NationStates Jolt Archive

This is from a larger work that specifically states that anyone is allowed to copy it and is ecouraged to do so. It is titled "Consent or Coercion" and can be readily found using a Google search.:

Answers to frequently asked questions:

Q: How will people deal with crime, resolve disputes, reach agreements and set standards if the government and laws are abolished?

A: The main purpose of governments and laws are to keep most of us under control so that we can be efficiently milked, like a herd of cows. With the exception of a small proportion of anti-social people, most of us are able to avoid harming others and resolve our disputes without resorting to the authorities. The legal system we have now puts the full force of the state behind the party that manages to win its favor. Many disputes are already resolved through arbitration and mediation, outside of the courts and the legal system. The laws are written and enforced in such a way that the poor are always held accountable for petty crimes such as writing bad checks to pay for groceries, while the authorities can literally get away with murder.

If allowed to, people will always act to protect themselves from violent criminals. This is an involuntary reflex, like raising your hand to deflect a blow. People may decide to form special, recallable groups who are firmly under community control to perform that task as the need arises, or they may choose to do it on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. But the police, courts and government we currently have are only accountable to the people in the most roundabout way, and they have clearly become a threat to our freedom. They are literally out of control. Self perpetuating elites have appointed themselves to perform our civic duties in our behalf. The amount of crime should drop sharply as soon as productive activity becomes less difficult and oppressive, and people begin to have a sense of belonging to a social unit. To protect the rights of unpopular individuals who are guilty of no real crime, it would be necessary for the community to agree that only acts that cause actual harm to others are subject to the justice of the community. Each community can debate the issue of "actual harm" for itself, and people can relocate according to their preference. People would need to work out a fair and open procedure for resolving disputes and for treating predatory individuals. There is the danger of a community oppressing its members, who would lack recourse to existing laws designed to protect them. We would hope that communities would incorporate respect for the rights of individuals into their processes; we do not expect this important value to mysteriously vanish from social consciousness. On the contrary, personal freedom should actually be respected even more than it presently is if we are successful in spreading our ideas more widely. It is hard to imagine an autonomous community expending the same level of resources on coercion that current governments do. There is an unavoidable tension between the good of the community and individual rights, but anarchists do not feel that one must be sacrificed to increase the other.

If written contracts prevented fraud, we would not have "fine print" or a legal profession. In a free society it is of the utmost importance that people show real compassion and fairness in their dealings with others, or else it won't last very long. Living together in peaceful cooperation is a powerful form of protest against government and police.

Concerning technical standards, these are best agreed upon by the people who do the work and who use the products involved, instead of being decided by corporate officers or government bureaucrats. Many standards are already set by professional associations. If you've ever tried to repair an automobile or link computers you understand how necessary, and how lacking, industry-wide standards are. If a product lacks a trusted "seal of approval" from consumer organizations, consumers can avoid it. Educated consumers can influence what is produced and how it is produced if they act together in large numbers.

Q: How will we defend ourselves from invasion by foreign governments without a government?

A: We could have a truly volunteer and community controlled military, concerned strictly with defending our liberty and not with imposing our will on people in foreign countries. If volunteers want to participate in foreign wars, that would be up to them. We would soon find the world a less dangerous place when other societies no longer fear being attacked by our government and when we stop exporting arms for profit. The absence of government does not mean the absence of organization. It means the absence of coercion.

Q: The situations in places like Lebanon, Somalia, and the former Yugoslavia have often been referred to as "anarchy". Is this accurate?

A: No, these are examples of competing elites struggling against one another for power. The result is chaos. Anarchy is the absence of a controlling elite. A government is the strongest gang of aggressors in a particular area at a particular time. Civil war is what happens when the dominant group is challenged. Anarchy has been a rare occurrence in recent history, since there is usually an elite willing to impose itself whenever it sees the opportunity. Emiliano Zapata, one of the major figures in the Mexican Revolution of 1911-1918, was influenced by anarchist ideas, especially those of the brothers Ricardo and Enrique Flores Magon. He temporarily liberated large parts of Mexico with his army of indian peasants. Following the Russian Revolution of 1917, a mostly peasant, anarchist army led by Nestor Makhno temporarily liberated various parts of what is now Ukraine in battles against several different armies; White, Red, Nationalist and foreign. Korean anarchists established an autonomous zone in Shimin province in northern Manchuria between 1929 and 1931, but were crushed by the Japanese army and Chinese/Russian Communists. During the Spanish Civil War and Revolution of 1936, anarchists liberated areas of Aragon, Catalonia and other parts of Spain. They entered into an uneasy, anti-Nationalist alliance with the Republican government, but were pressured and then forced to abandon their gains. They were then persecuted by both Republicans and Nationalists.

Q: Are people really so good that they can live without government?

A: Are people really so good that they can be trusted to direct a government? Governments have killed far more people than all the criminals, bandit gangs and mass murderers in history, who look like hobbyists in comparison. Anarchists consider governments to be a very powerful form of organized crime. Some governments are worse than others, of course, but they all have the potential for committing atrocities.

Q: Don't anarchists advocate the violent overthrow of the existing authorities?

A: Some anarchists do advocate this, in the hope that people will spontaneously organize themselves once the power of the elite has been broken. However, the contradiction between revolutionary social change and the anarchist ideal of voluntary social relations has always been troubling to some anarchists. In the absence of unanimous opposition to the elite, revolutions always involve coercion against the supporters and sympathizers of the elite, which may be a large proportion of a society. The most coercion is required when a minority attempts to implement radical social change on an unconvinced public. Not only does the old regime need to be defeated without the support of the population, but the new elite must also impose its program on society. The least coercion is required when a revolution is the result of demands made by large sectors of the general public. If the old elite resists, after a brief skirmish it can be pushed aside. Even the government's own troops cannot be relied upon to suppress a popular revolution, since the soldiers themselves come from the same public. Revolutionary violence occurs when demands for change are ignored or suppressed. But many elites are crafty enough to make concessions which split the public and weaken people's resolve. Demands for change within the structure of the existing system lead to compromise and ultimately to broader political support for the system. Demands that the state reform itself in a fundamental way are hopeless, because the very nature of the state is to forever expand its power and its autonomy from its subjects.

Revolutionary anarchists argue that violence against tyranny is a duty and that coercion in the name of a better world is justified. They argue that it is very unlikely that many people, if given the choice, would choose to remain slaves. But after the emancipation of the slaves in the U.S. and of the peasants in Russia, many did just that, and instead of fleeing their masters, remained employed on the same estates. This is why some anarchists prefer a strategy of working to transform society gradually, through education and self organization, so that people will be less and less dependent on employers and the government, and more and more able to organize themselves in non-coercive ways. This point of view sees the current social system continuing mainly due to the absence of practical alternatives and to the comfort of inertia. Most of us are compelled to sell our labor to capitalist employers since workers' and consumers' cooperatives aren't widely established. Likewise, if people hear someone breaking into a neighbor's house, they call the police, since there are no neighborhood based organizations to deal with crime. With an evolutionary strategy, "the new society is built within the shell of the old," which makes for a slow, but smooth, transition. The revolutionary strategy, which promises quicker results, would leave a dangerous vacuum during the period immediately following the revolution, when most revolutions are defeated or else lapse back into a modified version of the old system. Unless a large majority of the population actively supports anarchism, coercion will likely be necessary to abolish the old social order, since people would not yet be convinced that this is desirable. The political struggle, convincing people of the need for change in an anarchist direction, must be won before the old order can be successfully abolished.

Revolutionaries will argue that any significant gradual efforts will be violently suppressed. Perhaps, but if the gradual efforts involve no violence or coercion, it would be politically risky for the government to suppress them. They would have to crack down on people's liberties to such an extent that they would be illustrating to the public exactly the point we are trying to make. We risk less by trying persuasion, including our ideals. There are also practical reasons to avoid the use of violence (with the possible exception of self-defense). The party that resorts to violence first is almost always blamed by the public for causing the conflict. A violent attack on the government would give it another excuse to justify its own existence, the excuse it would need to eliminate us. Armed struggle encourages the formation of a conspiratorial directing elite, which may not be controlled by its supporters (as Fidel Castro said recently, "Revolutionaries do not resign"). Successful armed struggle relies on the use of treachery and violence, and these strategies may carry over even after the original enemy is defeated. And victory does not go to the most worthy, but to the most powerful. Some anarchists simply believe that violence and coercion are morally wrong, and would not use these means, even if there were hope of achieving the desired end.

Historically, violent revolution has achieved modest results at a staggering cost in death and suffering. France, Mexico, the U.S., Russia, China and Cuba have all experienced "successful" revolutions, yet these societies are not substantially freer nor is the working class substantially better off than in Great Britain, Sweden or Canada. But, you may protest, these were not true social revolutions. Conceded. But true social revolutions require the conscious, enthusiastic support of the general public. This support can only be won on the political or educational front and not on the military front. Once there is popular support for anarchist ideas, the only force required will be to disband any government forces which refuse to disperse. You can't win the public's support militarily. You can only frighten people into passivity or rouse them to lash out in a confused, unorganized manner. The case for revolution directed by a vanguard group or party on behalf of the oppressed requires us to argue that the public has either been brainwashed, that they are too ignorant to understand their own self interest, or that they have been beaten into passivity. If any combination of these are true, what good will it do to use armed struggle on their behalf, if they do not consciously support social change? They will either fight against us or passively watch us die. Complex, voluntary, and cooperative social arrangements are unlikely to appear spontaneously. As the anarchists in Spain discovered during the social revolution and civil war there in the 1930's, you cannot direct society and not direct society at the same time. If people do not organize themselves, they will either flounder in chaos and be unable to resist the forces of reaction, or they will allow themselves to be led by politicians. Significant numbers of workers did organize themselves in Spain, but the working class as a whole was not able to achieve the level of self organization necessary for it to do away with the leadership of the revolutionary parties. There can be no revolutionary government that serves anarchist purposes or which can lead to anarchy. The only way to avoid the creation of a new elite is if the mass of society is consciously aware of what it is trying to accomplish.

