Anarchism is more of a complaint than a solution.

[Ronin Truth]

I get it, you just want to change the name of states, governments and leaders. Carry on, call it what you want.

Thanks, I pretty much always have and it's probably very likely that I will continue indefinitely. But I guess it is kinda nice to have your permission.

What's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? Answer: 20 years.

 

[mczerone]

I've read through the thread and have some different takes on the OPs concerns:

Anyway the reason I said anarchism is more of a complaint is because I think "no government" is basically an impossible condition.

Anarchism/Voluntarism/Abolitionism does not claim "no government".

It claims that the ideal condition is where each individual is free to choose their government. That there's no geographic monopoly on this service.

Your assessment is equivalent to saying that those who don't favor a geographic monopoly on soft drinks want no soft drinks. In fact, we want a world with Coke, Pepsi, Faygo, 7-up, and Vernors, and for any new entrant to the market to be able to compete. Your counter-position is that there needs to be just one soft-drink, your preference, say Diet Vanilla Coke, that everyone must be forced to drink, but that's okay because it's the most tasty soft drink in existence.

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.

Let's grant your statement "there will exist a group that's large/popular enough to enforce their will."

You still haven't proven uniqueness. Why can't there be a multiplicity of groups vying for your allegiance, where there is a peace between them enough for neighbors to subscribe to different "government service providers"?

Also, what is a "geographic area"? Are the current US states well-defined "geographic areas"?

The position that you're attacking (voluntarism) is possible moreso today than ever before because human interaction is less and less dependant on geography. Claiming that future "power structures" will develop based on geography essentially boils down to supporting a one world government (of some form) - as the entire globe is currently the only "closed system" relative to geography and human action.

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.

Your argument is equivalent to: there might be a war, therefore surrender.

Basically, you make a blanket assertion that has evidence (and counter-evidence) that a certain human tendency is unavoidable. Sociology doesn't work that way.

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.

Any control you perceive is merely an illusion. The only way to "control" a government service agency is to make them Mortal, to subject them to a profit/loss test.

 

[Madison320]

It claims that the ideal condition is where each individual is free to choose their government. That there's no geographic monopoly on this service.

Your assessment is equivalent to saying that those who don't favor a geographic monopoly on soft drinks want no soft drinks. In fact, we want a world with Coke, Pepsi, Faygo, 7-up, and Vernors, and for any new entrant to the market to be able to compete. Your counter-position is that there needs to be just one soft-drink, your preference, say Diet Vanilla Coke, that everyone must be forced to drink, but that's okay because it's the most tasty soft drink in existence.



Let's grant your statement "there will exist a group that's large/popular enough to enforce their will."

You still haven't proven uniqueness. Why can't there be a multiplicity of groups vying for your allegiance, where there is a peace between them enough for neighbors to subscribe to different "government service providers"?

Force doesn't work that way. You can't shop around for it. If I'm accused of murder I can't pick my government service provider. It picks me. Whatever group has the most force in a given area is going to force me to resolve the issue. The group that has the most force is not going to ALLOW me to pick the arbitrator in a dispute.

 

[Pericles]

So essentially your argument is that since there are murderers and thieves in the world, and since they can band together for immoral purposes, that we must elect a bigger, badder group of murdering thieves to protect us from our possible murders and theft of property?

A rational form of inquiry would conclude anarchy was the starting point of human affairs. Therefore our inquiry should explore why the natural state of man did not persist - particularly if one has the objective or returning to it.

All of the straw man statements of if you do not advocate anarchy then you must approve of some form of the state are tiresome and show an inability to advocate forcefully for your point of view.

 

[Pericles]

+rep

I hate it when people can't support their theories with the known, so they have to jump into the realm of the unknown and make dubious claims that can neither be proven true nor false by relying on a version of history laden with personal slant because none of it can be observed and its very occurrence is based on conjecture.

It seems anarchistic societies sucked at written records.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

We don't discount flawed human nature, in fact human nature is precisely why we don't want or need rulers or governments.

There will always be rulers because humans are tribal beings and have the will to power.

 

[fisharmor]

The only way to "control" a government service agency is to make them Mortal, to subject them to a profit/loss test.

And we should also point out that under the state, the profit/loss test is reversed.
A business entity which succeeds is given money and market share and more power. A business entity which fails is given less money and market share and power, and with enough failure, that entity ceases to exist altogether.

A government entity which succeeds is given LESS money and power. A government entity which fails is given MORE money and power.

The state is set up in a way that incentivizes failure. So some of us aren't really surprised that it fails.

