Anarchism is more of a complaint than a solution.

[Madison320]

The economic news has been pretty boring lately, so I figured I'd start an anarchist thread. Hopefully this won't get immediately moved over to the anarchist section. Anyway the reason I said anarchism is more of a complaint is because I think "no government" is basically an impossible condition. Maybe I'm wrong but the way I define government is this: In any geographic area there's always going to be a group that has the most force and that makes the rules. I call that government. The idea that you can have competing governments or protection agencies, in the same geographic area never pans out because force doesn't work that way. The natural tendency is for the strongest group to overpower the weaker groups and absorb them. The most powerful group makes the rules. I would call that government. So given that there's always going to be a most powerful group that makes the rules I think the best solution is to try to keep control over that group the best you can. It's not a perfect solution, but unless there a fundamental change in human nature and force I don't see what else can be done.

 

[fisharmor]

Wow, I get to respond first?
Great, I'll say the same thing I always do in these threads: Go study the documented historical examples where it actually happened before making absolute statements about it being impossible.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Why is not wanting a ruler just a complaint? Most of human history, no rulers.

 

[Madison320]

Wow, I get to respond first?
Great, I'll say the same thing I always do in these threads: Go study the documented historical examples where it actually happened before making absolute statements about it being impossible.

What happened to those examples? Where are they now?

 

[erowe1]

I would use the word "ideal."

I agree that true statelessness is an unachievable goal this side of the return of Jesus Christ, just as a world without theft is. But that ideal still serves us as something to aim toward, and to use as a measure according to which the evils of the state can be identified and remedies to them offered.

Perhaps the world is doomed to keep moving away from that ideal. If so, then the ideal still allows us to see that the direction the world is moving is wrong, and to oppose that.

Or perhaps the world can move closer and closer to that ideal. It may not reach it, but it may approach it asymptotically. If so, then it is that ideal of statelessness that provides us with that asymptote towards which we want to keep moving. As the powers of the state gradually lessen (if they ever will), there will never come a point where we can say, "There. That's it. Stop shrinking the state. This amount of theft, kidnapping, and murder is just right. Any less will be too little." No. It will still be necessary to identify the evils of the state, however small they are in comparison to today, and continue to oppose them.

 

[thoughtomator]

The economic news has been pretty boring lately,...

You must not be reading the same sources I am reading. Economic news pretty exciting lately, what with wars erupting in several energy-resource-rich areas all at once, an official negative GDP quarter, Obamacare trashing the economy, and the Fed losing control.

 

[fisharmor]

What happened to those examples? Where are they now?

Oh, good, we're fast-tracking the conversation.
They were all crushed by states using war crimes.
In one example it's estimated that as high as 86% of the population was executed or systematically starved.

So here are the counter arguments:
1) Are you seriously saying this justifies having a state?
2) Can you name a state which survived having 86% of its population killed off? If not, doesn't that kind of negate your argument?
3) Does the fact that your state-sanctioned history classes completely ignore these cases sit well with you?

 

[Pericles]

What happened to those examples? Where are they now?

You are not supposed to ask that question. And not asking certain questions is the difference between faith and science.

 

[Ronin Truth]

What happened to those examples? Where are they now?

Here's one:

For two thousand years the disparate groups that now reside in Zomia (a mountainous region the size of Europe that consists of portions of seven Asian countries) have fled the projects of the organized state societies that surround them—slavery, conscription, taxes, corvée labor, epidemics, and warfare. This book, essentially an “anarchist history,” is the first-ever examination of the huge literature on state-making whose author evaluates why people would deliberately and reactively remain stateless. Among the strategies employed by the people of Zomia to remain stateless are physical dispersion in rugged terrain; agricultural practices that enhance mobility; pliable ethnic identities; devotion to prophetic, millenarian leaders; and maintenance of a largely oral culture that allows them to reinvent their histories and genealogies as they move between and around states.
In accessible language, James Scott, recognized worldwide as an eminent authority in Southeast Asian, peasant, and agrarian studies, tells the story of the peoples of Zomia and their unlikely odyssey in search of self-determination. He redefines our views on Asian politics, history, demographics, and even our fundamental ideas about what constitutes civilization, and challenges us with a radically different approach to history that presents events from the perspective of stateless peoples and redefines state-making as a form of “internal colonialism.” This new perspective requires a radical reevaluation of the civilizational narratives of the lowland states. Scott’s work on Zomia represents a new way to think of area studies that will be applicable to other runaway, fugitive, and marooned communities, be they Gypsies, Cossacks, tribes fleeing slave raiders, Marsh Arabs, or San-Bushmen.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Not-Being-Governed/dp/0300169175

 

[Madison320]

I would use the word "ideal."