As the anonymous authors of "You Can't Blow Up a Social Relationship" pointed out, "The total collapse of this society would provide no guarantee about what replaced it. Unless a majority of people had the ideas and organization sufficient for the creation of an alternative society, we would see the old world reassert itself because it is what people would be used to, what they believed in, what existed unchallenged in their own personalities."3 Alexander Berkman wrote, "As [people's] minds broaden and develop, as they advance to new ideas and lose faith in their former beliefs, institutions begin to change and are ultimately done away with. The people grow to understand that their former views were false, and that they were not truth, but prejudice and superstition.... The social revolution, therefore, is not an accident, not a sudden happening. There is nothing sudden about it, for ideas don't change suddenly. They grow slowly, gradually, like the plant or flower.... It develops to the point when considerable numbers of people have embraced the new ideas and are determined to put them into practice. When they attempt to do so and meet with opposition, then the slow, quiet, and peaceful social evolution becomes quick, militant, and violent. Evolution becomes revolution. Bear in mind, then, that evolution and revolution are not two separate and distinct things. Still less are they opposites as some people wrongly believe. Revolution is merely the boiling point of evolution. Because revolution is evolution at its boiling point you cannot "make" a real revolution any more than you can hasten the boiling of a tea kettle. It is the fire underneath that makes it boil: how quickly it will come to the boiling point will depend on how strong the fire is. The economic and political conditions of a country are the fire under the evolutionary pot. The worse the oppression, the greater the dissatisfaction of the people, the stronger the flame.... But pressure from above, though hastening revolution, may also cause its failure, because such a revolution is apt to break out before the evolutionary process has been sufficiently advanced. Coming prematurely, as it were, it will fizzle out in mere rebelling; that is, without clear, conscious aim and purpose."4 The recent riots in Los Angeles are an example of mere rebelling, without a conscious aim beyond venting anger and looting. The uprising in Chiapas, Mexico is an example of a much more developed, but still premature, rebellion. Both of these rebellions were quickly isolated and contained in the absence of widespread popular support. We must work to build the functioning parts of a new society, while maintaining a clear vision of our alternatives. We must not be co-opted by the State on the one hand, nor recklessly overestimate our support on the other. Through education, interaction, and example we can work to gradually rid humanity of statism, nationalism, deprivation, racism, sexism, violence, child and animal abuse, and all the other evils humanity is afflicted with. But we have to get our own act together if we expect people to take us seriously.

In the event that the existing order collapses on its own, people would be free to organize themselves into groups regardless of what the majority is doing. As long as a group is large enough to be economically viable and to defend its autonomy, even relatively small groups could set up new social relations. The issue of violence only arises because of the ruthless suppression of secessionist movements by the world's governments.

Q: What if some people really do prefer having a government?

A: As long as the relationships are strictly voluntary, and not enforced by poverty or force, it would be hard for anarchists to justify suppressing any voluntary association, just as it would be difficult to justify suppressing religions, superstitions or vices. Under what conditions is the use of force justified? Only in response to the prior use of force. But governments, by definition, are institutions of coercion and control, so only if a government supported itself through voluntary donations, or enforced its will by merely asking for compliance, could it conceivably function without coercion, in which case it would not really be a government at all.

"Panarchy" is the name for a society made up of a multitude of diverse but peacefully coexisting forms of social relations. The theory of panarchy is that people have different ideas and preferences about how to organize themselves. Instead of each group trying to achieve the power to impose its ideas and preferences on everyone, each group organizes itself and allows other groups to do likewise. One variant even has people sharing the same geographic space, with each individual acting according to his or her own conscience, in much the same way that different religions coexist in societies that allow some religious freedom. The difference would be the absence of a supreme authority setting rules that all must obey. Of course this would require everyone to respect the choices of others, and to refrain from using coercion or violence. Anarchists would do their thing, and those who wanted to continue to voluntarily submit to a particular type of government could do so. Why won't the statists allow us this same freedom today? Panarchy should appeal to everyone, because as it is now, no one really gets what they want. We all must live under a mish-mash of strictly enforced rules that come out of battles fought on the elite turf of the official political process. Panarchy is letting people "do their own thing".

Q: How do you propose to achieve anarchist social relations?

A: We argue that the proper course for the anarchist movement is to concentrate its efforts on two tasks: educating the public and organizing our own social relations here and now as much as possible. Our objective should not be to overthrow the existing social relations, because those social relations are not viewed as intolerable by most of the public. We need to inform people about our ideas and demonstrate to them that anarchist social relations can actually function. Gustav Landauer suggested that when people saw functioning villages based on voluntary cooperation, the public's envy would result in more and more villages being formed. These voluntary organizations will eventually render the old, coercive institutions useless, and they will be done away with or rendered powerless, like the monarchy and the Church have been in the past. By combining our efforts with other non-statists in a panarchist federation, we could greatly hasten the pace of non-coercive social change.

I agree with the forming villages part and setting an example. There is plenty of cheap farmland that could be bought in the U.S. If cults can sucessfully set up their own towns with little interference then anachists could too I suppose as long as they can force themselves to submit a town charter to the authorities that is.

I'd also like to see libertarians set up their own town too. I think that would be a very good idea.

anarchism is just plain stupidity, think of it, if we could exist without a government wouldnt we have already? human nature is to do whatever you can get away with, the police stop us from going nuts

seriously answer this, would you not go shoot some annoying guy just because it would be the wrong thing to do? nope

its already been tried an failed, I forget the tribe or whatever it was called that tried anarchism but I do remember reading that they killed each other like it was nothing, stole like they werent doing anything wrong and quite frankly raped, because they were simply stronger than the women

but with your army ideas, that would mean you need officers to lead the troops, thus creating government because the millitary would just take over, if you have no officers then the army might as well not exist because the enemy would roll right over you, the Soviet Union tried living without officers and the Germans kicked their ass until they put the officers back in charge

I've thought most of this out, it wouldnt work, Government is essential

Mostly (okay, completely), thats ill founded thinking. There are many anarchistic communities today and in the past. The only ones that I know of that failed, only did so because of pressure from the neighboring government. Most notably in my mind are the ongoing Zapatista communities in eastern Mexico.

The laws are written and enforced in such a way that the poor are always held accountable for petty crimes such as writing bad checks to pay for groceries
Depends where you live. In San Antonio so many bad checks are written that the authorities don't even really bother.

Here's a link to the full anarchist faq.

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/

Depends where you live. In San Antonio so many bad checks are written that the authorities don't even really bother.
It said "such as", not "the authorities specifically target people who write bad checks."

It said "such as", not "the authorities specifically target people who write bad checks."
Aye.

A: The main purpose of governments and laws are to keep most of us under control so that we can be efficiently milked, like a herd of cows. With the exception of a small proportion of anti-social people, most of us are able to avoid harming others and resolve our disputes without resorting to the authorities.


I'm only going to read this far, because these two sentences pretty much sum up my problem with the entire concept of anarchism. Law and government exist exactly because people are mindless stupid cows, and mindless cows need to be controlled lest they do bad things to me or others. Only a few days ago, I got to experience the joy of being stuck on the county public bus in the middle of a huge traffic jam. Said traffic jam (and attendent traffic accidents) resulted when the traffic control signals at several intersections quit operating due to a power outage. Without such control, drivers quickly reverted to what is essentially the law of the jungle: barely stop and then proceed through the intersection as quickly as possible without any regard for any other traffic, may the largest vehicle win. Self-interest, within the context of the proper social institutions, like government and civil society, can work wonders. Outside said institutions, it's going to get ugly very quickly. My fellow cows cannot even handle a four way stop, the most basic of traffic situations. And I'm supposed to trust these people in the complete absense of any law or government? Ummmm...no?

That said, I'm also in favor of keeping said social control, law, and government to the minimum necessary; enough to keep the stupid cow herd from killing me, but leaving the individual otherwise free to harm or help his or her self. See also: John Stuart Mill's "harm principle."

Minarchism I can buy and support. But anarchism? My own empirical observations suggest that it's not a good idea. Not until traffic continues flowing during a power outage, as if nothing has changed, will I ever even begin to think that such a thing is possible. I'm not holding my breath. :)

I'm only going to read this far, because these two sentences pretty much sum up my problem with the entire concept of anarchism. Law and government exist exactly because people are mindless stupid cows, and mindless cows need to be controlled lest they do bad things to me or others. Only a few days ago, I got to experience the joy of being stuck on the county public bus in the middle of a huge traffic jam. Said traffic jam (and attendent traffic accidents) resulted when the traffic control signals at several intersections quit operating due to a power outage. Without such control, drivers quickly reverted to what is essentially the law of the jungle: barely stop and then proceed through the intersection as quickly as possible without any regard for any other traffic, may the largest vehicle win. Self-interest, within the context of the proper social institutions, like government and civil society, can work wonders. Outside said institutions, it's going to get ugly very quickly. My fellow cows cannot even handle a four way stop, the most basic of traffic situations. And I'm supposed to trust these people in the complete absense of any law or government? Ummmm...no?
:)
Umm, no. Most people should not live in an anarchist society. However, those that wish to live in an acual said society would be. Also, the vast majority of said persons would not drive cars, so you're safe there.

However, those that wish to live in an acual said society would be.

They are free to try, if they wish. The rest of us will still be here when their utopian bliss doesn't pan out. It only takes one bad apple, after all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm)

Also, you cannot make an informed decision without being informed. (reading the whole post)

They are free to try, if they wish. The rest of us will still be here when their utopian bliss doesn't pan out. It only takes one bad apple, after all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm)
WOULD YOU FUCKING READ THE POST BEFORE MAKING SUCH UNINFORMED CONJECURES?! (see section on policing, specifically)

OK, so I lied. I did read more.


Q: Are people really so good that they can live without government?

A: Are people really so good that they can be trusted to direct a government? Governments have killed far more people than all the criminals, bandit gangs and mass murderers in history, who look like hobbyists in comparison. Anarchists consider governments to be a very powerful form of organized crime. Some governments are worse than others, of course, but they all have the potential for committing atrocities.


The answer presented to the given question is a classic example of the Artful Dodger (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm) at work. The question was not about the evils of government. The question was about whether human beings can survive without government. While it is obviously true that various governments through history have been responsible for great evil, it does not necessarily follow that all possible governments must then be evil. Nor does it necessarily follow that if "government possibly results in evil" then "no government will not result in evil." It is entirely possible that the situation of "no government" contains just as much potential for evil. It is also entirely possible that there exists a state of government that minimizes the likelihood of evil, even more so than any given "no government" situation.

