NationStates Jolt Archive

I am currently researching anarchy and thought i would try to take a public opinion pole on what people prefer. Please feel free to voice your opinion on either of the two as well. Just try to remain respectful of other peoples opinion.

It's far from an either or situation. Many, including myself, prefer a small government that does provide limited services and protections.

that's pretty much what i expected to hear the most. However i believe that stronger governments are able to more effectivly control crime and help the populace.

define "strong government" and "anarchy"

hang on let me find a definition of anarchy.

anarchy: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. (Dictionary.com)

Strong central government: I guess it would be everything else. Like the governments in europe, or what we have in the US, or singapore. It would still be a somewhat democratic government.

Both would suck ass, but I'd take Anarchy LONG before I'd take Big Brother.

It's far from an either or situation. Many, including myself, prefer a small government that does provide limited services and protections.

Same here, but if I HAD to choose one: Anarchy

Anarchy!!!!!!!!!!

that's pretty much what i expected to hear the most. However i believe that stronger governments are able to more effectivly control crime and help the populace.

Though whether that's good depends on their definition of "crime" and "help".

Personally, I think anarchy could work in a post-scarcity society like the Culture (from Iain M Banks novels).

I don't think i depicted governments in a good light.

Anarchy!

I'd take a strong Government, which is better then no government (and thus, no nation, no currency, no protection, both internal or external).

Strong government. Without strong government, you cannot have law, and without law, and courts to enforce that law, you cannot have rights.

You need a balance between strength of government and strength of populace. Too strong a government and too weak of government both result in blood, violence and eventual dictatorship.

well i guess that having no one tell you what to do is more appealing than having big brother on your back. I just don't think that people care enough to do everything that a government would voluntarily. I also would like to know how people would be kept from getting too powerful in an anarchic society.

I don't think i depicted governments in a good light.
I agree. For instance, this:

anarchy: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. (Dictionary.com)

Strong central government: I guess it would be everything else. Like the governments in europe. Or what we have in the US.
Just doesn't follow.

There is an entire spectrum of governmental systems between "anarchy" and "strong central government," including stable democracies, plutocracies, monarchies, totalitarian systems (left and right), etc.

I think you need to pick one to discuss.

I believe a stronger government is better. If you have no government you probably wouldn't even be wasting your time typing on a computer you would be barely making a living and then the people who would band together would tax you for "protection". If you were smart you would join them thus joining the only form of government and putting yourself into a loophole of death that leads to a strong government.

anarchy: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. (Dictionary.com)

Strong central government: I guess it would be everything else. Like the governments in europe, or what we have in the US, or singapore. It would still be a somewhat democratic government.

I'll take government.

Though whether that's good depends on their definition of "crime" and "help".

Personally, I think anarchy could work in a post-scarcity society like the Culture (from Iain M Banks novels).

I would agree with this. Of course, progressing to a post scarcity society is the tricky part :P

There is an entire spectrum of governmental systems between "anarchy" and "strong central government," including stable democracies, plutocracies, monarchies, totalitarian systems (left and right), etc.

I think you need to pick one to discuss.

Thats probably a good idea. If i had to select anything it would probably be something similar to The government in singapore.

for a national government, strong central. anarchy would suck with nations of 1million citizens or more.

Strong government, please.

People can properly enforce laws, or they can be arseholes. Obviously, this is true both for strong states and anarchism, but people are often reluctant to go against an omnipotent force which can destroy them utterly on a whim.

Anarchy ultimately is dictatorship. With anarchy, there's no one to maintain order, and to protect other's rights. How long till someone gets a mob behind them and takes control?

In a power vacume, the strongest or most brutal will rapidly take over, leading to totalitarianism. And people will be so sick of anarchy, they'll greet their new masters with flowers and parades. Real anarchy is not freedom. Real anarchy means living in a hell hole like Iraq.

My preffered form of Government is a democracy with a moderately strong central government, but with strictly limited constitutional powers. I voted "other".

The decaying and collapsing state of bourgeois property and capital in general could easily be called 'anarchy' because of it's unstable and unpredictable turns in the global market.