Force doesn't work that way. You can't shop around for it. If I'm accused of murder I can't pick my government service provider. It picks me. Whatever group has the most force in a given area is going to force me to resolve the issue. The group that has the most force is not going to ALLOW me to pick the arbitrator in a dispute.

But just stop and listen to yourself.

First, so you're accused of murder - so what?
The way even our half-baked system is supposed to work is that an accusation doesn't mean shit until evidence is gathered. You're supposed to be able to shrug off all sorts of accusations until someone actually has a case against you. But you've been so conditioned by the state that you appear to be on board with the idea of shoving people around based only on accusations.

More importantly, you let slip an important part of your worldview, one which anarchists don't share at all.
You fundamentally believe that people are animals who would be running around murdering each other if not for the state threatening to force them to deal with it if they do.

We know better. People are overwhelmingly peaceful and resistant to violence.
There is a demand for peace.
There is therefore a market for peace.

If you don't fundamentally believe that markets work, then fine - but you probably don't belong here.
If you do, however, then you don't get to pick and choose. You don't get to say healthcare has to be covered by the market, but justice can't be, and still claim that you're philosophically consistent.

 

[muzzled dogg]

Abolitionists complained about slavery without ever providing a solution to the cotton picking problem

 

[acptulsa]

And we should also point out that under the state, the profit/loss test is reversed.
A business entity which succeeds is given money and market share and more power. A business entity which fails is given less money and market share and power, and with enough failure, that entity ceases to exist altogether.

A government entity which succeeds is given LESS money and power. A government entity which fails is given MORE money and power.

The state is set up in a way that incentivizes failure. So some of us aren't really surprised that it fails.

Probably the best argument I've seen for why the bailouts prove we don't have a free market and the big corporations, from Bank of America to General Motors, are not private at all but actual parts of the government.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Human nature is way you will always have leaders unless you are the leader. Millions of years of leaders prove this. Some always want to be leaders some always want to be led, and some always rebel against leaders and thus become leaders or die. The only people that manage to become their own individual leaders are people that can escape societies reaches which is pretty near impossible on the world today.

Agreed. I also like to see an anarchistic society field a fighting force strong enough to fend off organized outside forces. No leaders and rulers right? Let's see how that affects military tactics on the battlefield. Could they even muster a fighting force? I have my doubts, but for sake of argument say they could. What happens when person A wants person B to perform a flanking maneuver on the enemy and that person(s) refuse? Roman armies conquered numerous peoples because they lacked cohesion and discipline on the battlefield. Do anarchists even bother to read history?

 

[fisharmor]

Agreed. I also like to see an anarchistic society field a fighting force strong enough to fend off organized outside forces. No leaders and rulers right? Let's see how that affects military tactics on the battlefield. Could they even muster a fighting force? I have my doubts, but for sake of argument say they could. What happens when person A wants person B to perform a flanking maneuver on the enemy and that person(s) refuse? Roman armies conquered numerous peoples because they lacked cohesion and discipline on the battlefield. Do anarchists even bother to read history?

Um... Arminius, Boudicca, Caractacus, Vercingetorix.... just working off of memory there.
Let me cut you off preemptively: Yes, I know they all lost in the long run. Success wasn't your criterion: it was mustering a fighting force capable of fending off an organized invader.
Whether or not that society is capable of withstanding the war crimes committed against it is a matter quite apart from your question of fighting forces.

So to answer your question, yes.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I am hard-pressed to come up with any historical state (other than communists) that either didn't claim authority to rule from supernatural powers, or claimed to be divine itself. Sumer, Egypt, Rome, every Christian and Muslim nation, all the way up to the US. Historically, religion wasn't used to pacify, it was used to terrify. There was no need for the NSA in ancient Greece when the gods see EVERYTHING. Having the blessing of supernatural boogiemen was/is vital to a small cadre of oligarchs who wish to remain in power.

Modern-day US is more like the communist countries than any of the others you mentioned, and I might add, more successful. The concept of God, however, had nothing to do with their ability to attain power. People have always been very religious, and it was up to the State to take advantage of that wherever possible because it would've otherwise hurt their cause. Like I said before, the Catholic Church in the middle ages grew increasingly secular by separating the people from God and forcing them to rely on the church for salvation. Modern day US is one of the most secular states in history, as well as one of the most successful at attaining power.

Throughout history, religion may have been something that the State had to deal with and adapt to, but religiosity wasn't something it strived for among its people. Even if the state may have taken power by using the religious establishment as a channel through which to gain the respect of the people, it was never the religious aspect that gave them control, it was the secular aspect that gave them control, and religion was simply hijacked in order to achieve a high degree of secularism under which they could establish their own full authority and power.