In sum: not only does the answer fail to respond to the question posed, but the apparent claim that there is either "anarchy" or "evil" is a false dichotomy.

Also, you cannot make an informed decision without being informed. (reading the whole post)

One can when the rest of the post is based upon the premise posed in the two sentences that I responded to. One removes the foundation of the building, and gravity does the rest.

In sum: not only does the answer fail to respond to the question posed, but the apparent claim that there is either "anarchy" or "evil" is a false dichotomy.
"Anarchy" has been used falsely. (see coresponding question)
I believe that forcing people to do things against their will is evil, so in my opinion, government is inherently evil.

One can when the rest of the post is based upon the premise posed in the two sentences that I responded to. One removes the foundation of the building, and gravity does the rest.
The first two are, I admit, mostly based on belief. This said, you must take in the rest in order to argue well.

(see section on policing, specifically)

So do anarchists not necessarily oppose the existance of government or police, so long as we stop calling them "government" and "police" but "voluntary associations" instead? The position seems, then, to be less about abolishing government and more about abolishing government we don't like and replacing it with government that we do like. In which case, anarchists appear to be no different from anyone else, "statist" or otherwise.

So a group of neighbors decide to from a voluntary association aimed at keeping me from performing a given behavior. How does this association have anymore moral authority to act than any particular "police force?"

The problem with anarchy is that monopolies would eventually take control of whatever the government doesn't. Soon enough, entire cities (all the houses, businesses, transportation, etc.) would be owned by corporate warlords, who would battle other city-states with their private armies. (a cool thought, actually)

Government tyranny wouldn't go away. It would merely transform into corporate tyranny. And, you don't have a say in the workings of a company. At least the government guarantees some amount of democracy.

So do anarchists not necessarily oppose the existance of government or police, so long as we stop calling them "government" and "police" but "voluntary associations" instead? The position seems, then, to be less about abolishing government and more about abolishing government we don't like and replacing it with government that we do like. In which case, anarchists appear to be no different from anyone else, "statist" or otherwise.

So a group of neighbors decide to from a voluntary association aimed at keeping me from performing a given behavior. How does this association have anymore moral authority to act than any particular "police force?"
The only things that would be punished would be the violating of another's right to free choise.

The problem with anarchy is that monopolies would eventually take control of whatever the government doesn't. Soon enough, entire cities (all the houses, businesses, transportation, etc.) would be owned by corporate warlords, who would battle other city-states with their private armies. (a cool thought, actually)

Government tyranny wouldn't go away. It would merely transform into corporate tyranny. And, you don't have a say in the workings of a company. At least the government guarantees some amount of democracy.
Actually, large buisnesses would be essentially out of the question, as they are inherently highrarcal. Also, democracy is very limited in that only the majority get any say. If laws were only imposed on those who voted for them, giving the rest a say, it would not be an actual democracy, but an anarchism, as described already in this thread.

Actually, large buisnesses would be essentially out of the question, as they are inherently highrarcal.
Did your history textbook never cover the Guilded Age? The government tried to stay out of business' way; lo and behold, monopolies ended up more powerful than the government. Large businesses thrive under little to no government.

By the way, what would your solution to currency be? Gold standard? Simple bartering? Or would you print money?

I believe that forcing people to do things against their will is evil, so in my opinion, government is inherently evil.

What exactly constitutes "forcing people to do things against their will?" Some examples of "forcing people to do things against their will" are actually essential to the performance of good and justice.

For instance, I watched one of those "most amazing home videos!"-type shows recently that featured a police sharpshooter killing a robber who had taken a hostage in a convienence store. The robber had placed a gun to this woman's forehead and was threatening to kill her. The police sharpshooter waited until the robber, stupid as he was, removed the gun from the woman's forehead, and then proceeded to spray the robber's brains all over the back wall of the store. The woman was unharmed.

In this case, the government "forced" this man to die "against his will." But this use of coercive force was, of course, completely justified as the man constituted a threat to the continued liberty and safety of another innocent sovereign individual. In this case, the application of coercive force resulted in a greater good.

This is what, I believe, the anarchist does not understand: Yes, government is indeed capable of great evil. However, government is also capable of great good, and throwing out the entire tool because it could be misused is to ignore all the possible good and benefits that occur when it is not misused. I do not support banning drugs because some people cannot use them responsibly; I do not support banning guns because some people cannot use them properly; I do not support abolishing government because some people cannot use it properly.

Coercion has its legitimate applications and uses, and to conclude that all government must be evil because some government has been evil is to completely ignore all instance of use of government that has not been evil. Such is not reason, it is ideological and utopian folly.

(and yes, I suppose that a well-armed anarchist could have rescued a hostage just as easily, but this really isn't the point. The point is that coercive force is not necessarily always evil. And neither is government.)

The only things that would be punished would be the violating of another's right to free choise.

And how does this punishment occur if hierarchical (and necessarily coercive) authority is not permitted to exist?

I seriously doubt the viability of anarchy in real life. Your nation would just descend into chaos since people are greedy and would hop to the opportunity in order to gain something.

And then your bordering countries would probably just annex you.

Did your history textbook never cover the Guilded Age? The government tried to stay out of business' way; lo and behold, monopolies ended up more powerful than the government. Large businesses thrive under little to no government.

By the way, what would your solution to currency be? Gold standard? Simple bartering? Or would you print money?
Mosly barter, which in its self would destroy the prospect of companies. Other things include universal boycotts of said businesses and ejection from the terretory by the local volunteer army or by normal residents.

I seriously doubt the viability of anarchy in real life. Your nation would just descend into chaos since people are greedy and would hop to the opportunity in order to gain something.

And then your bordering countries would probably just annex you.
See modern Zapatista movement for proof of the viability.

You'll never get people who will take care of crime themselves. People make accusations over someone owning a weapon. Unworkable.

Other things include universal boycotts of said businesses and ejection from the terretory by the local volunteer army or by normal residents.

Nope, can't do that. That would be an assertion of coercive authority, forcing the individuals who make up said business into doing something against their will. I thought this was not allowed?

And how does this punishment occur if hierarchical (and necessarily coercive) authority is not permitted to exist?
The entire local community would decide before hand what constituted the violation of the right to choise and any that didnt agree would be free to leave and if they violated said decision that they agreed to, they would be banished or provided with counceling to correct this antisocial behavior if the person wished.

I was under the impression anarchists where anti-capitalism aka major corporations taking over the "country" wouldn't really be an issue

Mosly barter, which in its self would destroy the prospect of companies. Other things include universal boycotts of said businesses and ejection from the terretory by the local volunteer army or by normal residents.

If the company owned your house, your job, and whatever you use to get from one to the other, there's no way you're going to rebel. Where would you work? Who would service your car? Where are you going to live? The company would own the only thing that keeps you alive: your job. Besides, if the corporation has a well trained and well equipped private army, a rabble of angry consumers isn't going to do much good.

Barter? That would kill any chance of having an economy outside small farming villages. Why do you think the Native Americans never managed to get out of the Ancient Ages?

Nope, can't do that. That would be an assertion of coercive authority, forcing the individuals who make up said business into doing something against their will. I thought this was not allowed?
This would be seen as justified because of the protection of the rights of the people. Plus, the sole requirement for being allowed to live there would be to not use certain methods of behavior which would make said corporation not viable, reliving people of the nessesity to expel them for their anti-social behavior.

I was under the impression anarchists where anti-capitalism aka major corporations taking over the "country" wouldn't really be an issue

Anarchists are anti-capitalism? :confused:

Go home and sober up. :p

If the company owned your house, your job, and whatever you use to get from one to the other, there's no way you're going to rebel. Where would you work? Who would service your car? Where are you going to live? The company would own the only thing that keeps you alive: your job. Besides, if the corporation has a well trained and well equipped private army, a rabble of angry consumers isn't going to do much good.

Barter? That would kill any chance of having an economy outside small farming villages. Why do you think the Native Americans never managed to get out of the Ancient Ages?
Im tired of repeating the same damn things over and over, so I leave it to you, the opressed and unthinking.

The entire local community would decide before hand what constituted the violation of the right to choise and any that didnt agree would be free to leave and if they violated said decision that they agreed to, they would be banished or provided with counceling to correct this antisocial behavior if the person wished.

In other words, you'd establish a government. :eek:

Granted, a highly decentralized/democratic government, but, nonetheless, a group of people capable of exerting the threat of coercive force (banishment/re-education) necessary to make individuals comply with a given set of values or norms.

In other words, you'd establish a government. :eek:

Granted, a highly decentralized/democratic government, but, nonetheless, a group of people capable of exerting the threat of coercive force (banishment/re-education) necessary to make individuals comply with a given set of values or norms.
A.K.A. States' Rights

We tried that in America, under the Articles of Confederation. It lasted us roughly ten years.

This would be seen as justified because of the protection of the rights of the people.


Ah, we have just arrived at exactly the same justification that countless numbers have used in defense of the necessity and existance of government. So, in some cases it is OK to "force [people] to do things against [their] will."


Plus, the sole requirement for being allowed to live there...


So there is a border patrol/control, similar to what has been done by all states and governments throughout history.


...would be to not use certain methods of behavior which would make said corporation not viable, reliving people of the nessesity to expel them for their anti-social behavior.


Assuming we can count on people to always adhere to their agreements. Not a safe assumption, I believe.

Im tired of repeating the same damn things over and over, so I leave it to you, the opressed and unthinking.
I try to argue a point and you call me names...

I agree, you are "repeating the same things over and over" regardless of the sense we're trying to talk into you. We're posing questions, and you just hammer home points that you already failed to back up.

"Panarchy" is the name for a society made up of a multitude of diverse but peacefully coexisting forms of social relations. The theory of panarchy is that people have different ideas and preferences about how to organize themselves. Instead of each group trying to achieve the power to impose its ideas and preferences on everyone, each group organizes itself and allows other groups to do likewise. One variant even has people sharing the same geographic space, with each individual acting according to his or her own conscience, in much the same way that different religions coexist in societies that allow some religious freedom. The difference would be the absence of a supreme authority setting rules that all must obey. Of course this would require everyone to respect the choices of others, and to refrain from using coercion or violence. Anarchists would do their thing, and those who wanted to continue to voluntarily submit to a particular type of government could do so.