This can of course only be resolved through a system where economic activity is advanced through a series of central directives known as 'plans'.

Snip
Because people have proven themselves to be absolutely unable to cooperate in any fashion whatsoever without someone whipping them in line.

Thats probably a good idea. If i had to select anything it would probably be something similar to The government in singapore.
Well, Singapore isn't the worst choice one could make, but it's not the best, either. I wouldn't mind the social stability and prosperity, but I would definitely mind the censorship, homophobia, lagging on women's and worker's rights, and so forth.

Also, it's only been self-governing since 1959 and fully independent since 1963. Why not use something more established? Something European, maybe? European governments vary, but tend not to be on the extremes, and have been in business for a long time.

Personally, I prefer rule of law to rule of nothing, so I prefer government to anarchy. But while I like "government," I really do NOT like "strong" and "central." I prefer my governments fragmented, local, subject to and restricted by the law and the governed, and mostly focused on administrative work.

And said Communist plans tend to lead to the death of large numbers of people. Communism is just as brutal, maliceous, and open to abuse as the bourgeois system.

Somalia anarchy? Afghanistan 1992-1996 anarchy? Yeah sounds like utopia to me:rolleyes:

I'm conflicted.

We seem to (at this time) be incapable of creating a strong government in terms of protection, market regulation, law, etc - that doesn't ALSO feel the need to intrude itself into social interactions.

Strong government on market, defence, law, etc.

Anarchy on religion, sexuality, 'marriage', etc.

No, I was just merely saying that even if capitalist production is preserved through financial instruments such as credit, hording and speculation, it is merely forestalling it's inevitable decay and collapse. Even if the capitalists partly achieve their aim, i.e., reduce these losses to a minimum, they will not destroy the roots of the anarchy which is inherent in the existing capitalist system.They are preserving the economic system which must inevitably lead, and cannot but lead, to anarchy in production.

Under the socialist system of society, production was regulated in a planned way through detailed directives transmitted to enterprises by the central state apparatus in accordance with the current economic plan:

"In the case of socialized production....society distributes labor-power and means of production in the different branches of production".

(K. Marx: "Capital", Volume 2; London; 1974; p.362).

"Our plans are not forecast plans, not guess-work plans, but directive plans, which are binding upon the leading bodies and which determine the trend of our future economic development on a country-wide scale".

(J.V. Stalin: Political Report of the Central Committee to the 15th. Congress of the CPSU (B), in: "Works", Volume 10; Moscow; 1954; p.335).

Because people have proven themselves to be absolutely unable to cooperate in any fashion whatsoever without someone whipping them in line.

Did I say the Government should be whipping people into line? Here's a hint: the answer is "no".

Nor did I claim that people are "absolutely unable to cooperate in any fasion whatsoever". You've taken my argument and distorted it into an obviously false extreme which is easier to knock down- a classic straw man fallacy.

Post again when you have an argument worth serious consideration.

I am currently researching anarchy and thought i would try to take a public opinion pole on what people prefer. Please feel free to voice your opinion on either of the two as well. Just try to remain respectful of other peoples opinion.

anarchy is pointless, even if a nation went into a state of anarchy eventually a band of power hungry maniacs is going to take over and create a government again.

Did I say the Government should be whipping people into line? Here's a hint: the answer is "no".

Nor did I claim that people are "absolutely unable to cooperate in any fasion whatsoever". You've taken my argument and distorted it into an obviously false extreme which is easier to knock down- a classic straw man fallacy.

Post again when you have an argument worth serious consideration.

You're saying that without any government there won't be anyone to protect you or you're rights, which highly suggest that you think people will be unable or unwilling to work together to achieve that level of security.

People in small numbers, yes. Its a lot harder if you've got a large and diverse population. Communism has also worked quite well. In small communes.

People in small numbers, yes. Its a lot harder if you've got a large and diverse population. Communism has also worked quite well. In small communes.
Such as?

I heard of some in the middle east, Israel I think.

