flawed.

Though I will grant that some enforcement mechanisms would probably prove necessary to protect civil rights; boycotts and other sorts of "non-violent direct action" might serve.

No.

You're forgetting about this little thing called the Emancipation Proclamation. I'm not trying to belittle the great efforts of people in bondage or being treated as second class citizens. But you're forgetting the effect of Federal authority over State authority.

You don't. If a choice must be made and no option has unanimous support, the majority rules.

Well then, we're not talking about Anarchy anymore, we're talking about good old-fashioned tyranical Athenian democracy, because the majority is coercing the minority.

I understand that anarchists get a bad name: a lot of the James Bond villians are anarchists, there is the 'Anarchists Cookbook' which seems to have been written by more of a maniac than an anarchist and the term 'anarchist' is generally used to describe big, ignorant skinheads that want to abolish the law so that they can beat up as many people as they want.

This, however, is a misunderstanding, in my understanding. Anarchism is a rather caring, pacifistic political idea. Most anarchists are peaceful people who want to abolish the law and money to stop evils of the word like inheritance murder and drug-dealing. There are no motives for crime in an anarchist society. Take this situation, which actually happened once in my village: A man lets off his greyhound so that it can kill his neighbour's cat. Now, because there are no laws against the killing of cats this man cannot be lawfully punished but in anarchism he gets what he deserves.

So, what do you have against anarchy? After all, the majority of NationStates users voted for 'freedom' over 'peace'.


Ok, think about this for a moment. I would be able to gank a fully loaded F-16 and blow the shit out of anything I wanted with no consequences what so ever. Now, while I would not do this in a anarchistic enviroment, anyone would have the ability to do so, or would end up killing themselves trying. (LAWNDART!!!) Seriously though, you just gave everyone a free ticket to loot, pillage, and rape anyone and everyone they want. Think of how New Orlines was right after the hurricane, that was anarachy. Look how well it worked out! I am all for freedom, just so long as you don't step on other people's toes while doing so.

Your whole argument makes the assumption that there is no system of political organization - that the only relevant power is the power of the mob. This is not the case.

What is the case is that, ultimately, all democratic political systems depend on the capability of the people to act in some way to safeguard the democracy.

Of course they do. However an anarchial system relies on the entire community being active -- something that is just not going to happen, sorry. There's a reason we're not all agrarian homesteaders, and that is specialization. Anarchy requires all people must attempt to understand all aspects of every issue, else the issues become dominated purely by special interest groups, which may have little or no understanding of the whole situation.

Hiearchical structures require only a very few people be given that understanding (we call them politicians), and they attempt to address the demands of the competing interest groups in the way that best benefits the community. So while they're busy working on their particular understandings, reading the relevant reports, figuring out what other information they need, etc., we're all free to go about our business and for the most part not care.


I refer you to my last point from the previous message:

Which is, I suggest, why we aren't in an anarchial system today -- we were at some point after all, but it apparantly collapsed to oppression. What's changed that would prevent that from happening again?

What the 'Anarchists' are talking about is actually true democratic-communism. Which is no classes, everyone votes on everything. Neither would work.

In a true 'democracy' you would have to force everyone to vote on every issue. Not everyone would want to vote all the time. So you would need some one to force them to vote. However, to force anyone to do anything, you have to have an enforcer. This enforcer must have more powers than the comman man. So, when it eventually evolves into a authoritarian police state, becuase eventually, the 'enforcers' will abuse their powers, and then there classes et cetera.

For a comunistic community to work, everyone would have to pitch in in everything. However, not everyone would want to pitch in and do everything. So again, you need a class (which is a contradiction; communism doesn't have classes) of enforcers. Which would again evolve into an authoritarian police state.