And what happens when different interests inevitably clash over conflicting values/resources/physical space/etc? When some choose to not respect the choices of others? When some choose to not refrain from using coercion or violence? (edit: Answer: each group will move to establish authority over a given territory, with the power to impose its ideas and preferences on all inhabitants thereof. Behold, I bring you tidings of great joy: the state is born.)

Granted, a highly decentralized/democratic government, but, nonetheless, a group of people capable of exerting the threat of coercive force (banishment/re-education) necessary to make individuals comply with a given set of values or norms.

but you have to admit that the anarchist proposals for political institutions aren't really all that much like your standard issue government. they might reasonably be called 'government', but they still are a noticeably different sort of animal.

Im tired of repeating the same damn things over and over, so I leave it to you, the opressed and unthinking.

perhaps you might want to try a different approach?

Anarchists are anti-capitalism? :confused:

yes

yes

Not all of them of course. I know of a few anarcho-capitalists. You can find plenty of them on these boards:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/forumdisplay.php?f=18

but you have to admit that the anarchist proposals for political institutions aren't really all that much like your standard issue government.


What I have seen proposed in this thread still appears to me to be an institution tasked with exercising the use of coercive force ("banishment" or "counciling") in order to bring the inhabitants of a particular society into line with accepted values and norms (that which is not "anti-social," whatever such newspeak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/newspeak) happens to mean). Again, it might be way more democratic, it might be way more decentralized, and it might promote and allow liberty to a far greater degree. The ultimate purpose and role, however, remains the same. The idea that hierarchical authority has somehow been abolished because the community votes, or whatever else, is simply false.

The simple fact is that wherever there are two or more people interacting together, there will eventually be government and there will be coercion. Interacting with other people means making agreements, and people will make sure that agreements are obeyed, especially where their survival is at stake.

One can when the rest of the post is based upon the premise posed in the two sentences that I responded to. One removes the foundation of the building, and gravity does the rest.Only when someone is used to lazy thinking and sloppy reasoning is this true.

When considering an abstract concept, that is one which has no immediate evidence of practicality. It is expected that you will excercise an abstract reasoning to consider ideas out of your immediate experience.

You clearly, are failing to do this.

My initial contribution to this discussion will be to say that anarchism is "no rulers", not "no rules". Take that as you will.

My initial contribution to this discussion will be to say that anarchism is "no rulers", not "no rules". Take that as you will.
Im back after a long absence because some people finally are taking my side so I dont have to answer every post myself. JB - That would be a fair aproximation.

My initial contribution to this discussion will be to say that anarchism is "no rulers", not "no rules". Take that as you will.

Still the best description of anarchism I've seen thus far.

However, it seems like when you follow that thought to conclusion, we're not really talking about anarchy, we're talking about direct democracy. Anarchism implies the removal of all coercive authoritarian elements, and as a previous poster pointed out, it's virtually impossible to remove all coercive elements unless somehow all citizens are like-minded and tend never to disagree.

Sooner or later, a majority will impose it's will upon a minority. I don't see any other way around it. Thus, anarchism, in my view, is a pipe dream.

Still the best description of anarchism I've seen thus far.

However, it seems like when you follow that thought to conclusion, we're not really talking about anarchy, we're talking about direct democracy. Anarchism implies the removal of all coercive authoritarian elements, and as a previous poster pointed out, it's virtually impossible to remove all coercive elements unless somehow all citizens are like-minded and tend never to disagree.

Sooner or later, a majority will impose it's will upon a minority. I don't see any other way around it. Thus, anarchism, in my view, is a pipe dream.
The way out of this is "voluntary association", which means that you don't have to be associated with any group if they don't agree with you. This is in contrast to the statist view that, no matter your point of view, if you were born here, you are one of us and subject to laws you didn't agree to.

When considering an abstract concept, that is one which has no immediate evidence of practicality. It is expected that you will excercise an abstract reasoning to consider ideas out of your immediate experience.

You clearly, are failing to do this.

Or, I have clearly engaged in such consideration over time, now and in the past, and my initial response to this thread is what has resulted.

My initial contribution to this discussion will be to say that anarchism is "no rulers", not "no rules". Take that as you will.

What meaning do "rules" have in the absense of those tasked with ensuring complicance via enforcement (such being the role of the "ruler")? If rules continue to exist in an anarchist society (which, of course, they must), there will inevitably be rulers.

The way out of this is "voluntary association", which means that you don't have to be associated with any group if they don't agree with you.

Many of my "associations," however, spell grave consequences for my continued survival and liberty. For instance, I can enter into a "voluntary association" with others around me, whereby we agree not to murder or steal from each other. One of the members, however, decides that he is not going to "associate" any more and engages in murder and theft. Am I simply to standby and allow this individual to act as he or she freely chooses?

My continued life a liberty depends on my ability to force other people to behave according to certain values and norms, whether they like it or not. Some "associations" are and must be inherently involuntary. Again, I believe that such necessary coercion can be (greatly) limited in nature, to the maximum benefit of liberty (edit: throwing away the laws I don't agree with does not mean throwing away all law or government completely).

One can claim that a "real" anarchist would never engage in murder or theft, anyway. I also happen to believe that individuals are largely capable of regulating their own behavior. However, for those individuals who are not so capable (edit: to the detriment of another's life and/or liberty), the applicaiton of involuntary coercion is (unfortunately) necessary.

Still the best description of anarchism I've seen thus far.

However, it seems like when you follow that thought to conclusion, we're not really talking about anarchy, we're talking about direct democracy. Anarchism implies the removal of all coercive authoritarian elements, and as a previous poster pointed out, it's virtually impossible to remove all coercive elements unless somehow all citizens are like-minded and tend never to disagree.

Sooner or later, a majority will impose it's will upon a minority. I don't see any other way around it. Thus, anarchism, in my view, is a pipe dream.Well, direct democracy is a form of anarchism, and happens to be the one that I support, so perhaps I can't say that I disagree with this idea.

However, the idea of coercion seems to me to be the important part of this post. I suppose it would really depend on what coercion is. For instance, an anarchist community would be one of people in a social contract living together for various reasons. The idea of a social contract is that people who wish to associate with each other do so.
Now, let's for a minute think of social relationships between friends or neighbors in a non-anarchist community. Anyone is free to withdraw from that friendship at any time they please. They are not forced to associate with those people if they don't want to. If you find out your neighbor is a Nazi, you don't have to go to his house for a barbecue.
The same goes for an anarchist community. If someone does something, such as steal, etc., the members of the community do not have to associate themselves with the thief.
The real question is: is the withdrawal of association a form of coercion? Perhaps, but I disagree.
Naturally, of course, a violation of the social contract carries with it various penalties. People are not free to not be expelled from the community if they violate the social contract. Anarchism's tenets of non-coercion only necessarily apply to people who voluntary enter into and abide by the social contract.

One of the members, however, decides that he is not going to "associate" any more and engages in murder and theft. Am I simply to standby and allow this individual to act as he or she freely chooses?

of course not, nor does anarchism suggest otherwise.

However, for those individuals who are not so capable (edit: to the detriment of another's life and/or liberty), the applicaiton of involuntary coercion is (unfortunately) necessary.

indeed

Well, direct democracy is a form of anarchism...

I disagree. Even in a situation of direct democracy, I must still, to some degree, subjegate my personal soveregnty to the will of others. My own personal will or choice must be secondary to the will and choice of the majority. As such, a social hierarchy based on authority (the authority of the majority) is constructed and still exists in the case of direct democracy. It is my understanding that anarchism is aimed at the elimination of social hierarchies and associated authority.


Naturally, of course, a violation of the social contract carries with it various penalties. People are not free to not be expelled from the community if they violate the social contract. Anarchism's tenets of non-coercion only necessarily apply to people who voluntary enter into and abide by the social contract.


Again, I am responding under the assumption that anarchism seeks the abolishment of hierarchy, authority, and government (as I have heard "anarchists" so claim many times). But I am failing to see any difference between government and what is described above.

I disagree. Even in a situation of direct democracy, I must still, to some degree, subjegate my personal soveregnty to the will of others. In any situation you must still, to some degree, subjugate your personal sovereignty to the will of others, if only your personal sovereignty to not shoot people.

My own personal will or choice must be secondary to the will and choice of the majority. As such, a social hierarchy based on authority (the authority of the majority) is constructed and still exists in the case of direct democracy. It is my understanding that anarchism is aimed at the elimination of social hierarchies and associated authority.Is it possible for a self-containing hierarchy to exist?

Again, I am responding under the assumption that anarchism seeks the abolishment of hierarchy, authority, and government (as I have heard "anarchists" so claim many times). But I am failing to see any difference between government and what is described above.I would say that a government is something which rules above the people and is not made up of the people, whereas a direct democracy is made up of the people.

of course not, nor does anarchism suggest otherwise.


Of course, anarchism can not suggest otherwise. However, my confusion, as I have tried to describe in other posts, is based on what I have heard anarchists describe to be their goal: the abolishment of hierarchy and government. How does such a society plan to prevent the violation of other's lives and liberty in the absense of these things?

I hear people talk about how government is evil and must be abolished, only to turn around and talk about how "communities" can police themselves, removing if necessary those who choose not to so "voluntarily" associate. What is proposed as the alternative seems, to me anyway, to be the textbook definition of government.

In any situation you must still, to some degree, subjugate your personal sovereignty to the will of others, if only your personal sovereignty to not shoot people.


Of course. But then, this necessity would seem to suggest that talk of abolishing hierarchy is nonsense. The difference between anarchism and statism is simply a matter of degree or size, not a fundamental philosophical difference. (edit: in which case, perhaps "minarchist" is a more accurate description).


I would say that a government is something which rules above the people and is not made up of the people, whereas a direct democracy is made up of the people.

That is not "government." That is one particular kind of government. And, at any rate, the people in a direct democracy still rule, do they not? Such is not anarchism, then, if anarchism is having "no rulers."

What I have seen proposed in this thread still appears to me to be an institution tasked with exercising the use of coercive force ("banishment" or "counciling") in order to bring the inhabitants of a particular society into line with accepted values and norms (that which is not "anti-social," whatever such newspeak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/newspeak) happens to mean).

i can't speak for this thread, as i only really started skimming responses rather than actually reading the big post out front. i can, however, mention that the use of coercive force itself isn't typically held by anarchists to be an absolute no-no. the idea when it comes to punishing criminals is that they have either violated their own agreements or have violated the 'rights' of others.

people having the right to defend themselves doesn't establish hierarchical authority. instead, it defends autonomy. this defense being exercised collectively doesn't necessarily change the fundamentals of the relationship. however, it is changed when the use of force moves beyond defense or enforcement of valid agreements and on to the various other uses coercion has proven useful for.