Think of society like a little village which has a stream running through it, now everyone can have access to that stream and drink from it freely because the stream is commonly owned, of course you must also define between a means of production and a personal possession. A means of production would be the stream because it controls the distribution of the social product in which everyone in society needs to drink. A personal possession might be the bucket which the individual uses to get their water, of course the community isn't going to take that persons bucket away, that would make no sense. Under socialism the means of production are owned by the community as a whole and this social ownership precludes private ownership.

Now imagine community were to some day disappear and anarchy to come, and then a group of individuals set up an armed guard at the stream, now instantly that means of production is privatized and the armed guard can charge whatever they want for the water because the people have no choice. The stream is now a commodity and the people are now dependent on these private owners for it's product to survive.

People in small numbers, yes. Its a lot harder if you've got a large and diverse population. Communism has also worked quite well. In small communes.

People have been able to organize themselves on larger scales before. I don't see how they will be unable to do this again.

snip

You seem to be under the impression that anarchistic systems are incompatible with socialism and the concept of common ownership of the means of production.

You seem to be under the impression that anarchistic systems are incompatible with socialism and the concept of common ownership of the means of production.

No, I was merely pointing that that 'socialism' by definition short-term state controls put in place so that old capitalist habits don't take over in the transition of reducing the power of class in society. I think even anarcho-communists would admit that without some kind of coercive state apparatus to assure common products weren't looted from stores.

I tend to think of socialism in pretty simple terms, you simply have the state abolish currency exchange, seize the means of production and distribution, and distribute the social product to society without money. At first of course coming straight out of capitalism you would need pretty tough controls and restrictions in this distribution, but over time as socialism 'sunk in' you could gradually role back these state controls.

Sorry too lazy to catch up on the current debate. Anyway I'd prefer anarchy, but problems pop up with a few bad apples that ruin it all... like stealing, mobs, etc. Anyway with that in mind of how some groups are I'd say that the best is small decentralized governments. Where all it provides are absolute basics police, a military for defence, you get the idea...

Sorry too lazy to catch up on the current debate. Anyway I'd prefer anarchy, but problems pop up with a few bad apples that ruin it all... like stealing, mobs, etc. Anyway with that in mind of how some groups are I'd say that the best is small decentralized governments. Where all it provides are absolute basics police, a military for defence, you get the idea...

It's not stealing if there is no government to provide validity to your claims of ownership.

I've seen many anarchist plans to have small local governments to keep the peace. but since it has never really been tested i don't think we can know how well it would work. Would the loss of government lead to the loss of corporations leading to the loss of the goods that people in many developed countries have become dependent on?

In most cases I would prefer a strong government, but really it all depends on how oppressive the strong government would be.

Strong Governments for the win..
http://usability.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/clenched_fist.jpg

Unless anyone has anything to say i believe that strong governments have won this one.

Unless anyone has anything to say i believe that strong governments have won this one.
In the short-term I like a strong state, but in the long-term I support it's abolition.

Unless anyone has anything to say i believe that strong governments have won this one.
Based on what? It's got only a 4-vote lead and there's not been any real debate, possibly because we are still waiting for a definitive statement from you on what you consider a "strong government" -- whether you mean merely stable and functional, or a government that exerts assertive power over the personal lives of the citizenry. Singapore can be thought as either, so your choice of that example clears up nothing.

I think the majority prefer a stable and functional government over no government at all, so if that is your definition of "strong government," then yes, I'd say it's likely to win the popular vote.

But fewer people, I think, would want a government that intrudes on their lives, controls their personal travel, speech, ownership/disposition of property, religious lives, etc., or against which the citizens have no legal protection or recourse. If your definition of "strong government" is one that is stronger than the people, then I say there has been no debate so far in this thread.

I am currently researching anarchy and thought i would try to take a public opinion pole on what people prefer. Please feel free to voice your opinion on either of the two as well. Just try to remain respectful of other peoples opinion.
Simple. Out of the two, I prefer Anarchy, although I'm no big fan of it.

I would much prefer Anarchy because it is the ultimate form of freedom, if you have the balls to assert your self stake out your claim. And if anarchy comes, I would much rather be the guy with a gun than the disarmed masses.