 

[Madison320]

Agreed. I also like to see an anarchistic society field a fighting force strong enough to fend off organized outside forces. No leaders and rulers right? Let's see how that affects military tactics on the battlefield. Could they even muster a fighting force? I have my doubts, but for sake of argument say they could. What happens when person A wants person B to perform a flanking maneuver on the enemy and that person(s) refuse? Roman armies conquered numerous peoples because they lacked cohesion and discipline on the battlefield. Do anarchists even bother to read history?

And if they muster up a fighting force, guess what, that's a government. Whoever's in charge of that fighting force is going to make the rules.


I don't think anarchists realize how bad things could be without government. Yeah, government sucks but I can usually make it thru most days without getting thrown in jail. My guess is that without government the odds are I won't make it into work without getting robbed. That's one reason why governments are formed in the first place. But like I said in the initial post it's almost impossible to even have "no government" since the most powerful group IS the government.


Here's how Ayn Rand felt about Anarchy:

"Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

If a society provided no organized protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door—or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of gang-rule, i.e., rule by brute force, into perpetual tribal warfare of prehistorical savages.

The use of physical force—even its retaliatory use—cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbors’ intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice—the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another."

 

[Madison320]

Um... Arminius, Boudicca, Caractacus, Vercingetorix....

Weren't they in Jurassic Park?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

We don't discount flawed human nature, in fact human nature is precisely why we don't want or need rulers or governments.

Perhaps flawed human nature is a deterrent from both extremes?

It is impossible for the statement to go both ways, so asserting that the statement is just as true either way doesn't exactly help your cause. In fact, the assertion that flawed human nature has a sort of ingrained prescription rests on an unidentified ideal condition under which flawed human nature could be accommodated... but maybe there just isn't one.

In other words, flawed human nature doesn't support statism or anarchism. It's flawed because neither the state nor anarchy can accommodate for flawed human nature and make it something good.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Perhaps flawed human nature is a deterrent from both extremes?

It is impossible for the statement to go both ways, so asserting that the statement is just as true either way doesn't exactly help your cause. In fact, the assertion that flawed human nature has a sort of ingrained prescription rests on an unidentified ideal condition under which flawed human nature could be accommodated... but maybe there just isn't one.

In other words, flawed human nature doesn't support statism or anarchism. It's flawed because neither the state nor anarchy can accommodate for flawed human nature and make it something good.

The state has to mobilize and organize flawed human nature, it is the nature of anarchy is to just walk away and ignore it all.

Chaos is found in greatest abundance wherever order is being sought. Chaos always defeats order because it is better organized. ~ Terry Pratchett

 

[otherone]

Throughout history, religion may have been something that the State had to deal with and adapt to, but religiosity wasn't something it strived for among its people. Even if the state may have taken power by using the religious establishment as a channel through which to gain the respect of the people, it was never the religious aspect that gave them control, it was the secular aspect that gave them control, and religion was simply hijacked in order to achieve a high degree of secularism under which they could establish their own full authority and power.

This is an interesting idea. Could you give an example of an ancient state that made no claims of divinity, supernatural legitimacy, or divine lineage? When civilization emerged, complete with writing, agriculture, division of labor, etc., how did oligarchs justify their authority?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Thanks, I pretty much always have and it's probably very likely that I will continue indefinitely. But I guess it is kinda nice to have your permission.

What's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? Answer: 20 years.

You know, I find this whole debate rather amusing because the question is rarely ever defined. If the question is, "Is anarchy ideal?", then I think everyone is an anarchist. I don't think you could find a single person that doesn't think it would be great if we could all live peaceably without government. If the question is, "Is anarchy possible?" then I believe anyone who's being honest with themselves knows that it's not possible to have a society without a state. The question, "Do we need government?" is completely moot because we can't get rid of it. No sane person would argue that government is an ideal. At best, it's a necessary evil. Even the most hardcore statists operate under the assumption that more government is not necessarily a good thing, but it is necessary. Whether or not this is true, anarchy is simply a willingness to outwardly express that you believe the absence of government is an ideal condition, but it makes no claims as to the viability of achieving that.

 

[Ronin Truth]

I'm having a very hard time picturing some invading force occupying the (used to be) USA. 300,000,000 privately owned firearms in guerrilla hands could make for a very expensive and bloody occupation.

 

[erowe1]

No leaders and rulers right? Let's see how that affects military tactics on the battlefield.

There's that word again.

Why do you say "no leaders"? And here you specifically distinguish it from rulers.