The simple fact is that wherever there are two or more people interacting together, there will eventually be government and there will be coercion. Interacting with other people means making agreements, and people will make sure that agreements are obeyed, especially where their survival is at stake.

if 'government' is used in this sense, then most anarchists have no issue with 'government'

however, it is changed when the use of force moves beyond defense or enforcement of valid agreements and on to the various other uses coercion has proven useful for.


What I contest, then, is the apparent assertion that "government" must necessarily seek to carry out these "various other uses."


if 'government' is used in this sense, then most anarchists have no issue with 'government'

That is what I have suspected, yes. It would probably help if everyone could decide on a common definition of what "government" is. (edit: And "anarchism" seems to be a poor label for the ideology then)

What I contest, then, is the apparent assertion that "government" must necessarily seek to carry out these "various other uses."I would say that even if the government did not originally carry out those various other uses, it would quickly become a situation where that happened.

That is what I have suspected, yes. It would probably help if everyone could decide on a common definition of what "government" is. (edit: And "anarchism" seems to be a poor label for the ideology then)I'm not quite certain that that would be possible. I know that I support direct democracy, but some anarchists think that's too authoritarian, and support consensus, or are even against that type of arrangement.

I would say that even if the government did not originally carry out those various other uses, it would quickly become a situation where that happened.


But isn't "direct democracy" also susceptible to the same danger? The majority decides to change its mind, and do something to the minority beyond simple protection of life and liberty. I would think that this possibility would be especially dangerous as the "legitimacy" of such a decision would be enhanced by the percieved legitimacy of the democratic process. (edit: why does this danger seem inherent to "government" but not "anarchism"?)


I'm not quite certain that that would be possible. I know that I support direct democracy, but some anarchists think that's too authoritarian, and support consensus, or are even against that type of arrangement.

I wonder then if my objection to anarchism rests simply in the belief that while decentralization and democracy are generally a good thing, carried beyond a certain point they simply become ineffectual. Thus, I set the "necessary" size of government to a point higher than where an anarchist might.

But isn't "direct democracy" also susceptible to the same danger? The majority decides to change its mind, and do something to the minority beyond simple protection of life and liberty. I would think that this possibility would be especially dangerous as the "legitimacy" of such a decision would be enhanced by the percieved legitimacy of the democratic process.I would suggest that any direct democracy be tempered by a constitution which enshrines protections of democracy and minorities within it. Anarchists understand that simply because we might not be in the minority one day, we will be the next, and so it is necessary for that reason to ensure that no minority is ever oppressed, because we set the stage for oppressing ourselves in the process.

I wonder then if my objection to anarchism rests simply in the belief that while decentralization and democracy are generally a good thing, carried beyond a certain point they simply become ineffectual. Thus, I set the "necessary" size of government to a point higher than where an anarchist might.Quite possibly. I know that I view direct democracy as being necessary for perhaps the same reason, that I don't think that people will always want to work things out on their own and will need help in doing so.

I would suggest that any direct democracy be tempered by a constitution which enshrines protections of democracy and minorities within it. Anarchists understand that simply because we might not be in the minority one day, we will be the next, and so it is necessary for that reason to ensure that no minority is ever oppressed, because we set the stage for oppressing ourselves in the process.


People thoughout history have ignored constitutions and related protections. I see no reason why an "anarchist" society cannot fall to the same behavior. I still continue to see less and less difference between "government" and "anarchism."

People thoughout history have ignored constitutions and related protections. True, a constitution is only as good as the people who uphold it, but this goes for any constitution.
I see no reason why an "anarchist" society cannot fall to the same behavior. I think it would be less likely, because everyone would be concerned with upholding the constitution, whereas representative democracies only have a branch of government concerned with it.
I still continue to see less and less difference between "government" and "anarchism."<shrug> That's just my interpretation on it, I do know of others, but am not well-versed enough in them to explain them.

I think it would be less likely, because everyone would be concerned with upholding the constitution,...


At first, perhaps. I would assume it is only a matter of time before some animals decide they are more equal.


...whereas representative democracies only have a branch of government concerned with it.


If we ignore the masses of people who put said representative government into place.

The only things that would be punished would be the violating of another's right to free choise.

Get any homeowner's association handbook from a subdivision and you will see that is not true, check out any local zoning ordinances (while these are government actions, they are usually established at town hall meetings or community level voting). These codes are generally are very stringent in going above and beyond current governmental legislation, yet their enaction is almost entirely at the community level.

Following the 'no rulers' line of thinking, I don't see any particular issue with the organizational aspect of Anarchism. If the issue is to try to get away from individuals aquiring authority, it's entirely feasable. If all decisions are brought down to the community level, with decisions being made by enough people to meet a quorum, the community can assign comittees consisting of 'experts' in any particular field to handle any issue.

Getting away from concentrating power in the hands of individuals, is thus not too hard to envision. (Although, rule by comittee may not be the wisest choice from the 'getting things done' angle.)

I do have a problem with the 'associative' element though. How does a community deal with a situation where a very large minority doesn't agree with the majority and the majority decides that they no longer wish for the minority to be associated with the collective? Sooner or later you'll end up with territorial squabbles.

My biggest issue with Anarchism has to be the economics side of things. If one is an 'anarcho-capitalist', then the whole coercive element of capitalism remains. If one is an 'anarcho-communist'... well I just have difficulties imagining it in a modern industrialized context. Anarchism might have functioned well in agrarian societies.

What I contest, then, is the apparent assertion that "government" must necessarily seek to carry out these "various other uses."

it's not exactly necessary, but it is the case that governments as we know them do so. in particular, it is more or less guaranteed to happen in any system of government based on the existence of rulers and the ruled, just due to the nature of how decisions are made and enforced under them.

Get any homeowner's association handbook from a subdivision and you will see that is not true, check out any local zoning ordinances (while these are government actions, they are usually established at town hall meetings or community level voting). These codes are generally are very stringent in going above and beyond current governmental legislation, yet their enaction is almost entirely at the community level.

yup, those things suck. merely having decisions made at the community level offers no automatic protection at all. much more important is the question of how decisions are made, how they can be blocked or undone, and even what ought to be decided for the community as a whole in the first place.

homeowner's associations as run currently have a real nasty tendency to create authoritarian hellholes (but at least everyone's lawn is mowed to regulation length, and the shutters are all painted within 2 shades of the same beige...)

a vital part of avoiding this will involve inflating the relative bargaining position of dissenters on any particular question and shifting away from the "we've got 50%+1 so what you have to say doesn't matter" styles of decision making (which itself is an improvement over "i'm the king, so there").

homeowner's associations as run currently have a real nasty tendency to create authoritarian hellholes (but at least everyone's lawn is mowed to regulation length, and the shutters are all painted within 2 shades of the same beige...)

a vital part of avoiding this will involve inflating the relative bargaining position of dissenters on any particular question and shifting away from the "we've got 50%+1 so what you have to say doesn't matter" styles of decision making (which itself is an improvement over "i'm the king, so there").

Well, at least you are trying to deal with the Pelagian heresy.

But it is still a fundamental flaw with anarchism.

Question: How come the Anarchists Cookbook doesn't have recipes for meals involving human flesh?

You'd think it would, seeing how if anarchy was instituted today mass starvation would occur.

At first, perhaps. I would assume it is only a matter of time before some animals decide they are more equal.I don't see why you should assume this. Think it likely, perhaps, but I don't see why it should be a definite.

If we ignore the masses of people who put said representative government into place.The Supreme Court, who decides Constitutional questions for the most part, is not put into place by the masses.

I do have a problem with the 'associative' element though. How does a community deal with a situation where a very large minority doesn't agree with the majority and the majority decides that they no longer wish for the minority to be associated with the collective? Sooner or later you'll end up with territorial squabbles. Arguably, but I think this can be handled because of most forms of anarchism's emphasis on property rights being based upon use. If a large collective splits in two, that collective is not going to be using the same amount of land as it was before. It will need less farmland because it will have fewer people. Since the first collective is using less farmland, it only makes sense for the new collective to use the farmland that the first collective is no longer using.

Arguably, but I think this can be handled because of most forms of anarchism's emphasis on property rights being based upon use. If a large collective splits in two, that collective is not going to be using the same amount of land as it was before. It will need less farmland because it will have fewer people. Since the first collective is using less farmland, it only makes sense for the new collective to use the farmland that the first collective is no longer using.

Well that raises an interesting point...

Exactly how much farmland is a collective entitled to? Just enough to grow enough crops to feed the collective, or if a collective is an area where there is an abundance of farmland, do they use 'excess' production for trade with other collectives? I'm assuming that there aren't going to be any completely self-sufficient groups, at least most of them won't be.

If this 'split' occurred in a non-agricultural area, let's say in a town that has an auto-assembly line, who would then control the means of production? Would the minority group then have to leave town and build a new assembly line somewhere else? And would they be in competition with the old community in bartering with other communities... are we not returning to a degree of capitalism, even if it's only barter?

The only things that would be punished would be the violating of another's right to free choise.

That is what police do today.
When you violate my right to have nice things, you are arrested.
When your wish to have drugs violates my free choice to not have you sprawled out on my lawn in a stupor.... or a neigborhhood free of violent drug dealers...

well, you get the point.

yup, those things suck. merely having decisions made at the community level offers no automatic protection at all. much more important is the question of how decisions are made, how they can be blocked or undone, and even what ought to be decided for the community as a whole in the first place.

homeowner's associations as run currently have a real nasty tendency to create authoritarian hellholes (but at least everyone's lawn is mowed to regulation length, and the shutters are all painted within 2 shades of the same beige...)

a vital part of avoiding this will involve inflating the relative bargaining position of dissenters on any particular question and shifting away from the "we've got 50%+1 so what you have to say doesn't matter" styles of decision making (which itself is an improvement over "i'm the king, so there").

What you eventually have is a reverse-government of sorts, the trouble is that it is still government.