I've seen many anarchist plans to have small local governments to keep the peace. but since it has never really been tested i don't think we can know how well it would work. Would the loss of government lead to the loss of corporations leading to the loss of the goods that people in many developed countries have become dependent on?

Early Mesopotamian society, the earliest "organized" societies that we know of, seem to have exhibited a whole lot of anarchistic characteristics. People were somewhat able to move between the small city-states, there weren't very strict social controls and the city-state communities were left to their own devices aside from trade. However, you'll notice that eventually those city-states became corporatist and expansionist in nature, they staked a claim to their local resource and doled out access through the temple corporation. When trade ceased to favor them as they desired, they inevitably began expanding into other city-state territories. Anarchism inevitably leads to some form of corporatism. It's unlikely a single person will gain and assert complete control, but a small group with ideals of increasing that groups power, in the abstract, is extremely likely in my mind, and I think early history shows it to be true.

On the other hand, as was said, no one wants to become simply an extension of the government collective. That's as absurd as anarchism. A good government finds a balance between the two. It's like balancing weight on the ends of a stick. If it's too stiff, it shatters before you can correct an imbalance, on the other hand, if it isn't stiff enough you end up incapable of balancing anything on it. There has to be flex, or rather adaptability, in any system of organized society. In fact, I would say that a good and healthy society is characterized by internal friction with a face of solidarity turned externally, a tempered malleability that doesn't hinder cohesiveness.

People would be killing each other left, right and center in the big cities if anarchy took over.

I think that for small populaces anarchy is a good way to live life but when big cities form, it's best that government take over or Bad things will happen

anarchy: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. (Dictionary.com)Typically anarchists would differentiate between a 'government' and a 'state'. Anarchists oppose the state, but not necessarily government.

Typically anarchists would differentiate between a 'government' and a 'state'. Anarchists oppose the state, but not necessarily government.
Indeed. I oppose hierarchy, especially the state, not governance per se.

But then again, myself and other anarchists would disagree vehemently on a number of issues.

But then again, myself and other anarchists would disagree vehemently on a number of issues.
This is why Anarchy doesn't work.

This is why Anarchy doesn't work.

I prefer anarchy to a nanny state for two reasons. One, In a nanny state all personal responsiblity is gone, and thats bad. Two, alot cooler sngs get written about anarchy than about nany states.

Anarchy is made of Fail, AIDS, and teenagers fantasies that people can get along..

I prefer anarchy to a nanny state for two reasons. One, In a nanny state all personal responsiblity is gone, and thats bad. Two, alot cooler sngs get written about anarchy than about nany states.

But strong states inspire protest through music. If we lived in a happy little anarchy, the only interesting songs would be ones like these:

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/2719/folksingersgl3.png

Just try to remain respectful of other peoples opinion.
Oooh, ouch. Right off the bat.
Anarchy never lasts. Not much to add than that.

People are treating this as a choice between one extreme or the other, as if its a choice between oppressive government or anarchy. Not only are they missing the point that oppression and anarchy tend to lead to each other, they are acting as if their are no alternatives besides these extremes. I approve of the demand for a clarification of what exactly the OP means by "strong government". Does it mean a functioning, stable government, or an oppressive regime?

Anarchy fails in so many levels, because in today's world someone else is going to come take over and "bring democracy and free trade" to your land. This isn't the middle ages so it's not like your small group can fight against tactical bombing or something.

Sure I want freedom, but if the choice is "big bother" of my own country, or "big brother" of another country, I think I would rather choose the evil I know over the evil I don't.

People are treating this as a choice between one extreme or the other, as if its a choice between oppressive government or anarchy. Not only are they missing the point that oppression and anarchy tend to lead to each other, they are acting as if their are no alternatives besides these extremes. I approve of the demand for a clarification of what exactly the OP means by "strong government". Does it mean a functioning, stable government, or an oppressive regime?

The original poster clarified what he meant by strong central government.

Strong central government: I guess it would be everything else. Like the governments in europe, or what we have in the US, or singapore. It would still be a somewhat democratic government.

So basically what most countries have currently.

