Would anarchy really work

@Setanta,

By definition, anarchy is a system that does not work--indeed it's the absence of system.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

By definition, anarchy is a system that does not work--indeed it's the absence of system.

By definition, it is just people living their lives
with no interference from any government.

David

0 Replies

That includes: NO TAXES !

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDavid wrote:

That includes: NO TAXES !

I don't think that's accurate. I think there would be taxes in an anarchy. They're just called a different name: protection money.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

I don't think that's accurate. I think there would be taxes in an anarchy. They're just called a different name: protection money.

And ransom payments.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

OmSigDavid wrote:
That includes: NO TAXES !

I don't think that's accurate. I think there would be taxes in an anarchy.

They're just called a different name: protection money.

What u suggest is the birth of a new government,
forcing, raping its way into existence unless the individual citizens
succeeded in defeating it.

A weakness of anarchy is lack of co-ordinated defenses
against enemies foreign or domestic.

David

1 Reply

The fatal flaw in the theory of anarchy is rendering it impossible
for the citizens to wage war; that requires co-ordination.

The ability to wage war is vitally necessary.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDavid wrote:

What u suggest is the birth of a new government,
forcing, raping its way into existence unless the individual citizens
succeeded in defeating it.

True. I think that's what some of the others meant when they said that anarchy isn't stable.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

OmSigDavid wrote:
What u suggest is the birth of a new government,
forcing, raping its way into existence unless the individual citizens
succeeded in defeating it.

True. I think that's what some of the others meant when they said that anarchy isn't stable.

TRUE. That was also what I meant when I said it was unstable.

David

0 Replies

I believe we make a serious error when we grant some form of intellectual legitimacy to each and every ideology.

What can it possibly mean to have no form of government?

Certainly this is impossible with any society of humans.

if "Anarchists" have their way, what will the world look like?

Unless you can imagine a society where each member agrees on each and every decision that affects the whole, there must always be some form of governance.

I'm not sure why it is wrong, as Thomas has suggested, that we judge Anarchist political theory by a literal understanding of the concept.

Just because Anarchists are able to crazily reconcile the concept of no government with a system of government, doesn't mean we have to grant them their folly.

If they don't really mean what they claim to believe, they are intellectually dishonest.

As we have seen, there has never been an actual manifestation of communist theory in any society larger than a relative handful of people.

There has never been an actual manifestation of anarchist philosophy in any society larger than a hermit and his body lice.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

With the "happiness is a warm gun crowd" on the loose, anarchy would be chaos . . . QED.

somedays it feels like we are already there.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

There has never been an actual manifestation of anarchist philosophy in any society larger than a hermit and his body lice.

We operate under conditions of anarchy every day. For instance, any time that you line up for something, you're functioning in an anarchic situation. There is, after all, no line police and no laws about lining up. Nevertheless, people tend to act in a predictable and orderly fashion when they line up,* and those who "disobey" the implicit rules, like cutting in line, are subject to social sanction.

People, in other words, don't descend into a Hobbesian state of nature when they're queuing up for a movie or standing in line at the women's room. Instead, they devise their own rules and enforce them using appropriate, non-legal methods. Anarchists simply believe that people will act like that when all government rules are lifted. And that goes for anarchists from the left and the right (anarchism is certainly not the exclusive preserve of the leftists).

*(this, btw, does not apply to Vienna, Austria)

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn d'Abuzz" wrote:

Unless you can imagine a society where each member agrees on each and every decision that affects the whole, there must always be some form of governance.

Not true. What there must always be is some form of conflict arbitration, law making, law enforcement, and collective defense. But there is no reason why these service have to be provided by a violence monopolist, aka government. (I am using Max Weber's definition of a goverment as a violence monopolist, which to my knowledge is reasonably well accepted among sociologists.)

For example, there is a movement of what you might call right-wing anarchists, or anarcho-capitalists, who would administer conflict arbitration through a competitive market of firms like the Better Business Bureau, leave legislation to private non-profits like the American Law Institute, enforce the law with private security services, and defend the country through a network of private militias.

For a broader discussion of how it might work, refer to the Anarchist Theory FAQ. Of particular interest might be the sections How would Left-Anarchy work? and How would Anarcho-Capitalism work?

For the record: I don't think anarchy would work. I only take the concept seriously enough to merit a thoughtful refutation, and don't think it can be dismissed out of hand. Just saying, in case I'll end up as anarchism's advocatus diaboli in this thread.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Not true. What there must always be is some form of conflict arbitration, law making, law enforcement, and collective defense. But there is no reason why these service have to be provided by a violence monopolist, aka government. (I am using Max Weber's definition of a goverment as a violence monopolist, which to my knowledge is reasonably well accepted among sociologists.)

In historical times, we have many records of societies which might be called tribal which have had not central governmental authority, but have had formal and occasional fora of conflict resolution, and/or have recognized some form of blood feud to deal with the most violent conflict. This has been pretty much universal, too--from the German tribes described in the Germania of Tacitus, to many tribes of south Asia (in what we called once Burma) to tribes in Papua/New Guinea.

When people have questioned an assumption on my part that there are naturally occurring "rights," i have always alluded to that situation, in which people assumed rights, and you'd have had to almost literally kill them to deny the rights.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

And when a fight breaks out because someone cuts into the line?

Because there are some societal interactions which can occasionally or even usually take place without the need for external governance is, by no means, evidence that the concept can be applied across the totality of societal interactions.

All of these interactions have the potential for conflict beyond the capacity of the involved to control, and without some form of external governance, governance will default to the strongest and most brutal, but governance will exist.

The idea of either right or left wing anarchists is nonsensical.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

And when a fight breaks out because someone cuts into the line?

Is that your typical experience? As for me, I've never seen a fight break out because someone has cut into a line. Maybe I've been standing in the wrong lines.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Because there are some societal interactions which can occasionally or even usually take place without the need for external governance is, by no means, evidence that the concept can be applied across the totality of societal interactions.

All of these interactions have the potential for conflict beyond the capacity of the involved to control, and without some form of external governance, governance will default to the strongest and most brutal, but governance will exist.

Maybe so. But then I'm not the one defending anarchism. Remember, I was the one who pointed out that it was unworkable because it assumed that everyone is, by nature, good.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The idea of either right or left wing anarchists is nonsensical.

In light of such a thoughtful, well-reasoned argument, I find myself compelled to reevaluate my previous position.

0 Replies

Do you ever feel, Joe, that ironical observations may be wasted?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The idea of either right or left wing anarchists is nonsensical.

I would caution that just because you personally cannot make sense of something, that does not necessarily prove it's nonsensical. (Just stating a point of logic here -- nothing personal.)

0 Replies

Would anarchy really work

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know