I don't see why you should assume this. Think it likely, perhaps, but I don't see why it should be a definite.


Because the hundreds of examples of human goverance currently presented by the world, which I can empirically observe in action, do not seem to serve as examples of the anarchist model. This fact alone does not necessarily mean that the anarchist model is impossible. However, the seeming lack of actual observable phenominon along anarchist lines drives me towards serious doubt about the possibility. Even if such a society has existed in the past, it doesn't seem to exist now, thus I also doubt whether it could last even if established.


The Supreme Court, who decides Constitutional questions for the most part, is not put into place by the masses.


I assumed we were talking about "representative government" in a general sense, and not necessarily the specific American implementation thereof. Even so, those who nominate and confirm the positions of the American Supreme Court are indeed responsible to the masses.

Exactly how much farmland is a collective entitled to?


Whatever it can legitimately secure by its own labor, or via peaceful trade/cooperation with other collectives and/or individuals. Some would even extend this activity to explicit market processes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29)


...are we not returning to a degree of capitalism, even if it's only barter?


We need to separate the concepts of "capitalism" and "free association/voluntary cooperation/market." Some socialist anarchists claim to reject the first, while supporting the latter:

"I protest that when I criticized property, or more precisely the complex of institutions of which property is the foundation stone, I never meant to attack the rights of the individual as they were recognized by existing laws, nor to contest the legitimacy of acquired possessions, nor to cause goods to be shared out arbitrarily, nor to prevent property from being freely and regularly acquired through sale and exchange, nor to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I believe that all these forms of human activity should remain free and optional for all."
-- Solution of the Social Problem by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon)

What you eventually have is a reverse-government of sorts, the trouble is that it is still government.

well, group decisions are going to be made somehow, whether we call it government or not. so it becomes a question of how - what methods best serves the interests of liberty and equality and autonomy.

well, group decisions are going to be made somehow, whether we call it government or not.

Hence, anarchism isn't about anarchy in any way, but rather, calling government by a different name! ;)

Hence, anarchism isn't about anarchy in any way, but rather, calling government by a different name! ;)

no. many anarchists don't even oppose using the term 'government' to describe proposed anarchist institutions (for example, anarchyel, me to a certain extent, etc.) it's about a new way of organizing social and political life that uses the term 'anarchy' as its technical descripter, which some people think can also be called 'government', despite its differences with the current systems of governance.

Question: How come the Anarchists Cookbook doesn't have recipes for meals involving human flesh?

You'd think it would, seeing how if anarchy was instituted today mass starvation would occur.


That is completley false information. Anarchism isnt about total chaos its about the human race having equal rights and personally i think thats good because if the whole race is dominated by someone that has money when it all comes down to it, its just paper and numbers and should that define how powerful someone is or how much power they have over other people? because people are the same life forms and how much knowledge someone has shouldnt define the person what-so-ever. Hypothetically if anarchy were ever to happen no one would want to live in poverty, that would just be dumb. they would work together to make a better society. so from now on, read up on what you post because elections are just as bad as communism, they aren't the same at all but if you have bad polotitians then no one votes and if no one votes then you get shit people to run your country because honestly there is hardly anyone worth voting for, and communism is just dumb. so before you put anarchy down put some thought into it.

well, group decisions are going to be made somehow, whether we call it government or not. so it becomes a question of how - what methods best serves the interests of liberty and equality and autonomy.

When I say "government" it is always a pejorative.

The annihilation of government will only result in a replacement government (hopefully a more democratic one), and group decision making will always be around as it is a rational behavior.

What we are talking about now, though, is the perpetual annihilation of this democratization to protect liberty. This annihilation can only be handled through coercive government with a shifted spectrum of benefit, and said government will seek to stop individuals from engaging in natural, rational, beneficial behavior.

That is completley false information. Anarchism isnt about total chaos

I was talking about Anarchy, not Anarchism. So no, it's not false information.

its about the human race having equal rights and personally i think thats good because if the whole race is dominated by someone that has money when it all comes down to it, its just paper and numbers and should that define how powerful someone is or how much power they have over other people? because people are the same life forms and how much knowledge someone has shouldnt define the person what-so-ever. Hypothetically if anarchy were ever to happen no one would want to live in poverty, that would just be dumb. they would work together to make a better society.

When you say stuff like this it really doesn't support your... whatever it is you believe in.

so from now on, read up on what you post because elections are just as bad as communism, they aren't the same at all but if you have bad polotitians then no one votes and if no one votes then you get shit people to run your country because honestly there is hardly anyone worth voting for, and communism is just dumb. so before you put anarchy down put some thought into it.

Anarchy: 1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.

I.e, mass chaos, rioting, starvation, the law of the gun, and ending with the rise of new political authorities most likely just as bad as whatever existed pre-anarchy.

So before you champion anarchy, put some thought into it. Mmk?

Because the hundreds of examples of human goverance currently presented by the world, which I can empirically observe in action, do not seem to serve as examples of the anarchist model. This fact alone does not necessarily mean that the anarchist model is impossible. However, the seeming lack of actual observable phenominon along anarchist lines drives me towards serious doubt about the possibility. Even if such a society has existed in the past, it doesn't seem to exist now, thus I also doubt whether it could last even if established.Yes, and of those hunderds of examples of human governance, pretty much all of them have constitutions, and there are some of them that have mechanisms for dealing with violations of said constitutions. I see no reason why a representative democracy can deal with such things but not a direct democracy. The representatives would only have to worry about being booted out after their terms ends, in the meantime they can do whatever they want as long as it isn't specifically illegal - including changing the laws.

I assumed we were talking about "representative government" in a general sense, and not necessarily the specific American implementation thereof. Even so, those who nominate and confirm the positions of the American Supreme Court are indeed responsible to the masses.This is true, but it seems to me that the masses don't, for the most part, take an active role in defending the constitution. I would argue that this is because they don't feel that it's their job to. In a direct democracy, it would be everybody's job to do so.

Oh, and thanks for answering Mikesburg's questions for me.

Whatever it can legitimately secure by its own labor, or via peaceful trade/cooperation with other collectives and/or individuals. Some would even extend this activity to explicit market processes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29)



We need to separate the concepts of "capitalism" and "free association/voluntary cooperation/market." Some socialist anarchists claim to reject the first, while supporting the latter:

"I protest that when I criticized property, or more precisely the complex of institutions of which property is the foundation stone, I never meant to attack the rights of the individual as they were recognized by existing laws, nor to contest the legitimacy of acquired possessions, nor to cause goods to be shared out arbitrarily, nor to prevent property from being freely and regularly acquired through sale and exchange, nor to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I believe that all these forms of human activity should remain free and optional for all."
-- Solution of the Social Problem by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon)

Thanks for that. Had to get my head out of the capitalism = market forces line of thinking. (I'll debate the feasibility of that economic system some other time though...).

The more I look into this, the more I think maybe Anarchists just need a new sales pitch. Anarchism is a bad term. Maybe JB and other's like him should be using the term Mutualist instead?

The more I look into this, the more I think maybe Anarchists just need a new sales pitch. Anarchism is a bad term. Maybe JB and other's like him should be using the term Mutualist instead?

Not all are mutualist, though. Many (most in my experience) oppose markets or at least prefer an alternative.

Anarchy: 1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.

I.e, mass chaos, rioting, starvation, the law of the gun, and ending with the rise of new political authorities most likely just as bad as whatever existed pre-anarchy.

So before you champion anarchy, put some thought into it. Mmk?[/QUOTE]

I dont know where you got that but anarchy is everyone having equal rights and no person is better than any other thats what it is and thats what its about.

I.e, mass chaos, rioting, starvation, the law of the gun, and ending with the rise of new political authorities most likely just as bad as whatever existed pre-anarchy.

We already have starvation and the law of the gun. What do you think government is, if not law of the gun? You don't seriously believe in the whole social contract theory, do you?

Not all are mutualist, though. Many (most in my experience) oppose markets or at least prefer an alternative.


If we're going to talk about the labour theory of value, then markets are essential. It assumes that a wage will be paid based on the cost of production without a mark-up for the owner of production.

Alternatively, some group or 'government', would have to make arbitrary decisions about how much to apportion out to people, who does the unsavory work such as sewer cleaning (and Jello; forcing people to take turns cleaning the sewers is fairly coercive in my book), etc. The 'collective' becomes the new coercive element that anarchists are trying to get away from.

At least the labour theory of value makes a certain degree of sense. It allows the group who controls the means of production to assign wages and set prices based on market forces; a far more realistic and 'fair' option in my book.

My objection to the term Anarchism, even though I know what people are talking about, is that the term Anarchy has been used in the english language to denote 'chaos' or 'lack of government' long before people started using the term as a political philosophy. This is usually followed by many anarchists throwing the 'uneducated' label at people who aren't familiar with the philosophy, even though the standard use of the term anarchy is used in situations like 'Somalia'.

Many (most in my experience) oppose markets or at least prefer an alternative.

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

Anarchy: 1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.


If only the study of the political and social sciences were as simple as looking up a word in a dictionary. Life would be a lot easier for me anyway. ;)

Dictionaries do not set meanings, they describe meanings. That is, the meanings of words change all the time (many dictionaries append some descriptions of words with qualifiers like "archaic" or "obsolete"), and a person can apply whatever meaning to a word they wish, so long as that meaning is recognized and understood (note also that the word "libertarian" has been and continues to be used with varying meanings by all kinds of political ideologies, "left" or "right."

At any rate "appeal to dictionary" isn't any more rational or logical than something like "because the bible says so." So what?

(edit: I was in a hurry when I first posted this, but now I realize something else: no one in this thread has appeared to actually advocate what you claim is "Anarchy." Not only is this "appeal to dictionary" a poor way to argue, but it is also a strawman fallacy.)

I see no reason why a representative democracy can deal with such things but not a direct democracy.


Careful, I don't think I have made any such claim.

The point I have tried to convey is that "direct democracy" is just as vulnerable to the problems described as "representative democracy" or any other "-cracy." This is part of the reason why I fail to see the appeal of "anarchism;" as far as I can see, nothing much has really changed.


The representatives would only have to worry about being booted out after their terms ends, in the meantime they can do whatever they want as long as it isn't specifically illegal - including changing the laws.


Until the people decide that they are not going (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment) to wait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution) for the next elections.

Has there ever actually been any anarchist countries?