I agree that true statelessness is an unachievable goal this side of the return of Jesus Christ, just as a world without theft is. But that ideal still serves us as something to aim toward, and to use as a measure according to which the evils of the state can be identified and remedies to them offered.

Perhaps the world is doomed to keep moving away from that ideal. If so, then the ideal still allows us to see that the direction the world is moving is wrong, and to oppose that.

Or perhaps the world can move closer and closer to that ideal. It may not reach it, but it may approach it asymptotically. If so, then it is that ideal of statelessness that provides with that asymptote towards which we want to keep moving. As the powers of the state gradually lessen (if they ever will), there will never come a point where we can say, "There. That's it. Stop shrinking the state. This amount of theft, kidnapping, and murder is just right. Any less will be too little." No. It will still be necessary to identify the evils of the state, however small they are in comparison to today, and continue to oppose them.

But the problem is that if you shrink the state too much, another more powerful group will emerge.

 

[erowe1]

But the problem is that if you shrink the state too much, another more powerful group will emerge.

And if you don't shrink the state however much that is, then the state that doesn't shrink already is that more powerful group.

Having an ideal of statelessness that tells us that however little theft there is, even less would always be better, allows us to see what's wrong with both of those situations and to continue to aim toward improving them.

 

[Madison320]

You must not be reading the same sources I am reading. Economic news pretty exciting lately, what with wars erupting in several energy-resource-rich areas all at once, an official negative GDP quarter, Obamacare trashing the economy, and the Fed losing control.

I'm waiting for the really exciting stuff. Like an increase in QE or a big spike in oil prices.

 

[Cap]

But the problem is that if you shrink the state too much, another more powerful group will emerge.

There was a reason why Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants".

 

[Madison320]

And if you don't shrink the state however much that is, then the state that doesn't shrink already is that more powerful group.

Having an ideal of statelessness that tells us that however little theft there is, even less would always be better, allows us to see what's wrong with both of those situations and to continue to aim toward improving them.

I agree that as you shrink the size of the state, state on citizen crime goes down. But at some point citizen on citizen crime goes up. There's a lot of places in the world where the primary danger is from other citizens. Does it make a difference whether it's the government that kills you or your neighbor?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You are not supposed to ask that question. And not asking certain questions is the difference between faith and science.

I thought the verboten question was to "why trust any mortal to govern when they have no history whatsoever of doing it justly (by its founders definition)?" At least the anarchists can answer questions like this.

 

[Ender]

I agree that as you shrink the size of the state, state on citizen crime goes down. But at some point citizen on citizen crime goes up. There's a lot of places in the world where the primary danger is from other citizens. Does it make a difference whether it's the government that kills you or your neighbor?

Where?

And if my neighbor comes after me I can take care of him- not so with gov.

 

[fisharmor]

And if my neighbor comes after me I can take care of him- not so with gov.

And if the government is who made it impossible for you to defend yourself against your neighbor, then your neighbor is only the proximate cause of your death.

 

[jllundqu]

I would use the word "ideal."

I agree that true statelessness is an unachievable goal this side of the return of Jesus Christ, just as a world without theft is. But that ideal still serves us as something to aim toward, and to use as a measure according to which the evils of the state can be identified and remedies to them offered.

Perhaps the world is doomed to keep moving away from that ideal. If so, then the ideal still allows us to see that the direction the world is moving is wrong, and to oppose that.

Or perhaps the world can move closer and closer to that ideal. It may not reach it, but it may approach it asymptotically. If so, then it is that ideal of statelessness that provides with that asymptote towards which we want to keep moving. As the powers of the state gradually lessen (if they ever will), there will never come a point where we can say, "There. That's it. Stop shrinking the state. This amount of theft, kidnapping, and murder is just right. Any less will be too little." No. It will still be necessary to identify the evils of the state, however small they are in comparison to today, and continue to oppose them.

This may be the best analysis I've read in a long time on opposition to government.

 

[erowe1]

I agree that as you shrink the size of the state, state on citizen crime goes down. But at some point citizen on citizen crime goes up. There's a lot of places in the world where the primary danger is from other citizens. Does it make a difference whether it's the government that kills you or your neighbor?

No. Morally it doesn't make a difference. And that's possibly the most important point that pushes me to oppose the state entirely. There do not exist two separate laws of morality, one for my neighbor and another for the state. If it's wrong for my neighbor to do it, it's wrong for the state to do it.

I would even say that if my neighbor kills me, then at that moment, my neighbor is essentially becoming a state within the very narrow confines of a population of two people, them and me. And in order for me to say that what they do in killing me is immoral, I am obligated to say that the state as an institution is inherently immoral.

 

[ZENemy]

Most people who are against anarchy have NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT IT IS.