What'd I like to know is that out of those who voted for Anarchy, how many have actually lived through the collapse of a nation? Anarchy is the lack of government, and with the lack of government comes the lack of everything that the government provides. Personal safety, security, law, currency, essential infrastructure.

I'd pick government every time. Seen anarchy, didn't like it.

People are treating this as a choice between one extreme or the other, as if its a choice between oppressive government or anarchy. Not only are they missing the point that oppression and anarchy tend to lead to each other, they are acting as if their are no alternatives besides these extremes. I approve of the demand for a clarification of what exactly the OP means by "strong government". Does it mean a functioning, stable government, or an oppressive regime?All states are oppressive, some more so than others.

What'd I like to know is that out of those who voted for Anarchy, how many have actually lived through the collapse of a nation? Anarchy is the lack of government, and with the lack of government comes the lack of everything that the government provides. Personal safety, security, law, currency, essential infrastructure.

I'd pick government every time. Seen anarchy, didn't like it.No, anarchy is the lack of a state.

This is why Anarchy doesn't work.
Because there's disagreement about how it would be implemented?

Then ever single political theory ever devised "doesn't work".

The original poster clarified what he meant by strong central government.



So basically what most countries have currently.

That is no clarification because Europe's governments are often accused of being too controlling or too laissez-faire at the same time. France is denounced as bending over backwards to be all things to all people rather than imposing rules, but at the same time denounced as forcing unfair labor/management relations. The UK is simultaneously called a stable, functioning, liberal democracy and a fascist "nanny" state.

So which is it for the OP? When he says "strong government," which France or which UK is he thinking of?

I'm sorry, but the OP states that this is prompted by research he is doing. If this lack of specificity is an example of his research techniques, I fear he might be wasting his time.

EDIT: I should also clarify: The problem is that, if the OP leaves it to each respondant to imagine for themselves what "strong government" means, then he is going to get 100 answers based on a 100 different assumptions. If he is setting up a choice of two options, he has to tell us what those options are, specifically, so that we will all be talking about the same thing.

EDIT #2: For example, earlier, I stated that I prefer government to anarchy, but I made clear that I have issues with the words "strong" and "central" to describe a government. I prefer government to be limited and decentralized. But I want it to be a stable, functioning system. So, in the OP's mind, does that mean I want "strong government" or not? There are a couple of other posters to this thread who have indicated they would prefer a government a hell of a lot "stronger" than I would be willing to tolerate. Their ideas of "strong government" and mine are very, very different. I voted "other," btw.

Although I like the idea of people living in peace without the need for someone enforcing it, history makes me think that anarchy would become very rapidly a "law of the jungle" society. Strong government yay.

Although I like the idea of people living in peace without the need for someone enforcing it, history makes me think that anarchy would become very rapidly a "law of the jungle" society. Strong government yay.
Well the whole dichotomy of 'anarchy' vs 'strong government' is highly misleading because anarchy would be definition lead to a situation where a strong government would come to power.

Because there's disagreement about how it would be implemented?

Then ever single political theory ever devised "doesn't work".

Well, that's kind of true, isn't it, when viewed from some perspectives? Is there a single political theory that has not had to be compromised in practical application, or that has not had detractors claiming that the applied versions are not "true" versions?

Well the whole dichotomy of 'anarchy' vs 'strong government' is highly misleading because anarchy would be definition lead to a situation where a strong government would come to power.

Well then, would you prefer to live after the strong government had established itself, or live during the violent, chaotic interim before it comes to power? ;)

Well, that's kind of true, isn't it, when viewed from some perspectives? Is there a single political theory that has not had to be compromised in practical application, or that has not had detractors claiming that the applied versions are not "true" versions?
Not really, no.

But that doesn't make anarchism any less viable.

Not really, no.

But that doesn't make anarchism any less viable.
I realize that others have made that claim, but I never did. In fact, I have not said anything at all about anarchism because you are the only person who has actually mentioned that real, existing socio-political concept. The OP's reference to "anarchy" is just as vague as his/her reference to "strong government."

I realize that others have made that claim, but I never did.
Didn't think you had.