The more I look into this, the more I think maybe Anarchists just need a new sales pitch. Anarchism is a bad term. Maybe JB and other's like him should be using the term Mutualist instead?Others have suggested the new sales pitch idea, but there's the whole history of the term that has to be considered.

I'm not a mutualist, though, but others on this board are, or at least appear to be.

(and Jello; forcing people to take turns cleaning the sewers is fairly coercive in my book)I don't agree; there's nothing in what I said that people have to use the sewers, they have other options, but it seems to me that if someone is going to mess something up then they need to help in cleaning it up or they shouldn't be allowed to use it again.

Careful, I don't think I have made any such claim.

The point I have tried to convey is that "direct democracy" is just as vulnerable to the problems described as "representative democracy" or any other "-cracy." This is part of the reason why I fail to see the appeal of "anarchism;" as far as I can see, nothing much has really changed.If this is true, then while you're saying that direct democracy isn't any better than any other system, you are also saying that it can't be any worse than any other system, either. I say if it can't be worse than anything else, then we'd might as well give it a shot.

Until the people decide that they are not going to wait for the next elections.Revolution would be available to people in a direct democracy, as well. Impeachment needn't be; if there are delegates they can simply be recalled.

Has there ever actually been any anarchist countries?No, this is a contradiction in terms. A country is a place with national borders, anarchism is against national borders. There have been anarchist areas, though. Sadly, most of them didn't last long, due to forces outside of their control.

Has there ever actually been any anarchist countries?
Well, there is Somalia, which is a region/country without a central government.

Of course, pretty much all anarchists would reject Somalia being described as "anarchistic", since there are warlords which have some authority. Also, it is not exactly leftist and cooperative, which makes some anarchists angry. :p
Nonetheless, it's one illustration of the likely path of most anarchistic project societies (;))

Also interesting (and this is primarily for the Anarcho-Capitalists here) is that Somalia does have some positive things to show as well. Just like Cuban healthcare, even a blind chicken might find a corn occasionally...:D
http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/PapersLinks/280-nenova-harford.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4020259.stm
http://www.netnomad.com/crigler.html

Of course, pretty much all anarchists would reject Somalia being described as "anarchistic", since there are warlords which have some authority. Also, it is not exactly leftist and cooperative, which makes some anarchists angry. :p
Nonetheless, it's one illustration of the likely path of most anarchistic project societies (;))I would agree that it's the likely path of an anarcho-capitalist society.

Pro-Anarchism
Government sucks, it bleeds our 'natural' human rights and is generally a load of baloney decided to control us and has contributed to the demise of absolutely everything.

Pro-Governance
Anarchy sucks, it is chaos and people are crapola heads that without some dickheads telling us what to do, we'd kill each other and nothing would ever happen that was 'good' and 'loving'.

Pro-Sanity
Read up on this stuff and make a critical assessment on all 'sides' of the argument. Quite frankly, humans are capable of killing (duh) but you'll find that in most prisons, most prisoners are there for petty theft, political reasons, and crimes of passion. In other words, they were 'raised' to become crooks, because of the situation created by the strata in society they happened to be born into.

Now, as for morality, you don't even need religion to have that. Morality is subjective, because human beings invent it all the time. However, because human beings are naturally social animals, the act of needing each other will foster cooperation, especially in anarchy where the competition of being in an unequal social system, such as capitalism, is no longer present. Thus, the need for cooperation results in moral decisions that outweigh any need to kill and whatnot.

That's my two cents worth.

I would agree that it's the likely path of an anarcho-capitalist society.

Why?

What about modern liberal capitalism makes you think that it would fall under the control of violent territorial warlords if it went the way of anarcho-capitalism?

Why?

What about modern liberal capitalism makes you think that it would fall under the control of violent territorial warlords if it went the way of anarcho-capitalism?

mall security guards

I'm of a belief that there's too many self-serving opportunistic bastards in today's world for an altruistic and cooperative anarchy to be possible, much less successful.

Like textbook Marxism/Communism, I believe there is no successful example of idealized/romantic anarchy on a national scale. At the small levels, they are both feasible albeit at the mercy of personality conflicts.

Places like Somalia and Afghanistan, and even zombie apocalypse films illustrate that romaticized anarchy is difficult if not impossible to achieve on a large scale. Nature abhors a power vacuum, and in the modern world there's simply too many opportunistic bastards about more interested in Number One than the good of the whole.

Romantic anarchism seems to echo sentiments of socialism at least, in regards to looking out for the good of the whole and freedom of the individual to choose.

Why?

What about modern liberal capitalism makes you think that it would fall under the control of violent territorial warlords if it went the way of anarcho-capitalism?Imbalances of power. The rich have more power than the poor, but in countries with governments, the government can step in and make sure their abuses aren't too heinous. With no government, there's nothing to step in and make sure their abuses aren't too heinous, other than war.

mall security guards

People don't live in malls.

Imbalances of power. The rich have more power than the poor, but in countries with governments, the government can step in and make sure their abuses aren't too heinous. With no government, there's nothing to step in and make sure their abuses aren't too heinous, other than war.

Social norms and reactions are often far more powerful deterrents than government actions.

With no government, there's nothing to step in and make sure their abuses aren't too heinous, other than war.
Insurance companies.

That's one theory anyways, that insurance companies (by their very nature only defensive) run courts and so on.

A bit of a critique of that here (interesting read):
http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism1.html
http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism2.html
http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism3.html

Social norms and reactions are often far more powerful deterrents than government actions.Yes, this is true, but it seems to me that if social norms are that there are vast differences in wealth between people, it's going to be fairly normal that it will be socially normal that there will be differing ideas of what is acceptable behavior for people of different amount of wealth.

At the very least, if the rich people decided that they weren't concerned about social norms, the harm that they could do is greater than it would be if everyone had relatively equal wealth.

Insurance companies.

That's one theory anyways, that insurance companies (by their very nature only defensive) run courts and so on.Yes, but there will also have to be some sort of offensive entity, as well. After all, if your house is broken into, who finds out who does it? The police, by taking offensive rather than defensive measures. A rich person will be able to hire more police and more security guards than a poor person will.

After all, if your house is broken into, who finds out who does it? The police, by taking offensive rather than defensive measures.
The point is that the insurance wouldn't initiate violence or the use of force. Once a criminal breaks the law however, it is in the insurance's interest to get him and punish him (and according to the links I posted, to punish him harder than necessary).

So yes, an insurance would try to protect those who buy a policy from danger, as well as their property. But it would not start something, because that would only increase its risk.

But ask an Anarcho-Capitalist for more details, my understanding of all this is somewhat limited. I just remember a documentary about Somalia on TV recently, and the man who prints 'official' Somalian passports wears a Hawaiian T-Shirt, a big red beard and lives in his shop at a busy market. :D

The point is that the insurance wouldn't initiate violence or the use of force. Once a criminal breaks the law however, it is in the insurance's interest to get him and punish him (and according to the links I posted, to punish him harder than necessary).

So yes, an insurance would try to protect those who buy a policy from danger, as well as their property. But it would not start something, because that would only increase its risk.So then all someone would have to do is claim the air as their private property, get an insurance company that views theft of air as a crime, and then have it punish people who breathe the air

But ask an Anarcho-Capitalist for more details, my understanding of all this is somewhat limited. I just remember a documentary about Somalia on TV recently, and the man who prints 'official' Somalian passports wears a Hawaiian T-Shirt, a big red beard and lives in his shop at a busy market. :DKinda makes you wonder how official those passports can be, eh?

So then all someone would have to do is claim the air as their private property, get an insurance company that views theft of air as a crime, and then have it punish people who breathe the air
Well, that doesn't exactly work, does it. No one would recognise the air as your property, and no insurance company would get into that sort of thing.

The interesting thing here is that you assume people in a socialist society to be near perfect: tolerant, full of solidarity and just generally peachy-clean.

But once you take them away from socialism, they suddenly become horrible beings, who will not only not give to charity, but actually go and look for a way to oppress people.

Which just tells me that you think private property does something to people which prevents them from being nice, tolerant and peachy-clean. How come?

Well, that doesn't exactly work, does it. No one would recognise the air as your property, and no insurance company would get into that sort of thing.That isn't true, there's nothing about the concept of anarcho-capitalism that prevents people from claiming the air as their private property.
An insurance company would defend this, or any claim if it was profitable enough for them.

The interesting thing here is that you assume people in a socialist society to be near perfect: tolerant, full of solidarity and just generally peachy-clean.

But once you take them away from socialism, they suddenly become horrible beings, who will not only not give to charity, but actually go and look for a way to oppress people.

Which just tells me that you think private property does something to people which prevents them from being nice, tolerant and peachy-clean. How come?No, the difference is that if someone in a socialist society isn't "near perfect: tolerant, full of solidarity, and just generally peachy-clean", then the harm that they can do is less than someone in a capitalist society that doesn't have those principles.

I wouldn't say that private property in and of itself makes someone not have those principles; while capitalism encourages them not to have those principles, someone with private property could still have those principles.

That isn't true, there's nothing about the concept of anarcho-capitalism that prevents people from claiming the air as their private property.
Well, it's in the definition of "the air" rather than in Anarcho-Capitalism where this sits. Primarily the factor of "non-excludability" and "non-rivalry". In other words, not only can no one really be excluded from using the air, but one person using the air usually doesn't mean that another has any less of it.

In cases like pollution, where the second doesn't hold, I suppose the Coase Theorem would come in, which is a little bit like ownership, but wouldn't require an independent arbiter.

Well, it's in the definition of "the air" rather than in Anarcho-Capitalism where this sits. Primarily the factor of "non-excludability" and "non-rivalry". In other words, not only can no one really be excluded from using the air, but one person using the air usually doesn't mean that another has any less of it.

In cases like pollution, where the second doesn't hold, I suppose the Coase Theorem would come in, which is a little bit like ownership, but wouldn't require an independent arbiter.Okay, fine, we'll go with pollution. If multiple people are polluting the air, someone will have to determine which person's pollution is causing which damage.

Okay, fine, we'll go with pollution. If multiple people are polluting the air, someone will have to determine which person's pollution is causing which damage.
I take it you're aware of the Coase Theorem?

Who's right and who's wrong is of no importance - whoever values it most will decide, at his own expense.

I take it you're aware of the Coase Theorem?No, but I may have heard it explained without knowing its name.

Who's right and who's wrong is of no importance - whoever values it most will decide, at his own expense.Yes, which means that someone will have to be paid to make the determination, which means that the determining party will have to take some sort of offensive action against the guilty party.
I still fail to see why someone would be unable to hire their own private army in anarcho-capitalism, if they have the money to do so.

No, but I may have heard it explained without knowing its name.
I won't explain it now...it might be better to hear it straight from the man who got the Nobel Prize for it:
http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/CoaseJLE1960.pdf

Yes, which means that someone will have to be paid to make the determination, which means that the determining party will have to take some sort of offensive action against the guilty party.
No, usually it is assumed that the party's get together and negotiate the outcome, the party whose interest has been offended against paying whatever that interest is worth to it to make the other party stop offending.

As I said, it's not about moral right and wrong though.

I still fail to see why someone would be unable to hire their own private army in anarcho-capitalism, if they have the money to do so.
Oh, they certainly could. The question is whether it would actually benefit them, and those who they hire - if there is some sort of police and court system based on competing insurance companies.

I won't explain it now...it might be better to hear it straight from the man who got the Nobel Prize for it:
http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/CoaseJLE1960.pdfFair enough, I'll check this out later.

No, usually it is assumed that the party's get together and negotiate the outcome, the party whose interest has been offended against paying whatever that interest is worth to it to make the other party stop offending.

As I said, it's not about moral right and wrong though.This requires that all parties be willing to get together. What if they're not?

Oh, they certainly could. The question is whether it would actually benefit them, and those who they hire - if there is some sort of police and court system based on competing insurance companies.I don't see why it couldn't benefit them; they would have to accept the potential judgment of an insurance company, and they wouldn't do so if it didn't benefit them to do so.

This requires that all parties be willing to get together. What if they're not?
Then they'd be irrational and silly. Because the 'offender' could potentially be paid, and the 'victim' could potentially get rid of the offence.

Then they'd be irrational and silly. Because the 'offender' could potentially be paid, and the 'victim' could potentially get rid of the offence.Yes, or the offender could ignore the victim, and the victim not necessarily be able to do anything about it, offense or no offense.

Yes, or the offender could ignore the victim, and the victim not necessarily be able to do anything about it, offense or no offense.
As I said, that would presume that the offender is not interested in making some extra dollars.

As I said, that would presume that the offender is not interested in making some extra dollars.How would the offender not being interested in negotiating mean the offender would not make money? Negotiation would mean the offender would lose money, since presumably the arbiter of the negotiation would decide against the offender.

How would the offender not being interested in negotiating mean the offender would not make money? Negotiation would mean the offender would lose money, since presumably the arbiter of the negotiation would decide against the offender.
Again, read the article.

There is no arbiter.

There is no right and wrong, and I put the words victim and offender in inverted commas, because they imply some sort of moral value. The Coase Theorem is amoral, it doesn't care.

The classic example is a factory and a fisherman. The factory pollutes the water and kills fish. The fisherman loses $1000 a week because of this.
So the Coase Theorem says that if negotiations can be done easily, the fisherman would go to the factory and ask them to install something to eliminate pollution and pay for it, up to and perhaps including $1000.

And if the fisherman doesn't have the money, then his demise is not as bad as the damage to the factory would be if it was forced to stop polluting.
It's a very utilitarian idea.

Again, read the article.

There is no arbiter..In the process of doing so now. This theory is unlike any I've heard of before.

There is no right and wrong, and I put the words victim and offender in inverted commas, because they imply some sort of moral value. The Coase Theorem is amoral, it doesn't care.

The classic example is a factory and a fisherman. The factory pollutes the water and kills fish. The fisherman loses $1000 a week because of this.
So the Coase Theorem says that if negotiations can be done easily, the fisherman would go to the factory and ask them to install something to eliminate pollution and pay for it, up to and perhaps including $1000.

And if the fisherman doesn't have the money, then his demise is not as bad as the damage to the factory would be if it was forced to stop polluting.
It's a very utilitarian idea.Ah, I see now, the person being harmed has to pay to have the harm stopped. How...repugnant.

One can when the rest of the post is based upon the premise posed in the two sentences that I responded to. One removes the foundation of the building, and gravity does the rest.

Except that you didn't actually remove the foundation. If it were true that human beings were ignorant cows then maybe. If you look around and that's what you see, It was government that create that situation...

So a group of neighbors decide to from a voluntary association aimed at keeping me from performing a given behavior. How does this association have anymore moral authority to act than any particular "police force?"


Just move. Moral laws are based on the population in that area. Today they are based on the population as a whole.

Did your history textbook never cover the Guilded Age? The government tried to stay out of business' way; lo and behold, monopolies ended up more powerful than the government. Large businesses thrive under little to no government.

Did your history tell you about the many laws and regulations were passed by politicians trying to get kickbacks? You're right that there were less laws during that time period, but a large number of them were designed to create monopolies.

In any event, the only monopoly that should concern us is the coercive monopoly and the coercive monopoly cannot exist without government intervention.

A noncoercive monopoly is very temporary. The owners of such a monopoly may however be tempted to seek a coercive monopoly in order to hang on to what they have. Limiting the power of government is the best defense against this.

(I persoonally think we need some government but I find anarchism fascinating. I'd love to see it actually work somewhere first though)

I didn't sign the Dec of INd, nor did I vote for all the amendments in the Constitution. Yet, the government claims that I am subject to it's laws that I did not agree to.

I didn't sign the Dec of INd, nor did I vote for all the amendments in the Constitution. Yet, the government claims that I am subject to it's laws that I did not agree to.
Welcome to the paradox that is our world.

(I persoonally think we need some government but I find anarchism fascinating. I'd love to see it actually work somewhere first though)
As stated, it has. Links:
http://www.zapatistas.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_and_present_anarchist_communities

(I persoonally think we need some government but I find anarchism fascinating. I'd love to see it actually work somewhere first though)
Then you must be a minarchist, like myself.

Thank you Withy for bringing anarchism up in a public forum, it's certainly somthing that people should think about.

Thank you Withy for bringing anarchism up in a public forum, it's certainly somthing that people should think about.
Indeed, most people think of Somalia or similar instances of nihilism.

Ah, I see now, the person being harmed has to pay to have the harm stopped. How...repugnant.
As I said, it's amoral.

There are actually two types of libertarians out there - there is the Chicago School, American style which is largely orientated along the lines of "there is simply no better alternative."
The Coase Theorem comes from their school. It can be shown with little algebra that forcing any one side to yield is inefficient, while letting negotiations come to an agreement like the one above (indeed, the fisherman will still make a gain since he won't be paying more than the $1000 he's losing) gives you a greater aggregate value.

The second school is the European one, also known as Austrian economics. They've got a bit of a bad reputation, and you can call them all sorts of things, but not amoral. They certainly believe in right and wrong, just that to them individual freedom is paramount and equality unnatural.
I suppose Ayn Rand and her flock fit in with this group as well.

As I said, it's amoral.

There are actually two types of libertarians out there - there is the Chicago School, American style which is largely orientated along the lines of "there is simply no better alternative."
The Coase Theorem comes from their school. It can be shown with little algebra that forcing any one side to yield is inefficient, while letting negotiations come to an agreement like the one above (indeed, the fisherman will still make a gain since he won't be paying more than the $1000 he's losing) gives you a greater aggregate value.There are tons of problems with this theory, I don't even know where to begin. To use an extreme example of what I mean, basically this theory seems to say that if a hit man can make more by killing somebody than that somebody would make in their lifetime, then it should be done. <Shudder>

The second school is the European one, also known as Austrian economics. They've got a bit of a bad reputation, and you can call them all sorts of things, but not amoral. They certainly believe in right and wrong, just that to them individual freedom is paramount and equality unnatural.
I suppose Ayn Rand and her flock fit in with this group as well.I never thought I'd say that this theory is the better of two theories.

I'm not sure what is meant when the term "human nature" is used. For instance, I'd suggest it is human nature to share, support, be sociable and be part of a community. Political systems only work because they reflect the willingness of people to identify with the system. In that regard, capitalism, Anarchism or any other system will work with the consent of people.

By contributing towards the creation of a product, service, or concept we are establishing a "share" in the item" That is one of the core beliefs of Anarchism. Everyone involved in the community has such a claim. Therefore, the item belongs to all. In more practical terms, this means that need and choice are the determining factors in having what you desire. Obviously, there is a limit to resources (just like within capitalism). In an Anarchist society, luxuries that emphasise the gulf between the "Have and Have nots" are unnecessary, while luxuries are sought after within capitalism, they only serve to alienate different sections of society....and on a wider scale, the obvious failure of capitalism is identified in the "emergent countries" like in Africa, parts of Asia and South America. There poverty exists as a direct result of the affluence of the west. Clearly capitalism cannot ensure the best for all, whereas Anarchism can.

Governments restrict individual liberty but Anarchism does not. The main requirment in an Anarchist society is that a person contributes according to their ability and interests.

The purpose of an Anarchist society is to give people freedom of choice but not to encourage trade, when you go down that road, you enter into possible exploitation where one of the parties "trading" benefits over the other and "profit" arises. When you have profit withinn an Anarchist society, you do not have Anarchism, you have proto capitalism. In any event, who will "trade" with anyone, when all the resources belong to all. Someone could set up a stall, to trade and be waiting there all day for customers, who will never appear. The "customers" have no benefit from entering into this arrangement, just like a trader within capitalism has no benefit from producing, then giving away their goods without charge. Both ideas are incomprehensible within their respective political systems.

Any Anarchist society "which forces "sharing" upon people, clearly is not Anarchist in nature. The sharing and mutual support concept comes from the people within the society, not imposed upon them. When free choices are made how can that be imposed? There may be dissenters within the society who do not ageree with the arrangement. So long as they are clearly in the extreme minority, their "selfish" disregard for the well running of an Anarchist structure can be tolerated, in much the same way that those who disagree with Capitalism today are "tolerated". An individual may not like the society they live in but they are nonetheless part of it. I for instance despise capitalism and all it's ills but I cannot go and live an Anarchist way of life, that is just ridiculous. I need to work, involve myself in being exploited for profit by capitalists, have to pay tax and insurances. None of which I do gladly but realise I have to do so anyway.